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

I'm finishing Part 1 of my LS300 review and after weeks of calculations and recalculations it looks like if you record at UHD and set VSM to 80%(MFT) the capture window size is too small to have 3840x2160 pixels. On the other hand, if you select 89%, the capture window will have more than 3840x2160 pixels.

However, JVC's documentation warns that if you "exceed" 80%(MFT) "... the MFT lens may not perform optimally." I didn't see any problem with VSM set to 89%. Moreover, I can't think of what would cause a problem by using 89%. It seems odd the LS300 has a great VSM setup tool but if you use it with MFT lenses JVC say's you will have a problem! Worse, they don't say what the problem will be.

All other VSM values check-out perfectly, so I can no longer avoid following the math.

Current text reads:

"An alternate way to obtain a VSM setting is to use the LS300’s VSM setup tool to guide you to the correct VSM setting. After attaching an Olympus MFT zoom lens I toggled through the VSM settings. A VSM setting of 89% showed no vignetting. Others have also reported setting VSM to 89%, or even higher. With VSM set to 89%, the capture window has a resolution of approximately 8.9 Megabytes which supports both C4K and UHD."

"If JVC is recommending selecting 80%(MFT) when the camera is set to UHD, then VSM must upscale an 3316x1865-pixel capture of a 17.3 x 9.7mm MFT 16:9 video image to 3840x2160. (MFT lenses project a 17.3 x 13.0mm 4:3 image, however, when used to shoot 16:9 video, only 9.7mm of the sensor’s 13.0mm height is used.) After months with no response from JVC, I returned to using a VSM setting of 89%."

Comments from those using 80%(MFT) or 89% needed.

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

Yeah, Steve. I haven't shot a lot of 4K with MFT lenses, mostly with Rokinon primes. But when I have, I've always set the VSM at 89%. I can see how you might want to set it at 80% to mimic the response of another MFT camera... but that would be a rare situation.

I've shot tests with the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 in 4K and at 89% there is zero noticeable vignetting at 12mm. There may be a slight darkening in the extreme corners, but as I've said before, that's really only noticeable in stills.

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

You might be right about the 80%(MFT) setting. The engineers may have determined that at this setting an MFT lens will have the "expected" field of view for MFT lenses.

I've been wondering how it is that MFT lenses project such a "large" image? Do MFT lenses have a larger than we expect optical circle? If this is true then details will be the same size as when taking a photo. Only the LS300 has the ability to capture this bigger image.

Or, is mount to sensor distance longer so the projected image is larger. This would mean 89% is a match to the bigger image. If this is the case, then why the 80%(MFT) setting?

Do you have an MFT still camera? If you do you could do a quick check on the field of view.

That still leaves the warning. It must be important enough to have caused JVC to insert it into the manual. The word "optimum" may be the key. If MFT lenses project a "larger" image than we expect, it's possible/likely MFT lenses are not designed to offer maximum optical quality except in the central (normal) part of the optical circle. Thus while selecting 89% provides 3840x2160 resolution edge detail may be quality may be lower so JVC feels it is not a good trade-off.

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

Well, for about the tenth time I tried to attach a frame grab without success - I've never had a problem on any other site...

Anyway, it is the test I shot in 1080 with the 12-40 Olympus at 12mm and the VSM set at 92%, and it's sharp as I ever need. But you''ll have to take my word for it...

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

I found a review on a German site and they comment it's typical for MFT lenses to have a very large optical circle -- so not surprising we can use 89% or 92%.

So what's JVC's beef with going higher than 80%?

I've decided the best choice is 86% which is exactly 3840x2160 -- no scaling is used.

The camera really is amazing. It's features seem endless. Part 1 of my review is over 2200 words. But it must go out tonight. Then I can start Part 2.

JVC in one interview says the LS300 is the FIRST S35 camera. The $1000 reduction may be to clear inventory ahead of NAB.

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

I have noticed at my last wedding that the 12-35mm f2.8 panasonic lens vignettes at 12mm when I set vsm to 80% (mft)

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

I had a 12-35 and it vignetted slightly (darker corners, not black) on the AF100 too... The Olympus 12-40 doesn't... neither does the Zuiko 35-100. The 12-40 can just get away with 92% - if you're not too fussy - and the 35-100 is best at 89%. Some have said the the image is softer at 89% than at 80% though, but I'm not seeing it on real world clips - I haven't tried charts.

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

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "the reports of the GY-LS300 going away has been greatly exaggerated."

JVC continues to work on the improvement of the GY-LS300, as is evident with the announcements of the firmware updates, some of which are released enthusiastically by our product team. We are working on getting the notifications out to our user base in a more timely and direct manner.

Thank you all for your ongoing support!

Cordially,

-Craig

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

Well, anything better then what Sony did with their nex-ea50, bring out one firmware update with useless features and then just let the model die.

It's not that I am expecting anything but it doesn't hurt to ask again; last wedding I shot with a fixed f-stop (f2.8) all the time because I wanted that shallower dof throughout my entire recording.

Since the shutter should remain at a fixed value as well the only way to control your exposure is by adjusting the ISO on the fly and this is impossible to do with only 3 fixed iso values using the gain switch on the side of the camera.

In the menu, under "camerafunction" and "iris dial" you can assign following values to the dial on the camera: "iris", "shutter", "ae level" and "iris/shutter/ae level", if only JVC could add ISO to those options as well that would be a life saver.

My sony rx10 does this with the scrollwheel on the back which makes it so much easier to lock your f-stop and control your exposure, I"m surprised not more people are asking for this.

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

Careful with the promises Craig, you don't want the endless threads requesting impossible firmware updates that have plagued the Black magic forum and the old AF100 one.. I never type LOL, but you get the idea...

In my opinion the LS300 is the best camera I've ever used (and that says something when you consider I graduated from UCLA's film division in 1967)... it has it's weaknesses, but in general it's strengths far outweigh them... Starting with little things, like the deeper groove in the front of the top handle that makes it easier to carry - through to big things like the (now) remote controllable VSM and the MFT mount that should have sucked every former AF100 owner to JVC.

I would post a picture of how my camera is set up for handholding with the side-mounted Gratical and the zoom.start/stop control mounted under it, and my old Aaton grip on the starboard side - but I've never been able to upload pix on this site. Suffice it to say that it's very pleasant to work long hours with because of it's basic light weight and design.

I may buy a second one during the sale... tempting, but maybe I should wait for the improved 10 bit version? (sorry, couldn't help it)

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

Nice, so you have got what you asked for and now everyone else should stop asking? :) Eventhough I don't expect anything, it's good to see a manufacturer that is committed to improve it's product.

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

Oh. I want more, everyone always does... Thus the 10 bit reference... This camera would really jump ahead if it had more depth...

Understand that I'm not dissatisfied with how it handles 8 bit - until I do a long fade to black, or add a vignetting filter (which I often do for TV spots). Then banding starts to rear it's ugly head (as it does on any 8 bit camera - most, like that ol' AF100, are much worse).

I've tried (as I mentioned several months back) shooting 4K and there seems to be an improvement when it's down-converted, but there are still occasional branding issues.

This isn't a deal killer for me though, because I work around it and the images it produces are are terrific.

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

There's a great deal of truth there, but I strive to be sensitive to both sides, our customers and our product team with no intent of making unattainable promises. We're all hard working professionals trying to bring the best product possible with what is provided to us. The LS300 was first and foremost born from the feedback we received from the marketplace. Otherwise, it would not have come to being.

When pieces come together, amazing things happen, and such is the case of JVC Log and Prime Zoom. We will continue to work on and with the LS300 to the best of its abilities. For features beyond, we will look to future concepts.

- Craig

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

If you are shooting UHD there is no quality advantage to a setting other than 86%(4K). VSM will define a capture window that has 3840x2160 photosites. At this setting all photosites within the capture window are transferred into the camera.

When you use a setting higher than 86% you are simply capturing a wider segment of the image on the sensor. So 12mm becomes more like 10mm. But unless you need a wider angle-of-view you should NOT use a higher setting than 86%. I'm telling you this and so is JVC.

The reason is simple -- no matter how good a scaling engine is -- and JVC and Sony have some great technology -- interpolating an image from another one cause a degradation in image quality. Sure at 89% a few more photosites are captured -- but they must be squeezed down to UHD!

Why would anyone choose to this?

Were the sensor to offer a 7680x4320 capture window -- then there would be an advantage because it would provide 2X sampling. That would mean a chip with 33Mpixels.

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

Interesting, and I basically see this in practical shooting. However, when I do want the equivalent of 10mm it is available, and only the most dedicated pixel peepers are ever going to see it.

Using a very sharp 12mm, like the Olympus (it is surprisingly sharp) at 92% can work in a pinch, and is preferable to either having to change lenses, or using a possibly less sharp 10mm. The big downside is barrel distortion. It's pretty bad, but there are some that actually like it (those old 60s rock and roll films I shot in 35 with a horrible fisheye attest to this)..

Now that the VSM is controllable from the remote I can make my choice on the fly - although it is admittedly difficult to stop exactly where I want.

I moved my PS to another post below

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

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?

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!)

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.