|
Mozzie posted:Only reason I could imagine to buy this is for a wicked Aliens Marine smartgun halloween costume.  . No idea where you'd get the gun.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
BeavisNuke posted:There's no gimbal at all. I am basically relying on piloting skills, wind speed, and warp stabilizer to smooth it out. I hope eventually someone makes a cheap gimbal for it. Crazy fun to play with. Dominant impressions from NAB... 4k and quadcopters (and octos). I did expect there to be 4k everything but did not expect to see as many quads as I did. DJI was being borderline irresponsible flying their quads over the packed crowds. It went about 3 feet over my head. In a place with all manner of RF disturbance I guess they felt their odds of crashing into the crowd and slicing and dicing people was slim. So glad they could take that chance for me. Really that is going to be the thing that sets off quad backlash. Well, one of two things. Either someone is going to crash their quad into a crowd and hurt a kid or hospitalize a few people, or someone is going to use them to get celeb vids that will get the things banned. Still want one. Canon really went all out. Their booth was huge, presentation was amazing, and the c300 dark room was a pretty cool idea. Outside on the monitors you're thinking...hey that looks good...then you go inside and wonder how the hell they are shooting in such low light. Pretty concrete demonstration. Loved that their hulking wall of the canon theatre totally blocked out 80% of the giant Panasonic sign. Someone didn't plan right, or conversely did. On that note, I love how the back wall of the red presentation area, was actually an exterior wall of the blackmagic area, and that wall was covered with ads for BM's 4k cameras at super cheap. Prices a soccer mom could love. Kind of a ballsy and obnoxious display that couldn't be by accident. Also Philip Bloom made a huge impression. There he was at Kessler, chest hair hanging out, surrounded by a huge crowd of people hanging on his every word (what is his credibility again?). He was having some kind of audio problem, which seemed appropriate. J
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
chimheil posted:I saw on Twitter Philip Bloom was posting about a thing called an OmniRig which is much like the Movi
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:No idea where you'd get the gun. 'murica. I havent heard of crazy Egyptian lighting techniques like what you describe, but I'll watch for it! My NAB report: Zzzzzzzz.... zZzzzzzzzZZZZZzzz.... ZZZzzzzzzzz. Lots of stuff made for people wish they worked more, not a lot of stuff for people who do work. I really want this "ultra high resolution" debate to crescendo so people can focus on story and less on what it's shot on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Hello all, I'm a filmmaker and student based out of Auburn, AL currently seeking any internship/PA opportunities for this Summer. I've put in for a few things, but I really want an in with a decent production company doing music videos, shorts, or feature films. I've been looking a lot at Atlanta and Birmingham, but all I've found in Atlanta are post-prod positions and Birmingham's leads weren't too captivating. Anyone know a production or company needing folks? I'd greatly appreciate any leads and have been emailing folks from all over all day. I tried to scan the rest of the board for a more appropriate place to put this, but the freelance/work thread seemed only for one time exchanges and requests and the other threads weren't as video/film production based. Again, any info would help me tremendously and I'm willing to work like a slave for a cool project. Thanks guys! My CV/Resume is on my site at http://www.acsummerfield.com.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:Again, Steadicam only. Hua. Ever been mistaken for a glidecam op? No, have you? *high fives*
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:'murica. I don't think they were displaying much story hardware at all at NAB. Maybe next year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
sophomorehoffman posted:Hello all,  . Big downside of this industry is that it is incredibly dependent on where you are, you're probably better off finding a more active area (Miami, New York, LA, New Mexico, all the classics). An alternative you might also be able to try is the broadcast scene, that is a lot more active in, at least, Atlanta. So you might have much better luck changing your market if you are unable to move at this time. It would be a lot easier than trying to get into the film scene there I think. Tiresias posted:'murica. . Especially having to be back on the floor at 8:30 every morning, trying to hide how hosed up you got the night before. As far as the ultra high res stuff, my stance hasn't changed really. Anything over 4K is getting into diminishing returns territory and will create so many headaches on set as far as art, makeup, props, focus, etc. that it's barely worth doing. Just thinking about all the headaches that come with your average IMAX shoot, and all the extra time needed to cover up all the flaws that show up at that 7K equivalent, it just doesn't seem worth all the hassle. Actors especially are going to hate having extreme closeups at super sharp digital 6K or whatever. It is not flattering to be able to count pores on a huge screen...quite terrifying really. So in go the promists, and what have you, and before you know it you've essentially degraded the image and softened it to the point where you might as well be shooting 1080p. Bit of a waste really
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
I sort of figure that we're seeing in video the same thing that photographers were dealing with five or six years ago where everyone was cramming as many megapixels into their camera as possible at the expense of any other feature. The doctors and lawyers ate it up, the pros stood around going "OK, but why?" and eventually even the most entry level camera was capable of making a poster-sized image at 240dpi and everyone moved on to competing for more sensible things like low light performance. In a few years' time the Canon t8i will be shooting 4k and everyone will throw up their hands and start talking about low-light performance or something else sensible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Chitin posted:I sort of figure that we're seeing in video the same thing that photographers were dealing with five or six years ago where everyone was cramming as many megapixels into their camera as possible at the expense of any other feature. The doctors and lawyers ate it up, the pros stood around going "OK, but why?" and eventually even the most entry level camera was capable of making a poster-sized image at 240dpi and everyone moved on to competing for more sensible things like low light performance. Low light is a much more interesting development and I think both ARRI and Canon are impressively leading the field here. Neither are obsessing over resolution (that'll come when it comes) but they are obsessing over getting the most out of the pixels that they do record. Having shot a night exterior with only available light in a dark back alley in France, I was incredibly impressed with how well the C300 held up (it has a lot of flaws, but this is not one of them). Same goes for the Alexa. We shot a scene with a guy who's face was lit purely by the light coming from a cigarette as he dragged on it and it looked amazing, such a cool effect that would have to be faked with clever dimming of a small light before. That stuff is exciting to me! As is the race to reach the full latitude of film, without faking it. All these kind of things are 100 times more exciting to me but they are not the sexiest bullet points on the brochure unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
I think it all comes down to being an easy comparison. Low-light performance is sexy when you see it but it's hard to make an argument in the abstract about it and can tend to be more nuanced. "Decent performance up to 1600ISO but it drops off quick after that" and "sure it gets a little noisy at lower gain but the grain is very film like" is a much longer conversation than "IT HAS 4K." It's a conversation professionals are happy to have, but in the prosumer market especially there are a lot of people who buy cameras based on easy-to-understand stats alone. And then there are people who are hiring professionals and want things shot on that one camera they heard about that fits within their budget and has 4k or whatever other thing they think they need (I hate the 5d2 for this reason)...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:While I can't help you with names/contacts, I can tell you that you are not in an easy area. Atlanta has a reasonably active production scene but it is still only barely active enough to keep the people already there working (mostly commercials and music videos) and Birmingham doesn't have much at all, if anything. To be honest I've never heard of a production of any scale going there. I am afraid that the best way to get into the market you seem to be interested in would be to move Thanks man. I really appreciate the advice and it is something that I've really taken to heart since I first posted. Now I'm just shooting off resumes to places in New York, Austin, Miami, some spots in Canada, and in LA. Fingers crossed. I appreciate the help.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Chitin posted:I sort of figure that we're seeing in video the same thing that photographers were dealing with five or six years ago where everyone was cramming as many megapixels into their camera as possible at the expense of any other feature. The doctors and lawyers ate it up, the pros stood around going "OK, but why?" and eventually even the most entry level camera was capable of making a poster-sized image at 240dpi and everyone moved on to competing for more sensible things like low light performance. I think you're underestimating how much the "prosumer," and even relatively low end consumer, market values low light performance. Maybe doctors and lawyers were eating up pure numbers, but in photography increases in megapixels coincided pretty well with increases in high iso performance, noise, and dynamic range, especially in the last couple generations of sensors. The more megapixels at the expense of everything else seemed to be more of a low/midrange point and shoot thing than an SLR thing, which is where I'd put prosumers. Even on non-photography tech blogs people seem to get pretty excited about high iso performance when a new camera comes out, and it's probably the most noticeable difference between current sensors and those from 5 years ago. On each generation of the 5d I remember people talking as much about how good it looked at high sensitivities as they did the resolution. I'd think the video market would be pretty similar in that regard, especially since the folks on the lower end of the market are also going to be more likely to work only with available light. I'll grant you there are plenty of people chasing specs, but I'd say it's more a matter of the manufacturers wanting to sell based on those specs than the consumer wanting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Hey, I'm shooting some Super 16 Eterna Vivid 160T this weekend, shooting for daylight so rating it at ISO 100 with the 85, will probably throw a Corral on there for a few shots. Anyway, I've heard 160T has a 9 stop latitude. Does that mean if I expose for 18% Gray at Zone 5, I've got 4 stops of full information either side?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
On paper, yea I think everything you're figuring/calculating is accurate, though isn't it 4 1/2 stops in either direction? Thinking back, I can't believe the 85 filter kills 2/3 of a stop. If you're shooting Super 16, keep in mind the grain structure is going to be more pronounced no matter what. If you want to minimize the grain, you can overexpose by a stop and just pull the stock in post. You'll lose a stop off the highlights, but you should have a bit more definition in the shadows to crush. NOTE: MAKE SURE YOUR POST HOUSE KNOWS IF YOU'RE PUSHING THE STOCK. When you turn in the cans, find out WHO is going to oversee the developing. GO MEET THEM. Say to them NO LESS THAN 5 TIMES that you're pull processing EVERYTHING by 1 stop. MAKE THEM REPEAT IT TO YOU. Smaller projects often get the "Oh, we did everything right, the DP probably hosed up" treatment at post houses. Not sure if I'm talking too much, but I do miss talking about shooting film... cherish it, you're not just shooting film, but you're also shooting some of the last Fuji stock anyone will see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:
You're not. I miss it bad too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
And for fucks sake make sure your 2AC writes it on the god drat camera reports.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Film is pretty awesome, personally I think it'll replace digital one day...it just looks so good! Speaking of digital (horrible seque but I don't care), the film I shot in Cannes last year, Seduced and Abandoned, is done. It's basically a film about getting a film made, and what it takes to get one greenlit. It will likely have a special screening at this year's Cannes film festival (currently saving up to travel there for the premiere) and has found a distributor so it will have a global theatrical release as well. Terribly excited, my first US production as DP and it's going to be a fairly unique movie featuring some of the biggest names in film making today, from DeNiro to Scorsese to Baldwin to Chastain to Fellini...and a bunch more. A who's-who of film making talent. They had a pretty tough job cutting down roughly 66+ hours of footage into a feature length. I hope they finish the trailer soon so I can show you guys something. Very excited indeed! We shot using two C300s, A-cam on Steadicam all the time with either a 25mm or a 50mm prime and B-cam on sticks with an Optimo 18-100mm zoom. For various other setups we added a couple of 5Ds, GoPROs, and whatever other gimmick we could find. Toughest shoot of my life! Spent, on average, 90 minutes in the Steadicam per scene and we shot several scenes per day over a two week period of non-stop madness. But it was an amazing experience with a genius director (who might actually be insane) who also turned out to be one of the coolest cats I've ever met in my life. I can't wait for people to see it! Some pictures to celebrate  
Steadiman fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Did you use a full steadicam rig with that C300 or a smaller setup?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 08:20
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:On paper, yea I think everything you're figuring/calculating is accurate, though isn't it 4 1/2 stops in either direction? Thinking back, I can't believe the 85 filter kills 2/3 of a stop. Thanks for all this! I originally wanted to shoot Vision3 250D (  )but you can only buy it in bulk where I live and it's only a short so I went with the Vivid instead. It's a great stock so it's no big deal, it's just a tiny bit slower than I would have wanted for Irish weather.Tiresias posted:NOTE: MAKE SURE YOUR POST HOUSE KNOWS IF YOU'RE PUSHING THE STOCK. I've done this a bit with stills photography but never pushed motion picture film. So say I'm metering and I get f/11. I should open to f/8? Or should I just set my light meter to ISO50 and rate like that to make things easier?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Did you use a full steadicam rig with that C300 or a smaller setup?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:I've done this a bit with stills photography but never pushed motion picture film. PULL. Just worth mentioning, even if it was a slip of the tongue: be sure they know you're PULLING (correcting for intentionally over-exposed footage) or PUSHING (correcting for intentionally under-exposed footage). As far as metering on set, I would highly recommend you set the light meter to however you want to light/expose things, and then work the camera in from there. So, if you want to PULL 1 stop, and you're shooting 160T, you and your gaffer set the meter to 80 so you're lighting things the same way. Then, knowing you gotta shoot through the 85 and lose 2/3 stop, your AC makes up for it on the lens, as well as any other ND or filtration you're working in. EXAMPLE 1 - You're shooting an interiors scene on 160T, and you want to pull process everything because you want more texture in the shadows, the grain tightens up as to your liking and the windows can blow out and you don't give a poo poo. The grips put gels on the windows, so everything is tungsten. You and gaffer set the meters to 80 (1 full stop overexposed). You're shooting the master of a sex scene on a 21mm prime, and you want to shoot it at T2.8 but you know your closeups need to be more shallow (T2 on the 85mm for maximum emphasis on the actresses plump lips and moaning mouth). Knowing you'll be going with more ND later to open up, you light the scene so your exposure is T2.8 at ISO80 (overexposing) and you're not shooting through an 85 so no stop loss. When you go in for coverage, you're pretty much already lit, so you add an ND3 to the camera and open up to a T2 on the 85mm. You're paying for Angelina's lips, so they gotta look hot. S EXAMPLE 2 - You're shooting an exterior daytime scene following the sex scene (her husband, B. Pitt, came home to find P. Reubens in bed with A. Jolie). So you and the gaffer talk: you're shooting through an 85, and you're over-exposing, so you both set your meters to ISO 50 (since you MUST shoot through the 85, so 1 2/3 stops below 80 is 50). You're an artist, and you never shoot above a T4. The key grip sets an enormous 20x20 light grid overhead rag, and the meters currently say T8. You've got a boner for keyed lighting, so the grips bring a 12x12 ultra bounce onto the scene, and your meter says T8.5 (just a kiss). You like your ratios, so now you tell your AC to set the lens at 2.8 1/2, throw in an ND9, and you're ready to shoot. The difference between Example 1 and Example 2 is Example 1 you light from the ground up. You take a dark room and make it T4. Example 2, God lit it for you, so you gotta work with what you have. In either case, you had to get it to a base stop for lighting equipment with the ratios you wanted, and then work the camera back to the shooting stop you want. Now, we can really start loving up example #2: the director comes and says the most expensive preface to ANY statement he'll make: "You know what would be cool?...". He says, "I kinda want that 'Saving Private Ryan' look, like more kinetic and frantic." He's asking for you to change the shutter angle, minimizing motion blur of always shooting at 1/48 of a second. Here's where you saved your own rear end. Do you relight? Nope. Do you need to special order a new camera? NOPE. You change the shutter angle from 180' to 45', and change the ND9 to an ND3. 180 to 45 loses 2 stops (180 to 90, 90 to 45), and you have an ND9 in the camera killing 2 stops. So, change the angle (eat up the stops in camera) and change to an ND3 (so you're still at the same place). The worst casualty of the migration to digital is lighting for flexibility. Don't be afraid to over-light it and use filtration to bring it back down. Anyway, the moral of the story: you're all technicians, so if you share with everyone what you're going for, they're gonna know and plan accordingly. Eventually, you develop the shorthand where the gaffer knows you're going to a daytime exterior shot, and you're shooting on 160T, he'll already set the meter to 50. Interiors? Set to 80. And call the goddamn post house, get on a first name basis with whoever is babysitting the developing machines, and REMIND THEM YOU'RE PULL or PUSH PROCESSING.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Out of curiosity--anyone have anything in Tribeca this year? I'm going to screenings on and off and will keep an eye out for goon films  And thanks to the beginner suggestions earlier! I started watching some lighting tutorials online and may not even get a new camera, as I'll probably get a new iPhone soon and that seems to be good enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:...the director comes and says the most expensive preface to ANY statement he'll make: "You know what would be cool?..."... . Probably my favorite sentence in the world now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a video camera for around $500? I'm going on a trip for a nonprofit organization and they asked me to put together a small video about the groups experience for PR stuff. The budget is pretty small, about 1 grand for the camera and software. I really don't know anything about cameras, I have a cannon P&S, but I feel like if I have an actual video dedicated camera I might be~ taken more seriously? Is there good camera model that's maybe a few years behind on tech that I could get for a reasonable (see:cheap) price? I have a wireless mic that they're letting me use. Most of the footage should be during the day and outdoors, with some inside but with decent lighting. I plan to just shoot as much as I can then edit it down to 5 minutes with the help of some film students. Any help would be greatly appreciated! I haven't owned a camcorder since they used those little tapes, and I don't know if they even call them camcorders any more. Bulkiness is also an issue I need to consider, as it's a relatively unsafe third world country so I can't lug around a large expensive camera or a case that looks like it could be a rifle. They have a Canon XL2 3CCD but I think it wouldn't be worth the risk or having it stolen or broken. A 500$ camera I could walk away from without it being a financial tragedy, whereas a shoulder mounted $5,000 number would be a big responsibility. Thanks a bunch ahead of time, if this isn't a good thread I would greatly appreciate a nudge in the right direction! Umph fucked around with this message at 06:14 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Canon T3i?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 09:21
|
|
|
Don't get a DSLR for that kind of thing. Get a canon or sony handycam.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Having that same post in three different threads is kindof confusing since I follow all of them. I responded in the other one but wanted to agree here with BeavisNuke that a handycam type thing is probably the way to go.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
powderific posted:Having that same post in three different threads is kindof confusing since I follow all of them. I responded in the other one but wanted to agree here with BeavisNuke that a handycam type thing is probably the way to go. You should reply to him in the other five threads just to make sure he sees it
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Can't wait to get my hands on a bmpcc. I started on 16mm reversal 10 years ago - +2/-2 more or less then color neg (curves vary) - anywhere from 3-7 +/- (5/5 is usually a safe bet) then came the dvx which was claimed to be 8 total though I always felt this was more like reversal, so maybe it was +2/-4? i find it hard to buy american cinematographers claims of 8 total when they tested it.. then the dlrs with compression gets you right back to where reversal was at +2/-2 (if you're lucky) but now, i get to ditch the dslrs and go back to working with raw and 13 stops of latitude on no budget jobs. this is huge for me. on bigger budget jobs I can still shoot alexa or 35, but on the super low budget stuff I can ditch DSLRs. oh and the ability to adapt some older c mount glass has me excited. cheap cctv glass? ohhhhh yes. AND, toss the 1.7 panny pancake on there and you've got the perfect stealth camera. the type of b roll I can get away with this thing is enormous. it looks like a p&s! zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:
I'm actually really excited to see what sort of underwater and quadcopter housing this thing spawns. Pocket Cam is almost small enough to compare it to a GoPro+Backpack.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
someone must have pleased the film gods, because they can now get 1080p raw from a 5dmk3. Pretty crazy man, 12 stops of latitude, full frame, from the sensor direct to card. It's really weird seeing sample footage from a canon dslr that isn't killed by compression. between this and black magic stuff, it's exciting.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Looks nice, but I can't imagine it's very stable at this point. Are there problems with limited record time and overheating?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
"Quality is unsurpassed by any other DSLR and is truly in league with the Alexa. "
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
EosHD tends to be quite hyperbolic, but this is nevertheless very interesting. Apparently ML crew has also opened up 1:1 crop modes, which, if I'm not terribly mistaken, opens up a pretty cool bunch of new possibilities. With this you could also utilize super35-sized etc. glass that would otherwise vignette like a motherfucker on a full frame image.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 08:52
|
|
|
Slim Pickens posted:Looks nice, but I can't imagine it's very stable at this point. Are there problems with limited record time and overheating? You need highspeed cards to even be able to shoot raw, and you're limited to the highest storage capacity there. Also, you wouldn't get any kind of in cam conversion to pro res you'd find on other non hacky solutions, so you're looking at RAW to DNG, then DNG to pro res for a workflow. Storage space will be a big issue for most people who would want to shoot raw. Bandwidth = 83MB/S. fat32 limitation is still in play right now, this is super alpha. I'd imagine that won't be for long, so as it is you're looking at clips under 1 min. I'd wager exfat is the next thing they get going. You also lose the onboard audio, so if you use that as a scratch track for syncing later then that might be an issue. Basically shooting this would be akin to shooting with film. You'd need to be constantly dumping cards as if they were mags, and you'd need to shoot sync sound 100%. Shooting a long project in raw would be a pain in the rear end for a majority of people. It sounds like up to 1080/48 is stable, everything over drops frames (cards can't keep up) and creates too much heat. This is for a sure a hack, but one that is huge for anyone with access or that owns the mk3 already. It's no BMCC killer, but it wasn't before either, so nothing lost really. For me it means I don't have to work 3 times as hard to get a proper image whenever I need to shoot lower budget on one of these things. Huge. SquareDog posted:"Quality is unsurpassed by any other DSLR and is truly in league with the Alexa. " Why are you rolleyes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHcZwMB5gKs 12 stop dynamic range RAW on a full frame camera is huge. Look at some sample footage from it in raw and tell me it's not on par with arriraw footage from an alexa. (minus the RS obviously) I'd bet anything a PL mount mk3 shooting in raw on a pl glass will be almost indistinguishable from the same glass on a higher end camera. Especially with the garbage curve you'd get from compressed h264 off the same camera. This isn't hyperbole. It's really down to how stable this is, and how feasible shooting in RAW will be for folks (workflow, storage) who didn't even know that was a thing until just now. Also the hacky nature of this is going to stop a lot of producers from wanting to use this system. Here's a good example of why this a big deal (and why canon is going to sell a poo poo ton of mk3's now though I can't imagine they are thrilled about this) same setup (stop, iso, shutter) in both raw and compressed: compressed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvCRQ-haYYc&feature=youtu.be raw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HR92jzWUd4 If that doesn't get you hyped, I'm not sure what would. Suddenly this camera now has a very usable curve and can be properly graded. It's a good time to be a cinematographer. If you shoot film, this is like finally being able to shoot color neg on a camera that could only shoot reversal. e: Another two samples of why this is awesome. This guy compares raw, compressed, and the gh3 in a daytime landscape and thena night time landscape. You can see the difference in detail and latitude instantly. It's especially telling when you see the night stuff. Even though the low light capability is the same you can see without the horrible h264 artifacting in dark tones the whole thing just looks "cleaner" http://vimeo.com/66063838 http://vimeo.com/66083408 raw on a $3.5k camera. wheeeeeeeee. zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 10:27 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
Yes, it does look much better than the native h.264, and for the price of just a few thousand bucks it's pretty great, absolutely worth it if the text on this page is true. But in the first video posted, people's skin still had the signature DSLR orange blobbyness to the color as well as a general lack of detail in all color, when compared to the Alexa, or the Sony F cameras, or the Red. All that DR isn't worth much if it can't render colors exceptionally well too. Human skin is the ultimate test as it is what you'll be shooting at least 95% of the time, I would have liked to have seen more of it in the test shots. It does sound very cool for the the low price but it does not even begin to compare to the Alexa (or others), not only in terms of image quality but also in form factor and function. These days no production with more than $700 per day to their budget and in their right mind would want to use a DSLR to shoot with. And if they did their DP and AC's will likely hate them for it. I own a DSLR and recommend them to people just starting out but I never want to shoot one of my projects with one if I could help it. But as I said it sounds like a great option for the many super-low-budget productions/videographers out there.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
I agree, it is a fantastic camera for the price, and adding RAW to it is an amazing achievement, but let's not all get carried away again. DSLR is still, and always will be, a horrible form factor to shoot with (unless you add thousands in accessories and like looking silly) and the limited shooting time is a pretty big problem too. Even film at least gives you four minutes . I like this camera a lot and enjoy playing with it but we have to keep some kind of perspective here. DSLRs are great when you can't get better but at the end of the day they are simply not very practical or ideal for anything truly demanding. Having RAW on it is fantastic, and a pretty drat big deal, but it's still got all the downsides too while introducing new ones. I'd enjoy shooting small things on it, but nothing more than that. And to be honest, the limitations of shooting RAW on the 5d currently make me second guess if I'd even use that since most scenes tend to last a bit longer than a minute/30 seconds. It'd drive the DIT crazy!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Yes, it does look much better than the native h.264, and for the price of just a few thousand bucks it's pretty great, absolutely worth it if the text on this page is true. But in the first video posted, people's skin still had the signature DSLR orange blobbyness to the color as well as a general lack of detail in all color, when compared to the Alexa, or the Sony F cameras, or the Red. All that DR isn't worth much if it can't render colors exceptionally well too. Human skin is the ultimate test as it is what you'll be shooting at least 95% of the time, I would have liked to have seen more of it in the test shots. You can't nitpick color temp on a raw image. That's the entire point, it could be purple, you have all the information from the sensor to color change non destructively. That's why we're excited about RAW. Every sensor has its own color characteristics with RAW footage. You can tell arriraw from an alexa, just like you can tell redraw from a red cam by the midtones BEFORE A GRADE. A good grade, hell even a one light grade, can change the entire color tone, can reintroduce contrast, blah blah. This is basic colorist stuff. I think it does compare to an alexa, as someone who works with an alexa often. ONLY IN IMAGE QUALITY. The features of an alexa over this are too numerous to mention, in everything form form factor to gui to LDS, etc etc. However, I honestly think you will have a very hard time picking out a difference between 5dmk3 14 bit raw directly from the sensor vs arri raw 12 bit WITH THE EXACT SAME LENS. RAW is a completely different beast then the compressed footage you'd get from this. There's a reason the BMC products are selling like crazy, RAW is enormous This is one of those things that you'd never think would happen. Steadiman posted:And to be honest, the limitations of shooting RAW on the 5d currently make me second guess if I'd even use that since most scenes tend to last a bit longer than a minute/30 seconds. It'd drive the DIT crazy! It's still alpha guys! This literally just popped up yesterday, and even then all they could do was burst recording before it. The progress ML is making is astounding. That under a minute clip limitation is file system based, just like it used to be on everything under the 5dmk3. I'm 100% sure when this hits beta in the next few weeks they'll have it working with exfat and you can shoot continously until you fill a card. Heat wise, everyone who has gotten the first alpha going has said anything up to 1080p/48 is fine, anything over that overheats the camera and drops frames. They liken the heat up to the frame limit as on par with what you'd get while shooting 1080p normally, so no change there. We can go back and poo poo all over dslrs for a number of reasons, most of which you two touched on, but now horrible latitude from compression is no longer the number one on there. For a good number of people that outshines whatever other flaws exist in this setup. And at 12 stops of latitude, I don't blame them.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
zer0spunk posted:You can't nitpick color temp on a raw image. I'm nitpicking on how DSLRs just don't render colors well compared to much more expensive cameras, especially human colors, even in the footage you linked. The signature DSLR looks still comes through, raw can't fix that, the light still has to pass through cheap bayer filters and get worked through a cheap photosites on an underpowered device. And while the videos you posted show it was a great improvement over the h.264, it's still not really high quality like cameras worth ten times the cost of a DSLR. I have daily access to most cameras on the market from GoPros to F65's and I can tell you it doesn't compare, and that's fine, because it's a totally different market.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 18:52
|
|