HockeyFan12

Oh, I'd rather have the XLR1 for the convenience. But I already own a MixPre3. I suppose I can also record to both and sync in post. I hate doing additional work, but it's not a lot.

Thanks, do you know if rather than buying the DMW-XLR1 I can just send audio from my MixPre3 and it will still be decent quality (48kHz/16-bit PCM I guess is fine) and I can lock the levels to match the MixPre3, it won't use auto levels?

Assuming the camera has the paid upgrade. Please say yes? (Unless the answer is no.)

I vaguely remember that the S1H has anamorphic viewing modes (2x, 1.5x, 1.33x, I believe?) as well as IBIS settings for anamorphic aspect ratios... Does the S1?

Thanks, that would be really interesting. I doubt the dynamic range will be that different anyway–but curious to see how they compare in terms of sharpness, color, texture. Does anyone know how the S1H, S1, and fp downsample 6k to 4k in the first place?

Have you compared the two directly? I prefer the EVA1's color to the S1 and S1H but I found the highlight detail to be identical at least within the margin of error of the lenses I compared with, so a third of a stop maybe. +6 over 18% gray on both I think.

I've owned both and used both with the C100, they're both really good. Sigma is sharper, more modern rendering. Canon is a little softer and not as fast and the IS isn't the best... but it also does it all. At 55mm it has pretty good macro abilities and that's long enough for interviews (imo 35mm is a bit wide for headshots) and the IS is smooth enough. So you can't go wrong but it depends on your needs. On a tripod and if you have another 50mm, the Sigma for sure. If you only buy one lens, maybe a used 17-55mm, they're pretty cheap these days. I didn't get any vignetting with the 17-55mm that I remember, but rarely used it at 17mm so I could be wrong.

Can someone post a direct comparison (even under a second clip is fine) of out of camera HEVC 6K vs out of camera UHD vs ProRes raw? There are cameras (Alexa) where raw is not substantially better and cameras (5D Mk III) where it makes a world of difference. Curious what is the case with the S1H, but not curious enough to rent one again to find out for myself. Thanks to anyone who does this!

The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is amazing. I used it all the time when I had a C100, which imo is a great camera. I'm fond of the 35mm f1.4 Nikkor but it's more soft/vintage. The 28mm f1.8 Canon is underrated but has significant CA. The Rokinons are the cheapest cinema lenses if you really care about mechanics, and the 35mm f1.4 is fine.

Cooke do this with their front element, Sigma Classic is the same idea but I think every element and there's probably some coating, probably not entirely removed: This doesn't work that well for me because the design is so complex it looks modern and the flares look weird. I think it would work but it might not give exactly the result you want.

The MixPreD sounds maybe even better to my ears (it could be bias), but both it and the MixPre3 sound amazing to me. Most full-bodied source I've heard and loud. My desktop set up is DT1350s with a MixPre3. The HD600s might sound better, but less isolation. If the T5p is anything like the DT1350 I imagine I'd love it. I have one hifi lower-end pair, but 99% of my listening is done on bluetooth IEMs I bought on sale on Black Friday and through Spotify. And 99% of the music I listen to is compressed beyond redemption anyway. I can aspire to be a better listener at least.

What headphones do you use for mixing? Recording? Listening to music? Are we all being good and using MDR-7506?

Very cool. What camera and lenses did you use? Edit: just saw on Vimeo. What was your taking lens? Anyway very nice. The Hawk 1.3X anamorphic on a 416 is my dream set up.

Based on his profile photo, it's a very different story. But I'm not going to judge. Could be two unrelated stories.

Interesting discussion. Vintage cinema lenses and S16 cameras have skyrocketed in price recently, as I found out the hard way. I bought a 25mm Cooke S3 a few years back for around $1100, returned it as it had minor fungus and took a minor loss. Since then, its value has tripled. K35 and Lomo anamorphic have increased in price as well as Cooke, and even more dramatically. @noone I think the appeal of the 24mm FD isn't just that it's a 24mm f1.4. It's that it has vintage coatings (the SSC aspherical matching or near-matching first-generation K35s I've read in everything but aperture shape, but who knows) and has hard focus stops so mechanically it is more suited for "cinevising" or rehousing than the 24mm EF f1.4, which would otherwise probably be preferable (sharper) and the look is softer and more organic than Sigma Art, which surely would outperform it, too. Even the best vintage gear can't compete optically with Sigma Art or an Otus. So that's not what it's about. But I think among the generation in their 30s and 40s there is a trend toward vintage/film not just here but among Indie filmmakers... for me, once I started shooting on a 6K sensor I noticed a stronger preference for vintage lenses than I had even had in the past. And I wonder if higher bitrates for streaming etc. will continue to promote a trend toward "texture" over clinical perfection. An SD scan of S16 looks like a dvx100 to me, a 4k scan looks incredible. However I think the younger generation seems to prefer 8K and Sigma Art (you can't really blame them) so I don't see the demand for vintage going up much further. But as supply is exhausted, I also doubt prices will bottom out. If they do, maybe I can finally pick up some Cooke Panchros. Or not, the 75mm is radioactive and they seem fragile and prone to fungus anyway. I wonder what will become of Zeiss Otus and such. (And mechanically complex M43 and the Leica L mount primes or even the RF and Z mount primes.) The Zeiss LWZ2 is perhaps the best deal and most undervalued zoom on the market ($8k used for a compact zoom that cuts well with Master Primes and can convert to EF or PL–should be closer to $50k) but Zeiss will soon discontinue service entirely, leaving that bargain with a pretty large caveat. Some EF lenses can't be serviced. I guess nothing lasts. Except manual focus Nikkors. For whatever reason. Which also have the best price/performance around. 😕

S35 "normal" lens comparison:

Iscorama, early Rollei Zeiss 50mm f1.8. Very good combination. If you like a vintage look, German Rollei Zeiss are the most underrated FF lenses on the market. Same coatings as pre-T* standard speeds, slightly improved designs. Very sharp with slightly old school painterly bokeh:

Have you noticed a trend among which demographics rent what? Are people in their 20s renting different gear than people in their 30s and 40s? I read an interesting post here: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/77500-the-lost-history-of-cooke-lenses/&do=findComment&comment=529738 One comment that surprised me is the mention of the lack of chromatic aberration in Cooke S2s. Those are a mess otherwise, but apparently pretty clean as regards CA. Also in a comparison of Nikon's first and most recent 50mm F mount primes, you can see the earlier prime has far less CA: https://www.lenstip.com/117.5-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_–_Nikkor-S_5_cm_f_2_vs._Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D_Chromatic_aberration.html Has there been a change in design philosophy? I recently compared Nikon's earliest 28mm f2 with Canon's 28mm f1.8 and Nikkon's earliest 85mm f1.8 with Canon's current one and the older lenses are softer but appear to have less purple fringing but also less bokeh fringing. "Harsher" bokeh but more color neutral. I know the Zeiss Otus lenses are near-apochromatic, so it's not all modern designs that are worse here, but it feels like a change in design philosophy. Is this a thing or a coincidence?

Trust your eyes, not the internet. And now that I look at it again the 6K actually looks pretty clean to me and with much better color linearity and the 4.6k and especially EVA1 look really really noisy, just with less banding, but maybe the noise covers the banding? I've never seen objectionable banding with the 6K in real world scenarios. Anyway the dynamic range numbers don't tell the full story and imo highlight dynamic range (and the texture, not quantity of shadow noise) is what matters most. P6K excels at both. Definitely don't trust an online test and don't trust some random person's interpretation of it! Your firsthand experience is infinitely more valuable.

Thanks, I wish I had. Just random clips from free sound. The arpeggio reminded me of Twin Peaks and the buzz of Larry Jordan's Our Lady of the Sphere. I was just messing around with stuff I had ordered from KEH.

I think that particular thumbnail is from a low light comparison, but that's a very useful channel. To my eye; 4.6K G2: https://vimeo.com/408639496 Highlights hold to about +4.5. Shadows go deep but get green and unusable around -4 or -4.5. EVA1: https://vimeo.com/399691355 Highlights hold almost to +5. Shadows go deep but heavy noise. Nice color linearity, but maybe good to -3.5? https://vimeo.com/400031418 Amira clips around +5.5, maybe a bit better. Great color linearity but noisy, but nice noise texture. Good to -4.5 but noisy? So would measure much worse but it looks good. Subjective. S1H: https://vimeo.com/404396461 Pretty similar to EVA1, much more banding. Difficult to judge shadows because banding, noise texture, etc. is all more subjective than results on a wedge chart. P6K: https://vimeo.com/408524414 This was at 400 ISO. So it looks like +4 or +4.5 and -2 or -3 if you can tolerate some banding. But at 800 ISO that would be +5 or +5.5 and -1 or -2 but that's from banding, not noise. So if you don't underexpose and rate at 800 ISO I can see this being surprisingly close to an Alexa unless you need to dig into the shadows. S1 has great highlight detail, not so good shadows: https://vimeo.com/399496111Every result is fantastic. An embarrassment of riches on the market today. I don't entirely trust the methodology though.

Vintage

C100 and C200 are pretty different in my experience. Not sure what to make of it, but the C100 has +5.3 stops of highlight dynamic range at base (850 ISO). C200 has +6.3 at base (800 ISO). So for the C200 maybe the best way to get an image closer to the C100 is shooting 400 ISO where the highlights will be similar. How are you metering? Since most of us are just metering by eye the ISO setting feels kind of irrelevant relative to how we expose, or at least can only be discussed in that context. I found the cameras to be completely different. Totally different looks, totally different ergonomics, totally different workflows.

Have you done any grading other than applying a LUT? I was underwhelmed by the .mp4 files from the C200 but didn't find them quite this noisy, I found raw lite noisier. How did you expose these shots? The log files do look dark. Try black balancing and see if it helps a bit. I had the same experience with the C100 having more noise (and a stop less highlight detail) but nicer noise texture, at least with an external recorder. I found the C100 noisy when I exposed properly, more so than the C200, but the look was nicer when it was. Made me focus more on aesthetics and less on specs (or even lab tests) but with a camera that has gobs of dynamic range as the C200 has, it's easy to expose incorrectly, too. And then the noise reveals itself in post.

Ten years ago I would have said Tim and Eric.