Topics

locked Sensor sizes

Geoff Boyle
 

This is moving away from RAW etc but…

 

I don’t like the rush to FF, it is causing all kinds of focus issues. I can see why it’s likes for some things.

I’m confused about the new Canon C700FF, it’s really not clear to me what actual sizes for formats are and what is resampling and downscaling, I’ve read and re-read the press releases and John Fauers F&D Times article but I’m still not clear. I’m probably being think!

S35 is a great standard for theatrical and TV, mainly because of that word standard, I know what size images are going to be and I know what lenses will cover it and on and on.

S16 is a tremendous format for documentaries, I just can’t imaging shooting some of the stuff I did for 20/20 in the 80’s with a larger sensor unless I had autofocus and a touch screen over-ride and even then…

 

The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this 😊

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

Colin Elves
 

Canon USA have some shots of the record menu in their website.

It looks like you set your ‘sensor mode’ first: FF, S35mm crop or s16mm crop.

Then you set your recording resolution: Raw/4K/2K. 


Colin Elves
Director of Photography
Berlin/London



On 30 Mar 2018, at 06:46, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

I’m confused about the new Canon C700FF, it’s really not clear to me what actual sizes for formats are and what is resampling and downscaling, I’ve read and re-read the press releases and John Fauers F&D Times article but I’m still not clear. I’m probably being think!


 

The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this 😊

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

_._,_._,_

Geoff Boyle
 

It’s this that’s concerning me…

 

Approx. 18.69 megapixels (5952 x 3140):
When 4096 x 2160 or 2048 x 1080 is selected as the resolution 

Approx. 17.52 megapixels (5580 x 3140):
When 3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080 is selected as the resolution 

RAW Recording Pixels 5952 x 3140

 

And this…

 

The EOS C700 FF Digital Cinema Camera uses a high-quality debayering algorithm when over sampling 5.9K in 4K, UHD, 2K and FHD recording to help suppress moiré and improve noise graininess, resulting in high-quality video.

 

It seems to indicate that the sensor is subsampled to the relevant output size.

 

Oh and there’s no raw light because they’re using digic 5’s not 6’s

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Colin Elves
Sent: 30 March 2018 09:45
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [raw-log-hdr] Sensor sizes

 

Canon USA have some shots of the record menu in their website.

\

Colin Elves
 

That makes sense doesn’t it? Window the full sensor to the correct aspect ratio then downscale.

5952x3140 is 17:9
5580x3140 is 16:9

No digic 6s because the FF is just a standard C700 with new sensor block and the C700 was developed before the digic 6 (I’m assuming).

Any idea if they’ll have a global shutter option like the C700 PL?

Colin Elves
Director of Photography
London/Berlin



On 30 Mar 2018, at 09:12, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

It’s this that’s concerning me…

 

Approx. 18.69 megapixels (5952 x 3140):
When 4096 x 2160 or 2048 x 1080 is selected as the resolution 

Approx. 17.52 megapixels (5580 x 3140):
When 3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080 is selected as the resolution 

RAW Recording Pixels 5952 x 3140

 

And this…

 

The EOS C700 FF Digital Cinema Camera uses a high-quality debayering algorithm when over sampling 5.9K in 4K, UHD, 2K and FHD recording to help suppress moiré and improve noise graininess, resulting in high-quality video.

 

It seems to indicate that the sensor is subsampled to the relevant output size.

 

Oh and there’s no raw light because they’re using digic 5’s not 6’s

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

Matthew Williams
 

On Mar 29, 2018, at 23:46, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

don’t like the rush to FF, it is causing all kinds of focus issues. I can see why it’s likes for some things.
********

I’ve been following CML closely for years... so thanks to all for the immense knowledge and experiences shared... and to Geoff for his wealth of experience and for the amazing amount of time and effort this has taken him over the years. 

I don’t know how he’s done it really while still working... and its been incredibly helpful. Thank you Geoff. (and I did vote on the Venice test!)

Currently with so many cameras / codecs / etc., and constant updates and changes, it would be impossible to know everything about every camera... and without a reliable professional forum like CML, l’d be behind the curve. 

Geoff hit upon something that I’d like to add a few thoughts to in regards to the “rush” to FF. 

I currently work on a network TV series here in the US (39 episodes so far on this one) so I know that FF focus vs. lighting vs. budget will be an issue with these bigger sensors on this type of production. I already have trouble in certain situations with shallow depth of field shooting on the S35 format. We have multiple sets (an entire interior house on stage... 2 floors) and what it takes in regards to lighting a space that big (let alone the budget) and still having enough light to keep the depth of field reasonable enough to hold 2 or 3 actors in a shot is already tough at times. 

Shooting at a 1.4 in these situations is almost impossible for us and rarely works for the scene. (And I use the amazing Cooke 5/i lenses which are amazing at T1.5 wide open). (I guess newer dual ISO cameras could help get me back to a deeper stop in a pinch, but I have used the Alexa almost exclusively for several years now and I still find it’s ascetic to my tastes and more than enough sensitivity for my normal needs).

I find usually have to be around T2.8 / 4 split to hold any reasonable focus for our various coverage set ups, (as most coverage is done at 65mm / 75mm and/or 100mm for us). Example... an actor in a 3 shot or even a tighter 2 shot let’s say, standing a foot behind the other actors will be soft at a wider apertures. Again, sometimes we don’t want 2 or 3 people in focus... but sometimes it’s mandatory for the scene and for certain directors. Also depth in a scene can be a story telling element and sometimes the mushier look in a given BG might look pretty but it doesn’t always help tell the story. Its all about choice. 

So generally that means I need a decent amount of light even with todays sensors. (That’s light to shape and control the shot, to tell the story, not just having less light and shooting wide open because you can). I appreciate shallow depth when appropriate, but its tough as I’ve stated already in S35 for normal coverage for us unless we are shooting something very stylized. (Let me also say that at times I am also needing an N3 or an N6 indoors depending on the situation with the Alexa at my base of 800 to control the depth of field).

If our show all of a sudden switched to FF camera I’d be a bit concerned... as the reality of what it takes in these situations with lighting and costs... already worries me. 

I am pushing the time / look / cost / depth continuum already. Everyday.
 
I understand this LF / FF issue because I have extensive experience (6 films) with the biggest full frame format still out there... 15 perf 65mm IMAX... and not just filming exterior pretty pictures, but more dramatic projects with actors and lots of lighting and interiors... the average minimum stops there are 4 / 5.6 and more at times to hold anything reasonable. Get yourself on an indoor set with one of these cameras and you’ll know discover quickly how much more light it takes.

So I didn’t want to start a tense debate here, I just wanted to share some of my experiences as food for thought, as this move to larger sensors, with bigger and more expensive lenses is exciting in one way, but needing more light in certain situations can be a rude awakening for some who might get these cameras into the wrong situations.

I believe its another tool that I would definitely use in the right situation, but I think S35 will have its uses for many types of projects and be around for a long while.

and... speaking of focus... my best tip for all S35 and FF formats.... 

is the game changing Preston Light Ranger 2. 

I can’t say enough about it. It saves us everyday. Personally I don’t really want to do another show without it, so I bought one. It still takes a skilled assistant, but it has proven itself as a life saver... quicker set ups / a graphic scale “to see” your depth of field instantly / changes on the fly / auto focus at times for certain shots with one person. So no more checking the scale, looking back at the scene, looking back at the scale... it reduces the had / eye / checking input time greatly... as its all there, overlaid right on the assistants monitor. Should be really helpful in FF!

Sorry for the length of this post... I tried to keep it short.

Matt
- -
Matthew Williams
Director of Photography
USA

Matthew Williams
 

Sorry I had Geoff’s quote in my message... don’t know what happened.


I don’t like the rush to FF, it is causing all kinds of focus issues. I can see why it’s likes for some things.



Matt
- -
Matthew Williams
Director of Photography
USA

Noel Sterrett
 


On 03/30/2018 11:41 AM, Matthew Williams wrote:
... as the reality of what it takes in these situations with lighting and costs... already worries me. 

With film, size and resolution go hand in hand. With digital sensors, S35 can be sharper than FF or not as sharp. So resolution is no longer the issue, and it becomes a trade-off involving lens cost, lighting cost, and focus cost.

Cheers.

--

Noel Sterrett Admit One Pictures info@...

lsimons@...
 

Hi All,

Loren Simons from Canon Burbank here. I know there's a lot of information out there with these three hot new cameras - and I just wanted to offer myself as a source to demystify some of the questions on the EOS C700 FF like Geoff has posted here.

As far as how we derive our 4K image to the CFast Card, in either XF-AVC or ProRes , we are using the full sensor read out which means we do see the full format 43mm image circle.

We are doing a process similar to our previous oversampling, where we now use our 5.9K bayer sensor and interpolate full 5.9K samples of Red, Green, Blue data to then squeeze down to 4K.

I can say from my tests it renders a much higher IQ 4K image when compared to just the 4096x2160 Super35mm 1:1 crop of the sensor.

I invite anyone in the Burbank area to come by and visit myself and our new Director of Canon Burbank Michael Bravin!

Loren Simons
Sr. Field Applications Engineer
Canon Burbank
3400 West Olive Ave, STE. 250, Burbank, CA 91505
lsimons@...

Colin Elves
 

Hi Loren,

Will there be a global shutter option?

Thanks!

Colin Elves
Director of Photography
Berlin/London



On 30 Mar 2018, at 18:13, lsimons@... wrote:

Hi All,

Loren Simons from Canon Burbank here. I know there's a lot of information out there with these three hot new cameras - and I just wanted to offer myself as a source to demystify some of the questions on the EOS C700 FF like Geoff has posted here.

Adam Wilt
 

The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this
+1!

Adam Wilt
technical services: consulting / coding / camerawork
Vancouver WA USA (no, not that Vancouver, the other one)

Mark Weingartner, ASC
 

+2 but don’t get me started:-)

On 30Mar, 2018, at 14:10 55, Adam Wilt <adam@...> wrote:

The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this
+1!

lsimons@...
 

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 02:09 pm, Colin Elves wrote:
Hi Loren,

Will there be a global shutter option?

Thanks!

Colin Elves
Director of Photography
Berlin/London
Colin, 

I'm going to have to stick to providing technical information just on current and existing product - so at this time all I can say is it does not come in a global shutter variant. Sorry! I will say our readout speed is very high on our rolling shutter though, so there's minimal vertical rolling shutter distortion.

We of course do make a global shutter variant of our 4K Super 35mm sensor, which is found in the EOS C700 GS if you have a need for that.

Loren Simons
Sr. Field Applications Engineer
Canon Burbank
3400 West Olive Ave, STE. 250, Burbank, CA 91505

Stuart Brereton
 

+3 :)

On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Mark Weingartner, ASC <vfxmark@...> wrote:

+2 
On 30Mar, 2018, at 14:10 55, Adam Wilt <adam@...> wrote:

The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this
+1!
_._,_._,_

deanan@gmail.com
 

+4 but I like big pixels and I can not lie.


On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Stuart Brereton <ssbrereton17@...> wrote:
+3 :)
On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Mark Weingartner, ASC <vfxmark@...> wrote:

+2 
On 30Mar, 2018, at 14:10 55, Adam Wilt <adam@...> wrote:

The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this
+1!
_._,_._,_

​Deanan DaSilva
Playa del Rey, CA​
 

Thomas Gleeson
 

Geoff wrote: "The arguments about D0F are bullshit, it’s just optics and wider apertures or longer lenses etc deal with that for you, and most of you can’t tell the difference between a FF 75mm and a S35 50mm shot with the aperture altered to match DoF. I have definitive proof of this 😊”

-1

Maybe this discussion needs a new thread?

A few weeks ago I presented my “research” and camera tests to the ASC on this subject and while Geoff’s statement above is mainly correct there is so much more going on. When I first started looking at this issue of sensor size I though it would take 30min on Google but instead I have spent nearly two months researching including talking to optical engineers, scientists and shooting tests. I went down so many rabbit holes I get a cold chill down my spine just thinking about Easter. While Arri and Red were helpful I have to especially thank Panavision for their efforts in so openly sharing their knowledge.

The subject of format size and image characteristics is a difficult and confusing one but lets start with Geoffs assertion. At the ASC we have done these tests but as yet their not public but you can see Panavision's version here https://vimeo.com/253322347.

The ACS and Panavision tests agree that assuming the camera and subject don’t move you can always match a smaller sensor shot with a larger sensor by increasing focal length and stopping down. You can also match larger sensors shoots with smaller sensors but there is a limit on your ability to match the DOF. 

On the face of it that sounds simple and not really a compelling argument for larger sensors but there are a whole range of other factors working here.

Firstly and this is only a minor point but we need to get it out of the way. Mathematically there is actually a small variation in perspective when you change focal length.



Perspective (magnification) is dependant on focal length which in turn is dependant on sensor size as shown using this formula m = f over f-g. However most practical scenarios where the focal length is far smaller than the object distances the resulting difference is insignificant. The typical focal lengths used on both S35 and Vistavision means there is only the tiniest differences although the closer the subject and the longer the lens the more this perspective difference presents. 

Anyway this subtle flattening or compression as focal length increases in images is usually overwhelmed when comparing images by the effects of the lenses geometric distortions. All lenses have some degree of geometric distortions or barrel distortion and this becomes harder and harder to correct as the focal length becomes shorter.

For the ASC test we used the Zeiss CZ.2 28-80mm zoom lens so we could exactly match FOV and lens characteristics but we were wrong in this assumption as the shorter focal lengths saw barrel distortion increase substantially. Below are three images. The first and top image is at 4.5K on the Monstro sensor a physical size that sits between 35mm Academy and Super35 and we used a 40mm lens at f2.8. When comparing the original 35mm and Vistavision shots the barrel distortion made it very difficult so the 35mm image directly below had the distortion corrected in Photoshop. I admit its hard to compare these images from stills but when we overlayed them and intercut them in a video the barrel distortion is clear.



Second image on the right top marked “VistaVision” is 8K on the Monstro with a 69mm focal length and we stopped down 1.6 stops to F4 2/3. Its also worth noting that with our subject is at 3.35m and the change from 40mm to 69mm focal lengths according to our formula m = f over f-g our change makes so little difference to perspective that I can’t see it. This is not to be unexpected in our example as the g (distance) value is quite high. 

So now lets talk about lenses as this is a big part of the story. By going to longer focal lengths on larger sensors we are minimising the geometric distortions we associate with short focal lengths. Shorter focal lengths are harder lenses to design and construct and Inevitably involve optical compromise. Also assuming you want DOF equivalency you would stop down on the larger sensor again improving lens performance. Also larger sensors mean pixels do not have to be to made smaller for increased resolution and diffraction on bigger sensors is less of an issue when stopped down. 

The larger sensor with extra resolution (these two things are locked together) has many benefits. Firstly noise is lowered by larger pixels with larger spaces between these pixels and also the increased pixel count improves noise when subsampled down. Bigger sensor cameras will generally have higher sensitivities than their 35mm counterparts. But it is the improvement in micro contrast and the cameras ability to render fine detail that really brings textures to life. This improved rendition of texture goes along way to explain the depth and 3D nature of bigger sensors images. As Panavision so eloquently demonstrated at Cameraimage this year that so many of these advantages scale down and are still present even in lower resolution presentation formats.  

For me probably the most important part of the test was when we took the same 40mm lens and shot the same (nearly) MS of our subject on both the 35mm sensor and the VistaVision sensor. Please refer to the two image on the bottom of the image attached above. On the VistaVision sensor when we move closer to our subject to maintain subject size and combine this with the greater FOV you can see that we have more background volume and it is pushed back exaggerating the perspective. This could be done on a smaller sensor simply by going to a shorter focal length BUT we would increase the DOF. This is a key aesthetic advantage of larger sensors. You can work closer to your subjects with a wider FOV and stronger perspectives without sacrificing focus separation. I know in my work especially in TVC productions I have avoided wider FOV shots as I have had to use shorter focal lengths with their increased mapping distortion and deep DOF. In my mind they have never been pretty lenses. Wide angle shots with deep DOF loose some of their “perceived”depth as there is little or no focus separation.

I need to suppress my own confirmation bias but having used Monstro on multiple shoots I can clearly see the difference when shooting with the full sensor gate. Hopefully over 2018 more people will get to use these larger sensors and experience the advantages. It is not a chalk and cheese difference but in the wider FOV shots the VistaVision sensor really works for me and I find I am working and framing wider than I would on S35mm. 

Finally I want to put to bed that the notion that VistaVision or even 65mm sensors automatically mean razor thin DOF as it does not. The iris works in the same way as it does on any lens and you can stop down for more DOF. This is not onerous as the bigger sensors with their cleaner images mean you will have a chip at least a stop faster anyway. You just have more control of DOF. Some will abuse it and others will create art.

I have been thinking alot about my approach to focus. Using a Monstro I have already experimented with shooting my wider focal lengths at 8K so I can create focus separation in wide shots that really help add a sense of 3D depth but on longer focal lengths going 6K so the backgrounds don’t go so muddy. You can just as easily choose to stop down a little on your longer lenses so as to minimise the DOF change. You really just need to shoot with one of these “big” cameras and you will “feel" the difference very quickly. Check out “The Dark” on Netflix shot on an Arri 65 but with a VistaVision extraction. The cinematography and images are exquisite but please turn off the terrible dubbed english and go subtitles.

I understand some peoples keenness to stick to standards but Full frame has been a photographic standard for as long as 35mm academy and it has been used on and off in the Cine business as VistaVision for 60 years. Its also a sweet spot for lens design as manufactures have been designing them for a century and Cooke, Leica, Canon, Zeiss, Tokina, Arri, Panavision and Sigma have Cine sets on the market. Panavision has pointed their excitement excitement for these larger format lenses as they are easier to deign allowing the designers more wiggle room to add more character to their lenses. 

With low rent Reality TV and even some docos now leveraging 35mm sensors there is no doubt in my mind larger productions will continue to push to larger sensors as a point of difference so it is so not going to be a fad. But then again please do not take my argument to mean that I think the S35 format is redundant which it clearly it is not but today we have another choice.

Tom “in a hole” Gleeson
Sydney DOP








Mike Nagel
 

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 11:46 pm, Thomas Gleeson wrote:
diffraction on bigger sensors is less of an issue when stopped down.
Hi Tom,

great write up, thank you for sharing !

Just wanna state that diffraction has nothing to do with sensor size, it has to with pixel pitch (and whether 3-chip / single chip sensor design etc).

- Mike Nagel
Director/Producer
L.A.

Ben Allan ACS
 

I must say Tom's research and presentation  on this has been a real eye opener to me on an issue I thought I thoroughly understood!
-- 
Ben Allan ACS

On 31 March 2018 at 5:45:58 pm, Thomas Gleeson (lensboy235@...) wrote:


A few weeks ago I presented my “research” and camera tests to the ASC on this subject and while Geoff’s statement above is mainly correct there is so much more going on. When I first started looking at this issue of sensor size I though it would take 30min on Google but instead I have spent nearly two months researching 



Pawel Achtel ACS
 

Mike Nagel: “Just wanna state that diffraction has nothing to do with sensor size, it has to with pixel pitch (and whether 3-chip / single chip sensor design etc).”

 

This is completely incorrect. Diffraction has absolutely nothing to do with pixel pitch. It is the same whether on film, small pixels or large pixels. Diffraction has everything to do with f-ratio as it is the f-ratio that defines the Airy disk size of a point light source. Also diffraction, at the same f-stop, has also everything to do with sensor size: the larger, the higher sharpness (resolution). Or, in other words, small 8K sensor will be diffraction limited at a larger aperture (smaller f number) than large 8k sensor.

 

 

This is why the most significant difference between large and small sensors, apart from better light gathering, is micro-contrast.

 

All other properties can be “theoretically” matched. Practically, it is impossible to produce small format fast lenses to match optical performance of large format optics. This is why large sensors offer “more options” in cinematography.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

DOP and Stereographer

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

_,_._,_

Mike Nagel
 

Pawel,

the f-stop determines WHEN diffraction will occur on an image plane, given the characteristics of that plane. On digital cameras, it is the pixel pitch that causes it. The larger the pixel pitch, the higher u can go in f-stop before u (possibly) run into diffraction related issues.

Example: Arri's ALEV III sensor has a 8.25 micron pitch, ergo f-stop "limit" before diffraction kicks in (that may become visible) is higher than a 5 micron pixel design (e.g. RED Dragon).

It also has to do with single chip vs. 3-chip, and the R|G|B wavelengths one uses to determine these limits.... meaning all of this can be calculated.

And yes, as u stated yourself: "small 8K sensor will be diffraction limited at a larger aperture (smaller f number) than large 8k sensor."

Absolutely, because the small 8K sensor has a smaller pixel pitch than the larger sensor with the same 8K pixel count.  ;-)


- Mike Nagel
Director/Producer
L. A.

alister@...
 



Finally I want to put to bed that the notion that VistaVision or even 65mm sensors automatically mean razor thin DOF as it does not. The iris works in the same way as it does on any lens and you can stop down for more DOF. This is not onerous as the bigger sensors with their cleaner images mean you will have a chip at least a stop faster anyway. You just have more control of DOF. Some will abuse it and others will create art.

Nice write up Tom, but isn't the above only really true when the sensor is made larger and the pixel pitch also increased. So if you go from s35 to 65mm if you keep the pixel count constant, you will have bigger pixels and a more sensitive sensor. But the most common trend is to scale up the sensor and add more pixels of a similar size, increasing the resolution so there is very little difference in sensitivity. The Arri LF is a good example where the LF sensor is basically 2 s35mm sensors side by side, so no sensitivity change. I’m not sure that scaling a 6K or 8K large format image to 4K results in such a big noise advantage that you can afford to stop down 1 or 2 stops over a 4K s35mm sensor.


Alister Chapman

DoP - Stereographer
UK Mobile +44 7711 152226
US Mobile +1(216)298-1977


www.xdcam-user.com    1.5 million hits, 100,000 visits from over 45,000 unique visitors every month!  Film and Video production techniques, reviews and news.

Previous Topic Next Topic