HockeyFan12

CanJam socal. I think spots are filled up this year for the HE-1 demo, but they should have them next year I'm guessing. (Plus nearly every other high end headphone.) I hope I don't like any of them too much! I'll let you know how I like them. I love the vintage normal bias lambdas. Haven't tried the signature but I bet I'd love them too (or even if not then it's just a matter of taste). I find the modern lambdas a bit more sibilant, and I like the Koss a lot, more than the lambdas I've tried by a bit but not much better than the best of them. I think the Stax Omega 2 would be my favorite but it is too expensive for me by quite a bit.

Tomorrow in DTLA there's going to be an event with every headphone you can imagine, but I think it's $20 at the door. Not too bad a drive from Hollywood, either. Where I'm going to try the HE-1.

The difference is virtually unnoticeable from what I understand and is completely, wildly overshadowed by model-to-model differences. Many of the best headphones are around 50ohm I think. I have heard that within the same model, the 32ohm Beyerdynamics might be the weaker performers, a little less refined but again, maybe a 5% difference at most. It's nothing to worry about except that you won't drive your HD800s that loudly out of your MacBook and will want an amp.

I believe it's mostly that more higher ohm headphones can be plugged into one console so studio headphones (HD600) are higher impedance. In practice, lower impedance headphones are usually louder. High impedance headphones driven by a high output impedance source that's very powerful might be a bit more controlled than lower impedance ones, too, I think, but it really doesn't matter from what I understand, and they are usually harder to drive.

I've tried all that but am struggling mightily to find an EQ that works. The tube amp/electrostat combo is quite satisfying for me, though everyone I've demoed it for prefers bass-heavy heaphones, be they Sennheiser, AKG, or Beats. I agree the Koss are bass-light, but less so than lambdas. I have actually noticed the greatest user satisfaction with Beats. I use Spotify premium on a Mac and there's no software EQ. The third party EQ software I've tried isn't compatible with a USB DAC on the Mac, only the built in sound card. I've taken a look at frequency response plots for various headphones (and yes, tried multiple lambas and know they vary a lot). I know I like like my Koss ESP950 more than I like most Lambdas, but in comparing the frequency response curve to the notoriously dark Omega 2s (007) you can zoom in on the bass (not so much sub-bass, which seems more seal-dependent) region and see an emphasis there that runs counter to Koss's mid-centric frequency response. If I had the money, I would simply get the O2s and a top of the line tube amp (IMO electrostats need some tubiness to thicken them up), but that would run nearly $10,000 and, as I said, I didn't ask for this hobby, just listenable pleasing music. Some days I wish I shared the taste of those who are happy with Beats, but I was cursed with a particular weird preference (thick warm bass, even slightly distorted with even order distortion from a tube amp, and infinitely detailed transparent mids without any treble sibilance). What EQ do you use? I have had no luck with EQs (as above, they are not compatible with USB DACs, also I notice digital bass distortion immediately if I boost it even 1db). I could switch to Apple Music to get the iTunes EQ or buy a cheap DAC or hardware EQ with bass boost, but I quite love my (relatively high performing) DAC. I am going to try the AKGs. I've heard so many raves about them. It would be nice to sell all this gear and just have one thing I liked lol, particularly something less expensive than my current multi-thousand-dollar rig. What Stax do you currently use and like? The Koss are so close to perfect but I suppose they are not quite top of the line, but they do punch above their class imo, just beautiful mids without a hint of sibilance.

If I had some good headphones I could. Some tracks do sound good on one or the other. Neil Young is great on electrostats, though Stax Lambdas are far too screechy for anything. Basshead tracks sound pretty good through Sennheisers. I listen to music for about four or five hours a day, always through headphones or IEMs, so while I had no intention of getting into headphones as a hobby, I do want good ones. This is for listening, not mixing, though. For mixing (on set especially) I say get the 7506s. They sound bad but they are even across the vocal range, good monitors for on set monitoring and good for post, too, to check a mix back or do an amateur mix.

I'll see if I can give them a try this weekend and look out for the K240, but it's cheap enough I could just buy it and give it away if I don't like it (as I did the HD598s, dreadfully boring headphones, unlistenable). I'm trying the HE-1, which I hear good things about, but can't afford, and hoping to finally try the HD800, which I suspect will be too bright and clinical for my taste. And I'm aware about the source, I have thousands of dollars in DAC and amp gear already and am buying even more today, my second tube amp. I have like four or five amps and two DACs still can't get everything just right. Hoping to sell everything except one pair for work (closed), one for the workstation (open), one for the vfx pc (cheap back ups), and some IEMs. I have an Apogee One at work, too, but a custom DAC/amp set up at home. I actually find the sound quality coming from both my 5k iMac at work and 2016 retina MacBook Pro to be as good as many USB DACs, not far from the Apogee and only lacking with high impedance headphones that require some real meat and a high output impedance source to fully drive them (Sennheiser and Beyer). That said, I do not have terribly discriminating ears, but to my ears the newer 2016 Macs are quite good! My headphones at work are DT1350 Beyderdynamic and they sound pretty good just out of the computer. Still can't find the sound I like though lol. Koss ESP950 through dual Wolfson DAC with a tube amp is the closest but bass is for shit. Stax sounds like a screaming banshee; Sennheiser like listening through ten layers of felt. I suspect the Stax Omega 2 (a bass heavy electrostat) driven through a massive amp would fit the bill, but it's again not affordable. It requires a $5000 amp to really drive it well.

Yeah good idea. I have yet to hear anything other than electrostatics with enough detail for my taste and I have two pairs of mid-range electros. But electrostatics lack sub bass. The planars might be a good way to split the difference. I do not share your preferences (audio is more subjective than video imo, as ears are shaped very differently and measurements harder to reconcile with subjective experience so this is not a critique but simply my preference) but I do agree the HD600 series is too veiled if otherwise excellent.

What AKG model do you recommend starting with? I'm dissatisfied with my current headphones, would love to sell them all and get something that does it all well. I haven't used AKG much but I'm dissatisfied with headphones from the ranges I'm most familiar with so anything that good I'll welcome. I find Stax far too etched in the treble region, sounds like a Grado on crack, very good for a demo but too fatiguing for me. Grado is the same but without the technical proficiency. Sennheiser too veiled. Beyerdynamic has a bumpy frequency response, even the Tesla models a bit less than coherent overall even if they're very impressive generally. I do like the sound okay from them in terms of signature. Never used a Sony I liked at all for listening. Currently using the Koss ESP-950 electrostatic headphones through a high end DAC and tube amp and while I find them preferable to any Stax (I haven't tried the 007 or 009 yet, to be fair) the bass is severely rolled off below 100 hz and electrostatic headphones in general lack the slam I want. But I find the detail and separation to be very good, and so they are still my preference over dynamics. (If you have not tried the Koss and you like electrostatic detail without the "hi fi" treble-heavy sound signature, you should, I would vouch for it over the Stax. However it lacks the bass slam I prefer, as do lambdas.) I'm looking for something with bass and sub bass resembling a planar or dynamic with just enough thickness and distortion and slam, but with the detail and transparency of an electrostatic minus any tizz or etched treble. Would the K240 be a good starting point or am I looking at something higher end? I am at wits end I spent thousands on headphones but have never been satisfied but you and a coworker have both recommended the AKG so I think perhaps my search is over and I can sell all this nonsense once and for all.

Looks great! I prefer the desaturated/natural look, more cinematic if less immediately attention-grabbing.

A friend of mine has both, I think. The K702 is quite good for listening to music, especially EDM etc. however it's open and doesn't fold up so it's inappropriate for field use. Mildly sibilant highs slightly and punchy bass but overall just excellent. The M50 by comparison is relatively a monitor (more accurate, closed back) but it still sounds good, better than the Sonys for music listening. But if everyone else is using 7506 for monitoring, imo it makes sense to do the same imo. The hi fi trend does not necessarily overlap with what are commonly used as monitors. The 7506 is a good monitor as it's the industry standard. I believe the HD600 and HD650 are used, too. But the hi fi stuff might work for monitoring, too. Of course, in theory you want speakers for your final mix. For listening, I switch between Stax, an HD650, and the Koss ESP-950. I find the Koss has the best sound for everything but bass-heavy music. For mixing, I hire someone else to do it.

There's a lot of misinformation on this topic. Flat frequency response vs Harman curve etc. The industry standard is the Sony MDR-7506. It's what everyone is using. Order from a legit distributor, there are lots and lots of fakes. It's what your clients will probably be using (if you're sound mixing for video editors). Imo, these headphones don't sound particularly good, but they are flat in the crucial vocal range and they are what everyone uses. The Sennheiser HD280 is similar. Not too detailed (compared with hi fi) and not too sonorous. But pretty accurate and isolating. Either model is ideal for on set sound mixers. And the Sonys are the industry standard for post, but both work. In theory, you should use speakers. In practice, it isn't always possible. For headphones, I like the HD650s for working in post, but they're sweeter, more colored, more hi fi so probably not what you want.

If you're shooting in V Log definitely shoot 10bit. 8 bit is (generally) enough for (small gamut) display, but if you plan to grade or do any vfx, 10 bit capture can make a big difference because you'll be stretching the image before it's displayed. If you don't plan to grade the footage at all or color correct at all, 8 bit is fine, but that means limiting yourself to not even fixing the exposure. Given the option, I'd choose 10 bit every time (and I wouldn't choose 4k or RAW most of the time, so in terms of priority it's pretty high). 8 bit is the minimum that works as a display standard, but the capture standard must be bigger. Film has 14+ stops of dynamic range. Most images use 8-10 of them at most. Capture and display are different things. I hear the GH5 is amazing! Hope it goes well either way. If you're not shooting log, either should be good but I would still shoot 10 bit. Fwiw, I work on 8 bit displays often but 99% of the time I render in 16 bit and the majority of the footage I work with is 10 bit or more color. The display is your limiting factor only after grading... in the grade, you will see far more detail in the 10 bit image as soon as you make an adjustment or introduce a transform LUT. Even on an 8 bit display.

Have fun! Should be great. Shooting 16mm was always my favorite and it seems like a similar approach here, too! I work in post so I'm super lazy about workflow stuff, even though my needs are pretty similar to yours. I don't want to do what I do for work free unless I have a good reason to. So I'm not dipping my toes back in the magic lantern waters, but they sure do look more inviting than ever.

Apples and oranges. It sounds like you envy the efficiency and technical acumen of those on this board who are shooting art in 4k for cheap when you're stuck meeting corporate demands at 1080p. I work a lot on low budget national ads (I'm assuming they cost just under $250k/day per day on set, as that's about average) and even with big budgets for 30 second spots they lack the budget to shoot 4k and certainly to finish in 4k... because the infrastructure is "too big" to be a guy in a room doing all the post, but "too small" to be technicolor or light iron (which do most of the finishing post on the 4k stuff I work on). So yeah, I hear 4k and I run for the hills generally, and usually turn 4k gigs down unless there's a lot of extra money. But... presumably most people here are working for smaller companies who can build their entire infrastructure around being a boutique 4k house, or it's just one guy or girl with enthusiasm for image quality out shooting art films. Imo, upgrading the infrastructure for network tv to go 4k won't happen any time soon, it's too expensive to replace that many moving parts and they just did it for HD. But smaller leaner companies like YouTube and Netflix are already all in. And individuals have been there for a while–smart phones shoot 4k, and some even display it. Having millions of dollars and A list talent is a luxury I'd love to have. But not having it is liberating in its own way. When you're small enough, you have more flexibility in choosing your priorities. Personally, I would never shoot a project–not a short, and certainly not a feature–in 4k or RAW unless I had an unlimited budget and certainly not on a test bed hacked camera like this, but that won't stop those more ambitious and smarter than I am from creating great art without spending big bucks.

Nope. Red's claims are total bullshit and a joke within the industry and privately a joke even within the ACES technical board. (Oops, shouldn't have said that, but also whatever. Red is the only manufacturer who won't volunteer its chromasticities and matrix settings, because they know they don't know what they're doing, except maybe they know they place the red and green chromasticities too close and are ashamed of their ruddy color.) I work with Red footage or Alexa footage every day (well, five days a week) and have even shot extensively with both. Red is completely full of shit. (My job is working on network tv series, all shot on Alexa, and occasional series for Netflix, etc. shot on Red because they require 4k through the F55 and Varicam are the new hot systems for good reason, they are very good if you need 4k.) Red has a good camera but it has so much less DR than the Alexa and even less than the F55. It still has a lot, but the emperor's clothes are sheer af. The Dragon improved in the highlights while taking a hit in shadow noise. And all Red cameras suffer terribly under tungsten light in terms of color rendering and noise. If you believe their claims, the joke's on you when you rent one and either immediately discover it's bs or remain in denial of the above and blame yourself. On the other hand, if you dismiss Red because they distort the facts and you need a knife to cut through the bs, you miss out on a potentially good system, especially for the money. I'm not saying it's a bad camera, just that it's a joke of a claim. Their reality distortion field got them far, but it won't get you far unless you accept it and work within its limits (or have millions to drop on post). The Dragon has 13 stops of DR at best. And it has poor differentiation between red and green color. And the UI sucks. But... otherwise it's kind of really good. THAT SAID, 18 stops with HDRx I can totally believe and I apologize if I offended you because it sounds like that was what you were referring to now that I'm reading your comment again. But that's still like saying 20 stops for the F65... when it's two cameras and a prism. Sure, it can be accomplished, but in practice it's not viable 95% of the time

Lolololol at Red Dragon's claim of 18 stops. It's a great camera in many ways, but Red's gonna lose its credibility stretching the facts that far and Red needs to learn humility before the industry teaches it. Then again it's always been a high end enthusiast camera and that market couldn't care less for facts. Remember, those are "claimed" figures. Red publicly claims (again, lolololol) 18 stops. Arri claims 14+.* And... someone online claimed 8.7 for the 5D. Because Canon certainly didn't say anything. And yet.... 8.7 stops sounds totally accurate! If a bit low. I would guess a little better, maybe they used Standard and not Neutral with contrast turned down. (I'd personally guess 9 or at best 10 stops with a flat setting, but I'd expect banding then, man does that codec suck.) Most of the rest of the claims seem slightly inflated. But Arri's is very very conservative, as is Kodak's. But in RAW, I'd give the 5D mark III a guesstimate of 10.5-11.5 stops of DR at 5600k at 9.5-10.5 at 3200K. That's great. At 1080p, Magic Lantern RAW competes well with the C300. At 4k, it might still lack in DR just a bit... but overall it should easily trounce even the formidable the Epic MX and everything but the Alexa for color. Basically, C500 image quality but a little softer, less clean, and probably more "cinematic." For pure IQ, it should be untouchable at ten times the price. But the workflow isn't worth it for me personally. But yeah, I'm expecting just below C500 for quality and just above it for aesthetics. In conclusion, this is a pretty good list... of bullshit. Then again, it specifies "claimed" and to that extent it seems perfectly accurate, if perfectly useless. *Secretly and internally Arri now claims 15+ with an emphasis on + for latest gen Alexas, but doesn't want to raise a stink that would anger early adopters.

Wow. Only the Alexa has an image with substantially more dynamic range than the 5D RAW (11.5 stops sounds right, same as the MX, 12 stops on the CX00, 13-14 on the C300 Mk II, F55, F65 Dragon, etc., 15+ on the Alexa and Red's HDRx) and this also beats film before Vision 2 and the DI. The color and resolution and tonality should be great, too, and that's not the case with most cameras. If reliable enough to use seriously, the image should be in the same class as the absolute best of the best and in a tiny body. And 2X stretch anamorphic on this... holy shit. For those willing to put in the work you will be rewarded. You will have no more excuses (from a camera perspective, excepting maybe reliability) for not producing world class imagery. Imo this will surpass the MX-line of Reds for subjective quality out of the box; the red/green chromasticities are too close on the MX–even on the Dragon imo–you will get richer color here and the same DR. There's still no way the 5D IV rumor is true. But this is a nice consolation prize

Certainly not a company as traditional and backward-looking as Canon, which has never before released any product that shoots video at a non-standard resolution (or frame rate). For one, the specs are far too detailed to be a leak. Leaks usually start with marketing or third parties, not with engineers. We don't even have this much information on how any previous Canon dSLRs produces video, and Canon engineers have denied line skipping in the past (tip toed around it with verbal obfuscation) so why would they admit to using it here and why would an engineer leak anything in this much detail, and if they did, why would so much be blatantly wrong or unconfirmed? Maybe it's someone whose uncle is an engineer? Those listed are two flavors of the codec (which is spelled wrong in the description) that don't currently exist, and the Digic 6+ chip doesn't have an onboard XF-AVC (or whatever) encoder, which is why you get the kludgy codec with the 1DC and 1DX Mk II and the good codecs with the XC10 (using the Digic DV 5 chip, which does have the encoder). The rest just reeks of someone doing some math in his bedroom without really thinking it through. There's not enough throughput to push all those pixels, nor power on the chip to debayer them. There's something called Occam's duct tape. It's the line of reasoning that most people refer to when supporting conspiracy theories, where all the strings tie together in such a knot that no one could have invented it. Except they did. Just because there's a lot of information, doesn't mean any of it is right. See: pizza gate, Alex Jones, etc. I could be wrong. I have no inside information about any of this and if this were true it would be great. But this is the most unlikely rumor I've read in a long, long time. And I agree with what others have written, if you don't like Canon, get something you do like! There's a ton of stuff out there and everyone has different priorities. (Personally I like Arri and Canon so I wouldn't mind if this rumor were true.)

None of this is real. These specs are completely (and obviously) made up; there are so many problems with them. Guys, this isn't happening.

IMO that's about equally likely. (As in, 0% chance.) I expect it's going to be a Canon Log gamma setting and no other changes, but I don't have any insider information. I am very confident, however, that the specs quoted above are complete nonsense. The DIGIC 6+ doesn't even have XF-AVC hardware encoding support.

None of this is accurate.

Yeah that's literally a list of everything that pro cameras don't have available because it's excessive or unnecessary (the Alexa, for instance, has no in-body or OIS stabilization available, no autofocus, and no true 4k, and is poor in low light relative to consumer cameras) and then things that only the highest end cameras have (a lack of rolling shutter, great slow motion, great color). The F55 I think is the closest thing to what you're asking for. (And perhaps appropriately I'm currently doing a lot of vfx work with the F55–it holds up! But I'm doing it on lower end stuff with very basic vfx, nothing like what you're doing which is more advanced.) You will not get smooth footage without camera support. Maybe you don't need a gimbal. But a doorway dolly or skateboard dolly or slider could be nice? Slow motion can mitigate this to some extent but if the move is handheld it will look handheld. A balanced rig or good OIS will smooth the motion so it doesn't look as rough, but if you want it to look like a dolly use a dolly. If you want it to look like a steadicam, use a steadicam. As for focus, I would hire an AC and be very careful about hitting your marks or just have a friend volunteer to AC for you. Measure, place marks, have your AC hit your marks as your talent and operator do, never focus through the loupe or monitor and never with autofocus. Out of focus footage is the camera department's fault, not the camera's. Rolling shutter is the camera's fault and can be a big issue with match moving and yet that's something consumer cameras struggle with tremendously. So that's another reason to keep your moves slow as to mitigate it, also easier to nail focus that way. I'd wait until NAB but I think the F55 is the closest thing to what you're looking for and it's ten times the price. The Sony A7S fwiw has dreadful rolling shutter and some color issues. I would not use that for match moving despite the slow motion and low light abilities. It might be worth getting an inexpensive b camera specifically for slow motion. The GH5 also might offer a lot of what you want, but nothing at the price will offer everything you want and autofocus is garbage for cinematic content anyway, better for docs and ENG.

I think this is some sort of meme that hasn't migrated to my corner of the world yet. :/