MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160?

Steve Rosen · February 13th, 2016, 06:58 PM

PS - I'm sorry, I have been referring to 1080, not UHD (which I seldom shoot). So, what you're saying is that even if I'm using a full frame lens, like a Rokinon prime, I should set the VSM at 86% and not 100% when shooting UHD? That I haven't experimented with.

Steve Mullen · February 14th, 2016, 03:16 AM

When one uses APS-C, S35, and FF lenses which fill the sensor, then the 100% or 97% (for APS-C) setting is correct. Yes, the image must be scaled down, but we're talking 11.2MP to 8.2MP.

Of course, because MFT lenses also throw a big image on the sensor -- I could say the same thing about MFT lenses. :) But given JVC warning not to -- even though they don't say WHAT bad things will happen -- I'm taking the chance that nothing too bad will happen if a use 86%(4K) rather 80%(MFT. Capturing UHD seems worth the risk.

Any setting greater than 43% provides enough pixels for HD. Hmmm! I suppose 86%(4K) might be useful since it provides perfect 2X oversampling.

I needed one last image for Part 1, so I put my very old Nikon f=50mm F1.8 lens on a Metabones adaptor (all supplied by JVC). WOW! At 400 ISO, fully opening the aperture in a shopping center provided a brighter than real image. I had to stop down 1 stop to render an accurate image. The histogram was useful but the plain fact is I could have judged the exposure using the LCD. This is such a perfect camera for shooting docs.

What are you shooting in HD?

Steve Rosen · February 14th, 2016, 09:55 AM

Steve: We shoot documentaries and documentary-style TV spots... Our core clients are two community colleges, a university and a hospital. We often produce our own social issue docs with grants or on our own dime, many of which have been on the PBS National Primetime Schedule.

This isn't meant to be a resume, but an explanation of why I like this camera. It's very light (some complain about it being plastic, but plastic is light and strong) and easy to set up for shoulder mount with a Gratical. With the VSM and 1080 I can shoot all day with the 12-40 and maintain a small unobtrusive package. I personally prefer documentaries that look like docs - not glossy and over produced - but because my training (UCLA) and my early experience was as a DP, I still want attractive, compelling, effective images - not reality TV crap. I'm very opinionated and old school and unimpressed by the video slide shows that are often presented when a new camera is released.

The LS300 allows me to get clean images out of the camera, but the log also allows some manipulation in post. I'm currently shooting a show on tourism vs agriculture (economic drivers in California) and the client, a PR firm, is blown away by what this little "under the radar" camera produces.

And it's cheap - after my disappointment with the almost immediate obsolescence of my Panasonic HPX500 - (which I paid over $30,000 for w/ P2 cards and HD finder) - I have vowed to never pay more than $5,000 for a camera again. I often joke with students when I guest in Film classes that these days cameras are obsolete before you can get the batteries charged.

Steve Mullen · February 15th, 2016, 11:53 PM

"We shoot documentaries and documentary-style TV spots... Our core clients are two community colleges, a university and a hospital. We often produce our own social issue docs with grants or on our own dime, many of which have been on the PBS National Primetime Schedule."

I'm curious if you would say you are now doing "Digital Cinema Production?"

Would you say you were if you were shooting J-log?

Would you say you were if you were shooting 24fps?

Would you say you were if you were shooting only with primes?

I'm curious because JVC -- in their beautiful 12-page brochure -- really pushes "Digital Cinema." But what do they mean? Narrative movie making? I honestly don't see this. In the USA, Arri, RED and BM own this market. Plus Canon DSLRs. And, now Panasonic with their Varicam. I really don't feel Sony is loved that much by filmmakers.

My sense that what you do now -- and would do were the client were to want 23.98fps -- plus grading in post -- is the JVC true market. For me, "cinema" is 23.98 or 24fps, J-log, with lots of attention in post -- plus cinema lighting.

But what about the new C4K/C2K modes? Because one can shoot at 24.0fps it seems a potential market includes commercials to be shown in theaters.

In all these applications I think of the client as wanting good looking images -- but not caring if they mimic film.

But, I've been wondering if it's possible to post-process LS300 images to look more like film. JVC didn't do this in their "Heist" demo. But, could it be done? There's a ghost town outside Vegas that might work. Lighting is 90% of the job.

My thought is why should an accurate image be seen as not looking like film? It seems starting with an accurate image should provide the freedom to create any look one wants. I'm not trying to prove the JVC is the same as a Digital Bolex, I'm just wondering were a client to want a more filmic look, could one shoot with the JVC.

Steve, have you tried a filmlook?

Steve Rosen · February 16th, 2016, 01:52 PM

Steve: I used too shoot 24p all the time, but I've recently opted for 29.976 (30 on the JVC), largely because I shoot a lot of regional TV spots these days and 24p can get iffy with so-called "digital cinema" - and it expedites timing and issues with carriers like Comcast.

The last feature doc (shot on an HPX500) was 24p, but somehow Panasonic seems to have a better handle on film rates than the other bottom-feeders. 24p on the LS300, for instance, looks very choppy, and I like to keep my shutter at as near 180 as possible...

I don't refer to what I do as digital cinema, although I have two Pocket Cameras and treat what I do more like film than video (for instance I still use a Spectra Combi 500 and like to shoot into sources, like windows).

I do use FilmConvert - a lot - and it works very well with J-LOG1- in fact I usually only dial in blacks and tweak the warm/cool in FCPX and call it done. I'm generally not much of a fan of the LUT "Looks" thing. (I pull the grain on FilmConvert BTW).

Believe it or not, some of the best looking cinema-verity stuff I've ever shot was with a lowly Canon HV40... I loved that little camera. Consequently I don't go all squiggly with trends like DR etc... If it looks good, it looks good.

And, as I've said many times here and elsewhere, I'll never pay over 5 grand for a camera again (I got the HV40 at Sears for $600 on the way to the airport). I still have a $60,000 Aaton in my closet if I want to remember the good old days of non-digital cinema...

Noa Put · February 16th, 2016, 02:21 PM

Quote:

The last feature doc (shot on an HPX500) was 24p, but somehow Panasonic seems to have a better handle on film rates than the other bottom-feeders. 24p on the LS300, for instance, looks very choppy

That should not be possible, no? 24 frames is 24 frames, no matter what camera you shoot it with, I can only suspect it is something that your NLE is not handling right.

Steve Mullen · February 16th, 2016, 08:18 PM

Here's a short explanation of low frame rate stutter:

1) Our eyes use the edges of objects to sense motion.

2) EDGES are moderate frequency information while DETAIL is much higher frequency information.

3) Most camcorders to get fine detail, boost ALL frequencies. Thus moderate frquencies (EDGES) are empasized along with high frequencies (DETAIL).

4) Thus these camcorder capture images which catch the eyes attention and we see stutter/judder.

5) Cinema cameras have a special control that dials down mid-frequencies while not lowering high frequencies. Some simply have a less heavy-handed boost.

6) Turning down SHARPNESS on a low-cost camcorder reduces the mid-frequencies which does reduce the visiblity of edges, but it also kills fine detail! This is not a good solution -- although the BBC usually finds in testing the NORMAL setting is really not "normal." They usually recommend about a -3 to -4 setting. This is one of the things I need to try with the LS300.

Noa Put · February 17th, 2016, 02:40 AM

So it's fair to say that any camera out there today that is not classified as a cinemacamera (arri alexa, red etc) is not capable of displaying 24p without excess stutter?

Steve Mullen · February 17th, 2016, 06:19 AM

I have seen no judder with the LS300!

But with Sony consumer 4K cameras where they apply a lot of boost to make detail pop -- it can be bad. I've tried 3 Sony cameras that can shoot 4K and returned all of them.

I'm kind of testing the LS300 in reverse -- I started with a focus on exposure because in J-log you only use manual exposure. And, when using any log gamma, exposure settings are different than when shooting REC.709. This also meant developing specific zebra settings for J-log. Lots of work and then I found a document JVC published on this subject. :)

Tonight I found a video on Utube that explains how to set the LS200/LS300 for a direct feed to Ustream. This would be really neat for the F1 race through the streets of Vegas or doing interviews at NAB. The key is you've got to use Ustream to send invitations to folks who might want to watch. I've done a feed with a Smartphone from a nightclub in Manila. (Don't ask how much it cost me!)

Steve Rosen · February 17th, 2016, 08:47 AM

"I have seen no judder with the LS300!

That's weird, because my first impression when I got the camera, shooting at 24p, was that it was very juddery (if that's a word). In fact I compared it side by side with my old HVX200 that I had given to a friend, and the Panasonic was very filmic, the JVC was not. I wish I still had the test footage, but I don't (anyway, I never have any luck uploading to this site anyway).

I'll have to test again because the first was done before J-LOG1 was added... that may make a difference.

February 13th, 2016, 06:58 PM	#16
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? PS - I'm sorry, I have been referring to 1080, not UHD (which I seldom shoot). So, what you're saying is that even if I'm using a full frame lens, like a Rokinon prime, I should set the VSM at 86% and not 100% when shooting UHD? That I haven't experimented with.

February 14th, 2016, 03:16 AM	#17
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? When one uses APS-C, S35, and FF lenses which fill the sensor, then the 100% or 97% (for APS-C) setting is correct. Yes, the image must be scaled down, but we're talking 11.2MP to 8.2MP. Of course, because MFT lenses also throw a big image on the sensor -- I could say the same thing about MFT lenses. :) But given JVC warning not to -- even though they don't say WHAT bad things will happen -- I'm taking the chance that nothing too bad will happen if a use 86%(4K) rather 80%(MFT. Capturing UHD seems worth the risk. Any setting greater than 43% provides enough pixels for HD. Hmmm! I suppose 86%(4K) might be useful since it provides perfect 2X oversampling. I needed one last image for Part 1, so I put my very old Nikon f=50mm F1.8 lens on a Metabones adaptor (all supplied by JVC). WOW! At 400 ISO, fully opening the aperture in a shopping center provided a brighter than real image. I had to stop down 1 stop to render an accurate image. The histogram was useful but the plain fact is I could have judged the exposure using the LCD. This is such a perfect camera for shooting docs. What are you shooting in HD? __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

February 14th, 2016, 09:55 AM	#18
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? Steve: We shoot documentaries and documentary-style TV spots... Our core clients are two community colleges, a university and a hospital. We often produce our own social issue docs with grants or on our own dime, many of which have been on the PBS National Primetime Schedule. This isn't meant to be a resume, but an explanation of why I like this camera. It's very light (some complain about it being plastic, but plastic is light and strong) and easy to set up for shoulder mount with a Gratical. With the VSM and 1080 I can shoot all day with the 12-40 and maintain a small unobtrusive package. I personally prefer documentaries that look like docs - not glossy and over produced - but because my training (UCLA) and my early experience was as a DP, I still want attractive, compelling, effective images - not reality TV crap. I'm very opinionated and old school and unimpressed by the video slide shows that are often presented when a new camera is released. The LS300 allows me to get clean images out of the camera, but the log also allows some manipulation in post. I'm currently shooting a show on tourism vs agriculture (economic drivers in California) and the client, a PR firm, is blown away by what this little "under the radar" camera produces. And it's cheap - after my disappointment with the almost immediate obsolescence of my Panasonic HPX500 - (which I paid over $30,000 for w/ P2 cards and HD finder) - I have vowed to never pay more than $5,000 for a camera again. I often joke with students when I guest in Film classes that these days cameras are obsolete before you can get the batteries charged.

February 15th, 2016, 11:53 PM	#19
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? "We shoot documentaries and documentary-style TV spots... Our core clients are two community colleges, a university and a hospital. We often produce our own social issue docs with grants or on our own dime, many of which have been on the PBS National Primetime Schedule." I'm curious if you would say you are now doing "Digital Cinema Production?" Would you say you were if you were shooting J-log? Would you say you were if you were shooting 24fps? Would you say you were if you were shooting only with primes? I'm curious because JVC -- in their beautiful 12-page brochure -- really pushes "Digital Cinema." But what do they mean? Narrative movie making? I honestly don't see this. In the USA, Arri, RED and BM own this market. Plus Canon DSLRs. And, now Panasonic with their Varicam. I really don't feel Sony is loved that much by filmmakers. My sense that what you do now -- and would do were the client were to want 23.98fps -- plus grading in post -- is the JVC true market. For me, "cinema" is 23.98 or 24fps, J-log, with lots of attention in post -- plus cinema lighting. But what about the new C4K/C2K modes? Because one can shoot at 24.0fps it seems a potential market includes commercials to be shown in theaters. In all these applications I think of the client as wanting good looking images -- but not caring if they mimic film. But, I've been wondering if it's possible to post-process LS300 images to look more like film. JVC didn't do this in their "Heist" demo. But, could it be done? There's a ghost town outside Vegas that might work. Lighting is 90% of the job. My thought is why should an accurate image be seen as not looking like film? It seems starting with an accurate image should provide the freedom to create any look one wants. I'm not trying to prove the JVC is the same as a Digital Bolex, I'm just wondering were a client to want a more filmic look, could one shoot with the JVC. Steve, have you tried a filmlook? __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

February 16th, 2016, 01:52 PM	#20
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? Steve: I used too shoot 24p all the time, but I've recently opted for 29.976 (30 on the JVC), largely because I shoot a lot of regional TV spots these days and 24p can get iffy with so-called "digital cinema" - and it expedites timing and issues with carriers like Comcast. The last feature doc (shot on an HPX500) was 24p, but somehow Panasonic seems to have a better handle on film rates than the other bottom-feeders. 24p on the LS300, for instance, looks very choppy, and I like to keep my shutter at as near 180 as possible... I don't refer to what I do as digital cinema, although I have two Pocket Cameras and treat what I do more like film than video (for instance I still use a Spectra Combi 500 and like to shoot into sources, like windows). I do use FilmConvert - a lot - and it works very well with J-LOG1- in fact I usually only dial in blacks and tweak the warm/cool in FCPX and call it done. I'm generally not much of a fan of the LUT "Looks" thing. (I pull the grain on FilmConvert BTW). Believe it or not, some of the best looking cinema-verity stuff I've ever shot was with a lowly Canon HV40... I loved that little camera. Consequently I don't go all squiggly with trends like DR etc... If it looks good, it looks good. And, as I've said many times here and elsewhere, I'll never pay over 5 grand for a camera again (I got the HV40 at Sears for $600 on the way to the airport). I still have a $60,000 Aaton in my closet if I want to remember the good old days of non-digital cinema...

February 16th, 2016, 08:18 PM	#22
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? Here's a short explanation of low frame rate stutter: 1) Our eyes use the edges of objects to sense motion. 2) EDGES are moderate frequency information while DETAIL is much higher frequency information. 3) Most camcorders to get fine detail, boost ALL frequencies. Thus moderate frquencies (EDGES) are empasized along with high frequencies (DETAIL). 4) Thus these camcorder capture images which catch the eyes attention and we see stutter/judder. 5) Cinema cameras have a special control that dials down mid-frequencies while not lowering high frequencies. Some simply have a less heavy-handed boost. 6) Turning down SHARPNESS on a low-cost camcorder reduces the mid-frequencies which does reduce the visiblity of edges, but it also kills fine detail! This is not a good solution -- although the BBC usually finds in testing the NORMAL setting is really not "normal." They usually recommend about a -3 to -4 setting. This is one of the things I need to try with the LS300. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

February 17th, 2016, 02:40 AM	#23
Noa Put Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 9,509	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? So it's fair to say that any camera out there today that is not classified as a cinemacamera (arri alexa, red etc) is not capable of displaying 24p without excess stutter?

February 17th, 2016, 06:19 AM	#24
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? I have seen no judder with the LS300! But with Sony consumer 4K cameras where they apply a lot of boost to make detail pop -- it can be bad. I've tried 3 Sony cameras that can shoot 4K and returned all of them. I'm kind of testing the LS300 in reverse -- I started with a focus on exposure because in J-log you only use manual exposure. And, when using any log gamma, exposure settings are different than when shooting REC.709. This also meant developing specific zebra settings for J-log. Lots of work and then I found a document JVC published on this subject. :) Tonight I found a video on Utube that explains how to set the LS200/LS300 for a direct feed to Ustream. This would be really neat for the F1 race through the streets of Vegas or doing interviews at NAB. The key is you've got to use Ustream to send invitations to folks who might want to watch. I've done a feed with a Smartphone from a nightclub in Manila. (Don't ask how much it cost me!) __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

February 17th, 2016, 08:47 AM	#25
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Re: MFT lenses -- 3840x2160 or an upscale to 3840x2160? "I have seen no judder with the LS300! That's weird, because my first impression when I got the camera, shooting at 24p, was that it was very juddery (if that's a word). In fact I compared it side by side with my old HVX200 that I had given to a friend, and the Panasonic was very filmic, the JVC was not. I wish I still had the test footage, but I don't (anyway, I never have any luck uploading to this site anyway). I'll have to test again because the first was done before J-LOG1 was added... that may make a difference.