Django

ok now you're making yourself sound like you're some kind of unrecognised martyr on this holy crusade to solve the great mysteries of film making, swimming against the tide from evil hordes of blinded brand zealots. what is this Passion of the EOSHD Christ? I mean I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers but again you are simply way off-topic: you're bringing up color science again ffs. what does CS have to do with sensor size? please answer, genuinely curious.

Simply making observations made on a real-life comparison test video. Not even arguing about the thousand hours you put in post to emulate the look of the 65+DNA Prime by adding vignette, barrel distortion, grading ETC. No disrespect to your skills but again sorry, you're being off-topic. (Personally, I think I'd rather use a speed booster to achieve any bigger sensor lens look than muck around in post all day with bigger sensor reference footage you never get irl to emulate it, but to each their own.) That is not what I'm saying. What is even a "nice" lens? That's so subjective. Some like modern tack sharp, others soft with vintage flair. What is for sure is that FF has the biggest lens selection 35mm being such an old & popular format. But again, your deflecting to an entire other side conversation. I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is. On a crop sensor, only the center of the optic will be used, losing some of its inherent characteristics. Its pretty basic stuff really, not sure what you are arguing about. And of course I'm talking about lenses, I thought it was established pages ago that sensor size AND lens pairing go hand-in-hand. Anyways I kinda feel you're being purposely dense and obtuse for the sake of argument winning, I've noticed this in many other threads that seemed to aimlessly go on forever, so let's maybe save up some bandwidth and just agree to disagree on this topic? 😉 Cheers

Huh? Did you actually read my post? Nobody is doubting you can match a Mini to a 65 in post. What I'm saying is that is totally besides the point of the test & discussion which is camera sensor size, and lens pairings not CS. This is corroborated by the DP himself which I've quoted. Not sure what Canon or GH6 has got to do with this either? Again you seem obsessed with color science. Sorry but you're being off-topic (and acting a bit of a jerk in the process).

From my experience with C200 & R5 CRL the footage is considerably sharper with finer detail. and of course 12-bit color. Should really unlock that DGO sensor and be an IQ game changer. If you've been underwhelmed by C70 up until now, be prepared for a significant IQ upgrade with the firmware update.

@kye sorry but can't say I agree, frankly I don't see how anyone could make a better sensor size comparison? sounds to me like you're focusing too much on the exposure, color science etc in your grading experiments to match both cameras. that wasn't at all the point of the test and the differences in exposure and color are due mostly to the 3D rig that means one camera is shooting through a mirror which makes you lose a stop of light and color shifts as the DP states himself: "Thanks! The color shifts are due to the mirror of the 3D rig which unfortunately makes it impossible to compare color. Also, the different ND Filters and lenses are influencing the image. If you would shoot without this specific 3D-Rig setup, the colors would match because both cameras are based on the same color science." So while I'm sure you've learned a lot by attempting to match both cameras CS in post, that isn't what the test is about. The first shot say a lot. Using a same 40mm lens on both sensors displays massive angle of view difference. Second & last shots with angle of view matched by lens equivalency shows the huge differences in between a 35mm & 70mm (compression, DoF, bokeh) but also center crop vs full circle (vignetting, edge blur). Those DNA primes are made for the 65 and have so much mojo: "The DNA LF lenses have an individuality, when most lenses these days are going for uniformity and technical perfection. They remind me of older anamorphic lenses, in terms of the very subtle vignetting and focus drop off." While these lenses, created for the Alexa 65 could already be used on the Alexa LF, the obvious problem is this: on the Alexa LF you would only be using the very sharp center portion of the lenses for the larger format Alexa 65, thus loosing a lot of the characteristics that make the DNA lenses special. This is exactly what I've been saying all along when adapting FF lenses to crop sensors. That said there are certain instances where you may not want vignetting, focus drop off, or even shallow DoF (without stopping down. Nice thing about FF is that most cams today allow you to crop to a S35. This is always a better solution than the reverse speed-boosting which brings in other optical issues. The low light tests show the much noisier image of the smaller sensor. The 200% zoom-in shots the difference in resolution. In the end, it's a very thorough and revealing test that showcases just about everything to consider about sensor sizes and their correlation to lens pairings on an aesthetic & technical level.

Prince Andrew should have hired that Rep for his PR team.. Good at dodging bullets & sweatproof.

Yeah it gets even more confusing in digital cinema as "Super35" isn't even a standard within camera manufacturers. Quick search reveals that: the ARRI Alexa has a sensor that is 4:3, 23.8 x 17.8mm. The Canon C200 uses a 16:9 sensor at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Panasonic gave the EVA-1 a 4:3 sensor at 24.89 x 18.66 mm. Blackmagic with their 23.1 x 12.99 mm in the BMPCC 6K. All of these are marketed as Super 35, but if you put the same lens on each of these cameras you’ll end up with a slight variation in the image crop. With FF its 36x24mm all across. That's a S16 lens though. I was talking about adapting FF lenses to crop sensors. I wouldn't go that far, both cams are using top-notch ARRI lenses! I think it's a wonderful test, depending on what you're looking for. The second clip with the 35mm vs 70mm shows such a huge difference. It's whole other feel/look. Disregarding FoV/DoF comparisons, the clearest variable is resolution difference (6K vs 3.8K). That kinda flaws the comparison if trying to be objective but it's actually pertinent to the original discussion considering medium format usually has about double megapixel res than FF. and as we were saying one could argue higher resolution enhances the lens rendition. The vignetting on the 65's wide sensor vs the center crop on the mini also shows how you're getting the full characteristics of the lens circle. That alone is huge imo (especially on a $30-40K ARRI prime lens lol). You can fake vignetting/edge blur etc in post but as you said it's going to be approximate.. and fake. The 65's bigger sensor also does much better in lowlight, even though the mini has pleasing filmic noise. Haven't done a deep dive with the footage as you have so I'm sure a bunch of other details/variables are present but resolution/low light aside I may prefer the Alexa on some shots. Guess I'm also conditioned/biased towards the overall look & feel of its IQ.

Of course its about lenses.. AND how they interact on a sensor size. Going FF for the Ozark DP allowed him to rehouse and use Leica R glass with the same feel as on 35mm film. No need to hunt down an impossible to find 23mm f0.95 equivalent just to get the standard 35mm f1.4 FoV/Dof look. And yes I know all about Voigtlander but that is just one speciality lens maker. Speedboosters are another common trick to achieve FF but then we're really talking "faux-full-frame". Going FF opens you up to fast wides from all popular lens makers from all periods of time. And like I said earlier it's not just about DoF. A 23mm has more distortion than a 35mm. Both in FoV & perspective. In the end it's subjective, again I am not a FF elitist when it comes to video/film. I also love Super35 and the thousands of modern classics shot on Alexas, REDs, Varicams etc.. But there is a convenience of just popping on any FF lens and the focal length aperture is what it is. no math involved.

Ok I understand better what you are asking and its a valid observation. There could be some truth to that. I know that with 4K and above my lens properties are certainly more visible so one could probably argue higher resolution enhances the sensor size look. But the reason I said that, was probably more just because I've been shooting FF stills since basically a kid with point & shoot film camera. That aesthetic is just burned in my mind. Whereas in film there have always been several standards including 8/16mm. In digital cinema Super35 has now long been the norm so that also plays a role on a subconscious level. But things are going full-circle, a lot of high-end DP's are going FF or even LF with the Alexa65. A throwback to the two big cinema film standards 35mm & 65mm. Netflix's Ozark DP had this to say when described switching from the Varicam (S35) to FF on the Venice: ““ I started as a still photographer on 35mm film. It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close. As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open. It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room. That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space." In the end I guess it's really all about the lenses and how different size sensors translates them to your screen to achieve a certain type of scenery/separation/connection.

Not sure what you mean. I don't see a correlation in between resolution and sensor size. What computer specs and Resolve version are you on? Because I can tell you that on a cheap $999 M1 MacBook Air, I can drag and drop an 8K Canon RAW file in Resolve 17.3 (which is optimised for M1 Macs) on a 4K timeline, do some tweaks, add some LUTs and I get 100% playback with zero dropped frames. That's on the most entry-level Mac you can buy today.

Yeah my bad 4K120p of course. I do think you're right that Sony was in no rush to put out A7S3 as they really wanted to establish the FX line. Especially when it came to adding the 10-bit 4:2:2 codec inside Alpha line. Something Sony have been very late and reluctant to give away from the XDCams. The real surprise comes from Canon with 8K RAW internal and now no overheating and full cine OS features at a pretty agressive price point. As well as the totally unexpected free C70 RAW update. I think this is mainly due in a massive effort to get people on-board RF mount. They've invested a lot in those lenses and as you recently said that's where the real money is for them. What's happening with Nikon Z9? sensor/chip issues?

There were several interviews that to me hinted there were technical / R&D issues: Many people have enjoyed the a7S II as a video camera, but originally we designed it for stills photography users. So if we’re going to create products [specifically] for video shooters, we’ll have to modify them in the future. We’ve had a lot of feedback from the market, including from DPReview! The basic expectation is for things like 4K/60, 10-bit 4:2:2, and a lot of manufacturers are doing that right now, but I want to think in a different way and create something that goes beyond the expectations of our customers. It’s easy to add 4K/60, but beyond these specs, a lot of customers have other kinds of demands, and that’s what we’re researching. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/9676983794/cp-2019-sony-interview-first-full-frame-then-aps-c But in the end we didn't really get more than 4K60 10-bit 4:2:2. Maybe FX3 was what they were working on, but imo that was also a bit of a letdown as it was just a re-housed A7S3 with zero "FX" OS tools or E-ND. Announcement was in May 2021 so yeah some 8 months ago with still no release date nor explanation for the delay.

True but Sony admitted having to go back to the drawing boards on A7S3. Panasonic apologised for delaying the GH6 release from 2021 to 2022. I'm thinking the chip shortage must be seriously affecting the production/release cycle.

@kye @MrSMW should have probably specified the comment both of you quoted from me was directed at photography. no issue with crop sensors for video/film as S35/S16 have been standards in digital cinema. I never got into MFT, probably due to the fact all my lenses are FF so no particular thoughts. The form factor & battery life made the OG BMPCC a double no-go for me despite its impressive specs/price. The one small sensor camera I really really really regret not buying is the Digital Bolex. Mojo for days on that one! CCD sensor + C-mount lenses was magic combo. Just like my Leica M9 (CCD) + M lenses. Some combos just create the perfect storm. Yeah like I said, mixed results on the Fuji XT system. Some combos worked and when they did it was amazing, other times I'd hate the rendering. That inconsistency bothered me. XTrans is just weird like that I think. Sharpness/detail was incredible though, made a 24MP still feel like a 50MP. Loved the hardware. I know some folks hate the dials but it really spoke to me. Was like shooting on a Nikon FM. Film simulations was nice too. I don't know what's going on with Fuji, feels like XH2 has been pushed back forever.

I should also mention I approach photo & video in a totally different way (flash & vertical for stills 95% of the time) so again the whole 8 seconds delay isn't an issue for me as I have to usually re-rig the camera when I'm switching from video to stills. ..all that being said, R6 + C70 is probably the combo I will go for vs all-in-one R5C. But I honestly think Canon are changing the game with it and will hopefully pressure Sony/Nikon to include more cine features in their upcoming products than just resolution/codecs. Panasonic/BM need to step up their AF game to even be in that competition as far as I'm concerned.

The video mode definitely has all those C line features, as well as dual ISO which is pretty cool. My guess is that porting all the cine features on top of the R photo OS was probably too CPU heavy. It would probably make the stills mode boot 15 seconds which would be even more unnacteptable. Pure speculation on my part, I could be wrong. No official explanation on that. Panny & BM can do it it but they don't have an AF system even close to Canon's stills DPAF. I wouldn't even consider BM proper hybrid tbh. So yeah it's a tradeoff and I totally get how that can be a deal breaker for certain hybrid shooters. And it's definitely sneaky of Canon not to make this point clear! That promo video is certainly misleading. I still think this is a much better effort than FX3 or Z9 that don't have assist tools like WFM, false color, LUT support, shutter angle etc.

Never shot MF but I sure do like the look of it, especially MF film. I always thought digital medium format was more about super high MP, better DR/ISO performance etc? Also the native 4:3 aspect ratio and lack of AA filter is great for landscape. And of course the exclusive lens systems (Fuji, Hasselbad, Pentax, Mamiya). Speaking of different sensor sizes, I had really mixed results when shooting on APS-C during my Fuji XT2 period. Mainly because my favorite focal length in photography is 35mm and a 23mm lens just doesn't give the same look (due to distortion etc) even if the APS-C crop gives you a 35mm focal length equivalency. The 56mm f1.2 was great though. Also when adapting the lack of vignetting and overall characteristics of a FF lens were gone. Probably why the "magic" or mojo goes away when shooting crop sensors. I can totally imagine how on the reverse end how FF lenses might look even better on a MF sensor. Hopefully one day will bite the bullet!

The delay is there because the camera essentially reboots to a whole other OS when you switch modes. Think of it as windows/Mac boot OS on a single computer. I think its an ok tradeoff considering all the video options you benefit from the full C line OS (assist tools, shutter angle, LUT import etc). Panasonic gives you a lot of that in their hybrid OS but Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji never and I hate that. It's true that for hybrid shooters that need to switch modes at the blink of an eye (sports, action, news, wedding etc) an R3, Z9, A7S3, S1 would probably be better suited. For all others including myself that don't switch modes so often and can accept an 8 sec delay it's a complete non-issue and a well-worthy tradeoff.

Well at least it's got people talking. What are we on the 14th page of a product announced 5 days ago? A7IV thread I started early September barely got to page 3?! Snooze. Let's face it, this isn’t a very exciting time for the industry, still recovering from the on-going pandemic. Talking tech is part of doing the research, this isn’t exactly an affordable expense either.. That said, Canon is definitely the most polarising camera company when it comes to video. And rightfully so with all the shenanigans we’ve lived through the years (blocking ML, being slow to adapt to mirrorless and of course the most recent overheat-gate). But their strategy seems to be shaken up by RF mount, as they are eager to get people on-board including EF body Canon customers. The C70 with the Raw update will basically have the same exact IQ than the $11K C300 mk3. And this 5RC? cmon it packs a lot of heat (pun intended) for a price point much lower than expected: 8K60, 5.9K, 4K DCI, 2.9K. RAW Light options, XF-AVC, full cine OS with WFM, false color etc. No overheating, no recording time limits. 45MP still monster. It’s actually the highest resolution cine line product yet priced at entry-level. Crazy. Perfect though, no. No IBIS & micro-HDMI. No ND’s (then again no hybrid does). Not too many gotchas imo. YMMV.

Oh I don't deliver nor expect to deliver anything in 8K soon but I can certainly notice the increase in resolution of 6K/8K footage or 6K/8K oversampled 4K footage vs 1:1 4K even on a laptop screen. Of course on my 5K iMac Pro the difference becomes crystal clear. Also keep in mind R5C also shoots 5.9K which sounds like a good middle ground resolution option. Sharpness isn't the main allure of 6K/8K for me though but rather the cropping possibilities. Even on a simple talking head interview. But also on product shots where you can zoom, pan etc from a static shot. Basically the same type of tricks 4K allows when you're delivering HD but twice the crop amount and/or for 4K delivery. So I definitely could see where I take advantage of those +4K resolutions. I do hear what you mean about 8K footage looking too sharp/video but the key to alleviate that is using older/softer glass. All the R5 YT demos are using the super sharp/clinical RF glass. But pop even a EF 50 1.2L or older vintage FD lenses and you're probably in for a treat. For 8K stills, of course you might have to adapt shutter speed to avoid blur but the results can be quite nice: https://www.lauschsicht.ch/2022/01/19/canon-eos-r5c-erster-eindruck-review-und-film/ Still just on a IQ level, C70's DR & the low shadow noise and overall cinematic IQ of the C300II DGO sensor is definitely something to consider over 6K/8K resolution. The low DR on my R6 definitely limits certain types of shots, how you expose etc.

I have several FF cameras including an R6 so yeah I guess I'm good on the photo side, plus I don't really need 45MP. R5C's 8K Raw though is a big deal as far as future proofing and the stills you can extract from 8K Raw are very usable. On a IQ level, I think the biggest C70 criticism was the image being a bit soft compared to cameras that oversample, have RAW or have higher resolution like the BMPCC6K. I'm expecting the upcoming RAW to really lift that veil by adding significant sharpness/detail which is going to be important on a '4K only' camera. But of course the NDs, audio, battery life, and the C300II DGO sensor are indeed the big pluses that also make me lean towards C70. The lack of EVF isn't a deal breaker to me as I never use them on these types of compact bodies. Only on my FS7 when it's in shoulder mount "ENG" rig position.

More biased hearsay. Netflix always pushes for highest resolution and hence most popular Netflix shows like Stranger Things or Zack Snyders Army of the Dead were shot on RED Monstro 8K: The Cameras Behind Popular Netflix Originals: Films and Series Of course ARRI get used but Varicam LT & Venice are probably even more popular due to form factor etc. In the end though, it's easy to base your CS reference point from your favorite show/film but again the actual camera used is only part of the equation, most of the "magic" happens in post with the pro colorist grading the footage. Here is an article about going FF on Ozark with the Venice, a very grade-heavy show. The DP states: "It’s been tough with the 4K camera equipment requirement, you’re basically looking at RED or Panasonic Varicam. The last few years have been amazing for cinematographers to have new choices.” How the Sony VENICE Evolved the Look of ‘Ozark’ And that was already 2 years ago. Today Netflix are pushing +4K capture. In short, ARRI isn't the only game in town..

I know seeing that you almost have to wonder how much better can it get? That DGO sensor is incredible. The DR, the rolloff, the super clean shadows.. Agreed, although R5's 8K RAW is impressive. I'm still tempted to lean in favour of C70 as far as IQ champ just cuz of that sensor. Especially with RAW around the corner.

LOL, I'm very familiar with 5D3 ML RAW. Shot with it for years. It had mojo sure! But so does the R series, and as a pro owner I think I'm qualified to "jump in" the discussion. I'm visibly not alone thinking R5/R5C has great CS/skintones. Actually the people claiming poor skin tones etc don't seem to be Canon shooters, including yourself. I'm just curious and challenging these comments. It's ok we don't have to agree, it's a subjective matter. But what are these views based upon? Random YT videos? Mushy old FHD 8-bit 5D3 compressed footage? I'm just trying to understand the point of reference. Again the point seems moot because R5/R5C has RAW in many flavours if 10-bit 4:2:2 log isn't good enough for your taste. Or is ARRI Alexa & 5D3 ML RAW the only worthy contenders of good skin tones in your playbook? If that's case you might be setting yourself up for eternal disappointment.

Your assumption is faulty because you are basing yourself on 5D3, a 2013 camera that had very soft FHD as it used pixel binning (resolution was closer to 720p) and on top of that had 8-bit compressed files with no log option. The IQ jump from that to 14-bit ML RAW was colossal. Now the R5/R5C is light-years away from that. The compressed files have super chunky bitrates, downsample from 8K and we have 10-bit 4:2:2 Clog3. Pop those files in Resolve, and grade your heart away. The image holds. Beautiful skin tones can be achieved. Use "neutral" instead of default "Eos cinema" in the Log color matrix options and you've got Canon's ARRI emulation. Pop an ARRI lut and with minor tweaks you are almost there. Now of course going RAW unlocks the full IQ potential. No doubt about that. But again the 10-bit compressed files a more than usable and imo have more mojo than Sony as you can turn off NR unlike A7S3/FX3. In any case you have every option in R5C, shoot RAW or compressed with many bitrate/codec/resolution options. I agree with most of your points but the thing is, we're not all the same types of shooters. Which is why indeed there is no perfect camera... for everyone or every situation. Hence the lack of consensus on a forum like this. Obviously some people can't live without IBIS. Others can't without a decent PDAF system. etc We can also talk aesthetics all day but its such a subjective/endless topic. In the end this R5C is either for you or it isn't. Many other options out there. Not many options when it comes to 8K RAW on a hybrid though. Either this or Z9. Problem with Z9 is Zero effort seems to be done on the video OS side. The brilliant thing about R5C imo is that its two camera systems in one. R line and C line fused (or rather split) together. That is something new and unique that sort of redefines hybrid shooting.