The M43 Cinema - 3 Way Battle

[mercer]

19 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Sure, but Deakins' aesthetic is generally hyper-clean and polished. He's one of the greats, but his way is not the only way. Robert Richardson specifically chose softer lenses for Hateful Eight because he hated how exacting the more modern lenses "draw." Neither is inherently a better or more valuable approach, but rather a very personal choice rooted in the aesthetic tastes if the DP/director and the needs of each specific project.

Personally, I'm big on the smooth-yet-detailed look of Cooke and older Panavision, which is why I went for 70's (Mandler era) Leica glass. But even that isn't right for every project; I will often rent or borrow Zeiss Milvus or Contax if I'm looking for something a little harder, slicker, less "emotional," etc.

Even then, Mercer is right in that the camera is yet another variable in this whole equation. Some are pickier than others about the glass you use (NX1, anyone?), whereas some work great with everything. Some render crisper, some more forgiving. Your lighting style affects these choices, too. Need to have bright spots roaming around the set and potentially flashing the lens without blinding the camera? Sure, I'll go Master Primes. Trying to do an epic establishing pan shot of a sunlit location, complete with dramatic flare? Not so much with the Master Primes. Got aging talent that needs to look glamorous? Run from Master Primes as fast as your legs will carry you.

It is NEVER a hard and fast rule. It ALWAYS depends. Seeing the utility of each available paintbrush is a critical part of advancing in your craft. There is no "correct" way.

 

(Sorry...veered us even further off topic here. Happy to discuss lens aesthetics and other non-camera comparison subjects via private message or in the Lenses topic.)

I feel like I just had a class in Hollywood optics... glass like master primes or Cooke or even compact primes are so out of my budget that I’ve never done much research. Thanks for the tip of the iceberg... it gives me something to read about as I pine over stuff I can’t afford... lol. 

I tend to veer discussions off topic but I don’t know about this one... how can we have a discussion about cinema cameras and not discuss lenses? Because let’s be honest here... any one of these cameras can be used for great work, but the lenses used can really help differentiate the films’ aesthetic.

There’s a reason why a lot of the GH5 footage looks the same on YouTube... there’s only so much the 12-60mm lens can do. But pop a S16 Arri Super Speed on that bitch and a whole new world opens up.

[jonpais]

FWIW - I never said there was ONE AND ONLY ONE way. hehe

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I know you didn't say it flat out, but there's often an attitude floating around that the technically sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses are the ones you NEED to go for, and that any other choice is based on fanciful ideas or ignorance. Some DPs DO find Master Primes too flat and perfect. Some love their strong, consistent performance. Maybe we could improve the discourse of the forum by trying to recognize more often that there are many effective methods, and they should all be analyzed and appreciated for their unique merits.

Mercer, the advantage of knowing a little about the higher end optics is that they have distinct characteristics they're known for, and therefore work as good references against which to compare the lower-end stuff we have a better chance of owning/renting for our personal projects. For example: my Leicas were made in the same company at the same time by the same designers as the Panavision lenses of that era--the C series--and share some similar design goals/aesthetics, though obviously made to meet completely different price points. Contax Zeiss, on the other hand, were made alongside their Super and Standard Speed cinema glass, and have characteristics that hover somewhere between the two, depending which specific lens you're looking at.

RedUser is a great place to hear about the higher end stuff, as are articles by people like Art Adams. Shane Hurlbut's tests are useful, but his commentary often isn't imo. John Brawley I find has great insight on optics too; his tests on the SLR Magic APO primes really won me over. 

Ultimately, our tools are a personal choice that help us define ourselves as artists. All I'm asking is that we keep that in mind, alongside the more vigorous "better or worse" quality debates that regularly dominate the site.

[Don Kotlos]

In my opinion with cameras that have baked-in sharpening & contrast, the sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses, usually give the worst results.  

[mercer]

It’s funny, I was so much happier and maybe even a better filmmaker when I tested lenses instead of cameras. Obviously, finished work is the overall goal but most of us don’t come here for that.

Now that I have finally decided on the camera I will use to shoot the short films that float through my head and ink the page, I am much happier testing lenses for those projects rather than cameras. Luckily I already own a buttload of vintage glass. But I am still searching for those forgotten chunks of glass that add a little more dimension and character to my image. 

[Emanuel]

The very consistent truth along the filmmaking path is...

...to balance a combo as your best wizard stick within.

 

Still as mere footnote now:

prime insights to add any decent lurking mode over here BTW : ) Cheers!

Glass love is always truly something to praise when we dare to think pictures (E :-)

[Emanuel]

...

Jump to minute 9:23 and you'll see another much acute comparison... Don't forget to take a look on minute 11:12 as well ; )

Well, sharpness is far to be a standard :-)

[jonpais]

9 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

In my opinion with cameras that have baked-in sharpening & contrast, the sharpest, cleanest, most flare-resistant lenses, usually give the worst results.  

That’s really all that bugs me about my current camera - the aggressive sharpening. Hopefully the Pocket will take care of that.

I’m also hoping that without IBIS, an EVF, anamorphic de-squeeze, ETC mode, focus transition and articulating LCD, I can at last concentrate on shooting. ?

[TheRenaissanceMan]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

...

 

Sorry, did you have a specific point here?

[jonpais]

5 hours ago, Emanuel said:

...

Jump to minute 9:23 and you'll see another much acute comparison... Don't forget to take a look on minute 11:12 as well ; )

Well, sharpness is far to be a standard :-)

I'm curious why you never post your own work.

[Emanuel]

@TheRenaissanceMan I found that comparison test pretty interesting. Didn't you? I also found the tester has arrived to the same opinion your comments point out and I share. Reason why I pushed the 'like' button over your posts and posted that.

@jonpais When I was @ law school before to conclude my learning there, I had dreams, you know? I thought filmmaking was much easier to match my own expectations. Then, I went to film school where I could have the experience of 4-years full training on post-production and directing departments. I also realized at that time the post graduate studies in the field of production could lead to better waters for the kind of work I would like to experiment and became a producer. You can find the links in my signature shot with many different cameras. In one or another I had some influence on the camera decision front, as well, some other gear connected with. Without mention some creative choices to make, non-technology-related. On a few others, none of my business for that specific project. 

On the leftover, I don't find a forum like this one may call the best location for that. I am not a reviewer nor tester in any way other than non-scientific tests I perform when other ones have much more work to show. So, I'd rather post the best I can find to illustrate my own finds. As a still photographer I also much appreciate to shoot, oh well, frankly on that one, follows the same rule in the last paragraph, at least in part. I always praise my work as very personal. There's place for everything in life and life out there  : ) The right location.  

[greenscreen]

Impressive filmography by the way.

[sanveer]

I heard this news from a source a little while ago, but was not sure whether to believe it because I was not sure of durability issues.

Now I can safely say that wrt to quality and durability, it should not be an issue and hopefully Blackmagic doesn't have me killed or sue me. 

I believe that the delays with Blackmagic's original pocket camera were a manufacturing nightmare attributed to their contract work. Also, Cost is a Huge Factor for the Body, and while Blackmagic is basically pushing the software of the Ursa with tweaks on the BMPCC 4k, and working around the new Sony Sensor, they wanted to cut costs as far as possible. So they are now (according to what I believe to be true), doing 3D Manufacturing for their BMPCC 4k on carbon composite (actually continuous carbon fibre printing). They are basically doing it all in-house. The manufacturing process may be speedened up Big time, and manufacturing costs should also come down substantially. The only problem, if any, is that they apparently haven't done this before. So they may have initial testing issues and a special department for in-house manufacturing with the necessary know-how that may take a little time to be completely ready. 

Strength and durability is apparently not an issue, because Aeroplane manufacturers also use some of the printers for manufacturing components in-house (which are stronger than aviation grade aluminium). 

If this is true, I hope all manufacturers make their products in-house if they can pass on the cost benefits to the customer (instead of selling 5 year old sensors and disappointing tech in re-branded camera bodies).

 

Another Important Update. I wrote to Z Cam asking them about the E2, namely whether it has Dual ISO or have they not bother implementing it; the limited recording options, and whether Z Cam could do a blackmagic and allow for recording by way of SSDs via the USB-C, to get good LOG profiles, and to get partners on board for having things like electronic variable NDs. These are their replies. I find them all very promising (except the ambigious reply on whether they have implemented the Dual ISO, unless it means Dual ISO AND 13.5, which would be Insane). 

"Sanveer,

1) It is a dual native ISO Sony CMOS sensor.

2) There are multiple recording options including what you are asking for.

3) We will provide customisable LUTs.

4) Working with several accessory partner now."

btw the turnaround seems Pretty fast. I did not notice they had replied and this is like 3 days old (I was probably searching the wrong name). 

The Z Cam E2 is looking to be one seriously kickass camera. 

[BTM_Pix]

Hope they've got a faster 3D printer than mine then, otherwise with all those backorders.....well.....

[sanveer]

7 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Hope they've got a faster 3D printer than mine then, otherwise with all those backorders.....well.....

Hahaha. 

 

It's apparently ... 

50x Faster, 20x Cheaper ? 

[webrunner5]

You can't print Carbon Composite, it is laid up or molded. True Carbon Fiber is baked in a Autoclave, not 3D printed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber_reinforced_polymer

[Lux Shots]

On 4/13/2018 at 4:38 AM, jonpais said:

What's lacking on all three cameras, as I see it, is 1080i 50Mbps.

The GH5S has this option. I just ran across it the other day, and I was like who needs interlaced anymore? Well broadcast! ?

[Lux Shots]

On 4/13/2018 at 10:55 AM, Cinegain said:

.... will this look more like the original BMPCC or will this look roughly similar to what you'd get out of the GH5S and what people would call 'video-ey'...

One of the things I hear people say about the GH5S, GH5 and GH4 before it is this 'videoy' adjective. This could mean many different things depending on who you ask. The noise reduction is too high, or the colors are way off (or off from what you think they should be), or the contrast is too high.

But what I've figured out is this: Everyone is trying to emulate the imperfections of film! You PAID MONEY to add in grain after waxing an image clean, all because you didn't like the SIZE of the sensor's native grain!

So, if you have a GH4, GH5, GH5S try this: Noise Reduction to -5, Sharpness to -5, Contrast to -5, Color to -2 and use LEGACY GLASS. The low contrast of this glass will give you what you desire.

[TwoScoops]

^ I figured that out my first week with the GH4, comparing how different the Pana 12-35 image looked to the Voigts. I think the auto-corrections done to native M43 lenses probably add to the sharpened/digital look, too, vs legacy/manual glass. 

[Anaconda_]

6 hours ago, Lux Shots said:

The GH5S has this option. I just ran across it the other day, and I was like who needs interlaced anymore? Well broadcast! ?

You'll probably find that in general, even broadcast shooters don't use 1080i. Almost everything I shoot is sent out to TV, and I always shoot 4k25p - although I will shoot 50p where available. From there, you can create 1080i and no one is ever going to tell the difference, unless they're really looking for it. You might get a dirty frame at the very end of each clip, but who uses the last frame of a shot anyway?

That said, depending on how you process it 50p will (in theory) transcode to 25i perfectly, taking the upper fields from frame 1 and lower from frame 2 etc.

So yes, who needs internal interlaced anymore?