Leaderboard

Forget the hack, you are no longer going to need it. Cannot say any more. Photokina... I will be there!!

[quote name='PAVP' timestamp='1344369725' post='15078'] I really think we're missing the point if we look at this footage and are critiquing the manner in which it was shot. It's a good thing that it wasn't a perfectly lit, steadycam'd, big production that accounted for every weakness the camera could have. What would we learn from that? With enough time and money you can make any camera look great and yet not know much about what the true character of the camera is. This is like a window into what the camera is really like minus all the trappings. [/quote] 1. To some degree I agree with this, but there are certain technical things that even the most indie film maker should/could iron out. 2. If the article had prefaced these shots with something like, "we wanted to show what the camera looked like, ungraded, and under poor shooting conditions so we...", I would have judged it [b]very[/b] differently. 3. Clearly Mr. Brawley is an accomplished and talented filmmaker, and I doubt he gives two shites about what some meathead like me thinks about some of his unpolished work from an unreleased camera. All I did was criticize the footage that was shown to me without any context.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344367049' post='15069'] The aesthetic they choose was probably down to one of two things. A) they like it like that, loose and informal, can be read as intimate. B) [/quote] There is a difference between informal and sloppy. What we saw was sloppy work, for all the reasons I listed above. [quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344367049' post='15069'] You've seen next to nothing yet you demand something that doesn't have "terrible lighting". It's a daylight shoot with a 3 man crew! [/quote] Last time I checked, a three man crew was enough to use a glidecam while someone else holds a reflector. After going to John Brawley's website, and looking at his reel (and seeing how good it was), I'm even more disappointed with what we see here.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344363313' post='15065'] Just signed up here just to say, where do you get the balls? [/quote] From a Y chromosome...duh. What part of my criticism do you disagree with? 1. The handheld was shaky throughout, starting with the very first shot 2. Sloppy focus at 0:15 3. Guys face mostly in shadow, with a bright spot ocasionally hitting his forhead (1:45) 4. Weird tracking shot swaying back and forth (2:40 ish) 5. Guys face is too dark in the last scene Look, it's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd put out there to show off new tech just weeks from the suposed launch.

Another Black Magic test that proves only one thing: They need to give the camera to someone else who knows what they are doing. I liked the pool footage better. This was shot with terrible lighting and bad camerawork. What's up with the huge sways durring the tracking shots? It's got a small sensor(relative to most of the competition) so i'm not surprised about the low light perfromance, but I want to know what this thing can do when lit properly.

Picked one of these up last week but not really had too much time to test it. However, I have addressed the filter thread issue in a way that might be too extreme for some but here it is anyway. I looked at the magnetic option and as clever as it is, it is let down by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any info regarding a release date and I didn't fancy just having this thing in a box waiting for that to arrive. Before doing what I did, I rationalised it by asking myself two questions : 1) Did I envisage a time when I wouldn't want this camera to have a filter thread 2) Did I envisage selling it and if so to someone who would be put off by it having a filter thread. The answer to both was a pretty firm No so I pressed ahead with my not particularly hi tech solution of adding a permanent filter thread with the aid of a step up convertor and some super glue. As luck would have it, I had a 46mm-52mm step up convertor and the 46mm end is pretty much the perfect diameter to fit the lens housing of the RX100 and only adds a few mm of extra appendage to the camera. One advantage to that is that it does add a little bit of protection to the actual lens glass which is no bad thing. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20751/501bd8d41ae06_r1000filterthread.jpg[/img] So, I now have an RX100 with a perfectly serviceable 52mm filter thread. I've found the Cokin A series system to be a good add on for something like the RX100 as it gives you a slot for a circular polariser and three more slots for NDs and Grad NDs etc so its pretty flexible. As the A series are pretty compact, it also feeds into the cinema camera in your pocket vibe ! Another big advantage is that they are reasonably cheap (particularly "compatible" ones such as 4 x ND at less than £20 on ebay) and you also often find people selling an entire collection on ebay for a bargain price. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/20751/501bdb1e8dd17_r1000filterthread2.jpg[/img] Of course I'm not just limited to using the Cokin system, so I just add the 52mm-77mm step up and can use my Lightcraft variable ND as well. So, there you go, it might be sacrilege for some to start permanently disfiguring a brand new camera but I think the ends justify the means in this case as it makes it useable now rather than at some unknown point in the future and at less than a fiver you certainly can't argue with the price ;)