jcs

Autofocus can work in some situations: http://philipbloom.net/2014/03/28/c100autofocus/ Looks like it's getting better. The GH4 looks to have an even better autofocus system. A future system (already done?) could allow a focus puller to use a remote touch screen (e.g iPad via WiFi).

It's true we don't need curves and other tools we are used to, however we work faster with tools we know. It's odd Apple didn't include curves- there's so much that can be done quickly with them (plus it's really simple to code and runs fast). Resolve is kind of the opposite of FCX- old school controls and way more powerful: very easy to make things look unpleasant quickly (which FCPX helps protect against) and also able to make things look far better than what is possible with FCPX. For audio- many times we don't want to round trip to Pro Tools, Audition, etc. (I use Logic for music and fx vs audio editing). PPro does enough to help skip round tripping in most cases.

The Alexa and C300 are popular because they make it fast and easy to create high quality material quickly. Note all the comments about ease of use and fast production workflow. Sony and Red can also look great (F65 Oblivion is marvelous eye candy) after a bit more work in shooting and post (RAW and big cameras will be used less and less).

/p/- Laforet seems focused on Canon... Bloom's test isn't quite a Reverie, however it will probably help sell a few 7Qs and perhaps FS700s too. Ebrahim- very cool. Looks like XAVC is also a possibility- that would be even more efficient than ProRes (which can still be used for fast motion).

"It's true 10 bit AND way more detail, this is one of the most detailed HD images I have ever seen." A nice A-cam to pair with the GH4 for B-cam (perhaps add an HDMI to SDI converter to allow the 7Q to record the GH4 in 4K, though the GH4's small size really promotes using the camera without rigging it up). 10-bit 422 4K ProRes is planned; curious if they'll do 12-bit 444 ProRes too.

http://panasonicprovideo.tumblr.com/post/80965679215/varicam-modularity ;)

Which has more DR- the 14-bit RAW 5D3 or the 8-bit AVCHD FS700? The FS700 (in the analog/sensor domain): 14+ vs 11.6 stops (ML RAW ISO). The GH4's 12.7 stops still beats the 5D3 RAW. I've been doing tests with the FS700's 24Mbps AVCHD vs. 5D3 RAW in terms of resolution, DR, and color matching. While the FS700 wins in terms of resolution and DR, the 5D3 still has a very hard-to-beat look after tone-mapping 14-bit down to 8-bit. Part of the secret sauce for making 5D3 RAW footage really pop, especially for challenging lighting situations, is the use of ACR to bring up shadows, pull highlights, denoise, sharpen, etc. With Photoshop CC, you can apply ACR as a filter to video footage. I tried this with 8-bit FS700 footage: it really does help improve image quality, though it's still limited by the 8-bit, highly compressed source material (ACR is very, very slow). GH4 material will be less compressed (higher bitrates), and the recorded external 10-bit 422 signal will help as well. For 4K, it looks like the FS700+7Q will provide the best image quality for the price (professional space), while the GH4 will top the consumer space. The FS700+7Q for A-cam and the GH4 for B-cam looks like a good combo for mid-upper indie and lower-end pro work (where the upper end is Alexa, Amira, F55, F65, Dragon). The GH4 will also find use in feature movies due to it's tiny size and high quality.

Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory shows us that we need twice as many samples as our target frequency to prevent aliasing. This is true for audio and video and all sampled systems. For example, 48kHz audio can reproduce 24kHz without aliasing. All frequencies above 24kHz must be filtered during recording and playback (in practice higher sampling rates are used to allow for lower cost analog filters). For video we're sampling light instead of sound and the same theory applies. 1920 pixels can represent a max of 1920/2 = 960 'pixels pairs' (on/off) before aliasing. For example, a chart with black and white vertical lines can be used to measure 960 lines pairs from a 1920 image. Even if the camera sensor and chart aren't perfectly aligned, we can see 960 line pairs. When looking at even higher resolution lines, we can see more than 960 line pairs are visible, but with aliasing artifacts (e.g. on the right side of the vertical line chart): http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/ISO_12233-reschart.pdf Top cameras have optical antialiasing filters which cut off frequencies effectively above the sensor aliasing frequency. These cameras exhibit very high quality images, especially important for moving images/video. While aliasing can provide a false appearance of higher detail, it's one of the give-aways the image/video is not film. If the aliasing is very high frequency, and the image is somewhat noisy, it's not as apparent (e.g. BM cameras with no AA filter). Again, top cameras have very good AA filters (changeable/removable) such as the ARRI Alexa and Sony F55. When looking at a chart we see excellent low-aliasing. The TM700 was the top camcorder (by a quite a bit), IQ-wise in its price range when it was new. 3x 2.53Mpixel sensors (no debayering or related artifacts!), Leica DICOMAR lens (F1.5 - 2.8), 1080p60 support for slowmo, an excellent power OIS, decent audio quality with an external mic (indoors- only neg. issue with camera is fan noise picked up on internal mics). It wasn't very good in low light, however a simple LED light on top of camera, with a shotgun external mic makes a nice ENG/interview camera for any lighting condition. I still have mine but haven't used it much since getting the 5D3. The 17Mbps AVCHD codec while pretty good is a bit over-compressed for large motion scenes/handheld, etc. (60p is 28Mbps). An external recorder might help but I haven't tried it. The zoom range is very impressive: 35mm-420mm (35mm equivalent). With power OIS, even at max zoom, image is pretty stable. Walking while shooting also works very well- no rig needed! :). The autofocus also works pretty well (easier for small sensor cameras). http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/HDC-TM700K?t=specs&support#tabs The TM900 is a newer version with slightly better IQ (looks like more contrast): http://camcorder-test.slashcam.com/compare-what-i-cmp-u-cmd-i-view-u-mode-i-docompare-u-lang-i-en-u-id-i-167-y-185-u-name-i-Panasonic%20HDC-TM900-u-bname-i-Panasonic%20HDC-TM700-u-cmd-i-vergleich.html Note comments: "Sharpness and color at the AVCHD limits". Thus the 4K GH4 with one of Panasonic's OIS autofocus lenses should be quite spectacular for doc/ENG/(narrative- some shots).

Very impressive. Great resolution, color, and DR.

A reason the C100/C300 doesn't look as cinematic as other cameras is perhaps that since Canon supplies an amazing look out of camera, especially skintones, for fast turnaround TV productions the footage doesn't get graded to look cinematic. A cinematic look is an "Unreality Grade". The image is tuned to evoke different emotions and meanings. When we look at realistic images, we don't have the same emotional reaction: looks like TV/News. Just about any camera can be graded to look cinematic (and especially so if lit cinematically with cinematic camera moves). Matching the look of film is another matter (especially the elusive color and highlight behavior). Film doesn't necessarily look accurate or realistic- it's more Unreality that sells the experience. I suspect this is related to Uncanny Valley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley. Canon could supply more cinematic presets with the C200/400 etc. If used frequently, it could start 'looking like TV".

If FCPX works for you- it's a great value (+ Motion). I use FCPX for access to some of the effects but use PPro as it runs faster and has superior audio handling & better color grading built in (no color curves in FCPX?). Resolve is also evolving into an NLE- very fast and even better color grading tools (somewhat archaic GUI and flow, but nothing a little googling can't solve).

The Alexa gets brought up frequently as it's the camera that currently creates the nicest imagery. The Amira will be around $40k with the same quality. Prices will continue dropping until that kind of quality (and more) will be available on a cell phone. The best (and closest to true 4k resolution) 4k camera is the Sony F65 (Red Dragon might now compare well?). The 1080p from that camera looks amazing even on Apple TV streaming (see Oblivion). Fully kitted it could run $375k+, but now can be had for as little as $46k on eBay, and rents for $500/day- not used much. It has great color handling, 16-bit raw, etc. Yet the Alexa gets used much more: super easy to use, reliable, great skintones out of the box, ProRes for fast workflows etc. The Alexa is also sexier as a product, starting with the name: note they don't use a letter-number name like most other cameras. The Alexa is the Ferrari of cameras- admirers will bring it up often. Regarding going off topic- folks talk about what gear they enjoy or admire; this isn't a strictly moderated forum. That said and back on topic, if Canon's new 4k cameras are as easy to use and look as good as their other C cameras, they will sell/rent well to folks doing this for a living (vs a hobby).

Higher end cameras debayer from a higher res Bayer array. The C300 uses a 4K sensor, which averages the G to get 1080 and takes R and B as is: its charts show 1000+ lines res for 1080p. The Sony FS700 does around 1000 lines from a 4k sensor. The 'ancient' consumer Panasonic TM700 does around 1000 lines by using 3 sensors- no debayering. 5D3 1920x1080 RAW with a high quality post debayer looks like 900 lines or so (luminance)- too expensive to compute in-camera. 1000 lines refers to horizontal line pairs before extinction of detail: a measure of horizontal resolution (not related to 1080p vertical resolution). From 1920 samples we can get 960 elements before aliasing starts (Nyquist sampling theory). 1000+ lines is quoted instead of 960 as there is usable detail after aliasing starts (usually cut off at some point with an AA filter).

A 10/12-bit 422/444 long GOP codec similar to Sony's XAVC would be excellent for these cameras (part of the H.264 spec). After spending long hours dealing with RAW, I only use RAW when I have no other choice. The 24Mbps FS700 codec still outperforms 5D3 14-bit RAW in resolution and actual dynamic range (due to the better sensor in the FS700). 5D3 RAW wins in color fidelity and post latitude: 10/12-bit 422/444 efficiently compressed is the best of both worlds.

If the colors more closely match, it will be easier to compare cameras. If you lower the color temp for the 5D you'll be able to get the images much closer.

Right, simply add 4k footage to a 1080p timeline/sequence. That's it. You'll get a detailed 1080p image, though not likely any significant visible additional color depth (about 8.67 bits vs 8).

Perhaps try again and lower the WB temp on the 5D2 until it matches the GX7.

The color difference looks like the Canon white balance was set to around 5500 (daylight) while the Panasonic was set to around 2850 (tungsten).

Sean- yeah, color/gamma can be a challenge: I used PC Resolve to blur out a person using the cool tracking tools, from an mov created on OSX, which looked fine in Premiere (PC). In Resolve I exported the clip to DNxND (mov container, only option) and got a gamma/brightness shift (guessing some problem with safe vs. full levels (10-bit file)). I tried Cineform in AVI- had the opposite problem- went too dark. DPX- still an issue. I figure it was how Resolve was reading the OSX created mov. It looked OK in the editing window- seems like the issue was only on export. I ended up manually fixing in Premiere using an RGB curve (matching to the original mov). Moving the Resolve project to OSX might be a fix, or only using Resolve on PC (and doing the DNG conversion in Resolve to DNxHD and skipping ProRes). re: preset: while x264 is technically the best, at these bitrates, PPro's GPU accelerated export works great, and is very fast.

Sam- yeah the FDR-AX1 looks decent for outdoor documentary work. The Amira would be a major investment: starting package is around $40k. That said, for shooting commercials, docs, etc., if there's a business model that works, it's a great camera (not a camera for shooting camera tests or cats for youtube (unless somehow crazy viewcounts made enough ad money :) ).

Sam- after working with 5D3 raw, if I get a 7Q it will be to use ProRes or DNxHD 444 or 422, 10/12 bit. Raw is really only needed to perform better debayer (if using 12-bit). If the O7Q debayer is OK (looks like some purple fringing still needed to fix), then being able to edit straight from camera and save tons of time and disk space is the preferred way to go. I'd actually prefer XAVC (long GOP) to get even smaller files with high quality. If there's ever a need to go to a better camera, the ARRI Amira looks really good as a next step (vs. F5/F55). That said, going the other way to a GH4 is also looking tempting based on footage posted: (start around 5:52 for charts & skintones). Will be interesting to see how this 4K Sony camcorder compares.

Most of the kid-tracking footage in 4K looked OK. His kitchen whip-test showed pretty strong RS. Not clear how it was processed, but noise looked well controlled. Reading the JP converted to EN sounds like there was concern with low-light (the translation wasn't clear to me). Maybe the 4K has a lot of RS so folks won't dump their FS700/F5/F55 ;) (I still haven't upgraded my FS700 for 4K yet, though I might do the upgrade in order to use the Odyssey 7Q to shoot the new 4K => 1080p 10-bit ProRes just released (looks great)). 4K is certainly useful for super-high quality 1080p, reframing, stabilizing, etc. (not delivery for a while- same pattern we had when HD first came out).

Perfect for babies, kids, puppies, kittens: the target mass market & youtube :) Plus a nice $2k way to create very crisp, 444 8.67-bit 1080p. XAVC-S looks to be a decent codec. 120fps, ND's, Zeiss lens, good low-light (per Sony), good image stabilizer, might be a nice camera for the price. The camera has a very good image stabilizer- that also 'helps' make the rolling shutter more visible: (1080p60 much less RS).

I just shot a commercial using the FS700 (AVCHD 24Mbps) and 5D3 RAW. After processing, color correction, and noise reduction, the results look very similar. The FS700 was used for a sequence that needed autofocus (not, and probably never possible for the 5D3). When a focus puller is not available/possible, autofocus is super helpful. I needed to walk backwards, pull zoom, pull focus, and give the actors a cue. The FS700 + 18200SELP lens was able to get the shot. Moving dynamic focus shots need practice, typically a follow focus with focus marks, a focus puller, and a really good monitoring system. I haven't seen a solution yet for critical focus for wide shots (e.g. 24mm on 5D3) without doing 5x/10x zoom. So, a high quality autofocus system can be useful in a variety of situations. Panasonic has decent autofocus lenses/systems. The new autofocus system on the GH4 sounds impressive. While the 5D3 + RAW has an impressive look, the GH4 is more generally useful, and has a much faster workflow. If you want the 5D3 look from the GH4- bring along a 5D3 and shoot some stills- then color correct the GH4 in post to match the 5D3 stills.

Only green will be 10-bit-ish. So (10+8+8)/3 = 8.67 bits. This is less about latitude and really about getting a true 1080p resolution image.