Leaderboard

Think its best to let it go. I dont know how many times I've seen the argument that the biggest filmmakers, biggest producers of nature films, TV etc is just "less informed", " don't know better" or "unaware" of the awesomeness that is low bitrate, low DR, bad RS but surprisingly overly sharp image from a consumer stills camera.

So true. I share the exact same opinion. the race for resolution is somehow a non-sense. For cinema most of the times we deliver in 2k dci standard (flat or scope). So 4k maybe it's good for reframing, digital pans and tilts, but not much more. I rather have a camera with good motion color science dynamic range, etc than this resolution race.

Graduate film shot with Zeiss Super Speeds on S16mm Kodak Vision 3 250D & 200T along with some marco shots on a 5D mkIII with ML Raw. It was made about two years ago but has been going through festivals until now.

"Just do it in post, same thing, saves a ton of time just shooting a master"

Agreed. my wife is a film editor and much prefers working with filmmakers who go out and shoot exactly what they want, rather than gathering a bunch of material to be sorted out later. One of the first features she cut, the director asked "why didn't you use the close up here?" my wife's answer was, "you didn't shoot one." and the director's replied, "then punch in on the 2 shot." now she has a scene with these reframed close-ups and every now and then the other actor's nose creeps into frame. she did the best she could but it's still awkwardly composed. I realize for Sekhar covering an event is one thing, because he has no second takes. But shooting narrative benefits from specificity. unless you *are* on the level of david fincher and all the post resources he has available to him, this approach will start to undermine the experience of the movie. similar to deciding you wanted to slow a shot down in post back when all we had available to us was "frame blending" to smooth it out. few things signaled "digital video" louder. optical flow brings us much closer, but it's still better to do it in camera. and to have the vision to know that you need it that way.

I'm going to make a few more comments on settings. I did some testing and confirmed that Natural (-5,-5,-5,-5) gave best results in terms of noise in the blue and red channels. Also, I did a test for WB(A3,G3)- this makes sense to pull away from blue because the blue channel seemed to fall below 0%, green did pop up a little too much though and I might try A3,G2 instead. Finally, I'll be shooting with zebras set at 100% rather than 105% due to banding in the blue channel when clear sky is present. I think the top 5% has very little latitude and that's why banding was present. I've been slapping filmconvert (KD P400 Ptra, grain at 0) and it seems like a stellar image. For audio, I have my Zoom H1 with a cheap omnidirectional lapel mic with a small cord that I place next to the subject. So far, so good.

I wrote Gordon and here's his answer (thank you for the quick reply):

It seems like it's a bit bottom heavy since it always wants to roll back to center. I'd move the body up slightly, which may make the tilt a bit off. Sometimes you'll just have the mind the best comprise and let the motors do the rest. For what it's worth, I made this on the ronin-m with no lens mount and an unbalanced camera. It was my first shoot and I didn't have a chance to read on balancing. It still performed pretty well.

Ive had the same cameras as you use to wow your friends. I've also had several 4K cameras that outshoot it in every way. Still 4K isn't anything more than a feature in my book. Dontvsee what exactly it is that I/we don't get? Isn't it just that I/we have a different opinion than you? Isn't that OK? I just don't see how you could be "right" and we just "don't get it". (speaking of blind tests )

I got 2 GX85's for a specific project, so I can attest to the brand loyalty thing. I've used Panasonic cameras for a long time and brand comfort makes the choice to buy-in to a new camera for this gig a bit easier. Plus, the dang things are ridiculously cheap. That said, I still think the 5-axis in the Oly EM5II is just a touch better than what Panasonic is offering; industry leading. However, there's a caveat: that's only when using non-OIS lenses. If you have a Pany OIS lens paired with the Panasonic sensor stabilizer, it's really good. I'm also really loathe to turn away from the ergos of my EM5II. I'm surprised that I connected so much to the EM5II, to be honest, but I do love how it just works. If only Oly had better motion picture IQ...

The Panasonic team in Osaka have been very good to us over the last few years. Now the GH5 is imminent, EOSHD takes a look at what makes the series so great and what to expect for the new model. Read the full blog post

Tiffen 4X4 Nds I stack NDs when outside to keep an f2.8 of f2 stop all the way so buy ND 2,4,8,16 those four cover it all !

yes I mentioned that in a post a few months back - you can turn the head upside down on the Gini Rigs follow focus and that corrects the Nikon reverse focus issue its very easy to do and I have shot an entire feature film like thta on all my 6 rigs The Film City matte box works well with the Nikons I use them on the Nikon 28-70mm it has 4x4 filter trays I always used Tiffen NDs I have 4 Nikon Metabones XL and 4 active Canon EF Metabones XLs that I used on the movie you can buy the Gini Rigs Follow focus here this is the exact ones I am using : https://www.ginirigs.net/product/ifocus-follow-focus/

Thanks, man but I got it working a little while back. I had to move my source files to a new folder and it started working again. Apparently, just based on the Adobe Premiere forums, there are several people who've run across this problem and its related problem, no audio import for video files. The solution was either to clean the Media cache or move the source files to a new folder. There is also another bug where the Preview runs much more slowly now than 2015.2. The solution there is to untick the newly-added option: Edit > Preferences > Media > Un-tick "Enable accelerated Intel h.264 decoding"

No just use reusable cable ties , they undo and then reconnect , you don't need to cut them off ever

8mm does for sure, but good luck finding one or modifying it. 9mm wont, it's 2/3 inch.

hahaha

I certainly hope you are not refering to the panel in the video posted in this topic.

Ahhh the 4K discussions. They always bring out a lot of emotion! It's a tool, like anything else. Very useful at times. Less so at other times, depending on what it comes at the expense of. I make use of re-framing alot with weddings, because things happen fast and you don't always get the chance, or even the placement, for perfect framing. Having that security is welcome. I also quite like it with low budget talking heads, because you can get 2 angles in one shot. I also concede that my frame of reference is watching things on a 24inch 1080p monitor from 3 feet away. Perhaps a larger, 4K monitor would blow me away and the difference would be obvious. Even if it's more detailed, it's hard for me to see *good* 1080p (ie: C100/300, bmpcc, downscaled 4k etc..) and see it as not good enough. From my perspective, that's plenty detailed and more would simply be a bonus. I don't think you can ever have too much, to the point that it's detrimental, because there will always be certain filters and lenses that can take the edge off. But yeah, 1080p BMPCC raw image beats 4K GH4 image pretty much 10/10 times. Resolution certainly isn't everything, and becomes exponentially unimportant past a certain point. I *really* cannot imagine caring that much to jump from 4K to 8K with video.

Well shoot fellows... if the couple of us that ordered stuff from Pixapro had waited just a few days longer we would have gotten a lot better deal! The pound is tanking right now after the Brexit vote. So it's probably a good time to buy if anyone's still on the fence.

When the Pocket camera went on sale for $500 I bought that and then I bought the Voigtlander 17.5mm and 42.5mm f0.95 lenses and stopped using my GH2 for a few months. When I needed to shoot a concert I pulled out my GH2 (with flomotion hack) and threw on a Voigtlander lens and I was blown away. The GH2 looked amazing with those lenses and made me fall in love with the camera all over. While the Pocket is great for a lot of situations like exterior shots and RAW landscape B-Roll, the usability of that camera is garbage and now the Pocket camera just shuts off randomly. I'll put in a battery fresh off the charger and in minutes it goes to 25%, then back up to 50%. I mean I guess the issue could be the batteries, but my GH2 batteries are older and don't have these issues. At this point I'm considering buying a second GH2 since they are only a few hundred bucks. This way I could use both of those for interviews and the Pocket for B-Roll.

Good to know, will try this as well. I second your findings about KD P400 Ptra including grain at 0 - thats exactly the setting I used for the shots i showed one page before.

Face-aware in PS is cool. Portrait Pro is amazingly useful (can even fix makeup in post): http://www.portraitprofessional.com/ Adobe has never really put much emphasis on performance or stability: feature bloat wins the day in the boardroom. This means that the folks in business and product development have advised engineering to bloat-it-up vs. improve stability and performance. If this is a wrong assumption, then epic fail on the bug fixes! PP CC is now so slow and buggy, it has 'jumped the shark' and is not really usable for 4K material (C300 II, A7S II, and 1DX II footage). On the exact same hardware, FCPX is mostly smooth as butter, and very rarely crashes. So even though the NVidia drivers are buggy too, FCPX seems to be doing a better job working around them (as I have done back when I wrote a lot of Windows audio/video software). Photoshop, Illustrator, and Audition (and AE for simple effects else way too slow) are useful tools. Acrobat DC doesn't crash, however it's unbelievably slow (hint: turn off font smoothing while editing PDFs). Premiere gets useful new features along with incredibly time-wasteful bugs, and either doesn't get faster or gets slower. At first I thought maybe 2015.3 was slightly faster, however after using it on a medium complexity project, it's much slower and far buggier. I know there's also problems with NVidia GPU drivers, however I haven't changed them, so the extra bugs and slowdowns are Adobe's. These issues have come and gone, for many years. I thought changing back to a GTX770 would help as perhaps my 980ti has hardware issues, however that doesn't appear to be the case: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/wierd-issues-with-cmp-gtx-980-ti-and-premiere.1966577/. Note that in Windows 10 I haven't gotten any BSODs, however it's slower than OSX (CUDA. OSX lately is faster with OpenCL). Also note that Resolve hasn't done anything weird with GPU accelerated effects or crashed (have only done basic C300 II, 1DX II, and A7S II tests). PP CC in 2014- same issues- Windows/Mac different GPUs, doesn't matter, clearly PP CC bugs: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1515611 FCPX will need some plugins to get closer to PP CC basic features; I think it's time to bail on PP CC. EDIT: in order to finish a PP CC project in progress, I installed an older BETA version of the NVidia drivers (first one for 10.11.5 here): http://www.macvidcards.com/drivers.html . The theory is the Adobe developers write their code based on drivers available when they started the bug fixes. They tend to 'lock' code based on said drivers, so that by the time the product finishes QA and is released, it may actually work better on the now older (even BETA) drivers. Surprisingly and thankfully, the older BETA drivers are at least usable with PP CC 2015.3 (still buggy, but can make progress on project). So, to be fair to Adobe, while the glitches and bugs are annoying and hurt creativity, they can usually be worked around and aren't show stoppers. The show-stopping performance bugs are clearly related to the NVidia drivers (Windows and OSX).

i kno rite. luckily im a subscriber so i can always have the LATEST bugs!! i havent had a chance to get into premiere yet but im v happy to see color range secondary adjustments in lumetri and the proxy worflow is much needed for photoshop users there are some nice new features, like content aware crop, and if you use liquify a lot to work on images of people this is dope

C mounts won't focus to infinity on the nx500... I know... I tried. They are cool macro lenses on it though. I don't think there's a list on here for micro 4/3... Other than the c mount list for the BMPCC. Might be a good place to start. Or try Flickr.

It's amazing how many people twist to how they like it what the OP was asking.

The $20 fujian 35mm f1.7 covers APS-C so that might be a good and cheap start.

Is DIS off?

I've just added my Magic Lantern RAW video camera test for the 50D in the "Shooting" section if anyone wants to check it out: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20129-ml-raw-video-50d-camera-test/

You forgot a very very important point: Autofocus. Panasonic really lacks a good AF and if we could have a similar AF as A6300 that would be really awesome. Just because of this I will hesitate between 5d4 and GH5

The XC-10 305Mbit/s codec is nothing extraordinary, it's just another intra frame (ALL-I like codec), the 1Dc and 1DX mk2 have higher bit rate, although not 4:2:2 color, but the image out of them look so much better. I can't really understand what you find appealing in XC-10? My experience with it left me with a bitter taste, the 4K image is very soft (more like 2,5K), DR is BAD, nowhere near 12 stops, the AF is slow and the combination of a small senor and fixed dark lens makes the image very uncinematic, and above all the price is unrealistic + the price of the Cfast cards is very high. I also can't wait for the GH5.

a7rII's AF is much better than the a7sII, the PADF array covers most of the sensor and it does a good job tracking subjects, face detection stays locked on for a high percentage of shots when the subjects face is visible, even at wide apertures. Lots of test videos show it effectiveness. S35 4k means you can use smaller APS-c lenses, the 16-50pz is a great small option. Olympus or the GX85 are your only other IBIS options.

I ave tried it and it is great. I was hoping that playback of original files will be better - it still uses only CPU on 100% (which is pretty annoying) even I have GTX960 with full HEVC support... I will report it as bug again. However - proxy feature is big step forward (even Sony Vegas has this few years ago)

Discussions like this really frustrate me because they're academic and digress into specs and possibilities. Every time there's a tech advance, the first reaction of many is to say they aren't impressed, as if that puts them on a higher pedestal than the mortals who are easily pleased. 4K? It's really about DR. High DR? It's about color. Great color? For pros, it's ergonomics. Everything? Camera doesn't matter. Full equipment? It's not about gear. Etc. Heck, I've seen people ridiculing the excitement over the first Internet browser Netscape (remember that?). Going back to the OP, if you read my first response, I mentioned Cronenweth on the video talking about the advantages of 4K that I mentioned. I didn't make that up: it's from the same video. It may not fit the narrative on this forum, but it was actually said. 4K is NOT about higher res folks, even when you deliver in HD. It's about giving you choices in post WRT stabilization, framing, camera moves, etc. I just put a video on another thread that has video from NX500 (a very low end 4K camera) cropped to be HD. NO extra res there, just HD, but you see a tight crop and framing that would have been impossible using a HD camera without additional lenses. And I was specifically comparing it (and NX1) with an actual HD camera BMMCC, not engaging in an academic discussion. My point is that today you can buy a 4K at comparable prices and get the advantages I mentioned, which directly addresses the OP. May be BMMCC's claimed 13 stops DR and RAW do shine, but I don't see evidence of that (not that it doesn't exist). Specs matter squat if the result is garbage.

In my opinion a big downside to shooting 4k in the prosumer price range is the rolling shutter is typically much worse when compared 2k/HD. I personally find rolling shutter to be one of the most annoying aspects to shooting on cmos sensors. While nice to have, resolution probably falls somewhere after accurate colors, good dynamic range, bit depth/image fidelity, and a lack of difficult to repair artifacts such as rolling shutter, moire, or aliasing. Limited resolution really doesn't matter much to me and can be flattering in a lot of situations.

Agreed, but I just don't see evidence of that, which is why I asked for specific examples comparing the two (either directly or indirectly). The videos I saw on YouTube show neither a better DR (in fact some videos are just awful) nor better colors (it's not easy to judge that however given all the grading that happens in post). NX1 actually produces some great colors as well, it's not just about resolution. Bottom line, specs are one thing and results are something else altogether, so it's not enough to just say BMMCC has great colors and DR and end the discussion.

Thanks to both of you for these responses...they help a lot!

I work at a school and all the kids edit on Macbook Airs. This proxy workflow is going to be great as well as the new hardware decode support, those laptops cant deal with 50mbps XAVC-s let alone 100mbps gh4 stuff. Now I just have to set the project up once and it will give them an optimised experience when I give them a copy to work on

Show me how HD produced with BMMCC is better than HD from 4K shot by NX1 (which I presume is what you're implying here), and I'll agree. I've seen some real crappy video from BMMCC that looks like mush compared to video from NX1, but may be I just saw the wrong video. There is a technical case to be made for shooting in RAW that will save you in post for some extreme exposures, but again this seems more like an academic issue than something that you have use for regularly in real life. Certainly not with controlled lighting. Again, please show specific and real life examples of how BMMCC is better than NX1, and I'll change my opinion. I mean this sincerely, not being sarcastic.

I guess it depends on the price range you had in mind, but the reason we're even discussing 4K vs HD is precisely because we get such high quality 4K for so little these days. I shoot regularly with NX1 and NX500; both produce fantastic 4K and neither cost me a pretty penny. I actually bought the NX500 for some $350 for crying out loud.

Thanks so much! I actually considered to use text to make it a fake credit sequence :D Maybe I'll be able to use it for some future scifi movie

I traded in my GH4+Odyssey combo for a Blackmagic Micro and couldn't be happier. My days of wrestling with a camera to do what I want are behind me.

For me resolution is nowhere near the top of the list of what makes a good image. When I compared the 4K NX1 and RX100iv to the 5Ds HD Raw, the Canon won. The BMPCC or Bolex runs circles around GH4s and Sonys, imo. Same thing happens with still cameras. Plus I don't know how many times I've done blind tests and not even the biggest 4K evangelists of this and other forums can tell the difference. Now, if we have HD vs 4K and all else is equal, both shooting Raw, wide DR, nice color science, etc.. Then 4K might come in handy. But its not needed for any of the work I do personally. Not until its a standard, and thats years from now. So with that said, I still buy HD cameras and have gone back and forth from 4K many times.

The interpoliation of frames - how it combines them and yes, sensor readout - but the smoothness of a frame into the next. That to me seperates cameras just as much as other things such as skintones. The C300 has a blockiness and harshness to it, to me that doesn't feel organic. Cameras I feel are organic in motion is the Canon 1dx, digital bolex, and blackmagic micro camera. The FS7 and the Ursa Mini 4.6k also feels blocky and unnatural. There is a science behind it all that I don't understand, I just know what I like unfortuately. Not to discredit these cameras - I have seen amazing things out of them. I just have a particular aethestic.

Just finished upgrading to 2015.3 and none of my NX1 MP4 video files are read as Video files. Instead, they show up as Audio files. This worked fine in 2015.2. Anyone run across this? Can I just downgrade to 2015.2?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Century-0VS-07CV-HDS-0-7x-Wide-Angle-Converter-Sony-HDR-FX1-HVR-Z1U-W-O-Box-/351748782726?hash=item51e5dc7a86:g:2yQAAOSwiCRUfNMx You would have to write the seller...both mine are marked with a white sticky label that says for Z1U only...I believe it was a sony pro camcorder...on the wide end of the lens rim (outside) it's marked PRO SERIES HD 0.7X WIDE ANGLE CONVERTER CENTURY OPTICS U.S.A. A heavy optic...very high quality...these are new and a ridiculous price...changes every lens you put it on to 30% wider. I bought 5 or 6 cheap Chinese 77mm sky filters, removed the rear bayonet and used J&B Weld to glue the filter rings on after removing their glass....Buy more filters than you think you'll need..you have to build your mount up sufficiently to clear the rear elemant...Iuse it like this with my large Nikons and step up to 77mm with my FD's and Sigma 18-35 F1.8...hope this helps ...

^ doubt it's a regional thing.. for example the Full Sail University (FL) tech package consists of an FS5. if you're producing 4K (which most TV productions aren't) then FS5/FS7 really is the only place to go within the under $8K run&gun/doc/ENG cameras. they're definitely out in the wild, NYC homie shot this on a FS7 couple weeks ago:

Wouldn't trust my a7s2 as far as I could throw it.

Hey Fritz, I think, Andy Lee was talking about a 0.8 by century optics. Question is, if it fits fullframe lenses and there are so my converters by century out there. So which one exactely? Maybe 0.7 is the limit anyway for a compromise of effect and quality. By the way, bidding on one Andys many and great lens recommendation very soon. Who hasn´t though?:) Well, with the EVF of the G6 focussing on distances from 5m (15ft) on with wideangles can be tricky, since it´s hard to see. Doesn´t help that punch in focussing magnification doesn´t seem to work when filming.