This is a dynamic range test and comparison between the Sony A7S, Arri Amira, Panasonic GH4, Canon C300, Canon 5D mark III and Canon 1D C.
The dynamic range is the range in luminance any given camera can capture. More range allows for more flexibility in post production and usually provides a more natural and hence more cinematic end result.

What is the cinema5D test lab?
cinema5D has established their own scientific testing facility to accurately measure and evaluate the performance of cameras. As a platform for reviews about cinematic cameras we strive to provide objective comparisons and share insights to help you choose the right camera for your projects.

The cinema5D test lab has been developed over the past 6 months. We are using precise imaging tools, techniques and software to evaluate each camera’s performance precisely. The following test indicates one of several attributes we test when looking at a camera sensor. Stay tuned for more.

The Sony A7S is a stunning new compact camera that currently makes a lot of headlines due to its amazing lowlight capabilities. In this regard it outperforms any other cinema camera we know and therefore offers interesting new applications.

Johnnie Behiri reviewed the A7S and found numerous points that make it a candidate to replace our all time favourite, the Canon 5D mark III (see full review here).

Some of the strengths include not only lowlight performance, but also the high resolution OLED viewfinder, a strong cinematic picture, full-frame coverage, ease of operability, 50p mode, crop-mode and more.

In this first scientific test in a series that we will publish over the next weeks, we want to take a look at the aforementioned dynamic range in comparison to several other very important cameras.

Let’s take a look at the results first:

Interpretation
Here we tested usable dynamic range of the given cameras. With 14.1 stops the usable dynamic range of the A7S comes surprisingly close to the Arri Amira with its legendary Alexa sensor (see our full review here).
This is an extremely good dynamic range rating and is fascinating considering that the A7S is available at a fraction of the Amira’s price and is also in a completely different weight and size class. While the Amira will outperform the A7S in other tests, the dynamic range is a very important attribute to consider when working with a camera.

The Canon cameras come in at 11-12 stops of usable dynamic range. This is still a very strong dynamic range rating, but in comparison to the A7S the Canon’s are way behind.

The Panasonic GH4 had the worst dynamic range in our test. This is in line with the rather videoish look and contrasty colors we can subjectively observe.

Why did the C300 perform worse than the 5D mark III?
Before we go into details about how we test let me explain why the Canon 5D mark III outperformed the C300 and 1DC in our test. As mentioned before we’re measuring usable dynamic range. This means we’re observing actual dynamic range relative to the noise ratio of the signal. In other words, we only measure dynamic range where the signal still upholds a certain quality which is measured in noise.
This is where the bad resolution and codec of the 5D mark III gets a few extra points of dynamic range rating, because its softness blurs the visible and measurable noise. While this might be deemed unfair, the worse quality also gives the viewer an impression of a cleaner image in view of its actual resolution.

How did we test?
On the left you can see a framegrab from the A7S video file used to determine its dynamic range. We use the DSC labs XYLA-21, a high quality LED-backlit transmissive chart that displays 21 stops of dynamic range. Each vertical bar represents one stop of light.
The chart is filmed in a completely dark room using the same very sharp Zeiss 50mm CP2 T/2.1 makro lens with interchangeable mount adjusted for the camera bayonet.

This second picture on the left shows how the same stepchart is recorded on the Panasonic GH4. Each camera is set to its native ISO and the F-stop of the lens is adjusted accordingly.

After extracting i-frames which retain the highest image quality from the video files they are loaded into the testing software. Our software of choice is coming from IMATEST. They are among the industry leaders, provide very flexible and complete solutions as well as being very supportive and helpful in setting up testing standards and understanding the science behind it.

Please stay tuned for more tests which we will publish over the course of the next two weeks. In our upcoming tests we will compare actual resolution (sharpness), rolling shutter, lowlight performance, line skipping issues, moiré and will also give you an insight at codec performance and color reproduction. We will certainly try to include more cameras in the future.

Please share your opinion and thoughts on these test results in the comments.
Disclaimer: We’re not getting paid to do these tests. If you consider buying a camera please help us continue our efforts and investment by simply buying your gear through our links to B&H in USA and Marcotec in Europe. Thank you!

The post Dynamic Range – Sony A7S vs. the others appeared first on cinema5D.

This is a rolling shutter comparison between the new Sony A7S, the Arri Amira, Panasonic GH4, (Canon C300), Canon 5D mark III and Canon 1D C. In the first part in this series of tests we compared the usable dynamic range of the A7S and found that it comes surprisingly close to the dynamic range of the Arri AMIRA (find the dynamic range test here).

Rolling shutter is a phenomenon where straight vertical lines look bent on moving objects, or a “jello effect” appears when the recording device itself is in motion. It is a common issue with CMOS sensor cameras that read out a frame line by line over a certain period of time. A sensor with a global shutter however reads out the entire image at once, avoiding the rolling shutter effect altogether. A severe rolling shutter can be disturbing in certain shooting scenarios.

What is the cinema5D test lab?
At cinema5D’s new testing lab we accurately measure and evaluate the performance of cameras. As a source for reviews about cinematic cameras we strive to provide objective comparisons and share insights to help you choose the right camera for your projects.

The test lab has been developed over the past 6 months. We are using precise imaging tools, techniques and software to measure each camera’s performance. The following test measures one of several attributes we test about a camera sensor. Stay tuned for more.

The Sony A7S is a stunning new compact camera that currently makes a lot of headlines due to its amazing lowlight capabilities. In this regard it outperforms any other cinema camera we know and therefore offers interesting new applications.
See Johnnie Behiri’s comprehensive video review on the A7S HERE.

Some of the strengths include not only lowlight performance, but also the high resolution OLED viewfinder, a strong cinematic picture, full-frame coverage, ease of operability, 50p mode, crop-mode and more.

In this scientific test we take a look at the aforementioned rolling shutter phenomenon in comparison to several other very important cameras. The C300 needs further testing and will be added soon.

Let’s take a look at the results:

Interpretation
Over the past weeks several people reported a severe rolling shutter on the Sony A7S. Many people disliked the strong “jello effect” that appeared when shooting with the camera handheld without any form of stabilization like a handheld rig. Some claimed it was more severe than on any other camera out there.
Our test results show that the A7S’ rolling shutter in full frame HD mode is severe, but we also found that the Canon 1D C performs similarly in 4K mode. Among DSLR style cameras in our test the GH4 in 4K mode performed best and is more or less on par with the A7S’ crop mode, and the 5D mark III coming in right behind that.
As expected the Arri AMIRA has an outstanding shutter readout speed almost looking like a global shutter.

How did we test?
On the left you can see a framegrab from the A7S video file used to determine its rolling shutter. We used a rotating test chart framed identically with all cameras. We used the sharp Zeiss 50mm CP2 T/2.1 makron on all cameras with which we could come so close to the small rotating chart. The amount of horizontal offset between the first and last line of pixels determines the severity of rolling shutter which we measured in milliseconds. These are approximate values (Precision is limited by our method of testing as it involves a slight amount of motion blur).

Stay tuned for more tests which we will publish over the course of the next two weeks. In our upcoming tests we will compare actual resolution (sharpness), lowlight performance, line skipping issues, moiré and will also give you an insight at codec performance and color reproduction. We will certainly try to include more cameras in the future.

Please share your opinion and thoughts on these test results in the comments.
Disclaimer: We’re not getting paid to do these tests. If you consider buying a camera please help us continue our efforts and investment by simply buying your gear through our links to B&H in USA and Marcotec in Europe. Thank you!

The post Rolling Shutter – Sony A7S vs. the others appeared first on cinema5D.

3 days ago Sony announced the new Sony Alpha 5100 mirrorless camera that has made some headlines on the film blogs as it brings the powerful new XAVC S codec as well as 1080p at 60 frames per second.

At cinema5D we already had this new camera in our test labs today and we have some interesting things to share. We tested dynamic range, rolling shutter and observed sharpness and aliasing.

What is the cinema5D test lab?
At cinema5D’s new test lab we accurately measure and evaluate the performance of cameras in a controlled testing environment. We are using precise imaging tools, techniques and software to measure each camera’s performance.

At $550 the Sony A5100 is indeed a “video camera” that looks quite interesting. After Sony’s success with the Sony A7S everybody’s wondering if the same intriguing video functionality can be found in the much smaller sized mirrorless successor of the Alpha 5000. Well let’s take a look.

Dynamic Range

Testing the dynamic range on this camera wasn’t easy. We didn’t have an official native ISO and looked at all ISO combinations ranging from ISO100 up to ISO1600 and measured each with different “Creative Styles” that would provide the best rendering.

Clearly the strongest ISO values are ISO200 and ISO800, while ISO800 provides slightly more dynamic range reaching 13 [UPDATED!] 10.5 measured stops with Creative style “Portrait (-3, 0, -3)”.

Here is a chart that shows you dynamic range in comparison to other important cameras:

[UPDATE Aug. 22 '14:] These test results are the exact numbers the software IMATEST provided in our test at a signal to noise ratio of 1/0.5 in the camera’s respective resolution and compression. Many factors influence these numbers and each sensor has its own characteristics. At this point we want to emphasise that these numbers differ from the subjective opinion we have about the camera, which for us at cinema5D is a very big point as we want to give you an ideal understanding of what the cameras can actually do for you. So we decided to mention it here. Subjectively, in comparison to the other cameras the maximum rating we would give to the Sony A5100 is 12 stops.

[UPDATE 2 Aug. 25 '14:] The software manufacturer informed us that their software had a bug that misinterpreted the Sony A5100’s blacklevels (that seem to inherit green noise) and strongly affected the results for the Sony A5100 dynamic range test. We apologise for any inconvenience this might have caused. At cinema5D we will no longer rely on software results should they ever again differ from subjective evaluation. The software we use has been updated and the bug has been resolved.

Interpretation
Here we tested usable dynamic range of the given cameras. [UPDATED:] The 10.5 stops of usable dynamic range the Sony A5100 provides is good considering it’s just a $550 mirrorless camera.
As you can see it performs slightly worse than the GH4.

We will go into more detail concerning overall handling and usage in the field in our upcoming video review. But one should point out at this point that the camera feels very much like a consumer camera (which it is). In that sense you will not find the log-curve picture profiles like on the A7s or other prosumer models. Instead the A5100 offers “creative styles” where as mentioned Portrait performed best. We also tested “Picture Effects” like “Soft High-key” which may seem to improve dynamic range, but in our tests we found it doesn’t.

On all our tests we use the same ultrasharp Zeiss 50mm T/2.1 Macro lens and the DSC Labs XYLA 21 step dynamic range chart. If you want to know how we test, we explain that in this article: Sony A7S dynamic range test.

Rolling Shutter

On the rolling shutter chart we can see how the Sony 5100 is also a winner. The Sony A7s while providing amazing images has a really bad rolling shutter performance, meaning the images tend to wobble on fast motion. The Sony A5100 however reads out the image even faster than the very well performing Panasonic GH4.

It is interesting to see that rolling shutter performance is identical in 25p (PAL model) mode as well as in 50p. On other cameras rolling shutter is usually half as severe in slow motion. This tells us about how the sensor reads out the image in slow motion mode.

Sharpness / Detail / Aliasing

We just talked about how the sensor reads out the picture similarly in slow motion as in normal mode.
This can also be observed when we take a subjective look at the image which looks identical in both modes as opposed to how the Sony A7s behaves. (Meaning 5100 is better in this regard)

On the left you can find full frame grabs from the Sony A5100 and the Sony A7s for comparison.
Each frame is an i-Frame extracted from the original files. They were recorded under identical lighting conditions. The A7s was set to ISO 3200 (F/11) which produced a very dark image, as opposed to the A5100 shot at ISO 800 (F5.6). In both cases measured with a light meter.

On the left we’re displaying some 1×1 crops of the original images in which the Sony A7s image was brightened up with a curve where highlights were retained.

You can see that in terms of sharpness and detail the Sony A7s outperforms the A5100.

In the image with the sector stars (kindly provided by Danes Picta) it becomes apparent that there is some aliasing going on in the A5100 and that it can’t hold up to the crispy clean image of the A7s.

Here’s another crop of the dark cat that shows us the soft rendering of shadow areas on the A7s where I must say the A5100 actually doesn’t perform so bad. We’ve seen much worse and this is most probably due to the good dynamic range and noise performance on all of Sony’s latest cameras including the A5100.

The overall pink tint of the A5100 is a weird shift in the Portrait Creative Style, but the color you can see in the dark fur, that seems to be moiré.

Where moiré can more clearly be seen on the A5100 is in the tie. It must be noted that most other DSLR kind of cameras have had worse moiré and aliasing performance. The 5100 will look good next to a T3i or most Nikon cameras for example.

Highlight rendering on the A5100 is good. But the A7s really shines with its Slog2 profile that has a beautiful, organic highlight rolloff.

You can clearly see how nicely the Sony A7s renders all the highlight details while they seem less organic and slightly overblown on the A5100.

You might think the Sony A5100 was exposed much brighter, but then again, they were exposed with the same exposure values and the Sony A7s’ Slog2 simply has a different way of storing the data inside the luma range which isn’t an option on the consumer A5100 (yet).

Conclusion [UPDATED]

The Sony A5100 clearly comes in behind the Sony A7s in terms of image quality, with a softer, less clean image. However for $550 (what do you expect) it is still a good performer among DSLR cameras that currently shoot video on an APS-C sized sensor. On top the slow motion mode gives you the same image quality as normal shooting mode.

In terms of dynamic range the Sony A5100 surprises with the measured results and beats most other important cameras we tested, even more expensive ones. [UPDATE:] As mentioned above the subjective impression we have about dynamic range on the A5100 is lower than the software results and can’t compete with the Sony A7s.

It also shines in rolling shutter performance. Overall it seems Sony has built its latest processing technology into this little mirrorless camera, providing good lowlight noise levels as well, which however we see nowhere close the A7s (not tested scientifically yet).

Add to that the internal XAVC S codec as well as the uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:2 output via hdmi in up to 60p and you’ve got a very interesting entry-level large sensor video camera in a tiny form factor.

We will take the Sony A5100 into the field and see how it performs in terms of usability. Watch out for our upcoming video review.

The post LAB Review – Sony A5100 [UPDATED!] appeared first on cinema5D.

The Samsung NX1 is Samsung’s first photo camera to with video shooting functionality. It was announced in September and brings interesting video features like a 4K mode and is also the first camera to feature new H.265 compression that promises to offer more quality at smaller file sizes.

Personal words:
First off I want to say that having reviewed many cameras there’s an element of surprise seeing several positive reviews about the Samsung NX1 video mode. In my observation Samsung tried something bold with the NX1, and they should get credit for that, but they couldn’t quite achieve something that I would call usable. There are some major issues with this camera and I would not recommend it for video shooting (yet).

The photo functionality of this camera was not tested.

Like many other cameras before we ran the Samsung NX1 through our test lab and will give you some insights on sensor performance, dynamic range, sharpness, rolling shutter and usability in comparison to the Panasonic GH4.

Camera Settings
Unlike all our other lab tests this Samsung NX1 was equipped with the Samsung 16-50mm F/2-2.8 OIS Lens and shot at 50mm. (We could not get the necessary mount adapter for NX-M in time.)
The camera was set to custom picture profile: Sharpness -10, Contrast -10
“Smart Range+” was enabled for maximum dynamic range.

Dynamic Range

We tested all ISO settings from 100 up to the camera’s limit of 25600. Interestingly this is the first camera we ever saw that has a consistent 10.1 stops without any shift in brightness throughout the whole range up until ISO 3200. This means there’s no “sweet spot” or native ISO that we would recommend to shoot at.

10.1 stops of dynamic range is not a good rating. Actually it is the worst rating of all lab tests we have published so far. However it comes in not far behind the Panasonic GH4’s 10.8 stops.

We’re certain the sensor is capable of more dynamic range, but the camera is very limited at this time with the baked in picture profiles and no log option.

Dynamic range from ISO 6400 degrades with noise in blacks. Awkwardly there is no actual shift in brightness at ISO 12800 while noise does get more severe. Same goes for ISO 25600. So there’s actually no point to dial in the higher ISO numbers as they have no effect other than degrading the picture.

Also as noise kicks in at the higher ISO’s it seems there is strong noise reduction used at the lower ISO’s. There is a lot more noise on the GH4 and the NX1 image is cleaner throughout, but the NX1 is only a little stronger in terms of lowlight overall.

Rolling Shutter

In terms of rolling shutter the Samsung NX1 is so bad we had to change our test parameters. In UHD mode surprisingly rolling shutter is even a tad more severe than in the larger 4K mode. Probably a smaller portion of the sensor is used and upscaled to the 4K size in 4K mode.

With 29 milli seconds difference between top and bottom it is worse than both the Canon 1DC as well as the Sony A7S. The Panasonic GH4 performs a lot better in this test at UHD resolution.

Sharpness / Detail / Aliasing

On the left you have a full screenshot of the Samsung NX filming our subjective test chart. Jpeg compression is low enough to retain/show the compression as it comes from the camera. Scroll down for some 1×1 crops.

The first 1×1 crop shows the difference between UHD and 4K mode. Actually 4K has more resolution than UHD, but the image looks a lot softer there. So save the storage and never use 4K mode. Instead UHD offers the nicest picture the NX1 can deliver and yes, it is a very nice and sharp image. Nicer than the image coming from the GH4 and also slightly sharper. I wish the camera was more usable and had H.264 compression instead.

On the 1×1 crop with the red needles we compare the Samsung NX1, Panasonic GH4 and Sony A7S in HD mode.
Clearly the Samsung NX is totally unusable in HD. While we aren’t fond of the Panasonic GH4’s HD mode, what the Samsung NX1 offers is worse than anything I’ve seen on a camera of this kind. The image is extremely soft and washed out. Details disappear in a mist of aliasing, compression, noise reduction and softness.

While the GH4’s colors and brightness are off and it has some aliasing, it comes a lot closer to a usable image than the Samsung NX1 ever will. Samsung should improve the features they implement.

H.265

H.265 is a big problem on this camera. At the moment H.265 support is very limited.
In order to get your H.265 files from the camera into your editing software you need to convert them with the tool by Samsung. The tool can be installed by connecting the camera to the computer via USB.
The installation feels a lot like spyware as it collects tracking information and has a user interface from the 90’s. It is unintuitive to use and converts 1 hour worth of UHD footage in 18 hours (on an iMac 27″ late 2012 model).

[Update]: As requested we tried a third party H.265 conversion software. Wondershare offers a video converter that can batch convert H.265 files to ProRes. This tool is about 4 times quicker giving us 1 hour worth of footage after about 4 hours of conversion.
When compared to the Samsung tool we found that UHD file quality is fine with no visible difference to the Samsung converted files, but in HD mode quality is actually worse with more compression artifacts in Wondershare. The Wondershare software costs $50. There will be other conversion software to support H.265 soon.

Unfortunately this is not all. Trying to shoot 120p which the camera offers in HD results in Samsung’s own conversion software to report “unsupported format”. [Wondershare also transcodes 120p files. These however look as unflattering as normal HD mode]

It’s frustrating and time consuming to work with this camera’s footage. Codec quality is good, but there’s something strange in that there is no noise at all. The image looks denoised and slightly unnatural.

Handling

The camera itself feels very well built. The user interface is intuitive, very responsive and feels more organic than on any other camera I have used. This is a big plus. Unfortunately in movie mode some essential functionality is missing (see below) and it seems Samsung got it all wrong here which could be due to the lacking experience as this was their first large sensor photo camera with video functionality.

One general thing we’re missing is a battery charger. The camera battery has to be charged via the camera’s USB connection.

Problems in movie mode:
• Actually there is no dedicated movie mode and no video button, but only “movie preview mode” which you can set to a custom key.
• In “movie preview mode” no focus check is possible. So you either have to rely on the small screen or switch back to photo mode.
• In “movie preview mode” there’s no histogram.
• Also the histogram in photo mode is less accurate than on other cameras making it quite useless to work with and spot over or underexposure.
• Lens Focus resets to infinity on camera restart or card eject. This is highly annoying.
• The EVF has heavy ghosting. It seems to be of poor quality and is not recommended for video.

Conclusion

As mentioned at the beginning it seems Samsung tried to create something bold with h.265 in the NX1 and a nice video image in high resolution, but the implementation didn’t quite work. The camera cripples itself in so many ways it becomes almost useless. It almost seems easier to shoot RAW on a 5D mark III than to shoot normal video on the Samsung NX1.

I’m sorry this review is not very flattering. Samsung tried, but I think they will have to try again. It’s a mystery why other reviews on the video side are actually quite positive. Here’s a summary of the test results:

Pro’s
+ UHD resolution files in good lighting condition turn out very nice. Panasonic GH4 performs worse in UHD.
+ Very sharp image and nice colors in UHD mode.
+ Nice and bright AMOLED display.
+ Nice menu and user interface (except the video mode interface). GH4 is not so intuitive to use.
+ Large APS-C sized sensor. GH4 comes with a Micro Four Thirds sensor.
+ Peaking, Manual Audio Levels (not while recording), Highlight Check.

Con’s
– Very low dynamic range, no log profile. Panasonic GH4 performs better.
– Very bad rolling shutter performance. Panasonic GH4 performs a lot better.
– No lowlight strength. GH4 is worse though.
– Noise reduction and washed out details in picture. GH4 retains more detail.
– HD mode is unusable. GH4 is HD is not great but usable.
– 4K mode is unnecessary as UHD is sharper.
– File handling of H.265 is extremely (less with third party software) time consuming . GH4 performs better.
– Samsung’s software doesn’t recognise their own file format at 120p.
– Movie Mode is not working well and a hassle to use.
– EVF has ghosting.
– Charger not included. Camera battery has to be charged via camera’s USB connection.
– Not easy to get good lens adapters at this time. Proprietary Samsung lenses are not ideal for video.

The Samsung NX1 offers an impressively beautiful UHD image. If this kind of image is all you’re after and you’re willing to live with the limitations, then this camera could do something for you. It’s just very hard to get there.

The Samsung NX1 is not recommended for most video shooters. For an affordable solution to get 4K video I would prefer the Panasonic GH4 at this time.

The post LAB Review – Samsung NX1 Video Mode – Frustrating! appeared first on cinema5D.

This is a dynamic range test and comparison between the Sony A7S, Arri Amira, Panasonic GH4, Canon C300, Canon 5D mark III and Canon 1D C.
The dynamic range is the range in luminance any given camera can capture. More range allows for more flexibility in post production and usually provides a more natural and hence more cinematic end result.

What is the cinema5D test lab?
cinema5D has established their own scientific testing facility to accurately measure and evaluate the performance of cameras. As a platform for reviews about cinematic cameras we strive to provide objective comparisons and share insights to help you choose the right camera for your projects.

The cinema5D test lab has been developed over the past 6 months. We are using precise imaging tools, techniques and software to evaluate each camera’s performance precisely. The following test indicates one of several attributes we test when looking at a camera sensor. Stay tuned for more.

The Sony A7S is a stunning new compact camera that currently makes a lot of headlines due to its amazing lowlight capabilities. In this regard it outperforms any other cinema camera we know and therefore offers interesting new applications.

Johnnie Behiri reviewed the A7S and found numerous points that make it a candidate to replace our all time favourite, the Canon 5D mark III (see full review here).

Some of the strengths include not only lowlight performance, but also the high resolution OLED viewfinder, a strong cinematic picture, full-frame coverage, ease of operability, 50p mode, crop-mode and more.

In this first scientific test in a series that we will publish over the next weeks, we want to take a look at the aforementioned dynamic range in comparison to several other very important cameras.

Interpretation
We tested usable dynamic range of the given cameras. With 12 stops the usable dynamic range of the A7S comes surprisingly close to the Arri Amira (13.1 stops) with its legendary Alexa sensor (see our full review here).
This is an extremely good dynamic range rating and is fascinating considering that the A7S is available at a fraction of the Amira’s price and is also in a completely different weight and size class. While the Amira will outperform the A7S in other tests, the dynamic range is a very important attribute to consider when working with a camera.

The Canon cameras come in at 10-11 stops of usable dynamic range. This is still a very strong dynamic range rating, but in comparison to the A7S the Canon’s are way behind.

The Panasonic GH4 had the worst dynamic range in our test. This is in line with the rather videoish look and contrasty colors we can subjectively observe.

Why did the C300 perform worse than the 5D mark III?
Before we go into details about how we test let me explain why the Canon 5D mark III outperformed the C300 and 1DC in our test. As mentioned before we’re measuring usable dynamic range. This means we’re observing actual dynamic range relative to the noise ratio of the signal. In other words, we only measure dynamic range where the signal still upholds a certain quality which is measured in noise.
This is where the bad resolution and codec of the 5D mark III gets a few extra points of dynamic range rating, because its softness blurs the visible and measurable noise. While this might be deemed unfair, the worse quality also gives the viewer an impression of a cleaner image in view of its actual resolution.

How did we test?
On the left you can see a framegrab from the A7S video file used to determine its dynamic range. We use the DSC labs XYLA-21, a high quality LED-backlit transmissive chart that displays 21 stops of dynamic range. Each vertical bar represents one stop of light.
The chart is filmed in a completely dark room using the same very sharp Zeiss 50mm CP2 T/2.1 makro lens with interchangeable mount adjusted for the camera bayonet.

This second picture on the left shows how the same stepchart is recorded on the Panasonic GH4. Each camera is set to its native ISO and the F-stop of the lens is adjusted accordingly.

After extracting i-frames which retain the highest image quality from the video files they are loaded into the testing software. Our software of choice is coming from IMATEST. They are among the industry leaders, provide very flexible and complete solutions as well as being very supportive and helpful in setting up testing standards and understanding the science behind it.

Please stay tuned for more tests which we will publish over the course of the next two weeks. In our upcoming tests we will compare actual resolution (sharpness), rolling shutter, lowlight performance, line skipping issues, moiré and will also give you an insight at codec performance and color reproduction. We will certainly try to include more cameras in the future.

Please share your opinion and thoughts on these test results in the comments.
Disclaimer: We’re not getting paid to do these tests. If you consider buying a camera please help us continue our efforts and investment by simply buying your gear through our links to B&H.

Note: We have at one point in 2014 updated our dynamic range evaluation scale to better represent usable dynamic range among all tested cameras. This does not affect the relation of usable dynamic range between cameras.

The post Dynamic Range – Sony A7S vs. the others appeared first on cinema5D.

This is a rolling shutter comparison between the new Sony A7S, the Arri Amira, Panasonic GH4, (Canon C300), Canon 5D mark III and Canon 1D C. In the first part in this series of tests we compared the usable dynamic range of the A7S and found that it comes surprisingly close to the dynamic range of the Arri AMIRA (find the dynamic range test here).

Rolling shutter is a phenomenon where straight vertical lines look bent on moving objects, or a “jello effect” appears when the recording device itself is in motion. It is a common issue with CMOS sensor cameras that read out a frame line by line over a certain period of time. A sensor with a global shutter however reads out the entire image at once, avoiding the rolling shutter effect altogether. A severe rolling shutter can be disturbing in certain shooting scenarios.

What is the cinema5D test lab?
At cinema5D’s new testing lab we accurately measure and evaluate the performance of cameras. As a source for reviews about cinematic cameras we strive to provide objective comparisons and share insights to help you choose the right camera for your projects.

The test lab has been developed over the past 6 months. We are using precise imaging tools, techniques and software to measure each camera’s performance. The following test measures one of several attributes we test about a camera sensor. Stay tuned for more.

The Sony A7S is a stunning new compact camera that currently makes a lot of headlines due to its amazing lowlight capabilities. In this regard it outperforms any other cinema camera we know and therefore offers interesting new applications.
See Johnnie Behiri’s comprehensive video review on the A7S HERE.

Some of the strengths include not only lowlight performance, but also the high resolution OLED viewfinder, a strong cinematic picture, full-frame coverage, ease of operability, 50p mode, crop-mode and more.

In this scientific test we take a look at the aforementioned rolling shutter phenomenon in comparison to several other very important cameras. The C300 needs further testing and will be added soon.

Let’s take a look at the results:

Interpretation
Over the past weeks several people reported a severe rolling shutter on the Sony A7S. Many people disliked the strong “jello effect” that appeared when shooting with the camera handheld without any form of stabilization like a handheld rig. Some claimed it was more severe than on any other camera out there.
Our test results show that the A7S’ rolling shutter in full frame HD mode is severe, but we also found that the Canon 1D C performs similarly in 4K mode. Among DSLR style cameras in our test the GH4 in 4K mode performed best and is more or less on par with the A7S’ crop mode, and the 5D mark III coming in right behind that.
As expected the Arri AMIRA has an outstanding shutter readout speed almost looking like a global shutter.

How did we test?
On the left you can see a framegrab from the A7S video file used to determine its rolling shutter. We used a rotating test chart framed identically with all cameras. We used the sharp Zeiss 50mm CP2 T/2.1 makron on all cameras with which we could come so close to the small rotating chart. The amount of horizontal offset between the first and last line of pixels determines the severity of rolling shutter which we measured in milliseconds. These are approximate values (Precision is limited by our method of testing as it involves a slight amount of motion blur).

Stay tuned for more tests which we will publish over the course of the next two weeks. In our upcoming tests we will compare actual resolution (sharpness), lowlight performance, line skipping issues, moiré and will also give you an insight at codec performance and color reproduction. We will certainly try to include more cameras in the future.

Please share your opinion and thoughts on these test results in the comments.
Disclaimer: We’re not getting paid to do these tests. If you consider buying a camera please help us continue our efforts and investment by simply buying your gear through our links to B&H in USA and Marcotec in Europe. Thank you!

The post Rolling Shutter – Sony A7S vs. the others appeared first on cinema5D.

3 days ago Sony announced the new Sony Alpha 5100 mirrorless camera that has made some headlines on the film blogs as it brings the powerful new XAVC S codec as well as 1080p at 60 frames per second.

At cinema5D we already had this new camera in our test labs today and we have some interesting things to share. We tested dynamic range, rolling shutter and observed sharpness and aliasing.

What is the cinema5D test lab?
At cinema5D’s new test lab we accurately measure and evaluate the performance of cameras in a controlled testing environment. We are using precise imaging tools, techniques and software to measure each camera’s performance.

At $550 the Sony A5100 is indeed a “video camera” that looks quite interesting. After Sony’s success with the Sony A7S everybody’s wondering if the same intriguing video functionality can be found in the much smaller sized mirrorless successor of the Alpha 5000. Well let’s take a look.

Dynamic Range

Testing the dynamic range on this camera wasn’t easy. We didn’t have an official native ISO and looked at all ISO combinations ranging from ISO100 up to ISO1600 and measured each with different “Creative Styles” that would provide the best rendering.

Clearly the strongest ISO values are ISO200 and ISO800, while ISO800 provides slightly more dynamic range reaching 13 [UPDATED!] 10.5 measured stops with Creative style “Portrait (-3, 0, -3)”.

Here is a chart that shows you dynamic range in comparison to other important cameras:

[UPDATE Aug. 22 ’14:] These test results are the exact numbers the software IMATEST provided in our test at a signal to noise ratio of 1/0.5 in the camera’s respective resolution and compression. Many factors influence these numbers and each sensor has its own characteristics. At this point we want to emphasise that these numbers differ from the subjective opinion we have about the camera, which for us at cinema5D is a very big point as we want to give you an ideal understanding of what the cameras can actually do for you. So we decided to mention it here. Subjectively, in comparison to the other cameras the maximum rating we would give to the Sony A5100 is 12 stops.

[UPDATE 2 Aug. 25 ’14:] The software manufacturer informed us that their software had a bug that misinterpreted the Sony A5100’s blacklevels (that seem to inherit green noise) and strongly affected the results for the Sony A5100 dynamic range test. We apologise for any inconvenience this might have caused. At cinema5D we will no longer rely on software results should they ever again differ from subjective evaluation. The software we use has been updated and the bug has been resolved.

Interpretation
Here we tested usable dynamic range of the given cameras. [UPDATED:] The 10.5 stops of usable dynamic range the Sony A5100 provides is good considering it’s just a $550 mirrorless camera.
As you can see it performs slightly worse than the GH4.

We will go into more detail concerning overall handling and usage in the field in our upcoming video review. But one should point out at this point that the camera feels very much like a consumer camera (which it is). In that sense you will not find the log-curve picture profiles like on the A7s or other prosumer models. Instead the A5100 offers “creative styles” where as mentioned Portrait performed best. We also tested “Picture Effects” like “Soft High-key” which may seem to improve dynamic range, but in our tests we found it doesn’t.

On all our tests we use the same ultrasharp Zeiss 50mm T/2.1 Macro lens and the DSC Labs XYLA 21 step dynamic range chart. If you want to know how we test, we explain that in this article: Sony A7S dynamic range test.

Rolling Shutter

On the rolling shutter chart we can see how the Sony 5100 is also a winner. The Sony A7s while providing amazing images has a really bad rolling shutter performance, meaning the images tend to wobble on fast motion. The Sony A5100 however reads out the image even faster than the very well performing Panasonic GH4.

It is interesting to see that rolling shutter performance is identical in 25p (PAL model) mode as well as in 50p. On other cameras rolling shutter is usually half as severe in slow motion. This tells us about how the sensor reads out the image in slow motion mode.

Sharpness / Detail / Aliasing

We just talked about how the sensor reads out the picture similarly in slow motion as in normal mode.
This can also be observed when we take a subjective look at the image which looks identical in both modes as opposed to how the Sony A7s behaves. (Meaning 5100 is better in this regard)

On the left you can find full frame grabs from the Sony A5100 and the Sony A7s for comparison.
Each frame is an i-Frame extracted from the original files. They were recorded under identical lighting conditions. The A7s was set to ISO 3200 (F/11) which produced a very dark image, as opposed to the A5100 shot at ISO 800 (F5.6). In both cases measured with a light meter.

On the left we’re displaying some 1×1 crops of the original images in which the Sony A7s image was brightened up with a curve where highlights were retained.

You can see that in terms of sharpness and detail the Sony A7s outperforms the A5100.

In the image with the sector stars (kindly provided by Danes Picta) it becomes apparent that there is some aliasing going on in the A5100 and that it can’t hold up to the crispy clean image of the A7s.

Here’s another crop of the dark cat that shows us the soft rendering of shadow areas on the A7s where I must say the A5100 actually doesn’t perform so bad. We’ve seen much worse and this is most probably due to the good dynamic range and noise performance on all of Sony’s latest cameras including the A5100.

The overall pink tint of the A5100 is a weird shift in the Portrait Creative Style, but the color you can see in the dark fur, that seems to be moiré.

Where moiré can more clearly be seen on the A5100 is in the tie. It must be noted that most other DSLR kind of cameras have had worse moiré and aliasing performance. The 5100 will look good next to a T3i or most Nikon cameras for example.

Highlight rendering on the A5100 is good. But the A7s really shines with its Slog2 profile that has a beautiful, organic highlight rolloff.

You can clearly see how nicely the Sony A7s renders all the highlight details while they seem less organic and slightly overblown on the A5100.

You might think the Sony A5100 was exposed much brighter, but then again, they were exposed with the same exposure values and the Sony A7s’ Slog2 simply has a different way of storing the data inside the luma range which isn’t an option on the consumer A5100 (yet).

Conclusion [UPDATED]

The Sony A5100 clearly comes in behind the Sony A7s in terms of image quality, with a softer, less clean image. However for $550 (what do you expect) it is still a good performer among DSLR cameras that currently shoot video on an APS-C sized sensor. On top the slow motion mode gives you the same image quality as normal shooting mode.

In terms of dynamic range the Sony A5100 surprises with the measured results and beats most other important cameras we tested, even more expensive ones. [UPDATE:] As mentioned above the subjective impression we have about dynamic range on the A5100 is lower than the software results and can’t compete with the Sony A7s.

It also shines in rolling shutter performance. Overall it seems Sony has built its latest processing technology into this little mirrorless camera, providing good lowlight noise levels as well, which however we see nowhere close the A7s (not tested scientifically yet).

Add to that the internal XAVC S codec as well as the uncompressed 8-bit 4:2:2 output via hdmi in up to 60p and you’ve got a very interesting entry-level large sensor video camera in a tiny form factor.

We will take the Sony A5100 into the field and see how it performs in terms of usability. Watch out for our upcoming video review.

The post LAB Review – Sony A5100 [UPDATED!] appeared first on cinema5D.

The Samsung NX1 is Samsung’s first photo camera to with video shooting functionality. It was announced in September and brings interesting video features like a 4K mode and is also the first camera to feature new H.265 compression that promises to offer more quality at smaller file sizes.

Personal words:
First off I want to say that having reviewed many cameras there’s an element of surprise seeing several positive reviews about the Samsung NX1 video mode. In my observation Samsung tried something bold with the NX1, and they should get credit for that, but they couldn’t quite achieve something that I would call usable. There are some major issues with this camera and I would not recommend it for video shooting (yet).

The photo functionality of this camera was not tested.

Like many other cameras before we ran the Samsung NX1 through our test lab and will give you some insights on sensor performance, dynamic range, sharpness, rolling shutter and usability in comparison to the Panasonic GH4.

Camera Settings
Unlike all our other lab tests this Samsung NX1 was equipped with the Samsung 16-50mm F/2-2.8 OIS Lens and shot at 50mm. (We could not get the necessary mount adapter for NX-M in time.)
The camera was set to custom picture profile: Sharpness -10, Contrast -10
“Smart Range+” was enabled for maximum dynamic range.

Dynamic Range

We tested all ISO settings from 100 up to the camera’s limit of 25600. Interestingly this is the first camera we ever saw that has a consistent 10.1 stops without any shift in brightness throughout the whole range up until ISO 3200. This means there’s no “sweet spot” or native ISO that we would recommend to shoot at.

10.1 stops of dynamic range is not a good rating. Actually it is the worst rating of all lab tests we have published so far. However it comes in not far behind the Panasonic GH4’s 10.8 stops.

We’re certain the sensor is capable of more dynamic range, but the camera is very limited at this time with the baked in picture profiles and no log option.

Dynamic range from ISO 6400 degrades with noise in blacks. Awkwardly there is no actual shift in brightness at ISO 12800 while noise does get more severe. Same goes for ISO 25600. So there’s actually no point to dial in the higher ISO numbers as they have no effect other than degrading the picture.

Also as noise kicks in at the higher ISO’s it seems there is strong noise reduction used at the lower ISO’s. There is a lot more noise on the GH4 and the NX1 image is cleaner throughout, but the NX1 is only a little stronger in terms of lowlight overall.

Rolling Shutter

In terms of rolling shutter the Samsung NX1 is so bad we had to change our test parameters. In UHD mode surprisingly rolling shutter is even a tad more severe than in the larger 4K mode. Probably a smaller portion of the sensor is used and upscaled to the 4K size in 4K mode.

With 29 milli seconds difference between top and bottom it is worse than both the Canon 1DC as well as the Sony A7S. The Panasonic GH4 performs a lot better in this test at UHD resolution.

Sharpness / Detail / Aliasing

On the left you have a full screenshot of the Samsung NX filming our subjective test chart. Jpeg compression is low enough to retain/show the compression as it comes from the camera. Scroll down for some 1×1 crops.

The first 1×1 crop shows the difference between UHD and 4K mode. Actually 4K has more resolution than UHD, but the image looks a lot softer there. So save the storage and never use 4K mode. Instead UHD offers the nicest picture the NX1 can deliver and yes, it is a very nice and sharp image. Nicer than the image coming from the GH4 and also slightly sharper. I wish the camera was more usable and had H.264 compression instead.

On the 1×1 crop with the red needles we compare the Samsung NX1, Panasonic GH4 and Sony A7S in HD mode.
Clearly the Samsung NX is totally unusable in HD. While we aren’t fond of the Panasonic GH4’s HD mode, what the Samsung NX1 offers is worse than anything I’ve seen on a camera of this kind. The image is extremely soft and washed out. Details disappear in a mist of aliasing, compression, noise reduction and softness.

While the GH4’s colors and brightness are off and it has some aliasing, it comes a lot closer to a usable image than the Samsung NX1 ever will. Samsung should improve the features they implement.

H.265

H.265 is a big problem on this camera. At the moment H.265 support is very limited.
In order to get your H.265 files from the camera into your editing software you need to convert them with the tool by Samsung. The tool can be installed by connecting the camera to the computer via USB.
The installation feels a lot like spyware as it collects tracking information and has a user interface from the 90’s. It is unintuitive to use and converts 1 hour worth of UHD footage in 18 hours (on an iMac 27″ late 2012 model).

[Update]: As requested we tried a third party H.265 conversion software. Wondershare offers a video converter that can batch convert H.265 files to ProRes. This tool is about 4 times quicker giving us 1 hour worth of footage after about 4 hours of conversion.
When compared to the Samsung tool we found that UHD file quality is fine with no visible difference to the Samsung converted files, but in HD mode quality is actually worse with more compression artifacts in Wondershare. The Wondershare software costs $50. There will be other conversion software to support H.265 soon.

Unfortunately this is not all. Trying to shoot 120p which the camera offers in HD results in Samsung’s own conversion software to report “unsupported format”. [Wondershare also transcodes 120p files. These however look as unflattering as normal HD mode]

It’s frustrating and time consuming to work with this camera’s footage. Codec quality is good, but there’s something strange in that there is no noise at all. The image looks denoised and slightly unnatural.

Handling

The camera itself feels very well built. The user interface is intuitive, very responsive and feels more organic than on any other camera I have used. This is a big plus. Unfortunately in movie mode some essential functionality is missing (see below) and it seems Samsung got it all wrong here which could be due to the lacking experience as this was their first large sensor photo camera with video functionality.

One general thing we’re missing is a battery charger. The camera battery has to be charged via the camera’s USB connection.

Problems in movie mode:
• Actually there is no dedicated movie mode and no video button, but only “movie preview mode” which you can set to a custom key.
• In “movie preview mode” no focus check is possible. So you either have to rely on the small screen or switch back to photo mode.
• In “movie preview mode” there’s no histogram.
• Also the histogram in photo mode is less accurate than on other cameras making it quite useless to work with and spot over or underexposure.
• Lens Focus resets to infinity on camera restart or card eject. This is highly annoying.
• The EVF has heavy ghosting. It seems to be of poor quality and is not recommended for video.

Conclusion

As mentioned at the beginning it seems Samsung tried to create something bold with h.265 in the NX1 and a nice video image in high resolution, but the implementation didn’t quite work. The camera cripples itself in so many ways it becomes almost useless. It almost seems easier to shoot RAW on a 5D mark III than to shoot normal video on the Samsung NX1.

I’m sorry this review is not very flattering. Samsung tried, but I think they will have to try again. It’s a mystery why other reviews on the video side are actually quite positive. Here’s a summary of the test results:

Pro’s
+ UHD resolution files in good lighting condition turn out very nice. Panasonic GH4 performs worse in UHD.
+ Very sharp image and nice colors in UHD mode.
+ Nice and bright AMOLED display.
+ Nice menu and user interface (except the video mode interface). GH4 is not so intuitive to use.
+ Large APS-C sized sensor. GH4 comes with a Micro Four Thirds sensor.
+ Peaking, Manual Audio Levels (not while recording), Highlight Check.

Con’s
– Very low dynamic range, no log profile. Panasonic GH4 performs better.
– Very bad rolling shutter performance. Panasonic GH4 performs a lot better.
– No lowlight strength. GH4 is worse though.
– Noise reduction and washed out details in picture. GH4 retains more detail.
– HD mode is unusable. GH4 is HD is not great but usable.
– 4K mode is unnecessary as UHD is sharper.
– File handling of H.265 is extremely (less with third party software) time consuming . GH4 performs better.
– Samsung’s software doesn’t recognise their own file format at 120p.
– Movie Mode is not working well and a hassle to use.
– EVF has ghosting.
– Charger not included. Camera battery has to be charged via camera’s USB connection.
– Not easy to get good lens adapters at this time. Proprietary Samsung lenses are not ideal for video.

The Samsung NX1 offers an impressively beautiful UHD image. If this kind of image is all you’re after and you’re willing to live with the limitations, then this camera could do something for you. It’s just very hard to get there.

The Samsung NX1 is not recommended for most video shooters. For an affordable solution to get 4K video I would prefer the Panasonic GH4 at this time.

The post LAB Review – Samsung NX1 Video Mode – Frustrating! appeared first on cinema5D.

The Sony A7RII, announced by Sony last month is somewhat of a successor to the famous Sony A7S that has by now become a benchmark small cinema camera. We have the Sony A7RII (production model) for review at cinema5D and we’re doing all kinds of things to it. Here are our findings on the first day in the lab.

The nice features about the Sony A7RII are its small form factor, full-frame sensor, internal 4K recording capabilities, Slog2 and internal sensor image stabilisation.

Before we take new cameras into the field we want to know what the best way to use them is. So we take a closer look in our scientific test lab, check things like usable dynamic range, compare crop modes and the like. This article is just a preliminary look at the Sony A7RII. A full review is following soon.

Sony claims that the 4K crop mode on the Sony A7RII happens without pixel binning. So the first thing we wanted to know is how good the Super35 Crop Mode actually is and how it compares to the Full Frame mode. Here are some 100% crops from the footage:

What we could see when comparing the two modes is that indeed the Super35 Crop Mode is very nice and a tad sharper and cleaner than the Full Frame Mode. But we were also surprised to see that the Full Frame Mode is actually not bad at all.

In fact I would say it can easily be scaled down to 3K or even go as 4K and look very nice. It’s really not so easy to tell the difference between the two modes so Full Frame must be good. Aliasing is not strong in full frame mode, there is a tiny bit here and there, but to be honest it’s hard to find.

So if you need the best quality you will want to go with crop mode, but if you’re not a pixel peeper than Full Frame Mode will serve you just as well.

In comparison to the Sony A7S in 4K it’s really really hard to tell the difference and I dare you to try. The most apparent difference is the A7S running at a base ISO of 3200 and the Sony A7RII running at a base ISO of 800. You can see the grain and compression / noise reduction artefacts on the A7S on moving images. The Sony A7RII looks a bit cleaner. As a still they look virtually identical.

It is amazing though to see this kind of quality recorded internally in such a small camera body. And the A7S was recorded in ProRes, so the XAVC-S codec on the A7RII is certainly doing a good job here. Wow!

The other thing we checked was lowlight behaviour in the different modes. Interestingly full frame mode is much worse in this regard. So you should really make sure you’re on crop mode if you crank up that ISO dial.

Below you can see the last 4 steps of dynamic range on both Crop Mode (super35 mode) as well as Full Frame Mode at ISO 6400. Maybe the Sony A7RII is doing some kind of efficient internal noise reduction on the Crop Mode. We like it.

In terms of lowlight the Sony A7RII is definitely less strong than the Sony A7S, but it’s hard to say how much better the Sony A7S is. We will go into this further soon.

We did test the dynamic range and found there’s about 12.3 stops of dynamic range on the Sony A7RII. So that’s very nice. The A7S does about 11.8 in 4K (with an external recorder) and the Sony FS7 goes up to 12.4 in our tests.

It’s also possible to record 4K internally and externally simultaneously and the Atomos Shogun accepts the Sony A7RII’s hdmi signal just fine.

This is just the first round of tests we did. Actual footage is coming soon!
We’re now going out into the field and set the camera to use. We’ll make sure to check out all aspects of handling and ergonomics and we’ll especially compare the camera to its predecessor and make the footage available for download.

So stay tuned for more over the next days or just subscribe to our newsletter by registering a cinema5D account to stay up to date.

The post How Good is the New Sony A7RII – First Look in the Lab appeared first on cinema5D.

We’ve been quite busy at cinema5D reviewing the new Sony A7RII (see our field review here and preliminary lab test here). The successor to the famous Sony A7S has left us impressed, but many are asking if it can provide the same legendary lowlight capabilities. Here’s our Sony A7RII vs A7S Lowlight Review, so we’re about to find out.

 How good is the Sony A7RII in Lowlight

As a small camera with a large sensor that shoots 4K (UHD) internally the Sony A7RII is already an amazing piece of gear. Dialling up the ISO we notice that it’s quite capable to shoot even in lowlight environments.

However the question is how good it really is, so we don’t get caught by surprise with unusable footage after we come back from a shoot.

Many people think that there’s a way to put a number on a camera’s performance, but multiple tests and reviews have showed us otherwise: Camera sensors are complex and inconsistent depending on the way they are used, so we need to learn and experience the camera’s performance in order to use it correctly. It certainly helps to compare a sensor to a reference to get a better perspective.

This is where the Sony A7s in an obvious choice. It is one of the most lowlight sensitive cameras we know and has a lot in common with the new A7RII. With its high ISO rating the Sony A7s was (and still is) a perfect tool for documentary style cameramen.

The Test: A7RII vs A7S

For this test we used two identical Zeiss Loxia 50mm F/2 (Sony E-mount) lenses on the Sony A7RII and Sony A7s and filmed our test chart at the same time. For the purpose of the test we zoomed into lowlight critical areas of the frame. 400% on the Sony A7s’s HD footage and 200% on the A7RII’s 4K (UHD).

On first sight it might appear as though the noise floor is similar, but in our video above you can upon close inspection see that the A7s retains better detail throughout. At around ISO 8,000 the Sony A7RII shadow areas get more and more washed out and some detail is lost. Noise performance is still good and in many situations the footage beyond ISO 10,000 and even up to 25,600 might still be usable for you, but look out for those washed out dark areas.

The Sony A7s in comparison holds a very clean image all the way up to ISO 25,600. Noise gets severe beyond that point, but detail is retained quite well in comparison to other cameras, which makes it such an impressive lowlight tool.

If you want to be on the safe side you should be careful not to expose beyond ISO 6,400 on the new Sony A7RII, but if your final output is HD and web content you might find that even ISO 25,600 is possible without too much noise on the Sony A7RII. The fact of the matter is that you should make your own tests, find out and get a feeling for how far you can and want to push your footage to get the images look the way you like.

Sony A7RII Full Frame Mode?

One thing we already noticed last friday was the tremendous difference in lowlight performance between Crop Mode and Full Frame Mode on the new Sony A7RII.

Below you can see the last 4 steps of dynamic range on both Crop Mode (super35) as well as Full Frame Mode at ISO 6400. You can also observe this in the video above.

[Update]: The fact that the Sony A7RII delivers good results at a super35 sensor size is great news and actually quite a big thing. Bror Svensson reminded us that this is the ideal scenario to use the new Metabones Speedbooster ULTRA that can increase the lowlight capabilities by another stop with a manual full-frame lens.

Conclusion

• The Sony A7RII is good in terms of lowlight and certainly very good in comparison to many other 4K cameras out there.
• The noise floor of the Sony A7RII vs A7s seems similar, but the footage is cleaner on the Sony A7s.
• In terms of detail the Sony A7s can retain usable quality up into high ISO’s while the Sony A7RII lacks detail much sooner. We start to notice this in the shadow areas around 6,400-10,000 ISO. Shadow areas get washed out and become less usable even on an HD downconversion that we compare to the Sony A7s original as seen in the video above.

According to our observations it seems as though the Sony A7s is the better lowlight camera by a few stops. Picture quality in lowlight is more consistent up into the high ISO’s in comparison to the new Sony A7RII.

Download the source file at Vimeo to make your own observations: LINK

Please consider getting your camera and gear through this link. Thank you

Music by themusicbed.com
Skywide – City Streets

The post Sony A7RII vs A7S Lowlight Review appeared first on cinema5D.

Over the last days we’ve conducted several scientific lab tests, reviewed and taken the new Sony A7RII out into the field. In this article we are looking at the  Sony A7RII rolling shutter performance and see how good the sensor is in comparison to several other cameras.

Links to our other tests:

Rolling Shutter

The so called “rolling shutter” is a phenomenon that skews a camera image when fast moving objects are recorded or during fast pans and handheld camera movement. The reason for this is that most sensors read out the image line by line via a buffer.

On many CMOS cameras the rolling shutter effect has become a common issue, but some cameras have a stronger rolling shutter than others. When comparing the Sony A7RII to other cameras we can see that the rolling shutter effect is quite severe in 4K (UHD) Crop Mode. See the comparison below:

We test the rolling shutter with a rotary chart. It always spins at the same speed and has a scale printed on it. The horizontal shift between the top and bottom line of pixels lets us roughly calculate the rolling shutter latency in milliseconds.

In Crop Mode we measured 29ms of latency on the Sony A7RII whereas in Full Frame Mode we only measured 16ms. In HD (Crop Mode) Rolling Shutter is minimal with 7ms, not far off the famous Arri AMIRA camera that has the lowest rolling shutter rating in our tests. Below you can see a chart comparing rolling shutter between several cameras:

As you can see the Sony A7RII joins the Samsung NX1 which had the most severe rolling shutter we ever tested. The Canon 1DC and Sony A7s perform a little better and the Panasonic GH4 has the best values among small cinema cameras.

Conclusion

Rolling Shutter is for many not a purchase criteria. The phenomenon is mostly an issue when there is overly fast handheld movement or you film fast moving objects. However a rolling shutter of 29ms raises concerns. It is the highest measured rolling shutter among all cameras we every tested.

As we found out on Friday the Full Frame Mode is quite acceptable in terms of quality and offers a much better rolling shutter behaviour, but we also noticed that it performs badly in lowlight. It might come in handy when a better rolling shutter performance is needed and you have sufficient light available.

Comparing the Sony A7RII HD mode with that of the Sony A7s we can see that the Sony A7RII performs much better.

So rolling shutter on the new Sony A7RII is both good and bad. If you need a camera with good rolling shutter performance in 4K (UHD) you can either resort to the Sony A7RII Full Frame Mode or avoid this camera altogether and go with the Panasonic GH4 instead. The Sony A7s performs better, but the difference is not huge.

Please consider getting your camera and gear through this link. Thank you

The post Sony A7RII Rolling Shutter – Compared to Sony A7s Samsung NX1 Canon 1DC Panasonic GH4 appeared first on cinema5D.

The Canon C300 Mark II is here and comes with a lot of high expectations by customers and a hefty price tag of $16,000. Many are willing to put down the investment as they anticipate superb image quality in return and a new flagship cinema camera that has been several years in development by Canon. In our test lab we took a closer look at the C300 Mark II’s performance and found it less powerful than expected.

At cinema5D we conduct camera reviews and comparisons. As manufacturers are not limited in the way they advertise their camera’s performance we strive to put the numbers in perspective with unified tests on the latest cameras on the market.

Being a shooter myself I know it’s actually really hard to objectively pinpoint the performance of a camera. In this Canon C300 Mark II lab test I want to give you some insights into our findings about the new Canon C300 Mark II and show you how we tested.

The Canon C300 Mark II’s reputation

The Canon C300 Mark II has raised a lot of eyebrows since the announcement in April. The first Cinema EOS camera, the C300 has been very popular and remains the go-to option for many TV, film and independent productions. With the C300 Mark II Canon introduced numerous advancements, most notably 12-bit 2K as well as 4K 10-bit internal recording and improvements in terms of sensor technology and image processing. According to Canon:

“a 15-stop dynamic range is provided by a new photodiode design that simultaneously lowers the noise floor”.

Considering that the defacto cinema standard Arri ALEXA was announced with 14 stops of dynamic range the Canon C300 Mark II comes with a bold claim. The information surrounding the new Cinema EOS camera seems to suggest that Canon’s new sensor could actually compete with the image quality of the good old Arri ALEV III sensor that is used in all 9 versions of the ALEXA Arri has released over the years.

As with any new camera on the test bench I was curious, but eventually what I found during the lab test wasn’t what I was hoping for.

Testing the Dynamic Range

So I looked at the dynamic range. At cinema5D we measure this using a DSC labs XYLA-21, an LED-backlit transmissive chart that displays 21 stops of dynamic range. Each vertical bar represents one stop of light. This way it’s very easy to judge dynamic range just with your eyes. At the end we evaluate the recordings with a software by IMATEST that spits out a dynamic range value. There’s some more science behind it, but I’ll spare you the details.

As we are recording each ISO value with each camera using the identical very sharp Zeiss 50mm CP2 T/2.1 makro lens with interchangeable mount we can compare all cameras to each other. In our database we have about 20 cameras on record so far.

In our tests and according to our workflow it turned out the camera actually has 12.3 stops (measured) of usable dynamic range.

Usable dynamic range. What is that? That means within this range you have picture information that you can use. Anything beyond a certain “Signal-to-Noise” ratio is so noisy we think it’s unusable. I must say 15 stops of dynamic range is something I cannot find in the Canon C300 Mark II. There’s always a chance there’s some hidden setting in the menu to unleash the HDR potential of the sensor, but I couldn’t find it.

Reading comments of other camera enthusiasts it seems that many expect the new C300 sensor to hold up to the performance of the ALEXA cameras. What I see is that the C300 Mark II is still far away from matching this reference standard and almost on par with the Sony FS7 (measured at 12.4 stops).

An additional surprise was that I saw a lot of noise in the dark areas on the Canon C300 Mark II even at its base ISO of 800. While the camera has a very clean image in the brighter areas and has a really neutral tone with minimal color noise, there is a point in the dark areas where the noise kicks in strongly. When I did some test shots of natural subjects I realized that images shot on ISO 800 that are just 1 stop underexposed can quickly become a little too noisy for my taste especially in comparison to a camera like the Arri AMIRA (our reference camera). That is rather the opposite of what I expected after all the talk about the Canon C300 Mark II sensor and processing being so new and advanced. Ultimately one has to admit the 5 year old Arri ALEXA sensor is doing better…

Looking at the Test Charts

Below you can see 3 different cameras compared with the method explained above. The Canon C300 Mark II, Arri ALEXA and Sony FS7. You can see the usable dynamic range highlighted in red. The two fields (stops of light) to the left are overexposed, the range to the right is too noisy (underexposed).

It is interesting to see how close the Sony FS7 and Canon C300 Mark II are in terms of dynamic range performance, while the Arri ALEXA clearly has a wider dynamic range and much better noise performance. Furthermore you can see that the ALEXA has a much nicer highlight rolloff and a very nice “looking” noise overall even in the far blacks. The Canon C300 Mark II has very little color noise, which is nice, but at one point in the darks, the noise is getting very severe. You can see this much better in the following image. These are the same shots with gamma lifted equally so we can better see what is happening in the shadow areas, or what would happen when we push the image in post:

Camera Settings:

• Canon C300 Mark II: C Log 2 – Cine Gamut | ISO 800 (native) | F/4.0,5 | 4K (downscaled to 2K) 10bit
• Arri ALEXA: Log C | ISO 800 (native) | F/2.8,5 | 2K, 12bit
• Sony FS7: Slog 3 (EI) | ISO 2000 (native) | F/5.6 | 4K (downscaled to 2K) 10bit

I am aware that some people might have questions about our tests. Here are a few answered in advance:

• Why did I compare 4K to 2K? I decided to shoot the Canon C300 Mark II in 4k (not 2K) for this test as I felt the image looked better when downscaled to 2K. I am aware Canon says they achieve best image quality at 2K in 12 bit. I did not see any improvement for the tests conducted. 12 bit will not give you a higher dynamic range, only better gradations.
• Why didn’t I shoot the Sony FS7 at ISO 800 also? The Sony FS7 has a base ISO of 2000 and performs best at this speed. I did not see any improvement in dynamic range shooting at lower ISO’s. Same goes for the Canon by the way.

One more thing I’d like to mention is that strip of light that is visible on the Canon C300 Mark II recording. In the very dark areas you can see a faint horizontal strip across the image coming from the opverexposed fields on the left. I have no explanation for that phenomenon.

High ISO’s?

The C300 has a reputation of producing nice lowlight images and the Canon C300 Mark II is said to be even stronger in that regard, with an available ISO range of up to 102,400 it sounds promising. In my initial tests however I felt that the camera also didn’t perform as good as I expected. Personally I thought I would probably not go beyond ISO 6400 for most projects, which is more or less in the ballpark of the Sony FS7’s lowlight capabilities. Other DP’s might of course go much higher.

High ISO Canon C300 Mark II vs Sony FS7

When I compared the Canon C300 Mark II and the Sony FS7 with the chart I found that indeed they look quite similar in terms of usable range. The Canon I would say performs only slightly better at the same ISO speeds. You should know though that ISO values and the way they affect the image brightness are often varying on different cameras. Thus I had to open up the aperture about 1 stop more for the Sony to get the same exposure, meaning the Sony FS7 is actually about 1 stop less light sensitive at this ISO speed.

Camera Settings:

• Canon C300 Mark II: C Log 2 – Cine Gamut | ISO 12,800 | 1/840th | F/4.0,3 | 4K (downscaled to 2K) 10bit
• Sony FS7: Slog 3 | ISO 12,500 | 1/1000th | F/2.8 | 4K (downscaled to 2K) 10bit

Conclusion

Even though the Canon C300 Mark II seems to be quite on par with the Sony Fs7 in terms of dynamic range, I must also say the image of the C300 Mark II is more neutral and the noise is less saturated and mushy in comparison to the Sony FS7. So while unfortunately there is a lot of noise in the shadows, at least it doesn’t look so bad. Also the C300 Mark II seems to be about 1 stop more light sensitive than the FS7 at high ISO speeds.

I must also mention: Curious about the 120fps (crop) mode in 2K I found that it’s actually very soft (think 720p) making it much less usable. Personally I expected much more from the Canon C300 Mark II.

Of course there are other aspects to consider about this camera, many of which are not related to the tests discussed in this article. A big point is that the internal codecs are much stronger than on the Sony FS7 and thus it can retain details much better. Also the ergonomics are different and can be a buying argument if you have gotten used to the first Canon C300. There is built-in Genlock and a few other features professionals might enjoy. Check out this comparison of specs between the C300 Mark II’s main contenders for a basic overview.

Personally I think the FS7 and C300 Mark II can compete well in terms of overall performance, but the Sony FS7’s 240fps and other external recording options make it very competitive in regards to the Canon C300 Mark II that requires a much bigger investment. Eventually it is up to every user to decide which features and aspects of each camera’s performance is important to them.

We’ll conduct some more tests at cinema5D and keep you up to date. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed (no spam guaranteed), or like us on facebook if you enjoyed this article.

We hope you liked this Canon C300 Mark II lab test. Please do share your own observations and thoughts about this article in the comments.

Note: We contacted Canon to get a response about our findings. A Senior Canon Representative involved in the development of the camera came back to us and let us know that they will wait to assimilate more technical evaluations before commenting.

Thanks to AV Professional for lending us their camera.

Tests conducted to the best of our knowledge. Errors and omissions excepted.

The post Canon C300 Mark II Lab Test – Dynamic Range 2 Stops Less Than Expected appeared first on cinema5D.

The Sony Alpha a6300 is a new pocket-sized mirrorless camera that has some serious video potential on a budget. Johnnie reviewed the camera a few days ago and earlier today Nino published a lowlight test video.  We’re currently looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the camera in our test lab and have decided to compare the Sony a6300 vs. Sony a7S II.

For less than $1,000, we definitely weren’t sure what to expect from this camera. For the price range, decent 4K recording and an acceptable low light performance would have been great. However, numerous reviewers—ourselves included—have actually found that the Sony a6300 is performing brilliantly; in fact, it plays in the realm of cameras like the a7S II!

Comparison: Sony a6300 vs. Sony a7S II

Of course, no camera is without its flaws. That’s why we decided it is time to take a look at what the tradeoffs are when choosing to use the a6300, in an attempt to get an idea of just how good it is. For that, we needed a comparison point. Time for an exclusive a6300 vs. Sony a7S II article!

Dynamic Range

An often overlooked and a difficult attribute to quantify, I’ve decided to start by looking at the dynamic ranges at play in the a6300 vs. Sony a7S II debate. More often than not, we find that this is where many camera sensors fail to amaze—after all, a good dynamic range rating allows us to capture more shadows and highlights in hgh-contrast scenes.
We’re testing with a DSC labs XYLA-21 transmissive test chart (more on how we test HERE).

Our software measured about 11 stops on the Sony a6300, compared to about 12 stops on the Sony a7S II. Above you can observe the two shots subjectively. 11 stops is a good rating for a camera. Most professional cinema cameras nowadays get between 10-13 stops in our tests.

Additionally, we see that the two cameras have very different noise characteristics. The Sony a6300 was shot at iso 800 (native) and there a stronger base noise than on the very clean A7S II. In this a6300 vs. Sony a7S II test, it is apparent just how clean the A7s II is, giving it the edge over the a6300. [Update:] However, the noise at base ISO on the Sony a6300 is no reason for concern. You should simply know, that you have less room for pushing the dark areas during grading.

Another point to note is that, unlike the A7S II, the Sony a6300 has no difference in dynamic range between S-log2 and S-log3. However, the a6300 uses an 8-bit codec so we’d recommend avoiding S-log3 altogether; use S-log2.

Lowlight and Noise

Before we go any further, I have top say that we were very impressed during this stage of the test. So far, the a7S II is the camera which has shown the best low light capabilities of any camera that we have tested—and the Sony a6300 gets surprisingly close!

The shots below are 100% crops from a dark area in our subjective test chart. We can see that both cameras retain detail at high ISOs. While the Sony a6300 is a bit grainy and has some minimal noise reduction artefacts, there is actually very little noise in the traditional sense—especially when the price is taken into consideration!

Left: Sony a6300 Slog 2 | Right: Sony a7S II Slog 3

It seems as though there is intense noise reduction going on in the Sony a6300. Maybe this is how they managed to get such good lowlight results with this camera, even though the super35mm sensor used is much smaller than the Sony a7S II full-frame sensor and should be much more noisy.

When we look at a moving image, the noise reminds me of the results of temporal noise reduction, which can be found in software like DaVinci Resolve. This algorithm calculates the difference in noise between adjacent frames. I’m not saying this is what’s happening here, but lowlight images show a kind of unnaturally slow moving noise, which might be an issue for some. Overall the lowlight behaviour is really impressive on this camera. It gets close to the performance of the Sony a7S II, though at ISO 25600 the Sony a7S II clearly retains more detail than the Sony a6300.

Keep in mind that due to the sensor size you can use a Metabones Speed Booster and a full-frame lens with the Sony a6300 and win another stop in lowlight. This is what Nino did during his Sony a6300 lowlight test.

Image Quality

Here is a blown up shot of a tube test chart. On this chart fine lines get closer and closer together. This way we can see when aliasing kicks in or, in other words, when detail can no longer be correctly resolved on the vertical axis. What we see is that the Sony a6300 resolves similar fine detail as the Sony a7S II. The Sony FS7 obviously produces a cleaner image in terms of aliasing but that is to be expected.

Codec Compression Artefacts on the Sony a7S II

What we also noticed in this chart, however, is that the codec compression on the Sony a6300 is much better than on the Sony a7S II which eventually leads to a much cleaner image on the a6300 (look at the number “25” above).

The Sony a7S II image falls apart and doesn’t resolve contrast details very well. Images like the one above look mushy and clouded due to some problem in the compression algorithm of the camera. The Sony a6300 doesn’t have this problem and is the winner in the a6300 vs. Sony a7S II comparison in this regard.

One thing to note though is that there is a slight in-camera sharpening on the Sony a6300 even though “detail” was set all the way to the lowest number and there is a slight magenta tint in all shots.

Rolling Shutter

As mentioned in our initial review, unfortunately the rolling shutter effect (also referred to as “jello”) is quite terrible on the Sony a6300. In fact, with a readout speed of about 34 milliseconds from top to bottom, it is the most severe rolling shutter we have ever measured on a camera! Even worse than the Samsung NX1’s 30ms. In comparison, the Sony a7S II has about 25 milliseconds and the Sony FS7 has 14. Less is better.

HD Images and Slow Motion

100% crop | Image Resolution in Full HD

Sadly, this is another point where the Sony a6300 fails. The camera can shoot in full HD resolution, but the image is very soft and dirty in terms of aliasing. The Sony a7S II is much closer to the quality of the original a7S.

The Sony a6300 can shoot slow motion up to 120fps in full HD. A crop of about 80% of the sensor is used in this mode. Unfortunately, the quality is almost identical to the one observed in HD mode at normal recording speeds—and in both modes, low light performance isn’t great.

Sony a6300 vs. Sony a7S II Conclusion

All in all, the Sony a6300 is a truly surprising camera. Who would have thought that a budget camera would perform so well when compared to the quality of the highly recommended Sony A7S II?

When we compare the Sony a6300 vs. Sony a7S II, we see that the latter has slightly better quality in terms of dynamic range and low light capabilities, but the Sony a6300 certainly excels when it comes to fine image details and sharpness.

Only the rolling shutter of this camera is below expectations and the HD quality is, for all intents and purposes, not recommended which makes the camera less suited for broadcast use.

Overall, we’d say: Stay away from this camera if you are looking for a good HD mode and if you do lots of fast handheld shots, as the rolling shutter may become too apparent.

Besides those two points, if you are looking for a camera that shoots great 4K with a quality that matches the Sony a7S II, at a much lower price-point and the form-factor of a small pocket camera, then the a6300 is a great pick. In combination with a Metabones Speed Booster, this is probably the best affordable 4K camera on the market right now—highly recommended!

[UPDATE:] Note that we have not tested NTSC 30p mode. Other testers report that in 30p the camera will crop the image and give you more noise and worse lowlight performance, but better rolling shutter. If you require 30p we recommend you test the camera before you buy.

The post Sony a6300 vs. Sony a7S II Image Quality – How Good is it Really? appeared first on cinema5D.

In an already crowded camera market, here comes another manufacturer presenting a unique cinema camera for entry level filmmakers. Here’s our exclusive review of the affordable Blaupunkt CR 8010 that features a global shutter sensor.

It is likely that the Blaupunkt CR 8010 is the camera you’ve been waiting for and that it will send the engineers of the competition back to the drawing board. But it is also likely that it is not. At the recommended price point this camera certainly got our attention as it has a few interesting features up its sleeves. We took the Blaupunkt CR 8010 for a spin and tested it in our lab. Here are the results.

Blaupunkt CR 8010 Review

When I first got my hands on the Blaupunkt, I knew this camera had something entirely unique about it. Recently the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K and Sony a7S II have impressed us, but I must admit the ergonomics of the Blaupunkt CR 8010 are unlike anything else we’ve seen in the last years and actually seem to simplify the shooting experience quite impressively. The buttons layout is logical and intuitive and supported me during my review of the camera and the built-in autofocus tv-zoom-lens and directional microphone really made shooting a breeze.

At cinema5D we always put each camera in a real life shooting environment and while filming this documentary piece, it seemed that I could blindly rely on the camera’s performance, which is a feeling I can only call “new.”

Of course, each camera has its downsides, and while the minimalist approach is something to applaud, there are also quite a few features missing. As such the camera lacks some essential manual controls. For example, there is no support for different picture profiles or LUTs. You have to take the image you’re getting.

Regarding image quality we do have some concerns as well. We tested the Blaupunkt CR 8010 in our lab and found that the picture is a little on the soft side, especially when watched on a 4K screen. On that point we received an official statement from one of the CR 8010′ product managers Wolfgang Luts who actually sounded a bit frustrated when we mentioned the camera’s resolution.

“You give customers PAL/NTSC quality; they want HD ready. You give them that, they want Full HD. You manufacture HD, they want 4K, you produce 4K they want 8K. Where is the end, where is the logic?” When asked “what can you do about it?” he answered: “Less is more!”

Another “feature” of the Blaupunkt CR 8010 is its sensor size—it is not a full frame format sensor. When talking to Mr. Luts about large sensors he mentioned: “There is little intelligence in manufacturing large sensors. The assembly of something that large on a large board is very easy, compared to assembling a small sensor on a small board.”

The CR 8010’s sensor might not be a full frame, but in turn, it offers a global shutter readout which puts most current cinema cameras to shame. Just this month we reviewed the new Sony a6300 and in our lab we found the rolling shutter was actually quite severe. Let’s admit it; we’re all tired of rolling shutter. It’s refreshing to see some manufacturers taking the users’ concerns seriously here.

Blaupunkt CR 8010 Dynamic Range Chart

In our cinema5D test lab my colleague Seb could confirm that the Blaupunkt CR 8010 has a global shutter and when tested further the measured dynamic range seems to max out at 7 usable stops. That is not among our best ratings and actually rather on the low side. But on the other hand this rating is almost two stops higher than the Blackmagic Micro Camera 4K and just a little weaker than the AJA Cion.

Here is a list of all the Pros’ and Cons’ of the Blaupunkt CR 8010 in no particular order.

Pros:

• CCD sensor
• Global shutter
• Great ergonomics
• 4×3 sensor. Great if you are after shooting anamorphic
• Built-in lens and microphone
• Motorized zoom
• Quick Autofocus
• Monochromatic beautiful EVF
• Instant material back up by shooting on a tape

Cons:

• Limited menu and functions
• Only 7 stops of dynamic range
• Camera is a bit noisy when loading the tape
• Some parts feel plasticky and smell bad
• There was quite a lot of dust on the camera, and we can’t work out why

Conclusion

We hope you enjoyed this exclusive review of the Blaupunkt CR 8010, manufactured in 1987. How far have we come in terms of technical advancements of video cameras in 30 years? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

EDIT: As most of you have realised by now, this was our April Fool’s post for this year :-) … a lot more work than it should have been, but worth the giggle ;-)

A big thank you to Christiani C. Wetter for participating in this video. Find out more about her work by clicking here. 

Music by Art-List – Music track: Born Twice by Mark Tracy

The post Blaupunkt CR 8010 Review – A Revolutionary Global Shutter Camera appeared first on cinema5D.

The Canon 1D X mark II is Canon’s latest flagship DSLR and it also shoots video. We were curious to find out how good its 4K capabilities really are: after all, it shoots up to 60p in full resolution. Johnnie reviewed the camera a few days ago, and here’s our Canon 1D X mark II vs. Canon 1D C lab test.

It is Canon’s first official “photo camera” that shoots 4K video. The company has been quite reluctant to offer high quality video in their photo products since they separated the professional cinema video segment a few years ago. Ever since then, we have seen Canon’s cinema line cameras like the Canon C300 mark II popping up at very high prices, making many entry level enthusiasts switch to Sony.

Comparison: Canon 1D X Mark II vs. Canon 1D C

From the outside these two cameras look very much alike, and basically all buttons are in the same position. You might wonder: why does the 1D C (“C” as in Cinema Line) have the same layout as the 1D X (a stills camera). But this article is about the X, a photo camera that might, yet again, take the place of a video camera.

On its own, we know by now that the Canon 1D X mark II produces some very nice 4K video. But how good is it really? With the 1D C as a benchmark, let’s put it to the test. We will also throw the popular Sony a7S II into the mix as a second reference.

Dynamic Range

This is an attribute that is often overlooked, and that is difficult to measure properly. A good dynamic range rating allows us to capture more shadows and highlights in high-contrast scenes. We’re testing with a DSC labs XYLA-21 transmissive test chart and the Zeiss 50mm Cp2 macro (more on how we test HERE).

Our software measured about 11 stops of usable dynamic range on the Canon 1D X mark II. This is very similar to the rating of the Canon 1D C, and just under the 12 stops of the Sony a7S II. You can observe the two Canon shots side by side in the image below.

Dynamic Range of Canon 1D X mark II vs Canon 1D C

11 stops is a good rating for a camera. Most professional cinema cameras nowadays get between 10-13 stops in our tests. For example, the Canon C300 mark II is a camera that, in addition to us pointing out the horizontal strip that appears on overexposed portions of images, we rated at about 12 stops of usable dynamic range. This is about 2 stops weaker than the Arri ALEXA, which we rated at about 14 stops, as does the manufacturer.

Lowlight

Directly related to dynamic range is lowlight performance. The Canon 1D C performs quite well in that regard, and we could see that the Canon 1D X mark II did not keep up at the same ISO speeds. However, if you look at the image above, you will see that in order to film the test chart the Canon 1D C had to be set to F/5.6, while the 1D X mark II needed F/11.0. In other words, the ISO rating is in favour of the 1D X mark II.

Everything taken into consideration I would say the lowlight performance is quite similar. The Canon 1D X mark II should be used with caution beyond ISO 6400 and produces a bit more colour noise than the 1D C.

Image is 1 stop underexposed, to see the difference

The image above is about 1 stop underexposed. Notice how the different ISOs give us more or less the same results. This might also be due to the picture profile I used. I used C log on the Canon 1D C, which Canon decided to leave out of the 1D X mark II. In order to get a good flat image for better colour grading, I installed the Technicolor Cinestyle on the 1DX.

Lowlight performance is very similar, but the 1D C seems to have a slight edge over the 1D X. In comparison, the Sony a7S II has better lowlight performance.

Image Quality

Here is a blown-up shot of a tube test chart, in which the fine lines get closer and closer together to show when aliasing kicks in. In other words, it serves to analyse the point where sensors can no longer resolve detail correctly on the vertical and horizontal axis. What we see is that the Canon 1DX mark II resolves similar fine detail as the Canon 1D C, possibly slightly better and is also very close to the Sony aS7 II. In terms of compression, the Canon cameras are much better than the Sony. The Sony a6300 would be more in line with Canon in terms of compression artefacts.

Unfortunately, the HD mode of the Canon 1D X mark II is really disappointing. Aliasing is strong and the image is very soft. It can hardly be considered an HD image and is barely suitable for an old tube television. The Canon 1D C, on the other hand had a S35 crop mode that delivered a very nice HD image.

There is not much more to be said: the image of the 1D X and 1D C look very much alike. But with a proper Cfast card, the Canon 1D X mark II supports up to 60p 4K video, which probably makes it the only usable DSLR capable of 4K video in 50p or 60p. Other cameras that support higher frame rates are the Sony FS7 or Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K. The 60p video of the 1D X has no quality loss over normal frame rates.

Rolling Shutter

The Canon 1D C suffered from a very severe rolling shutter effect (A phenomenon also referred to as “jello”). Fortunately, the Canon 1D X mark II performs better here. Twice as good, in fact, making the 1D X mark II’s 14ms of rolling shutter performance one of the best among 4K DSLRs, alongside the Panasonic GH4.

Canon 1D X Mark II vs. Canon 1D C: Conclusion

If you thought that the Canon 1D X mark II was Canon’s next big failure in terms of video, then you would be wrong. With a beautiful image, good quality codec, good lowlight performance and good rolling shutter performance, as well as 50p and 60p video modes in 4K and good autofocus, the 1D X mark II is surely a camera to consider for the video and film enthusiast.

However, if you thought the Canon 1D X mark II was the next step in video evolution after the Canon 1D C, then you’d be disappointed. It looks as though the video features of the 1D C have been carried over to the 1D X mark II, the valuable log gamma was left behind and HD mode is now useless (Why, Canon, why???). At the end of the day there is little difference between the two cameras.

In summary, the Canon 1D X mark II is a good video shooting camera and considering its current price tag of $6000, it is certainly more affordable than the 1D C priced at $8000. So if you want 60p video at 4K, or good rolling shutter performance with overall great image quality in an APS-C sensor (crop of the camera’s full-frame sensor), then this camera might be worth the money. Photographers who are also into video will certainly appreciate the Canon 1D X mark II.

However if you just want a great 4K camera, then those $6000 might be better spent elsewhere. Maybe on a more ergonomic, video oriented camera that also offers HD, or even the Sony a6300 (review here), which can get you to 4K wonderland for under $1000.

For more on the 1DX check out: Johnnie’s hands-on Canon 1DX 2 review

The post Canon 1D X Mark II vs. Canon 1D C – Which One Shoots Better Video? appeared first on cinema5D.

The DJI Osmo RAW has finally arrived at the cinema5D office, as you may have seen in Nino’s Osmo review. But the focus of our attention is the DJI Zenmuse X5R Camera, which can be attached to the DJI Osmo with the Osmo X5 Adapter and produce powerful cinematic RAW footage in 4K with Osmo stabilization in an ultra-compact form factor.

We were very curious to find out what the camera quality was really like. Here are our lab test results when compared to professional cinema cameras.

DJI Osmo RAW Compared to Professional Cinema Cameras

The DJI Osmo RAW version is quite a bold little camera. Very small, light and with a promise of 4K RAW that can also take to the skies when attached to the DJI Inspire 1. The integrated stabilizer makes this an extremely convenient tool, and the fact that there’s a potential for high quality footage with its RAW recording makes it compete with much more professional and expensive cameras. We’ve tested the ergonomics of the device, now let’s see how the little Osmo RAW compares in terms of image quality.

Dynamic Range

Dynamic range is difficult to measure properly, especially on a RAW camera where processing is done by the user and not by the camera. We’ve gone through DaVinci resolve to create a flat image of our recording and measured it with our software.

A good dynamic range rating allows us to capture more shadows and highlights in high-contrast scenes. The X3 camera on the original DJI Osmo suffers from a very poor dynamic range, which is especially problematic when capturing landscapes with the DJI Inspire 1 drone.

We’re testing usable dynamic range with a DSC labs XYLA-21 transmissive test chart. Unfortunately, our test lens, the Zeiss 50mm Cp2 macro, is not compatible with the Osmo, so we used the 15mm F/1.7 MFT lens that came with the Osmo X5R.

Our software measured about 12 stops of usable dynamic range on the DJI Osmo RAW (Zenmuse X5R camera). This is similar to the rating of the Sony a7S II, 3 stops more than the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K and 2 stops less than the Arri ALEXA.

DJI advertises the dynamic range of the Zenmuse X5R camera at 12.8 stops. It is rare that manufacturers are upfront when it comes to usable dynamic range.

Note that a RAW camera doesn’t necessarily produce more dynamic range. Doing numerous comparisons with test charts, we have learned this over time. It is likely that the original Zenmuse X5 gives you more or less the same dynamic range. RAW on the other hand gives you finer gradations, more possibilities in post and an image that is more solid and can be graded further without destroying the image quality. When we pull up that information in the blacks there is noise, but a lot more steps are visible behind it, just like on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K that displays a lot of noise early on. 12 stops of usable dynamic range is a good rating for a cinema camera. It is also what the C300 mark II achieved. As always, the Arri ALEXA stays untouched with 14 stops of usable range.

The Blackmagic Micro Studio Camera 4K is also small and shoots RAW, but is not an alternative as this one was limited to about 5-6 stops of dynamic range in our tests.

Image Quality

We determine image quality by looking at sharpness (resolution) and aliasing with the help of stars and tubes. Usually they reveal where an image breaks down in terms of resolution.

The shots below were taken at the best ISO speed of each respective camera.

DJI Osmo RAW Image Quality – 100% crop of 4K image.

As you can see, despite any lens cushioning and lens softness, the DJI Osmo RAW is quite close to the Canon C300 mark II and more or less on par with the Varicam 35 / LT. The Sony a6300 is the only camera that leaves the others behind in terms of resolution. Who would have thought.

Looking at the a6300, it has become clear that size is not the deciding factor when it comes to quality resolution. The Osmo DJI RAW proves that yet again, with an impressive image quality that comes close to the bigger cinema cameras. Here are a few more comparison shots of other objects on the test chart:

In summary, I would say that in terms of image quality the DJI Osmo RAW can hold up remarkably well in comparison to professional cinema cameras currently on the market.

Lowlight

The DJI Osmo RAW X5R camera shines at ISO 100, but it quickly loses its power when you crank up the ISO. For the shots above I used minimal post processing. You can see that at ISO 800 there is already a considerable amount of noise in comparison to ISO 100. That said, look at the shot of the cat earlier on where the blacks were pulled a little and some noise reduction was applied. This has to be kept in mind when shooting RAW. You can still treat the image much better than from cameras that use heavy compression.

It’s clear that the Zenmuse X5R is not a lowlight wonder and the DJI Osmo RAW should be used at low ISO speeds. I would recommend not to go beyond 800 for high quality shots. Ideally you should stay low, because the Osmo RAW records at ISO 100 at all times. Any other ISO speeds you set in the app are just a “preview” and have to be processed (pushed) in post production.

Rolling Shutter

The famous rolling shutter effect that haunts CMOS sensors can be especially troubling on shots where a lot of movement is involved. The Zenmuse X5R that rides the DJI Osmo RAW and flies on the DJI Inspire 1 is certainly meant to be involved in a lot of moving shots.

Unfortunately, the Zenmuse X5R doesn’t shine here. With 25ms of readout time it is at the worse side of the spectrum, and most proper cinema cameras have much lower rolling shutter ratings.

DJI Osmo RAW Conclusion

Look at that tiny 4K camera and stabilizer. The DJI Osmo RAW certainly has a niche of its own. A small, stabilized camera that delivers 4K RAW images at 24p. There’s nothing like it right now that delivers RAW, is so easy to use and can be mounted onto an affordable and powerful drone. The question is whether or not the RAW can keep up with cinema standards and truly deliver high quality footage.

It is quite difficult to draw a definitive conclusion from what I’ve seen. On the one hand, the footage we get is really powerful, has beautiful deep gradations, a high resolution, organic look and can really be played with in post production. If you’re used to Inspire 1 drone footage, this upgrade will simply blow you away and the difference to a professional cinema camera like a VariCam, Alexa or C300 mark II will be hard to spot when properly post processed. Of course the Zenmuse X5R wouldn’t simply replace a cinema camera, as such a camera is about more than the final end result of a picture you can achieve. An Arri ALEXA is certainly still in a different class altogether, but I think the Osmo RAW will become relevant in the cinema sector for certain applications.

There are also a few shortcomings you should consider. In terms of a “true cinema camera”, rolling shutter is absolutely terrible. The Canon 1D C from Canon’s cinema line rightfully has a place in the same ranks here. But especially because the DJI Osmo RAW is used in situations with a lot of motion, the strong rolling shutter can be a problem that might put many professionals off. Another downside is the mediocre lowlight performance. If you’re coming from DSLR’s this will be limiting, but if you’re used to Blackmagic or film cameras you probably won’t notice it.

All in all, the DJI Osmo RAW is a remarkable piece of gear. In the right hands, when the RAW is exploited with some time in post production, this can be an extremely powerful tool. The fact that this is not just a camera, but a solution as a miniature gimbal camera for on the go or in the air is intriguing. Is the price of $4000 a lot? Yes. Is it worth it? You decide. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

The post How Does the Osmo RAW Compare to Professional Cinema Cameras? appeared first on cinema5D.

We’ve been busy testing DJI’s latest “toy”, the Zenmuse X5R RAW camera used on the DJI Osmo handheld gimbal and DJI Inspire 1 drone. In our lab test, we found that the Zenmuse X5R can achieve amazing image quality. But with a pricetag of $3200 it is less attractive than its almost identical, half-priced twin: the Zenmuse X5. In this test, we look at the differences between the X5 vs. X5R.

The Differences Between the Zenmuse X5 vs. X5R

The main difference between the two cameras is easy to spot. The Zenmuse X5R records RAW dng sequences to very expensive DJI SSD media while the Zenmuse X5 records to a low bitrate h.264 format. Everything else is the same. The same micro 4/3 sensor, the same lens (if you get the lens kit version), the same gimbal.

So, in order to pick the right camera we really need to know how big the quality difference between the two cameras is. Let’s take a look in the lab:

X5 vs. X5R in the Lab

Here is where it gets interesting. In our X5R dynamic range test, we saw that the X5R can achieve about 12 stops of usable dynamic range. In comparison, the X5 gets only about 9 stops. Our software only measures noise and does not take the color changes in the last steps into account, which would more fairly rate the X5 at 7 usable stops in my personal opinion. Note that the X5 records 2 stops less in the highlights, so the test was done at F/2.8 on the X5R and F/5.6 on the X5.

When we look at the recording from the test chart we can immediately see a striking difference in image quality. There is a lot of banding and the codec washes out a lot of parts of the image. The lower strips of the dynamic range chart in particular are displayed soft and without any detail.

What does this mean?

This means that the X5 will have a much, much harder time in high contrast scenes, such as when you’re filming a landscape on a sunny day or in scenes where the sun is your backlight. This is especially common in drone filming. The X5 seems to have a dynamic range more comparable to the old X3 camera that comes with the normal DJI Inspire 1.

Let’s look at image quality in detail now:

Image Quality of the X5 vs. X5R

There is a vast difference in image quality between the Zenmuse X5 and the X5R. We applauded the image quality of the RAW version of the X5R when we compared it to professional cinema cameras on the market. The Zenmuse X5, however, performs really poorly. The image reminds me of the Zenmuse X3. Color gradations are extremely poor. Each of the thread spools I filmed is made up of a few shades of color and that’s it. Any other 8 bit camera is better than this. In practice, this means virtually no room for color grading. Of course, you can always apply a LUT, like you could on the X3.

In terms of detail, in the highlight areas the camera performs well, though the X5R can retain the image quality better. The X5 image is also sharpened, which makes it look less natural. The X5 performs better here than the X3.

When we look at the shadow areas, we see that we quickly lose detail. Here’s how the lack of dynamic range looks in practice: the codec and processing seems to be so bad, that any image detail is lost in the shadow areas. Sharpened edges and a weird magenta tint kick the image to its doom.

Other Differences X5 vs. X5R

Battery Life

On a fully charged Osmo battery, the Zenmuse X5 camera runs 59 minutes. The Zenmuse X5R on the other hand is very battery hungry and drains that same battery in 26 minutes (Test was conducted with continuous recording on both cameras).

When used on a DJI Inspire, we also noticed that the battery life of the X5R makes your flying times much shorter.

Noise

People have reported about the noisy sound of the Zenmuse X5R’s tiny fans. Indeed, when running with an Omso X5R as we did in our field test, the X5R can be quite problematic for audio.

Surprisingly the Zenmuse X5 is only a little less loud as it also emits a fan sound that can ruin quiet recordings. In a very simple test we measured room ambience at 35db, the X5 at 55db and the X5R at 60db. Both at a distance of 10cm. Note that the X5R noise is higher pitched and thus more unpleasant to the ears.

Media

The Zenmuse X5 is very practical as it only uses Micro SD cards. A decent MicroSD card including a reader, costs $15. In comparison the X5R requires DJI SSD media that costs $1000 per 512GB card. Unfortunately RAW needs much faster write speeds and more storage. This will be a huge problem for many. But for professionals, used to a RAW workflow it is manageable.

Verdict

The Zenmuse X5R impressed us when we compared it to other cinema cameras and in our field test earlier this month, so we were really curious how the the Zenmuse X5 would hold up. At the end of the day the only difference between the two cameras is a different recording functionality.

During this test we quickly realized that the Zenmuse X5R’s RAW capabilities make a huge difference when it comes to image quality and dynamic range. Apparently the X5 processing and compression is very basic and a lot of information seems to get “lost in translation”. Dynamic range suffers so much that it degrades the final output to only 7 honest usable stops in comparison to the X5R’s 12 stops.

The Zenmuse X5 strengths are its very low weight, the interchangeable lens design, autofocus functionality and 4K resolution. Even though the detail and colour resolution of the X5R is better, the X5 can still deliver some nice images when used in a semi-professional way. The only question that remains is wether the X5 makes any sense over the “old” Zenmuse X3 that comes with every basic Osmo and DJI Inspire 1. The simple answer to that question: With the autofocus functionality of the X5 the Osmo really makes sense. But on a drone the X5 might not be a huge step after the X3 and you should think twice about the upgrade. We have a comparison between the X3, X5 and X5R coming up later today.

After spending a little more time with the Zenmuse X5R on the Osmo and on an Inspire drone, I can confidently say that it produces amazing results that still impress me and the Zenmuse X5 is certainly no match. At the end of the day your budget and workflow possibilities will probably impact your decision here. The X5R has a premium pricetag, especially with the expensive SSD media and a more complicated and storage intense workflow.

With all the facts on the table now we’re interested in your verdict and how each of you can see these cameras in your own workflows. Let us know in the comments.

The post X5 vs. X5R Analyzed – Which DJI Zenmuse Should You Get? appeared first on cinema5D.

The Fujifilm X-T2 mirrorless camera is quickly becoming a candidate as the new gold standard in affordable 4K video. But will it be replacing the famous Sony a7S II as the best mirrorless video camera for cinematic shooting?

Fujifilm X-T2 – Best Mirrorless Video Quality?

Video shooters live in good times. Every few months, a new video shooting mirrorless camera rocks the market and gives us better cinema-like quality and features. Last year, the Sony a7S II quickly became the best mirrorless video camera you could get, with a nice 4K image, numerous useful video features and impressive lowlight performance.

Just two weeks ago, the Panasonic GH5 was announced and raised the bar once more with its specs, offering internal 4:2:2 10bit in 4K, though this camera will only see the light of day in 2017. For now, the Fujifilm X-T2 has landed on our desk and stands a serious contender against the Sony a7s II as the new gold standard. Let’s take a look.

We recently tested the Fujifilm X-T2 in a documentary style situation (check out our review). Few people expected that this camera would be quite so interesting for both photographers as well as video shooters. This is only Fujifilm’s first attempt at implementing 4K video into one of their mirrorless cameras, yet they got a lot of things right, and even since our review some new features have been implemented via a firmware update: Now you can get extended dynamic range (H-2, S-2) when recording internally.

Comparison: Fujifilm X-T2 vs. Sony a7S II

Both the Fujfilm X-T2 as well as the Sony a7S II are designed as mirror-less cameras in a photo body. The Fujifilm X-T2 has the Fuji X-Mount and houses an APS-C sized sensor. The Sony a7S II has the Sony E-mount and houses a full-frame sensor. There are fans for both sensor sizes, but in terms of the lens-mount, there are only a few adapters for Fuji right now, while there are many options for Sony E. This could change in the future, if user interest for Fuji X-Mount adapters rises.

In our cinema5D Test Lab we have tested and compared many cameras. In this review we will take a closer look at how the Fujifilm X-T2 sensor performs in comparison to the one in the Sony a7S II.

Fujifilm X-T2:

• Max Resolution: 4K UHD
• Max Framerate 4K: 29.97fps
• Max Framerate HD: 59.94
• Log Gamma: F Log
• Sensor: Aps-C
• Mount: Fuji X
• Codec Bitrate 4K: 105mbit
• Price: About $1600

Sony a7S II:

• Max Resolution: 4K UHD
• Max Framerate 4K: 29.97fps
• Max Framerate HD: 120fps
• Log Gamma: Slog2 & Slog3
• Sensor: Full-Frame
• Mount: Sony E
• Codec Bitrate: 95mbit
• Price: About $3000

Use the Fujifilm X-T2 with “F Log”

The Fujifilm X-T2 has some unique properties, most notably “F Log”, Fujifilm’s very own log gamma setting that creates the most neutral and natural image with the highest dynamic range. Unlike the Sony a7S II which records Slog 2 (or Slog 3) internally, Fujifilm has restricted F Log to external recorders.

Why did Fujifilm decide to do that? We actually talked to Jun Watanabe from Fujifilm about this recently, and it seems that they are open to implementing internal F Log should user interest be there (see the whole interview here).

Considering that the Fujifilm X-T2 comes at half the price of the Sony a7S II, and how beautiful the X-T2 image is (more on that later), it’s still quite a valid option to connect a $1300 external recorder (eg: Atomos Ninja Flame) to it, in order to get that nice 4:2:2 8bit F Log image in 4K.

The Fujifilm XT-2 has a micro hdmi connection to output F Log in 4K to external recorders.

Back at the editing desk you will notice that the XT-2 has the same problems when it comes to external recording as the Sony a7S II in Slog2 gamma. In practice, this means you will lose 1 stop of dynamic range unless you find a way to turn those video levels into their proper values. This can be done with our Slog FIX LUT either during recording or in post with no quality loss (Get it here).

Flip out lcd monitor on the Fujifilm XT-2

If you use this camera for internal recording only, the X-T2 also offers some very nice film simulations (picture profiles) and still has very good image quality. But if you are dependent on a Log gamma for your post workflow, you will need an external recorder. We hope Fujfilm will include internal F Log in a future firmware update.

Dynamic Range

A good dynamic range rating allows us to capture a larger range of shadows and highlights in high-contrast scenes. An important property when it comes to evaluating the best mirrorless video camera. We’re testing with a DSC labs XYLA-21 transmissive test chart. For this review we used the Fujifilm 56mm F/1.2 lens instead of the Zeiss 50mm Cp2 macro (more on how we test HERE).

Our software measured about 12 stops of usable dynamic range on the Fujifilm X-T2. This is very similar to the rating of the Sony a7S II and Canon C300 mark II. Here’s a screenshot of the dynamic range of a few popular cameras compared.

Usable Dynamic Range (SNR 1/0.5) – Blacks adjusted in the chart above for your convenience.

12 stops is very a good rating for a cinema camera. Many videographers today praise the Canon C300 mark II for its dynamic range qualities and when we take a closer look, the Fujifilm X-T2 isn’t far behind. High end cinematic productions still use the Arri ALEXA, as it outperforms all other cameras we have tested with its 14 stops of usable range.

Image Quality

This is where the Fujifilm X-T2 blows away most other cameras we have tested. The image of the X-T2 is very homogenous, clean and has a high resolution that dissolves lots of detail with a nice filmic grain.

In the shot below you can see that the Fujfilm XT-2 offers slightly more detail than the Sony a7S II and seems to have better aliasing properties than both the Canon C300 mark II and Panasonic VariCam 35:

Image resolution. 100% crops from 4K images

In the star graphic above, the a7S II and X-T2 look very similar. However, when you compare the image detail of other shots of the X-T2 vs a7S II (see below), you quickly see that the Fujifilm X-T2 always produces cleaner and more accurate shots:

Image detail. 100% crops from 4K images

In practice, of course most users will downscale their images to HD, and for this purpose all mentioned cameras perform admirably. Still, the kind of quality you get out of the Fujfilm X-T2 is impressive and leaves even our beloved Sony a7SII behind. This is also true for internal recordings and certainly makes the XT-2 one of the best mirrorless video camera when it comes to image quality in 4K. The only comparable camera in this field is the wonderful Sony a6300 (see our test here). the a6300 however has strong weaknesses in other areas.

Despite the lack of internal F Log, as mentioned earlier, the Fujifilm X-T2 comes with a variety of film simulating picture profiles in-camera. This is a very nice feature that we haven’t seen on any other camera yet. Others do offer “video picture profiles”, but none of them simulate filmic colors and contrast. Here are two different film simulations, recorded internally (105mbit H.264):

Fujifilm X-T2 colors. 100% crops from 4K images

As you can see image quality is just as impressive for internal recordings as it is when recording external 4K with an Atomos Ninja Assasin, like we did, or any other external 4K recorder.

And HD Quality?

Image quality in HD is not as impressive as in 4K mode. It is comparable to the Sony a7S II, but unfortunately there is also a lot of aliasing which creates lots of moire artefacts in contrasty image areas. The Sony a7S II performs better there and also offers 120fps, while the X-T2 only reaches 60fps. Below is a shot of the star chart and sieve comparing HD on both cameras:

100% crops of HD image

Best Settings for Video on the Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm X-T2 Settings Menu Accessible via the “Q” button.

Sharpness
Sharpness should always be set to -4. Otherwise artificial sharpening is added in-camera and gives you a video-ish look. If needed, you can also add sharpness in post.

H-Tone and S-Tone
These two settings add a smooth highlight and shadow rolloff and increase the dynamic range of your image when set to -2 and -2. This was recently enabled via a new firmware update.

Film Simulation
There are several film simulation settings available for in-camera looks. Try them. We liked their “Ns” setting best.

All other settings (besides “white balance” which you set as needed) should be left untouched for best results. You should always shoot in 4K and downsample as needed later on, to get the best results.

Rolling Shutter

The Sony a7S II suffered from severe rolling shutter effect, a phenomenon also referred to as “jello”. Unfortunately, the rolling shutter that we see on most CMOS sensor video cameras is also present on the Fujifilm X-T2, but in comparison it is less pronounced than on the a7S II.

Lowlight

The Sony a7S II is an absolute miracle when it comes to lowlight performance. In comparison, the Fujifilm can’t reach the same high ISO’s but holds up well until ISO 3200, which is not bad in comparison to other mirrorless video cameras. Unfortunately, beyond that the X-T2 should be used with caution, because there is heavy and visible noise reduction going on that does not even look nice when downsampled to HD. We wish it could be disabled.

The following shot compares the Fujifilm X-T2 in F Log (ISO 800) and Sony a7S II in Slog 2 (ISO 1600) at both their base ISO’s and then at higher ISO’s.

100% crop from 4K image

The a7S II retains image detail much better up until high ISO’s. This is especially visible in motion.

Conclusion

If you thought the Fujifilm X-T2 is just another ordinary attempt by a stills manufacturer to implement video as an additional selling point, then you were wrong. This small mirrorless camera shows us how image detail and an organic in-camera look is supposed to be executed and in our opinion brings it into the class of best mirrorless video cameras.

The 4K (UHD) image from the Fujfilm X-T2 is nicer and cleaner than that of the Sony a7S II, and outperforms our favourite low cost 4K camera in the rolling shutter test while achieving the same dynamic range rating of 12 usable stops.

When it comes to HD quality and frame rates, internal log recording and lowlight, the Sony a7S II still has the upper hand. Considering the availability of E-mount adapters for Sony, available accessories (like the Sony XLR-K2M audio module) and the compatibility of the Slog 2 gamma, the a7S II currently remains our camera of choice and holds the position of best mirrorless video camera.

For those interested in the built-in film simulation, outstanding stills camera performance and superb image quality at half the price of the a7S II, the Fujfilm X-T2 should be a clear winner.

Whichever you choose, both are outstanding cameras that leave most competition behind. Only the Sony a6300 is another camera you should look at if the budget is tight (see our a6300 review here).

We hope this review helped you. Please consider getting your gear from one of our recommended retailers and let us know your thoughts in the comments.

The post Fujifilm X-T2 vs. Sony a7S II – Which One is the Best Mirrorless Video Camera? appeared first on cinema5D.

The Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K is a truly affordable cinema camera with impressive specs that houses Blackmagic’s newest sensor. When it was announced last year, Blackmagic Design once again won many filmmakers over. Now that the camera has started shipping, there are many positive, but also some negative voices. Let’s take a look at the guts of the 4K vs 4.6K Blackmagic URSA Mini cinema camera in our lab.

Comparison: Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K vs 4.6K

On the outside these two cameras look identical. Inside the body they probably also share most of the same innards. What really differentiates one from the other is mostly the sensor as far as we can tell. The 4K sensor on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K is the same that was used on the large URSA camera and on the Blackmagic Production Camera. The new 4.6K sensor is 15% larger and similar in size to the ARRI Alexa and Canon C300 mark II sensors.

We will focus on testing several aspects of sensor performance and evaluate the image quality. To make this review fair, we will also throw the popular Sony FS7 into the mix as an additional reference camera.

A look at the Specs

Specs-wise these cameras are virtually identical. Both shoot up to 60fps in 4K. The main difference lies in their maximum resolution and sensor size. The fact that these cameras shoot in all flavours of the Apple ProRes codec, as well cinemaDNG RAW is their big plus. It is, in fact, an aspect where all Blackmagic cameras have an advantage over most other low-cost cinema cameras on the market.

Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K

• Max Resolution: 4K (4000 x 2160)
• Max Framerate 4K: 60fps
• Max Framerate HD: 60fps
• Log Gamma: Film Log
• Sensor: Aps-C (21.12 x 11.88 mm)
• Mount: Canon EF or PL
• Codec Bitrate 4K: up to ProRes 444 XQ – 312.5 MB/s
• Price: About $3000

Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K

• Max Resolution: 4.6K (4608 x 2592)
• Max Framerate 4K: 60fps
• Max Framerate HD: 120fps (windowed)
• Log Gamma: Film Log
• Sensor: Super35 (25.34 x 14.25 mm)
• Mount: Canon EF or PL
• Codec Bitrate 4K: up to ProRes 444 XQ – 312.5 MB/s
• Price: About $5000

Dynamic Range

A good dynamic range rating allows us to capture a larger range of shadows and highlights in high-contrast scenes, an important property when it comes to comparing the URSA Mini 4K vs 4.6K and one where a main difference will become apparent.

We’re testing with a DSC labs XYLA-21 transmissive test chart. For our dynamic range tests we use the Zeiss 50mm Cp2 macro lens (more on how we test HERE).

Our software measured about 12 stops of usable dynamic range on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K (RAW). This is very similar to the rating of the a7S II and C300 mark II.

[Update:] How we tested: We measured dynamic range using uncompressed RAW with an ISO of both 800 and 1600. We decoded the files in DaVinci Resolve 12.5 with BMD Film 4.6K Gamma applied. We also tested dynamic range with Apple ProRes 422 HQ and had the same results.

Here’s a screenshot of the dynamic range of a few popular cameras compared.

In comparison to the URSA Mini 4.6K, our software measured about 8.5 stops of usable dynamic range on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K (RAW). The Sony FS7 reaches 12.5 stops.

For each camera there are different reasons why the dynamic range is limited. The Sony FS7 image seems to become unstable in the lower stops due to processing. There is noise reduction which cancels out noise, but it’s also apparent that we quickly loose detail in the darker areas. The URSA Mini 4K simply doesn’t capture as much dynamic range as the other cameras. The URSA Mini 4.6K would have potential for more stops of range, but noise becomes stronger in the dark areas. Unfortunately there is a lot of pattern noise there, more than on the 4K, which makes darker areas of the image less usable.

Here is a shot of the darker steps (11, 12, 13 and 14). Step 13 and 14 were not counted as valid range by our software, because there is too much noise. See the same image with raised gamma for better viewing below.

Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K – Pattern Noise in Dynamic Range Step 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K – Pattern Noise with raised Gamma

ISO?

The Blackmagic URSA Mini cameras are not strong when it comes to low light performance. In comparison, the FS7 has a greater range in terms of ISO. On the URSA Mini 4K there are only three settings: 200, 400, and 800. The URSA Mini 4.6K goes up to ISO 1600.

In our tests we found that there is little difference in image quality when comparing all of the ISO speeds available on a single camera. It might seem so at first because the image gets brighter with higher ISOs, but in reality the lower ISO speeds merely cut off the image video range. In other words, the same image only gets coded differently at different ISO speeds, seemingly without any difference in processing whatsoever. That’s why we recommend to use the full video range in ProRes, in order to get the best color gradations.

This can be achieved by using ISO 400 or 800 on the URSA Mini 4K and ISO 800 or 1600 on the URSA Mini 4.6K. When exposing your image, though, make sure that you do not underexpose the image, as it will look brighter with the higher ISO setting (800 on 4K and 1600 on 4.6K). If you want the best quality, overexpose your image so you don’t get the noise from the darker areas into your shot, but be careful about highlight clipping. The lower ISO speeds (200 and 400 on the 4.6K) should be avoided.

[Update:] In order to get the most range out of our footage, Blackmagic recommends rating the cameras at their native ISO, which is 400 on the 4K, and 800 on the 4.6K, and then processing the RAW files using the latest version of DaVinci Resolve with BMD Film 4K and BMD Film 4.6K Gamma applied to the RAW decode. In RAW mode, ISO can be selected during the decoding process. We found that a setting of ISO 800 gives you the best starting point to grade.

Image Quality

In terms of image quality, the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K and 4.6K are highly regarded due to their codecs. The following images were taken from URSA Mini RAW files, the Sony FS7 with its native codec and the Fuji XT-2 mirrorless camera with an external recorder:

100% crops (except the 4.6K downscaled to 4K)

What we can clearly see here is that the Sony FS7 and Fujifilm X-T2 have a cleaner image when it comes to fine details. The URSA Mini 4.6K and 4K, on the other hand, show a little bit of a moire pattern on fine lines due to aliasing. The resolution of the Sony FS7 UHD image seems similar to that of the URSA 4.6K RAW image downscaled to 4K in terms of how much detail they resolve.

When we compare the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K vs 4.6K we see that the URSA Mini 4.6K resolves more detail than the 4K. The same is true when we compare a recording in 4K resolution on the URSA Mini 4.6K, to a 4.6K image on the same camera.

But image quality is not a thing that is black and white. Here you can see how the different cameras treat a natural object, as opposed to test chart stars:

Contrast on all images above has been adjustedfor a rough match.

Interestingly the image coming from the Sony FS7 seem much softer. Add some sharpening to the FS7 image, though, and you will find that the image gets much closer to the way the URSA Mini images look. In conclusion, I would say that the codec of the FS7 is its weakest point, but the image looks cleaner than the one from the URSA Mini 4K and 4.6K. All in all, the URSA Mini 4K and 4.6K have a similar looking image, though the 4K wanders off into a slight green tint while the 4.6K looks more magenta. There is a certain amount of noise in the shadow areas on both cameras, and the image is slightly sharpened in-camera. But the look is very natural and colours are quite neutral.

[UPDATE:] Here is a version of only the Sony FS7 image, graded and sharpened to match the URSA Mini processed RAW images above. Here you can see that the detail is very similar, but also how the codec easily falls apart on some portions of the image. The image is more stable and ready to grade on the URSA Mini’s:

Sony FS7 image graded and post sharpened to match the URSA Mini 4.6K

Rolling Shutter

Some cameras, like the Sony a7S II, suffer from a severe rolling shutter effect, a phenomenon also referred to as “jello”. Unfortunately, the rolling shutter that we see on most CMOS sensor cameras is also present on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K and Sony FS7.

As we can see, the rolling shutter on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K is identical to the one we found on the Sony FS7. 11ms is an OK rating when it comes to rolling shutter. On most mirrorless cameras the effect is more severe. The Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K however gets the best rating, as it has a global shutter sensor that does not suffer from the rolling shutter effect at all.

RAW vs ProRes

When comparing the codecs on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K vs 4.6K we found that ProRes generally gives us exceptional results. RAW is a very nice option and should in theory extends bit depth of your files to give you finer gradations. We did not test this. Dynamic range is not increased when using RAW, however.

[Update:] We have compared gradations on a RAW and ProRes file and we can confirm that RAW increases the bit depth. So if you want the best filmic look for heavy color grading, we recommend to use the RAW option on this camera.

Conclusion

It was truly interesting to take a closer look at the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K in comparison to the URSA Mini 4K camera. We saw that the dynamic range of the URSA Mini 4.6K is similar to the FS7. It is a vast improvement over the URSA Mini 4K, which really lacked behind on this point. On the other hand, the URSA Mini 4K has a global shutter sensor and thus doesn’t suffer from rolling shutter effect at all.

In terms of image quality, the URSA Mini 4.6K delivers a really nice image with balanced colors and a natural look. The URSA Mini 4K clearly comes from the same family of sensors, but has a slight green tint. There is slight aliasing on both the 4K and 4.6K when we compare it to the FS7, though, and noise kicks in quickly if you are not careful. Both cameras are no lowlight wonders, but there is an improvement on the 4.6K. [UPDATE:] Also, the 4.6K can shoot up to 120fps in windowed HD.

The most striking argument for the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K is clearly its dynamic range. It also has a sensor 20% larger in size and an extra of 0.6K in resolution, which most will deem marginal in a world of 4K, UHD or HD delivery.

If dynamic range is important to you, then the URSA Mini 4K probably does not have what you want. But besides this point, both these cameras are very similar. In our opinion, for those shooting in studios, there is no good reason to upgrade to the 4.6K at this time. Everyone else will probably welcome the extra filmic quality the URSA Mini 4.6K can achieve.

Would I consider shooting on the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K? Absolutely yes. With its high bit depth and natural looking image it will deliver high quality 4K with a high codec quality. There are other good and comparable cameras, but when it comes to film aesthetics and if you put quality control issues aside, then there is not much that will take you this far at the low pricepoint of the 4.6K.

What is your experience with the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K vs 4.6K? Let us know your opinion in the comments.

The post Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K vs 4.6K – How Good is the 4.6K? appeared first on cinema5D.

Many people were thoroughly impressed when the new DJI Inspire 2 drone was announced. And rightfully so, as it features a 5.2K RAW camera, Apple ProRes, obstacle avoidance, redundancy systems and double the flying power of its predecessor – all at a fairly reasonable price.

I spent a week testing the drone in the field and I’ve seen what the camera is capable of after testing it in our lab. In this DJI Inspire 2 review I will show you how the drone performs and what kind of image quality you can expect. Stay tuned for part II of our DJI Inspire 2 review.

If you are interested in our DJI Inspire 2 LUT and Inspire 2 RAW to LOG converter, please scroll down.

Please note: I abided by all laws to make this video. Due to concerns of some viewers I would like to point out that flight safety is very important. You should at all times see your drone. My night shots were filmed at dawn and I did not fly above people, buildings or streets for them. I flew slightly next to the highway, not above it, the church shots were filmed from above the yard and not above people and the shot inside the fog has an invisible cut, so I myself was positioned above and below fog for a clear sight of the drone at all times. Determine all risks carefully. Achieving many of these shots is much more work than it might appear.

DJI Inspire 2 Review – The Next Generation

This video review was my most extensive and time-consuming ever, but the more I worked with the DJI Inspire 2, the more I found that there is no way around creating an in-depth hands-on piece which I hope you will enjoy and find useful. As the successor to the Inspire 1, the DJI Inspire 2 really marks the next generation of drone flying for me. I was already impressed with the Inspire 1 RAW, but the 2 is a much more serious cinematography tool as the images it can produce are truly remarkable.

Please note that the YouTube/Vimeo compression, even in 4K is very strong. If you want to see how the actual image quality is in 4K, make sure you download the source file and watch it on a 4K screen before giving your final judgement to the image.

Photos shot by Gavin Fürst

I don’t want to repeat myself too much, as I mention most of what I found important in my hands-on video. In this written DJI Inspire 2 review, I want first of all to simply give you “the list”:

PROs

• The X5S camera quality
• 5.2K clean image quality – depth and resolution is amazing
• Apple ProRes Codec integration is very handy
• The overall ergonomics (case, battery, setup time, charger, etc…)
• The extended flying time of up to 25 minutes (I think I managed to get 20)
• Improved flying stability for smoother shots
• Improved flying speed, ideal for aerial cinematography
• SSD workflow
• Safety features (redundant batteries and IMU)
• Wider viewing angle
• Acceptable low-light capabilities

CONs

• ProRes color always defaults to “none” and burns in a “bad look” when not changed manually
• Obstacle avoidance triggers too quickly and ruins my “flyby” shots
• The DJI Go App is too crowded, some buttons are too small and popups are unorganised
• The image transmission often broke up too quickly, at a distance of around 800m
• Every second shot had a bad horizon, although this can be fixed in post easily
• Focusing is still horrible. You tap to auto-focus but never know if you’re in focus or not until after the shoot.

It is clear that DJI had been working on further improving the ergonomics of the drone, which is very nice to see. Small things like the remote control automatically charging your phone or tablet, the inclusion of an automatic landing gear, self-heating batteries, dual charging – all of these all make your life easier, especially as a one-man operator. It’s easier and safer to fly the DJI Inspire 2 than any other drone before.

I’m sure DJI will be working on future updates to address some of the issues I encountered. One should keep in mind that the first DJI Inspire 2 units are only just starting to ship to a few testers, and that the software for this complex machine is still in its early stages. In my correspondence with DJI, however, I did feel that the company took my feedback seriously.

DJI Go 4 App. The Color of ProRes recordings right now s defaults back to “none” whenever you change format.

The Camera – Zenmuse X5S

At the time of this review, I still couldn’t get the more affordable Zenmuse X4S camera to work, so I was only looking at the higher-priced Zenmuse X5S. The perfomance of the Zenmuse X4S will be, among other things, one of the points we will look at in Part II of our DJI Inspire 2 Review.

DJI Zenmuse X5S Camera – Gives you RAW and ProRes recording options.

As mentioned in the video, the results I got from the Zenmuse X5S are truly remarkable. Not only could I match it pretty closely to the the colors of the ARRI Alexa, but the 5.2K resolution for me is rather mind-blowing. This kind of frame size is very useful, especially on aerial shots. That said, the dynamic range is not quite up there with the Alexa, and the colors of the Alexa are a tad smoother and more accurate out of the box.

You should also know that the Zenmuse X5S has a micro four-thirds sensor, while the Alexa shines in super35. During my skintone test with our model, I used the 45mm Olympus lens, which I believe would be a 60mm equivalent on a super35 size. I used the Zeiss 50mm Cp2 macro lens on the Alexa.

I don’t intend to suggest that you should shoot your whole movie with a drone, even though DJI tried that in their promo video, but I do think the Inspire 2 can be used in high-budget movie productions mixed with ARRI Alexa footage. It is nice to see how powerful the DJI Inspire 2 RAW files really are, coming out of such a small and ergonomic single-operator drone.

DJI Inspire 2 – 5.2K RAW file, converted to LOG (right-click open for full size)

And then there is the Apple ProRes codec, although please note that it is limited to 4K UHD. In my tests, I found that 4K ProRes gives you nicer results than using 4K RAW, because the 4K RAW files have some aliasing distortion. Instead, you should shoot 5.2K RAW and convert to 4K later for the best possible quality in 4K.

I took night shots for the beginning of my film by intention, in order to see how the camera performs in lowlight. The compressed YouTube film looks rather noise, but the actual footage had less grain and was clean, so shooting a lit city at night is very much possble with the Inspire 2 Zenmuse X5S camera. I shot at around ISO 400, though it is hard to determine exactly as the source was RAW.

We will do further tests and present the results in my DJI Inspire 2 Review Part II that is coming soon.

Inspire RAW to LOG Conversion

During my analysis, I found that the best workflow for .cdng RAW from both the Inspire 1 and Inspire 2 is as described below.

After Effects

1. Open Adobe After Effects CC.
2. Drag and drop your folder(s) containing the RAW .cdng sequences into the After Effects “Project” tab.
3. The Camera RAW App will open.
4. Optional: Go to the Presets tab (second from the right) and select one of the cinema5D RAW to LOG presets (get them here).
5. For each shot (folder with .cdng sequences) you import, the Camera Raw App will open individually.
6. Once all your shots have been imported into After Effects, you can drag them to the “Render Queue” tab at the bottom.
7. Select your desired target codec under “Output Module” in the “Render Queue” tab.
8. Select your desired file destination under “Output To”.
9. Click “Render” in the “Render Queue” tab.

For the best possible quality, select Apple ProRes 4444 or 4444 XQ codec. To save space, go for Apple ProRes 422 HQ.

I will publish a video tutorial for this soon.

Inspire RAW to LOG presets

I made a Camera RAW preset that emulates a flat LOG gamma equivalent to ARRI Alexa Log C for videos recorded with a DJI Inspire 1 or 2 drone on the .cdng (RAW) recording option. When this is used during the After Effects workflow (step 4), you can use any 3rd party ARRI Alexa LUTs to grade your Inspire footage. I think it grades quite nicely indeed.

However, the colors of the DJI Inspire 2 RAW are really, really off right out of the box. The same goes for the Inspire 1 RAW. If you intend to get awesome shots, I’m sure you will benefit from my presets. I’ve spent a lot of time and effort making them, with a lot of tweaking involved, which is why we are not offering them for free. The package also includes the C5D instaLUT B1010 (.cube file) for Log footage (ARRI Alexa and Inspire RAW to LOG) and DaVinci presets for fast conversion.

GET IT HERE

Please note that the After Effects conversion also:

• Removes color noise from your footage.
• Removes chromatic aberrations, vignetting and distortion from your shots by using the embedded RAW lens data.
• The Olympus 25mm lens data is currently faulty, so any footage shot with this lens will not look great. Let’s hope DJI will fix this.
• This conversion takes a very long time. Expect your computer to run for at least a day for 30 minutes of footage.

You can also convert your files in DaVinci Resolve. I can recommend this also, as it is faster and gives you very good results as well. The After Effects workflow gives you the best possible quality and I use it all the time, but DaVinci Resolve converts quicker and the files are also usable.

Please note that the DaVinci conversion:

• Does not remove lens defects like chromatic aberration, vignetting and distortion.
• Only gives you a generic flat gamma. (Unless you use the new DaVinci presets, also included in the Camera RAW preset)
• In my experience, it blows out the highlights a bit.
• But it is probably 20x faster than the After Effects method.

DaVinci Resolve

1. Open DaVinci Resolve (free download).
2. Browse to your Inspire RAW shots.
3. Drag your folder(s) to the media pool.
4. Change your project settings to the resolution of your shots. (Gear wheel at the bottom right –> Timeline Resolution)
5. Go to the “Edit” tab and drag your shots into the timeline.
6. Go to the “Color” tab and select each shot. Then change:
7. Decode Using: “Clip”; Color Space: “Blackmagic Design”; Gamma: “Blackmagic Design Film”; Tick the “Highlight Recovery” box.
8. [NEW] (optional) Use our DaVinci 3D LUTs to match the Alexa Colors.
9. Then export your files in the “Deliver” tab.

DJI Inspire 2 Package – What else do I need?

If you’re going for the high end DJI Inspire 2 Premium model with the Zenmuse X5S camera, here’s what I’d recommend you get:

The X5S package comes with most of what you need to fly professionally. Some kits come without the 15mm lens. You can either get that or any other of the recommended MFT lenses.

The drone comes with 2 batteries. These will let you fly for about 20-25 minutes. If you want more fly-time, get more batteries. I’d get 3 more sets, for a total of 8. This means I can spend about 2-3 hours in the field. I’d also recommend you get another charging hub and power adaptor, because the included one only charges 2 of the batteries at once, which takes about 90 minutes.

If you want to pilot and have someone else operate the drone, this can be achieved with a second remote. And another set of propellers might come in handy in case one of them breaks for some reason, although it is better to stay safe and never let that happen.

Ah yes, the Inspire 2 bundle will ship without SSDs, so if you plan to record anything you’ll have to get those as well. If you want to save money, you could go for two 120GB SSDs and only record ProRes 422 HQ in 4K UHD. If you want to do 5.2K, then two 480GB SSDs would be useful. In any case, I’d recommend to get two, because you can’t delete individual clips and transferring files takes ages, but also because if you lose or break one it would mean you can’t film anymore. Don’t forget the SSD Reader.

The minimum complete package is a little bit more expensive than expected, costing about $8,000. Considering the package DJI promotes costs $6,000, that’s a large extra and reminds me of the experience of getting a RED camera. But considering what you get, $8,000 is a well-deserved price, and in comparison to any other drone + camera that achieves this kind of quality, you could even consider this affordable.

Conclusion

There is no question about it, the DJI Inspire 2 is an impressive drone and a testament to the irritatingly fast pace at which DJI is advancing drone technology way beyond the competition. If you are a single operator and you are looking for a drone with great ergonomics and flying power, as well as the best possible cinema-worthy image quality in a small package, then look no further. There is nothing comparable out there, as any large drone will only outperform this if it is equipped with an ARRI Alexa. Even then, the resolution of the DJI Inspire 2 has no match. Maybe the RED Helium 8K could compete, but we hear the color science is not quite ready yet.

5.2K on a 4K screen is really, really impressive, the ProRes integration is a big improvement and the intelligent features this drone brings to the table will be a great help on any shoot. I hope DJI can work out some of the issues I have pointed out, especially the default color on ProRes and the horrible focusing limitations, but overall, the Inspire 2 is a great step up from the Inspire 1. Now all we need is this camera on a shoulder mount, but I have a feeling this is exactly what DJI will have in store for us soon.

What option would this leave the rest of the camera manufacturers? I have no clue.

We hope you liked our DJI Inspire 2 Review and camera analysis. If you have any questions or thoughts please let us know in the comments.

Special Thanks

To musicbed.com for providing the song.
Stray Theories – “We Never Left”
www.straytheoriesmusic.com

Skintone model – Ieva Pocytė

Big thanks to Gavin Fürst for his help flying the drone, photos and navigating the city!!!

The post DJI Inspire 2 Review – The Drone that Rivals ARRI Alexa Image Quality? appeared first on cinema5D.