Leaderboard

The autofocus is truly one of the best things about the A7R3. Panasonic GH5S should have really addressed this. Bit of a missed opportunity. Because A7R3 going to gobble a lot of sales based just on the autofocus.

I didn't want to start another thread for just to post a link, so I add this here. http://bokehmarket.com/blog/samsung-nx1-best-budget-4k-hybrid-camera-2018-video-stills Some mistakes there, of course the 16-50 is 2-2.8f, and not 2.8f, and the 45mm is 1.8f not 2f. Also, the NX certainly has no IBIS, but with some lenses, the Dual IS is quite spectacular (had that covered since 2015 too).

This thread is fascinating. Partly because of the actual issue (although, bizarrely, we do seem to be flying an Inspire 2 in a bedroom at the moment...) but more so because it illustrates the balance between creativity and technology. Kaylee obviously has her ideas and, these being fixed, is addressing the technical question - how do I implement them? A more general question - is it good to stick precisely to the creative idea and force a solution rather than to modify the idea to better suit an easier technical method? (Eg my solution was to use stills and zoom in post - requiring static shots). When do we need to compromise our imagination? From a pragmatic perspective, should we be prepared to amend the idea simply in order to actually get it done? There is a difference between asking the question: “how might ONE do this?” and “how do I do this?” (because I have limited resources whereas the former makes no such restriction). To some extent (and in no way am I suggesting this applies to Kaylee) the existence of fancy technical solutions might even be restricting our creativity - no longer are we forced to think how best to achieve what we want within certain cost/time/resource parameters. “IF I had this, I could achieve that” is no substitute for “I can achieve this with that”. Tim

But the Samsung version isn't fully variable is it? Not like using a zoom and stopping at any position and going back and forth at will? Lots of cameras have digital zoom at one or two positions for stills (does it work seamlessly for video?). With Sony, I set it to be turned on via the down button and then use the left/right buttons to zoom in and out. (hit the down button just after starting video even if I don't use it). I have mostly only been using it hand held and unstabilized so the video jumps around a bit while zooming but if stabilized and/or tripod mounted, it looks ok. It works as well in APSC mode too. It IS real variable zoom when set to a button that allows it. The E mount Sony APSC kit lens I had also had variable digital zoom for part of its range (in addition to optical zoom) but I think I prefer the clear image zoom way to that too.

Fake.

You're right @noone - Clear Image is way different than just punching in. Sony actually has an algorithm that "looks" at what you're shooting and intelligently creates new pixels. It's one of my favorite features on the FS5. My primes are suddenly variable zooms that I can control with the zoom rocker.

This is different to just having DX mode. I agree about Canon and APSC lenses (which work on Sony FF and M43 cameras with adapters easier than Canon FF DSLRs). I don't understand why Sony seems to be the only one who has digital zoom as being variable. The FF Sony's have APSC and FF modes and also use variable digital zoom (either to 2x as Clear image zoom which is excellent or as normal digital zoom which is not so great over 2x but still better than nothing). Panasonic ETC is great but it is frustrating to me that it isn't variable. It isn't available for RAW stills but for Jpegs works well and the same for video. ( I also don't understand why more people don't use it for video). At the cricket over the weekend, 300mm 2.8 was not anywhere close to long enough for me and while I had a real 2x converter with me, I preferred to use clear zoom with my old ancient manual focus Tamron.

Actually I think it was just a case of them being premature in announcing it? Or there being some kind of lag in getting listed by Apple. All Nikon FX cameras that I know of have also have a DX mode as well, which works for stills and video recording. Very different to Canon's approach which is to actively discourage you from using EF-S lens!!

Just got the Tokina 11-16 as a replacement for my old samyang 14mm. I love it. Keep in mind that the Tokina has 9 aperture blades vs 7 on the Panasonic 14mm

I kinda like that this forum just mostly has a "main forum", as I've seen too many other forums decline if they try to split off into too many minor subforums to try and cater to every possible niche. Exactly. Sub forums only make sense once you get to a very high traffic volume. (such as say dvxuser had, but then they made waaaaaay too many sub forums, which is now killing it. So even if a website does have the traffic volume to support sub forums, the extra sub forums should still be added in at a sensible pace which matches the rate of the growth of the overall forum size. )

The more I use clear zoom for Jpeg stills and video with Sony, the more I hope Nikon (and Canon) does something similar IE a virtually lossless variable digital zoom up to 2x. You CAN go to 4x using the regular digital zoom but there is noticeable loss as you get up above 2x. It just means you don't need zooms at all other than for longer range ease of use options. You can use fast primes as zooms and if it is close to lossless, it means even if there is SOME loss of quality using some of the better prime lenses, you still end up better off than using many poorer quality lenses (zoom and prime). Of course there is nothing to stop you using it with zoom lenses either to increase the range.

I built and flew drones for years now. Honestly I think that's a bad idea to use a drone for this type of tight indoor shoot. Here are a few remarks: >>> First, the FAA has no jurisdiction for indoor stuff. "the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use." >>> GPS positioning is going to be off indoor but since there is no wind, the drone won't drift. Most of DJI drones now comes with a "Vision Positioning" system. Basically, it's a sensor looking downward that can lock on the ground to stay stable. It only works a low altitude (less then 30 ft) and some ground patterns or shape may confuse the system so be careful. >>> The one inch sensor low light capability is not great. The Inspire 2 would do better with a X5S (micro43) or X7 (APSC) camera but that's a huge drone and the propellers wind is going to fuck your shot (it will be a problem with the Phantom also). It's like having 4 powerful fans blasting air at full speed. Basically the blanket and your actor's hair are going to be all over the place.... Finally, the space will be tight for an Inspire, you really need to have a good pilot. Inspire props can hurt you bad. >>> For the building shot question, the altitude for commercial operator (Part 107) is limited to 400 feet. However "Part 107 limits your altitude to 400 feet unless your unmanned aircraft is flying within 400 feet of a structure (in which case you may not fly higher than 400 feet above the top of that structure)." So you can fly has high as 400 feet right above the building assuming you don't burst in the lower ceiling of the airspace above such as Class C or B (some of them start as low as 1000 above the ground). >>> Finally for the sensor, I'm going to assume that you are going to use a DJI drone. They have 4 types of sensor, the Mavic and old Phantoms have a tiny 1/2.3” sensor (eg= bad in low light). The Phantom 4 Pro has a one inch sensor and the inspire comes with a Micro43 (X5S camera) or APS-C/super 35mm (X7 camera). The rest of the settings (resolution, DR, log, etc.) is similar to normal cameras. The inspire 2 can shoot 10 bits prores or 12 bits cinema DNG based on the license you buy. >>> Here is my humble opinion: For the first shoot, just use jib or a crane or make something out of ropes with a camera on a gimbal. Shouldn't be too complicated with a Background Stand System. For the second shot, just hire a local professional with a Part 107 license (FAA commercial drone pilot license). There is plenty of drone operators, this is a very simple shoot, it shouldn't cost you more than $200-500 depending of the complexity and requirement. You can search google or take a look on one of those uber like websites to pick an operator: DroneBase or Droners.io, etc.

I would never put a drone over a person like that....if you crashed into the ceiling or if the white comforter caused the drone to lose its perspective because it's not contrasts enough, well, the result could be disastrous...consult with a Key or Dolly Grip on how best to accomplish your shot....you're in SoCal..,find one in the 411 directory, offer to buy them lunch on a day they are not booked and describe your shot....there main objective is to rig anything safely!...they will know. PS...I own a drone and would never subject talent to that kind of risk!

The Tokina 11-16 gets you down to 7.4 mm at the wide end with a Nikon to M4/3 XL Speedbooster for around 399....the Speedbooster is of course extra, but considering crop factor and in the case of the XL adding 11/3 stops of extra speed to every lens you own in that mount, it is an incredible bargain....7.4 mm at f1.8 is Sigma speed!...I briefly considered the 8-18 Leica, bit as my 12-60 already gets me so wide, and as movement along the edges of the frame gets weird when you pan on a lens below 10 mm wide, I opted for saving the $1,100...the combination works really well for that rare occasion anyone would go that wide!

Probably. I have a memory about them not carring about paying for prores either.

I am assuming Kinefinity just doesn't care about IP laws for the E mount: http://www.kinefinity.com/shop/k2e/?lang=en

Remember the Phantom 4 Pro has a 1" sensor, which is much bigger than any Phantom has ever had before.

I also love the focal length, perfect for me as well. My favorite lens was the Voigtlander 40mm f2 Ultron before this. I made the mistake of renting the 1.2, now I have to figure out what to sell to keep it The subject separation is insane.

Do think tech is discussed from an experience standpoint. How to shoot more efficiently, how to overcome certain problems we might be facing. It's only just partly gear nerding for the sake of it. And of course, otherwise, the community regulates/dictates what it wants to see. If that's mainly tech related... that's just what you get, but of course anyone is welcome to shape it the way they want and add their own twist.

That is an incredible price. This is a jacket-pocket size camera that I use as a B or C cam for live recordings (2-3 hours shows) and does NEVER overheats, even in the warmest summer days of southern Europe. A great and very powerful mini camera. Fact: when it was out, heavily criticized by the special press about the fact it couldn't do full readout on 4K. Several Nikon dSLRs later, and bigger and multiple times more expensive cameras that over heat, or do not 4K at all. NX500 looks better than ever. And dead gorgeous too.

You don't really need the Goggles, but I believe it can use your head movement to control the camera. I'm not sure how organic that would look, but it might be helpful. Ask you friend which camera he has for the Inspire 2. Inspire 2 comes with two independent remote controls. One for the pilot and one for the camera operator. Have your friend pilot the drone and you can manage the camera. I've only crashed my drones on two different occasions. Both of them involving me, flying backwards and putting all my attention on getting interesting camera movements. Then, it was the moment your heart stops. Because you can see your drone tumbling downwards. I was lucky to recover my drones both times. The first time, I was in a remote village in the Republic of Georgia. I had no idea how the GPS on app works and I basically failed trying to find drone though the GPS. However, because there is a local cache video footage. I was able to triangulate the last few seconds of my footage and kept hiking uphill through the woods till my eyes were seeing the exact image that my drone last capture and miraculously found my drone in thick forest before it got dark and the storm came in. Moral of story is, you always need an observer, if you're piloting and shooting yourself. Otherwise if you have a pilot, you can have the pilot focus on flying and you on the shot. Reduces all the potential hazards. There are also very nice fancy apps. Which I have not learned to use yet. That allow you draw a flight path which avoids hitting the buildings, etc. You can then have the drone fly that path and you can focus on the shot. That way, you can repeat the exact same drone movement without worry of hitting anything on the way. Inspire 2 also has hot swappable batteries. You basically replace one of the two batteries one by one and the drone does not need to reboot and sync with the GPS.

I just bought a NX500 to complete the NX1. For fun, for work (easy to take with you), for my wife at holidays. Body just € 225,- I will add my 16-50pz to it... can you imagine, this quality for that price!

Just got a Voigtlander 40mm 1.2. Haven't had a chance to test in video yet. But DAMN

I would like to return to two of the original premises of this thread - that Sony color is now "better" because you can shoot in HLG with the REC2020 color space and that HLG is easy to grade. Note that REC2020 and REC709 are both standards and both of these color spaces are available. That is, it has always been true that SONY accommodated color standards set by others (REC709). S-Gamut is their own, but not REC709. First, I assume that we are still having to view video in REC709. If we view video in HLG, then shooting in HLG is great. But, few will do that. So, the fact that one can shoot in REC2020 color can hardly (easily or automatically) result in good REC709 color. REC709 color is a subset of REC2020, and REC2020 color does not nicely translate into REC709 color just because you view it on a REC709 screen. Nor is translating REC2020 to REC709 in post simple at all. Thus, it is not easy to grade HLG to make a video that looks good in REC709 unless you know the exact math that makes REC2020 translate to REC709. Of course "looks good" is the issue here. Let's start with accuracy or realistic as one notion of looking good. REC2020->REC709 is not easy if one is looking to get the most accurate color for REC709 screens. Maybe someone likes the look of REC2020 as viewed in REC709. But to say that look is "better" is completely subjective. If you prefer the gamma curve in HLG, you can play with that. But then why not combine the HLG gamma with REC709 color if the ultimate viewing is going to be in REC709? OK, here is a comparison of the same scenes shot in HLG and in REC709. Four scenes. For each, the first was shot in HLG (HLG gamma and REC2020 Color) the second in Standard (REC709 gamma and color). If you watch this on a standard TV or monitor you can assess how HLG clips look viewed in REC709. If you watch this on a TV and *set* it to HLG, you can see the HLG clips as they are meant to be seen and get HDR. The HLG clips underwent no post-processing; the REC709 (Standard ) clips had to be re-rendered to merge with the HLG clips but no other post-processing was done. That is why there are no titles in the video - to avoid processing. This was shot using the Sony FS5, which can also now shoot in HLG. I chose the standard one, not the Sony HLG variants. Does anyone think the HLG clips have better color? I will later post a video that displays the transformed HLG clips to conform to REC709, using Catalyst Browse. One can see how ell HLG converted lokks in REC709.

I don't. No-one does. I have developed regular E-6 reversal in s8 and s16mm. If one can live with some gritt, low framerate and more gritt then s35 widescreen is very easy to shoot and develop. The camera is like $50 Starts at 0:45 ish Or if you can get your hands on a D16.. grabb it and don't let go. And that includes the Monochrome imo.

The ACES workflow in DaVinci makes matching your cameras easy as hell--as it should, since that's what it was designed for. If you haven't tried it, go give the tools a spin. You'll be stunned what you can get out of it.

I have the Panasonic 8-18, and while I do love that lens and it’s sharpness for photos, it doesn’t really have the practical advantages for video you might think. The autofocus is bad to the point where I don’t even use it for vlogging. I’ll set focus and flick the switch on the barrel to manual. It’s that bad, even in daytime sunlight. The IBIS also doesn’t play very nice with it on the wider end. There’s a lot of jello and background warp happening there. But That will likely be the case for any lens that wide. it is still one of the better options for the system, given that it has filter threads and has great image quality. Just be aware that the autofocus can be maddening and fly by wire is verrrry difficult to pull reliably and consistently. for my purposes, I still think it’s the right choice. But if you don’t mind the bulk of adapted lenses and will be doing mostly manual focusing, there are better options.

I'll make sure to do a side by side with the UM46K when I get the GH5s.

Near "super 35" sensors will always be coveted by filmmakers as a matter of a long withstanding convention. It can and will change, but for now I don't personally know many ppl complaining about the super 35 -ish format in real world applications. Full frame is more desired in photography, but there's a growing movement to go medium format as those systems come down in price. It's all relative to how wide you want to go and obtain a shallow depth of feild and light gathering abilities. Usually, if you're shooting wide, it's because you want to show the breadth and detail of the entire frame. Therefore, I feel the sweet spot is super 35, but I'm not married to my own opinions either. The lowest I'm currently willing to go as far as production is APS-C with back illumination. Samsung spoiled me in this regard. I'm not touching mirco four thirds with your 10 foot pole. A simple physics issue for me.

Yes if you can understand that. Basically in the slog2 folder, apply either 4 things: 1. CIN (cineon colorspace originally developed by KODAK for film print to digital for Digital intermediate) 2. FPE - (film print emulator) 3. VS - (vision space lut) 4. I don't remember what this one is. If you go FPE or VS - it's done - it has converted it all for you. If you go CIN - it is now SUPER SUPER flat as CINEON log space. From here you go into the CINEON converter folder - and can convert to kodak 5293, FUJI, and some others. This gives you more control than FPE or VS for tweaking the image, and more control over the final image. all this is in the manual on their website - I highly recommend reading that. also try Filmconvert - I like that a lot more - it keeps everything in REC 709 so the highlights POP!