Leaderboard

The fact you can buy an imaging device for $900 that trumps most gear film making masters from the 70's and 60's would have loved to have is incredible. Look, if you can't do creative stuff with a piece of gear like this, you got the problems, not the camera or lens. I love technology and equipment too, but if you want to actually do something creative with motion picture making, fretting so much about which camera does this or that the best-- man, it is such a complete waste of time. Although, to be honest, If you want bragging rights and affirmation that you own the latest and greatest imaging kit, that's something else, I guess. It does seem to be a popular pastime on tech-centric blogs. I'm just amazed though--and what a wonderful time for real legitimate filmmakers (the ones that actually do stuff) -- for less than 2k one can easily buy a camera, editing system, light kit, and audio package. What to do with all that capability? Use it or talk about it?

Screen grabs from a short sci-fi film I'm directing. http://alexeymarfin.com/blue-eyed-me-coming-soon/ Can you can tell apart which shots are real anamorphic shots and which are spherical + pseudo-anamorphic aesthetic done in post? ;-) Any feedback welcome :-)

you want a 100mm then the Olympus OM Zuiko 100mm f2.8 is the lens for you Comurit! for full frame cameras for micro4/3 the Canon FD 100mm is very nice too

@comurit. I'm just a hobbyist, Andy works at this professionally. Anyway, my two cents. Your latest video on Vimeo is really nice. If you're shooting RAW you have so much latitude in getting any degree of warmth or coolness. The benefit of an old lens on my a7 is that it shoots H.264, so I can't change the image much in post--at least, that's my belief--so you need to get your warmth from the lens, or before compression. However, I didn't purposely buy these lenses because they were warm. I just enjoy trying stuff out. I do plan on continuing to use the lenses, of course. If I was shooting 5D RAW I'd get a set of Rokinon Primes. They are an incredible bang for the buck. I've never shot anamorphic, so you know more than I.

Looks awesome! Make sure to keep us updated on this project :)

A great to see you here, Steffen, I had linked to your article in the other LX100 topic a week ago: I agree with SteffenH and tosvus. You should not make assumptions based on a couple of videos where people either didn't understand how to shoot proper video, people that wanted an out-of-the-box-test, or those that just happen to like the very sharp detailled footage and embrace that it's 2014/15 and don't see anything wrong with that. You know, we're not used to all this new stuff yet. People still like the Canon softness and complain about The Hobbit being shown at high frame rate. But maybe all we need is a little time to adjust. But anyways... there's a reason people dial back their settings. For example: contrast... you can not get back detail from blown out highlights or crushed blacks. Unless you're working in journalism and you need quick turnarounds or something, you'll want to put the contrast to its minimum setting. Same goes for sharpening, out-of-the-box the Panasonics are a little harsh on sharpness. When you dial it down your footage will start looking more natural and pleasing. This also should take care of most moire that usually is induced by applying sharpening. And remember, you can always add a little sharpening in post, but good luck getting rid of any picked up moire. So yeah, personally I like to dial sharpening all the way down. And like SteffenH said, that doesn't mean your footage becomes super soft, the detail is still there and it's still pretty sharp enough. You'd do the same with a GH4 and for the LX100 it's no different, really. And then of course the 180 degree shutter rule, which basicly means you use double the value of whatever your framerate is... so 30fps you'd want to shoot at 1/60th (2x30). You can't use 1/48th for 24p, but 1/50 is close enough. This allows for natural looking motion. Movements within the frame start to look really organic, whereas high shutterspeeds will make motion look rather jittery. So basicly... first you decide at which resolution and framerate you're going to shoot. Then you use aperture to control depth of field, shutter for motion blur and a ND filter to control exposure. Lastly, when working in low light conditions you might want to ditch the ND filter, open up your aperture considerably, accept the narrower depth of field that gives you, keep the shutterspeed according the 180 rule and then use ISO to increase sensitivity to a point that you deem the scene properly exposed. And again, pick a picture profile that goes easy on the footage and take the effects of certain settings into consideration. Use common sense... if you see something you don't like, ask yourself 'can I do something to change that?', probably: 'yes, you can!'. A camera is not a magic box. There's some science to it. But a camera has no soul (although I bet there's some people with Leica's about to hit me in the head for that), it has no taste, it has no consideration of certain factors. It's not telepathically connected to you. It needs you to work together, it needs you to give it instructions, tell it what it is supposed to do. And when the two of you work together in synergy, beautiful things will happen! But don't expect the camera to do it all without you, straight out-of-the-box. You need eachother. Be a team. If you suck, the LX100 (or any other camera for that matter) will suck. If you know your own limits and that of the camera, you're probably good to go, though. To me there's no reason for putting off buying the LX100 if you're worried about quality, in my opinion the LX100 is very capable of taking stunning footage. But oh well, it's too late and I'm rambling. Sorry. :P I'll stop now.

I doubt this clip could be more relevant than on this forum right now.

Ita149, Where do you have all this information from? If he had lowered the sharpness why should it be "too soft especially for downsampling"? The word "especially" makes no sense at all in that sentence. Don't post stuff you are just guessing from a camera you did not run tests with. The camera is still incredibly sharp even at VERY soft 4K settings when downsamped to HD. Compared it to C300 and an Alexa.

No wonder the footage is so jarring. Those values are insane. They might make some sense if you are using 4K photomode and only want to extract a single frame, but for video footage, that is fairly useless to look at. In this case, it would have made much more sense to run at 1/60 (since it is 30 fps), and the aperture should be a higher value to ensure all the footage is in focus. (Again, if it is all indeed on a narrow plane across the frame, and the intent was to look at a single frame for sharpness problems on the side, that makes sense, but looking at this for video quality makes no sense at all). If it is too bright still at say aperture 5.6 or 8 w 1/60 shutter speed, put on some ND filter. It looks like a bright day. It is also clearly oversharpened, so he should experiment with less sharpness for sure. It is fine to give opinion if it is based on a good foundation, I think. However, this clip, once I look at it in Premiere, shows: -Oversharpened due to settings -Corners seem a bit soft, but it could be the aperture chose makes this to be out of focus. In any case, while I have found this camera has good corner sharpness, it is not incredible. It can't compete with my gh3 and Nocticron there.. -I don't see any significant issue with moire. The little I see is likely from the fact that he shot very fast shutterspeed, and did handheld, so the jittering between each frame makes is stand out. -Generally unpleasing picture, but again, due to settings. Conclusion: Don't base anything on this footage. Have you tried it yourself?? Have you seen all the great footage out there?

Don't know what all the squabbling on this thread is about. You get a lens, a camera and some very advanced features for not much money. :P

It is funny how different needs do people have. LX100 is currently the best camera on the market for my needs (ordering this weekend). It will be my only camera (for both video and photo) for next few years. You should say: "For my needs LX100 is overrated and overestimated.". When you say "The camera is bad.. It is my opinion." it sounds like you think that it's bad for everyone (or almost everyone). If you think like that - you are wrong. If not - you should correct your statement to cool emotions.

FS7

Which shots? Other than the shaky whip zoom, I'd love to know what stood out to you. I won't be offended :)

Heres a short clip from a documentary i'm working on. This was shot probably 50/50 full frame and crop mode. The opening slider shot was in full frame mode. I am not finding the rolling shutter to be an issue at all

This is the best I've seen so far: EDIT - I thought you meant A7s, sorry!!

I'm loving my A7s as well. Sweet video.. I wonder, though, if the A7s is necessary for this kind of work. It seems to be a retro throwback, and you were looking to achieve a vintage music video look and make it look more like video. I think the best thing to do is just use the technology of that time to achieve that look, insofar as you can. Like my friend shot a music video in 8mm film and I was like "how did you get that 8mm vintage look?" And she was like "Uh, I used an 8mm vintage camera." Here's a music video I shot a couple years back using the FS700 (didn't have control of color or post, but many of the effects we achieved in camera anyway).