Leaderboard

I finally picked up the C100, the one with dual pixel, BH just lowered the price to $2,300, an even lower price than I was seeing for a second hand in ebay, I will add it an atomos ninja star and I will be ready to gun&run, the good thing is that this model will depreciate really low during the next two years, much less than any other camera so I will get at least 2/3 of the camera value if I decided to sell it next year…..I wish canon fixed the issue in the XC line with the next XC20, if that happens I will probably switch to it.

:-) Max Yuryev did a comparison between camera's that differ a factor 8 in price, but for sure don't differ as much when it comes to 4k quality/useability Now I'm extra excited to go find a deal on the G80 haha

beautiful place and video! I was there a couple weeks ago.

Remember most of us won't be filming in 4K for 4K deliveries, but there is benefits for 4K capture for a 1080 delivery (you can crop / zoom / pan around).

Obviously their C120d. Wescott Flex. Those are the two lights I'm currently interested in that is.

There is a small difference, a C100 with an atomos is even better than a C300 (without atomos), and with prores 422 you can push further in davinci, and what I like about this camera is that it is so cinematic, if It has 4K will be my dream camera (of course keeping this price, $12,000 for a 4K C300 mKII is impossible for my wallet). BTW, the original without DPAF sold out in two days, so a lot of people took advantage of this price cut, I went for the DPAF because of I am also planing to use it with a steadicam, and I can now forget about the focus, less work, much better!

The transform from 4K to HD (in camera) basically is a 2x2 sample of the 4K frame pixels going into one HD pixel - so effectively 1/4 the spread of noise. Essentially averaging to the mean each set of 4 pixels in the 4K to create one pixel in HD. The 'neat' thing about this is that you can (canon can) also use this to sharpen (increase luminance contrast) as part of the process as the chrominance noise is variable for each colour channel. So we end up with less noisy but slightly sharper images in HD. I still think Canon should be able to improve on the 'ghosting' or 'temporal' quantisation/sampling problem - if they are not then they should be using a fast optical flow algorithm to integrate the frames at low frame rates - to get better filmic motion blur. As seen with our examples there is some kind of 'stepping' and 'kneeing' at the transitions from dark to light and visa versa - this is like the effect you get on CRTs when a high key signal drops to base black. Along the edge of the transition you see an over-shoot and undershoot of the image signal. Apart from the scan-line look, this is what gives an old analogue video signal it's characteristic 'Video' look - odd dark lines around things. It is quite possible that the required level of processing is beyond the single Digic chip's spec for the XC10/15 and is only implemented in the higher end cameras (C100/C300/C500/C700 etc.) - can but hope otherwise.

Judging by the DPreview comparison tool, IQ with the EM1.2 is no better than the the rest of the current m43 world. Unless the GH5 has an entirely new sensor, it will be virtually identical to what we're seeing from the G/GX80/85's. Olympus' claims of a 1-stop improvement are clearly bunk.

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

I think anyone that is older has had some experience with the 79a' threw 79e' series Ikagami's and portable recorders. They were the thing to have until the I started using a Sony BVP-5 3CCD BetaCam Head with BVV-1A BetaCam VTR. All 550 lines of resolution! I think that thing with the big battery on it weighed like 22 pounds!! But they were pretty good at holding them steady at that weight. You had to warm up the camera for an hour or more before you could even use them to be calibrated. Man it produced a beautiful picture at the time though. The tape decks we had at the time weighed nearly 50 pounds each in the studio. We had one reporter that used to stutter at times when he got too excited, so we had to do a lot more re-takes with him. God I hated that holding that camera for what seemed like half an hour straight LoL. And he was good at running after people to get more dialog from them. That was a LOT of fun!! Wow good thing I was young, 30ish at the time. I think I have one arm longer and one leg shorter than the other because of all of that for years LoL. Wow those were the days. Man the money the stations spent was mind boggling at the the time to upgrade to that stuff. I have no clue how they could really afford it. It had to be like a 3 Million or more dollars easy. Heck each camera was over a 100k each. Studio cameras with the box Lenses were like 250k or more with the remote controls and the pedestals. And I have NO clue what the switchers cost then! Probably 250k each also. And the mobile trucks, Jesus if you had to ask, you could not afford it. Easy Million dollars each one. But the money like NBC spent in those days to cover the Olympics had to be mind boggling. It had to be a Billion dollars or more easy! NFL football was just as bad. Heck a Red camera seems cheap this day and age! Not!

Holy caramba, check out the price on my dream (semi affordable) DSLR: http://www.ebay.com/itm/322237187093 Had quite a price drop lately! Hopefully it means a D750 mk2 with 4K is just around the corner

Trailer to a short film shot on the Samsung Nx1

Nice piece of work! Excellent color, framing & editing. I will agree with bunk though regarding audio. I have a pair of near field studio monitors in front of me & can't hear what she is saying. Music is too loud and her voice needs more aggresive compression and volume to cut through. Cheers!

Color looks fine to me ...the balance of the sound on the other hand not so. No idea what the girll was talking about, the music is way to loud to my ears.

There has never been a good war. Not one. I think everyone can agree on this. There are going to be casualties - as much as we don't like it. I believe Russia is directly what stopped the advance of the Saudi/Qatari/Turkish militias from over-running our military and over-throwing our government. Of course, this viewpoint is rarely, if ever, reiterated on Western mainstream media. Regardless, people have the choice to believe me or not, I don't mind - my information comes directly from my family and friends on, nearly, a daily basis (thank God for free WhatsApp WiFi calls!). Everyone is ultimately entitled to their point of view. And I agree with Andrew that not every other Syrian's experience of the war will be like mine, or my family's. Lines have been drawn, sides have been taken, and all of us have been caught between the crossfire in one way or another. I believe Obama's choice of not using U.S. ground forces directly was simply because the U.S. cannot afford another ground war - both in terms of causalities, morale, support and financially (15 Trillion in debt last time I checked). Having failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the U.S. has lost its military deterrence - Obama bluffed, Putin called it. Further, post-Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, they have also lost whatever credibility they had left as being morally conscious force in the world... I'll be honest, guys, I find it very difficult to continue discussing this. I hate to sound weak, but it's rather emotionally draining. All I want is for Syria to go back to how it was when I was a kid. I had friends from all different faiths and creeds. People would celebrate each other's holy days as if it were their own. I didn't matter what part of Syria you were from, or what religion you happened to be born into. There wasn't even a concept of "Christian Syrian, Shi'a Syrian, Sunni Syrian, Alawite Syrian, Druze Syria, Jewish Syrian" - we were all just "Syrian". And the awful truth is, you can see in my very own statements that even I have become a victim of this segregation - I have said, time and again, how I am "Christian Orthodox Syrian". The truth is, I don't like saying it - I just want to say "Syrian"... All in good time. I hope.

OK, this might be a minor breakthrough in image quality. See you if you can swallow this load: Don't shoot in C-Log, shoot in EOS Standard instead! Am I insane? Hopefully not! I was messing about with picture styles as we all know that ghosting is dreadful in CLog but not as bad in the other styles. The problem is, many luts are designed to work with C-Log and it's just so nice in terms of delivering a range of tonality. And while the other profiles may be less mushy and have less ghosting they tend to be too contrasty with nasty highlight roll offs and the colours are different to C-Log. But, I think I've found a way to fairly closely match EOS Standard with C-Log by shooting 5 clicks down in ISO and dialling down contrast and saturation and sharpness (remember that?). Then, by messing around with the contrast a bit in post you get an image with similar colours and tonality to C-Log but it has LESS GHOSTING and a SHARPER IMAGE. First of all here's a wide shot so you can see how they look similar: C-Log, 1/25s, f4, ISO5000, Canon LUT..... EOS Standard, (-4, -4, -4) 1/25s, f4, ISO1600, contrast and saturation adjustment, Canon LUT..... Now, let's look at 100% views, C-Log on left EOS Standard on right: Amazing right? Much more detail in the EOS Standard at 5 ISO clicks down (1.66 stops), as you'd expect. And the noise looks roughly similar (except for the subtle emergence of those fuckers, the little black dots) But the real advantage is in the effect on ghosting. We all know that the contrasty profiles have substantially better ghosting than C-Log even at the same ISO. Imagine how much better the ghosting is at a much lower ISO. Example: According to my theory if I'm shooting an interview in a dimly lit interior and the meter tells me that C-Log wants to expose at ISO 5000 I would throw my hands up in despair as I know that the person's face will turn to mush and when they move I'll get lots of ghosting. However, I should be able to switch over to EOS Standard with sharpness, saturation and contrast turned down, knock the ISO back down to 1600 and, using my contrast adjustment, still get a comparable image to the C-Log but much sharper and much, much less ghosting. I'm heading out now to get some more comparisons of the two picture styles. If you want to try this for yourself in the meantime, here's a work in progress LUT to get EOS Standard close-ish to C-Log. Just shoot EOS Standard 5 ISO clicks down, and bring down your superwhites before this lut: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFNGF0dUUtb2NjSTA

So I again have the camera in my possession and I tend to keep it this time The other options with their pros and cons listed: Panasonic G80 - Great usability and it has IBIS. / Poor skintones, lack of faster 35mm equivalent lens, poor handling of flares. Canon M5 - Smallest option, esp with the 22mm (its 35mm equiv lens). Great touchscreen AF. / Poor video quality (judging by the 80D's videos). Nikon D750 - Best and most affordable lens selection. Superb colours and tonality. / Bit too big, poor live view AF. Sony A6500 - Touchscreen, IBIS, good affordable APS-C lenses. / I'm betting will have the same crap 1080p and jello 4k as the a6300. Of course this camera is not without its faults. A lot of the lenses have noisy aperture and/or focusing motors. It doesn't have IBIS or touchscreen. The DR option is disable in video. I think the AF in video mode needs more work. I'm confident its addressable in firmware. Fuji, if you are listening... Basically we need to be able to have smoother focus racking and an adjustable rack speed. Also we need to be able to use back-button autofocusing when in manual focusing mode (like what is possible in stills). And we need a way to lock the focus whilst adjusting the point. I plan to skip out of this forum a while now. It's been doing my creativity no good I will come back if I have any more tests to show you (here's one and another) or some more artistic footage.

The camera spec I believe is 15 stops, but I saw film and F65 footage that looked fine as HDR. That's similar to asking why an HD screen is required to view HD when you can downscale to SD. Truth is, tone mapping only goes so far. With HDR, it's the difference between listening to a very compressed (dynamic range compressed while mastering, not MP3 compressed but that too) track on your iPhone with bad headphones vs being at the concert live. It's the difference between a cheesy tone mapped image and being there. It's really incredible and difficult to describe because no screens exist now that can approximate the high end test beds. Imagine that the image you're seeing of a day exterior isn't an image, but instead a window, with as much contrast as your eye can see and as many colors. Or even colors that you have never seen before. The sun can be so bright on an HDR set that it's unpleasant to look at. Imagine if your tv could get as bright as looking into a 60w bulb and as black as pure darkness. Sure you can compress that range, but why would you want to?

What cameras can record in HDR? Why is a HDR screen required to display HDR when you could just bake the dynamic range into a normal video file?

Unless Canon has completely changed their numbering scheme the XC15 is exactly the same image as the XC15.