QuickHitRecord

I was recently on a similar quest and I ended up buying a pair of Alzo 3200s (200w daylight-balanced, open-faced LEDs). They are not the highest CRI lights out there, and there's a definite green spike (this was shot at night): I've lessened it with 1/8 minus green gel: I opted for these over the 3300s because they don't require a ballast. There is some fan noise, but in the one thing I have shot with them so far, it hasn't been a problem.

Ebrahim, here's a download link with raw frame grabs from the 5D Mark III straight from the camera: http://adobe.ly/1vPe9Ub

From past shoots, I've seen some minor aliasing from the 5D3 and the C100. I didn't see any from the FS7 during my short time with it. ​I agree, I think that the C100 is too sharp on its own for most narrative work (though, it's perfect for corporate work). The 5D3 has a certain mojo in this regard that the C100 lacks, which is why I keep it around. Regarding exposure on the C100, I remember checking the waveform and putting her skin at 70 IRE. It's definitely brighter than the footage from the other two cameras, for which I did not have the benefit of a waveform while exposing my shots. I looked at the original C100 footage and I didn't see any blocking. Must be a Vimeo thing.

​It's not a "grade". I did not touch the colors for the FS7 and C100. I referenced the scopes to push exposure to be as consistent across the three clips as possible for the sake of comparing the footage.

​The Wide DR on the C100 is in-camera. The 5D as it appears out of the camera would give weird skintones. It's like a placeholder LUT applied since it's in raw. I just changed that LUT. Good point. I looked at the settings and it deferred to 720P. I've updated it to 1080P.

I had the opportunity to rent an FS7 for a shoot and in the down time, I tested it against my C100 and 5D Mark III (with ML raw loaded): There is additional info in the video description for those who are curious.

Unrelated to the Amira, but I did a test shoot with the FS7 this past weekend (SLOG3), comparing it with the Canon C100 (Wide DR), and the 5D3 (raw). I standardized everything as much as I could during the shoot, but I'm not sure how best to treat the footage in post for a direct comparison, especially when dealing between a mix of LOG and non-LOG clips. I could grade everything to look about the same, but I don't see how that would be useful to anyone. How would you tackle this, Ebrahim? Perhaps this deserves its own thread...

How about using that GX7 in your picture? Seems like a great camera for what you are talking about, and you already have one.

I like this one because it doesn't require anything placed underneath the camera like a lot of flip-up loupes do, which allows me to use a quick-release plate of my choosing (in my case, I like the low-profile and anti-twist features of the Really Right Stuff arca swiss plates).

I use this one: http://www.kinotehnik.com/products/lcdvf/overview I have been pretty happy with it, and the price was right.

Here's what Sekonic's DTS software is telling me about my 5D3 (shooting a Sekonic Exposure Target II with my L-478D meter): H264:BMDFilm (4K):BMDFilm (4K) + CineLog LUT:All three stacked: There's more in this thread that I started on DVXuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?331363-5D3-Dynamic-Range-Raw-and-H264

Premiere or Resolve for the edit and Resolve for the grade. No cages here either.

The AJA Cion might be better. And I know that you talked about ignoring the weight, but that camera looks like it would be a nightmare to lug up a mountain. I think that it would severely limit what you are able to get!

I've been very happy with the Edelkrone FocusOne Pro.

I don't know anything about these games, but I appreciated the film. That shockwave from the explosion at the end looked like it should have ripped him in half.

This is worth a look:

Here is a neat little trick for using lenses that have rotating filter threads with height-adjustable matte boxes: If you don't already know the inner diameter of the opening at the rear of your matte box, measure it with calipers. Go on eBay and order a lens hood with an outer diameter that matches your measurement (I got mine from a seller called mkstudio-us; they have a chart of all of their lens hoods, complete with inner and outer diameters as part of each listing). This will attach directly to your matte box. Now measure the outer diameter of the frontal lens body. If it is significantly smaller than the inner diameter of the lens hood that you just purchased, then you're going to get a light leak. To correct this, purchase a step up ring to screw onto the filter ring of the lens that also has an outer diameter of less than the inner diameter of the lens hood. You don't want them to touch, just to be as snug as possible. If you really want to protect yourself from a light leak, or you need some room for a focus gear, then you can also purchase an additional lens hood to screw into the step up ring (but make sure that its outer diameter is less than the inner diameter of the first lens hood). Mount your matte box to your rods, clamping your lens hood, and screw your step up ring to your lens (add your second lens hood if you bought one). Push them together, so that the lens hood is resting on the step up ring. Adjust the height of your matte box until your step up ring has enough clearance to turn without making contact with the lens hood. The inside of these lens hoods is ridged and matte black to absorb light, so it seems to work pretty well. I like this solution a lot more than attempting to use conventional "nuns knickers" because there is no friction, and it's better than sticking to round filters because any slight marking or dirt on the glass can become distracting when it is rotated.

Zach, I think that it looks sharp. Nice work.

At least they could have offered internal 8-bit 4:2:2 XAVC-S with this camera. That would have saved a lot of people having to buy an external recorder, which can easily bring the price up to a stone's throw ($1000) of the FS7.

The upgrades are minor, but nice to have. I am disappointed that they didn't upgrade the codec. I'm not really sure yet why someone would choose this over the new Sony FS7, which offers internal 4K XAVC 10-bit 4:2:2 (up to 60fps) for $2500 more. What I am really curious about is what this will do to the price of used C100s...

A little update on my current project, the Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5. I gave it a "leverectomy" and opened it up to declick the aperture. After I removed the ball, I spent a few tense minutes trying to get the aperture ring to control the iris again. Fortunately, I got it working again. This was my first time opening up an AF lens and I was surprised to see that the mechanical functions on this lens are tensioned by tiny springs. I am not sure how common this is, but it seems like a likely failure point! Adapting this to my 5D3, I had to loosen the locking strip on the adapter to accommodate the lens. Also, the lens is a little off-kilter once it's on the camera, angling about 30 degrees towards the non-dumb side. But this will vary by adapter. I only had the chance to do a quick test on my 5D. Looking through the optical viewfinder at a grid pattern in photo mode, I saw distortion at all focal lengths. It's really bad at 24mm, but considerably better at 28mm. I'm not sure if modern Pentax lenses rely on in-camera distortion correction, but it seems unlikely that this lens would since it is from a third party manufacturer and made for so many different mounts. As usual, shooting video in a 16:9 ratio crops out the worst of the distortion. I plan to compare this to the Canon 24-105mm f/4 and see how they stack up in terms of distortion. The nine aperture blades seem to be rounded, which is really nice. And it's so nice to be able to push past a 100mm, all the way to 135mm. But I can't get too used to this, because there are plenty of things that I don't like: the lens has a short 50 degree focus throw, it is NOT parfocal, and there is a major exposure shift when I zoom the lens, even when I'm locked in at f/5.6 or higher. To make matters worse, I can be at the longer focal lengths (like 135mm) at f/5.6, and then turn the aperture ring back to 2.8 -- and get a boost in exposure. In short, you really never know what aperture you are working with, since the controls seem to be on an exponential scale. To sum it up, this lens does not look like it is shaping up to be is the solution that I hoped it would be. I'm going to test it against the Canon lens mentioned above, and then figure out what I am going to do next.

A really good implementation of H264 can look almost as good as (or even as good as) ML raw right out of the camera. But when you try grading the footage, you'll find that H264 is highly compressed and not meant to be altered. Personally, I would never buy a camera based on the possibility of a firmware update (manufacturer or third party) that would unlock new possibilities.

That was my thinking as well. 24-135mm on full frame translates to an S35 focal range equivalent of 16-90mm, which is pretty close to that Fujinon Cabrio that everyone wishes they had. There's also a cheaper (and more abundant) Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 that is supposed to have a non-rotating filter thread, a non-shifting focus ring, and a manual aperture if you get the Pentax or Nikon mounts, but I don't have that one.

It extends quite a bit. 60mm or so. But the focus and zoom rings do not move, so gearing them is possible.