Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

I own a GH-1 and MKii and this is how RED can truly seal the deal

Sanjin Jukic said:
It doesn't exist.

Optical engineers said that is impossible at FF35mm image circle to achieve that speed with any acceptable optical value...

Or I'm totally wrong...???!!!
Click to expand...

Obviously, it would be hard to do. But was so was landing a man on the moon! I think almost anything can be done.

Can anyone with lens expertise tell us why a 16mm FF35mm f/1.4 lens would be difficult to make?
 
It would be nice 'cause we're talking about wide end. Although, f/1.4 is huge in full format.
 
Tom said:
Obviously, it would be hard to do. But was so was landing a man on the moon! I think almost anything can be done.

Can anyone with lens expertise tell us why a 16mm FF35mm f/1.4 lens would be difficult to make?
Click to expand...

Man on the moon has got the best from Angenieux (zoom) decades ago:

5.jpg


"THALES ANGENIEUX has supplied NASA with its zoom lenses
for the retransmission of the first step of man on the moon
and for space missions such as RANGERS, APPOLO and SOYOUZ."

LINK>>>
 
Tom said:
What we need is a 16mm f/1.4 FF35 prime lens!
Click to expand...

If someone made a 24mm f/2.2 for the EPIC 645, that would have the same angle of view, DOF, and light gathering power. The Schneider Super-Angulon XL 72mm f/5.6 for the EPIC 617, too (and I'm sure much fewer aberrations than a 16mm f/1.4 would have.)
 
4/3 , 2/3 sensor size

4/3 , 2/3 sensor size

Can somebody educate me how come the sensor size for 4/3rds comes to around 18mm ; 2/3s is around 10mm; S35 is 24 mm, whats the sensor size for conventional 35mm?
 
manjeet said:
what's the sensor size for conventional 35mm?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this very comprehensive "sensor" cheat sheet:

http://blog.tylerginter.com/?p=290

I does depend exactly what you mean by "conventional 35mm" and whether you're talking about a stills camera or a movie camera.

The film travels horizontally through a stills camera and so the "conventional" 35mm frame size for a stills camera is 36mm x 18.3mm.

The film travels vertically through (almost all) movie cameras. The 4-perf academy frame size is 21.95mm x 18.6mm.

I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that 3-perf super-35mm is the most frequently used 35mm format and so super-35mm could be considered "conventional".
 
Tom said:
It is also rumored that the Canon 60D, which will be announced soon, will shoot 1080/24p.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the smaller sensor size (D60) may mean no more horrible 5Dii moire !

I love the 5Dii but the moire is a real show stopper for some clips (clearly it can be avoided by keeping the 'bad subjects' out of focus ... as I've found no in-post fix for it (median or gaussian-blur with a colour layer merge does help in some cases). The portability of the 5Dii is just fantastic ... shame about the output quality (sometimes = moire).

Any rocket head out there could make a killing on a plug-in that fixes the moire ;-) ... assuming it's even possible ?

EDIT : does the GH-1 exhibit the same moire effects ? how do they get the 1920x1080 output from a 4000x3000 chip ? hopefully not by subsampling every other pixel as I assume this this main cause of the moire in the 5Dii (every 3rd pixel in the case of the 5Dii)
 
manjeet said:
Can somebody educate me how come the sensor size for 4/3rds comes to around 18mm ; 2/3s is around 10mm; S35 is 24 mm, whats the sensor size for conventional 35mm?
Click to expand...

2/3" and 4/3" are essentially obsolete references to the diameter of Vidicon tubes used in old analog TV cameras. The active image area was smaller than the tube. 2/3" tubes had an image area roughly equal to the TV projection aperture of 16mm film, which is one reason the format became so popular.
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
Is there a specific camera you're referring to, because the only camera that I know of fitting this description is the Sigma DP2 and it tops out at QVGA 30p.
Click to expand...

Sony Webbie does 1920x1080 30p and is tiny. However they are VEERY defective. I bought 4 of them to teach my students filmmaking basics and 3 of them stopped working 2 days after their first use.

Unfortunately for me, I now live in Mexico, and they won't give me an international warranty, so I had to throw them in the trashcan :head_explode:

Mauricio
 
Mauricio De la Orta said:
Sony Webbie does 1920x1080 30p and is tiny. However they are VEERY defective. I bought 4 of them to teach my students filmmaking basics and 3 of them stopped working 2 days after their first use.

Unfortunately for me, I now live in Mexico, and they won't give me an international warranty, so I had to throw them in the trashcan :head_explode:

Mauricio
Click to expand...

I know about the pocket camcorders, he was just referring to a still camera.

Have you looked into Mino or Kodak's offerings? You might be able to get international warranties for them.
 
I am very surprised nobody has mentioned the terrible "MUD" issue facing the Panasonic GH1. It effectively turns the GH1 into a 720P Motion-JPEG camera (at 30P) or a 720P AVCHD camera (at 60P) in order to get reliable results. At this point (barring a firmware upgrade) forget 1080P.

See the links below:

The MUD thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=172958

or

the FAQ
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174020

or Vimeo
http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:gh1%20mud

I really wanted the GH1, but ended up forgetting the depth of field and buying a HF S100. When I have the money I'd love to get a 5dMark II or Scarlet.
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
I know about the pocket camcorders, he was just referring to a still camera.

Have you looked into Mino or Kodak's offerings? You might be able to get international warranties for them.
Click to expand...

Hadn't heard of pocket Kodak cams but I'll look into them now. Thanks for the Hint! Sadly, Minolta was purchased by Sony and then developed their Alpha line on top of theirs, so no int'l warranty again.

I've been having a lot of discussions with people living in Latin America amd wanting to buy new video cameras. They all cite the international warranty as one of their buying decision points, so perhaps Red should take a look into this and fill the space that Sony is leaving for any competitor. My 2 cents.
 
Mauricio De la Orta said:
Hadn't heard of pocket Kodak cams but I'll look into them now. Thanks for the Hint! Sadly, Minolta was purchased by Sony and then developed their Alpha line on top of theirs, so no int'l warranty again.

I've been having a lot of discussions with people living in Latin America amd wanting to buy new video cameras. They all cite the international warranty as one of their buying decision points, so perhaps Red should take a look into this and fill the space that Sony is leaving for any competitor. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Not talking about Minolta, but the Flip Mino. You can check it out here.

http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_mino.shtml

And the Kodak Zi6 is here

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-locale=en_US&pq-path=13063

Great thing about the Kodak is that it does 720p60 so you could let your students play around with slo-mo too.
 
and it was me the radical rebel of the small toys.. ehehehehehe
 
I keep looking at the non-scarlet options in different ways. Considering how to make a comparable rig with what's available today and it still keeps coming up short.

I don't consider the DSLR cams comparable because of the AVCHD, lack of 24p, etc.

The EX3 is a curious piece though. Now that the AJA Ki Pro and Convergent Design boxes are shipping, these make for an interesting setup. It's still not recording RAW, like a Scarlet but 4:2:2 10 bit from the SDI should make a decent picture for recording high quality and bypassing the XDCAM EX compression.

So that would mostly solve the acquisition format problems. Now all that's left is DOF. After looking at all the DOF adapters, it really starts to look like a franken-camera setup at that point. I think all of the DOF adapters look like hacks in my opinion, needlessly complicating the camera rig.

Not only is it a serious franken-camera at this point but it's probably also more than what a scarlet would be priced.

EX3 - $8500
Ki Pro - $3500
DOF Adapter - $3000

Now this is starting to look like a system that costs more than an S35 scarlet right out of the box. I am planning (hoping) to get an S35 rig, ready to shoot for around $15k. That is, S35 body, lens, recording device, viewfinder or lcd and battery.

And it will not be a franken-camera rig.

I had to write all this down to share with you guys and also give me a place to refer back to in case I ever grow anxious while waiting for the scarlet to finally get here.
 
I'm sorry, I just have to chime in here, regardless of the fact that I'll be flamed. :)

AVC/h.264 is an AMAZING codec when implemented correctly. Yes it is long-gop (unless you get the panny intra version), but conversion is fast, and interpolation to 4:2:2-intra from a properly exposed/colored 4:2:0 looks pretty damn good.

I've worked with Red One footage... It's .... slow! I don't know why people keep saying "h.264 is a headache, WAIT FOR SCARLET!" AVC looks great, and is faster than redcode. Even if it wasn't, they are both codecs that either require conversion for editorial, or massive horsepowered editing systems to edit native.

As to the quality, REDCODE can (CAN) be quite noisy. It's not perfect just because it's wavelet. EX1 footage looks WAY better than its compression specs, with its lowly mpeg-2. REDCODE is an evolving codec, it will look better as RED tweaks it, but as of 6 months ago, I saw plenty of compression noise (in luma blocks, which were surprisingly large) in an outdoor sunny shot even with the ISO turned down to 100. Honestly I've seen cineform with less noise. Depends on the shot, the implementation, the input from the cam.

Think this way: Raw has no color space, but it comes from a single chip-bayer (we all know this) in the RED ONE. How much does it need to be downsized to retain equivalent color to a 3-chip 1080p cam? Also, how would REDCODE look if its source was a 3-chip 2k cam? Conversely, if you have a 3-chip cam, how much color can you throw out with compression before you even notice? What is better, single chip color with lossless compression, or 3-chip color with lossy compression? There's no answer to that.

We can't get sucked into numbers. This is exactly what happened in the PC market in the late 90s. The Mhz wars. It's happening with cameras now.

Before I got the HMC150, I was convinced there was NO WAY it would look good enough compared to the HPX170 (or ex1 for other reasons); you know, 4:2:2 intra-frame etc "pro codec". Sure enough, I get some footage, and to my eye it bests every expectation I had. There are some shots I've taken in PH mode that I can only call flawless, with plenty of movement at full 1080p/24. I think it looks much better than DVCPRO HD, which I've worked with for 3 years. You can give me all of the technical reasons in the world why it's "worse," but I think it looks better... to me. I've seen uncompressed Dalsa tiffs that look HORRIBLE. Ick.

Another example. On all the threads at dvxuser: "720P is the sweet spot, don't bother with 1080" "The sensor block can't handle anything beyond 720p anyway!"

Bool-koki! I did test after test, and damn if 1080p doesn't look WAY sharper every single time.

Numbers are a good starting point to determine a "Class" of cameras, but nothing compares to the eyeball test. You have to see it. And what looks good to you, may not to another, and vice versa.

We need to get away from thinking, Better, versus thinking, Different. Now yes, some things will just plain old be BETTER. But that's only when all things are equal. And all things are rarely equal. Take for instance Reign Over Me. I thought it looked great as a digitally shot film, but there were some scenes shot at 1/24 shutter that looked like blurry hell. (I'm assuming they did this for lighting purposes.) To me, an inferior cam with better low light and proper shutter would look better even if there were a rez, or color hit. That's just my taste. (Of course if they added more light to begin with...)

The question is, what do most audiences prefer? But if we only went by that metric, we'd eliminate some awfully neat artistic choices in cinema history.

It'd be a lot easier if we could look at specs and say this is better than that. It just doesn't work that way.

So I could have made this a lot shorter by just saying: You don't know donkey about performance from a camera until you see the footage, plain and simple. You don't need to take anyone's word for it. Just look. You'll see.
 
How is the HDMI signal coming off the 5D?
Anyone consider this:
-HDMI to KiPro?

Record 4:2:2 Prores. Seems like a no brainer with the dual XLR syncing and unit giving a solid timecode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top