IQ3 100mp video samples

[abouho]

Here's a link to some videos shot with the IQ3 100mp using an Atomos Ninja Blade:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU1m3v90HFr5HTwCxAb1lrfrQ73XTg-zk

I apologise in advance for the boring subject matter. I didn't have much time to do a proper test as our backs are always being rented or demoed. The first bunch were quickly shot in our reception with various lenses that I had available at the time. The last few were quickly shot at the end of a beauty shoot. I might have some spare time this week so I'm open to any suggestions on things to test.

Is anyone else excited about the potential this back presents to film makers?

[Paul2660]

No, considering the size of the files coming from the chip will be massive.  To me the IQ is not really well suited to video capture, with an XF body (I assume that is what was used), the lenses currently available, mass, weight, etc. to me will be a big detractor for a video shooter. 

DSLR platforms seem better suited to this type of work.  The ability to use the HDMI output is great but the overall mass of the setup and limitation of the current lenses to me is going to be an issue, not to mention the price point vs DSLR platforms or Red cameras. 

I am sure others will disagree but try holding an XF with a IQ back and even the 80mm LS for about 5 minutes and see if you don't feel the weight is a bit extreme, then imagine using the 35mm LS or 40-80 LS, you are approaching 8lbs of camera gear now.

Paul C

[razrblck]

Even if Phase One were to put more video options in the firmware, you'd still have to deal with what looks like massive rolling shutter issues and a 50000$ camera that can output only 1080p (which is probably 8bit per channel and compressed). For that kind of money you could rent quite a lot of specialized gear as well as people to help you.

[abouho]

No, considering the size of the files coming from the chip will be massive.  To me the IQ is not really well suited to video capture, with an XF body (I assume that is what was used), the lenses currently available, mass, weight, etc. to me will be a big detractor for a video shooter. 

DSLR platforms seem better suited to this type of work.  The ability to use the HDMI output is great but the overall mass of the setup and limitation of the current lenses to me is going to be an issue, not to mention the price point vs DSLR platforms or Red cameras. 

I am sure others will disagree but try holding an XF with a IQ back and even the 80mm LS for about 5 minutes and see if you don't feel the weight is a bit extreme, then imagine using the 35mm LS or 40-80 LS, you are approaching 8lbs of camera gear now.

Paul C

I agree that the mass and weight is a bit extreme if you plan on hand holding without a rig, but an XF with an IQ back and prime lens is actually significantly smaller and lighter than a Red Weapon with a battery and lens or even an Alexa Mini when you add a battery and lens.

I'm curious as to what you consider to be a limitation in the current lenses.

Even if Phase One were to put more video options in the firmware, you'd still have to deal with what looks like massive rolling shutter issues and a 50000$ camera that can output only 1080p (which is probably 8bit per channel and compressed). For that kind of money you could rent quite a lot of specialized gear as well as people to help you.

The IQ3 100mp has enough buffer and processing power to indefinitely write 130 million pixels per second at 16bit per pixel internally to a CF card or externally over USB3. I'm sure someone at Phasone can eventually figure out a way to write 2mp (HD) or 8mp (4k) at a faster rate. Maybe they'll even scrap the mechanical parts and start selling a mirrorless body that's more suited to filming. They almost have that already with their iXU 1000.

As for the cost, it's not much to ask for when compared to the cost of a full Red Weapon 8k system (which isn't even shipping yet) or an Arri Alexa 65 (which is rental only).

But let's stop talking about limitations and look at the possibilities. Forget the dynamic range and high ISO performance, which is leagues ahead of any other sensor currently in the market. Any cinematographer who would choose to use a large sensor camera for his film would probably be choosing it for the look it gives and not the specs, and damn me if this doesn't give that look.

[razrblck]

Maybe they'll even scrap the mechanical parts and start selling a mirrorless body that's more suited to filming. They almost have that already with their iXU 1000.

As for the cost, it's not much to ask for when compared to the cost of a full Red Weapon 8k system (which isn't even shipping yet) or an Arri Alexa 65 (which is rental only).

But let's stop talking about limitations and look at the possibilities. Forget the dynamic range and high ISO performance, which is leagues ahead of any other sensor currently in the market. Any cinematographer who would choose to use a large sensor camera for his film would probably be choosing it for the look it gives and not the specs, and damn me if this doesn't give that look.

Indeed, large format film has a peculiar look and I've seen the Alexa 65 used more and more in movies. But there's more to it than just the sensor. When you get an Alexa or a RED, you know they are built to work for hours on end in extreme environments all while shooting 6k or 8k RAW video. While it's nice that you can record the live view image, this is not a replacement for dedicated equipment.

You should test this out more, see how long can it run and if heat will degrade picture quality too much. Also try to test out the video dynamic range, how well it can be graded in post and if you can use a flatter profile to record it. It's still a hack as it was never intended to be used that way, but if you can make it work in a reliable way, then it can become quite useful.

We know that Phase doesn't really want to make video a priority, but if that sensor can do wonders then we can expect something more video oriented coming from Hasselblad.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am not sure large sensors make a lot of sense for motion. Traditional film for motion was about APS-C size. IMAX used Pentax 67 lenses on film but I would guess that todays APS-C or 24x36 sensors would be good enough for IMAX.

Best regards
Erik

Not that everything can't or won't change, but Razrbik is right, a large format movie/cinema/video camera for professional applications is not the same as a still camera.

Though I would love to see them do it, I'm not sure Hasselblad is going to throw a lot of resources at digital cinema functions on their still cameras.

There is a reason that even the smallest super 35mm RED is quite large by still camera standards, the Alexa even larger.

Heat is a big deal at 24 to 60 fps, same with rolling shutter, codecs with the right amount of compression to be manageable and deep enough to work in post.

Unless something changes, I would really doubt if Hasselblad, or Phase or anyone (other maybe than Sony) would build a larger than 35mm camera that shot professional cinema footage.

Given Phase's current price, adding cinema footage capabilities would;

1. make it much larger and/or require cooling 2. probably get close to doubling the price of the still camera 3. Require connections for sound, high quality clean 4k out stream, variable frame rates etc.

I don't think you can buy the 65mm Alexa only rent, but the RED 6k Weapon is not that much more money than the Phase 100mpx camera, so Hasselblad and Phase would face some stiff competition, or find some way to pull off a miracle.

It's funny the motion world has the same high rez discussions as you see here about still cameras, but usually without as many charts.

Most DP's seem to be quite happy at 2.6 K coming out of an Arri, or down sample their 4/5k RED footage to some format of 2k.   

8k, 6k, 5k even high quality 4k is just a monster on set and in post, but given that the equipment makers keep upping the numbers.

Look at the latest canon 1dxII.   It is a camera a lot of still photographers have asked for, high quality stills, hopefully stable, good qualityautofocus 4k footage, but even that camera has to use a jpeg codec (which is not bad just huge) because of cooling issues and requires c-fast cards.

A days worth of C fast cards will cost what the camera does, so I guess what I'm saying in the long way is making a camera that will shoot footage that you can give the same look and tone as the stills it produces is not easy, or cheap.

And once again, cooling is a big deal for footage.   The little A7sII I bought has issues on cooling, at it's just an 8 bit codec.   Mine doesn't shut off (yet) but you can see a difference in the file as the footage rolls for any length of time and the new Nikon D5 will only run 4k for 5 minutes.

On a professional level a lot of clients want the footage from a project to look like the stills in depth, tone, style and they're such different animals to get that look consistently.

I would love to have a one camera does all, including one software suite that would apply the same look to stills and footage,  but I think we're a ways off from that.

IMO

BC

[Ken R]

On a professional level a lot of clients want the footage from a project to look like the stills in depth, tone, style and they're such different animals to get that look consistently.

I have shot as a unit stills photographer in quite a few projects and a lot of times my raw files from the 5D3 can whip the cr@p out of the files from the footage in low light. The optics are another story. Love the cine glass. Recently worked in a project that used the Leica Lux-C's and wow. Of course the top end cine cameras are superb but as you know VERY expensive to rent, rig and operate. As you know (but most here do not) motion requires a whole bunch of gear. Monitoring and focusing alone require a whole bunch of stuff never mind camera support and movement plus data storage and management.

[razrblck]

As he says, you have to give people a reason to get off their sofas with wide screen tv and their Ipads, to go into the theatre and be wowed by the experience.

I'll go on a tangent here.

I really wish cinemas in my city would improve on their now aging tech. The ones that still have film projectors are perfectly fine, and the quality is impressive. But the last movie I watched that was projected from film was The Exorcist director's cut. The detail was outstanding, the audio was pretty great and the experience was certainly something.

Then I watched Mad Max: Fury Road, The Martian, Star Wars VII and The Revenant and none of them was as good. The picture quality was not that great, though the audio was still good. It did help that I managed to see all those movies with the cinema mostly empty (with the exception of Fury Road where I was the only one in the room), but damn. Watching Mad Max at home on a relatively old (yet 3D capable) 40" TV was an incredible experience, one that makes me sit through the lame piracy ads of each blu-ray just to experience it.

I'll still go to the cinema to see movies when they come out because I want to, but they haven't upgraded digital projectors since the days of Avatar and until they do I'll probably go less and less.

[Ken R]

But then again if you've seen the Revenant shot with the Arri 65 using I believe rehoused Hasselblad lenses, it's bloody beautiful, especially projected well on a huge screen like the Odeon in London.

I was told the film had an insane amount of color grading hours (Chivo supervised a lot of the grading at Technicolor) and also compositing and general post-production. Chivo had the vision but takes an army of talented and hard working people to make it a reality. BC you probably know this so I post for others that do not know how much it takes to make a film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ahhpw4bNU8

[bpepz]

Here's a link to some videos shot with the IQ3 100mp using an Atomos Ninja Blade:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU1m3v90HFr5HTwCxAb1lrfrQ73XTg-zk

I apologise in advance for the boring subject matter. I didn't have much time to do a proper test as our backs are always being rented or demoed. The first bunch were quickly shot in our reception with various lenses that I had available at the time. The last few were quickly shot at the end of a beauty shoot. I might have some spare time this week so I'm open to any suggestions on things to test.

Is anyone else excited about the potential this back presents to film makers?

Really cool look. I think if it was 4k or did something like shooting a DNG seqence like with magic lantern on canon cameras, it could be a great thing. It would allow me to totally ditch 35mm.

I think people are getting too caught up trying to hold every video camera to the standard of an Alexa and the needs of a hollywood production crew. There are tons of people using half baked video on DSLRs ever since it was available, no matter how inconvenient. Just because it does not perform in extreme environments 24/7 in 8k raw shooting at the north pole and in 140 degree heat of the desert (in the same day) and has PL mount and all the bells and whistles, does not mean its totally useless or a waste of time to pursue.

I shoot stock with medium format but I also own a a7rii for those moments when I need to use either the 4k video or a higher ISO for my stills. You know, standard advantages of CMOS. If there was a full frame medium format CMOS back that could do 4k, I would be selling my kidney to get one.

[Zhorton]

This is very cool!  Thanks for posting those samples!  There's some pretty bad video-like motion in these shots, which I'm guessing is the result of a high frame rate (60?).  Does the back give the option of different frame rates (24 is what we'd want for cinematic use)?

In my opinion, this looks very promising if Phase One could enable the right options...  As for cameras and lenses, this is a digital back, not a camera; the beauty is that it can be attached to any technical camera and lens system, including one optimized for video.

Thanks again,
Zach

[Doug Peterson]

This is very cool!  Thanks for posting those samples!  There's some pretty bad video-like motion in these shots, which I'm guessing is the result of a high frame rate (60?).  Does the back give the option of different frame rates (24 is what we'd want for cinematic use)?

In my opinion, this looks very promising if Phase One could enable the right options...  As for cameras and lenses, this is a digital back, not a camera; the beauty is that it can be attached to any technical camera and lens system, including one optimized for video.

Thanks again,
Zach

25fps, 30fps, 60fps available

[Paul2660]

Where did Team Phase One add the microphone port?  The XF camera body doesn't have one as far as I can tell.  Is the mic port inside with the HDMI out port?

Just curious, as a video without sound is all I have seen demo'd so far. 

Paul C

[abouho]

Where did Team Phase One add the microphone port?  The XF camera body doesn't have one as far as I can tell.  Is the mic port inside with the HDMI out port?

Just curious, as a video without sound is all I have seen demo'd so far. 

Paul C

There's no audio inputs or microphones on the digital back or XF body. You can only output video from the HDMI port on the digital back (so far) so you have to use an external recorder to record video. Most video recorders have their own audio inputs.

[Paul2660]

There's no audio inputs or microphones on the digital back or XF body. You can only output video from the HDMI port on the digital back (so far) so you have to use an external recorder to record video. Most video recorders have their own audio inputs.

That was my whole point.   Just don't see much value in a video without sound. And attempting capture it with another device and combining later is going to be a lot of work that any modern DSLR with video capture would avoid.

Paul C