Leaderboard

Spray tan? Are you using a bad monitor? Have you checked your gamma/saturation settings? Bad dye job? You sound like those blog girls that review make ups and chanel purses. Dont get me wrong, but im a man, and I like to see what the camera can show. When im testing a camera, im not searching for good makeups, im looking for what the camera can capture, including bad skin texture, if the skin is like that. If you are in Africa, shooting an old dude that has been under the sun his entire life, would you like to see a soft-baby skin? Please... Thats not a topic about getting a job on a commercial - and let me tell you, the amount of bad commercials these days is HUGE. Maybe because those producers think like you? Anyway, thats a topic about what the camera can capture. Yes, I can se his grading being used on a vodka commercial, but I cant see it selling the camera. When reviewing a camera, they should show everything, not hide skin problems. His skin is blue/green and its glowing with no texture. She looks like an alien. Is it better than a tan? We are not looking at a models portfolio, we are looking at a camera sample. If the model has a bad makeup or a bad skin, the camera needs to show it. And let me tell you another thing guys. If a guy is a pro, it doesnt mean that everything he does looks good. Being a pro only means that you get paid to do something. Please, dont be a fanboy, unless you are getting paid to do it. We are all grown up guys. Being a fan boy is not pretty, if you are a big boy. Those pro gradings look bad, and im pretty sure that every final consumer will think that. Film convert tools and LUTs are a lost cause - and they are the main reason why most prosumers hate Blackmagic cameras. All of those videos look surreal. They are like bad impressionist art. People like to see what their eyes can see. People post bad gradings, with only shades of mid-grey, compressed highlights, bad colors and color casts and use the excuse that its a "filmic" look. ITS NOT! Here is a comparison between film and digital. So stop using that "filmic look" excuse! Its just a grading made by a person with a doubtful taste!

Hello Forum! I'm from Russia This is my design - rig for BMPCC

Hi anamorpholovers ! :) A friend of mine gave me for few days the Zhong Yi Lens Turbo M43/Nikon, a cheaper cousin of the Speed Booster from Metabones : What is it going to give ? Olympus OM-D E-M5 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo + Nikon 50mm f1.8 E Serie More to come, any dream welcome ;)

I love it. I can't believe how smooth that combo looks, even wide open.

The fact is that the D5300 has been made primarily as a stills camera with video added on, so stills features get priority. Panasonic however are making true hybrid cameras (arguably even primarily video cameras with the GH3/4). Someone could quite easily have written an article, as equally full of hyperbole as Andrew's D5300 review, to the tune of: "Nikon give us amazing quality video from a stills camera, better in many respects to Panasonic's true hybrid offerings in the same price-bracket. Why is this? Shouldn't Panasonic be doing better considering their cameras are designed from the ground-up to shoot video?." The fact is that audience-grabbing headlines like "is DSLR video dead", and deliberately provocative articles about big industry issues fuel activity on the site and this forum, and simultaneously lessen the need for Andrew to actually put the work in and do a proper review of the camera itself. It's not hard for any of us to look at enough videos online, play around with enough cameras in a shop and scour enough forums to get a feel for what we do and do not like about a particular camera. It's even easier to find lazy people with big-picture opinions online. What's hard to find is someone who's gone out of their way to put a specific camera through its paces, rigorously testing its possibilities and giving people a clear, objective idea of what the camera is capable of. Andrew used to do that. His D5300 piece (I won't call it a review) did not. Where was the HDMI-out test? Where was the mention that the fixed-pattern noise that plagued the 5200 has been completely eradicated? Where was the discussion of the camera's very good dynamic range, to my mind the 5300s greatest strength, which he said himself in another thread seemed to equal the BM Pocket's at 12 stops!? All that stuff is irrelevant though. There are more important issues. He needed the space in the article to moan about the fact that you had to press the zoom-out button several times to come out of focus assist because you couldn't just half depress the shutter to snap straight out. It's understandable really - apart from the fact that if he'd spent more than 5 minutes with the camera before deciding to crap all over it he'd have realised you could press the OK button, and that will snap you straight out of focus assist. Oh but it's the Nikon mount, that awful Nikon mount that can't take any lenses. What the same mount that's on the MFT-Nikon Speed Booster that's so great? I'll stop before I go any further. No doubt this will come over as a rant from a twat with a chip on his shoulder, but the fact is that everything I've said above is true. The D5300 is a really, really nice video camera. It really is. It's a bit of a pain to shoot with compared to cameras that are designed from square one to shoot video with. If you're considering buying one, wait for the GH4 to come out. If you like the image from the GH4 forget about the D5300 forever - the GH4 is going to be an awesome dream of a video camera. If you don't want to spend that much money or prefer the relatively soft, crappy, low-colour-depth image of the D5300 (it is actually possible) you are not wrong. The 5300 is a great camera if it's usability limitations aren't a deal breaker for you (if they are you probably need a camcorder anyway). Now somebody please do a rigorous, comprehensive HDMI-out test!

I think over the course of many years, if Hollywood DP's shot on camcorders, and amateurs shot with film then everyone would be after the camcorder look.

I believe most of what's been mentioned above accounts for a "filmic" look... after all, the properties -and advantages- of footage shot on film and on a 35mm film camera are those, with variations depending on the film stock and lenses used. But I believe there's something else that has to do with what Andy Lee has said. Some people look for narrow depth of field because otherwise it's not filmic. I call BS!!! or maybe just ignorance... Long establishing shots in traditional movies -modern filmmaking likes to break traditional rules- have mostly been shot on wide angle lenses and F11 or above. Descriptive shots are meant to show, and as much as possible. Regrettably -IMO-, you find many amateur videos with close ups shot with very wide angle lenses, long shots with teles and narrow depth of field, etc. that do not quite look right. The fundamental item for a filmic look is a proper DP. After all, shows like House (Canon 5D) or Californication (7D) had entire season shot on cameras that are now are said to be not nearly good enough for a filmic look... yet a good DP, a Gaffer, a nice set of lenses and proper lighting made that footage look on TV nearly as good as 35mm film.

I understand where Andrew was coming from, although his "DSLR Dead" points probably should have been in a different blog post. The D5300 camera is more capable than many for video. It has a nice image. It's just a bit clumsy for controls, and is stuck with low data rates. Nikon and the other camera manufacturers, like many big companies, are slow respond to changing trends. Cell phone cameras are killing the P&S market, AND the camcorder market. People want both stills and video in one camera, because they have seen it can be done on a cell phone. If they spend the money for a separate camera and another item to carry around, they want superior quality and functionality for both stills and video, not just stills. Other than Panasonic, the camera companies for the most part are still are stuck on stills, and dragging their feet on video, meaning they are 5 years behind the times. That's an eternity when it comes to technology now. Entire markets dry up in that amount of time.

Lets talk about art. The example posted by Miller is too soft. Making the entire video soft is not beautifull, its a flaw. Whats the point of using expensive lenses to deliver a soft video?? You can soften a skin texture, but making the entire scene soft is wrong. The video will look like a low resolution out of focus video. With high end codecs, like raw, you can make the skin look soft and sharpen the eyes, for example. Eyes need to look sharp, otherwise the person will look lifeless and the video will look like a distant dream. He is also throwing away good dynamic range. He is blowing out the face of the main subject. She is like a pin up girl, but he graded her like a zombie shot on a low dynamic range camera. Her skin tone is green. One thing is to add a graded color to the scene, to create a mood, the other is to add a color cast that makes the skin tone look horrible. I said it once and I will say it again. Applying pre-set looks like mojo, film convert tools, LUTs etc are not the way to do it. Grading is REALLY easy. You dont need those tricks. And here is my simple grading for commercial use. What did I do? - Made her skin look soft - Gave her a pin-up skin tone - Increased the sharpness and contrast of her eyes, to make them stand out - Changed her eye color, because I like blue - Added a lot of saturation in her lips, to create a sexy look - Increased the sharpness and the saturation of the yellow, to make her hair stand out - Added some split toning (blue and purple) while mantaining her skin tone Now I can see me gaining the contract for the commercial, while James grading would be only usable for an underground alien movie. COMPARE THE 3 VERSIONS:

Avez-vous du vidéo comme example?

I understand you Andrew, and I know your style. As I said, if I were grading it for commercial purposes I would do it differently. I would add some split toning, I would fix her skin, maybe enhance the color/clarity of her eyes. But not when testing a camera. As I said, I can see James grading being used on a vodka commercial. Mine wouldnt be accepted. But I can also see my correction being used on a documentary, while James grading wouldnt. The problem with artistic gradings is that our taste is very subjective. And when we try to make too much art when reviewing a camera, we can make people think that the camera has some kind of problem. Its not hard to find people that hate Blackmagic cameras because they think that all Blackmagic videos look surreal, have bad colors, no contrast, color casts and look like old damaged movies. And thats because that kind of "art" wont impress a lot of people. There are lots of people that like the impact of the "you are there" look. My girlfriend hates me when I take pictures of her and I dont hide her pimples. I hate that "Sweet 16 Photo Book" soft glowing look. I like to see details, and Im not alone in this world. When reviewing a camera, its always nice to show the full potential of the camera when recreating a natural scene. Im not against art though. I can appreciate graded videos sometimes, but not every time.

This is what happens when you have too much science in a technique not enough artistry. She's a lovely subject, the victim of hyper revealing grading. You're supposed to flatter her looks. You do realise that right? Softer, less contrast, opposite of what's technically perfect.

Thanks Daniel! I'm really loving the image from this camera. I'm using it way more than my G6. For me I don't care which camera is best on paper, or which has been designed best for video use. At the end of the day it's about whether you like the images you can get from it, and I REALLY like the images I'm getting from the D5300. I'm looking forward to seeing footage from the GH4 and can imagine buying one in the future. However, it can have 10X more detail, colour depth and dynamic range than the D5300 - if I don't like the image as much, I won't buy one. Art doesn't rely on statistics. David Lynch says it better (below)!

Most do not understand the color depth advantage of higher resolution and only see the "sharpness" advantage of higher resolution. There are common misconceptions about this scenario, so here are some basic facts. First of all, BIT DEPTH ≠COLOR DEPTH. This is the hardest concept for most to understand, but bit depth and color depth are not the same things. Basically, bit depth is a major factor in color depth, with resolution being the other major factor. A fairly accurate formula for the relationship of color depth, bit depth and resolution is: COLOR DEPTH = (BIT DEPTH X RESOLUTION)3. This mathematical relationship means that a small increase in resolution can yield a many-fold increase in color depth. The above formula is true for linear response, RGB pixel group sensors. When considering non-RGB sensors (eg. Bayer, Xtrans, etc) and sensors with a non-linear response, the formula gets more complex. In addition, the formula does not take into account factors of human perception of differing resolutions, nor does it account for binning efficiancy when trying to convert images from a higher resolution to a lower resolution. More detailed info can be found on this page.

I'm just post-processing some of the footage I took. Unfortunately I had "Vignetting" control turned on in Magic Lantern so the colours are a bit weird, but it looks decent. Will post soon :)

Hi Sergey, Those are super amazing stuffs! I'm very very very interested in buying your items but honestly since you're very very slow at replying emails (and sometimes just disappeared) and have a lot of bad reputations at REDUSER.net. I can't really think about buying directly from you. Is there any way you could prove yourself? With all regards!

You can set the shutter release button to start/stop record when in movie mode (it may even be like that by default - can't remember). I went through the need for wide-angle scenario recently with my G6 (having old Nikon primes down to 24mm). The Lumix 14mm f2.8 is your cheapest, smallest decent option. It's sharp, fast and I gives a pretty good image. I sold mine recently because I bought a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 to use with my D5300 (all my glass is now Nikon mount). It's more expensive and about 30 times larger/heavier than the 14mm, but I much prefer the image and it will mount to any future camera I buy. Don't write off the 14-42 kit lens either - it's pretty decent, though not very fast.

You have a box of 1024 differnt color crayons and 4 boxes of 256 color crayons. Combine all four boxes of 256 into a new box of 1024. Which one has more colors?

I hope it didn't come across that I was implying Andrew is some sort of shill. Wasn't saying that at all. The point was, if I may clarify, is that I value the findings of other users who don't review all the time. Those who're looking for a camera to do the same things I want it to do and have similar criteria as me. The conversations like the ones I had back and forth with Matt before we each decided that based on our experience with the D5200, the D5300 would meet our needs. I'll add that I first got the D5200 based on what Andrew wrote about it, and the work that Brandon Li was doing with it. So, I do appreciate his opinion and weigh that with what appears to be a little different ultimate criteria, ie. final work flow, budget, and computing power/storage needed. Before I left for Mexico, I did a few tests and started playing with grading. Not completely happy with my skill level with grading, so I figured it was best to just show the flat stuff mostly untouched. The problem with shooting those extremely flat profiles... is that if you're going back and forth from video to stills, it becomes a real pain. I'll have to see if there's a way to quickly go from completely different custom setups without having to go into menus. My little Nikon compact has a plethora of customizable settings I can quickly change to with one flip of a knob. It'd be nice if I could find a way to do that with the D5300. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Andrew doesn't like the D5300 so much. What's odd is that it seems to matter to others so much. People have different needs and what they're willing to put up with to get the image they're happy with. Andrew does a good job of stating why he likes this or that and why he doesn't like something, though... it didn't really seem like a "review" that he did of the D5300. More of an opinion piece to call out just how much he doesn't care for it. So be it. I personally don't need anyone to validate my purchase. If it had not lived up to my expectations, I would have simply returned it. So far, it has surpassed my expectations and I'm looking forward to getting better with the camera and grading. So far, considering I haven't even tried grading anything from Mexico yet, and shot for a month handheld under a variety of often difficult conditions... my purchase has been self-validated to my liking. :)

Thanks Andrew. I didn't have any audio to drop on it, and since I'm using YouTube... couldn't just add some good music. I recorded some ambient plaza music, but that didn't work out so well. So, that narrative is all I had handy and wanted to put something up to show what the nearly untouched stuff looked like. I really didn't like using one camera for video and stills. It might just be that I've been a still photographer too long and it's too difficult to switch back and forth. I have shot plenty of motion in the past, but for some reason... it's difficult to jump back and forth. At the same time, I didn't want to carry two different kits while backpacking. But, at home... I'll likely migrate to having two camera kits, one for stills and one for motion. Or, just practice more. ;) I'm only just now getting back into this stuff, so it's likely just learning curve pains. I do think that based on my tests in some very low light shooting situations, some very difficult spaces (i.e. underground cenotes with almost no light or having to pass through a vertical wet/muddy tunnel to get down into one, with high humidity, etc. that the camera performed well. Mostly just grabbed a bunch of shots at random and put them in some ordered grouping, but if you knew the very low amount of light there was in many of those clips... it'd be more impressive. Once I get my head around grading stuff, will edit something down with a proper soundtrack, etc.

*edit removed condescending phrasing that was uncalled for it's actually very different 00:31 blown out mushy highlights on bmcc not on canon 00:58 high crop factor on bmcc 01:10 terrible shadow performance on the bmcc (if you want to see how bad it truly is watch in full screen) 1:27 global shutter on bmcc better than rolling on canon they differ in highlight performance, crop factor, shadow performance, and global shutter vs rolling shutter. Completely different.

You deleted your poor example I see? and changed your username? Come on man, why are you here other than to try and play devils advocate? Your discussion was moot over at the cinematogray.com forums. If you're going to come onto a forum signing up specifically to try and belittle enthusiasts of anamorphics at least have something to back up your bold statements. Until we see you provide a direct comparison of your solution versus a well arranged anamorphic solution such as those i have mentioned, your debate is moot.