HockeyFan12

Even the Alexa is this way, if not quite as bad. I think it's just a trade-off with digital.

Do you have any comparisons between 6K HEVC and ProRes raw shot at the same time or side by side? Would be curious to see.

This makes more sense, but old habits die hard. How is the image quality with HEVC? How is the scaling quality? Can you bake in a LUT during transcode?

Been shooting with the S1's new 6K mode. Very good image. I'd like to transcode to either 6k ProRes or 4K UHD ProRes for an entirely online edit (my computer doesn't do so great with 6k, especially HEVC). I notice Adobe and Apple seem to have (I am on a Mac) different ways of interpreting HEVC? Or maybe that has improved? What is the best way to get the best transcoded image without a gamma shift or artifacting? I will be using Creative Suite but considering both Media Encoder and Compressor. Thanks.

+1 for C100, S1, and 5D Mark III raw.... ....depending on your needs and what you want to use it for... I like the C100. 😕 P4K/P6K are also excellent.

Some of the other picture profiles have different dual ISOs. I think 50 ISO for stills and 640 ISO for V LOG are exposing the sensor the same, but the curve that's applied in camera or when developing is very different. I think Red is always exposing at the same ISO (except Gemini), and the ISO you rate it at is how the picture is developed. I wasn't a fan of Red's color but the newer development software looks great to me. I think this is about right. A lot of it must be in-camera processing. The Alexa Plus draws >100 watts and Apple's latest iPhone is nearly as fast as my laptop. With older Reds, you need to develop on your computer because they're not fast enough to process the footage properly I believe. ArriRAW really doesn't look much better than Arri ProRes to me.

I like what I've seen from the C70 a lot so that is discouraging to read. I had a C200 for a minute but the Canon Log 2 image was too flat and the h264 image looked worse than my C100's so I never really warmed up to it. I like reading interviews with Roger Deakins and he has no idea how digital cameras work... but I get it. It's literally just iPhones and Alexas where the workflow is this simple. Log C has pretty good dynamic range to say the least but the default LUT adds a lot of contrast and clipping. So you can just go with that and it looks fine, or you can grade by eye and get some flexibility. But it's relatively simple. It's a little frightening to me that the simplest cameras around are iPhones and Alexa Classics.

$150-$220 USD.

+1 I don't trust everything DXOMark publishes, their measurements indicate better color depth over time... Whereas to my eye the color from my Digital Rebel XT is better than the color from my S1. Anyway it doesn't matter if they're right if I can't see it or make it work. But there are thinner bayer filter dyes apparently and I think it is leading to a "change" in color. Oddly though I felt C300 Mk II was a step down for color from C300 Mk 1, F5 was a step down from F3, etc. but C300 Mk III looks like an improvement and Venice color is excellent, FX6 looks promising too but yet to work with it. So we might be heading back in the right direction.

Yeah, I don't have more than the slightest clue what's going on, but I think V Log 640 ISO is a lower ISO with a big digital push. Anyway the S1 dynamic range (not sure if you own one or not) is excellent. +1 Also worth noting that the default Alexa LUTs Arri and Adobe distribute throw out about as much extra highlight detail as the Alexa has over other cameras. On a standard display you're going to struggle to have a 14 stop image that looks good. I miss t2i neutral more and more. But it is weird, one knock against the S1 is the GHX series has better skin tones for some reason imo...

By definition, any digital sensor (except Foveon) has 2.5 stops over 18% gray at base ISO, and that's not accounting for different channels clipping before others. Some digital cameras use 12.5% gray as middle gray to get 3 stops. The S1 has +6 stops at base 640 ISO. So I'm guessing what that actually is is base ISO (50-ish) with a digital push. Of course, the read out for video is apparently 12 bit, which should limit the camera to 12 stops, but Panasonic claims 14, so I feel like we just don't have enough information (or I don't have enough technical knowledge) to make any conclusions based on specs alone. But I speculate 640 ISO V Log is base ISO with a digital push. This is why the dual native ISOs change with scene file or picture style or whatever it's called I suspect.

I've only used the S1 and S1H (and EVA1), but I remember someone posted a comparison of the S1 and S5 and V Log was more green on the S5. Which is good, the EVA1 has better color than the S1 in part because it's lacking such a strong magenta tint: Of course, compared with Alexa footage, everything looks magenta!

Has anyone noticed a shift in color? The S5 footage seems a bit less magenta (in a good way) than S1 footage. Has Panasonic matched the S5 with the new 2.0 firmware update?

Curious what your findings are if you do get one. If the color and texture feel any different. 6K full frame raw sounds pretty wild. I think the Venice has a bit less DR but the color is excellent and the noise texture is really organic. I was hoping the A7SIII would be a mini-Venice but I think the processing and noise texture aren't quite there.

The Venice has a great look, pretty similar to Alexa LF but a bit sharper. I have noticed that cameras with on-chip autofocus (DPAF or whatever the A7S3 has) tend to have a blotchier shadow noise texture. Venice has a nice noise texture. S1 seems nice, too, but the HEVC codec smooths out all the noise. Alexa dynamic range is no longer that much better than the competition. It's largely that Alexas are used on sets with higher budgets. Some of the easiest footage to work with in post, though, imo.

I used to own a C100 Mk 1 and shot a bit with C300. Love them both! C100 ergonomics are better imo but codec is weak and EVF is terrible. Haven't used Mk2. But it should improve on low light, EVF, and codec.... Only thing I'd add is it's nearing the end of its lifecycle and price might go down. Or up. Used C100 Mk1 with DPAF sell for more than the $1299 they were EOL'd at IIRC. I think it is a winner.

What's your source on this? If this is what's happening why is there less rolling shutter in 4K than in 5.9k?

What's your source on this? I have noticed that, while shooting 51,200 ISO, the LCD will go from being very noisy to relatively clean once I hit record and I can't imagine any other reason than it changing readout modes. 4K also has a slightly different feel to it than 6K to me, but I could be imagining things. It might be the different codec. Still, 4k is noisier and I've seen other tests online that corroborate that. Also the rolling shutter is different (higher) in 5.9k than 4k on the S1H, and the "per pixel" modes on the S1H imply the other modes aren't. Also the S1H body isn't much larger, but it is larger and I think it has a fan inside it that the S1 lacks, not sure about that though. It might be intentionally crippled but I don't think the sensor is doing full read out all the time. In fact I think 5D2 video first started when engineers noticed they could just capture the low res live view readout and record it. The 5D2 definitely was not doing 30fps 5k readout all the time in live view.

I'm not great with Resolve, but in my experience color space transforms don't turn the look of one camera into the look of another. I like Black Magic's color more and have been dreaming of a FF P6K-type camera.

For BRAW, is the color Panasonic V Log or Black Magic Gen 5?

I like swirly bokeh but I think it can get a bit distracting. It's from field curvature I think. The Cooke S1 lenses have it, S2/S3s 32mm and longer do, too. But they have very little CA and I think it's a nice look. Signature Primes are interesting because they don't look too "clinical" to me but they look almost perfectly corrected. Sigma Art does feel more "clinical" to me but for the price has an amazing image. Signature Pries to me perform well and look good. I think Master Primes are supposed to be a bit too "digital" with the Alexa, but I am not familiar with how this combination looks. What lenses do you think perform well but look bad?

Hmmm... I basically like how Sigma Art looks. But I agree. What do people think looks clinical in a "bad" way? Or what do you think has "bad" rendering?

I think so. Master Primes are clinical and I remember incorrectly, it was the 10-18mm Canon zoom that I recall being a good performer but just feeling flat. The 18-35mm Sigma was clinical but felt good. The 55-250mm STM Canon also feels a bit flat to me but is a great performer. Maybe because they're slow zooms. Dunno.

Thanks, everyone. I used to own a 18-35mm f1.8 and I agree. I think it looks good, but very neutral. What's "clinical" in a bad way. I remember my 18-55mm Canon zoom felt this way. I never believed in the whole "too many elements and the lens is flat" thing until I compared a few cheap Canon zooms (which felt "flat") with old vintage Nikkors (which performed poorly, but had more "depth"). I also compared them with a 18-35mm Sigma Art, and it had good performance and a good look, too. Sort of in between, depending on what you want the best of both worlds. What's clinical in a bad way?

I haven't tried a lot of new stuff. Curious what people think fits this description.