jcs

You can create custom picture profiles with a custom gamma curve, custom color control, etc. using Canon's Picture Style editor ( http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/picturestyle/editor/ ). I recently compared my custom log-ish picture prolife to Technicolor Cinestyle on the 1DX II and they were very similar. I will compare with the C300 II CLog when I have time. I suspect CLog highlights will be better than these two custom profiles, but not by much in terms of highlight clipping. Canon Log 2 has much better highlight control. The 1DX II has better low light noise than the C300 II- Canon seems to be doing NR on mid-frequencies, leaving the finer noise alone, which ends up looking more like organic film grain than digital noise. The A7S II can go much higher in ISO to provide perhaps a 'newsworthy' look and fun demos, however the image looks highly digitally processed and not very organic with little high frequency noise and lumpy blobs, etc.

1DX II 4K crop factor is 1.33. Canon is doing something interesting for noise reduction. The blacks are incredibly clean- need to compare with the A7S II for non-crazy-high ISOs (12800 and lower). When noise starts to become present, it's somewhat organic and very fine.

A7x II is 4K 420- 422 is my typo. The samples are averaged in floating-point- after summing we multiply by .25: 1.0 is max value, the fraction contains the extra info. I'm a developer- this is how we write the code. You examples for color depth equivalence is likely true in practice- folks would not be able to tell the difference (I think you meant 4K 420 8-bit, which converts to 1080p as 444 ~9-bit).

Don't blame Canon... yet. This was the first real studio shoot with the 1DX II, I'm still figuring it out. I have a lot more experience with the A7S II (took a little while to figure out the C300 II). Canon 5D3 RAW was the easiest (using ACR)- just like 'developing' RAW stills. In any case, I didn't spend much time grading the footage. That said- 'better' cameras shouldn't require much work to get a nice image if lit with decent quality lights and setting correct WB. That's why ARRI still commands very high prices...

Hey tupp, 420 is full Y (Luma) and 1/2 resolution (both vertical and horizontal (could say 1/4 for both); 422 is 1/2 horizontal only) Chroma (UV AKA CbCr). If we downsample 4K 420, we'll average together 4 Y's to get one new, low-pass-filtered (noise and alias reduced) pixel. The 4 samples from U and V (each) were 1/2 resolution (horizontal and vertical), so when averaged together we're getting full color resolution per pixel for the 1080p result. So Y was oversampled (and filtered) into a new 10-bit Y (needs noise/dither to really do anything useful e.g. reduce banding); not the same as taking analog from the sensor and quantizing to 10-bit digital. UV are now full resolution at 1080p, so we have 444: full resolution YUV pixel data. Dave showed the results: the 4K downsampled 8-bit 420 images looked as good or better than the 10-bit FS5. That's all that really matters in the real world: real results. In theory, to be fair, we'd need to use the same camera for such a comparison: take a 10-bit 422 camera, shoot at 4K, then convert to 4K 420 8-bit in post. Shoot again at 1080p 10-bit 422, then compare to the 4K 420 8-bit downsampled to 1080p to check results.

Thanks for the challenge Lintelfilm- sorry that's not something I can do right now. Why not try it yourself? You can guide the thread you start away from chaos ;). I did something similar recently when shooting the 8-bit 420 4K A7S II (downsampled to 1080p) against that 10-bit 422 C300 II and 8-bit 422 1DX II. For that studio environment, nobody could really tell which camera was which.

Dave's video is fine. 4K 8-bit 422 becomes pseudo 10-bit Luma 8-bit Chroma 444 1080p. 'pseudo' as the 4 8-bit sample's variation summed to 10-bit is helped by noise/dither. Everything seen everywhere by consumers except in the theater is 8-bit 420. Only filmmakers/hobbyists/specialists will ever see > 8-bit (first need a 10+ bit display, graphics card, and OS/app support). Dithering/noise helps reduce banding, and downsampling 4K to 1080p helps reduce noise. Regardless of the math/tech, the A7x II hang well against the FS5 in the real world, and that's what really matters. The FS5 is a dedicated video camera, so it has other advantages beyond image quality.

Right on, thx. The goal was using the best balance of quality and filesize/bitrate for each camera. For the A7S II: 100Mbps 420 8-bit 4K, C300 II 50Mbps 422 10-bit 1080p, and 1DX II 30Mbps 8-bit 422 1080p. When we scale 8-bit 4K 420 down to 1080p we get a low-pass-filtered (noise reduced) Y/Luma at pseudo 10-bit (adding four 8-bit values yields a 10-bit number) with UV/Chroma being full resolution (up from half) yielding a ~9-bit 444 1080p image for the A7S II. The 1DX II has the least high-frequency information (at 1080p and 4K) vs. the other cameras. However, Canon is doing really good NR, after which they do an unsharp-mask type of sharpening which effectively sharpens mid-high frequencies vs. the highest frequencies. This helps to make the image more organic and less digital, while still appearing reasonably sharp.

Order: A7S II, C300 II, 1DX II

This was our test to see how easy it would be to match these cameras. How would you make the camera settings more equivalent?

Cool, thx for the feedback. Looks they can work together for multicam shoots without too much post work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYmrhWl8wmM 1DX II, A7S II, C300 II, shot side by side (not shown in that order). Settings (all set to 4800K WB, 1/48 or 1/50 shutter): 1DX II: Canon 24-105 F4L at 105mm, F5.6, ISO 400, Faithful profile (with contrast turned down), 1080p IPB (~32Mbps) A7S II: Canon 24-105 F4L (+MB IV), 105mm, F5.6, ISO 1600, Slog 2 + SGamut3.cine + 16 Sat, 4K 100Mbps C300 II: Canon 24-70 F2.8 II at 70mm, F5.6, ISO 400, Canon Log 2, Cinema gamut, Production Matrix (Alexa-LUT-compatible settings), 1080p 50Mbps IPB Spent only a few minutes keying and matching the shots (PP CC Lumetri + Ultra Key).

This was done by eye- I don't know how Canon implements CLog internally. I created a low-contrast S-curve and a few minor color tweaks. This boosts the shadows and flattens the highlights, similar to how CLog looks (not really a log gamma, more log-ish). I can try to match CLog more carefully using the C300 II as reference. Max DR for the C300 II requires Canon Log 2, which is basically Arri LogC (along with Canon's Cinema color and "Production" matrix emulates ARRI (can use ARRI 3D LUTs etc.)). The DR seems similar to the C300 II (haven't shot them side-by-side yet). Based on the noise so far, the 1DX II might be better than the C300 II for low light. The DR and low light performance on the C300 II and 1DX II are better than 5D3 RAW, however the 5D3 RAW can look amazing when processed with ACR, Resolve, etc. The newer cameras have lower RS vs. the 5D3. A 5D4 with 10+bit very high quality 1080p and the same DR as the 1DX II (and PDAF) would be more useful than 4K for our needs.

Did some tests with the 1DX II today. We plan to use the 1DX II with the C300 II for multicam shoots (and with the A7S II as well). After testing the builtin profiles and getting close to something I liked with a modified Faithful profile, I created a custom picture profile using Canon's Picture Style Editor. The goal was to emulate CLog: boost shadows and pull highlights (and look decent straight out of camera). I tried a few variations and below is the result I felt was a good start: Lens: Canon 24-105, 1/50, F5, ISO 1600, Highly Tone Priority On, custom picture profile. Full frame IPB 23.98 1080p, PADF, internal camera mic, mixed lighting (challenging LED practical lights (green bias/spike), monitor lights, and a decent LED in the background). Thoughts: I like the camera. It does a nice job in mixed lighting, it looks pretty good out of the box and even better with a custom picture profile. RS is present but low. 4K60 plays back fine in PP CC. Transcoding to much smaller H.264 IPB 4K files at 250Mbps looks decent when not pixel peeping (mostly loses noise detail), might try to optimize further. Currently everything we create is for online 420 IPB delivery (YouTube, Vimeo). I haven't done low light tests yet, however pulling up the shadows is very clean, and the noise grain is pleasing. Canon's full frame 1080p isn't as good as Sony's full frame (4K 100Mbps downscaled to 1080p in post). It's not just the downscale where the A7S II is better, the Canon is doing lower quality pixel binning/skipping as there is aliasing and moire (see my glasses frame edges). The 1DX II looks amazing in 4K, however it's a 1.33 crop. Thus for full frame 1080p the A7S II looks better (when RS won't cause an issue). For internet delivery and the average viewer, the difference probably isn't important. If the quality difference becomes important, we can shoot in 4K with a 1.33 crop (and purchase more hard drives). We're currently shooting with the C300 II in 50Mbps 1080p IPB- quality is more than sufficient, including for green screen (I'll post technical details and a clip in another thread). The 1DX II uses new batteries, which are proprietary and very expensive compared to 5D3 batteries (and not currently available- should be available soon). Size wise, the 1DX II is like a 5D3 with the battery grip built in. The AF is pretty good, it keeps tracking even when the head is turned sideways: their face detector is trained beyond just straight on, which is cool. AF noise is somewhat loud; less of an issue when not using the built in mic (same for C300 II). Canon's EF-S STM lenses can't be mounted to full frame cameras without modification, so there's currently limited options for quiet AF FF EF lenses (e.g. the Canon 40mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8, and 24-105 F3.5-5.6 EF STM)). In summary: with a custom picture profile to boost shadows and pull highlights (attached to this post) along with Highlight Tone Priority enabled, it's possible to get close to CLog, and image quality, noise quality, skintones, RS, and AF are really nice. 1DX2e_Logish.pf3

A7R2 + MB IV + Canon lens = AF video?

https://***URL not allowed***/sony-a7s-ii-vs-a7r-ii-test-which-one/ http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?342205-A7RIi-vs-A7SII-going-crazy-cannot-choose

I've been having good luck setting the WB on the A7SII to the dominant light color and doing any WB tweaks in post. This was not possible with the A7S. The big issue with the A7S is magenta-green color shift depending on exposure. To really get color right on the A7S requires secondary / masked / separate shadow/mid/high WB.

Hey Dave your A7S II footage looks better to me than the GH4 footage you posted here. I don't change Color Phase, Color Depth, or Black Gamma, and use Detail -3. The ARRI SL LUT in PP CC gets the skintones looking nice with one click (sometimes need to increase Exposure in Lumetri after this LUT). I expose in camera similarly (typically +1.7). I still prefer the C300 II color, detail, and of course the PDAF, however the A7S II is very impressive considering the cost. Sony will probably have another A7x out by the time the 5D4 is released, and if Sony has further improved the color and PDAF (A7R II descendent), Canon will have its work cut out to compete. The 1DX II looks nice, but nothing I've seen so far is better than the A7S II in terms of skintone color (from my own tests side-by-side with the C300 II), highlights, and low light (A7S II has poor RS, AF is almost useless, can't do 4K60, though it does have IBIS (OK but not great)).

When we do our next shoot (vs. just me doing tests), I'll get some footage with the GH4 along with the A7S, A7S II, and C300 II.

Yeah the A7S II RS is a weak point, though for tripod/steadicam/gimbal it's not really an issue. I did a shoot with the A7S II and the Sony 24-240 IS mostly at the long end, handheld with a rod-to-belt stabilizer, and after post stabilization looked decent (only certain motions occasionally produced weird RS artifacts/wobbles. FCPX's stabilizer and RS reduction works vastly better and much faster than PP CC (I edit mostly in PP CC- rendered out to stabilize in FCPX). Our latest project is for online only, and we're shooting with the C300 II at 1080p/24 using the 10-bit 422 50Mbit/s IPB codec. It's shot in a studio on tripod and after A/B comparing 50Mbps IPB to the much higher bitrate ALL-I codecs, we're shooting everything at 50Mbps (on green screen to boot- keys just fine with Ultra in PP CC). The next shoot will be with 3 cameras- will try to match the old A7S (Slog2 with Pro/Rec709 color and tweaks) with the A7S II and C300 II. Just did a test with the A7S- it will match close enough with studio lighting. The A7S II is much improved vs. the A7S (hadn't shot them in the same environment before).

Looks great squig! Check out the A7S II- can cut well with 5D3 RAW, with more DR and much better low light (+IBIS).

I watched 70D internal H.264 projected on the big screen (major theater) and it looked fine. 5D3 RAW will look even better. After a bit of matching the A7S II to the C300 II in 4K, 5D3 RAW is finished for me. I can now get better skintones with less effort (and tiny 100Mbit/s files) on the A7S II with SGamut3.cine+Slog2+16 Saturation and ARRI Alexa SL LUT in PP CC (plus additional tweaks which are easy once learned). The C300 II is of course better, but not by much for YouTube delivery (AF, RS, audio, and post gradability are vastly better on the C300 II. A7S II can't AF any Canon lenses in video mode (also not usable for stills: the 5D3 rules for stills)). For ultra gradability in post, 5D3 RAW is still a player with amazing performance for the cost. It will look great on the big screen (full 1080 ML RAW capture).

The GH4 appears to be sharper 4K vs. the A7S II. I used to prefer the GH4 colors for skintones vs. the A7S, however the A7S II with SGamut3.cine and Slog2 or Cine2 gamma has better skintones vs. the GH4 (Natural or Portrait). Post-sharpening the A7S II looks similar to the GH4. I recently did a test trying to get the GH4 (Portrait) to match the A7S II for skintones (SGamut3.cine and Slog2/Cine2)- couldn't do it in a reasonable amount of time (colors seemed limited, perhaps related to DR, like comparing near-B&W to color). The GH4 footage looked very nice and detailed, however the colors were very limited compared to the A7S II. Cranking up the saturation or vibrance didn't help. I use the ARRI Alexa SL profile Input LUT in Lumetri (PP CC) to get really nice skintones with the A7S II and SGamut3.cine+Slog2+16 Saturation (exposed 1.7 over). This combo is so nice for skintones, as good or better than 5D3 RAW, along with 4K, amazing DR, and tiny files. Doing a multicam shoot with the C300 II soon, it should match very well (static cameras; the A7S II has poor RS compared to the C300 II, and of course very poor AF compared to the C300 II's PDAF (A7R II's PDAF is much better than the A7S II's)). I wanted to use the GH4 for another camera angle, next I'll try the old A7S or FS700. Without doing comparisons, the GH4 is a nice compact 4K camera, especially for outdoor, well-lit shots. With the Voigtlander 25mm F.95, it's not too shabby in lower light shots.

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/28/sony-patents-contact-lens-camera-joins-google-samsung/

1 Dracast LED1000 Pro Daylight and 1 Dracast LED1000 Pro BiColor . Solid construction however the Aputure render skin tones better.