Leaderboard

Read the spec sheet, saw all of the things it doesn't have, saw the price, know full well I have zero lenses for it..... Still did this

What this demonstrates, imo, is that BlackMagic do their homework. They rewrite and optimize their software. Whereas Adobe doesn't. Shouldn't it be the easiest thing on earth to optimize Premiere for Macs? Known parts, drivers, OS. But still it ridiculously fails, by far outperformed by a free software.

Its because of Tony Northrup and some other mistaken jebroni's that people think cropped sensors gather less light than full frame.

I've had the NX1 for about 6 mos or so. The images it produces has become one of my favorite. Mostly shot on Nikkors Ais and Rokinons. Gamma: Normal, -3 Contrast, -2 Sat, -10 Sharpness, 16-235 for some and 0-255 for others.

I have just spent the evening watching the two first episodes from season 2 of Plant Earth and the behind the scenes of both episodes. On Blu-ray of course The show is just as awesome as season one. It truly is the best shot nature videos ever. I recently saw season one again and it definitely hold up today, but this was beyond. What did you guys think about the show, gear, techniques? Just some thoughts that came to my mind afterwards. The Arri Amira and Red cameras delivered of course, but the shots that blew my mind the most was from a Sony F5. Now its impossible to compare footage from two cameras shot by two completely different teams on different continents, different lights, etc and so forth. But still... the F5 colors blew my f...ing mind. The m4/3 camera (looked like one) that they first tried for flying shoots with the para sailer actually looked really good. They had it mounted on the helmet. To bad they couldn't use the shots. When they ditched that plan and flew tandem they could use something bigger (Sony A7x), it also looked nice. When the scenes are so far apart they could mix ARRI, Red, F5, etc and no matching issues. But within many locations they still used different cameras and shooters and I still never felt it uneven. Boy does sound effects really make or break nature videos. Its a bit funny when considering that more than a few fights on forums regarding video looks and grading have had crusaders of the "real look" and "looking through a window look". And they almost always use nature shows as good examples of "real". Well.. unless they put a law mic on a crocodile, that aint particularly real These where just some thoughts, felt like sharing. Watched with my GF and she couldn't give two shits and a popsicle about the gear The whole thing made me want to buy a BMD and go shoot. At least to go snap nature photos with the X-Pro2 or even better, the Sigma SDQ.

Like I said, it isnt real life and one cant simply say, all big sensors have better iso than smaller. But either way its not a fact at all, even with same generations. My old 2013 GM1 kills my APSC from 2016. So already the rule goes out the window. The whole thing is absolutely pointless for me as a creator. Again, imo, sensor size is borderline irrelevant. I look at the camera and how I can use it.

After having written a few physics-based computer simulations (flight, driving, and virtual reality), I can tell you that vehicles that can make instant turns and stops effectively have no mass. Very small, lightweight objects with high-thrust systems can approximate this kind of motion, however 15+ foot objects going incredible speeds then stopping instantly defy explanation if these objects have mass (vs. a massless optical projection). The theory is these objects don't subject their payloads/passengers to any g-forces at all. They are either warping space, and thus the object isn't even moving (space is warped around the object, creating effective motion without any velocity and thus no momentum), or somehow partially or fully shielding the object from interacting with the Higgs Field (or whatever is fundamentally really going on) to massively reduce apparent mass. Without additional tricks up their sleeves, objects that have effectively zero mass travel at the speed of light, so they'd need some kind of additional shielding.

Thought I'd throw this one into the mix: Again, if anyone spots nice pricing: sharing is caring.

I think it depends. The thought started when people said a full frame sensor is larger and can take in more light, which is true. But light gathering is just part of the equation. How it's processed down the chain matters a lot, too. The A7S is head and shoulders above a 5D in low light performance, despite the similar sensor size.

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.......

Once I figured out how they did it, I didn't want to publish this material. However, it's important that we challenge the people behind these hoaxes. If done by private individuals (vs. govcorp), they are wittingly or unwittingly contributing negatively to the information war. If they are using Kevlar or similar string/thread, that could be very dangerous to light aircraft and airliners. Shot on the 1DX II in 4K (sky video), 24-105F4L and 70-200 F2.8L II, full resolution stills processed in Adobe Camera RAW:

Because you probably shot all the footage. It takes a lot of fucking time nailing camera movement, lighting and getting a good take from the talent. So when you get to the editing bay, you're far more unlikely to be willing doing the necessary: trimming that shot (that took all day to get,) down to a few frames, or worse, omitting it from the final cut. Can't believe this thought took so long to dawn on me. Got into a huge fight with a friend who asked me to help edit their short. His main argument was something akin to, "YOU CAN'T CUT THAT OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEE-" Made me think like: oh fuck, am I this attached to what I shoot? Sorry for the clickbait title.

Actually bought a used GX85 because of the capability you gave the camera to shoot in Cine-D. Decided to get it as a B-cam to my GH4 and they match well in post with the GH4's Cine-D. Thank You, BTM_Pix.

Sometimes I also notice the difference when I need to stop down a large sensor to get the same DOF as the m4/3. Which results in a darker image and the large sensor is already at max ISO. The shutter is of course fixed. So a m4/3 can definitely have better lowlight in certain situations.

ISO100 is the minimum ISO on Canon cameras. Anything below is digitally pulled from ISO100. Long time ago before raw recording these values gave you better roll-off in the highlight when you recorded in h264. With raw recording only analog gain levels are valid. So 100/200/400/800/1600/(3200) anything in between or higher are digital ISO values. if you put the files in davinci resolve they have the same "brightness" as the analog ISO which used as a source to push or pull. So there are no magic if you are trying to use ISO160/640/1250 which were the magical low noise ISO values before the raw era.

Dont do this to me.. I loved my Leica T more than any other mirrorless camera Ive had... I must buy this. It pains me when the original T can be had for very little. I guess my time with the xpro2 will be as short as the xt2.. it never ends. Damn you G.A.S!!!

Don't go with such an extremely old card! Get yourself a modern one, I'd suggest getting yourself a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti , they are in plentiful supply, are dirt cheap, and more than kick ass good enough to handle moderate editing demands.

Which isn't happening in real life. At the en of the day there are m4/3 cameras that beat full frame in lowlight and ISO. And vice versa. I only look at individual cameras and what they can do. Sensor size is borderline irrelevant.

Sorry I posted in the wrong topic forum,please ignore......

Yeah.. how dare he... because it has such a massive impact on our lives....

I'm used to full frame, and I'd have guessed 50mm. Maybe I'm wrong, but certainly not as wide as a 24mm. I'll give it a go later when I have my camera and 24-105 at hand.

I just reached the point where ISO at 6400 is enough no matter the camera I use (except my RX10II which 800 is the limit...). Would I love to be able to go higher? Maybe, but for the kind of jobs that pay my bread now, it's time to worry about other things like reliability, battery life, backup security, stealthiness and weight. Just saying . EDIT: I didn't know that jabroni thing, but it's so easy to say it looks it will enter very quickly my vocabulary. Looks like an adult version of the smurf word. Kind of catchy...

@Orangenz lost in translation I guess!

Actually you agree, you just read some things into what I said that I didn't say.

"Two Shits and a Popsicle" is my next t-shirt.

Here is te extreem curve used. Be your own judge. I don't have a real recipe. What I tend to do is set up some extreme curves to explore the picture as a whole. So literally the top point either to left or bottom direction and the bottom point to the right or up direction and that for each curve. That usually leads to a good first impression of the direction I want to go. After that it's just a choice of tools. On my desktop computer I work with Davinci. The picture you shared was graded on my MBP in ColorFinesse a plugin for AE. I use it as it is the only grading plugin that will work on my 2010 MBP ...it is slow but actually quite sophisticated for it's age. ...In the end basically all you need is curves and a way to set saturation. The curves in the picture above tell you what I did with the tools available ColorFinesse. The waveform shows I crushed some of the lower levels and the histogram shows the new cloth of the emperor It would really be cool if the 400mb/s is going to help out but I don't have high hopes.

If one is an audiophile, and one can afford the extra $500 or so, the sound quality alone provided by Sound Devices verses the others is totally worth it (listen to the examples in this post): Digital limiters are just slightly above useless. If the sound level barely kisses the limit, a digital limiter might be able to not destroy the take. Sound Devices analog limiters will not clip, even under crazy high levels (there are some side effects if you do this, but the result will be very usable, as shown here:)

I've been using old GPU until quite recently. I just got used to render using CPU. Yes you can use it, no problems (unless you're using Resolve, which needs a GPU). If you need a cheap card for two months, I'd recommend getting something like a Nvidia 660 or 670 (less than $100) . They work quite well with premiere/resolve as they have a decent version of cuda. It should be good while you wait for your new gpu, plus you'll have a spare one if something goes wrong.

Another self shooter-editor here. It's only me that think "all my video editions look the same". I'm not afraid of brutal cutting my own footage, and i dont want to "fit it all". But at the end of edition i always think "just another piece of f@$#% S*@%" Always use same transitions, same fades, always sync to the music, ... Thats the way i learn and its difficult to break this route.

That gpu is 2006 stuff. I think you will do better with the Intel HD of your processor than with that (it has one, right?). Graphic cards evolved a lot, and since Sandy Bridge the Intel HD performance surpassed older entry level cards and mid range stuff the older Intels couldn't even touch. Perhaps, i still can't say for sure if it's enough. I've already used premiere with an HD3000 and t3i 1080p. Can't say it was nice, but still works, and back them i was with an i3 and 4gb of ram, but with no color grading plugins. Your whole system is better than mine was. Way better. So it probably should be fine. But if you want to play with color, i suggest transcoding the h.264 files to some edit friendly codec and depending on which plugin you want to use, i still can't say for sure if it will be good.

Not me. I'm brutal and discriminating to all footage. Don't care where it comes from or who shot it, me included. If I'm not willing to cut, then I'm not editing.

Don't worry about the codec on the E-M1 II, it's very good. Minor differences between that and the superior 10bit on the GH5. And that price is very good indeed. The flat profile can actually be graded quite a lot before it falls apart. I should get my GH5 vs E-M1 II comparison shootout article and footage out, it's been a while and I haven't got round to it!

If you want 4k 60p go with the pana. Anything else the Olympus at that price is a steal. If you're talking about V-log just shoot Oly's flat profile and be mindful is 8bit and not so gradable, but colors overall are beautiful. If you plan to get the look in camera you have a great deal in your hands. The only thing missing is video backup to the second card but that's personal preference. I would take it if I got an offer like this.

Hi, I´m a young DoP in Asuncion, Paraguay. I have done many tests with the NX1 and have been using it for many commercials and resently for the feature film „Saber Crecer“ (To Grow). Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iQ3mQI9CA This film has been shot entirely on my NX1 (except the drone shots) using the bitrate mod (160 Mbit/s) and the NXL speedbooster by Luca. Please let me know what you think

I believe you can find some static stock footages of old 8mm film online. Using that, it's not too much trouble to motion track the image and apply it to your own shots. This'll give you that old looking analog/mechanical image shift and jumping.

Sounds like you are describing 'Gate Weave'. That is when a film frame passes through a projector, sprockets outside the image area control the vertical motion of the frames through the projector. Over time, a film can become warped or the sprockets can wear, causing the frame to appear to move side to side. It can also be caused by a worn mechanical movement in the camera not keeping perfect registration with the sprockets on the negative or by the film itself being warped by heat. A good plugin for exactly this (and other old film effects) for Premiere/AE is Red Giant's Misfire: http://www.redgiant.com/user-guide/universe/misfire/ or you could try and see if you can customise the parameters in this free camera shake plugin: http://premierepro.net/editing/deadpool-handheld-camera-presets/ Gate Weave is primarily a horizontal motion (like a soft sway left and right) that can have different speeds. You could possibly keyframe your clips to have this motion with a Bézier curve to mimic the effect with the inbuilt motion control tab within Premiere. The most 'scientifically accurate' way to achieve the effect would be to shoot on film with a worn movement in a camera that does not have double-claw pull down...or you could purposely introduce movement during the telecine scan.