jcs

We have a GH4 and C300 II- the C300 II color, especially skintones is excellent (I did tweak it- not using the out-of-the-box settings). The AF is very, very useful (including assisted MF). The C100 II is a major upgrade from the GH4 in terms of color, AF, low light performance, and pro audio (XLR). A useful test is to show talent/clients multiple cameras and not tell them which is which. Canon cameras are chosen more often than not (if we had an ARRI camera, would be interesting to see how it does against Canon).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxcnsr1R5Ge_fbTu5ajt8DQ Anyone/everyone can be an artist with research and practice. Just like anyone can be a technologist. Different people have different pain thresholds and give up on one, the other, or both. In the tech world, some folks look at you funny if you also display art skill. In the art world, when folks state they aren't good with tech: they could be better with more effort. Natural ability in either matters, however anyone can do both with hard work: it's a matter of passion.

The easiest, most foolproof, and filmic cameras to shoot are the ARRI Alexa, Amira, and Mini, shooting to ProRes. That's why they're the most used professional cameras when cost is no object. When cost is considered, the Canon C300 II and C100 II are really an amazing value, especially for small crews without a focus puller. Zero or minimal post work with these cameras can produce results that look amazing, especially the hardest to color: skintones. The FS7 still requires a bit of work in post (not so much with continuous spectrum light sources), however folks who need high FPS and 4K are willing to deal with it. The Panasonic Varicam has looked pretty good, but isn't used much. At that price point folks seem to prefer Red or ARRI. Red has a ProRes option (and their latest color science is looking really good), however most folks appear to stick with compressed (wavelet) RAW which can be edited natively in Premiere Pro and FCPX. Using a Canon 5D3, Nikon D8x0 or similar to shoot reference RAW stills along with an A7S II or A7R II (much better autofocus and slightly better skintones than the A7S II) can work well if on a low budget. The RAW reference stills can be graded in ACR, then saved and brought into the NLE to match color with the Sony video. Still a bit of work, but you can get pretty efficient with some practice.

The first image is FS5, second is 1DC when viewing the filenames; matches guesses based on color and DOF. Bitrate and color sampling have nothing to do with color (will affect sharpness and macroblocking. 422 vs. 420 is very hard to see difference unless pixel peeping or keying (only some cases- the upsampling from 420 /422to 444 in NLEs results in slightly softer chroma- almost impossible to see)). Again, I'm impressed with the improved color quality of the A7S II and even more the A7R II. Not clear regarding the FS5 yet- would need to see side-by-side with Canon/ARRI for live skintones, especially indoor lighting (LEDs, tungsten (easier for all cameras- continuous spectrum light source), fluorescent (harder for all cameras- tends to be spikey spectrum, especially green), and mixed lighting (the common case for location shooting- hardest to deal with)). BTW- Canon is offering $500-1000 rebates until March 31st: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?343200-New-Canon-Instant-Rebates-on-the-C100-and-C100mkII $1500 off on this bad boy: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1043629-REG/canon_9785b001_cn7x17_kas_s_cine_servo.html. Fixed T2.95 and variable servo zoom- great lens for S35 cameras and location/fast shooting.

Cool- can you tell us more details regarding PP CC- version, OS versions, video card, and driver versions? This is for 4K sequences, at full display resolution (vs. 1/2 or 1080p sequences).

Agree top looks more like Sony color, bottom looks more like Canon. Additionally, bottom has shallower DOF; full frame vs Super 35. Shooting a live person is the real test- skintones are the toughest to get right. Here I matched the C300 II to the A7S II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ulmgc_a39Q The Canon looked great with little work needed, it took a lot more to get the A7S II to match the Canon (still not perfect, but close enough for a test. C300 II has much more detail). That's the point people are making about Canon/ARRI/Red Dragon-(or later): when time is money, the tools which provide the best quality in the least amount of time will be used, even when the tools cost a bit more up front. Over time, the cost is much less due to less time in post. For hobbyists who only shoot tests, for fun, family, etc., this point doesn't really matter: initial cost is more important. Sony is indeed getting better with color, however Canon is still ahead (as is ARRI and Red), especially in challenging light (multiple and/or gapped spectrum sources). The best way to see this is to shoot with both cameras on the same shoots in the same conditions. The C300 II currently has the best skintones + autofocus of any camera at any price. Would love to see ARRI/Red come out with an even better autofocus/assisted-manual focus system.

When writing plugins for PP you see just how ancient their software is. Apple wrote FCPX from scratch (perhaps with some bits from iMovie ;)), whereas PP's architecture dates back to the time of FCP with the recent Mercury engine tacked on. It bought them some time with 1080p, however it shows its limitations with 4K. While FCPX has limitations and gotchas different from PP, basic editing and grading of 4K footage is fast and fluid which helps the creative process. A 4K monitor should not slow a system down with a decent GPU rendering 1080p. Rendering or monitoring 4K is another story- depends on the software.

How can you say this without doing a side-by-side comparison of both cameras under exactly the same conditions? Sometimes a camera will seem pretty good by itself, but when compared side-by-side to other cameras, things like color and skintones become very apparent- the results may surprise you.

Would it be possible for you to do a side-by-side shoot with those two cameras? Including time to grade skin tones + full color grading. Also compare their autofocus functions. While I'm certain it's possible to match the C100 II and FS5 (I can match the C300 II with the A7S II), I think you may find the C100 II takes less time and effort to make look good, especially in challenging light (multiple colors, non-continuous spectrum, etc.). Color and AF are why we went with the C300 II vs. the FS7 (kept FS700 for 240fps- even with 24Mbps internal codec the quality is good enough).

H.265 is possibly enabled through QuickTime on OSX native, thus a reason why it's OSX only.

FS-700 menus are fast. FS7 menus are slow- perhaps that's what he meant?

It's possible there's a Windows 10 issue, though I have tried all the latest drivers from NVidia since October. On the same hardware in OSX, PPro is only slightly faster (can play 1 4K C300 II clip at full playback resolution vs. 1/2). FCPX can play 5 4K clips in real-time at the same time. Testing on a 2014 MBP Retina 2.6GHz GTX 750M 16GB: PPro barely plays C300 II 4K in real-time at 1/2 resolution, FCPX plays the same clip in real-time, with instant scrubbing at full quality. It seems like more of a PPro design issue vs. OS or drivers.

Yes, normal: the noise reduction takes more CPU/battery.

Go for it if you have access to S16 and 11"x14"! Most people are curious to see if it's worth moving up from one format to another. Currently the A7RII and 5DS/r are contenders to compete with MF systems, so comparing FF to MF would be helpful. Remember, this test can also be done with just one camera, and cropping in post (after changing camera settings). Thus anyone can do this test with any camera if they want the truth. Here's how I did it: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ , and here's the math and physics: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ .

A while ago I noted that FCP X was faster editing 4K material on a 2014 MBP and GT 750M GPU vs. Premiere Pro CC 2015 (latest) on a 12 Core MacPro and GTX 980ti. Today I tried FCP X on the MacPro in FCP X with C300 II 4K files. 4K editing was blazing fast- scrubbing instantaneously. This is full 4K resolution, native files (dual 4K displays). Curious to find the limit, I began stacking 4K clips and was able to get 6 4K clips (cropped so all 6 clips had visible elements) before there was visible slowdown (still usable!). 5 4K clips were fully real-time. On the same hardware & OSX, Premiere Pro CC 2015 can play one 4K clip in real-time. On the same hardware and Windows 10, playback resolution must be set to 1/2 to get near real-time performance. Resolve 12 (latest) wasn't able to play the C300 II 4K file in real-time on the MacPro in OSX. For fast 4K editing, FCP X is currently the champ.

White balance was off on the C100 shot (too green, cold). WB updated and saturation added below. Skin tones look more natural on the C100: For weddings, recommend C100 II: great color and AF.

Good to hear the O7 is reliable. Last time I shot with the FS700 (internal 24Mbps 1080p, 240fps), it worked pretty well color-wise (using a custom profile; all the 'black angel' shots are FS700, the rest are A7S and the cemetery is iPhone 6): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6OoUMiij9A

I did the tests between S35 and FF in the link I provided earlier. I challenge anyone to try the same tests comparing FF to MF and post the results online to let people try see the differences themselves (without telling them which is which at first). I have been tempted to get into a Phase One camera system, not for any special MF look (since it doesn't exist), but rather their advanced sensor: 80Mpix, 16-bit, 14 stops DR, updated autofocus, and very cool touchscreen camera interface: https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF-Camera-System.aspx (a major investment at $49K, though if one is booking $10K and up advertising gigs, that's not a lot of money). If one only needs 50Mpix, the Canon 5DS is pretty solid, for way less investment. Top photographer Peter Hurley went from Hasselblad, to Phase One, to Canon 5DS: http://www.slrlounge.com/peter-hurley-shows-us-whats-in-his-bag/ (granted he might be privately shooting with Hasselblad (body) and/or Phase One (body and/or digital back) in his studio, he's outwardly stating the 5DS as his current camera system (perhaps paid by Canon)).

I haven't upgraded our FS700 for 4K RAW, however you need an FS700 with the RAW upgrade (or FS700R), and a recorder which can handle the 4K RAW output, such as an O7Q+ (if you need 4K 60p) or Atomos Shogun (physically more fragile, but appears to be a more reliable/polished product vs. the O7Q+, + drives are much cheaper).

Lol that's for Beats by Dr Dre, in Culver City (surprised they didn't specify Sony products (they have a big studio in Culver City): Vegas, Sound Forge etc. ). (Avid) Pro Tools is the industry standard for pro audio: not a better tool than the competition anymore, but since it's so common among pros, it's still a requirement. For 4K editing, surprisingly FCPX kicks PP CC 2015 (latest) to the curb (as does Resolve 12). PP can barely play 4K C300II files in real-time at 1/2 display res on a 12 Core MacPro 24GB with a GTX980ti 6GB and fast Samsung SSD, whereas a 2014 MBP 16GB with a GT 750M can play the same files in real-time in FCPX. Adobe really needs a deep overhaul of their video processing engines.

S35, FF, and MF looks can be equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

LUTs have value for sure. That said, getting a good look out of camera is the best place to be. A log gamma for recording is good, along with a nice LUT while previewing/shooting if possible. In post, a simple curve which puts the shadows, midtones (skin), and highlights (filmic) in the right place is all that should be needed to get a great look. This is where Canon and ARRI shine- the colors tend to remain true when adjusting levels in post (by whatever means). After shooting with mostly Sony and Panasonic for a few years, I'm happy to be back shooting with Canon (C300II). Sony has gotten better (the A7SII is decent), and Panasonic isn't too shabby either (GH4). However Canon and ARRI (and perhaps now also Red/Dragon (haven't shot with it yet, but it appears their color science is vastly improved)) take far less time in post to get looking good, specifically skintones. LUTs, especially 3D LUTs, can do surprising things (good and bad) and care must be taken to avoid burning time in post. You used to shoot soft-core for Playboy?

Ebrahim- I'll see what I can do regarding uploading ungraded CLog2/Slog2 tifs. Squig- the A7S II's color science is much improved over the A7S- probably worth a comparison with 5D3 RAW (while perhaps not as good, perhaps good enough to save time/space vs. ML RAW, and can provide nice quality 60- and 120fps (cropped)). Here's an A7S II RAW still shot at AFM in Santa Monica yesterday (processed with Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop, typical touch up work but no color adjustments to fix skintones). Camera was mostly set up for video (1/50s, etc.), lit with a video light: nice DR allowed recovery of background, which would normally be blown out white. Regarding C300 II settings: I hooked the camera up to a Samsung HDTV and tweaked settings until skintones looked good (same way I set up the A7S II). It was cool that the side-by-side results ended up fairly easy to match in post.

Hey guys- regarding video/film look between the clips- I shot the A7S II with Slog2 and the C300 II in Canon Log- Sony's Slog2 has a smoother highlight roll off. I can make the C300 II look much more filmic using Canon Log 2 and/or by spending more time on the grade. For this test, I did very little to the C300 II clip since it looked really good to start with. The A7S II clip needed more work. Both cameras can look great/filmic! Hey Squig- I still have 5D3's for still photography and can do an ML RAW test with the C300 II. I'd expect similar color, less RS, with more detail and DR with the C300 II. The AF is really the C300 II's killer app (not even ARRI has this).

Regraded to match cameras better: The A7S II was sharpened in post (Sharpen filter @ 64) and color/brightness was matched a little better to the C300 II. There's still more detail in the C300 II, though that's to be expected at 4x the data rate and initial compression methods (410 Mbps ALL-I vs. 100Mbps IPB). The Sony 24-240 is a decently sharp lens, and the only lens I have on hand that can autofocus in fullframe 4K (the Sony 18-200 is crop mode only). We have two Canon 24-105 F4L's, however the Sony can't autofocus it and it's not a super sharp lens. Sony has really improved the color on the A7S II vs. the A7S. The red/magenta around my eyes is from some kind of allergy after our air-conditioning was worked on in my day-job's office (dust/chemicals or both). The C300 II's color is excellent, and the extra detail and low rolling shutter will come in handy. Built-in 24-bit pro audio is also helpful for fast shooting (A7S II has an add-on for XLR+Phantom power, might take a look at it, though we'll probably use wireless lavs with the A7S II location shoots). The C300 II's autofocus is on another level- a truly groundbreaking new feature: the killer app for this camera. This level of autofocus will be standard someday (and even better). For now, no one else has it. Why compare these two cameras? I work with cameras in my day job (artificial intelligence camera systems), and comparisons are always fun and can be helpful in understanding quality. We can confidently use the A7S II as a B-cam and cut between the two cameras without having to spend too much time in post matching them. With only evenings and weekends to shoot, we're looking to speed up production and these two cameras will allow us to shoot and edit fast.