Hasselblad H6D 100C Review. Shoots 4k Video MF

[jcs]

@fuzzynormal while I still prefer Canon as it's less work for me in post (for example the video I just posted for the Focal Listen headphones audio mixing only needed an ARRI LUT and saturation boost), I've gotten decent results from Panasonic and Sony, but with more work in post. Before I learned how to work with the A7S II, I did prefer Panasonic over Sony. However, once I figured out the A7S II settings and post workflow (which I posted here and elsewhere- I've seen similar settings posted based on what I discovered and/or others found the same settings worked well for them too), I then preferred Sony over Panasonic. The issue with Panasonic is that while I could get decent skintones, the result was somewhat thin color, almost sepia or B&W and not a lot of subtle skintone tonality that I get with Canon and properly edited A7S II footage.

For example, @noone's second image above looks like Panasonic to me with limited tonality in the image, especially skintones. Additionally the highlights on the hands look like Panasonic- video-like, vs. what I can get wth Canon or Sony when I shoot Canon Log 2 or Sony Slog2. When I edited some GH5 footage shot in VLog I was pleased to see much better color and highlights over the GH4, so they've improved a bit. That said I still prefer Canon and Sony color. However, I do like the GH5's fold out screen and the IS is also excellent. So for some uses a GH5 would be better just to get the shot where color isn't the priority.

[noone]

50 minutes ago, jcs said:

For example, @noone's second image above looks like Panasonic to me with limited tonality in the image, especially skintones. Additionally the highlights on the hands look like Panasonic- video-like, vs. what I can get wth Canon or Sony when I shoot Canon Log 2 or Sony Slog2

It is actually an A7s as taken jpeg at ISO 8000.

Tonality IS limited a bit but it would have been even more limited on most cameras in that lighting at that ISO.     I mainly shoot jpegs but when I do shoot RAW, I don't see a huge difference (but I hate post processing).     I also try and get it how I like in camera for video as much as possible at gigs.

[fuzzynormal]

58 minutes ago, jcs said:

The issue with Panasonic is that while I could get decent skintones, the result was somewhat thin color, almost sepia or B&W and not a lot of subtle skintone tonality

Well, like I said, I'm more of a luma guy, less a chroma dude.  I'd much rather look at lighting that's dramatic than look at a flat over-lit scene with perfect colors.

[jcs]

1 hour ago, noone said:

It is actually an A7s as taken jpeg at ISO 8000.

Tonality IS limited a bit but it would have been even more limited on most cameras in that lighting at that ISO.     I mainly shoot jpegs but when I do shoot RAW, I don't see a huge difference (but I hate post processing).     I also try and get it how I like in camera for video as much as possible at gigs.

Interesting, perhaps the GH4's sensor has limited 'color DR / sensitivity' which looks similar to A7S at high ISO. Try playing with Adobe Camera Raw when shooting RAW, especially, highlights and shadows (actually play with everything to see what it can do). You'll be amazed at how much you can do over JPG- a massive improvement in control and final image quality!

56 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

Well, like I said, I'm more of a luma guy, less a chroma dude.  I'd much rather look at lighting that's dramatic than look at a flat over-lit scene with perfect colors.

I'll be doing a Cosmic Flow episode one of these days with just me (vs. a model/actress I need to make look pretty in flattering light), probably not on green screen and lit with perhaps just one spot/point light (have been experimenting). Something like a Rembrandt look. For green screen I light with high ambient (low contrast) so I can drop in just about any background and have it look OK. Otherwise I'd need to carefully light to match specific backgrounds. It would be neat to build a 'spherical lighting array' with a computer control system to be able to simulate any kind of light without having to move lights around and manually adjust them. I'd like to be able to do great luma and chroma (and even better, provide enjoyable content for a wider audience ).

[noone]

32 minutes ago, jcs said:

Interesting, perhaps the GH4's sensor has limited 'color DR / sensitivity' which looks similar to A7S at high ISO. Try playing with Adobe Camera Raw when shooting RAW, especially, highlights and shadows (actually play with everything to see what it can do). You'll be amazed at how much you can do over JPG- a massive improvement in control and final image quality!

I use DXO Optics Pro 9 now (was free recently and I love it) when I shoot RAW but mostly I don't find it a huge difference (there IS a difference) but I shoot so many shots at most gigs and am happy enough with the results using Jpeg that unless there was something special, jpeg are good enough.      Would just take me forever to process RAW a lot of the time.

My GX7 I would never have even tried at that gig as I don't like it at all above ISO 6400 and that  (ISO 8000) was one of the lowest ISO shots from that gig (the other shot posted was ISO 16000).   The DR and tonality would have all been reduced and noise worse and the same would go for most cameras.

[Brian Caldwell]

On 4/11/2017 at 10:52 AM, jcs said:

@tupp they're calling it large format and full frame in this press release, which I think is fair(-ish) relative to the industry standard Super35 http://www.panavision.com/panavision-announces-new-large-format-digital-camera:

They're pushing it a bit with the repetition of 'large format' when it's not even medium format (just a hair over full frame). Panavision gear is amazing and they have a wonderful history, it's unfortunate that marketing folks are driven to spin things in hopes of increasing sales, including doing equivalence tests wrong to demonstrate an advantage of one format over another as posted in a prior link.

Looks like a decent selection of FF lenses cover Red Weapon 8K / DXL, including some from Zeiss, Schneider, and Canon CN-E (a starter list from Phil Holland): http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?140564-RED-Weapon-8K-Lens-Coverage-Information

The Kipon FF MF is cool if will work with one's selection of MF lenses, though someone just posted some quality and compatibility issues in that old thread. FF seems to be the sweet spot right now for lens options- the standard for still photography for so many years.

The Panavision DXL is basically a re-housed Red Weapon 8k, and their new "70mm" lenses in fact cover just a bit larger than FF/Vistavision.  A few years ago they were developing a larger format camera with a 48x20.25mm sensor (52mm diagonal) along with a separate set of lenses to go with it, but issues associated with the custom sensor doomed that project.

[webrunner5]

6 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

The Panavision DXL is basically a re-housed Red Weapon 8k, and their new "70mm" lenses in fact cover just a bit larger than FF/Vistavision.  A few years ago they were developing a larger format camera with a 48x20.25mm sensor (52mm diagonal) along with a separate set of lenses to go with it, but issues associated with the custom sensor doomed that project.

Wow who would of ever thunk. Sort of lost some, well a lot of respect for Panavision! Why don't they call the god damn thing Red EW, for extra wide. Christ.

No wonder they don't have the balls to sell the F ing thing!

[HockeyFan12]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow who would of ever thunk. Sort of lost some, well a lot of respect for Panavision! Why don't they call the god damn thing Red EW, for extra wide. Christ.

No wonder they don't have the balls to sell the F ing thing!

There's a write up on the DXL and it seems like there's a lot of custom work being done with the grading presets in particular, and of course the ergonomics. Panavision has a history of renting rehoused lenses, Leica lenses for instance that are simply rehoused still lenses, and the Primos are Leica-based in their own right if original designs, so it's not unlike Panavision to do this. (I have worked with both on set and they are nice lenses!) The red and green chromaticities are too close on the Red cameras and they will always have a ruddy quality I personally find quite objectionable, but the images from the DXL are much improved in this regard and as regards saturation roll off. Light Iron has done some very good work with the camera in terms of default grading profiles. (I've had a lot of stuff I've worked on graded by them recently, and they always do a good job whether with Red or Alexa-originated footage.) Panavision has never sold cameras or lenses, their model is and always will be rental-based, so it's no surprise, but I am disappointed that they use the stock sensor when it has problems with color rendering inherent in it.

I too would rather have an Alexa 65 any day. A fancy Red is still a fancy Red. But I suspect the ergonomic changes and world class support are the biggest improvement, even more than the color. Panavision has a history of doing great work but I do agree it's too bad their large format project didn't make it. :/ Also the last two times I used Panavision kits the gear was beat to hell; it was their ultimate discount stuff and it did work and get the job done, but it was a bit disappointing. The Primos are marvelous lenses, though, very Leica-like. In fact I shot with one of the first Panavised Reds so in a way this is no surprise to me to that extent, though the last feature I did with Panavision gear (4x3 Alexa C Series anamorphic then graded by Light Iron) was an Arri show all the way. I was not on set for that (I was just doing post) but believe the gear for that project (higher end was it was) was world class. I think Panavision is getting it together, or so I hope, and I wouldn't be too put off by this camera. What matters more is the support they offer their clients, and that seems to be quite good despite my few bad experiences with their cheaper gear (which was still a great bargain, to be fair).

[webrunner5]

I am sure the Alexa 65 is a lot more of a polished product. Arri does not just jump into anything! They have a Long track record, and it has always been quality before quantity. The Germans seem to just take stuff a Lot more serious than others do. They have been around the block a few times.

Shame they have such a high entry price for their products. I know you pay out the nose for quality, but it does seem a bit steep to me in this day and age. Though I don't imagine they sell as many as one would think to re coop their R&D costs.

Interesting fact on Wiki,

Controversy

In 2011, it was alleged that Michael Bravin, an executive of the US-based subsidiary Arri Inc., had unlawfully accessed RED's CEO Jim Jannard's email account. A suit was brought before a US court and in September 2011, Bravin entered a guilty plea.[48][49] Arri Inc. denied knowledge or gains from Bravin's actions,[50] and a separate lawsuit against the company was dropped as a result of an out-of-court settlement.[51]

[HockeyFan12]

Yeah, that controversy is pretty crazy. From what I recall the fall out of it was even weirder I forget what happened exactly.

I agree, I like the Alexa best. I work with a lot of footage from every manufacturer and it's always my favorite on set or in post (if you have the crew to use it properly). But if you need higher resolution and can't afford the Alexa 65 (who can?) the Red is a good option for 4k or 8k or whatnot I think. Netflix requires 4k and won't take Alexa footage and I think there are more 4k finishes these days (on higher end stuff than I work on). The Dragon isn't bad, it is a step up from the MX and I suspect the DXL is a step up from both. Neither is the F55's RAW bad, fwiw, it's really decent, and I think Sony might be doing some good work putting RAW into the smaller bodies now. SLOG3/SGAMUT 3 is not bad!

Used Alexas are under $20k these days. Rentals are pretty cheap, too. Given that you need a whole camera crew (at $400/day per AC, conservatively, then an operator at $800/day if we're talking union) to use one properly, it seems fairly priced. Even $60k for an Amira, which could be used by a team of two, is nothing next to the lenses and support gears you'd need to properly support it. I think it's priced about right and I'll often see companies buy an Alexa body but no lenses (for that reason). Even the Mini is a beast to operate, not for the faint of heart.

I wish it weren't so expensive, but I also wish I could get the same thing in an owner/op style body... and I can't. So I'm less concerned with not being able to afford it.

[webrunner5]

What do you think about the original Red One MX?? I have had a chance to buy one for awhile, I can buy the body for less than 2000 dollars. He never uses it. But he wants way to much for the whole kit. He has a TON of stuff in the kit, but half I would never need, and I can't afford that much money at one time anyways.

I have been thinking of getting just the body, and a Bomb, a power supply, and go from there little bits at a time. But I don't know, maybe their time is over with. I know they have pretty damn good DR in them, and some people think they look better than the Epic MX?? Have you worked with them before? I am sure you have.

I guess it has more to do with me being able to say I own a "Red" than any logical thing LoL. I am more of a tripod guy anyways, so the weight of the damn thing is not that big of a deal to me. I think it may actually be a benefit on a tripod. It would be just for Hobby stuff. Not making money with, I, think? LoL

[HockeyFan12]

I found the original Red (pre-MX) to be borderline broken. I think I used one of the first ones a few months after it came out and everything about it was awful, ergonomics were horrible, color was a complete joke, incredibly noisy except when rated at around 250-400 ISO which meant it clipped faster than a Canon dSLR and it did not produce an acceptable image in tungsten light color because it was too noisy under any conditions when starved of blue light, very soft OLPF that made it softer than most 1080p cameras today, and even when they fixed the color processing in redcine it still had a green tint to tungsten light. I would rate it at about the same dynamic range as a 7D and much slower, but with a good smooth image with nice tonality and absolutely zero aliasing. In full day light you can get a nice image from it but with very limited dynamic range. But look at the Informant, every tungsten-lit scene is bright orange for a reason, they had to process 3200K-lit scenes at 5600K or else the image would have been unacceptable. That said, the movie looks decent overall. With heaps of light it had a better image than you get today from dSLRS etc. But it was essentially broken out of the box, which makes it more impressive to me that the Dragon/DXL is pretty darned great now (minus some color issues that remain, but which a talented colorist can largely fix)!  The Red has a bit of a more digital look than the Alexa and I think in the long run the digital look will be more popular than film, sharper and punchier color, more familiar to YouTube audiences while still very high end and impressive. The new Red stuff has a more digital look in arguably a good way, just not my style. 

I also feel the Red One was harder than an Alexa or F55 for a one man band to operate (I think two people could effectively use an Alexa on a slower-paced set, you just need a full team to move as fast around a narrative set as possible) because it takes 90 minutes to boot up and has short battery life and crashes a lot. But with new firmware, etc. I bet it's usable now. I think you can get a slightly better image than a GH2, for instance, under similar conditions, but that it's not worth the effort. I would rather have a CX00 or any Sony cinema camera that shoots RAW or at least properly implemented 10 bit SLOG3/SGAMUT3 (because their color is broken on their cameras that don't) by far though. The F5 and F55, neither of which I particularly like, are orders of magnitude better than the original Red, and slightly beyond the MX. Their RAW is competitive with the Dragon, even. The Alexa doesn't need RAW its image processing is so advanced and refined.

The Red MX, while still clunky to operate, is still quite formidable, however. Social Network looks good. Fincher processes all his films through a very expensive post process (Lowry process) that costs up to seven figures per feature, and that's one reason those movies look so smooth and so good and clean, but he still shot them on just a regular Red MX. The image is nearly on par with the C500 but it is softer, with worse color, etc. but also a little bit less of a digital sharpening edge. 

I wouldn't want one for free lol but other people like them! The Red One MX is a pretty solid performer, however, and potential bargain for someone with the time to babysit a slower-to-operate camera, you might love it. The original I think is just too clunky.

[webrunner5]

Well thank you very much for your descriptions. I had a bad feeling that was what you was going to say. I think if I want to play around again with Raw best to buy a BMPCC or a BMCC and be done with it. 

The entry price to get into a Red, with all the goodies you Have to have to make it work, is off the chart cost wise. No way near the bother for the output in this day and age using a Older one.

Yeah sounds like it is not worth the effort any more. Thanks again for the reply.

[HockeyFan12]

It's just my opinion and I only used the Red right after it was released, when it was truly a nightmare of bugs. With the modern firmware and processing, I bet it's a heck of a lot better and I have seen some nice footage from it, but it's a pain.

That said, yeah, the need for support gear makes it a nightmare. And slow to set up. I don't think there's anything special about RAW; it's just that only the Alexa currently processes RAW to RGB 99.9% as well as a computer does, so other cameras benefit from RAW but by varying amounts, it totally depends on the camera... I'm not a big BMPCC fan, either, too much shadow noise and fixed pattern noise... and poor ergonomics. The 2.5k looks pretty great, though.

I wouldn't use it as an A camera on a commercial shoot, but for a hobbyist I think the 5D Mark III RAW is a pretty cool camera if you can tolerate the problems with it or if you want the problems associated with it (getting to/having to process images in ACR).

Again, I would not use it to shoot commercial work, while I would use it in h264 mode for that purpose because reliability is king for corporate work where you only get one shot at it, or when you have A-list talent that's costing thousands an hour even if it's BTS work they'll get pissed off if a single take has to be redone for camera.

But I think that thing has image quality nearly on par with an Epic MX if you only need 1080p, and better color. If ML gets a consistent 4k out of it then it will probably be absolutely top tier. It's pretty sick. I suspect the 5D Mark IV with C LOG will be nothing to sneeze at either and honestly if it's as good as a 1DC it will be better than a first-gen Red by far and close enough to the MX, but less fun if you want RAW.

[jcs]

The C300 II at 50Mbps H.264 IPB 10-bit 1080p with killer AF, Canon Log 2, almost zero RS, great lowlight, and pro-level audio was the 'endgame' for me in terms of image, sound, and efficient file sizes and post production. Now it's all about making the camera package smaller and lighter and including killer IS. The GH5 is almost there, and I think the A7S III could get very, very close (still needs a flip out screen like the GH5 and 80D etc.). While I still have a 5D3 as a backup stills camera to the 1DX II, I have zero desire to mess with ML again given what the C300 II and 1DX II can do. GPUs can easily handle even H.265 (it's far more efficient!); NLEs need to catch up in their support. Premiere CC still struggles with ALL-I H.264; not the GPU's fault, but their prehistoric image processing pipeline. I hope Canon updates the 1DX II along with the 5DIV and provides a modern H.264 codec vs. MJPEG, which is very inefficient and again, PP CC needs a very fast machine to handle it. I had to build a special '4K Windows 10 box': 6950X, 64GB + GTX 1080. The 'old' 12 Core Xeon MacPro with GTX 980ti should easily handle it.

For those on a budget, the 5D3 with ML is an amazing value. I'd say that in a way it looks even better than the C300 II and 1DX II and maybe even ARRI in some ways! It's providing Canon's basic color magic, and along with ACR for those willing to go through that painfully slow extra step using AE, it's providing Canon's world class RAW stills color and Adobe's world class RAW color and image processing, every. single. frame, which creates a very unique and special look.

As a developer in the image processing world, I get pieces of information leaked to me from the mobile industry and camera sensor breakthroughs. While computational cameras are currently very primitive (Lytro etc), it's clear that in the future we'll have cameras that fit on phones that blow away all cameras that exist today. Cellphone cameras that far exceed full frame and even medium format cameras in low light and DOF- absolutely! Lenses already exist in nature which exceed glass optics, such as birds of prey eyes (eagle etc.), which are now being mimicked- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/eagle-eye-lenses-may-inspire-hi-def-cameras-thin-strand-hair/ . Not only do larger sensors and glass not provide anything magical, the future is smaller sensors and new optical technologies and image processing which far, far exceed the large clunky systems of today.

[webrunner5]

Speaking of crazy, potentially good down the road cameras! I think this thing is going to be the future right Now! I am not sure if it even does Video??

https://light.co/

[jcs]

16 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Speaking of crazy, potentially good down the road cameras! I think this thing is going to be the future right Now! I am not sure if it even does Video??

https://light.co/

Yeah, these are just the beginning of a whole new market in computational camera systems. Shooting video where the DOF and lens simulation is done is post is currently very data intensive and very expensive: https://www.lytro.com/cinema

There is a lot of spin currently and the quality won't pass the old tech for a while but it will happen!

[IronFilm]

On 15/04/2017 at 7:23 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

Yeah, that controversy is pretty crazy. From what I recall the fall out of it was even weirder I forget what happened exactly.

I agree, I like the Alexa best. I work with a lot of footage from every manufacturer and it's always my favorite on set or in post (if you have the crew to use it properly). But if you need higher resolution and can't afford the Alexa 65 (who can?) the Red is a good option for 4k or 8k or whatnot I think. Netflix requires 4k and won't take Alexa footage and I think there are more 4k finishes these days (on higher end stuff than I work on). The Dragon isn't bad, it is a step up from the MX and I suspect the DXL is a step up from both. Neither is the F55's RAW bad, fwiw, it's really decent, and I think Sony might be doing some good work putting RAW into the smaller bodies now. SLOG3/SGAMUT 3 is not bad!

Used Alexas are under $20k these days. Rentals are pretty cheap, too. Given that you need a whole camera crew (at $400/day per AC, conservatively, then an operator at $800/day if we're talking union) to use one properly, it seems fairly priced. Even $60k for an Amira, which could be used by a team of two, is nothing next to the lenses and support gears you'd need to properly support it. I think it's priced about right and I'll often see companies buy an Alexa body but no lenses (for that reason). Even the Mini is a beast to operate, not for the faint of heart.

I wish it weren't so expensive, but I also wish I could get the same thing in an owner/op style body... and I can't. So I'm less concerned with not being able to afford it.

Used Alexas are even cheaper than you think....  They're going for $15K or less on eBay now!

On 16/04/2017 at 4:21 AM, webrunner5 said:

What do you think about the original Red One MX?? I have had a chance to buy one for awhile, I can buy the body for less than 2000 dollars. He never uses it. But he wants way to much for the whole kit. He has a TON of stuff in the kit, but half I would never need, and I can't afford that much money at one time anyways.

I have been thinking of getting just the body, and a Bomb, a power supply, and go from there little bits at a time. But I don't know, maybe their time is over with. I know they have pretty damn good DR in them, and some people think they look better than the Epic MX?? Have you worked with them before? I am sure you have.

I guess it has more to do with me being able to say I own a "Red" than any logical thing LoL. I am more of a tripod guy anyways, so the weight of the damn thing is not that big of a deal to me. I think it may actually be a benefit on a tripod. It would be just for Hobby stuff. Not making money with, I, think? LoL

I'd by a RED One MX SSD (but not if it is the original R1 M CF) with a large kit of extras for $2K!

 

But any higher priced than that....  Nope!! Rather do 4K raw from an FS700

[HockeyFan12]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Used Alexas are even cheaper than you think....  They're going for $15K or less on eBay now!

I'd by a RED One MX SSD (but not if it is the original R1 M CF) with a large kit of extras for $2K!

 

But any higher priced than that....  Nope!! Rather do 4K raw from an FS700

Yeah, agreed completely. I misread that. Original Red MX is not that bad at all! The M is the one I cannot stand. The MX has a pretty good image but SUCH a pain in the ass to use oh my god. $2k for an entire working kit is worth it but don't expect it to give a better image than an F5 or C500 and do expect it to be a LOT more of a headache. The A7S technically has a better image in a lot of ways but the codec is just too thin to be useful, not so with the RED MX. Some people don't mind how slow it is to operate, but I remember I did. By the time the Red MX came around that was the first time the Red camera was really production-ready for any heavy lifting. It needs a lot of light, but no more than film. Really pretty good!

Yeah $15k for an Alexa is a good deal, too. The MX was the first "good enough to use" affordable digital cinema camera and the Alexa was the first "film is dead now" level affordable cinema camera.  I don't want either because I don't consider them appropriate for lone guns or run and gun, but I'm in a different position from most people. I'm not trying to run a company or anything.