HockeyFan12

Be forewarned that the Nikon 9000 is significantly better than a flatbed, but even then you'll want to scan multi-pass and it is such a pain. I went from Nikon SLR (with broken shutter speeds and a nonfunctioning meter) to 6x7 to a 4x5 Toyoview... which was actually really cheap but it was $20/shot and $100+ to scan and I'm not that good a photographer so I sold it. Working without a meter in the camera definitely helped me learn to meter, but I only shot slide film for the most part since with color negative the lab is processing to taste so you can't really judge your ability to expose. The Mamiya 7 is the coolest thing going, but for landscapes nothing compares with a view camera (except maybe a $50k back and a Sinar digital view camera), but in retrospect I kind of like the smaller formats where you can feel the grit more... which scan worse on the flatbeds. I didn't need another hobby, but I enjoyed shooting film much more than shooting digital. Very fond of the Hasselblad 500 form factor and the Rollei TLRs, though I never owned either. You can also scan your own stuff and send your best work out for a drum scan or Imacon scan. Or frankly just whatever any lab sends you is probably better than scanning at home and a lot easier.

I agree when it comes to color negative and black and white, but not when it comes to slides. I compared some old cibachromes shot by a local pro with digital scans/prints of the same slides and discussed the difficulty in getting test strips etc. to match with cibas. For slides, scanning and printing digitally makes sense imo. Not so different from doing a DI! Large format Velvia scanned and printed digitally is still my favorite look for landscapes, even if some think it's tacky. On the other hand, if you're shooting color negative I think going all analogue is cool. I saw some 8X10 color negative prints at a local lab enlarged to like 80X100 or something and it's just unbelievable how good they look... but the smaller prints look amazing, too. Especially small prints from rangefinders in black and white. Much artsier. Years ago I started shooting slides with an old 1960s Nikon SLR (with a broken meter) and eventually dabbled in 4x5 (with no meter, of course). I had maybe five stops of dynamic range (and +/- 1/2 exposure latitude) on slide film. It got too expensive bracketing 4x5, $20+/shot, but I miss that a lot. It taught me to expose film better... but now I'm back to digital and am super lazy and have sold all that stuff, which is a little sad to me. I tried to find a tilt/shift lens to get the movements back but the image quality never compared. Foveon sensors have the micro contrast but not the color. ? But I bet the $50k digital backs are awesome. Obviously never tried one, but dream of a Sinar set up with the new Trichromatic back. That said I barely even shoot photos anymore. Check out the Mamiya 7 btw. It's like a Leica rangefinder except big. Out of my budget, too, but I see them around. Or on a budget, the Minolta CLE is cool. I actually like the smaller formats when shooting black and white or color negative, larger formats for slide film, dunno why. The Hasselblad 6x6 is definitely cool, too. The stuff I shot on my old Nikon SLR on Velvia is definitely the best I've shot. ? There's some cheap stuff, Bronicas, etc. and even some of the Mamiyas that are almost as good but more awkward/larger, but it sounds like you have a budget for this. I was always looking at bargain options, of which there are many.

It's not that consistent, though. You can't always rely on it, which is frustrating. For some shots DPAF is great but it's not an AC. Just rent one for the right project imo–I think it will scratch the itch. The more I play around with C200 raw footage, the "thinner" I'm realizing it is, despite the great dynamic range. I'm surprised how much abuse C100 Ninja footage can take and how little the C200 can take. The log profiles are just so flat. The more I think about it the more I'm just like-I should just use either a dSLR/mirrorless if I'm focused on story or rent an Alexa if I have the resources. Alexa footage, even transcoded to 8 bit, can stand virtually any amount of abuse in post. My t2i had the best skin tones and best neutralizing of fluorescent lights. (Film is worst at that imo.) No other camera I've worked with behaves like the Alexa, possibly film scans do.... or the F35 maybe? It's something about the noise structure. Yea so I like the Alexa because it's noisy and soft lol... The C200 is also a lot heavier than a C100, let alone the 5D3. And it's not truly weather-sealed, though I have had great luck with durability from Canon in general. And Canon Log 2 sucks for grading. It's harder to find a fast wide lens than with the 5D3. I'd stick with the 5D3 if it's working for you. But yeah having your camera moves limited by not having an AC is frustrating and DPAF helps there. I do the most rudimentary blocking so everyone is standing in one place. Not good, but on the other hand whatever. But I enjoy the tech stuff and flexibility the camera provides, I'm happy with it. I mean I don't like the F55 raw either and was underwhelmed by the Red, I must be an Alexa fanboy. But I recommend renting one still, it's a pretty cool camera.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/spm7er1jjz32gyu/5DtoRGB Lite.zip?dl=0 Hope this works! I never found much use for it. I used it on some dSLR and C100 files to bring the super whites into legal range and smooth the color channels before working in After Effects (I didn't want to work in float), but I don't think it has upscale/downscale options and I generally just used the default utility in FCP7 for my dSLR footage because it was faster and looked okay. But I'm kind of lazy... For keying or color correction it might give you a little more something.

That is what the C200 is good at imo, providing a good image without much of a crew. On the other hand, it lacks input/output/monitoring options, codecs, ergonomic designs, etc. that become more important and more desirable with a larger crew and on a larger production. I'm a little underwhelmed by DPAF, it's just hit or miss. It could work very well for simple steadicam moves and handheld follows and on tricky long lens shots and complement pulling focus manually on simpler shots imo. Definitely very useful in certain contexts and pretty natural and a great option to have, but it's still a poor replacement for an AC. I suspect most pro owner/ops would be better served with an FS7. Ergonomics and codec options and monitoring options are more in line with industry standards. And I prefer the "look" of the EVA1 out of camera, but the canon raw image is so flexible in post that it's not a big deal if it looks flatter/duller imo. It also looks closer to an Alexa, which is nice for B roll or shooting plates. (And it responds better to S curves and an Arri LUT than to Canon's sort of ugly wide DR LUT.) But for your needs the C200 might be a lot better than an FS7. The image continues to impress me a lot, it's in the same class as much more expensive cinema cameras, I think, though it's subjective. From what I heard from Canon, it's the same sensor as the C700, just without the look around room, and I have every reason to believe it. Don't bother with the B model though imo, the EVF is too useful.

How's the rolling shutter on the S1?

I agree. There are a lot of new mounts and high end options out there, but the market overall seems to be shrinking quickly. I'm sure these companies have done their research and are moving upmarket for that specific reason, but I wonder for how long that's sustainable, and if there's already too much competition in a small market. Personally (despite owning lots of adapted Nikon manual focus lenses for EF-mount cameras) I buy into a system for the lenses, because then their cost is amortized over a longer period and I'm not constantly buying and reselling. It's hard for me to imagine what the L mount system or RF mount system looks like five years from now, though, which makes the steep entry price even more of a concern for me. On the other hand, I would probably upgrade my Digital Rebel XT if Canon met Fujifilm's specs. Well said. I bought Oakleys back in school and ended up looking like a dork. I think Bay and Fincher are great directors, but I look better in Ray Bans or Persol. (Same parent company in this case, I know.) I guess I will never be a cool kid. I couldn't afford a Red anyway.

What is the story between Red and David Fincher? Or Red and Steven Soderbergh for that matter? The Red One was a nightmare on Che and he stuck with it. Where do you see FS7s and C300s? Smaller production companies? On reality tv? I've been a bit out of the loop for the past year or so, haven't been on set much. These are the cameras I see least and get footage from least often, but are also the form factors I like working with most. Yeah it seems like Panasonic has a big advantage in image processing. I wonder how and why? You wouldn't expect a smaller company to. The GH5 and SL1s are monsters relative to what anyone else is doing. Even the EVA1 is doing 6k/60p processing then downscaling to 4k. I'm not as cynical as most here–I think Canon and Sony (and Arri) are being held back by power and heat limitations, rather than intentional crippling. Canon's cinema cameras have massive fans. I don't know if the A7SII is as bad but the A7S really likes to overheat. I wonder where Panasonic gets their competitive edge here.

Interesting post on RedUser today: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?176501-New-article-The-Cameras-Behind-Netflix-Best-Series-Spoiler-RED-Dominates&p=1856294&viewfull=1#post1856294 This seems like a more sensical and honest marketing tactic than Red had for the Red One. The David Finchers of the world are exactly who want to use this camera system, and its ergonomics and ecosystem demand the same resources (if not more) than you'd want for an Amira shoot, so it's hardly entry-level. (The David Finchers of the world are sort of the opposite of the Werner Herzogs.... this metaphor makes sense to me but probably not to anyone else.) This is a major departure from Red's original (questionable) pitch for an "affordable" cinema camera for everyone. Red's new high end systems are about as expensive as Arri's. The Raven, meanwhile, seems to have disappeared and the 3k for $3k camera never materialized, and probably never should have. What was the market for that? I'm curious to see if the Foxconn thing ever materializes and in what form. It seems the high end is where the money is still. Despite everything. Also, Red is privately owned by a billionaire so it could still be unprofitable for all we know. Another issue with the sub-$10k camera market is that you have a lower level of production that's using it, and so footage shot with those cameras doesn't look as good as it could for that reason (the original Red suffered from this, too). And how big is this market in the first place and how high are the margins? I'm curious how profitable Canon's, Sony's, and Panasonic's cinema divisions are. Ditto Black Magic. They've cornered a market segment between dSLRs and Alexas that Red seems to be in a rush to abdicate, and there is likely a reason for that. (Selfishly, I hope these cameras stay around because I like them.) Someone posted a teaser months back showing an EVA1-style body that was hinted at during NAB, so this probably has that form factor... more or less... I love the EVA1 and Varicam's color and noise texture–my second favorite image to the Alexa, bar none. Curious if this is positioned above the EVA1 (which is already processing 6k fwiw) or below it and if it maintains that "look" I like, sort of a C300 Mk 1 look with really rich colors. Edit: bar film, I guess.

I've heard of Greyscale Gorilla for C4D training but are there any good forums for C4D/Nuke/generalist vfx questions etc. I know there are some vfx supervisors here but I'm looking for something more targeted. Thanks!

In the minority, but I prefer the EVA1 to anything else here, down to the highlight clipping.

Are you shooting Canon Log 2? IMO it’s too flat. I find it helpful to use a LUT or it gets weird.

I legit don't know much about this so I won't speculate any more. And I doubt I'll learn much more than the rolling shutter timings, if that. I suspect I'll just learn if the C200 and C300 Mk II have the same amount of skew. I think I'm in over my head here, again. I doubt I'll get any significant info that's not already publicly available, but I'll ask if raw and mp4 figures are the same, too: if the sensor ever has to "wait up" on the rest of the imaging pipeline. I'm still not sure whether or not that's the case.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about this, so anything's possible. That does contradict my understanding of how sensor readout works (the debayer process is done separately from the readout and entirely after, rather than being done simultaneously line-by-line, and so the sensor readout is affected by earlier sensor-related issues like binning, line skipping, refresh rate, other on-sensor processes, but not by the speed of the subsequent debayering process–i.e. it doesn't "wait up"). But I know nothing about how it works, so fair enough. My bad for not reading more literature on this. I really just meant to ask the question, not start an argument. It still confuses me since the C300 Mk II has a 120hz sensor but 30hz debayer process, resulting in ≤8.3ms of skew, consistent with the 120hz number, not the 30hz number, hence my understanding that the processes were distinct–or at the very least that the sensor doesn't "wait" up for the debayer process, even if it's technically done line-by-line, too. (Again I don't know.) But I REALLY know nothing about this and you're right that the sensor is interacting with other parts of the camera and that can alter the readout speed, I just believed that was more to do with autofocus, binning, etc. (anything sensor-level) than with debayer, which was done entirely after readout. Regardless, that was just my ignorant misunderstanding. Ultimately, I'm just trying to figure out a number for matchmoving. Regardless, I contacted Canon directly and got the answer regarding the readout speed on both cameras. Which also contradicts what you wrote, but again, I'm not an expert and I'll ask their sensor tech tomorrow for a clearer explanation of what you mean. I don't want to spread any more misinformation or post any information I shouldn't, either. My apologies again for posting any misinformation. Was just curious if the two cameras have the same amount of rolling shutter or not.

That's exactly what I'm curious about. The C300 mk II has a 120hz sensor (confirmed by canon) which would equate to 8.3ms of rolling shutter. I don't believe either camera has processing to account for rolling shutter. Usually when I enter a rolling shutter figure for skew correction or motion matching purposes, I go with the official number from the camera manufacturer. I haven't yet match moved C200 footage. With Alexa footage I don't even bother to enter anything it just works fine assuming no rolling shutter. It seems the C200 has 16.7ms of rolling shutter (which would equate to 60hz readout). And I'm wondering if this is consistent between it and the C300 Mk II, since I believe Canon specified 8.3ms, or perhaps they just meant a dual 60hz/120hz readout like the previous generation had. That's all. I can live with 16.7ms of rolling shutter, even if the UMP2 looks pretty awesome, I'm just curious what Ed's findings are and whether this is the correct figure for match moving purposes. (Which I doubt I'll do a lot of with this camera anyway, to be fair, but it could influence my rental choice/recommendations in the future.)

I looked it over, it's just that it contradicts the official number for the C300 Mk II, which I thought had the same/similar sensor, and there's no number for it to compare with. So I'm wondering if it's a difference between the two cameras in terms of skew, or if it's a dual read out mode as with the original C300 sensor, which had a 16.7ms and 8.3ms read out mode. For my purposes 16.7ms of skew can be an issue, though I agree it's visually minor. Rarely at 24fps is it even visible but at 60p conformed to 24p it's quite visible and I do match moving, which can be seriously troubled by rolling shutter, even barely visible rolling shutter. Part of the reason I'm curious about this is to enter the correct figure for match moving purposes, though mostly curiosity. I'm not disputing this, just curious what Ed's findings are. The sensor readout is sensor-level, though, I believe, not processing. I got to play around with the C700 at Canon Burbank... it is a beast and on a wholly different level I agree. Really just curious if these two cameras have the same amount of skew or if the C300 Mk II has half as much. Information online indicates half as much, but difficult to get the comparison from a consistent source so I was hoping Ed could chime in.

I can understand that. Have you noticed any difference with the skew in practice? I'd always been confused about this and saw this as a good opportunity to clear things up. I'd believe either number, though neither completely makes sense to me.

I'm not saying that those results are wrong, just that the C300 Mk II has 8.3ms of rolling shutter so it's interesting that the C200 apparently has twice that. I haven't had the chance to put them side-by-side, so I'm curious given that they apparently use a similar sensor (well, the C200 apparently has a C700 sensor, which is even weirder). I figured this was an opportunity to see just how different the rolling shutter is. Also do you know where the results are coming from? I remember reading the Cinema5D methodology was flawed, but I believe someone else came up with a more conclusive test. I'd believe either number, though the C200 seems to have less skew than the C100 to me... but a LOT more than the Alexa, so perhaps it's the same, but just heavier/steadier, hence less wobbly. In that case, it's a big win for the C300 Mk II. 16.7ms (close enough to 16.1) would make sense. It's a 60p camera and that would indicate a 60hz sensor, I think. Then again, the C300 Mk II is a 30p camera but it has a 120hz sensor (confirmed by Canon).

Did you notice any difference in skew? On dvxuser I think someone mentioned the C300 Mk II has 8.3ms of rolling shutter and the C200 has 16.7ms (same as the original C300, I believe). Not that I trust everything I read online, but it's enough to make me curious. Please share your conclusions!

Will machine learning algorithms replace forum members? (J/k, based on some of the spam bots they already are.) Anyone know a good vfx forum? Thinking of downloading the PLE version of Nuke but wouldn't know where to start with a node-based compositor... I welcome machine learning for vfx. Adobe has the right idea targeting rotoscoping and paint out first. When machine learning makes Twin Peaks I'll be fine submitting to the machine master race, but for now roto would be nice. I suspect ten years from now I'll have one but not the other. We'll see!

Thank you, I'd never totally understood this until you explained it so well. What is preventing video and stills cameras from similarly expanding their dynamic range? I suppose it's the limitations of the ADC rather than how the signal is quantized? In a way, it sounds like F6 is doing exactly what the Alexa is doing except for audio: using two ADC stages, merging them, then quantizing and representing the data in a logarithmic rather than linear representation? Is float roughly analogous to log?

Have you considered the 50mm STM? (EF, not FD.) It's... not that bad.

https://vimeo.com/oldfastglass Interesting link but I'm sure you've seen it.

Not directly! I just remember finding the Samyangs clinical and having a bit of the character I didn't like in the RPP and CP2s. Nothing terrible. It also might just be that Manchester by the Sea is shot really well, but I also like the look in your video and others. It would be interesting to see. I'm sure the Xeens have the better performance for the money. There are still probably steals out there. The Leonetti Super Speeds and Sony PLs seem like killer deals, but they lack the brand recognition. I wish there were an old 18mm f2 or f1.4 from Nikon or Canon and I could just put together a stills lens set. Nikons were used a lot for Vista Vision, they aren't bad. The Olympus 21mm f2 is pretty intriguing.

To do a friend a favor or get a foot in the door. There's an interesting story I heard, not sure if it's true, about this guy who shot a (for charity) calendar with all these A-list celebrities and he did it for free, at a loss. Now he has a portfolio of high end photos with Justin Bieber, etc. That guy was making a shitload of money the next year. If you're not a professional yet, there's market for lower budget stuff, and sometimes that goes somewhere. I see a lot of AFI grads taking this path rather than going to AC to operator or whatever. It is not an easy path. I personally work cheap for friends, sort of a barter economy thing with a little cash thrown in. I will almost always work cheap if I'm doing something I'm not quite professional level at. This has gone wrong at times though. That said, it's a great question. Full rate jobs are almost always easier than low rate ones because EVERYONE ELSE is doing a good job, making your job easier (if you're semi-competent). You make an extremely good point and anyone who's a working freelancer would do well to take your advice. There are reasons to take low pay work, but competing on the basis of being the cheapest will just make you successful at being the cheapest. Nothing to aspire to imo.