Leaderboard

EOSHD SONY ON: EOSHD SONY OFF: ...seriously good job Andrew.. will order soon for a shoot where we'll be adding an A7S2 for night shots to a Canon setup.. hopefully will be easier to match footage thanks to this!!

I got to play with the new Olympus E-M1 II today, a pro Micro Four Thirds camera they hope will sell for $2000. It certainly pulls out all the stops to imitate a miniature 1D X Mark II. This camera does NOT crop the sensor in 4K mode like the GH4. Instead, it over-samples from 5K down to 4K, using the full width of the sensor even with sensor-shift 5 axis stabilisation enabled. Featuring a 237Mbit codec, the image quality in Cinema 4K mode is outstanding with very little rolling shutter. Read the full article

Yes that looks pretty accurate. Fixed the sound cutting off half way through the video -

Trailer to a short film shot on the Samsung Nx1

Probably could use a bit more work - especially the score - but I quite like the 'thrillery' feel. Cinema EOS standard, HD, colour and contrast balanced then FilmConvert-ed to Fuji Velvia. Soundtrack done in Filmstro.

Were the same 3 WB settings used in that video?

This is where 4k comes in handy when your output is 1080 - smooth Ken Burns zooms that no fly by wire lens can replicate.

What about a used Canon 17-55/2.8 IS?

Tamron VC is very good for video! Sharpness with Canon 70D video is poor so the lens doesn't really matter as much.

From what I've seen the simpletons all seem shit, terrible corners, reduced sharpness/contrast, flaring, ghosting, etc, so keep expectations low. There's some with Schott glass, atleast get that if you must. Something like this doesn't look too gimmicky plastic fantastic, includes a 3x tele: If you just want the tele, another decent brand seems Apexel, they have a 60mm (2x) that you could attach to an iPhone case. Aukey perhaps. Of course, if you're up for something more interesting (or just expensive), Olloclip has been highly popular since forever and then there's tons of projects like Moment , Z-Prime, ALM, and Exolens to name a few. Some even go as crazy as creating an anamorphic adapter. Of course, while you're at it, you could even adapt system camera lenses like with the Beastgrip. But when you're looking at stuff like that... I'd say it might make more sense to e.g. just get and use a GX85 already.

Just did a stretch factor measurement as shown by @Tito Ferradans in his video about the Kowa B&H mods. Isco Ultrastar @ infinity (measured with a +1 diopter) : 1.99x stretch -> 2.0x Isco Ultrastar @ 1.5m (measured without diopters) : 1.82x stretch -> 1.8x What got me to measure it is Eddie (from Vid-Atlantic, from which I bought my new clamps), who is advertising the isco ultrastars on sale on vid-atlantic's website being advertised as 1.9x stretch anamorphic. I wanted to test that I'm wondering if I should just unsqueeze everything @1.9x for simplicity or match the stretch factor for each shot (to this date, I always used the 2x stretch factor for ease of use with after effects)

When I was a Stagehand/camera assistant, we had to carry Ikagamis around golf courses for cameramen for 3-4 days at a time, (couldn't get into floor managing quick enough)... I'm actually getting a sore back remembering them !!

Interesting for news makers, documentary style shooters, etc. and the growing mobile audience for video / consumers not owning 4k TVs: http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/11/25/bbc-news-app-launches-vertical-video-is-the-joke-on-us/ My questions again in this context: Who needs 4K (even downscaled 4K to 1080p) on small mobile devices? Who cares about the "ultimate" IQ as color science / contrast / sharpness on small mobile devices? 2014 there were only 2.5 percent of consumers owning 4K TVs (in Germany) --> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/4K-TV-Ultra-HD-Geraete-verkaufen-sich-kaum-2349085.html (German language) - I know, in Japan it's much more, but worlldwide, 4K display market coverage is still a joke in comparison with marketing claims of manufacturers and distributors My opinion: Till 4K and highest quality videos will get popular and viewable on bigger displays than just now, it will take years - if not a decade. Till then, it's just a matter for a few geeks and enthusiasts. From a realistic point of view, there is NO RELEVANCY and NO DEMAND for higher resolution / quality films (from point of view of IMAGE QUALITY) for web and TV at the moment...it's only relevant for a enthusiastic minority / avantgarde...

Fucking YouTube. Reuploading AGAIN!!

For those asking for sample videos - http://www.eoshd.com/2016/11/eoshd-pro-color-samples-shot-sony-a7s-ii/ Even I am surprised how well it held up.

Which part? lol Well, parfocal means that the spot that you focused on remains in focus as you zoom in/out. Usually with most lenses, when you zoom the shot becomes out of focus and you have to re-adjust focus. So you could say, in that case it wouldn't be spot on anymore. So, whereas you're worried about the movement of the zoom creating unwanted shake to cause unfluid motion... with the lenses you mentioned, it would be about zooming and keeping the focus intact, so you'd need to turn two rings at the same time, which probably is more trouble and less fluid. So his suggestions are 'spot on', which, in the context, is a funny use of words. Of course, there's no fun in explaining a joke... although, it honestly wasn't intended as a joke ('pun') until I realized it kinda was one. Anyways. If you lock the camera to a tripod and don't set your tripod head to be very sensitive to input, you should be fine concerning camera shake and not need a lens with built-in IS. In which case, you could also opt for the Angenieux design Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 which should fit your budget.

kaylee look at the link in the original post. it'll lead you back to a page all about tv's as monitors. the one I mentioned is the cheapest smallest one available but the 6000 series goes up to 70" I think. I recon a 40" tv on your desk probably wouldn't need ui scaling. it'd be yuge Since writing this I saw a review of the LG 32" 4k dci monitor with 99.9% adobe rgb and thse extra 200 ish pixels and its twice the price and now I dont know what to do. :p

I bought a Bolex 16/32/1.5x.... can't wait to hold him in my hands. Will receive him within a week time. Any suggestions for a taking lens for my NX1 are welcome!

so, film school. my question is this: what are your goals? to be a commercial director? a famous filmmaker? a great Artist™? if the answer is the latter, that you want to be an artist who uses filmmaking within his practice, i would highly recommend going to "art school" and taking all the classes you might not have thought about taking: basic drawing, color theory, 2D design, ART HISTORY, etc. ykno those "foundation" classes that many art schools make everyone take even if youre majoring in film? these experiences will broaden the horizon of your creativity exponentially "film school" is a different proposition. in general i feel like youll waste a huge amount of time at great expense. a KEY point to film school in our contemporary world is MAKING CONTACTS – in a place like LA. v few places like that, and theres tens of thousands of fresh film school graduates working at restaurants who can tell you that there are very few jobs in hollywood if youre trying to create your own content, its a radically new era, you can do so much yourself, and broadcast it to the whole world. film school programs can be kind of nuts where you dont pick up a camera for the first year or something... imagine if i taught a drawing class with no pencils or paper for a year. people learn by doing, so just making ANYTHING will be hugely educational ?????? when i was going to art center, art school number three for me because i was pursuing an education not a degree, i was taking film classes, and the first day the department head asked, "When should you, a new person on a film set, tell the director your opinion?" the answer was... NEVER!!!!!!! SHUT THE HECK UP!!! lol ppl dont get that when theyre new, i understand, but that was on day one bc its literally one of the WORST THINGS YOU CAN DO. to me this is common sense but its whatever* *the only exception is in terms of safety

Thanks for posting this. It's very interesting to read (I used google translate). Regarding which picture style to use they say, like all reviewers have so far: "The first two gamma curves burn very quickly highlights, while the Wide DR and Canon Log preserve. So we will avoid using the first two" Yes, this is true when comparing at the same ISO. However, nobody has thought until now that standard picture styles should be compared at 1.66 ISO stops lower than WideDR and C-Log. That's why "base ISO" for C-Log is 500... it's actually 160 pushed. And so Wide DR is noisy (shadows are lifted) and C-Log is mushy and ghosty - (extra noise reduction). The second part in the quote above, if I understand it correctly, seems to be about sharpening - just dial it down to 0 in camera. Looking forward to your tests!

This post is a bit dense, as I've been figuring out ghosting in relation to picture styles, ISO and 4K v HD so skip this if it's not of interest to you. If you are interested, don't take this as gospel - find what works for you! I went and checked and it looks to me like EOS Standard has the least ghosting. Here's a motion test at ISO 4000, f5/6, 1/50s in 4K. I balanced the contrast between each of them and desaturated so that ghosting becomes more clearly visible and comparable. The area of grey in the middle would be completely clear of horizontal stripes if there were no ghosting in this camera. I'm counting (roughly) the number of times I see the white band repeating before it becomes so indistinguishable as to be unproblematic. EOS STANDARD ghosts = 4 CINEMA EOS ghosts = 5 or 6 WIDE DR = 6 or 7 C-LOG = 8 Now, whether or not you see the same number of ghosts as me doesn't really matter. The general trend is clear and it looks like EOS Standard has the least ghosting. This was at 4K and I tried the same test in HD at the same ISO of 4000. All four profiles were equally rubbish here but at lower ISOs the same trend emerged with EOS Standard having the least ghosting. Interestingly, in 50fps 1/50s the ghosting appeared to be a little better than in 25fps 1/50s because the ghosts were smaller. So you might get better results by switching to 50 or 60fps, as long as you can live with the effectively decreased bitrate. Also interestingly, in the EBU paper the guy talks about the resolution drop in HD at higher ISOs. I think Canon chose to address this in their last firmware update because now HD looks as if it might have more resolution than 4K at ISO 6400 - even when the 4K is downsized to match it!!! Check it out: HD on left, downsized 4K on right: In an individual frame, the HD looks much cleaner. But if I press play on this static scene it's pretty obvious that there is major noise suppression going on in the HD which feels a bit plasticky without added grain - and if there's movement in the scene then noise reduction and compression artifacts are everywhere. Still though, I'm very surprised that HD does so well - I can read the text much more easily than in the 4K. Perhaps the XC10 is now optimised for shooting charts from a tripod OK, back to ghosting and low light. Since it was the best, I did some more tests using EOS Standard and for me around 1600 to 2000 is a good cut off point in both HD and 4k. Ghosting is beginning to appear at this stage but if you weren't consciously looking for it you probably wouldn't see it. Any higher than that in HD and ghosting gets progressively worse, while the noise stays constant and the image gets smeared. In 4K, on the other hand, ghosting seems to stay about the same as ISO increases, but noise kicks in so much that HD is actually better. So if I ever do need to go 3200 plus - to film the ghost of Elvis or something (as long as he doesn't move too much) - I think I'd use HD rather than 4K as there's less noise and the same or more detail. I was surprised to see today in my HD ISO5000 clip of the girls and skeletons how usable it looked. In 4K it would be a mess of colour noise at that high ISO. So all in all, I'm fairly happy with EOS Standard as a workaround to mitigate ghosting. I can now utilise the ISO range from 160 to 1600 to help with exposure without worrying about messing up image quality too much. This captures a similar tonal range that you would get in C-Log at 500 - 5000... and that's a hell of a lot higher than I would ever have gone before. If I think back to the first video camera I ever owned, the Canon XM2, that had 3 stops of gain. Part of the reason that I like the XC10 so much is that it reminds me of that camera, shooting handheld when I was first discovering video. And I'm glad that I can now confidently use it in moderately low light.

Simon Shasha, if people would research, they'd see the truths in your comments about Syria. By the way, I used to go to a Syrian barber. We used to have very good conversations. I understand the plight of the Syrian people. People, who I know from the Middle East, have expressed similar stories as to what you have explained too. Below is a very interesting video by an expert. If people are open to understanding they should watch the entire video. Cheers.

Thanks Andrew, this is a good article. I think consumers will be perfectly happy with their smartphones. They will get better, and consumers will have no need for another camera - it's not perfect, gorgeous, well composed shots they are bothered about. This reflects through platforms Instagram and what content is popular. Long gone are the days when Instagram was a creative photo sharing network..... you get FAR more likes on Instagram for a noisy, badly lit selfie of yourself eating a takeaway pizza, rather than a magnificent, beautifully lit, well composed shot you'll never match again. Again, because of the consumer onslaught of constant videos and photos being uploaded and shared online, there's some great stuff out there which isn't getting a look in. Actually getting anyone to give a crap about your latest masterpiece is much harder. A video of a drunk fat man dancing is widely far more interesting. Coming to cameras - we are that the point where they actually matter less. Models are getting replaced within months, users are on and endless buy-sell cycle to have the latest, and many people are not really learning their craft properly because they can't keep hold a camera for long enough. Lenses, lighting and camera movement have a FAR FAR greater impact then your camera. There's really no point in constantly changing, swapping , upgrading. It's a waste of time. Recently, I got an FS5 and soon an external recorder. I can grade the Slog footage well. I have everything I need - LOG, HFR, ergonomics, audio, blah blah. Man I can now do 200fps RAW!! But since having the camera, my videos haven't improved at all. I have more bells and whistles.. but it all comes back to what the hell I am actually filming with it. Sometimes, something does arrive which will dramatically improve your work, or will heighten creativity or make your life easier. However this camera race is far too distracting for many of us, and for a large bunch I think some people have took the eye off the ball as to why they are using cameras in the first place. I'm sticking to what I've got, and will be spending time on throughly improving my skill set, rather than my camera arsenal.

The tools of videomakers (Smartphone, Camcorder, DSLR, Arri, Sony, etc.) are not crucial. Essential is content / information / emotionality and acceptance within your targeted audience. For technical and specification reviews, OK, quality of content is decisive. But - as Andrew said - this is all about just a small audience of freaks or enthusiasts. The "big audience" doesn't care at all about technical aspects of the films. As media consumption becomes more and more mobile (between 45 and 75%), videos/films published for internet audience and smartphones/tablets will never care about resolution, color grading or the last detail of color science. As long as viewable screens are quite "mini", as in case of smartphones and tablets, there will be no need for "extraterrestrial" 4K-8K filmmaking (from technical point of view). BUT there is a need for good/funny/informative/narrative/entertaining content. Completely indepent of the degree of technical implementation/excellence. In RL nobody cares about "smooth/mushy" 1080p out of a Canon-DSLR or the 10%-debade on color display/differences of Canon vs. Sony/Pana. Just my 2 cents... And even discussing about display on bigger screens than mobile ones: Take a look at surveys and serious statistics on media consumption. Current screen resolution of PC-Screens, laptop screens or consumer TVs (US, Southamerica, Europe, Westaisa) will make you laugh when debating on 4K...For most of display devices, 1080p is more than OK. Why then pixel peep about the "last 5%" difference and 300% percent crop within 4K footage? In my eyes this is absurd and narcisstic - without any significance for audience. It's only significant if you want to make good sales by telling your future customer, that a RED and 4k/8K production are decisive for the success of the coming film. If this is not a multimillion production, this is not decisive. It's just a marketing lie. A profitable one from the point of view of providers, but still a lie...

I'll be honest, I'd want V-Log in it for that price. Mind you, if it was eight grand we'd probably all be a bit keener on extracting every last drop of use and performance out of what it did do rather than fixating on what next week's version from another manufacturer might have in it. Sometimes stuff being too cheap is a problem all of its own.

No, with "pragmatic dynamics" (pragmatic = relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters) I mean, the pragmatic dynamics! First of all, I used to be a "die hard Fuji fun" buying their film stock fanatically, and buying into their ultra small compacts and bridge cameras, when that was a thing, not so far far away ago. I still kept from that era my latest ones, the http://www.trustedreviews.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-S6500fd-review and http://www.trustedreviews.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-Z5fd-review, that's how much I liked them. With "die hard Fuji funs [sic], and upper-middle class purists and hipsters" - I accept the add of "[sic]" by the way, I could have put it there from the beginning(!) - I make an estimation about the bulk of Fuji films sales about the pragmatic (true) situation among my social circle in between a few European and other countries (based of where my extended network of friends live and what cameras do they own in a few continents). I know a few that own a Fuji system (the less among the people I know, together with the NX system, which I own), there is only one professional who is doing most of his photographic work with a Fuji right now and still his bulk of his equipment is Nikon. The hobbyists (2 persons) are upper middle class with salaries much above the average. Noone of the video people I know even consider a Fuji. The examples above (Panasonic, Sony, Samsung) are of photo/hybrid cameras that can be used, or used to be used, for video people for video productions, and photos, and a A-B set is achievable. Sony's ergonomics are terrible and menus, probably the worst in the industry (I do not know anything about Olympus cameras though). Just leave it to than, it's for another thread, BUT there are also a very cheap full frame a7, and two of the most exciting full frame cameras right now, a7Rii and a7Sii that push the APS-C sales by a huge margin. This is not a small thing, as the full frame mirrorless market is a very dynamic one, and Sony plays on its own. Obviously, the jpg machine of Fuji is one of its strongest selling points, I am not going to degrate it, I just expressed the fact that other cameras are producing excellent jpgs as well, with less specific names, but very good as well, even Sony, but mostly Olympus and Samsung, and ofcourse Canon and Nikon cameras. I am not sure about other countries prices, in my country it starts from 1800 and goes to 2000EUROS body only, plus the battery grip is 300EUROS more , and without it I do not consider it as a viable video option. The GH4 3 years ago was the best hybrid camera for video people. Almost a small revolution if I remember correctly. Bottom line, people with some m4/3 bodies and lenses do not have to go to Fuji, even me with a 2 years old camera (NX1/NX500/NX3000, lenses and accessories) do not have even 1 reason to go to Fuji, Sony people..well, they are Sony people(!), only the ones that care only for APS-C will consider going to Fuji, and Canon people are happy (I wouldn't) with the 80D or M5. So the target group is a small percentage of people that are not happy with (mainly) the native APS-C lens collection of Sony (and terrible ergonomics), and Nikon people that have no access to native mirrorless system, and mainly, "die hard Fuji funs [sic], and upper-middle class purists and hipsters", probably someone who would consider a Leica, but can't afford it. That's what I meant.

I spent a lot of time with this camera over the weekend, including shooting one small awards event with it. On Saturday I shot some tests and last night I did a load more in a controlled environment, alongside the Nikon D5500 I've uploaded all the raw videos to YouTube. Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/user/sebcastilho/playlists (Please excuse my voice) I'll be using this channel now to upload more tests I've done with this camera and others I've had in the past.