Scarlet

[fredjeang]

Personaly, 135 is becoming my "standard" (with the GH2).

It's chalenging but really cool.

It's a great lengh because it doesn't compromise too much weight and size.

I tend to be away from wides, but the lightning and focussing are more critical.

I vastly use the "zoom" option (2,6x) on the gh2 that allows the zooming without loosing any quality.
An article of Michael Reichmann on that: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/panasonic_gh2_11_mode_revealed.shtml
This is a very powerfull feature, it allows fast apertures with dead-long focals with high quality output.
So you can be at 300-400+ mm in low-light with a 2 aperture and it works like a Ferrari engine.

(IMO it works even better than the normal mode with the equivalent lens lengh)

So the setting is this: you want to shoot 135mm lengh, so you put a 50mm fast lens instead but in ETC mode. It will give you + or - 130 with a higher quality than an expensive equivalent lens.
That's because only the 2K center of the sensor is recorded...you see what I mean...

[Rob C]

with a higher quality than an expensive equivalent lens.
That's because only the 2K center of the sensor is recorded...you see what I mean...

Ummm... Fred isn't this getting dangerously close to the fallacy that going from 35mm format to 6x7 format will give you the same 35mm quality but across the larger format when the reality is that 35mm looks like it does just because the lenses for the smaller format are designed to cover a smaller area and, so, can be better?

This was certainly the case with film, but do sensors really have magical properties to improve lens design, as different from simply providing a common but flatter plane of focus for any format... ?

I did, sometimes, have to blow up the central area of a 6x6 Hasselblad neg, equivalent to a full 35mm format frame, and I can vouch that using the Zeiss glass didn't match the result of using the equivalent Nikkors. Yes, it might have been different films - can't honestly remember that now, but it was certainly something I'd have thought about at the time.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might have totally misunderstood your concept.

Rob C

[fredjeang]

This is different Rob.

In motion, the camera uses a much smaller resolution than its full sensor capabilities. There is a convertion involved in that process. The camera shoots the full frame but it "downsamples" the all frame into the HD output.
In the case of this function in the GH2, the camera actually shoots the necessary pixels without this "downsampling" right in the area of the sensor. This brings a more "precise" output wich is noticiable.

Where that comes interesting? well, you have the hability to uses extremely/ long focal lenses, but with the performances of standard fast primes. Shooting a "135"mm at f1.2 is impressive.

On the GH2, a 50mm is a 100mm, so you have a based 100mm lens. Then, using the ETC, you multiply that by 2,6...still with your 1,2 aperture and fast standard quality.

But, (there is but, as always...) as Michael pointed, the image quality stands high in lower isos. Because the downsamplig has an advantage in higher isos.

In short: lower isos = ETC enabled = choosing a diiferent lens to match the desired output.
Higher isos, back to normal mode for a cleaner output


How much would cost a 200-250mm lens for motion with a 1.2-1.4 aperture? Tens of thousands.

In fact, the problem with the GH2 is when you need wide, but the other way is simply superb.

[Rob C]

In motion, the camera uses a much smaller resolution than its full sensor capabilities. There is a convertion involved in that process. The camera shoots the full frame but it "downsamples" the all frame into the HD output.

What is the reasoning behind using a smaller resolution than is availabe?

Rob C

[Morgan_Moore]

To save data rate/computer load - Even D3s, etc cannot record 25 FPS stills - way to much data

Of course Scarlet does NOT downsample - which is why its great - although you can only use the middle of the sensor when shooting at higher frame rates

S

[Rob C]

Thanks for the info, Morgan; seems that the problem, then, isn't with the actual size of sensor or even the lens, but the shortcomings of the buffering systems, whatever they are?

As I seldom - if ever - used any sort of motor drive with stills other than as a winder (well, I did a few times with film and blanched at the cost), such things haven't crossed my path at all with digital. I imagine that the problem you mention must make highly detailed slow motion work a special nightmare with digital - if it can  be done at all. But, I'm sure they'll get there in the end.

Thanks again -

Rob C

[bcooter]

A Phantom Flex shoots up to 4000 fps. so slomo in digitial is not an issue, except for cost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DadBdeh1OlE

Sometimes it's a gimmick, but planned well sometimes it's essential to the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKDTRQ3zZI4

IMO

BC

[Rob C]

Nice links - just shows to go you!

;-)

Rob C

[fredjeang]

The Phantom is now easy to rent in Spain.

I've seen that Service Vision from Barcelona has a service in L.A USA also. But honestly, the "spanish way" to anunce something publicaly and then when you want
the contacts, the web link to the L.A site, it won't work!

Aaaarrrggg. Mediteranean holy mess!

12035 Sherman Way
 North Hollywood CA. 91605 USA
 Pho. (818) 623-1970
 Fax. (818) 759-6911

This is what I (indirectly!) found.
Won't be surprised at all that this adress doesn't exist...


Anyway.

The Phantom, if I'm right shoots 2000ish in full HD, wich is impressive. The 4000ish Coot said is, if my info is correct, with reduced resolution only.

Then, the Phantom shoots also Raw video. I imagine that the Raw implicates a dedicated software from the brand (that has to be learned) so I think that most people who rent it will use the Prores codec.



 

[billy]

C300 is looking better:

http://blog.planet5d.com/2011/11/has-canon-already-significantly-reduced-the-list-price-of-the-canon-eos-c300/

[Bern Caughey]

In LA a basic Phantom package, & dedicated tech, costs $5k+.

Additional digital mags are $1800/day.

[Morgan_Moore]

Hey - my light has just come on to the 'perfect' camera package for delivering at 1080 (excluding Epic or Alexa on cost grounds)

Now the Scarlet has 'drawbacks' over the C300

Namely the High data rates, 'complex workflow' cost of media etc and also lowlight performance

Now what happens if you strap a Sound Devices Pix240 onto it??

This is a 1080 pro res recorder.

-You film at 1080
-You go to a higher frame rate and film at 1080 - maybe up to 120 FPS
- you are doing a complex high dynamic range scen, you slip in a card and shoot it raw, just to be safe
-you have onboard lossless zoom by going to 2k?

You can even take stills on it

Now this is a little compromised on the Stills front (AF, Sensor size) and motion low light
Add  a CanonD1x record you lowlight motion with that and do your stills that need a larger sensor , or quality AF

ON a stills job yuou take the Stills body, but if you need a few video shots, you use the 1Dx, if you need a quick interview and dont trust the DSLR onboard sound you do synch sound on the PIx recorder

Job done !

Could this work

SamMM

[bcooter]

I am sure the only reason the 1dx doesn't have sound sampling (other than bars) is a nod to Canon's video division, since the 1dx has high iso and down samples from the full sensor which is suppose to  eliminate most moire, which would make it a competitor to Canon's own c300.

If this is a real price drop on the c300, I'm also sure it's a nod to the Scarlet and the Sony F3.

But when it comes to indie work, I think a lot of people are forgetting what a massive third part industry there is for hdslrs.  Sliders, cages, wheels, mikes, time lapse, steady supports, software,  lenses, PL conversions, hdmi to prorezz on the fly transcoding . . . and a million more things I haven't listed.

Indie guys love the dslrs, because the buy in is low and the form factor is small enough to use a lot of third party parts.  I know before buying our REDs I spent almost three times the price of our 5d2, just on these parts to make it really useable and still didn't have the video file I needed for grading.

Maybe the 1dx will overcome this, maybe the c300 will be even better, who knows until you try it.

I do know that in the Canon league price is a major reason for buying and I'll bet they sell 20 1dx' to every c300, maybe more, unless the next 5d is something amazing, then canon will sell nothing but 5d's.

But even at the 5d price buy in, by the time you get it to work in most heavy production, your into almost serious money and the camera is  probably a 2 to 3 year deal until some dslr maker comes out with 3k or 4k raw, then all of these cameras that shoot a baked in file will go on the shelf.

We can talk 4 color pixels to one all day long, but at the end of the day, it always comes down to price and usability.  I think most people expected an raw file option, autofocus mount combination 5d2 and RED killer at under $10,000 and instead they got twice the price with singular mounts and less usability.

I still think if your going to buy at the 20 grand range, a MX sensored RED One will be more usefull and last a lot longer than the Canon . . . but that's just my view, others will probably feel the different and we'll know when the dealers start talking about sales.

Time will tell on the c300 and I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that Canon didn't have the ear to the ground on this one.

IMO

BC

[smthopr]

If the scarlet video output is like the Red One, then it is not suitable for recording for the final project. It's a reduced quality de-Bayer to reduce processor load.

Also, RAW is not always necessary or desirable for movies. There are cameras such as the Sony high end and the new Canon that can record the full dynamic range of the sensor to a video format for color grading in post. One just needs to set a "close enough" white balance when exposing. This can make the post workflow easier, while delivering perfectly professional results. It would be best to record in 10 bits for this, (Canon is only 8 bit) but for many shoots 8 bits will prove surprisingly effective. Shooting S-Log video on a Sony F3 or F35 is not at all like shooting jpeg stills or video from a DSLR. Even the old Panasonic Varicams were capable of shooting rather high contrast subjects without unwanted clipping if one knew how to use it properly. (11-12 stops dynamic range)

[Morgan_Moore]

Cant be bothered with this  (reduser) thread but I think it is being touted as a usable image from the output..

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?64848-Sound-Devices-PIX-240-ProRes-DNxHD-Video-Recorder-with-EPIC

-

As for RAW not being neccesary - I just think the other 'solutions' are a load of pony in comparison - raw is easy to deal with  (if you have the computer muscle)

(that is about getting ultimate image and control)

In the real world having an Edit ready 1080 straight onto CF is the boon that the Pix provides is a great solution .. maybe

I can see me getting a Scarlet and potentiall only useing the onvboard record very rarely (as my clients only want 1080)

The main attraction being 'punch in' and other details of actual usability.. if they work which is not cleaer to me !

S

[bcooter]

If the scarlet video output is like the Red One, then it is not suitable for recording for the final project. It's a reduced quality de-Bayer to reduce processor load.

from the man with iron fist, starring Russell Crowe.

[fredjeang]

... - raw is easy to deal with  (if you have the computer muscle)

I think we should break this mystic about Raw being difficult to deal with and requires the pentagon power to be manageable. That's not truth.

It's simple, in Avid, the RED raw workflow through AMA is faster than AVCHD native editing ! Try it by yourself if you don't beleive me.

In Edius, it's faster to work from Red files than with this popular consumer AVCHD. And I'm talking about 4k editing, not 2k.
I've actually discovered that using HQX codec (converting the R3D) in 4K editing it's possible to maintain the quality while editing way faster. Impossible to notice visually a difference.

Avid grades directly the Raw datas in the timeline (with a raw pop-up windows that looks like ACR) without problem on a 4 years old workstation (fair to say that some renders are required from time to time).

No fear of Raw. It works very well.
 

[smthopr]

I looked at the link for the recorder, and it seems to be used for editing footage, to be graded later from the original RAW footage. It records the meta-data for each clip enabling syncing to the original RAW files for grading.

[smthopr]

from the man with iron fist, starring Russell Crowe.

I shot my latest feature with the RedMX camera.  We recorded the video output live, just for playback.  It was in no way suitable for final mastering. 

Is the point of this photo to show that they have some on-board recorder for the video output?

[fredjeang]

Then I don't get it Bruce.

That's the normal procedure in Avid or Premiere without needing any device. (unless it is for FCP users)

One more external gadget (and in the end the robocop we are complaining about with dslrs will still remains tha same?)