Leaderboard

The small hole is actually to reduce the amount of material required, thus saving 0.23 cents/unit on manufacturing costs. It's the compromise they made in order to afford the 24p license.

Now, that's justified and definitely helps set the tone and make the 'cinematic' part stand out. I like it. Craig Adams seems like a really nice guy. Someone, with whom you could gladly have a chat and make some silly jokes. I'll definitely check it. Just let me get some solar viewing glasses. ? I've seen it! And right then the whole aspect ratio thing felt just spot on. One of the moments when I smiled and thought: 'that's a proper cinematography, wow'. Truth be told: neither did I notice. ?

It doesn't have an RF Mount, dual XLRs, or an internal ND (either internal or with the adapter). So the Pocket 6K does not have all of the specs a C100 III would have. I've tried out the Pocket 4k and all of the usability issues remain in the 6K version, 3 or 4 of them being fatal flaws (meaning, I won't use it professionally): - terrible battery life - fixed screen that is difficult to work with and not daylight viewable - Terrible ergonomics and general shape. - Quite a few reports on random shut-downs (I had the Pocket 4K turn off on me more than a dozen times whenever the battery got close to 50%). Currently, Black Magic makes cameras that give you a beautiful image with a fantastic codec and menu system at a GREAT price, but everything else is a bit of a disaster.

Yep, perhaps some component is not holding up to what they expected and they prefer to play it safe and do a hardware upgrade. On every site people have been complaining about companies giving more features if need, even for a paid upgrade. You have a company doing it, and giving you the ultimate format and people are still complaining. I mean Nikon just brought 10 bit (full frame) and raw to the dslr mirrorless market price segment and those guys are still complaining. You would believe Nikon just removed 24p in their latest camera release or still sticking to 8bit video.

People are real life jokes, so you are getting RAW video from an update and don't have to buy a new camera and you are still complaining. The z6 is like half the cost of that Panasonic and is still beyond most people capabilities as shown by the video above. Have you seen the size of the BM apsc only 6k camera. Tell me about it's superb autofocus and battery life for video... and photo. Oh yeah, Nikon should do a video camera and forget there core market for some people on the internet that I am sure has a valid reason to need a raw full frame camera for less than 3k. They are really ripping their customers.

Well I was hoping for the infamous Organic sensor from Panasonic. I dont really care for 8k at all. I need more DR, built-in ND and perfect AF which oragnic sensor promised to provide. So I still have some hopes for it..

Ha! You should have been around in the early 80's to get a glimpse of what that same sentiment meant to viewers back then. First I recall hearing about how things were getting screwed up was when it came to "Hill Street Blues," I guess. That was a popular TV show that embraced more chaotic camera movement. But, man, talk about tame by today's standards. Of course, a similar attitude was prevalent when French New Wave came about and it punched the industry in the mouth. I say no rules. Play with the thing. That's what creatives are supposed to do. The tools of the craft allow for a heck of a lot of stretch, so pull and see what happens.

Love it! I don't think that it's distracting or flashy at all in the examples you posted, it's very tastefully done, with clear intent. Sure, the second video is very action-packed but it's not because of the aspect ratio changes, but rather the editing itself. Besides, like you said, it's targeting young people who wanna have fun. (bonus points for it being a polish ad ) I'm just amazed when filmmakers decide to break the rules, do something different and it totally works.

Indeed. Perfect for a controlled environment where you (can) do retakes. But would never trust them in one-time events like weddings, etc...

About this far out i think ?

That is preposterous it really is. The 1D X Mark II cannot compete with the X-H1 on pricing, size, weight, codec, file sizes, 120fps quality, handheld shooting, stabilisation, ergonomics, EVF or LOG. And that is just the features off the top of my head. The video market knows exactly what it wants and the 1D X Mark II isn't it. Otherwise they'd be a big thread about it here but there isn't. And when I reviewed it, it didn't exactly set a discussion going with hundreds of people saying "this is for me". I liked it in 2016 for stills and for giving the 1D C Dual Pixel AF - but losing Canon LOG and increasing the crop factor left a sour taste for my $6k. The 1D X Mark II is a superb pro stills camera and I used it as such... With Canon's best looking 4K outside of the 1D C... But it just isn't practical. Paying that much money to shoot MJPEG in 4K, massive file sizes, losing the EVF and IBIS, very important features... Why? Along with introducing moire in 1080p and 120fps, all I can say you must really need it as a stills camera to buy it in 2019. It's a dodo. In 2019 I would use the X-H1 every time instead.

I haven't seen much of anything on its photo capabilities other than a Panasonic rep saying that it can do everything the S1 can do.

I don't know but that Oakley commercial was awesome

If there's a reason to it's fine, but I'm not a big fan of it as a stylized choice, though there are always exceptions.

If it serves a purpose in the story, it can be a wonderful effect. In The Grand Budapest Hotel, it's used to show different time periods, and it fit with the overly-produced style of the movie--sort of like the obvious miniatures. In the 2nd Hunger Games, the aspect ratio slowly changes as Katniss moves into the arena. The screen literally opened up as she rode the elevator to the surface. Both of those worked for me. In The Dark Knight, the changing ratio didn't help the movie, but I didn't mind it particularly, since it was generally grouped together. E.g. an entire scene would be shot in IMAX, and then another entire scene in 35mm. It didn't cut between them too much. In Dunkirk, however, there was one scene where it cut between the boat and the plane in different ratios, and I thought that was distracting. (The color between the two film stocks didn't match at all either, not that has anything to do with aspect ratios.) I found the videos in the OP to be super distracting.

The 2014 Canadian film 'Mommy,' directed by Xavier Dolan, has some of the most interesting use of mixed aspect ratios I have ever seen; most of the film is in a very unorthodox 1:1 square aspect ratio, like Instagram. It is cramped, small, and very claustrophobic for framing, and it is only when the main character — a teenaged boy with severe behavioral issues — finally feels some freedom and happiness in his life, that he very memorably and literally pushes the aspect ratio of the film into glorious, huge, cinematic wide-screen. It could have been very gimmicky, but in the context of the story it is a pretty marvelous, eye-opening moment. Another moment, later on the movie, does the same thing, to very heartbreaking effect. It's a very interesting film.

I would prefer to watch 2.8k alexa footage than any 6k footage from most other camera. I just understand people, if you think anything beyond 4k ( I would even say true 2k) is going to bring anything more in terms of image quality, you are completely wrong.

Hollywood does it on occasion. The Dark Knight had a few IMAX shots sprinkled in where the aspect ratio went from ~2.39:1 to ~1.85:1. The Grand Budapest Hotel goes from 4:3 to 16:9 for stylistic reasons to show whether scene is current day or a story by the narrator. So long as it serves a purpose, I think this is completely fine.

so the 83 year old CEO, Chairman and Emperor of Canon Fujio Mitarai basically said that "we are now aware that we have lost the camera market lead and will cut our R&D costs into cameras and try to compensate by selling more Corporate Printers instead". to me it seems like a matter of Pride & Principle when a greedy old fart and his ego can't accept and admit that he was too Greegy and it didnt work and that he should just Quit and commit HARAKIRI and be done, and so will also end the age of weird basic feature crippling on overpriced products that no one wants to buy anymore anyway... Party's Over Canon! XC10 (wtf!?) why didnt it have EF mount? or EF-S even? probably so we dont buy or use it by mistake. ehh go figure... even the Canon lens devision is still waiting for a Camera to put all that new 2.5K glass they keep making on... and then... 1 Card Slot - No Joystick... ok... the EOS R is as aborted baby a 1DXII made on the side with a 700D... A Crippled Perfect Cam. but crippled... beautifull but ugly at the same time! i guess we just wait 2 more years... save up some Rubels... maybe then... this for me is the embodiment of the "OLD MAN CANON" mentality that has left me (and others it seems) feeling abandoned and even betrayed, still waiting for that 1DC style 4K shooting "5D-MKIV" that never came (...) and the last 'Worthy' Canon (the 5dMKIII which i still use) owes most of the LOVE it got to the Magic Lantern guys anyway. Now 6 yrs later they would rather completely stop playing than admit defeat - i guess it's a Japan thing... DAMN you Canon for basically forcing me to have to buy that Square Sony! but i now realise that my wait will never end if i dont... oh well... i think i'll go take a nap now...

And ride unicorns.

Oh I'm certain there must be EOSHD members who own an ARRI and a set of PL lenses!

Kraig Adams does it regularly in his videos. His videos are travel films and often go from vlog style to cinematic style. The vlog style is 16:9, hand-held or gorillapod, normal speed, with location sound and is often funny. The cinematic style is 2.35, smooth / often gimbal and sometimes drone footage, often slow-motion (although he's moving away from that now), with music over the top and is beautiful. He has experimented with how to transition between the two and often animates the black bars coming in and going out. It's a very different style to the video @heart0less posted! This is a good example, and he talks about it in the BTS.

Best - false colors Fastest - exposure meter In-between - zebras When I had my G7 I just ETTRd aiming for no 100% zebras showing (of course with expections, not gonna underexpose my subject to avoid blowing out the sun)

I've shot over 50 Weddings with the Pocket 4K. Never let me down. It even got knocked to the floor twice, and kept on recording to the USB drive. When a similar thing happened to my GH5, it shut down and the file was badly corrupted. Best camera I've owned. :). And to think I very nearly cancelled my pre-order last December....

Yeah I am not an editor. I used to use HLG on the GH5 though, but that was for personal projects. Plus my B cam the XT30 doesn't do HLG

Not since he sobered up.

I use aperture-priority mode and auto-ISO in combination with zebras. It does the heavy lifting for me, and if I notice that something is pushing into zebras range (I can't recall if I set zebras to 100% or less) then I will manually lower exposure compensation in order to keep the highlights. My GH5 has decent DR and I prefer a less saturated look that shows more DR and doesn't crush the highlights/shadows. To do this I shoot HLG and try to capture the whole DR of the image without clipping and then adjust brightness in post to equalise exposures. As I shoot in 10-bit I can push the image around quite a bit in post and it's not in danger of breaking, so I have that latitude. This fits my "capture everything and make the look in post" approach. If you're trying to get it right in-camera then obviously this isn't how to approach it!

Setup a test scene with some shadows/highlights, some bright colours (a test chart is great but not needed), and some skin tones. Film it with your camera at varying exposures, I'd suggest "properly" exposed and +1, +2, +3, -1, -2, and -3 stops. Then in post process the footage so that it's all the same brightness and then look at the images, notice what it does to colour, skin tones, and highlights/shadows. This is what professional cinematographers do to "learn" a new camera or film-stock. They often talk about how a particular camera is a -1 stop camera because they've done the tests and that gives the nicest skin tones or colour or whatever. I'd also suggest that you play with the colour profile to test things like lowering the contrast (most normal profiles have too much contrast for my tastes) and for each change you make you should repeat the above test. You will eventually find that you prefer a profile with a certain contrast, a certain saturation, and a certain exposure level. It's a lot of work, but if it wasn't required then every home video that dad made with a camcorder would be breathtakingly beautiful, and that is obviously not the case.

Wikipedia is all you should need. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion Basically, if I make a scene with three points, the first one is perfectly in focus, the second is a one inch behind the focal plane and is a bit blurry and the third is two inches behind the focal plane. Then I project that image onto two sensors, one is low resolution and the other is high resolution. On the low resolution sensor the point source hits one pixel (one photo site) and the second one is a bit blurry but the photo sites on this sensor are so large that it still only hits one photo site. The third point is so out of focus that it hits more than one photo site. On this sensor the first two points are in focus and the third is out of focus, therefore the DoF is between 2 and 4 inches. On the high resolution sensor the point source hits one pixel (one photo site) and the second one is a bit blurry and because the photo sites on this sensor are so small that it hits multiple photo sites. The third point also hits more than one photo site. On this sensor the first points is in focus and the second and third are out of focus, therefore the DoF is between under 2 inches. This is because the definition of what is in focus and what is out of focus is related to the resolution of the sensor / film-stock. This is what Circle of Confusion is referencing. Also from wikipedia: In digital photography, what is acceptably sharp would be based on the resolution (which is why people pixel-peep by zooming into 100%) and the visual acuity of a digital sensor is its resolution.

Sigma will have a working FP in its cine guise for hands on demos at the IBC. I was a bit more "meh" than usual about going this year so this will make it a bit more interesting. https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-participate-in-ibc-2019/

I prefer false color over anything else, but you may need an external monitor for that. If I don't have false color, I often use spot metering to check specific locations in the frame. Histogram is okay, but doesn't give enough information about what a specific part of the frame is doing, and is mainly helpful for protecting highlights. An evenly spread histogram doesn't tell you much other than whether you've blown something out. I very rarely use zebras, but I would probably use them more if I did any run'n'gunning. Whatever method you pick, do a lot of tests before a shoot so you know how your specific camera model and color profile behave. Some cameras do better slightly underexposed, some slightly over. Many cameras have color shifts across the exposure range, so you definitely want to find the range of sweet spots within which you can expose a face (for example) without having color shifts. You never want to be on set wondering whether pulling a face down 2 stops will turn it into a pasty mess. Don't be so afraid of blown highlights that you sacrifice the subject to protect something in the background. If I have a window that's blown out by 3 stops, I might drop my exposure by 1 stop, and then when I bring up the exposure in post I have that 1 stop to make a smoother rolloff.

Super impressive performance for 5-stops under exposed for the Pocket 6k then brought up by 5-stops in post. The underexposed performance of the Pocket 6k was also evident in Tom Antos' USRA Mini Pro, Pocket 6K, Alexia and Red Tests. It seems to me that if you are shooting in natural light the Pocket 6k is the way to go. I knew there was a reason I liked the Pocket 6k over the Pocket 4k - now if Blackmagic would release a MFT version of the Pocket 6K - I would purchase it. From this: To this: Wow!

Canon could garner a good bit of goodwill by just simply releasing a mini C100 MarkIII with 4K 60p 10-bit, RF Mount, great AF (that’s a given), dual XLRs, etc. maybe somewhere in size between the C100 and XC15. Still small and light enough to put on smaller gimbals basically. could just be their standard doc and one man band camera for $4500-5000.

There are so few limitations to the lenses you can mount to Sony E. I left Canon video in 2014 and was using adapted EF lenses. Now I'm transitioning to native E glass because it's generally much lighter and smaller (and according to DXO, much sharper), especially since IBIS means there's no need for huge IS glass. I do find the new RF glass intriguing but there's no way I'm going back to Canon. I'd literally rather try any other company at this point. Nikon, Panasonic, Blackmagic, Fuji...

This is one of the sillier things ever said on here. That's a $5500 camera. The X-H1 is a $1300 camera. That you need to spend $5500 on a Canon camera to get the features you can from a camera that's 1/4 the price is an issue. They want all of that for under $5500 ?

From my understanding, color science and video codec are part of the story of Canon’s failure. There were several more fatal mistakes being made by Canon itself in the past five years. Before Sony released the first 4K camera A7S, Canon occupied most of the video shooting marketing because most of the photographers, especially in wedding photography sector wanted to manage the equipment easier thus they purchase all Canon stuffs from bodies to wide range of EF lenses. This was the good old day of Full HD movie that was still adequate for the producers facing the average consumer market. Canon reserved the color profile and 4K exclusively for the Cinema EOS and lured the producers to buy the expensive movie body which could utilize their EF lenses to “save” money from buying extra filmmaking lenses. In certain sense, Canon slowed down its step to improve the video technology because they believed 4K were for the professional and wouldn’t be the mainstream in the coming five years. And the users’ loyalty to EF lenses will help it maintained the sales of camera body. However, Sony thought differently and tried to be the bad boy to ruin the lenses-monopolization of Canon by using the trick – the EF to E-mount adapter. When Sony A7S entered the market all wedding photographers and filmmakers just went crazy with the most economic 4K solution at that period. The adapter helped Sony to buy time and boost sales during the days without enough good choices of E-mount lenses. Canon couldn’t do anything because the patent of EF mount was already expired which meant it was going to be exploited by other camera brands. This smart move ruined the plan of Canon entirely but it still did not want to face the truth that 4K should be getting cheaper and more popular in the following years. Instead of releasing 4K in the EOS DSLR line, it launched the stupid XC10 as responding to the need of 4K in the prosumer market. The situation getting worse when more brands and various kind of equipment penetrated the market such as GoPro 4 Black, DJI Inspire 1, iPhone 6S, etc. I still remember my first 4K camera was LG G4 in 2015! But even worse that actually, Canon’s technology of CMOS hasn’t been improved much after 5D mark II. The merely increased pixels and boring ergonomic design just losing all its charm . The only reason of buying Canon is just because the users are photojournalists who need weather and dust sealing in the tough environment. Sony (with EF lenses), GoPro, DJI and iPhone take its place in video taking position. Otherwise, there are not much reason to have DSLR with lame video spec. EOS m6 mark II may be the new hope. But what Canon should do that is releasing more power in color profiles and in body RAW recording. Otherwise, a little Sony RX100 mk VII is still able to blow it away. Dinosaur should die anyway but usually slowly.

Don't sell your kidney... Geekness or even filmmaking are not worthy, your health is : -)

Further Canon madness with regards EOS RP, M6 II and 90D: - Aperture Priority mode 4K shooting is disabled - Video mode is either Full Auto / Full Manual. It does not follow the mode dial selection - Cannot shoot 4K by hitting record button in a stills mode - and 1080p is recorded in P Auto no matter what stills mode you are in - No ALL-I codec option - No AF or IS with 120fps - 120fps is cropped, using 84% of sensor - Bitrate for 4K is just 120Mbit There is a movie-cropping feature on the 90D, so it will be interesting to see if 4K in the cropped mode is a 1:1 crop with no binning. Either way it's lose-lose. Crop in one, poor resolution and moire in the other. It isn't clear whether the EOS M6 II has the cropped-sensor mode in 4K or whether this is a 90D feature only. https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/learn/education/topics/article/2019/august/video-with-the-eos-90d/video-with-the-eos-90d/!ut/p/z1/jZFbT8JAEIV_DY9ltuz25tvS0otWsWCB7otpy1IaeyGl0sCvd1GiMWpx3mbynZlzMsBgBayKD3kWt3ldxYXoI6Y-3weu7nom8pHlGyiYTseWbZseoQSW7wD6oygC9h99D8D61y8gmkBUei_BMYPbq9fsT5bJ4jbrFdypVwCHXADd0yeugUb-1Hc0RDWToNkTlZ1Q-bFhMSaIqoZl4pF9znABeiKKVFlRJx_foFWCdeG-4Rve8Gb42ojxtm13-5sBGqCu64ZZXWcFH6Z1OUC_Sbb1voXVdxIi8QftK4djehYKKJ7ZPp075FGF5SHnHYRV3ZTCyfxse5fma4g0BWN5LSuSwnUuETXFUhwniiQbKVFkvsYbOQEXwa4Mw0opDC_3JJYc8Wn8IL0BI0U2tA!!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Fcanon_newweb_content%2Fdigital_learning%2Feducation%2Band%2Binspiration%2Farticles%2F2019%2Faugust%2Fvideo-with-the-eos-90d%2Fvideo-with-the-eos-90d

The autofocus adapter will be available in early 2020.

Now, if they can get browsers and cellphones use the right gamma and the highest resolution when in WiFi, we are on to something... NLE catching the right flags for rgb wouldn’t hurt either

I regret selling my A6500 as it was just such a useful "take anywhere" camera with awesome AF. Slog2 was instrumental in getting my holiday shots exposed well with a smooth picture. This line definitely has a marketplace, BUT.... I wouldn't say the A6600 is even worth looking at seen as the A6500 can be had for £600-£700 new. 4k60p, better ergonomics, better rolling shutter would have been worth it! This incremental update thing by Sony is getting ridiculous. They used to be very aggressive. Saving the best for the A7S III perhaps? As for Canon, you can't possibly defend them now. They are dead to me for video.

Person posts amazing looking film shot on sub-£1k camera. Posts that follow mostly highlighting criticisms. Nothing wrong with the observations btw, but do you think we might be a bit in danger of losing our 'wow' factor?