Leaderboard

I just wanted to share a fun passion project I just finished for an artist named "Fleurie". We shot all this in my living room and I did all the VFX in Apple Motion 5. Shot 4k with a7SII but delivered HD (my computer wouldn't handle 4k 3d graphics well). Just thought I'd share! Let me know if you have any questions about it. I had fun making it

Here's one way to get the camera close to a realistic skin tone.

wouldn't be nice to have the nx1 tech inside a d750 nice body with a ff sensor at hearth? just saying.

there's been some speculation that the next D6xx would basically be D750, and that the next D7xx would have a more pro body (a la D700). I think it's very safe to assume the next FX cams will all have 4K as the D5/500 released this year implement it. Hopefully they add peaking and more robust codec options but somehow Nikon R&D seem slow to push forward in video department.

Use only proven spec to ensure cameras work well is one thing. Cripple a 3500$ camera just to protect your 10k$ one is another. Why not adding C-Log for example? Is that something that will put in danger the 5D reliability....? stop defending Canon when they do shit.

Oh man, would I like that 1608 x 904 RAW bayer on my CF card I didn't shoot much 1080p on the 1D C, but I did compare the 4K to the C100's 1080p and obviously the 1D C is the superior image, with much less aliasing. This was shot at ISO 12,800 - you also get a finer noise grain in 4K which is more film like and translates to less noise overall when downscaled to 1080p in post.

Television only appears to be currently much better than film if you limit what you watch to mainstream American features. The only one of those I'd rate in the top ten of the year it released is Gravity. I'd also disagree with the assessment of Hateful Eight as basically a super hero film - it has much more in common with theatre and slow burn horror (looking at you, The Thing).

Since TV became popular in the 1950's, cinema has been playing catch up to lure back its audience...employing cinemascope, Todd AO and other large format experiences to give people sights and sounds that they simply could not get at home on their square black and white box. Now, an average home cinema setup can deliver image and sound fidelity that is light years ahead of any developments made in mass cinema presentation. A bluray is not a huge jump in quality from a theatrically mastered DCP, even 4K projection does not 'wow' the general audience enough to book a babysitter, drive 10 miles and spend a premium on ticket prices. 3D/4D/IMAX/HFR are all recent examples of cinemas trying to offer an experience that can not be mimicked at home...at least not as well. But we are in a time now where the quantity (or quality) of content for theatrical 'experiences' are not prevalent enough to warrant expensive overhauls in laser projection systems or a return to the days when a screening would physically be at a larger scale - before auditoriums got sliced up into multi screen multiplexes. This can be seen as a marker of when cinema started to be downscaled and be made to rival the revenue from competing home-based media (VHS/BETA etc). Hollywood (for the most part) are still milking the udders of the comic book movie cash cow. Often with clear intentions of shaping movies to appeal to the chinese market....the days of breakout summer blockbusters such as Die Hard, Jaws, E.T are over (at least for now)...we are currently at the mercy of money men making and marketing movies, the theatrical experience is never a priority, they are looking at cross platform revenue to a rigorously test audience approved demographic. They are selling Pepsi and Happy meals. The few stand out films of recent memory are from Nolan, Tarantino, Cuarón - where they used their weight to push for a more 'throwback' cinematic experience...big screens, large formats...for content they shot to purposely be shown in that way. We need more of this...with strong stories that really impact the viewer when viewed on a 60ft screen. Lots of talent can be seen on TV these days, often giving audiences an opportunity of immersion into characters and situations over a season or run of seasons. But this is what film used to be able to achieve in under 2 hours!....before those scripts got dropped in development, over simplistic fighting robot stories. The talent is there, it's just made a nest in TV land until general audiences get tired of the same old shit being spoon fed to them. There seems to be backlash already happening with DC films of late, but annoyingly these films can 'flop' yet still make a billion dollars. Unfortunatly 150 x 1 million dollar indie films are not as an appealing prospect for a big studio to greenlight, as their opening weekend gross of a flagship franchise is what the business has become. 150 x 1 million dollar films would be what you could commision from one blockbuster film's budget - imagine the breakout films that you would (by the law of averages) uncover...maybe the next spielberg and Kubrick. I totally understand why some Directors are migrating to TV, they are simply following the audience shift that would have once been able to see that directors interesting work on a silver screen, but is now seemingly harder to do so. Sometimes this can be liberating for director and story to have a longer run than the 3 act restrictions of the feature film construct. I am totally hopeful that cinema will get its audience back...and win one over the streaming generation (if there is even one). It's hard to tell when the wheel will turn, but I have hope. There is a great opportunity to be had by both co-existing, but at the moment TV is kicking the ass of most hollywood releases in terms of character development, story and original tone....often because it is not trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but rather capture an audience and keep it loyal - the values of what used to make mainstream cinema great. Modern TV offerings often have comparable production values (and often star power) as that of feature films, often with lower budgets, which seemingly also make for an under reliance on visual effects to support a story - this can often lead to tasteful implementation of effects and used sparingly to support an interesting story. This reminds me of the good old early 90's where CGI was really hard and expensive to produce, so often only used sparingly to great effect....Jurassic Park,T2,Abyss etc. On the flip side, I sometimes wish Nolan, Tarantino, Cameron etc will stop lording their aesthetics and presentation methods - and simply make more engaging films to the viewer. If Nolan wants to retain the glory days of large format film acquisition and presentation - great, just give me a story with characters I give a shit about first. 3D blue elves in the next 100 Avatar films I would be excited about seeing in 3D IMAX, if I thought it was not going to be like watching an animated pocahontas TV show that is tied to a theme park development. Tarantino has already said he will likely retire in the near future and turn to TV...that could be interesting, his short form episodic style obviously works well for the medium (and of course he's done TV before). So binge-watching may be the new experience for now, I just personally think that is because there has been such a drought from mainstream cinematic offerings, and maybe the audience are so thirsty for story and character...a sizable audience has simply migrated to TV, for how long we will have to wait and see I guess.

The XC10 is an out and out pro camera. It looks a bit consumer but that's part of its appeal. It's for ENG and doc work where small, light and inconspicuous is desirable. The images it delivers are for pro use, not just because of the broadcast approved codec but the superb IS, the log profile, the low noise, the good if not perfect AF, the ND, the colour space, the 10 bit output, etc, etc. None of that is consumer targeted.

You do realise the same has been said about every Canon camera ever, and always by people who look at spec sheets first and never by people who shoot professionally day in day out? Canon charge a premium for their cameras based on their ability to deliver where it really matters for real world shooting. They're intentionally conservative on paper but no one produces solid all-round cameras like Canon. The XC10 was not created to please EOSHD readers. It's a pro tool for when a small inconspicuous shot grabber is needed. It delivers beautiful, true professional image quality with minimum fuss. There's room for improvement but coming from a BMPCC and GH4 it's ridiculous how little work I have to do and how much better and more useable the shots are.

It draws in a large audience, no doubt, maybe even more than a film these days, but I don't prefer it or anything. I've heard some filmmakers say they're "switching" to tv.. and that's just baffling to me. Maybe it can work that way for comedy or if you include mini-series as tv, but for me the best part of a film isn't the viewing experience or budget or anything, it's the ending. The Graduate, Reservoir Dogs, A Woman Under the Influence, The Departed, Primal Fear, Drive, etc - the ending is what makes the whole thing count, and shows you they were competent the entire time. And tv shows made without an ending in mind often flop when it counts. Most shows jump the shark, and the very end can be even worse. For Lost, the important part was definitely supposed to be the ending.. which turned out to be.. who even cares? it was so-so. Purgatory or something. The end of Dexter nearly killed the whole series for me. Breaking Bad, ugh. I'm slightly embarrassed to say I used to watch Pretty Little Liars, 80% as a joke, but I was curious who A was.. turns out it's no one! Or everyone.. the writers don't have a freaking clue, and it shows. Scenes From A Marriage is an amazing show, but if Bergman wrote the first episode and then let new writers swoop in and carry it to nowhere for 10 seasons.. and then try to end it with JUSTICE, kill me. Season 3 of Sherlock was a mess, made me wonder if any of it was ever good. Anyway, too many examples.. For a comedy, I don't care how it ends, especially if it's episodic, like Cheers - and those endings are so much easier, just pat yourselves on the back and say goodbye to your fans. I AM, however, very into Girls and Love. And to a lesser extent, You're the Worst and Casual. The genre those all fit under I think has real potential. Not sure what it is, but it's a great tone, very human, and I don't particularly care where it's heading. but again, none of them have ended.. I'm a little scared what may happen. And I have noticed a little drop in quality of Girls in some of the latest season episodes I think, but their good stuff is so good, I can forgive them. anyway, those are my 4 cents

Producing great color with the a7s II isn't that hard, You need great grading skills though. This was shot using slog 2 + slog 3.gamut (saturation to max and sharpness to -7), so most of the 8 bit range is kept, while still having a nice rolloff. Skintones were very hard to correct (completely green, thanks to the leaves). But results are great, achieved a really colorful look. Didn't use any LUT. Was shot in London, Epping Forest.

Canon 1DC. I've always been very impressed with its motion cadence. Have you tried using a 1/40 shutter speed? Many of us find it smooths out the GH4 motion a bit.

I've tried the XC10 briefly, it definitely has a cheapo feel to it imo. Nowhere near Cxxx / L glass build quality. I also believe it's not aimed at the same market. I kinda doubt ENG shooters use it with that form factor and no EVF. It does have some neat features, some only available on high-end C line gear (422 4K, the codec, C-log etc) but I was really disappointed with the hardware, specifically the slow fixed non-constant aperture lens paired to tiny sensor, unusable manual focus ring... So for me it's kind of a flawed product, especially at such high price point. That being said i see how some shooters may enjoy it, especially as a B-cam for daylight action/drone shots. But I doubt Canon sold a lot, I know my local camera store has been trying to blow them out, unsuccesfuly. Small fixed lens cams are kind of a niche market anyways. All that being said XC15 might fair better if indeed they at the very least improve the lens and add DPAF.

Nikon are slowly getting there... D5/D500 both released this year have 4K / Flat profile. D750 also introduced zebras. All that's really missing is peaking and stronger codec options.. the DR though is impressive for 8-bit DSLR.. But speaking of motion cadence, I really hated it on the D750. Lots of juddering on pans too (as with 5D3). Black Magic Raw/Prores, excellent motion. Strangely enough, I'm ok with my C100 's motion cadence even though it uses a shitty 24 mbps AVCHD codec. It has it's flaws but motion cadence i find is really good. Really don't know how they did it. So still kind of a mystery to me what science gives good/bad motion cadence..

In that case, I'd highly recommend ITV Studio's Shetland as shown by BBC.

Is binge watching new? I can remember binging on the first few seasons of 24 about 10 years ago. I guess it's more common now.

Awesome non-traditional vid! Also really enjoyed the song.

Colours looked lovely. That follow shot at the beginning of the trailer was pulled off really well.

The slow lens has it's advantages. For a start F5.6 in daylight isn't a problem. And with a 1" sensor it is never going to be the camera you pick over an A7S II in low light. Sure, a constant F2.8 would have helped by a couple of stops but you STILL would not pick it in low light over a full frame camera with F1.4 prime. So there's less point putting a faster lens on it than you might think - you just end up with a clunky big piece of glass on what should be a super-mini C300 Mk II. The main point of the lens is the 10x zoom, it's very handy. Also it's a much sharper and higher contrast lens than the Zeiss F2.8 10x zoom on the RX10, so again the F5.6 long end has the advantage of stopping the image getting mushy. The XC10 is the for me the ugly duckling that turned into a swan. It is one of the best daylight shot getting cameras I've ever used and has the best codec on the market under $2k and the best colour profiles... And no it isn't a RAW codec but RAW isn't always "the best codec" if you see what I mean (file sizes, workflow).

Great work and I really like the song!

Jase, I can't really recommend that setup as the zoom h1 is really sensitive to handling and wind due to the sensitivity of its microphones and the lightweight plastic body. I even tried using a rycote mount and I have a good deadcat (read head) for. It too. I eventually replaced it with the (discontinued) Sony ICDSX1000 which is smaller and more solid and had a built in USB connector and memory so I like that for convenience. That recorder will have the same challenges as any mounted on the camera (wind, handling, distance from camera). I usually use that recorder for lav input or using its built in stand and mics to record a concert, syncing with the gx80 scratch audio in post. I also have a used shure lenshopper with built in recorder if I want better ambient recording. i also got good results with the rode video micro with my old g7 which had an input (not so good with em5ii with noisier preamps). I'm still looking forward to getting my instamics via indigogo to make dual audio a little easier. If you are in the US look up the juiced link little DARling. Does the same thing as the tascam. Im also really looking for the instamic on indigogo to finally ship for a small good quality mic/recorder I can plant on things (like my kids).

For the 2011 grab 16GB via Crucial and then replace the HDD with a SSD and also replace the optical drive with another SSD or even a larger HDD or the existing HDD. Put OSX on the SSD and all your data on the HDD. This should speed up your machine considerably. Check this guide to get dual HDD in your machine.

Pretty much what I did. Almost no banding. After grading really nice and saturated colors with great skintones and rolloff.

Man, that looks like a lot of work. The space sequence was really cool.

Yup. Stupid patent laws. It is rediculous that this is stopping it being sold. So sad.

This thread reminds me I need to catch up on (read: binge on) "You're the Worst".

Exactly. Is it worth the difference? What do you want to do with your footage? A lot of people will go down a rabbit hole chasing superior IQ, and for some things that certainly makes sense. For other things...not so much. I've lost count of the number of videos I've seen that are unwatchable, but look great, knowhatimean? There's so much more than just IQ when it comes to crafting a successful production. Ohmygoodness, so so much more.

Ages. That's my mental association with anything Rode service related. Expect it. You will be tired and older when your issue is finally resolved. EDIT: EU customer.

Haven't seen either of those, but I've heard good things, I'll have to check em out. Yeah, I love everything by Cassavetes

I liked the look of the Sony ICD-SX2000 - but couldn't find much info on forums to how good the audio quality is - liked the form factor though at £200 odd was too expensive just to take a punt on

OMG. Thanks for this. I don't know how this has flown under my radar! ...oh...looks like this is why: "I then saw that before they were even released they were discontinued in the US. I did quite a bit of research and it looks like Zaxcom sued Tascam for patent infringement and Tascam had to stop selling them in the US. Zaxcom has a similar device but it's over $1000."

Rode is good for low budget equipment but in the end you get what you pay for, the Rode boompoles and the blimp are the worst I have ever used, recently I bought the new Boom Pro which is a Rycote rip off, and it is worst than the Rycote (there is a licensing thing going on I think). Now with the Rode-Rycote lyre co-operation the whole line is going up a notch. The mics are very good value for money, but after a year using continously their mics for work, when I went back to Sennheiser the sound felt right and the Sennheiser blimp, even thought a bit outdated and pricy, it does the job much better. K-Tek as well, in general, boompoles and blimp are a no go for me (I kept the boom pro because it is really light, and for easy tasks it can be ok, but for film/TV certainly is not). The dSLR kind of mics are very good value for money and very right (again, with the new Lyre system), and much better offerings than other companies, here Rode are pioneers. I would like to use the RodeLink, I haven't.

mercer mentioned a Takumar being radioactive. I think that's something everyone who gets into buying vintage lenses should be aware of- that some are radioactive and they should make an informed decision about buying them with that knowledge in hand. I fully understand many, perhaps most, of you are not at all concerned about the radioactivity of some of these lenses. But it might be something the OP wants to keep in mind.

He'd also need the old version of the Image App as Panastoopid disabled the "hack" with a new version of that too, soon after it was spotted. Regardless, V-Log was a travesty from start to finish. The wait. The cost. The wait. The hack. The wait. The box with a code in it. Then V-Log itself, which makes any flat surface look like the stained bedsheet of an incontinent pixel person with purple pee. And no, shooting in 10 bit doesn't clean things up the stains are still there they just look a bit less like pixel pee and more like real organic pee.

Yeah, it's the mystic and infamous 'motion cadence' (look it up). There's a lot of discussions out there. It's like conspiracy theories (aliens or what have you) or even religion. There's no real hard evidence of it, but people feel there's something to it and believe it's out there. I think there's more to it than just a camera. I think in certain conditions it might be more prone to show, but I'm also one to think there's something to it. Especially with CCD sensors or thick datastreams of information motion seems to be recorded a little nicer. Is there scientific hard evidence? I didn't really see any. Could it just be a placebo-kinda-thingie? Someone says they see it and you suddenly start to see it, although in all actuality it isn't there? Who knows, really. But it makes for an interesting topic of discussion, if anything.

Yeah it's a codec that is as old as the hills and over it. No place for it in a 2016 camera. 1D C in 2012 I could just about accept because it made for nice images. They are clearly crippling here... to protect the Cinema EOS range. If the XC10 can have 305Mbit/s XF codec for less than $2k then Canon can put it in their $3k DSLR... ZERO technical excuses! Panasonic had MJPEG for their 720p on the GH1, remember? It was considered the lower quality codec option even back in 2010!

Nikon 50mm f1.4, aperture f.2, iso 100, shutter speed 50. Original files.

http://blueringlab.com/2016/03/samsung-nx-mount-protocol-general/ http://blueringlab.com/2016/03/samsung-nx-protocol-boot-sequence-1/ http://blueringlab.com/2016/03/samsung-nx-protocol-boot-sequence-2/