Leaderboard

Just received my new XC15 with XLR attachments. Just threw this up after a hard day's work in the shop---so you can sample the quality of the audio. I also used the new Production Camera custom profile that is also in the Canon C300 M2. But this is just a sample of the audio for talking head stuff:

I don't generally watch vlogs, but the above video makes a pretty good case for them. I think if you go back to Bazin or even look at some of Lévi-Strauss and Sanders Peirce's ideas on semiotics that inform him and the Cahiers, you begin to reexamine what film is uniquely good at and why it became such a popular medium in the first place–and its strengths lie in its ability to record a convincing record of life, a recording of something that actually happened that feels real. Film shares this with audio recording and photography, but film takes it to another level. Unlike literature or painting or animation, it's not a symbol or a drawing, it's a record of something that actually happened in front of a camera. So way before you even worry about lighting or blocking or editing or even storytelling, what film does that's unique and remarkable is that it provides a lifelike and moving record of an event. Modern blockbusters move away from this tendency because they rely so heavily on CGI and animation and compositing that it begins to feel like a video game (which they're imitating; they share a common audience). I think you feel that modern blockbusters are different, and I definitely prefer action movies from before CGI became so commonplace because they feel more physical to me. Mad Max got a good reception because it was a bit more physical. Maybe part of the increasing appeal of MMA fighting (and historically the appeal of sports) is the you get back to that physicality. Now we're at that stage where the eight year old girl (or whatever Coppola said) finally has the resources to tell a story affordably with film. We'e got dSLRs and iPhones and we're making movies instead of just watching them. And I think two tendencies are emerging from that. One is to imitate what we're watching in theaters, and the other is sort of to break off from it. This website is definitely more for imitators, trying to get something that looks expensive for cheap. And I don't find any of the work I've seen posted on this website to be any more interesting than what it's imitating. Some is more technically adept than the rest, but mostly it's a bunch of music videos and montages meant to showcase a new lens or something and it's basically a bunch of camera tests. Which is cool, that's a cool hobby, and it's fun to engage with and it's good to know what gear is out there so you can do your thing–make art, money whatever with it, once you get bored with camera tests. So the work doesn't interest me, but it's still a worthy topic. Neither does vlogging interest me, and in fact it interests me less, but I still think it deserves respect because it's doing something new and unique and compelling. Hence the enormous emerging audience... Vlogging goes in the exact opposite direction, back toward cinema verité and away from blockbusters. And verité, unlike direct cinema, acknowledges the camera, which I think is sort of the film step in presenting "reality." Which, if you'd ask Bazin, is the point. Vlogging brings that to the next level. And yeah it's obnoxious like Michael Moore is obnoxious because the filmmaker becomes his own protagonist and you might not like him. But it's cool to watch stuff people are doing and imagine you're doing it. It's even cooler to imagine you're also the filmmaker recording it. And vlogs let you engage with content on both of those levels. Even something like Rocket Jump (which is more in the "imitating mainstream media" category than vloggers are) makes the entire process from funding to production to distribution transparent to the viewer and encourages the viewer to do it, too. So you're watching their content but separate from that you're relating to it as a potential filmmaker. To me, this is really cool. Most kickstarter campaigns are dumb money grabs, but with something like Rocket Jump it becomes an alternative form of financing that's communicating directly with the audience and that's cool. All the BTS elements there are cool. (The photography tutorials and stuff that pollute YouTube aren't–because 99% of them are just promoting horrible information and lowest common denominator aesthetics.) The BTS elements of vlogging remind me of a film nerd sneaking on set and reading Fangoria or American Cinematographer or watching the dvd deleted scenes... except it's going even way further than that. YouTube kind of fulfills the promise of verité, and to some extent realizes the potential of cinema itself on a very very basic level–even if the content is generally not my thing and I'd argue usually pretty awful. Snapchat and Vine do, too. More than that, they allow you to be the consumer and the producer, so you get a real community. But most people are boring. And most content is boring. If it's democratized, more of it will be boring. Painting wasn't great during the renaissance because it was cheap, you know? Painting got worse when it was democratized. So while I think your Snapchat or YouTube channel can be really banal and millennial and shitty and most of them are... that's the content, not the medium. The medium itself is really cool and there are some YouTube channels and Vimeo channels I enjoy and to trash the medium because most of it is garbage would make me a hypocrite because I really love some of it. I think if we feel alienated by these media it's a pretty boring response to just imitate an outdated one instead unless you really commit and say–okay, I'm holding myself to the standard of my heroes. I'm not content shooting with a camera that maybe they used or has the same resolution of one they used, I don't really care about that at all. I'm going to challenge myself to do with my resources better than they could do with them, or if not better than more personal to my vision. And that's the approach successful vloggers are taking. Like it or not, the cutting edge of documentary is YouTube and Snapchat. I'm not going to say vlogging is a better pursuit than shooting a documentary for the festival scene. I will say I think how you evaluate each has more to do with how you feel about its audience than anything else, and at that point it's a social issue, not a technical or theoretical or aesthetic one. Edit: I think this website produces some good camera tests, however. The "feel" of the image is more than its specs and going out and shooting with a given camera or set of LUTs gives you an interesting window into their potential that specs alone can't.

I shot this a couple months ago, and had a blast! It's always changing, but my anamorphic rig is getting more useable. Kowa 16-H (still amongst the best ana glass.) SLR Magic Rangefinder (could loose the blue blobs but otherwise does a great job.) RedStan Clamps (what more needs to be said? They're the best, and they're red. Makes Canon L-glass jealous.) Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 (this lens just works. Really well. Set to f/4 and forget.) Samsung NX1 (yeah I'm one of those guys. But this thing pays the bills, and will continue to do so for at least one more season.) EDIT: yes, the anamorphic is not perfectly aligned. That's actually on purpose to add to the vintage low-fi aesthetic.

Please excuse if this link has been posted elsewhere: https://medium.com/@theSUBVERSIVE/photokina-2016-panasonic-gh5-part-2-c3a7044d4a0c#.kl60vr9nt

Wow. This is a killer.

One of the reasons models, actors, and clients like Canon, and they don't really know why, is that it is softer, and when there is no visible aliasing, looks more like film. A very sharp still image can look great for a landscape or a young model/actor with perfect makeup (or Photoshop). Otherwise 'just enough detail' is best along with zero digital artifacts- looks organic/analog. Additionally, when a very sharp image moves the pixels will 'dance' and the resulting effect is a kind of temporal aliasing, which looks more like video than film. Slightly Gaussian blurring a sharp video then adding film grain can help reduce the temporal aliasing, since the noise is random and not associated with camera/scene element movement. At the highest end of cinema film production, they use various forms of diffusion/softening filters all the time on ARRI, RED, F55/65 especially when filming close ups (these filters can of course be used on any production; we use a Tiffen Black Pro Mist (you can also use a pantyhose)).

Yes I am an amateur. I made a few videos in my entire life. 6 of them on YouTube. This is my latest one below. Can you show me your 6th video you made as an amateur with no rig or budget so I can see your talent? Sorry if mine does not please you, I am constantly evolving (compared to my previous video, and the previous one) and that's what counts for me. I know small sensor limitations. I constantly defend larger sensors on this forum. GoPro footage is better than the Mavic is what I am saying here. Take a look at the video above as well as the thailand one by bloom. You can produce good stuff with small sensors, amateur or not, but small sensors are not equals. Neither are lenses and codecs.

The most horrid camera in comparison with what? Dji Mavic?....or Canon 1dc? Lets say you had mavic on your mind...where did you see its grace? Those early videos have been processed and graded in post from pros to look as good as it gets...and they still seem jittery & soft....Not trying to bash you here, just trying to undestand your statement. I am not a fan of GoPro either but you are saying that you will purchase mavic because "No Protune saves the grace or its absence" on GoPro. Cmon... in terms of "real" quality they are both S**T next to a mirrorless camera but this is not what we are discussing here, we are trying to find their pros & cons for casual semi-pro use...right?

All aerial in this video shot on GoPro 4. Get some sense in your head before saying shit

It also seems that the Mavic camera has some sort of autofocus based on the spec: P4: FOV 94° 20 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.8, focus at ∞ Mavic: FOV 78.8° 28 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.2 Distortion < 1.5% Focus from 0.5 m to ∞ This can also cause some difference when comparing the two. Before a real judgment I would wait from a more in depth review by somebody that knows how to compare cameras and understand all the variable in this process

Check out the thread below for some spec comparison between the GX85 and G85 which is basically the same camera with better ergonomics etc. There's a and first look from B&H on the G85 which is very informative. Here's a video showing both noise and crop comparison between the GX85 and GH4. As you can see there is less crop in the GX85 and that's probably going to be the same or better on the G85. As for image quality I sold my GH4 when I got the GX85, but I will pick-up a GH5 as soon as it's released.

I'm absolutely loving this camera. Have it pretty much set up to how I want it now using C1, C2 & C3. Excellent street cam for both video and stills. I've gone from having gripes regarding the min shutter / ISO thing to thinking this is one of the best cameras I've ever owned Originally bought it for my wife to replace the LX100 but the Lx100 can stay and I'll keep this one !!

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_g80_review/

Indeed, you should run right out and snap up a a6300. It's the best camera in the world. I know I'll be selling my 1DXMkii to get one or maybe just stop worrying about charts and look at some real world results?

Voightlander 28mm

Hi, check out this little Video. I shot it on a Gh4, a 360 degree camera and a gopro... Though the tiny world look is quite en vogue today we really tried to add something to it. Hope it works for some of you!

More options are of course better. Canon is very popular because of the way people and skin tones look. Most consumers don't really know or care about resolution/sharpness. As long as it's not super blurry, they'll be happy or won't notice. A lot of movies shot on film look very soft compared to current digital acquisition. However the film grain creates pleasing texture and a kind of false detail that doesn't look like digital aliasing- very organic. I just shot a red carpet event in Hollywood on the A7S II and it looked pretty good once the WB and custom profile were carefully set (Cine2 with SGamut3.cine color + other tweaks). Hours of footage were shot and the client appreciated the low light performance, skin tones looked pretty good (matched fairly well to what I saw live), and the files were very small. However in post there's not much flexibility to grade, and as others have noted Sony still looks more like video than Canon. If the 1DX II shot better 1080p I would have used it for the interviews on the red carpet (well lit with ARRI lights) because people really do look better with Canon/ARRI and celebrities are very sensitive about how they look. For shorter events and/or with a DIT running memory card dumps, 1DX II 4K would have looked amazing, especially for the files sizes compared to the RED that was shooting RAW (he also had major /battery/power/boot up time/ limitations for a live event). The theater shots were very low light; nothing can touch the A7S II right now in that situation (so I would have had to bring two cameras). An A7S III with better IBIS, Sony's '4D' AF closer to Canon's PDAF, and skin tones close enough to Canon/ARRI, will make a lot of people very happy. Right now there's nothing on the market that can compete with what the 1DX II can provide: amazing skin tones, sharp/detailed enough 4K (even though not really resolving 4K of detail), market leading AF (PDAF), amazing automatic white balance* (useful in mixed lighting and live/docu events), native EF lens support with PDAF (no fiddly adapters without usable AF), very high reliability, very short boot time, and a decent balance of 4K image quality and file size (compared to say a RED). * it's possible Canon is looking for faces/skintones and optimizing WB for skin at the expense of other colors (which makes for example strong reds and blues to look quite different). Latest Canon cameras can optimize for 'ambient' WB as well as the traditional method (whites).

Not saying it is, was just curious since its such a common problem with any 25p camera. NX1, BMCC, BMPC4K, you name it. Ive had the question on all of them, "is that frame drops?". Always turned out to be NTSC only monitors or playback engines. But its getting less frequent since I doubt any monitors sold today are incapable of adapting to different frame rates.

Yeah, dynamic range isn't really the point of this "log". It's nice to grade, and from what I've seen it's nice for applying luts, but maybe you need to adjust a little bit as well. I don't have much experience with luts. There was some talk here about how a custom picture profile from eos utility can't really increase dynamic range. Not sure how it works. Guess it doesn't go straight from the raw data to the picture profile. Yeah, definitely over expose with slog, but with it's higher DR, that's easier. With eoshd clog, it just makes sense to sometimes allow for some noise instead of making clipping worse than imaginable

I have the 5e and if you are looking at the 3 for the BMMCC, it should work okay with focus peaking on. The BMMCC has some of the best focus peaking I've ever used.

Nothing wrong with your 35 mm golden standard :). I agree with every sentence you wrote on your last post, there is indeed a thin line between tools and toys which can be surpassed with tricks. But this line gets thinner & thinner every year...I am seeing professionals that own very expensive aerial platforms, building their portfolio from staff that they have shot on their free time using these little guys...Yeah they are made for fun but this is what also feeds professionalism...pure fun...I used a Dji S900 with a GH4 last month. No fun...Acceptable dynamic range, great resolution, nice colors...but no fun...It's not funny (nor proffesional) when you use a 7000 usd machine that might perform an impressing flip of death on a poor man's head because dji messed up it's late update. Look at what Phillip Bloom made with a GoPro3+ and a poor Phantom (try to download the original file):

You bet! : ) In comparison with the excellence a standard like 35mm format (as well, sensor size related) with all the sorts of low-grade variants from 16mm to video has led the motion picture for more than a century to face our eyes. Take a second read in my stuff earlier along the thread (posts, likes...). They are all the same shit, more or less. As said before, they can be synonymous of fun, personal use, even some inserts (de)pending on certain circumstances and tricks. No more than that. A purchase can't necessarily mean a professional tool, as for instance. As same as a toy can be used in a gig if works. Mission accomplished. What's wrong about it? Just don't expect you'll become a race pilot only because you're able to drive fast in the highway with your brand new car. The F1 from 80s, 90s or whatever year you want will always belong to a different league. No matter what techie pins they will try to sell the fanciest new toy you/we all want to buy and play with. So far, at least :-)

This is very true...All i see is the same Sony sensor (with some minor differences) in a great variety of products like Phantom 4, GoPro, Mavic and even smartphones..but nobody has unlocked it's full potential. Dji has shitty compression (and dlog is a total joke), gopro has that ugly ultra-wide lens and smartphones are just smartphones...Sony's latest action cam gives us 100 mbps but there is not a f***ing drone made for it. Anyway, it seems that karma has a better construction quality (mavic looks like transformers toy with cheap plastics) and better IQ, from what we have seen so far. But in linear mode you are stuck to 2.7K. I am hoping for a direct comparison between these too, a proper one because all these A versus B videos are usually made by amateurs and focus on silly things.

Cameras, drones, it's always the same thing... they have the oppertunity to make it the ultimate thing out there... but they all just focus on one aspect instead of doing it all. I guess that's what running a business is about... not neccessarily beating the competition, but doing something different and leaving room for improvement so you can sell another one at a later time. Ugh. Need more people like Elon Musk that try to push the boundaries of what is possible with technology.

+1 Emanuel! Plus, just to conclude my thinking, when I started working, late 90's, everyone was concentraded on his trade, be it sound, be it camera, whatever, and we were investing accordingly. Today, things are getting cheaper, but the market requires, for even a very low budget production, a 800$ wedding let's say, or a 700$ small shop FB video, an interchangable lens camera, couple of lens, few OK led lights, whatever can do for sound, an action cam, a drone, a slider, a few more things (tripod/monopod/bags/batteries/cables/hard drives/computational power/editing amd pp software/memory cards/monitor/etch) and the budget is not adequate for another person to come help. Sorry for ranting, just some thoughts while preparing my bags for such a project!

Andrew, your forum software should let us for multiple 'push the like button'... ;-) There is... Interested people in such drone ready to fly, send me a private message... I guess me and my team we'll be able to supply to you one of those birds very soon :-)

Aren't those features inherited from new G80? If i buy G80, can i expect a further update with some of the GH5 flavour?

I found the early days of sitting-in-front-of-the-camera vlogging style rather painful to watch. It was only after I saw Casey's work that I started enjoying vlogging (he's an exception for me even now). Here's a video that tries to make a case for him.

Obviously the 1DX II blows the a6300 away in numerous other ways. I just didn't realize till recently the technical difference they have in resolution was so huge. Even with significant sharpening of the natively unsharpened 1DX II image, you can tell the 6k-to-4k oversampling of the a6300 still delivers so much more detail. It's a shame to see the notorious soft Canon demosaicing present even in the 1DX II where I thought Canon pulled out all the stops. And I wonder when anyone other than Sony (and Samsung with the NX1 which doesn't quite match the a6300) will offer that apparent revolution-for-4k-resolution feature of 6k-to-4k oversampling of full sensor readout... (and without overheating. )

So I know everyone wants to talk about how the GH5 should be as close to an Arri as possible, but I was really intrigued by the G80 announcement. I'm an armature, budget minded and not ashamed. The lack of a headphone socket is really annoying for the G80, but I already have a GH3 so I'm not too worried about that. The big question I have is if the 4k video is a crop of the sensor like the GH4 or if it is the same framing as the 1080p mode? Does anyone know? How do you expect the G80 video will compare to the GH3? I know some people said the G7 actually had better noise than the GH4... Besides the lack of a headphone jack, is there anything else I should be wary of from a camera like the G80? I've been really happy with my GH3 for what it is.

I'm not saying any of these are great content but it's definitely not a person sitting in one spot talking into a camera. Now a lot of them start off with a person speaking into the camera but that's to setup what they will do that day.

People in this thread have no idea how people vlog these days.

Only lasted a few seconds and switched off. Abysmal. You want to see some of the rubbish that passes for Professional Wedding Videography in the UK. Yet many have hundreds of clients and have to turn people away. They charge £650 to £750 and you would be just as well off using the footage from the CCTV. Everything on sticks, except a few slider shots of flowers and champagne glasses, no emotion, no storyline, crap music, yet they are raking in £35k a year. I can't even get a gig for free.

Its still software repairing, i prefer it to be optically corrected

I disagree that the discussion should stop there. Once you buy 2 or 3 lenses and a variable ND the price of the GX85 is getting close to the XC10. Undoubtedly there are key differences like codec, sensor size, fixed lens or not, but for some they are legitimate competitors. Both are offering stabilised 4k and 50p HD in a small form factor. In my case the GX85 has unlimited recording times and doesn't overheat. The way I see it is that with the GX85 I'm dipping my toe into the m4/3 world to see how it compares to Canon. I prefer the Canon image but for the work I'm doing going light weight is a real bonus. Low light is very important for me and to compare the 2 is invaluable. I don't expect them to have the same capabilities as my C100 but they both interest me greatly.

Well, the colors of your footage looks nice to my eyes! Thanks for the kind words!! I feel like I'm getting better with every video, but some of my old footage is not that great at all. I try to learn from past mistakes and pick up tips here and there. The most important thing I have learned though is to WB, expose and light to have the best starting point (probably goes with out saying but if something is overlooked it makes it so much harder to correct in post). Basically getting to know how to set up your camera for best results. I shot that video in the summer on my own actually using a Aputure VS-2 as a monitor with a long HDMI cable. I waited until the sun had past the windows and set WB to 6000 something. Then I underexposed by about a stop as especially skin tones look a lot better that way without a log profile on this camera . Standard 0, -5, -5, 0 and that's it. I used Color Finale to adjust contrast, and adjusted WB with color wheels and curves. I spend some time using the built-in Apple color picker tool to check WB on the black kitchen counter. It's a little time consuming but it was definitely worth it. So actually a pretty simple setup and grade in the end I tried for so long to get good looking natural colors and I finally feel that I actually know what I'm doing. Next up will be trying to learn how to make more creative look's for other stuff. I get why you want the Canons though, the footage is really nice!

IronFilm, I decided to go with the Odyssey Q7+ I have an F3 as well and on the site of Video Devices, for cameras supported it stated 720p for the F3 only? I called them and have not got the call back from their support team on weather the Pix E5 does capture the 444 RGB 1080p 10-12 bit through the single SDI F3 output. When I hear back I'll post their reply.

For me GoPro slaughtered DJI. I don't care about its speed or other specs, I care about the fact that for the same price I get a GoPro 5 that I will use on ground a lot, a handheld gimbal that is amazing, and a drone that is a perfect mix between size and stability. This thing is too small and shaky (see the verge video). Anyone using a GoPro for action videos should get the Karma instead.

I see the Blackmagic Ursa Viewfinder supports the Micro Cinema Camera since the BM Camera Update 3.1.

I made that exact thing in the picture above before, it's a nasty POS. Not worth your 28bucks even, waste of time.

Great post, thanks for the update.

I like your first grade better mrjonkane. Looks natural to me. With the second grade the dark areas like the top of their hair are too blue.

A7r II + SLR Magic Anamorphot + Tokina 28-70

It has 120p FHD which is amazing, less rolling shutter thanks to better processor, SLog 3.... better ergonomic, better battery, cheap lenses... way better than A7Rii then. great but look here http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/09/20/photokina-2016-the-camera-the-5d-mkiv-should-have-been-sonys-4k-a99-ii-has-everything-in-it-but-the-kitchen-sink-in-it/ apparently he AF for video is as good as Canon DPAF. But it works only in video automatic exposure mode. When in manual video mode you are forced to use manual AF... WTF? appart from that it is amazing, way better than A7Rii and cheaper.

? http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-sony-a99-successor-announced-soon-42mp-499-af-points-4k/

Is that what you will cheerfully brag to the cashier as you hand over $1000 for the thing?

So just got my XC10, and it definitely has a cool s16 aesthetic. IS is probably a bit better than olympus E-M1 IBIS but need to do some further tests, and onboard audio is a lot better than GH4 that it replaced.

How about "Bunk 'iz Evil"

I'm not Kidz 'r Evil, but gave it a try anyway... Feels like solid footage.

I'm a little late in doing this, but for anyone still interested in the DIY single-focus anamorphic approach, here's an updated video. Here are the ingredients: Blackmagic Pocket -> Metabones Speedbooster -> Jupiter 9 85mm -> Isco Ultra Star -> Polaroid 250D Achromatic Diopter (77mm) -> focusing tube -> Cavision .6x Wide-Angle Adapter (82mm) Main difference from my first setup is the use of an achromatic diopter (the Polaroid close-up filters aren't too bad, btw!) and I've snugged the focusing tube up a bit so it doesn't jitter as much. Now I'm trying to figure out a variable neutral density filter solution. The end of this thing has > 82mm threads, so that's a pretty huge ND filter... but at the same time I don't know that I like the idea of an electronic ND filter at the mount. Might have to figure out something in the middle of the pipeline.