TheRenaissanceMan

The low compression of external recording is definitely a factor in why these 8/10-bit 4:2:2 recordings look so much better than what the camera writes to the SD card.

I'm sorry, I thought we were getting back on topic.

You can't beat a tape measure and a distance scale.

I didn't mean it like that. But it's not like Chris Nolan and Spielberg are going to hang out on EOSHD. They're just not the market. We're indie guys, event shooters, corporate shooters, hobbyists, and the like. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think there's a lot of high-end cinema shooters here. You might count Ed David, but he barely posts here anyway. Wow, alright. I didn't know English was your second language. I was simply responding to your criticizing me for using "dude." I'm also not trying to attack you. I disagree with your assertion that 4:2:2 is more important than 8-bit, and that 4K doesn't matter as much as other factors. You've gotten very emotional about both problems and responded not with a compelling argument supporting your claim, but with a flawed test, baseless assertions, and a holier than thou "I eat professional cinematographers for breakfast" attitude I find unwelcome and unhelpful to the conversation at hand. It might help if you state your opinion in a way that leaves room for dissent without denigrating others for it. A collegiate atmosphere, in my experience, does a lot to improve the approach-ability and level of discourse of a forum.

And unlike the A7S, this camera will shoot 10-bit in nicer codec, and has all the pro-friendly features to work in the industry. Low-light performance is in right now, and Canon seems to have filled a niche with this camera. As more and more cameras reach the point of "good enough for basically anything," I think we'll see more specialized tools like this. You'll have your canon me20f-sh for extreme low-light, your Phantom Flex for extreme high frame rates, etc.

We'll have to wait until V-LOG is shipped out and tested by the various bloggers and experts.

Agreed. Blackmagic was smart to use those guys as beta testers/sample footage creators. Besides a bit of moire on the groom's jacket at 1:10, I see nothing to complain about, even in the darker scenes. That surprised me, since most people complain about the BMPC sensor being unusable in low light.

Captain Hook said on the BMC User forum that he intentionally graded it a bit low-contrast to show off the camera's DR. I'm pumped to see more samples!

Oh, are we dissecting each other's sentences now? "I am used to eat cinematographers at breakfast" isn't English. "For twenty years now." isn't a sentence. Being in the industry for 20 years doesn't make you the single credible authority on cinematography. And if you were that big a deal, I doubt you'd hang out on EOSHD.

And most of the industry. https://vimeo.com/106153701 Seriously dude, let it go. 4K is nice to have, not need to have. Compression, color depth, bit depth, DR, and color science matter much more.

But you're comparing high compression 4:2:0 to uncompressed 4:2:2...a scientific test requires controlled variables. My understanding was that the main advantages of 4:2:2 were a bump in chroma resolution and, therefore, cleaner chroma keying.

For sure! More food for thought: https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/01/cinematography-online-micro-four-thirds-lenses/ https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/02/cinematography-micro-43-lenses/ https://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2015/04/film-school-online-micro-43-lenses-3/

It's just as flexible if you're using Premiere or Resolve. Besides increased storage and slightly more processing power, there's not a lot of downside.

Of course! But don't take my word for it. Go on Vimeo and search SLR Magic for some examples. In fact, that's a great way to evaluate any camera gear, short of getting your hands on it yourself.

I've heard people touting that on the forum like it's an established fact, but no one's ever given me a single example that demonstrates that 4:2:2 is more important than 10-bit. My eyes, the articles I've read, and the math, on the other hand, tell me that 10-bit is a way bigger quality difference.

Hey CTRT, If you're looking for manual primes to compliment your Panasonic 12-35, I'd recommend checking out the SLR Magic line. They're all metal, fast as hell, and have a creamy, 3D rendering style that's extremely cinematic. I currently own the 12 and the 25 for my BMPCC/GH3, and they've performed extremely well thus far.

Neither does Panasonic...

Ah, okay.

Source?

It looks good in that picture. Small, nice shape, sleek, lots of buttons without looking cluttered. The launch pictures are always so kitted up it can be hard to tell what the base unit looks like.

Since I can get the SLR Magic 25mm t/0.95 for the same money, I don't think it's for me. Those on a stricter weight budget? I'd be looking hard at this...and waiting to see how it performs stopped down.

I remember that video! Beautiful work.

Definitely test 0 saturation, and test a couple different color profiles. There may be one close to your preferred look. You might also consider pushing your reds a little toward orange and the greens a little toward blue. This mimics the way Canon shifts their colors for more pleasing (if not accurate) skin tones.

Hey Mercer, First and most important question: what kind of look are you going for? Second, how are you controlling the contrast of your image? If it's with the actual contrast control, you might consider using levels instead. Drag the darks down and the lights up until they're touching (or close to touching) the top and bottom of the vectorscope. Third, what color edits are you making, if any? Fourth, what in-camera settings did you settle on?

Hey, woah, no need to get aggressive. It's just a difference of opinion. I stare at 1080p and 4K screens for hours and hours every day. I'm not sure what content you're watching--4K downloads, Blurays, Cable, streaming, etc--but at normal viewing distances, it's a small upgrade. http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jp Viewers' perception of "sharpness" is actually more based on contrast and color differentiation. Our brains use the shadow areas to see depth, so deep blacks make the image pop and the detail stand out. The reason a lot of current 4K sets look better to consumers is because they're packed with all the manufacturer's best tricks (local dimming, good processing, great color accuracy/saturation, etc), not just because of the extra pixels. As more and more low-end 4K sets are released, I think people will start to realize that it isn't the holy grail these marketing departments have led them to believe. The kind of content people own and appreciate is absolutely relevant and a reason to oppose 4K for 4K's sake. The reason people buy DVDs instead of Blurays--because I tell them to buy Blurays and ask why they're not--is generally because "I can't see the difference," "it's more expensive," or "I don't have a Bluray player." It's nothing to do with salespeople telling them to stick with DVD. What kind of sense does it make for a salesperson to push customers to buy the less expensive option? I'm not "looking backward" or trying to impede progress or something. I just think compression, color, dynamic range/contrast ratio, viewing angles, refresh rates, and larger screen sizes are bigger upgrades than resolution. (When it comes to TVs, that is. Projectors and computer monitors are a different story.) Avatar was shot in 1080p, and I don't remember anyone complaining. Ditto for all the Marvel films, Drive, and the myriad other Alexa films that were shot with the specific reason of forgoing 4K for more important factors. Finally: I don't know how closely you read my above post, but I actually advocated for 4K as the most we'll ever need. I actually don't begrudge people their 4K screens. I think it's a small upgrade, but it's an upgrade nonetheless. It's resolutions above that I think are unnecessary...at least for traditional video. VR? Now that's a whole different bag of possums.