Ed_David

Testing all these cameras out against each other - the ursa mini did quite well!! Sony F65 vs Alexa Mini (Arriraw) vs Ursa Mini Pro vs Red Helium vs Red Dragon All shot at their highest resolution! Testing skin tones and motion cadence and highlight handling! Using filmconvert profile kodak 250d, also lowering exposure on it cause it blows out the highlights. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Public Record (for the RED DRAGON) No Frames (Mikko) for the Red Helium Adam Uhl for the Alexa Mini!! And Viewers Like You! WHICH CAMERA IS WHICH?? The results will be posted below. But first! A quick announcement! Shot on Zeiss 100mm standard speed - at T2 - I think. I don't remember. Did I shoot with glimmerglass1 or not - I don't remember. Shot over the course of a month, in a poor scientific matching way on all fronts. No chip chart. No measured distance nor t stop. This test is a mess. Sony F65 - 4k Raw Lite 3:1 Red Helium - 8k 5:1 compressoin Ursa Mini - 4.6k 3:1 compression Alexa Mini - Arriraw 3.2k Red Dragon - 6k 5:1 compression

If your goal is to use a camera to improve. I would get one that you can shoot a lot of stills at once and compare images in camera. Plus one that can shoot past 100 iso The sigma cameras are for those who know exactly what they want from their image. Def not for the faint of heart. Can u rent via lensrental and test it out?

No I think before I poo-poo the Sigma anymore, I need to do an A/B comparison with my a7s ii. Also I'm shooting on the dp2x, an inferior sensor to what you have. So even that is unfair. Some comparisons: https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3570044

Nice photos for sure and Matthias you could make any camera look great - but I am not seeing anything that screams that it couldn't be captured with Nikon, Canon, Fuji, or even Sony color science. Not attacking anyone's photos, which are all beautiful but The highlight roll off to me feels more videoish. It's not a smooth curve roll off like on my a7s ii And the handling of yellow I'm not a fan of. But thanks again guys for taking me on this journey. I have shot 5 rolls of film since this thread, so thank you. Excited to get them developed! I guess I would be curious to see a side-by-side against sony a7s ii. I will try to take a few shots today. Until then, my points are just opinions, no facts behind it.

Right. But again i think the need for s16 glass is no longer needed in the digital era. And Andrew is indeed right. Just cause the bm micro gives you raw...the sensor out of it chokes on banding moire and iso. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. I sold mine.

My mistake - Arriflex is what Arri labels their film cameras. They are the arriflex 535 and 435 and 235 - which are their most modern film cameras. But yes, the older cameras, all the way to the 50s were also called Arriflex cameras. But yea, I think all cameras that have the arriflex name probably had a PL or Bayonette mount, right? But yea, there aren't as many s16mm converted glass. And you can convert certain 16mm glass to s16mm glass - like with this service: http://cinematechnic.com/super-16mm/super_16_lens_conversion But, really, at this point, I think why bother losing the stop, if you are using the glass with digital cameras and are doing a DI if you are shooting film, and can easily just increase the frame size 10% in your edit, right? This is cool in a nerdy way - the original 35mm lens camera - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriflex_35 With the turret - I think this is why they call it when you change a lens, "swinging a lens"

EDIT: And a small correction of the article - classical Arriflex lenses aren't (officially) for Super 16, but only for 16mm format; i.e. classical 4:3 film format with 33% horizontal crop in comparison to s16, or put in video terminology: 2/3" sensor format vs. 1" sensor format. At 25mm focal length, most 16mm lenses do cover s16 and bigger sensors, but only outside the "official" image circle, with major vignetting and blur in the corners. At 16mm focal length and below, 16mm lenses rarely cover s16. (A notable exception are Cooke Kinetals with 12,5mm and above and all Canon "V" and "TV16" c-mount lenses.) 'Official' s16mm lenses were mostly made for Arri Bayonet, Aaton and PL mounts. AFAIK, Schneider never made s16 lenses. I have used the angenieux 12-120mm 16mm glass extensively on the blackmagic micro camera. With a 10 percent digital zoom in, it takes care of vignetting. You can convert some 16mm glass to s16mm - but at this point, why not just do it in post, right? Arriflex refers to the brand. I don't think Andrew made an error in his comments?

Agree with this - I am really eyeing that GH5. 15ms for me is pretty much as slow as I find acceptable. Any slower definitely feels like jello.

Nice on this Andrew. Excited to see Gh5's handling of more 16mm glass. Looks like there was no vignette at 16:9? The Angenieux 5.9mm is a gorgeous ultra wide-angle lens. Lots of beautiful 16mm glass. Want to see ISO performance of GH5 vs Blackmagic Micro or Ursa Mini 4.6k in 2k mode. Assume that the GH5 will be good even at 1600 ISO, compared to the Ursa mini 4.6k that falls apart at 800 ASA when in 2k mode. Excited to test this guy out

I have always found this thread to be really important in deciding on using certain cameras inside vehicles, with fast motion: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue! Thanks to Samuel Going to post text as well, in case dvx100's forum goes under: RX100 V 250 fps ---- 3.8 ms (3.8-3.8) BM 4.6K (2K crop)--- 6.3 ms (official) 1DX II 1080p 60&120- 6.7 ms (6.6-6.7) NX1 1080p ---------- 7.9 ms (7.7-8.0-8.1-7.8) NX500 2.5k --------- 8.6 ms (8.2-8.8-8.9) a99 II 1080p ------- 8.7 ms (8.8-8.7) BM MicroStudio 4K--- 9.9 ms (official) a7r II 1080p S35--- 10.5 ms (11.0-10.0) a7r II 1080p FF---- 10.8 ms (11.0-10.5) 1DX II 1080p 24 --- 11.1 ms (11.1-11.2) a6000 1080p24&30--- 12.2 ms (13.9-11.1-11.5) BM 4.6K (4K crop)-- 12.6 ms (official) BMMCC ------------- 13.3 ms (official) my measurement was 13.4 ms (13.7-13.5-12.9) GH4 1080p --------- 13.7 ms (13.7-13.5-13.1-14.0-13.9-13.5-13.5-13.9) RX100 V 1080p ----- 13.9 ms (14.4-14.0---14.2-13.1) (first 2 with stabilization, last 2 without) D750 -------------- 14.5 ms (14.6-14.1-14.6-14.8) 1DX II 4k 24&60 --- 14.7 ms (14.6-14.9-14.9-14.6) RX10 -------------- 14.8 ms (14.5-14.8-15.0) GH5 --------------- 15.0 ms (official, preproduction) BM 4.6K ----------- 15.2 ms (official) my measurement was 16.3 ms (16.3-15.9-16.8) a6300 1080p24 ----- 15.2 ms (15.8-14.6) GX85 1080p -------- 15.4 ms (13.8-16.7-15.7) GH3 --------------- 15.5 ms (15.4-15.7-15.4) G7 1080p ---------- 16.9 ms (17.5-16.3) XT2 1080p --------- 16.9 ms (16.9-16.0-17.4-17.3) RX100 IV 1080p ---- 16.9 ms (16.5-17.3) (without stabilization it's slightly faster: 16.1) RX100 V 4k -------- 17.5 ms (18.1-16.3-17.7---17.7-16.9-18.5) (first 3 with stabilization, last 3 without) BMPCC ------------- 17.7 ms (official) my measurement was 17.8 ms (17.7-17.7-20.0-20.0) a7s APS-C 1080p --- 19.5 ms (20.3-18.4-19.5-19.5) a7R II 4K FF ------ 19.9 ms (19.3-19.6-19.4-21.2) 5D3 --------------- 20.5 ms (20.7-20.5-20.4) D5200 ------------- 22.4 ms (22.5-22.1-22.6) GH4 4K/UHD -------- 22.0 ms (official) my measurement was 22.5 ms(23.2-22.3-22.7-22.7-22.4-21.8-22.4-22.8-22.6) a99 II 4k --------- 23.4 ms (23.3-23.5) BMC --------------- 23.6 ms (official) my measurement was 25.0 ms (26.7-24.8-23.5) 5D2 --------------- 25.9 ms (25.5-26.4-25.8) 5Dsr -------------- 27.7 ms (27.5-27.9-27.6) G7 4k ------------- 28.1 ms (27.8-28.5) GX85 4k ----------- 28.9 ms (30.2-29.0-28.8-27.5) NEX-5N ------------ 29.4 ms (28.8-29.6-28.9-29.8-29.8-29.1-29.7) a7s II FF 1080p --- 30.3 ms (29.5-31.2) a7s II FF 4K ------ 30.4 ms (30.2-30.6) a7s FF 1080p ------ 30.5 ms (30.1-32.0-30.5-30.3-29.2-30.9) XT2 4k ------------ 30.7 ms (30.5-30.7-31.2-31.2-30.8-29.9) NX1 4K ------------ 30.9 ms (30.6-31.6-31.4-30.7-30.2) NX1 UHD ----------- 32.6 ms (32.9-32.0-32.9-32.5) a7R II 4K S35 ----- 33.3 ms (35.6-32.2-32.8-35.3-32.6-31.1) RX100 IV 4K ------- 36.6 ms (36.4-36.7) (without stabilization it's slightly faster: 35.7) a6300 4K 24fps ---- 39.0 ms (39.2-38.9) OTHER NUMBERS, MOST OF THEM FOUND BY SQUIG SOMEWHERE ON THE WEB: Film --------------- 5 ms? (here) Scarlet ----------- 14 ms F65 --------------- 14 ms AF100 ------------- 14.85 ms FS100 ------------- 15 ms FS7 --------------- 15 ms (here) C300 -------------- 16 ms Red One MX -------- 16.6 ms 7D ---------------- 21 ms 5D MKII ----------- 25 ms GH1 --------------- 25 ms D90 --------------- 33 ms I am curious to see how the sony a9, a99, and canon 1dx ii stack up against each other in rolling shutter. I get asked a lot to do crash cameras in cars - and in the past, I have used the a7s ii in 1080p mode. But these guys now seem like a better option to prevent jello.

A really great resource for learning lighting is cinesummit. Working DPs show music videos, commercials, etc, and break down the lighting. http://cinesummit.com/ Is good to see how to light cars, beauty commercials, as well as natural lighting, and what they do. Also there is Shane Hurlbut's videos that walk you extensively through lighting scenes. This is also a good resource. Cinematography.com is an excellent resource as well - a lot of top DPs will answer questions about lighting scenes. As well as the cinematography mailing list. And of course all the great books written about lighting and cinematographers. "Young Cinematographers" is incredibly inspiring, with amazing DPs like Darius Khondji, Lance Accord, and Harry Savides walking though lighting setups and their lives. American Cinematographer can also be useful, albeit it's more about gear and tech. And Roger Deakins answers a ton of great questions and walks through his setups. That man has zero ego - he's an amazing figure in the cinema world. Matt Workman is super great (old friend of mine) when he looks at a film and literally breaks down the lighting in the scenes.

Yes, fixed aperture sucks. Going to need some kind of neutral density. Especially shooting slog2 - if they lock that at like 1600 ASA! Going to need a variable ND on there!!! it's an sony exmor RS sensor 1'' -type (13.2mm x 8.8mm) vs The go pro sensor https://gethypoxic.com/blogs/technical/gopro-hero5-tear-down-and-software-study SONY IMX117 (1/2.3") - 6.17 x 4.56 So it's twice as large of a sensor, so probably much less noisy, so a f/4 isn't that big of a deal. http://photoseek.com/2013/compare-digital-camera-sensor-sizes-full-frame-35mm-aps-c-micro-four-thirds-1-inch-type/ go pro's 35mm equivalent is 16.21mm - but that has significent barrell distortion. the sony's is: 24mm, probably a lot less. but for me, the only look I like from the go pro is "medium" crop - https://gopro.com/help/articles/Question_Answer/HERO5-Black-Field-of-View-FOV-Information which is 21mm focal length. 21mm vs 24mm is not that big of a focal length change. but no stabilization which sucks. So I think Sony could have a better go pro style camera on their hands. But still, at the end of the day, why not use the sony rx100 iv which has a 24mm focal length, but also stabilization and 4k and a aperature and built-in nds? hmmmmm

Did not see this topic. apologize.

Eos m is 8mm sensor like? Like 43 :3sensor right? Why not gh5 or bm micro in 4:3 mode? Also kodak is coming out w a s8mm camera soon

Curious to know new sony rx0 field of view compared to go pro. Image stabilization as well. Excited to test it. Slog2 is awesome plus larger sensor than go pro probably makes it much more light sensative

This with 64000 iso may look like daylight. Night for day anyone? Dont know why theey picked pentax q. Dont know anyone who uses that camera. Weird. http://www.metabones.com/article/of/Metabones_Devil_Speed_Booster_Q6660.50x_Press_Release

which version has a viewfinder? maybe I did really buy the worst model of their camera! right - which version should I have bought? I think it's my bad, talking trash because the dp2x does suck, and they improved it since then. I need to do more research before I buy stuff used on ebay to save a buck.

looking absolutely gorgeous man.

Shooting 35mm on my f100 is fast as heck. Turn on. Check focus and exposure and shoot as many shots as i want. I can capture little moments quickly. Dp1x is a toy. That lcd ruins it. Takes about 10 sec per photo from start to finish. I felt like i was shooting on a coolpix camera from 2004. Sorry man. Not for me.

Got the dp2x. Images or not, having to take a photo with a horrible LCD screen, wait a ton of time to get the moment, and then wait for it to process. Yea, it's not a camera for someone trying to do street photography. Mostly just landscapes. The image out seems really nice. But, not really worth it for me in this front. I am sure if I tried their more modern camera I would like it. But I'm back shooting film again! WOO HOO. thank you guys! love shooting film so much. how meditative. how each shot costs a lot of money, so there is that voice in your head asking you if its really worth it

HOLY GOD this looks amazing. Curious now to compare to a7s ii, and ursa mini 4.6k and blackmagic micro. This maybe right now the ultimate 16mm camera as well - it may create a very different, beautiful aesthetic! wow panasonic is killing it

Just heard a cool thing on radiolab - asked, are our personalities fixed at birth? The scientist replied, "half-fixed." So for me this means we can learn and constantly improve our skills. And whatever natural talent anyone has for photography or cinematography, or lack there of, it can be learned. 10,000 hours of practice and watching and learning. So forums like this are really good.

Agreed. I meant that politicians have power over corporations, not the other way around. All politicians are, for me, are members of society chosen by us to represent us. They get a salary so they can't be bought as easily. I like this, but I think politicians are just people - there is nothing that getting rid of them will change. We just need systems of checks and balances. Anarchy and small societies still have their own problems. I mean, even living in a house of 5 friends after 6 months can turn a little nutty.

Even with a likable president like Obama, the system in place, of 350 billion dollars I think spent on military operations makes us an incredibly scary nation. I really had hope Obama could have winded that down. And in the last months of his presidency, I wish he put in some executive actions to limit, well, I guess, executive actions. And then tried to put in some failsafe measures against nuclear attack. We are a war nation. I think the 2nd highest spending country on military is China. And it's sad, because, even if we achieve more social justice in America, for instance: gay marriage, what we are doing to the rest of the world is terrible. And not to mention the control corporations have on America. We are, as written in Empire of Illusions, an inverted totalitarian government. Corporations have complete control over politicians, with the need to raise millions from fundraising. Plus lobbying on issues, and they even write a lot of the bills that are introduced. The health care reform bill that was introduced this year by Paul Ryan, Ryancare, was almost entirely drafted by insurance companies. The only hope, I feel, is more candidates who are elected by direct funding from citizens. Left or right politically, if we can turn America back into some sort of democratic system, where politicans have power, and are not beholden to corporations, that would be really good. Because we are in for a terrible economic collapse as well as environmental collapse. All it takes is China to stop loaning us the trillions we have in debt to them. And for the environment, well, it's looking like in one hundred years, only about 50 percent of the world will be habitable. So yes, right or left on the political spectrum, I wish we could all come together to prevent environmental and economic disaster, which all of us I think could agree on would not be good.

Yea I just got on ebay plustek opticfilm 7200. Higher resolution scan - don't know how it compares. But got a great deal on it. Yea, I bought the DP1x without really knowing enough - I should have figured things out more. Still got it for $220, which I think is $200 cheaper than the Merrill. Yes, I have heard mixed on that sensor. So I am back shooting 35mm film. Shot three rolls last week. I forget the enjoyment as well as the stress of shooting film. Only having 36 exposures. Having to think before I act.