Leaderboard

Finally got the rear element ! Just needed a lot of wd-40, a screwdriver, and a BIG HAMMER ! #YOLO #HammersFixEverything

This little badboy has been available on the Chinese part of the Zheyun website for some time. And my guess is that it will most likely show up on the english site very soon. Ive had it for a while but was asked to wait until yesterday (at the earliest). Just like the predecessor it is very nicely built and super easy to setup. Unlike last time I actually balanced it before testing. But that was very painless and no need for tools. This is my first setup and test around the house (yes, with the dog ). What separates the ”Crane-M” from the larger ”Crane” is first and foremost the maximum payload. 650g on the M and 1200 on the bigger brother. Other than that Zheyun has been very consistent imo. For me that almost never use such devices it makes more sense to have a smaller version and use it with a speciality camera like the rx100iv. I will do some additional testing and report back after trying the remote, app, etc. My thoughts so far: + Just as good quality as the Crane Works nicely, I mean at 02:50 I floor it down a bumpy hill. Very easy to use Nice and small Can carry a bmpcc - Can obstruct itself Not as powerful Controls could be more featured out of the box Wished the batteries sat side by side

No. need 16h or rebranded lens.

Thanks Davey, I plan on getting the fotodiox alternative which is aluminium but it won't arrive on time for this specific shoot. To be honest I already put the combo on a small magnesit copter tripod and is relatively steady. Nevertheless, in the back of my mind I can hear the thread of the A7 slowly cracking the plastic..

Some landscape shots from a country walk yesterday. 4K CLog ETTR at ISO 500 to 1000. FilmConvert Kodak 5213 Vis3. Very pleased with sky v foliage v skintone colour separation using FilmConvert on XC10 footage.

Ha. Yeah, well I don't think it's gonna go to 3 or 4 stops (else Arri would have a problem here) - but, coming from a Canon stills experience, there is a depth to the underexposure in their imager that gives you tonality rather than just noise soup. Canon log, especially, seems to retain colour in underexposure that can give you really painterly tones. I'm experimenting with it now.

Hey guys - yeah, I know. I'm chasing that super 16 feel with this, so I'm selecting that grain structure - but I'm dialling it down to around 60% as I find the filmconvert implementations to be a little aggressive (plus, we're, like, in the digital age, right?). Thanks for the thoughts though - I respect the work you put out and I'm always happy to hear your comments. Coming from you I take that s high praise indeed - I love your stuff and aspire to be able to create anything even half as good! I thought that was pretty cinematic too - the beauty of this camera is that it has a depth in underexposure that allows you to grade to the image, not to the noise, which is kind of like... film!

What lens did you use on the second shot? Very cinematic look there. You guys may be selling me on Nikon...my only issues are the backwards controls and lack of upgrade path.

I messed around a little more today with a couple clips...

I believe that the only possible solution is to build a 2x teleconverter lens NX prototype, mounted on your lens 50-150 f2.8 s becomes a 100-300 s f5.6 and preserves all automatic. You do not have other solutions.

Here's a 4k 305mbps frame grab of a scene with deep DOF and a lot of fine detail at only ISO 1000: Here's a crop of the top right hand corner at 100% Look at those rocks and shrubs. Pure mush. Here it is again resized to 1080: It's still fucking mush!!! There's no ghosting here as the camera wasn't moving. It's spatial noise reduction (within the frame) as opposed to temporal noise reduction (between frames). Both are perfidious and noise reduction should really be user selectable. Now, I'm sure the aggressive NR is helping the compression algorithm BUT... if I could switch it off I would. I'd also love to hear from other XC owners about whether they see aggressive noise reduction and motion ghosting in their units. Because if it's just my unit and kidzrevil's I'm sending mine back to Canon pronto!

I wonder if they've addressed this issue with the XC15. Lots of professionals who are very critical love this image/color of the XC10/15 and there's never been any mention of any such problems in the past. You would think if it's common you'd hear lots of people talking about "ruined" footage. Any comments???

keep in mind lens preference is a personal subjective thing.. depends on what qualities you are looking for.. also results may vary depending on body. 1.4G was a good match to the D750s FF sensor.. if you're on older crop, maybe another (DX/D/AIS) lens may provide same/better results..

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/6201873948/western-digital-launches-the-my-passport-wireless-hard-drive-with-built-in-sd-card-reader

http://eng-ca.faq.panasonic.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/39309/kw/39309 "The LUMIX G85 integrates 5-Axis Dual I.S.2 (Image Stabilizer)*, combining 5-axis body and 2-axis lens stabilization for more effective handshake correction and compensation for shots up to 5 f-stops**. The 5-axis stabilization works in both wide and telephoto photography and motion picture recording, including 4K Video. With the LUMIX G85, a new gyro sensor increases the image stability compensation power of the 5-Axis Body image stabilization to correct hand-shake for all lenses, including classic lenses not equipped with optical image stabilization."

u can doubt whatever u want. while i'm shooting and u can sharper any lens u choose in cost of little loss on corners. In atached picture dreamy look is belong more to the nature of 55/1.2 itself instead of created by ana.

If your in the Northeast US check out Lensprotogo, they are great and they do full kits for rent instead of pieces of gear. Their URSA rental includes the viewfinder, shoulder mount, and battery.

Thanks for your input Geoff. Very good points. I honestly am the guy to buy the camera without renting it first but I do realize that it's not the smartest thing to do. So I think for the first time I will rent first and buy later. I actually have used the ursa mini 4K before and was not happy with the image or DR, but I hear the 4.6k is way better so I'll probably rent that too. The amount of the features the fs5 has is what draws me but the image of the 4.6k is what draws me. So I feel so torn right now but that's why I'll rent first. So borrowlens.com here I come! Lol i will probably be doing a video on my tests of both cameras and make a video on why I chose which camera. I'll post the video for the 2 people interested in my dilemma on this thread LOL.

Always test a camera yourself. A lot of people dislike the Sony look. But that's also because the Sony cameras have such a array of options to create your own look, canon has the fast turn around. With Sony you have to develop your own workflow. I personally love it, enjoy the look that I've created on my A7r II. 4.6K Fantastic if your shooting a movie at 800 iso. Incredible image with wide DR. However, 1600 is near unusable and it has no ND filters. It is not an event camera. Also you need a lot of light to use the Slow motion option on that camera. I would rent a FS5 for a weekend and see what you think.

I used to get excellent results with the current 50mm 1.4G on a D750 shooting flat before switching to Canon. shot weddings, docus. great look overall. all my other nikkor primes are vintage AIS though as i'm not a fan of the 1.8G series and having lens aperture control is so nice.. as for the original topic, there are much flatter picture profiles available for nikon bodies out there. nikon flat really isn't that flat but it's so easy to grade..

Everything I've seen out of the 58mm f/1.4 Voigtlander has been gorgeous, and it has both an aperture ring and full manual focus. Seems like a slam dunk for video.

@kidzrevil Thanks for making this thread. Canon don't know yet that this is a big problem. On page 76 of the manual they write: "When using Dynamic IS, the edges of the picture may be adversely affected (ghosting, artifacts and/or dark areas may appear) when compensating for a high degree of camcorder shake." BUT the ghosting appears whether or not IS selected or not, and at all ISOs. Now, my video shows faint ghosting artifacts at ISO 500, and kidzrevil's high ISO frame grabs show severe ghosting. So it gets worse with ISO. So it's probably due to temporal noise reduction. Forget frame grabs for a second: it's visible on the LCD at moderate ISOs as soon as anything moves. This makes the footage next to useless. I don't know how this slipped past Canon and the BBC guy. If you only shoot static scenes everything's hunky dory. But look what happened when DVInfo panned across a chart: Adam Wilt knows it , I know it, kidzrevil knows it, but... Canon doesn't know about the ghosting yet So if you own an XC10, contact Canon support and tell them your camera does mad shit against your will. They've shown their willingness to improve image quality through firmware updates. Ask them to fix the ghost that is haunting your camera. Because if your scene demands you record at anything above ISO 500, you might as well shoot it on a potato.

Are these still for sale?

Never heard of a Canon that didn't deliver in practice what they promised on paper. But the exact opposite can be said about pretty much every single Sony (outside cine alta). In fact, Sony is the only brand I can think of that never lives up to its hype. Pretty unique. Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, etc. Their stuff works as planned or have bugs that gets sorted out. Sony sell flat out broken cameras as if they where ok. My prediction is the same as I had about the rx100iv and a6300. Great specs, crap camera. But thats just me. I wont judge it until Ive tested it my self. But statistically it will suck ass

The postproduction workflow took some time to figure out. I edited in Premiere with an addional plugin for the animation of the 360 warp effects. It always needed to render which took endless time.. The colour grading was done in a baselight suite at Deli Creative Collective in Hamburg. Of course the heavy warping adds a lot of artifacts in the corners but i hope due to the fast edit this does not add up. The matrix effects were shot with a gopro - no additional post except for a little crop.

Hey there. Everyone is going to have to make their own determination for how much moire they can handle. I'm pretty forgiving because i know most viewers aren't going to think twice about (or even notice) minor instances. But I bought the Mosaic anti-aliasing filter for those times when it goes berserk. Their new design only takes seconds to pop in and out. And lately, I find myself just leaving it in and giving the sharpening a nudge in Resolve. If I wasn't up to my ass in work, i'd do a side by side to show the benefits/sacrifices. But I'm happy wth how it cleans up moire that I'd often see in hair and other fine detail. I don't know if this will help, but it's the only thing I've got (that i can show) that I shot with the anti-aliasing filter from Mosaic. Shooting with vintage glass here too.

The Test. No any additional color correction or highlights tweaking applied. Original 16 bit TIFF files here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8rvdej9n53bwvv8/AAD7gF0CcUjQl3sxfVV-i-CBa?dl=0 Wonder how different can be the result from same camera! My personal conclusion from this test is to use as output profile Arri Alexa LogCtoREC709 LUT or DragonColor/REDgamma ONLY. ACES has potential but needs developing and implementation of some kind of proper contrast/gamma curve. Without it its unpredictable crap. YRGB BMMCC DNG -> ARRI LogC timeline -> Arri Alexa LogCtoREC709 LUT YRGB BMMCC DNG -> ARRI LogC timeline -> DragonColor2/REDgamma3 ACES BMMCC DNG -> BMDfilm input -> REC709 YRGB BMMCC DNG -> ARRI LogC timeline -> REC709 YRGB BMMCC DNG -> BMDfilm timeline -> BMDFilmtoREC709 LUT YRGB BMMCC DNG -> BMDfilm timeline -> BMDFilmtoREC709v2 LUT

One reason for using vintage lenses is that they aren't as clinically sharp (across the whole frame) as modern ones & so you won't be prone to running into the dreaded Mr Moire, too often. If you insist on using these type of lenses, then yes a Black ProMist filter will help soften the image & reduce the risk of moire. But, & there's always a but, it won't always eliminate the worst cases. Although not shot with the Pocket, this person uses a Black ProMist all the time & the results are great: