HockeyFan12

Yeah, stops under seems to be more subjective than stops over. Until you look at how Red suffers from loss of color in the highlights (they all look gray) or the C300 Mk II saturates yellow too much in the highlights... or SLOG 2 highlights are a neon mess.... but for me highlight dynamic range is still much more important. Both the Fuji and Nikon seem to have similar performance to the A7S in terms of dynamic range, though, I think? Like full on cinema camera level. Pretty crazy.

I agree. I think the C100 has +5.3 for highlight detail. That's the official number. It looks pretty good exposed at base ISO, but most people seem to overexpose with it. AVCHD muddies up the shadows so I get why. I agree that the A7S has more dynamic range overall, but I'm not 100% sure since I never put them side by side. I think the Alexa really might be 14-15 stops total but the shadows are so noisy you can’t push them far. So you can see the detail there very faintly, but it’s not really detail you can recover, at least without denoising or something. So it’s tough to know what the real number is. The detail might really be there in the shadows, but if boosting the exposure makes the image too muddy to use, how much does it count? That’s why I think stops over 18% gray at base ISO is a more useful measure. Since it's more obvious when highlights are clipping. Not so obvious where the noise floor is exactly. And generally base ISO is where the image looks good and where most people shoot. (Except imo SLOG 2 looks much better overexposed by a stop, so that complicates things.) In terms of highlight detail, the Alexa is still way ahead, yeah. Next best is Varicam at +6.5 I think. But you rarely need that much anyway. The A7S has a lot of highlight detail, though, especially if you're good at working with SLOG 2, which I'm not.

It's closer than you'd think. I've compared the Alexa and the A7S. If you properly expose an A7S at 3200 ISO in SLOG 2 (base ISO on the A7S; haven't used the A7III, but I suspect it's similar) and expose the same scene at 800 ISO on an Alexa (its base ISO, so open up two stops), the Alexa should have 1.4-1.8 more stops of highlight detail. I believe the Alexa has an over of +7.4 at base ISO or +7.8 maybe depending on what model it is (original vs Mini or Amira or something, or maybe it depends on firmware but Arri quotes different numbers) and the A7S I think has an over of +6 at base ISO (3200 ISO) in SLOG 2. Not 100% sure of this but it's what I found online and it correlates with what I've seen pretty well. On the other hand, I think SLOG 3 looks better than SLOG 2 because its base ISO is pulled to 1600 (or something, I'm not as technical as I used to be), and as a result it clips one stop sooner but looks cleaner. If you expose the A7S at 3200 ISO with an incident meter the image will look super underexposed, and that's how it gets that excellent highlight detail. Not sure about HLG, but I suspect it clips sooner, too, and has better tonality. The best image I've seen out of the A7S was SLOG 2 pulled two stops on a Q7+ external recorder, so it had +4 but was incredibly clean. Regardless, even +4 is good for mirrorless. +6 is good for a cinema camera. +7.8 is ridiculous. I don't like SLOG 2 at all, and I don't like how it clips aesthetically (especially how colors clip), but it does offer good highlight detail. I'm excited for the A7S III and would love to rent one and shoot in zero light with one of those f0.95 lenses. I just hope they address skew and how colors clip and offer a 10 bit option, that would be an amazing camera. Disclaimer: this stuff is changing so fast I'm sure I'm getting details wrong and am in over my head. But the A7 cameras, exposed properly at base ISO in SLOG 2, have very good highlight detail... but they look better overexposed IMO so maybe it's irrelevant. Regardless, the Alexa is still in a whole different league, but you also can't carry one around with you easily.

That's pretty great. 120fps is, too (and of course requires that speed rs). Really impressive camera!

In my experience, the Foveon sensors have out of this world detail. At small print sizes probably sharper than medium format. I mean amazing amazing detail. But the color rendering is very thin with heavy metamerism error. Some love the look. Some don't. Really have a love/hate relationship with the Foveon sensor. I'm guessing the Fuji has much better color performance, but it doesn't have the incredible crispness nor the unique look.

Based on what I read in my ten minutes trawling dpreview, Sony has already been (way) ahead of Canon in video autofocus for quite a while, but DPAF has more hype behind it. I have no idea whether or not this is actually true. Regardless, I've used DPAF a fair amount. The video above isn't enough to draw conclusions from, but if it is representative of what Sony is doing, it's well ahead of DPAF's current state.

Nyrius pro is really good. The older model of it. I had one but sold it and was really impressed. Sort of a pain to power it though.

Thanks, I'll hold off. Just curious at this point mostly.

Is there anyting like this except one receiver works with 2-3 different transmitters? I know dual system sound is the better option, but a boom to one XLR and a set of lavs to the other seems useful for low end YouTube stuff, sketches, specs, etc. Does such a solution exist? Lavs seem less useful when you can only use one at a time.... and most small cameras are limited to 1-2 XLR inputs.

Thanks everyone. The YouTube footage doesn't look very good to me, and that's too big a rig to carry around and looks hard to balance. I think I'll stick with handheld for shooting inserts and stuff. That might be the best option for me. I'm not sure how good the autofocus is, but if it were more affordable and the autofocus were any good that would be pretty amazing. Yeah, agreed. For this project I'll just stick to handheld, and I agree the above rig is too unwieldy to be practical, but I don't think a Ronin- M (which seems to stabilize better) is quite portable enough.

Good point! Ideally, Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. But Canon pancakes are an option, too. I don't even think I could fit it on a Ronin-M with the Sigma, that lens is heavy.

The Ronin-M is just so... big. Anyone tried either of these combinations out? For geurilla-style single operator work. I'm shooting a spec ad now with a C200 handheld and I like the raw image (not crazy about the price or anything to do with the 8 bit options, which would be fine at half the price) but it could be steadier. I can't fit a Ronin-M, C200, and lenses in a backpack. I'd like something I could fit in a backpack and balance quickly.

Incredible.

I've heard really good things, but I haven't used it.

I've only shot a bit with the Alexa, but I doubt simple Log C conversions do it justice. The tonality is so good. It's so smooth. It's noisy, but it's nice looking noise. Highlight detail forever. Its big flaw is it's a little boring. Never used the FS5. Just the F5 and some post work with F55 raw. I wrote poorly of the C200's 8 bit image earlier but I do like the raw footage on it, just not the lack of timecode sync and proper monitoring options. If you're only after image quality and like C100 ergonomics and are mostly doing your own post and can put up with its limitations it's worth considering once the price drops. It's just... expensive. And as I mentioned I find Canon Log 2 frustrating to work with. I can send some over if you're curious. Just shot a bit with one. I wish I had an 85mm f1.4. How is it? I can totally see having like a million little secondaries to relight an ugly shot, but generally this rings true to me.

I would agree completely, especially about Log C, but I don't want to write cameras off until I have used them more. For instance, I thought the F5 was bad when I first shot with it in SLOG 2, but then I worked with an experienced DP who exposed better and shot a Kodak emulation LUT with it and the footage looked good. Likewise, I dislike Canon Log 2, which is a surprise since you'd think it's a copy of Log C from looking at it. But it's not as good. It's flatter and thinner. But I generated a Canon Log 2 to Alexa conversion LUT and used a Log C to rec709 LUT on top of that and suddenly it looks fine to me. I think this kind of thing leads to a bias where people just like what they're used to or what appeals to their personality. I am sort of an Arri/Canon fanboy and maybe it's just because they focus on ease of use. On the opposite end are people who seem to enjoy seeing how far they can push things. I'll never understand some of the more arcane Resolve workflows. It's like a complicated solution in search of a problem. But it's just not for me.

This is the most basic and oldest color grading textbook I can think of. I must have read it six years ago. But I found it more useful than online tutorials, because of its broader focus: https://www.amazon.com/Color-Correction-Handbook-Professional-Techniques/dp/0321929667/ref=asc_df_0321929667/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312091457223&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14846167971322217554&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001876&hvtargid=pla-524043500801&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=62820903995&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312091457223&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14846167971322217554&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001876&hvtargid=pla-524043500801 I know many people here claim camera doesn't matter much if you can grade really well, but I readily admit I can't. So for me I think camera matters more. And I think there are things you can do with LUTs that are difficult to do without them. Light Iron and CO3 both have proprietary LUTs. That's the smaller part of what makes those places as good as they are, and they work they do really is fantastic. But I think it's still a factor. Anyhow, I highly recommend the book.

I had a C200 on hand today and the light was nice so I attempted to shoot a dynamic range stress test in raw light. The camera held highlights well imo, but not as well as an Alexa by any means. Noticeably better than a C300 or dSLR though. Maybe on par with a newer mirrorless camera, or even slightly better.

I think like most things, it's as simple as you make it. I've worked with really good artists who do complicated things, but when I try to make it complicated, I usually screw it up. . Imo Gall's Law applies more obviously to color grading than it does to most anything else, but that doesn't mean there aren't complex systems that work.

I don't think the grade or how the footage is shot represent either camera well, but the technical aspects in terms of sharpness seem about right, although I think those clips are from .mp4 files, which are not as sharp as raw. I find this video more representative, though: But I don't like the +5 sharpening here, either. Anything above 0 looks "digital" to me. Regardless, both cameras are plenty sharp. Super sharp 1080p (sharper than the Alexa's 1080p) vs average 4k. But the difference between the two isn't great. The C100 oversamples in a way that achieves nearly 100 mtf. Bayer's mtf as sampled in the C200 drops to zero at around 70% linear resolution I believe. So at best the C200 has "twice" as much resolution in UHD as the the C100 has at 1080p, not four times as you'd expect by counting pixels. If the C200 had an 8k sensor, that would be another story. There are other differences, however: I prefer the C100's color and its noise pattern, and significantly. But the C200 has much less skew and much better dynamic range. There are major workflow and ergonomic differences. And if your client is demanding 4k footage acquired in 4k, well, only one of the two delivers on that.

It depends on the camera and camera settings (and what look you like) but imo diffusion filters are a key missing ingredient toward a more "organic" look, if that's what you're after. They add an extra layer beyond even using vintage lenses, and imo it's worth combining the two if you want a "cinematic" look rather than a technical one. I think @Zach Goodwin2 proselytized extensively about them, and while I think he was using stronger grades perhaps than I settled on (don't really remember), I agree they have great value. That said, most on this forum seem inclined toward sharpening video and generally going for a sharper image than I prefer personally. So it is a matter of taste. I like the Alexa, which is quite soft, and I really like the look of 16mm and late-90s films shot by Richardson and Kaminski, which make heavy use of promist, classic soft, and nets. I think JFK is a beautiful movie. (And the Alexa is a weird camera. I'm convinced it has an optical diffusion filter in front of the OLPF similar to Tiffen digital diffusion but that the pipeline also applies a slight wide-radius unsharp mask. Which isn't crazy. Film's modulation transfer function curve can exceed 100% mtf and then it drops off to extinction more slowly than digital; so this approach could emulate that. And give the "3d" look people talk about while still making skin smooth. But this is conjecture.) The issue with black promist (also with classic softs and Hollywood black magic) is that you can see "speckles" in the bokeh, which may or may not be desirable, and at very deep stops sometimes the black dots that mitigate the promist's natural halation come into focus. (Also you need a matte box if you want to use a 4x4 filter, so screw on filters might make more sense depending on if you want to keep your rig small... but 1/4 BPM has a good look. Surprisingly strong, though.) I find these tests interesting: Particularly the latter. It's amazing how close the C300 with 1/4 to 1/2 digital diffusion looks to the Alexa. Imo it's a big improvement, however subtle.

.

I've never used the 28mm Canon. I have a Nikon set so I kept it all Nikon just for consistency, maybe so they all focus the same direction. The 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2, both of which I've owned but neither of which I own now, are fantastic if you like that soft wide open but sharp stopped down character of the 24mm. The 50mm f1.2 is really really great. I don't care for that focal length, either, at least in the context of video. On the C700 FF or something, I think that might end up being my favorite lens, though. The difference in depth of field and light gathering is really major between f2 and f1.2 and it has great rendering and is perhaps the sharpest Nikon 50mm stopped down. I sort of wish I went 24 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.4, 135 f2, but it doesn't really matter that much. I think camera placement matters more than shot scale, or it should be thought of first, but I don't necessarily think that means you need to rely entirely on one lens. Maybe you need a binocular POV and then what do you do if you only have a 28mm? But that's interesting, still. If you can get away with it, it seems like a cool idea, just not right for every project. I think Polanski also had a wider lens just in case he needed to show more on screen, but I remember reading he relied almost entirely on one focal length for some of his films. I think camera placement and blocking are underrated skills, and he certainly put care into that.

Yeah, messy can be good but then it's subjective. Cooke S3s must be the messiest lenses I've used, also probably the nicest "look." They have a lot of vignetting, flare, distortion, soft corners, soap bubble bokeh, cat's eye bokeh, etc. But they look amazing and are sharp in the center. I think 4k cameras and sharp 1080p cameras benefit from that. A 5D might not. I think in ten years, more and more cameras will be full frame, and the f2 and faster Nikkors will be a good set to have. They were used a lot for vistavision photography, they hold their own and look good but lack fast wide angle options for Super35. I was surprised to find that while the STM Canon zooms feel a bit flat by comparison to the Nikkors, despite better technical performance, Sigma's 18-35mm is both modern and really nice. If you're shooting crop and not looking for a vintage look, it's a great deal. The 85mm f2 is a very good lens. The 85mm f1.8 has more character, but the single coated version flares perhaps too much. The 105mm is super sharp, really great, and then the 135mm is great, sharp at landscape distances but softer at portrait distances without any real "weirdness" anywhere. The 50mm f1.2 is also highly regarded, extremely sharp stopped down with a similar quality to the 24mm f2 wide open. I bet it looks incredible on FF. The 24mm and 28mm are a bit redundant. I only have both because I have a crop sensor camera. I like 28mm more as a focal length and think it's a sharper lens, but I want something wider sometimes. If you have a FF camera, I don't think you'd necessarily want both, but you might.

I have both... somehow managed to get three or four copies of the 24mm f2 and two 28mm f2s. But sold all but one of each. ? The 28mm is probably better. I think most people would prefer it, at least. I prefer the FOV, too. The 28mm has much higher contrast wide open, while the 24mm has a LOT of spherical aberration wide open. By f2.8 it's pretty similar. The 24mm is similar to the 35mm f1.4 wide open, where it has good resolution but a lot of spherical aberration and coma. Sort of a soft focus effect with little blips around light sources at the edges. The Super Speeds also have this effect wide open, but a lot more coma and a lot less spherical aberration. I far prefer those. I believe the 24mm f2 also has a bit more "nisen bokeh," like an S2 or S3 but not nearly as much or as nice. And it's about as soft as the 24mm f1.4 Rokinon, except the Nikon has character that I like and I much much prefer it, and it's much softer than the 24mm f1.4 Canon. For a "vintage" look it's nice, because it's not so messed up that it looks bad or is out of control or has gross flares like the Red Pro Primes, but it still has some character. The 28mm is already under control at f2, though. Both the 24mm and 28mm Nikkors are far far outperformed technically by the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma, which is a fantastic lens if you want a modern look. There's something really amazing about it.