Leaderboard

I use this for my PC when I need to edit at Starbucks.

This could get messy

Panasonic needs to leave dfd af and figure out how to compete with dpaf because amateurs and professionals without large crews know how much time and energy this saves on a shoot. Panny can come out with the best features but dpaf is joining the idea of canon colors on why most will go with them knowing that their overpriced cameras are being crippled.

A more modern sensor would be nice, as all its competitors are rocking new (ish) designs. I'd just settle for something that looks nice; I haven't seen a pretty video out if the FS5 yet. Back on topic, I had a play with the MP4 files from the C200. When graded, it did break quickly. I also noted that 100fps was noticeably soft. 50fps looked a bit better, and would be my preferred limit. Looks like you need to shoot Raw to get a high end image...shame, because the price for a full day's worth of CFast cards is almost as much as the camera itself.

My needs are evolving and the A99 II makes sense for a lot of reasons. If you think it's just GAS then that's up to you... Your call. I do like gear and have a lot of it, it's my passion and EOSHD would not exist without my interest in the gear. You know what is a passion killer... Snipers like you.

I think you'd have to go some way to beat this

------ FHD28m50p mp4ed_25p_200mbps say ok! replace in settings to 4k24p mp4ed_50p_200mbps say ok! replace in settings to 4k24p mov_25p_200mbps say ok! not display quality ------ FHD17m50i mp4ed_25p_200mbps! replace in settings to 4k24p mp4ed_50p_200mbps! replace in settings to 4k24p mov_25p_200mbps say ok! not display quality ------ FHD24m25p mp4ed_25p_200mbps! replace in settings to 4k24p mp4ed_50p_200mbps! replace in settings to 4k24p mov_25p_200mbps say ok! not display quality ------ FHD24m24p mp4ed_25p_200mbps! replace in settings to 4k24p mp4ed_50p_200mbps! replace in settings to 4k24p mov_25p_200mbps say ok! not display quality

4k24p mp4ed_25p_200mbps say ok! 4k24p Exiftools(mac): Avg Bitrate : 92.4 Mbps mp4ed_50p_200mbps say ok! 4k24p Exiftools(mac): showed Avg Bitrate : 92.8 Mbps mov_25p_200mbps say ok! not display quality. Exiftools(mac): (Image Size : 1920x1080, Megapixels : 2.1, Avg Bitrate - not show) ------ 4k25p mp4ed_25p_200mbps = ok! replace in settings to 4k24p = 94 Mbps mp4ed_50p_200mbps = ok! replace in settings to 4k24p = 92.4 Mbps mov_25p_200mbps = ok! not display quality Exiftools(mac): (Image Size : 1920x1080, Megapixels : 2.1, Avg Bitrate - not show) ------ Upload test files 4k25p, name file show quality. mov_25p_200mbps.MOV mp4ed_50p_200mbps.MP4

Oh my! if it ain't one of the greatest selling points since sound put on celluloid, then this camera ain't selling s*#t!! Seriously, why a "pro" wouldn't want something like this in his workflow, it's beyond me.. I am 98%, the people that do not care about Dual Pixel AF, have never worked with it, at times it is really liberating (it is just a tool, for the right moment it can be valuable though). I am putting another 25euros on the Rage Against The Machine album.. but don't tell anyone!

Yes those would be expected to fail at the moment. There is some combination of video quality switch that puts the camera into an interesting runaway recording mode that could do with some structured testing if you have the inclination? It basically needs testing in the following way 1) Put the camera into a 'legal' mode such as 4K25p 2) Use that html file to switch to the first mode in its list 3) Observe the return from the camera in the browser 4) If it says OK then press record on the camera and then stop again. If you get a runaway recording that needs the battery pulling then repeat from the starting point which combination it was. Unfortunately, to be comprehensive this test needs to be repeated for every single format in that html file. And then ALL of that repeated with the starting point in step 1 being the next 'legal' format (ie 4K24p). And then ALL of the ALL being repeated with it being in AVCHD mode and all its legal formats. Because selecting a non-AVCHD format being sent to it causes it to change mode automatically, you still need to do all of the non-AVCHD modes and vice versa as it might well be this entire switching of mode that triggers something interesting. That is a LOT of tests with not anywhere near approaching a guarantee of it working. But its exactly this sort of structured matrix of tests that needs doing if everyone wants to chase this down. Stumbling upon it is fine - and shows that maybe there is something there - but it needs to be repeatable to move forward and also exhaustive in case there is a combination that takes this from 'interesting' to 'usable'. Because of the extent of the testing needed, my advice would be to split it up amongst interested parties so someone takes the 4K25p starting point, someone else takes the 4K24p starting point etc

Thank you for this!!! I believe I found a better workaround for using the C1,C2,C3 custom functions, where you can: - Save the CineD for use as an actual profile and - Switch to other profiles normally I was able to save the CineD profile into the custom slot by clicking the Disp.Save button while in the profile change window. This saved the profile as Custom and allows me to switch profiles now, but at same time I can still go back to CineD by going to the slot where Custom used to be, it still appears as Blank with Custom misaligned to the very left top on the screen :D See the pic and check out the video I attached too. 20170607_033823_1.mp4

Nice Ed and Ed! Liked both of those stories. I use a 12-120 and also the 15-150 by angenieux. I am pretty sure they are the exact same lens, the 15-150 just sits a bit farther away from the mount increasing it's coverage (it's also a 2.8 instead of a 2.2 like the 120 which makes sense) I love shooting with them! Never have to change a lens.. just focus on getting shots. My favorite doc lens. I shot this for RIT with the 15-150. Do you guys use the diopters as well? I had to use them for a couple close ups as the minimum focus was something I had to get used to. I really took modern focusing distances for granted.

I will have some material ready this weekend. Til now I am quite pleased with CinelikeD on my GX80!

This looks amazing. Really gets that super16 feel. I've been shooting a series of docs with bmmcc and zeiss 12-120. Here's one. It comes out a bit sharper than the Angeniuex but still love the whole combo with old s16 glass

So, as some of you may know, I've been "experimenting" with having little chats with different Panasonic cameras over WiFi and after whispering in the GX80s ear last night, I may have come up with something quite interesting. The first image is a grab from a GX80 using its Standard profile. The second image is a grab from a GX80 that is definitely not using the Standard profile.......

Shot with the Blackmagic MIcro Cinema Camera with the Angeniuex 12-120mm 16mm lens, a cameflex mount modified to micro 4/3rds. For color, I brought into Da Vinci resolve and used Filmconvert with a Fuji Eterna film stock and softened it even more to Super16mm softness. Added a tiny bit of grain and that gave me a great starting point to harken back to a more organic look. I zoomed in digitally mostly around 20% - and it still was too sharp of an image. Why not shoot it anamorphic instead? Well, I am in love with documentaries of the 60s and 70s like Grey Gardens, etc. And they used this lens I think, and it has a certain feel to it that’s pretty beautiful. Let me know what you guys think of this.

More babies...still love how easy this camera is to use...

I'm all for trying this on the GH5. Is it worth a try? Can someone get me started?

I would ask for internal 10-bit 4:2:2. It's the minimum quality capture format I use for serious work, and most often what my clients request. All the C200's competitors in this price bracket include it--FS7, UM46, EVA. Comparing the C200 to the GH5 does seem somewhat antagonistic. Different camera styles in different market sectors at quite different price points. The EVA seems like a more natural comparison, and it's the camera I'd pick over the Canon. Super light weight (2lbs), great efficient 10-bit codec, high frame rates, Varicam color science (best in the biz imo), internal proxy recording, SD cards (more common, easier to source, and more likely to survive than CFast as a format), and the ability to (down the road) record nearly 6K raw with an external recorder to much more economical SSDs. The DR is still a question mark for me. Canon claims 15, but so did the C300 II, which didn't look nearly as good as the Alexa/Varicam. I have no doubt it'll be stronger than the C100 I, but by how much remains to be seen. I'm also curious whether the MP4 files can handle that kind of DR stretch without artifacts. Could be, but I'm guessing it'll be necessary to go RAW if you want access to the sensor's full latitude. That brings me to the Canon Codec Conundrum™. I was shocked to hear they'd incorporated an internal RAW codec, and truly applaud them for pushing themselves on the image quality front. There will definitely be some growing pains with NLE support, and media/storage costs will of course be a problem, but who in their right mind expected this from CANON? Definitely not me! However, here's the problem. Now the C200, like the 5DIII, confronts its users with a choice every time they shoot: sacrifice quality and enjoy the nice file sizes in 8-bit, or step up massively in quality to RAW and deal with the bulky files and a more labor-intensive workflow. I can easily see people considering this the best of both worlds--MP4 for doc/events/corporate, RAW for narrative/music videos/commercial spots. I truly hope it turns out that way; however, I can see just as many wishing they had a reasonable middle ground that gave them a higher-end image without the as much overhead. For me personally, I fear the camera falls into a real no-man's-land. I'll withhold any definitive judgments until I see more footage and hear more first-hand reports (and hopefully get my own hands on it), but as of now my eye is squarely trained on the EVA and Sony's big announcement. YMMV.

Let us know please. You do not have much, if you want to change system you can easily. Sell the lenses as well, collect your 2400euros (in total) and buy whatever you want. If you care for video, I would suggest a used C100mkII, for hybrid GH5 is great, for photos, maybe X-T2, and some video of course.

Great effort. The ed ones are for cameras such as the FZ2000 that can have the high bit rate. These are what Panasonic refer to as editing type of formats and switch those cameras into MP4(LPCM) mode that the other cameras don't have. From this systematic testing I think we can probably now put it to bed at least with the G7 regarding activating these different formats. Unless there is some interaction when switching from a 'semi legal' format (the ones that say OK but dont go to the 4K24p setting) to a different 'semi legal' format but the number of permutations to test then becomes like adding another rotor wheel on the Enigma machine. My view is that it confirms that it gets itself very confused by those MP4(LPCM) based formats and doesn't know what to do. This is supported by the G7 being unable to play a legitimate recording from one of these modes from an FZ2000.

A while ago Zhiyun Tech informed on their Facebook page that they will not honor any service/warranty issues when not bought via the official importers. I'm not actually sure if that stance is even legal in the countries with strong consumer protection laws but it might be unnecessary hassle in any case. So maybe check that beforehand.

Has anywhere seen the price for a C200B in Europe? I'm close to the point where I'm over the DSLR/Mirrorless form factor and want something that can churn out smoother, less colour-blocked footage. The price is still a little too high for my liking, and I've even been checking out sued C300 Mk2s and saw one go on eBay for 5k. I'm sure that was a scam though.

that af does look good. Canon please put 4k 10 bit in the XF-AVC firmware update

If you guys want EOSHD to be all about just 1 camera, I am just glad you're not running the show.

Excellent! If you get a runaway recording, let me know the combination and I'll get on to it with a G7.

I'm ready to test with 4K25p. If no one can verify the 4K24p, I'm ready to take after 4K25p

Hi all! Thanks for the work you've done! Ready to participate in all tests My camera G7, I am use this html file DEPLOY VIDEO QUALITY.html and my camera for video quality returns err_parm by all link. VLOG G - err_parm; VLOG Gamma - place standart profile; VLOG L - err_parm. Cinelike D/V normal switch. I also attach my file "Options available" dump_G7.xml

I, too, am excited. I have already saved 75euros in my secret stash (which is the Rage Against The Machine Vinyl, no one will search there!), and I want the CN-E too. If you do something, let's do it right!

If you could find a GH4 that hasn't been upgraded then what I would be tempted to try is do the initial octopus boot up sequence and then go to the ROM backup menu that appears when you do this and do the backup to SD function. Then get your updated GH4 and do the same and back its ROM up to SD. These are plain text files though ideally you would open them both in a hex editor and do a compare between the old one and your upgraded one. There might be a clue in there as to how you could do something that would allow the old firmware to be put on the GH4 with the newer one..... Please note that I'm not in any way telling you to be brave and just go into the ROM backup menu and then load the file from the older version onto the GH4. Its precisely the sort of reckless thing I would do of course

The c200 looks even better than the C300ii, definitely RAW is the future, technology is evolving every day and prices going down weekly, with 3 x 250GB Cfast cards and a computer you can do a day of shooting without a problem, I am falling in love for this camera more and more every day with every new footage which is released…..the color, the texture, everything is so good, I am already saving for it, and I am sure as soon as the c200B is released we will see many ingenious peripherals added a very low prices, that will save us some grants which is always welcomed….well done daddy Canon, finally you delivered!!!

Maybe you should just be happy with one camera Andrew

Seeing as this hack was about combining features from other cameras by harvesting commands, its quite apt to see it being used to shoot combine harvesters !

Here it is used on GX80 cinelike D, GH5 (12-35) - wide angle, slow motion (cinelike D) , GX80 - Longer lens (pan 42.5 1,7 ) cinelike D GX80 shot - 0:34 , 1:16 , 1:43 , 1:46 , 1:59 , 2:11 , 2:13 , 2:16 , 2:21 , 2:42 , 2:44 , 2:45 , 3:15 , 3:17 , 3:19 , 3:23 , 4:32 , 4:44 all shot on GX80 is handheld ,one hand, the other hand holds the gimbal with GH5 :-)

I don't see any huge focus problem, especially if you like hunt/seek. If you don't want hunt/seek, use digital zoom or have someone "pogo" a large monitor (with stand legs folded) for each camera operator. You might want to match the different clips a little more. All the "shoot-throughs" and CUs are great, but I have found that it is often beneficial to also have a full-length, clean, wide shot of the entire band from which to cut in and out.

I agree, the film look is lovely. But it's not magic. It's resolution and motion, and color handling and skintones. It's how it nails the natural red in people's faces. I started to get more into older glass to help. That with making highlights blue and and shadows blue helps too. A little grain, and you get somewhere. But yes, each film stock and telecine technique help give a unique look. But I still think a certain natural sharpness mixed with softness helps very much. Here's my latest piece with the old angenieux 12-120mm 16mm film lens that helps make it feel more organic. I also softened it in post as well - that helps too a lot.

Thank you guys! Kisses from me and Ebrahim!

You never saw Varicam skintones I guess?

What I do, with FCPX, is create a timeline with the desired stretch format (2048x858 - 2k 2.39:1) & then stretch the footage - as i'm shooting on 16:9, the edges do fall outside the timeline's borders. It all depends on what your NLE will let you do - some might not let you make custom timeline sizes & then you'll just have to adjust the height of anamorphic footage, so you end up with black bars on the top/bottom. If you still have to transcode your footage to an editable format, then yes, your best option is to do the stretch/squeeze then. I stick to Cinema DCP standards: http://unravel.com.au/files/Unravel_Resolution_CheatSheet.pdf

I have owned the h1, h1+ and the h2. I have had so many issues with all of them. I never want to see that basecam PID software ever again. I bought a zhiyun crane a couple of weeks back. Have not used it extensively yet but just with a quick balance out of the box on the a7sii 24-70 fe it performed very well. the h2 c45 looks interesting. But on the FB pilot fly group people are already having issues with it.

So here's an odd one. It's a full feature film I directed, produced and shot back in 2012, shot completely on the trusty old Canon 550D. I released it recently online. The movie is a moody post-apocalypse tale about a man looking to redeem his past mistakes in a ruined world. It was heavily influenced by James Dickey's novel "To the white sea", in that both portray an existential struggle of a man who's teetering on the edge of humanity, trying to survive in a hostile environment. Visually I wanted the film to be reminiscent of Nicholas Winding Refn films, especially Valhalla Rising, and Tarkovsky's Stalker, especially when it came to tracking shots etc. We shot the movie in about one month in the summer of 2012. The crew was mostly myself alone with the actors, and the gear consisted of a 550D, a few lenses (EF50 1.8, Samyang 85 1.4 and a Vivitar 28 2.8), Manfrotto tripod and a Glidetrack slider. I quickly learned to use the sparse equipment inventively, and even turned the Glidetrack into an improvised jib. I shot most of the movie in natural light - only the opening scene and a few flashback scenes have actual lighting. The film is very rough by modern standards, but I think a lot of the camerawork still holds up. The movie played at some domestic and foreign festivals back in 2013 and had a run at a local movie theatre, but after that I buried it because I wasn't happy with it. Recently I did some re-edits to tighten up the pace and now released the new version online. It's still not an easy movie to stomach, it's very slow and ponderous, but I think at the very least it serves as a reminder of what can be achieved with very little gear or resources.

Damn @Ehetyz I just watched the opening scene and credits... it looks awesome!!! Good pacing. Clean shadows. Nice camera work and composition. Obviously great gunshot effects. These are the kind of films that excite and inspire me... good filmmakers with modest means just saying fuck it, I want to make a movie. I will definitely be watching the rest of this and probably giving notes or comments as I go along... So far, so good. My only note and it's a dumb one, is that I would have liked to have seen a shot of the main character turning on the radio... it took me a split second to realize that the voice was coming from the radio. Obviously it isn't something worth reshooting but just a note. Anyway, awesome job and I look forward to watching the rest of it. If you don't mind me asking, what are you shooting with now?

I don't use any profile. I have tried a couple but find I like it as it is. I am trying a few creative styles but currently have it set to standard with Contrast and saturation at 0 and sharpness at -1 though that could be changed again. My video use isn't so serious yet. I tend to try and get it how I like in camera as my editing skills are pretty poor. I do love this lens for stills but I do want to use it more for video now but I do need to put it on a tripod (for video, not needed for stills).