As many of you are well aware, the cinema5D lab was built up a few years ago, and huge efforts were put into detailed camera tests concerning dynamic range, sharpness, rolling shutter etc … No new measurements were done in a while, but now we decided to start again, in a step by step manner, building on this foundation. Therefore, as a first activity we are bringing back the dynamic range measurements. This article is intended to describe the workflow and also philosophy of our test and should serve as a reference for those readers who want to engage / contribute to our method and findings. Dynamic Range Measurements – the Conundrum To the best of the author’s knowledge there is no industry standard available for movie cameras, and even the most simplistic definitions are vague as you will see quickly (there is an ISO 15739:2003 standard for digital still picture cameras though from which we will borrow some of our terms and definitions). That has left a lot of room for interpretation and also allows each camera manufacturer to publish numbers which are not always directly comparable between the cameras. Because dynamic range of a camera is an important feature our target here is to establish an independent base reference benchmark which allows direct comparison between the various cameras on the market. What is the Dynamic Range of a Camera? The dynamic range of a camera can be simplistically defined as the ratio of the maximum and minimum luminance that a camera can capture. Sounds good, but how to quantify the term “capture”? The ability of a camera to capture highlight detail is quite obvious, but the problem starts in the shadow details – here, noise starts to kick in quickly and we are left with room for interpretation which kind of noise is still usable or not – at this point, let’s talk quickly about sensor noise and signal to noise ratio (SNR). Noise is the random reported variation of luminance of pixels compared to their actual luminance value. Therefore, below a certain base luminance the image may be so corrupted by noise that we cannot really say that detail in the shadows is captured accurately or that image detail is usable. The ISO 15739:2003 standard is helpful here as it defines a signal to noise ratio of 1 as being the threshold value for dynamic range measurements. However experience shows that for movie cameras a signal to noise ratio of 2 (or a root mean square value of noise RMS = 0.5 = 1/SNR) is a more conservative approach leading to “usable” shadow detail. Lucky for us the ARRI ALEXA factory dynamic range statement of 14 stops seems to correspond very well to the 0.5 = 1/ SNR equation as past cinema5d results showed, hence we will continue to use this threshold value to determine the dynamic range of different cameras. The Testing Procedure We are using a DSC labs Xyla 21 backlit transmissive chart in a completely dark room, which provides 21 stops of dynamic range. This chart is filmed offcenter from the horizontal axis (to avoid lens flare) using the following methodology:  At the highlight (left) end we hard clip the first two patches, then stop down until the second patch is on the cusp of clipping.  Now we have 2 methods to identify the dynamic range: a) a visual inspection of a waveform plot and the recorded patch image b) IMATEST: we export frames from the video file and run it through the IMATEST software which calculates a numerical value for the dynamic range using advanced image analysis algorithms (see http://www.imatest.com/docs/stepchart/). While transmissive tests are the simplest/most accurate/comparable tests of dynamic range, they also give us very little information regarding how the camera responds to colors and detail across that range. Hence, it is just one piece of information out of many other factors when making a judgement about a camera. Visual Inspection and the IMATEST Software Results As the first patch is clipped, but the second is still within range, we start to count visually from this second patch downwards, hence from patch two to three is your first stop, from 3 to 4 is your second stop, and so on. So far so good. At the shadow end, a visual inspection is more difficult as we have to count until the last discernable stop sticking out from the noise floor. See figure 2 below from the Sony FS7 (SLOG3 10bit internal, values scaled to 8bit), which I tested again among other cameras to ensure consistency with past measurements. The noise is (visually) indicated by the red line, and if we count all clearly discernible stops from the noise floor we get about 12 stops, maybe a bit more. Fig. 2: Sony FS7 SLOG3 step chart waveform plot (from Premiere Pro). Cleary discernible is the noise floor (indicated by the red line). Every patch clearly sticking out from the noise floor is a „usable“ stop, giving us about 12 stops range. Now there is of course some ambiguity in the visual method (where exactly is the noise floor?), and here is where the IMATEST software comes in very handy. Our Workflow using IMATEST: Using the FFMPEG library we extract the highest quality I-frames directly from the video file, using this command (thereby avoiding any influence of an editing system):  ffmpeg -i videofile.mov -vf „select=eq(pict_type\,I)“ -vsync vfr framegrab%04d.tiff  Those high quality tiff framegrabs are imported into IMATEST, and the region of interest is selected: Fig. 3: patch image from the video file, selection of region of interest in IMATEST IMATEST will then analyse each patch via advanced algorithms to calculate signal to noise ratios and then spits out the following chart (among a lot of other stuff) –  the dynamic range for various SNR values: Fig. 4: IMATEST Result plot for the Sony FS7 For the Sony FS7 IMATEST spits out a dynamic range value of 12.1 stops for 1/SNR = 0.5, and 13 stops for a SNR value of 1. Also, the software identified 17.7 discernible patches. Hence, the Cinema5d dynamic range value for the Sony FS7 is 12.1 in UHD (3840×2160). Image Downscaling One word about image scaling: if you scale the Sony FS7 image from UHD to full HD (1920×1080), you get an increased dynamic range in IMATEST of about 0.3 stops in the Sony FS7 example (resulting in 12.4 stops), as the downscaling averages 4 UHD pixels into 1 FHD pixel thus lowering the noise. Another argument for 4k acquisition and 2k delivery. What happens by downscaling and how is the dynamic range increased? Well, the signal value of four neighboring pixels has a high degree of correlation (luminance will be roughly the same), whereas noise for those pixels in general should show no correlation as it is random.  Now, by downscaling (or averaging) four pixels of an 3840×2160 image to 1 pixel of an 1920×1080 image the signal value should stay very much the same, but the noise value will reduce because noise is random (uncorrelated), hence averaging (or in mathematical terms the root mean square value of noise which is measured in the recorded image) scales with the inverse square root of the number of samples that we average. Hence 4 pixels into 1 gives a factor of two (sqrt(4)=2) higher signal to noise (SNR) ratio. Higher signal to noise ratio for a given luminance = higher dynamic range.   Scaling for our testing is also done using the ffmpeg library (libswscale) to avoid any influence of the editing software. The nice part about IMATEST is the fact, that all analyses are based on pure mathematics and not subjective opinions. Also, as long as 1 patch is clearly clipped you can underexpose / overexpose the stepchart and IMATEST will still give you the same result within a few percent difference. I did a lot of tests recently with the software and retested the Sony FS7, the Sony A7sII, the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, the GH5, GH5s and the FUJI X-T2 / X-T3 to make sure I can reproduce all past results – a very interesting experience, as it gives a lot of insight on the capabilities of the different sensors, and also manufacturer’s claims. So here is a table of those recent results for your convenience (the ARRI ALEXA values are from past testing, but reproduced here as a reference too): Fig. 5: table of recent testing results (exception: ALEXA values for reference from past cinema5d  testing). The value in bold on the right side of the table is the cinema5d dynamic range rating.               Manufacturers will probably use the less strict ISO15739:2003 SNR = 1 definition (signal value equals noise) as it gives a higher dynamic range reading. As can be seen from the results above, for this definition in the highest native resolution the Panasonic GH5s would be a 12 stop camera, the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera a 12.5 stop camera, etc…  One more thing: in the beginning of the article, the definition of the dynamic range was given as the ratio of maximum to minimum luminance the camera can capture – IMATEST will also spit out a “patch range” value which is the maximum number of patches that IMATEST was able to discern (not shown in figure 5). Here, for example the GH5s value was about 14.7 detected patches, and the Sony FS7 value is 17.7 (see figure 4).  Hence, whenever a dynamic range reading of a camera is stated be aware that it only makes sense if also a clearly stated noise threshold value for this dynamic range result is given. Last but not least, never forget that also the objective results of the IMATEST software will just be a relative value. Some cameras with advanced codecs allow you to still retrieve image detail from the noise floor with advanced post processing, while others don’t. So don’t be discouraged by a better / or lower dynamic range value of this or that camera, at the end it is still the guy behind the camera who makes the film ;-) As a summary, we hope that you will find our results helpful, and we are looking forward to include dynamic range measurements again for future camera reviews! What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

The Teradek and SmallHD 703 Bolt promises to be the ideal mobile set monitor with a built-in Sidekick II wireless receiver – a true all-in-one solution. But does it hold up in the field? Let’s find out.  Image Credit: Graham Sheldon Introduction: Wireless director/AC monitors are usually unwieldy and heavy monsters. The handles are perpetually loose and the moment you need your off-brand wireless signal to be steady you get a flickery mess. Thus my excitement at the announcement of the Teradek and SmallHD 703 Bolt monitor coming to market. The collaboration between wireless favorite Teradek and inimitable SmallHD’s gorgeous & reliable on-set monitors seems like a no brainer. I took this wireless lovechild into the middle of the woods in North Carolina to put it to the test on a fully loaded three day digital commercial shoot working with Canon C300 MK II’s and a RED Weapon (rigged on a Movi Pro). Over the three days the temperature swung from 10 degrees Fahrenheit to rainy 70 degree weather with significant humidity… and the monitor never even hesitated to perform at top marks. Unless you are David Fincher, it’s tricky to get brands to work together to truly enhance one another’s product offerings, but thanks to Vitec Group first purchasing Teradek in 2011 and then SmallHD in 2014, we finally are able to get our hands on a monitor with a built-in wireless receiver able to accept a signal from a Teradek Bolt 500, 1000 or the ultimate 3000 transmitter. For this review I used the Teradek Bolt 3000 transmitter and a Bolt 500 transmitter and receiver kit. Let’s get one thing straight here: if you like Small HD’s 703 Ultrabright monitor, and you like Teradek’s reliable wireless video, then you are going to like the Bolt 703. Why? Because, well, everything is just a little bit easier. All the tools you know and love are here, such as peaking, focus assist, waveform and in-monitor image capture with the added benefit of being able to cycle to a wireless input in the menu called simply “TX.” Image Credit: Amanda Young Cost: Time to break down the numbers: the cost for the SmallHD 703 Ultrabright is currently listed for  $2,999.00 on B&H. The Sidekick II receiver (integrated into the Teradek and SmallHD 703 monitor) is listed for $2190.00. If you buy each of these separately you’ll get a cost of $5189.00 and that doesn’t include a battery plate or handles. In short, buying the Teradek and SmallHD 703 Bolt will set you back $4,199.00, but it will save you almost a grand versus buying a receiver and monitor separately. Don’t forget you’ll also need to purchase at least a Bolt 500 to transmit to the monitor if you don’t have one already, but with wireless video an absolutely necessary tool on set these days, you’ll want to have a Bolt in your kit. The monitor receiver is rated at up to 300 ft, so keep that in mind when choosing the right transmitter for your purposes. Now this isn’t the most affordable portable monitor on the market, but you get what you pay for in terms of build quality and ease of use. The LCD screen itself is gorilla glass and the monitor housing is made from milled aluminum. Everything feels to the touch like it can take a drop or five hundred, but I didn’t want to test that theory for this review. The three antennae at the top of the monitor are made from plastic and don’t feel like they’d hold up quite as well in the field, but thankfully a broken antenna is much easier and cheaper to replace than an LCD screen. It might be worth picking up a backup antenna if you do decide to add this monitor to your kit. Image Credit: Amanda Young Manu: Navigating the menu is intuitive, especially if you’ve used any SmallHD products over the years. Want to take two inputs from two Bolt transmitters and see them both on the monitor at the same time? Easy. Scroll over to the “Multi” screen and select one image square as TX and toggle the other image square over to the SDI input of your choice. Provided you have everything set on the transmitter end you’ll get a signal immediately. Pairing the Bolt 3000 and 500 was painless and took just seconds. The video signal remained clear the entire shoot and we had zero drop outs. It is worth emphasizing that the Sidekick II is not an integrated dual receiver and you’ll need to add another receiver to use the split-screen multi-function. This is a little disappointing because it means breaking up what truly is a beautifully streamlined package by adding another receiver to the many 1/4 20 mounting points on the monitor housing. Not a deal breaker by any means, but having a dual receiver in a small 7-inch monitor package would be amazing for future generations. Multi mode in action. Attach a receiver to the SDI 1 input and you are off to the races. Image Credit: Graham Sheldon Features: One of my favorite features from SmallHD monitors is the ability to have multiple users map their favorite settings to a user profile and scroll between them with ease. Your AC might need all of their focus tools, but as a DP you might want to emphasize waveform and other exposure tools — it is seemless to navigate between each of your unique profiles. The monitor is bright, really bright… ultra bright? When you turn the brightness up to 100 you’ll have no trouble pulling focus in direct sunlight in the middle of the day. The 3000 nit brightness is a major selling point for me and I didn’t get any of those nasty reflections that some monitors are prone to in direct sunlight. For input ports, you have a single SDI in and a single SDI out and no HDMI, which is a change from the SmallHD 703 Ultrabright. I personally try to avoid finicky HDMI cables wherever possible, so lacking HDMI isn’t a huge hurdle for me. You can also power the monitor from the wall or generator through a 12-34 Volt power port, but that defeats the point of having such a mobile package. The rubberized handles are fantastic and changing the handle angle is quick, but does require an allen key. I would have liked to have seen a button release system to change the handle angle, but I was fine with the handle position and never felt the need to change it. You can power the monitor through V-mount or Gold Mount plates and I found leaving an Anton Bauer CINE 90 battery on the monitor meant I had power for nearly the entire shooting day. I recall we had to change out batteries once at about the 7 hour mark each day, but that was hardly a scientific test of battery life. In short, the monitor has a low power draw and lasts a long time. Rear of the monitor with Gold Mount plate attached.   Conclusion: Brand collaboration is the best kind of innovation. Camera bodies should have integrated wireless transmitters, just like they have internal NDs or XLR inputs. Add your receiver inside your monitor and you have fewer failure points – fewer SDI cables to break or pins to bend. The flip-side of this argument is that by integrating a receiver into a monitor you are giving the owner less choice to customize hardware or to upgrade the monitor while keeping the same receiver. But, how many times will you really need to upgrade your external monitor? Unlike your camera sensor, I would argue that the Teradek and SmallHD 703 gives you a package that will serve all your monitor needs for the foreseeable future. The Teradek and SmallHD 703 Bolt monitor is a sign of a collaborative future, and it’s a sign that I like. What do you think? Will you be adding the Teradek and SmallHD 703 Bolt monitor to your kit? Comment below!

As you probably know, Apple recently unveiled an entirely new line of Macbook Pros that introduced several changes to their design and functionality. Many professional users voiced concerns about the removal of ports, among other things. The high price and low specs on paper have also earned criticism in many articles and forums. But even for those who choose to overlook such shortcomings, one question remains unanswered: is the MacBook Pro 2016 fast enough in real life for 4K video editing? Macbook Pro 2016 Fast Enough for 4K or Not? Reviews for the Macbook Pro 2016 without the touch bar have been flooding the internet for the last two weeks, and we know for a fact that it isn’t fast enough to cope with a real life 4K workflow. But the new touch bar 13-inch and 15-inch models only arrived at customers’s doors today. A few reviews and the first benchmarks have been published, and the results are rather surprising in both directions. While we do not have a Macbook Pro 2016 model for review at cinema5D just yet, we were very curious to see what other professionals are writing so far, and what the first benchmarks tests are revealing. This way, we can start to make out if the upgrade to a Macbook Pro 2016 is worth it for 4K video editing. Macbook Pro 2016 Benchmarks We all know that 4K editing performance is to a large degree dictated by a the speed of your machine. In other words, we need good specs and performance. The entry level Macbook Pro 2016 13-inch has a 2Ghz i5 processor, which sounds rather underwhelming considering my 2011 Macbook Pro had a 2.4ghz i5 processor. Is it slower than that? No, in reality it’s not that simple. When you look at benchmark scores you quickly see that even the entry-level, non touch bar 2016 model has some more power under the hood than expected. Macworld has taken a closer look at the specs of all new Macbook Pro models in their Macbook Pro 2016 review. iFixit opened up the 13-inch Macbook Pro 2016 CPU Image Courtesy of Macworld.com These are Macworld’s multicore CPU results of the new Macbook Pro 2016. As you can see, the entry-level 2Ghz Macbook Pro 2016 13-inch model is slightly faster than last year’s 2015 retina Macbook Pro model with 2.7Ghz. What? On the other hand, if you expect the 2016 13-inch model with touch bar and 2.9Ghz CPU to score much higher, you’d be mistaken again, as the 2.9Ghz version is only 3.8% faster than the non-touchbar version. So even though the touch bar CPU has 30% more Ghz, it is only 4% faster. Although I’m confused by these results, they are also revealing, and looking at benchmarks before making a purchase decision seems like a very good idea. This tells me the non touch bar version and the touch bar version have a very similar speed. And if the touch bar is the only deciding factor between the two, then many people will probably decide to live without it. As expected, the 15-inch model scores much higher in terms of CPU performance, and just like last year’s model, it runs in a completely different class. Its CPU multicore score is about 41% higher than the 13-inch models, but surprisingly it is weaker than the 2015 model… These results are in line with Engadget’s findings on their review, so they seem to be accurate. GPU Image courtesy of Macworld.com Graphics performance is another revealing aspect about 4K editing performance. I’m relieved that at least in this aspect the 2016 machines outperform the 2015 models of Macbook Pros. We can see the 15-inch Macbook Pro 2016 features very high speeds in comparison to all other models. Also, the 13-inch models are faster than the old Macbook Pros, but again the touch bar version seems only slightly better than the non touch bar version of the Macbook pro 2016. Disk Speed Apple claims disk speed on their new Macbook Pro’s is insanely fast. As it turns out, this was no exaggeration. 9to5mac tested drive performance of the entry level 13-inch model and sees read speeds of up to 3GB/s and write speeds up to 2GB/s, which they say is basically the fastest drive read and write speeds of any stock computer available today. That is great, but unfortunately disk speed is only one of many important factors when it comes to a machine capable of editing 4K video. iFixit opened up the 13-inch Macbook Pro 2016 What else? According to another source (arstechnica.com) there are some other technical differences between the touch bar and non touch bar models that are worth pointing out: Aside from the CPU and GPU clock speed differences, the touch bar model’s 28W CPU can run faster for longer and throttles less frequently in comparison to the non touch bar 15W CPU. The non touch bar 2016 Macbook Pro only has two Thunderbolt 3 ports vs the four on the touch bar model. But according to arstechnica.com: The two ports on the right side of the MacBook Pro have “reduced PCI Express bandwidth,” which Apple says means they have two PCIe 3.0 lanes worth of bandwidth at their disposal instead of the four lanes dedicated to the ports on the left side This seems to be worse when connecting high-performance storage arrays like 4K editors usually do, so you should connect those only to the left-side ports. In terms of RAM, unfortunately all Macbook Pro 2016 models max out at 16GB. 32 would be better and recommended for 4K video editing. There is one more difference though: it seems like the non touch bar Macbook Pro uses 1866MHz LPDDR3 RAM while the touch bar version uses 2133MHz LPDDR3, making the RAM faster. Again, faster RAM unfortunately does not make up for the 16GB limit. In reality, the RAM speed should only have a minor impact on editing performance. 4K in the Real World? So, how do these facts translate to real world 4K video editing? In their review of the 13-inch touch bar Macbook Pro 2016, the Verge offers some insights. They say that the 13 inch is snappy and “without hiccups” in day-to-day use, 1080p video editing in Adobe Premiere is no problem, but apparently 4K video “becomes unworkable”. In their tests, however, the 13-inch MacBook Pro could handle small 4K files smoothly in Final Cut X. The 13-inch MacBook Pro can handle small 4K files smoothly in Final Cut Pro, but that isn’t the app that most editors use. It’s not a win where it counts. In their review, it was a different story with the 15-inch model. According to the Verge, it is a step up from older 15-inch Macbook Pros and it was capable of handling smaller 4K projects in Premiere and Final Cut. But on larger project files “the computer starts lagging pretty seriously” and the performance was better on the 2013 iMac. Wow. As far as I can tell, this is probably due to the 16GB RAM limit on the Macbook Pro 2016. In terms of speed, at least the 15-inch Macbook Pro 2016 seems to be ready to perform basic 4K video editing tasks, but as soon as you’re working on a bigger project, unfortunately none of the 2016 Macbook Pros seem to be ideal. Positive Voices But there are positive voices too. Thomas Grove Carter is a professional editor at Trim who had a chance to spend a week with a 15-inch Macbook Pro 2016. In his article at Huffington Post Tech, Thomas shares his experience working on Final Cut X as “buttery smooth” and says: the software and hardware are so well integrated it tears strips off “superior spec’d” Windows counterparts in the real world. Thomas would consider the 15-inch Macbook Pro 2016 his 24/7 edit suite for both office work with 2 connected 5K displays as well as work in the field. He also equipped his setup with USB-C SSD’s, eliminating the need for additional dongles. Thomas enjoys the touch bar on Final Cut X and seems to suggest that people need to adapt to the design decisions Apple laid out with the new Macbook Pros. If they do, then there’s a lot of power and potential to be harnessed from these machines. In his words: For me, I love it and I think most people will do too… once they actually touch it. There are more reviewers saying good things about the new Macbook Pros, but few of them are using the laptops with a 4K editing workflow in mind. As machines for day-to-day office tasks, photo and 1080p video, they probably perform remarkably well, and the build quality and simplicity is beautiful and enjoyable. Conclusion I’m trying really hard to love the new Macbook Pros and probably many professionals find themselves in the same position. Even if we don’t like to admit it, Apple has cleverly bound users to their eco system and has been making them adapt to and rely on their systems for a while. With the need for higher resolutions like 4K, more color depth and ever-more complex processes during a 4K workflow, the need for higher performance machines has risen in recent last years also. So is the new Macbook Pro 2016 fast enough for 4K Video Editing? Unfortunately, it seems like the power of the new 2016 Macbook Pros is not up to speed with this development. Instead, Apple focused on consumer interests, like port simplicity, a more immersive display and sound experience, thinness and lightness. Regardless of whether that touch bar turns out to be a great asset or just a gimmick, the fact of the matter is: we are left with a machine that is too weak to cope with current professional editing trends and standards, and lacks the ergonomics professionals depend upon, like long battery life, versatile ports and the still much-needed SD card slot. Apple has always had a very narrow set of options that users have had to embrace and adapt to. They dictate the way users should be getting their work done, but this time the changes and decisions seem too drastic and probably many professionals will be left behind. If it is really true that you can only edit 4K video on a maxed out 15 inch Macbook Pro 2016 with Apple’s proprietary software, that will be certainly be considered by many not to be professional enough, and we’re going to have a problem. What is your conclusion? Tell us why you think the Macbook Pro 2016 is great / not so great in the comments below.

For the last couple of years, cinema5D has engaged in conversation with top players in the film and video industries from manufacturers to filmmakers. ON THE COUCH has aimed to bring you the latest from the horse’s mouth, always in a relaxed, laid-back interview atmosphere. Past guests have included Philip Bloom, Shane Hurlbut, and Emmanuel Pampuri to name just a few. After much feedback from our readers and viewers, we have decided to make all episodes of On the Couch available as podcasts on iTunes, both in audio and video versions. So whether you want to listen to more camera, gear and digital filmmaking talk in your car, at the gym, walking the dog or sharing a romantic moment in the bath with your loved one, you can now stay up to date with the latest episodes by subscribing to our podcast feed here! Having had a chance to revisit each and every episode in preparation for the great podcast conversion of 2016, I can say with confidence that there is a lot of great information there. So don’t be put off by the episode release dates and references to last years’ products, as there is still a lot of valuable insights from some of the most influential minds in the filmmaking community. 2016 is already looking like a great year in terms of innovation. We at cinema5D are already gearing up for this year’s NAB, so be sure to look out for our coverage in the coming weeks. We will also aim to bring you more from On the Couch, both from the different events we visit as well as from our headquarters in Vienna. All of this in addition to our regular daily content. Thanks again for all your support. Make sure to stay tuned for the latest in digital filmmaking news and reviews! – The Cinema5D Team.

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

Here we have 7 different EVF mounts, or viewfinder mounts, also used as monitor mounts. These dear pieces of equipment are utilized to hold your EVF in the correct place when working with a handheld rig. Not all of them are great. Here’s a review that shows you the functionality and usefulness of each of the devices.

Not that we haven’t been flooded with C300 reviews already (link, link, link, link, link, link), but I would like to present this one in particular as it’s done with a lot of love to detail, well conducted and nicely filmed in a similar fashion as we like to be doing the video reviews here at cinema5D. HD Warrior is a blog by Scottish video producer Philip Johnston. Go pay him a visit. Personally, I like to hear some Scottish now and then and I think most of the 21 minute review is well done and enjoyable, although one could certainly argue that the video portion in the middle doesn’t do justice to the camera. The C300 is still available for pre-order and I read it will start shipping on the 1st of March which is roughly a week from now. But I have no confirmation for that and I can only guess that a lot of people have pre-ordered already. LINKS: Canon EOS C300 EF-mount Canon EOS C300 PL-mount

The cinema5D forum has evolved: I present to you the cinema5Dreviews page that we’ve been working on. This is not a new forum page, this is a whole new section of cinema5D, uniquely programmed and embedded into the cinema5D platform. What is it? cinema5Dreviews is a growing database of reviews for filmmaking equipment. It is in Beta right now. What can it do for me? It has a lot of very valuable information on each filmmaking product all put in one place by fellow filmmakers. You save time surfing the web and you might find information you could have missed somewhere else. No more endless forum searching for reviews and opinions on products. It is all gathered in one place. ➔ Opinions by fellow filmmakers (which you can trace back because they’re forum members) ➔ the best video reviews gathered by you from YouTube and Vimeo, or add your own. ➔ prices ➔ ratings ➔ collection of product highlights ➔ currently sortable by star rating, price or name Who is filling the database? You. And any other cinema5D forum member can add to the database. If you have tried or own the product you can add your opinion and give a rating for the product. You can also add new products and can add details to existing products. Not only HDSLR HDSLRs are great, they’ve upgraded our clips, films, productions, but we’re also embracing all other low budget large sensor cameras and their accessories. More categories to come, please post your preferred categories in the comments to this article. It needs to be filled This database has just been born and it will become more powerful the more you feed it. Since we’ve written this software on our own and with an extremely tight budget we need some time and your feedback to work out all the glitches. It’s beta, so if something doesn’t work please be patient and let us know. That’s it. The more you use it the better and faster we can improve the platform to your benefit. Now go check it out and add a product or two: www.cinema5d.com/reviews/