TheRenaissanceMan

Can't you get the exact same results from a normal 1080p external recorder?

As in...they clip sooner? Any idea how much? I've read the same, but it's possible the less compressed codec of the XC10 (weird, innit?) holds up better to being stretched into a LOG format.

I understand you're a hybrid shooter, but I figure why not answer the question generally? Other people may have the same question or simply (God forbid) be interested in my opinion. Hybrid (Interchangeable Lens): 1. D750/D810 --best stills in the market, great 1080p with clean colors. uncompressed 4:2:2 out, great mix of strengths with very few weaknesses 2. D5500 --I don't like the D5300's inability to change aperture in video mode and lack of Flat profile, but the D5500 makes a good budget alternative to the 750/810 3. Panasonic GH4 (or G7/GX7) --smaller sensor, but still one of the best 1080p images around and a killer feature set for video Hybrid (Fixed Lens): 1. RX10 II --even without 4K, it does a downsample of the whole sensor, LOG recording, peaking, zebras, mic/headphone jack, and that amazing lens 2. FZ1000 --most of the same advantages as the RX10 II, except the color is easier to handle and the lens has more reach. No log though 3. RX10 --the original keeps the XAVC-S codec, full sensor downsample, peaking, zebras, mic/headphone jack, and the lens, but no LOG Pure Video: 1. Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K --a loophole, I know, but still the best image in the sub-$4000 market. After firmware updates, has tons of features and a killer look 2. Blackmagic Micro/Pocket Cinema Camera --almost the same image, much more convenient form factor. The Micro requires a monitor but gives you Global Shutter and 60p 3. Sony F3 --a true-blue production camera. All the video fixins, great audio connections, a nice 1080p image, good in low light, 10-bit recording 4. Canon C100 --Still the most expensive option on this list, even used, but it's a no-fuss image, great in low light, and ergonomically great Hope that helps someone.

Now is a great time to learn Resolve. I'm picking my way through it myself. It looks very magenta and a little red to me. The tint control in the camera tab and a quick play with the offset wheel should make quick work of it. The detail rendering is nice and the DoF aesthetic adds a nice smooth subject separation without being unbearably shallow. The highlights clip suddenly and look a little dead though, so I'd be interested to see what you can get by protecting the highlights and bringing the shadows up in post. Keep us posted!

Looks great! The skin tones look awesome, and you did a great job with the edit. I see one or two blown highlights on people's faces, which I try to avoid, but not much to complain about otherwise. Did you take the stills, or did the owner provide them?

Because if you read the whole article, Art explains that Canon pushes reds toward orange (to hide blemishes and make skin look more appealing) and green toward blue (to contrast better with all the orange), as well as pumping up the saturation in skin colors compared to everything else. This results in great flesh tones, but can cause problems with other colors. For example, he had a lot of trouble on a shoot with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background because the camera couldn't render that color of red accurately. On that same shoot, he laments that the only matrix that could get the color of the bridge right turned the grass distractingly blue. He had to dedicate a whole article to using the matrix color shift controls to get an accurate color profile, and it still wasn't as close as Alexa. It's an issue of pleasing vs accurate. Clearly, Canon's choice works for them--people love those skin tones--but it's not for everyone. Back on topic, that DR looks great Mattias! How do the low shadows hold up? Is there banding, noise, or muddiness?

A GH3 or G6 with a vintage lens or two could do the trick if the operator can manual focus.

Sorry! Not my intention at all. I just meant that the specific ways in which Canon color are inaccurate are designed to be an insta-pleaser, like the Hollywood orange and teal look, and I haven't seen a lot of people comment on those specifics in this or any other gear forum. It makes me wonder how much people are actually analyzing why it's pleasing, not whether they're smart enough or anything. I'd have no idea if it weren't for Art Adams. No one's completely objective, but anyone can employ rational thought to work through an issue. And emotions have a rhyme and a reason, physiologically and psychologically. Playing with people's emotions, after all, is part of our jobs as filmmakers. Indeed. You present an alternate viewpoint as clearly and respectfully as you can, then you accept and respect that the other person may disagree. Even opposing viewpoints can teach us something, so it's best to keep our ears and our minds open. Ooh, that should be interesting. The XC10 low light samples I've seen thus far have been surprisingly good.

I didn't say that, and I think you're taking the comment that did a little hard. It's interesting to deconstruct whether Canon color looks good to us because it's actually accurate (no) or pleasing (definitely), or because we got accustomed to it during the years where they were the only good option. You could make a similar argument for 24p and long focal lengths on close-ups. Maybe it's because I started off as a critic, but personally, I put a lot of importance in understanding why I like something, not just whether I do or not. Art Adams' articles on Canon color helped sort a lot of it out, but I still find the very emotional responses to critiquing Canon color fascinating. I wonder sometimes if we'd feel the same way about Nikon's color science if they'd kicked off the HDSLR market first. I wonder sometimes how much of this is cultural. We in the west tend to prefer tanned women and warm skintones, whereas in Japan, white is beautiful. They prefer cool tones and pale faces (this was the Kodak vs. Fuji dichotomy back in the day). I wonder whether Canon's lack of accuracy in reds and greens (in C-LOG and WDR) ever bother the average Canon user, whether they don't notice, or whether they've just learned to embrace it. And sometimes, I wonder why, even though I notice the creative hue shifts and somewhat Crayola rendering, Canon color gives me this feeling like slipping into an old comfortable glove whenever I see it done well. There are no right or wrong answers here. At least, not yet. So it's important to come at these issues with a sense of academia, passionate as we may be about our position. Savvy? (For your perusal, links to those Art Adams articles: http://www.provideocoalition.com/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa http://www.provideocoalition.com/cameras_more_thoughts_on_canons_color_science_this_time_with_pictures http://www.provideocoalition.com/canon_c300_trimming_white_balance_plus_a_look_at_daylight_vs-_tungsten_colo http://www.dvinfo.net/article/optical-science/a-short-history-of-camera-color.html That last one is one of my favorite camera articles. Art has forgotten more about color science than I'll ever know.)

Classy.

Most people I've heard from say is good at 3200 and even 6400 at a push. I can confirm everything else though, as well as extremely low rolling shutter, great battery life, and a nice fine noise grain at higher ISO. It's even a killer stills cam at 24MP and 14 stops of dynamic range at base ISO. It's one of the best hybrid cameras on the market, imo, and has a very pleasing image without much work.

This. How do you render for a clean playback?

You can slap a REC.709 LUT on Alexa or Blackmagic footage and get good-looking highlights. Here, I see ugly color fringing around clippy highlights. That's not to say the camera sucks at highlights in every situation--it might, but I don't know--just that this example did not have pleasing highlight rendition. A simple Lum vs Sat adjustment to desaturate the highlights would be a great start.

Highlights are a mess color and roll off-wise, but it's a nice image otherwise.

Buy used. Pick up two A6000s or a couple G7s. Hell, two D5500s or just one D750 would be a much better hybrid setup. The A7R just isn't good enough compared to everything else you can get for the same money.

I've seen good results from SLog 2 Gamma and Pro color.

I'm not sure why people are getting so defensive about what is a pretty apparent weakness with long exposures on the A7R II. It's to be expected with tons of pixels and poor heat dissipation. Does it render the camera unusable or condemn it to the junk bin? No. But it should be acknowledged and explored. Even if it turns out to be bad processing or poor exposure, we'll at least learn how and why the A7R II files fall apart.

There are real world photos in that post too. Did you actually read it?

Definitely still the same 11+7 bit compression going on, though.

That's just one opinion. I've seen some very good stuff done with the FZ1000. That said, it's been outdone in every basic respect by the RX10 Mark II.

I definitely see it on the Mark I when I try and sharpen aggressively, the way I do on other cameras. You can also see a little posterization here and there at the edges of the tonal scale--particularly in the highlights. There was someone else on the forum a while back who got horrible purple color casts when he tried to pull up the shadows on his A6000, where the GX7 worked great. It may not be noticeable on the RX10 because you hit the limits of the sensor before the limits of the RAW file become a problem, but they're infinitely more apparent on the FF A7 cameras (at least, based on the files I've played with).

Plus, I trust DigiLloyd's opinions on such things. The continued compression and pre-processing of sony's RAW files continues to disappoint me, which is why, despite my lust for a larger stills sensor, I'll never use a Sony APS-C or FF as my primary stills camera.

Thank you, I saw your post. Most of my recent stuff has been heavily graded, but I'll see if I can shoot a couple tests for your perusal. How are you getting on with the G6? That rendering of fine detail, at least on the RX10 Mark I, only holds true to about ISO 800, dipping at 1600 and getting fuzzy as hell at 3200. Looks great with enough light, though. They definitely have a similar tonal response--linear as hell and heavily shadow-biased. This gives you a lot of room to adjust them to taste, but requires more effort to get a natural rendering. I tend to prefer highlight-biased cameras with a nicer roll off and a nice tone curve out of the camera. Plus, going back and forth between the RX10 and the GH3 got really frustrating because of how differently they need to be handled--the opposite of the familiarity you felt. You can learn a little more about sensor tonal response in this article. http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/03/18/understanding-native-tonal-response/

When you increase contrast, you have to dial back saturation in response. This will also help mask any minor color sins in your grade. Otherwise, it's a big improvement. You'll get even better results with contrast at -2 in camera, before compression.