Leaderboard

People talk some nonsense on here about stuff they clearly don't do. I shoot drone footage... I shoot alot with the goPro in narrow mode to avoid the awful fisheye. It is roughly 30mm eqv, so the guy laughing about using a 35mm eqv is talking shite.... Especially when you realise the XC10 is actually 27mm eqv Then the guy saying it would need a rig similar to that capable of holding an Epic. The XC10 is 2.3lb fully kitted, slightly heavier than a gh4 with lens. We have rigged up GH4s and BMPCC on a Droidworx 4 rotor many times. Now whether the GH4 is better will be determined by V-log and rolling shutter tests... but impossible to say, at this point, that GH4 is better. 12 stops and 4:2:2 will take some beating... and I think the smaller sensor will help rolling shutter... time will tell.

​If you want to make a commercially viable film - of course you have to be held up to the same standards. Have you ever been to a movie and though 'well that looked and sounded like utter sh*t, but hey - they didn't have the same budget, so I guess it's great that they tried'? Those who spend years honing their craft are able to make professional quality projects on much smaller budgets than you would think. You've chosen to be a jack of all trades, rather than hone in on one specific skillset - you could do so and be able to compete with the 'big boys' or even develop a network of people who you can call upon to help you with your no/lo budget projects. Your argument strikes me as being this: I'm a DIY builder. I love to build stuff in my spare time. I particularly like to build chairs that hopefully people will be able to sit on. Here's the thing though - there's builders out there who have done apprenticeships and been working for a very long time and they make these amazing chairs that everyone loves and are perfectly sturdy enough to sit on. Why am I expected to be able to make chairs that are good enough, and sturdy enough, for people to be able to sit on, when I haven't spent years working to be a builder?? ​Why would a sound engineer want the ability to change the colour of the film in their software? I'm sure as a Director, the last thing you would want is the dialogue mixer accidentally screwing with the colour of your film, or your colourist accidentally changing the sound mix.. Imagine all the potential issues if everyone had to work from one project file on one piece of software... ​I don't understand - are you saying that software companies should make one 'post software to rule them all' in addition to all their other seperate, job-specific, stand-alone software..? ​Of course it does - the only thing it doesn't necessarily need to be able to do is apply 'funky' looks via some sort of 'filter bank' a la Instagram. AVID actually has quite powerful Colour Correction tools. In terms of being 'lied to' - the problem lies in the fact that companies like Apple, Adobe, Blackmagic - in general they're targetting the consumers who have throwaway cash to spend on what can often be boiled down to essentially a hobby - and so of course they're going to try and wring out as much cash as possible. It's like the gimmicks they use to sell TVs et al. Professionals see right through that because they have a much deeper knowledge and understanding, whereas the consumers who have this as a hobby are continually looking for that something 'better' that's going to make their footage and films look and sound as good as someone who's spent 25 years honing their skills, as quickly and easily as the push of a button.

@Jonstaf Your EOSM is a great camera, and you can significantly extend its capabilities by loading Tragic Lantern onto it. I use TL on my EOSM to boost the bit rate and to shoot all "I" frames with H264. Here is an extreme test I did with the EOSM, TL and, mostly, the quirky Fujian 35mm f1.7 CCTV lens. Although I pushed the EOSM past it's DR limits (obvious FPN and just plain old noise), note that there is significantly reduced compression artifacting. Also, the strange focal plane of that c-mount Fujian 35mm really "pops" with an APS-C camera, such as the EOSM. Here is a better example of the Fujian's wonkiness on an EOSM (shot by maxotics). Other great things about the EOSM line, is that there is a focal reducer for it that gives almost a 1:1 crop factor (in addition to extra brightness) and that there are tilt and tilt-shift adapters for it, if one desires interesting focus effects or if one merely wants to Scheimpflug. Of course, with the shallow flange-focal distance of the EF-M mount, there are zillions of lenses that can be adapted to the EOSM. To me, it is sometimes more valuable than 4K and high dynamic range to have the TL build combined with the ability to use these special attachments and a huge variety of lenses.

Check out Hitfilm 3. It is effectively both Premiere and After Effects.

It's unfortunate that so many of the replies here come from a spec sheet formed opinion. I personally couldn't afford to invest in this camera, however if i were an artist/film maker who values the benefits of true monochrome, or one who's art practice is purely in b+w this is definitely the cheapest option. It's sad that so many seem to compare this to the bmpcc and the currently not released bmmcc. It's also sad that it seems ISO's are more important than image quality to strong mouthed eoshd-ers. Rag the hell out of a b+w sensor and i imagine the grain is rather pleasing - as it is when you rag monochrome film. it;s only colour noise that looks nasty. film grain looks lush

Hi everybody, my first comment on this forum, very nice to meet you. I like Andrew's review for EOS M3, and I find it to the point and I find very useful the videos "Japanese Garden" and the "Studio Test Scene". Well I am from the first who bought EOS M3 body from Amazon Japan at under $500 with free EVF included. I already have a Nikon D800 and when I compared it with EOS M3 in movie mode side by side, I was impressed to see that the EOS M3 video is much more clear and full of details than this of D800. After I liked the freedom that M3 gives me: small size, tilting screen, standard external microphone port, focus peaking that make manual focus quick, and a variety of lenses to choose from Canon, or Nikon, or legacy Pentax, Tamron etc. You cannot find all these at this price. Not even an external microphone port unless you go more over $1.000. I also want to inform other M3 users that if you search the settings in "Picture Style" you will get a movie output much more rich in details: not only remove sharpness but remove contrast as well. But I was really surprised to see that magnification assist for MF doesn’t work in movie mode, while it offers focus peaking, which is related and has to work together with MF assist. I hope that they fix this, it is crazy: every time i want to fine focus or to check the accuracy of the focus peaking, I have to: rotate the selector from movie to photo mode> fine focus>rotate again the selector to movie mode. In general am happy with this camera and for this I made a short "Low Light High ISO Movie Test" which i can share with you: Chipped and unchipped lenses were used for shooting the samples of this movie, which are: 1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 non-Ai (adapter used). 2. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A). 3. Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX II for Nikon (adapter used). 4. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF for Canon. And here is a picture of EOS M3 with the lens: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A). With this long lens, the first clips of the movie test were shot: Best Regards!

The best skill is learning how to learn ;). In first time testing, Hitfilm was much easier to figure out vs. AE and more importantly, much faster. Because AE is so slow and archaic, I only use it as a last resort. AE is long overdue for a rewrite and GPU update. PPro can already use many AE plugins- hopefully Adobe will roll AE functionality into PPro soon.

​Agreed. I mean, take the runway scene in the previous one... I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh or cry it was so bad. Just... why? I mean, I get it... take a Blade Runner. It's obviously not (meant to be) real according our understanding of what's real to us, but atleast it has rules applied to its own realm that aren't being broken. But just because something is a movie, doesn't mean I can throw away every rule that applies to reality, especially if the foundation is that it takes stage in ours. I'd rather like to being able to realate to it (yes, I just made that word up). So it's like you say, they started out in the real world, with real probable scenarios and now it's just some mumbo jumbo action with little regard to realism. Atleast The Avengers or Transformers created a world with a different set of rules and I do love me some dumb fast pacing and XPLOSIONZ!!1! movie once a while though.

And with Premiere you're pulling a lot of hair out trying to learn anything lol

Hi Tupp That's a beautiful video. The only thing that interests me is the beauty of the footage I can get. I think the Panasonic is truly impressive, but the EOS M is a fantastic tool in its own way. From what I've seen the Fujian lens is also great when you play to its strengths. I don't regard 4K as particularly important in my own work at this stage, but flexibility is a different matter. In order to be able to use old C-Mount lenses that will only cover a tiny sensor, I bought a GoPro 4 with the intention of doing the Backbone mod, so 4K might be a factor then, as it can be turned into lovely 1080p footage -the trade-off is the the ProTune settings are still pretty inflexible. Another great thing about the Canon is that I can shoot long scenes without it overheating, which is very important for the type of filming that interests me.

​I don't know what tempted you to react in such a condescending way to a forum member - as a moderator -, but it could be worth the effort to find out. Must have to do with our self-perception as filmmakers (in the broadest sense), and that's the point of this thread as I see it.

Firstly, I think its your writing that's jumbled and unclear. Start with a central point first, then add sentences as supporting arguments. Secondly, my comment was not elitist. It's just that you are insecure about your skills and felt attacked personally when I explained the difference between putting a LUT and color grading. Using a LUT is like choosing a film stock...DOPs have been doing it for decades, it gives a specific look to the whole film....color grading is a further shot-by-shot adjustment of color and tone..its about deciding the look of each shot individually, guiding the eye within each shot, and colorists have been doing it for decades too. These two processes are complementary to each other and are optional to every filmmaker. You do not NEED to color grade. You do not NEED to have a LUT either. You don't even NEED lights in your film if you can shoot in natural light, how you distribute your time and budget across a production is always your choice and really what filmmaking is all about. In your case I'd also allocate some budget for emotional therapy before you step on the set though...

Exactly, it's this weird entitlement that I can't figure out. It's like someone is holding a gun to his head to produce Hollywood visuals and he complains how hard it is...as if respect and glory are some human rights being denied to him and should be given automatically instead of being earned with years of hard work. Bizarre. Its simple...if you don't have skills...if you don't want to have the skills...and if you don't want to get someone on your team who has the skills...then don't worry about expectations, I doubt anyone will expect much from you.

Why not? Not every surgeon is a millionaire, so a professional colorist might work with expensive hardware at his full-time job at a post company, and cheaper/no-hardware at home for freelance gigs, but he/she will still use SpeedGrade or DaVinci as software because thats where the core skill is. I think you are overestimating Adobe Dynamic Link....you may edit a short film or a music video with ease on it, but try anything really complex and it becomes unworkable. This is why large projects still use XML and EDL formats, because they work.

​The original Fast and Furious was basically a cop show about a guy infiltrating an illegal racing gang and bonding with them in the process, essentially a bad "Pointbreak" with cars, but at least it was a real movie about real people.

Yeah, I just hope the next Indiana Jones isn't about aliens again...

Your point would hold more weight if the original fast and furious wasn't an awful movie. At least the new ones have spectacle. Way more than I can say about the franchise before Fast 5

Why can't people wrap their head around the idea that their needs are not the same as others. One of my needs is for a very light, high quality 4K camera that can fit on a small quad copter... hex at the most. Canon checked alot of my boxes,,, Though rolling shutter will need to be tested, The BM Micro is also very interesting to me, yet wont tick many boxes for you narrative guys, yet no tears about that. Big cameras like the FS7 don't do it for me, as I travel and shoot as light as possible... I don't sit and moan about Sony though, just because it is not for me.

​IMHO, Apple was about to collapse when they cared and looked after the professional segment and now they are focused on "universal" products for the masses. It makes sense, it is in line with the rest of their strategy and the numbers say that so far it is right path for them. The target group who buys iPhones and iPads (which is a large group) is not comprised of pro editors and colorists. They are much more comfortable with an amateur -yet powerful- tool like FCP X. Same applies to the new Mac Pro. Nothing in that machine makes sense to a pro, but it is very powerful and appealing to a prosumer or wannabe with money -no offense intended-. Adobe has followed the opposite path, making their tools for pros and trying to carefully separate each craft and overlap them just the right amount. In fact, I've always had the feeling that Lightroom should have been the natural evolution of Photoshop. But since Photoshop -and not Photoshop Elements- is such a commonplace program in the hands of every amateur (using only 10% of its potential), Lightroom has become the "pro" tool. I personally have no problem with having a different program for every craft. They are all included in the suite and it allows small production companies to work as a team with a few licences each doing "their thing" in a compatible software environment that allows certain overlapping and feedback.

Lol drone usage at a FF equivalent FoV of roughly 35mm? Live event coverage at f5.6 on a 1" sensor? Oh but please gimme broadcast ready 50mb in a prosumer cam.

I'm looking forward to the day when After Effects and Premiere merge into one program (if possible). Dynamic Link is pretty nice, but it's still extra steps.

I disagree, - even blockbusters were alot more grounded before, look at the original Jurassic Park for example, - aside from the cloning the dinosaurs the film was strongly grounded in reality..not a single human in that film ever challenged a dinosaur and lived...whereas in the new Jurassic World reboot I fully expect the main character to uppercut the T-Rex at some point...I mean..look at the poster... ...he already tamed the damn Velociraptors. Its just bizarre.

​Never was. That's always been the point of the place.