Leaderboard

and the EOSHD Nihilist quote of the day goes to.......... *drum roll* ???

With Canon debuting the C500 II today, demand for a full frame in a C-series body is clearly there but Fujifilm is looking further into to the future. Their X-Trans IV sensor technology has already debuted in the GFX 100 and X-T3 but I can reveal a leaked slide-show shows Fujifilm might be taking the technology much further than we believed... A large format 44x33 camera optimised for open gate 4K3K RGB. Read the full article

People are crazy, in 1-2 month when they bring out the update and there is no internal Raw, many will come here and say how they did not win an Oscar because Nikon did not put internal Raw in the Z6. One thing I would recommend anyone, you can get a refurbish z6 for 1350 USD. Just add an atomos Ninja 5 to that and for barely 2k, you are getting a full frame 4k camera, that does not have some of the best ergonomics but also out of the box color and video autofocus (forgot IBIS). The Ninja, will give you a ton of other features that make it so much more than just a recorder with a plethora of Focus and exposure tool. Now until Nikon comes out with the price of the RAW upgrade, I cannot be sure on the RAW camera cost. If we speculate it is between 200- 500, you might get a full features FF raw video camera for less than 2.5k. If someone told me that we would have such a camera one year ago, I would have called him crazy. But you will have a bunch here that will always be complaining. If ever that internal RAW comes along as speculated on this thread, it will be in an uncompressed form, good luck working with these gigantic files beyond the cat footage and wife driving car.

It seems that Sandisk is showing off their new CFExpress memory cards with emphasis on raw video. In their prom they clearly show the back of a Nikon Z6 in which they insert their new CFExpress card. So for those that hate external raw capture, Nikon has you covered.

Generally I dislike changes in aspect ratio. It makes me think of youtubers who go from vlog-style to some "cinematic montage", even if the Kraig Addams example posted by @kye is pretty cool. Talking about narrative function - I watched the latest season of 13 Reasons Why (season 3) last week, and they frequently swap between two aspect ratios along with color changes (some scenes are even black and white). It is seemingly used to distinguish between timelines. Present day is represented by cool color and 2.22:1 aspect ratio while flashbacks are 1.77:1 and warm tones. The aspect ratio change bothered me to no end in the first couple of episodes, but I barely noticed it at the end of the series.

I don't mind waiting another 6 months for the GH6, and I hope they add the following: 1. ToF to make up for the crappy DFD in video. 2. Internal electronic ND. 3. Usable ISO upto 12800. 4. That new 8k photo mode in 10-bit in place of the 6k photo mode on the GH5. 5. A compressed RAW codec for when you need it for well paying jobs ?

This plus https://www.metabones.com/article/of/HasselbladVtoFujiGmountSpeedBooster 70mm look. Anyone wants to buy a kidney?

I find the price reasonable for what you get.

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c500-mark-ii-first-look-6k-full-frame-cinema-raw-light-modular-concept/ 'Electronic Image Stabilizer Canon has also added an image stabilizer for the first time in a cinema camera. They call it a 5-axis image stabilizer, so it’s technically not an IBIS because it’s fully electronic.' It's just that it has an accelerometer built-in noticing the changes in the 5-axis giving better chances to correct for unwanted motion artifacts/wobble, so better than 'we'll fix it in post with warp stabilizer', but still digital correction inducing a crop.

As a person that has a degree in computer science and experience in the industry (now left) good software is developed to share as much code base as possible. So your argument is that Canon tested 29.97 FPS to make sure it works flawlessly in their latest cameras but couldn’t put forth the pitiful amount of effort it would take to test and record 23.97 FPS? Especially when they’ve included 23.97 FPS in the past with the same models? How did canon pull off 24fps in the 6d mark ii and the original M6? It has a lessor processor, the DIGIC 7, in the same form factors. You are saying somehow canon can’t develop and test 24fps with their DIGIC 8 processor, which by the way is built on the same foundational knowledge as it’s successor the DIGIC 7, in the M6 ii ? The same DIGIC 8 processor in the M50 that SOMEHOW included 4k24p recording. You’re just trolling at this point. Please show me or find someone that can confirm your license theory. It doesn’t add up. There has been no evidence for it. Somehow every other camera manufacturer can manage to “afford” 24fps codec licensing terms. Canon can’t? They must really be fucked as a company then if they can’t afford the single frame rate every single person wants in their camera as a base. Its Canon playing shenanigans with brain dead feature segmentation.

Very, very, very unlikely. Such logic operations are done inside digic. And EVEN if that was true, their $0.03 on savings will cost them millions on bad press and sales.

It can be the camera work, directing, photography, editing, stage performance or any other. Tell us what impressed you most, somehow touched you or inspires your work... Your own or in a different note, musical skills also apply; part of this craft after all! : ) I'd love to hear the suggestions of you all and I bet I'm not alone on such wish and challenge to this community... Many to come! ; -) Here's one of my favorites: Enjoy, E : -)

I've liked Canon and Panasonic in the past but if this has A9 AF and Venice color it's game over.

I think cinematic 'language' is something that is always evolving and things people do will always fall into three camps: things we've established (eg 180 rule, J and L cuts, etc), things that don't work and will never become a standard part of cinematic language, and things that are unfamiliar but will eventually become part of the standard language. The issue is that 'standard cinematic language' isn't as standard as we'd like, and it will be different between languages, cultures, and sub-groups. For example the technique of deliberately over processing and downgrading the image and audio (making the audio so loud that it's clipped almost beyond recognition) is a completely standard thing that started in meme culture and has worked its way into almost all types of social media video. I can't tell you what it means, but I'm familiar enough with its use that I get the joke when people use it. This is the problem with art - they take what is normal, then create impressionism, cubism, surrealism, post-modernism, post-post-modernism, etc etc etc....

Hope it's true, if only to get a cheap FS5 mark II

So glad @androidlad posts on this forum.

No Ibis? No 8k? That's a no for me. ?

it's small enough for solo operator seems silly to make it so tricky - although audio has always seemed like an after thought with the Canon cinema cameras - having it on top of the handle on my C100 has been a pain in the arse

XQD/CFExpress cards are much more robust than SD cards. I've had many a SD card physically break. Granted, all the premium ones come with pretty great warranties. That said, I prefer the XDQ build quality to that of SD cards. I think it's better to have one XQD/CFExpress slot than two SD card slots, because I feel the former is probably at least twice as reliable.

Interestingly, I just received a "product pre-order" email notice for these SanDisk ExtremePRO CF Express cards from one of the major NY retailers this morning and noticed in one of the linked ads... << XQD COMPATIBILITY The card is backwards-compatible with select XQD® cameras that adopt firmware enabling CFexpress®,2 the CFexpress Card Type B bridges existing devices with the future of technology. >> ...so I went to Sandisk's own product page for more details and found... << Compatibility: Backwards-compatible with select current XQD® host devices ^2 2. Backwards compatibility with select XQD® cameras subject to the availability and installation of a camera firmware update provided by the camera manufacturer enabling CFexpress® compatibility. >> ...from here... Extreme PRO^® CFexpress^® Card Type B | SanDisk: https://www.sandisk.com/home/memory-cards/cfast/extremepro-cfexpress-card Sooo, a CFexpress Card (with 1700MB/s read and 1400MB/s write speeds) will fit into an XQD slot and would work if the camera-maker provides the firmware to do so?! Hrmm, interesting development. So, in the Panasonic world their S1/S1R 1x SDXC + 1x XQD card slot cameras could conceivably accommodate in-camera RAW recording to one of these XQD-compatible cards but their S1H with its 2x SDXC UHS-II (with their 300MB/s read and 260MB/s write speed) slots would be locked out of this internal RAW recording potential?! Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems like an odd card strategy on Panasonic's part (well, if internal RAW was ever in their strategy, ha!)...but its potentially great news for all you 1x QXD Z6 users! :D

I think they did everything right with this one, what a beast! So much good options right now for filmmakers and there is still even more to come (a7siii/z-cam) ? Exciting times!

My love for that song was greatly diminished when I had it on the car and my brother thought it was about this particular brand of confectionary that I'm not sure you have in the US. He claimed I needed to get a better car sound system and I claimed he needed to get a better education. I hope I haven't ruined it for you and that, unlike me, you will still be able to listen to it without hearing "Hey Jack Caramac"

The C500 had separate EF and PL mount versions of the camera but the Mark II has a simple 4 Allen bolt swappable system between EF, PL and Canon's EF Cine mounts.

Here is also BMMCC overexpose test. Technically digital sensors don't have such a thing as overexposure and there is nothing to test there because sensors itself don't have any highlights rolloff. They capture light in linear gamma and hard clipped in one single point. Next that linear data converted to LOG gamma specially designed for each sensor model. And next Color Science converts Log to normal gamma and shapes final image look. So mostly overexpose look is a part of software, but not a part of a sensor hardware itself I use different lighting direction in this test to provide extreme bright light, so these images don't exact match to previous tests. As before i use REDLog3G10/REDWideGamutRGB as timeline gamma. Other gammas and other Log to Rec conversion methods may provide different look of highlight rolloff clipping. And the same with Highlights Recovery turned OFF:

Still shit skin tones but.

Nikon had mentioned internal raw coming after adding CFExpress support, so this doesn't surprise me. I'll be curious to see what the footage looks like. Internal raw for a hybrid that is usable for daily use, without the need for rigging would be a huge breakthrough. Should a Sony A7S3 eventually be released I seriously doubt it will have internal raw. Nikon might be stealing everyone's thunder.

Regarding shooting music videos: Love it! BTS:

Id say end of this year as s1h is only coming on shelfs

best. thread. evr. is it? yeeeeeahhhh mannnn damn son hillbilly (dont cry) sicc af some say that a great war is coming RIGHT HERE PAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Barney p.s. heres some good music for u guys

A7SIII was ready. It was going to suck so they waited and improved. They reported they wanted to exceed customer expectations and that 4K60P was easy. This has been reported by Sony management. Now I think they got some issue with the body design. People mentioning XT3 forget it doesn’t have IBIS and smaller sensor. There is no Full Frame 4K60P fan less mirrorless on the market. It means it’s not that easy. And they said multiple time for A7 line their priority is among others size and weight. The S1H is a huge brick. So let’s see but if we see no A7S3 by year end it sucks hard. I am still waiting on a camera like the S1H but with good AF.

I hope not!!

@kye Platforms for now are web and social media, as I was saying in the post above. In the future hopefully more diverse / larger scale as I try to get into more commercial work. Very good point r.e. vertical video which I didn't really think about yet, as it hasn't come up. I do this with stills all the time (it's easy to flip the camera), but to your point, it's a lot easier to crop a vertical 9x16 1080p from a 16x9 4K capture and not lose resolution or have to scale, than to rig up a 90 degree video camera. Yes, I plan to get the cameras into my hands to get a feel for them for sure before buying. I'm not there just yet, but soon hopefully. It has happened before that I loved something spec-wise, only to wind up not liking it ergonomically once I got my hands on it. Or it's happened that I thought some gear would be awful ergonomically, only to be surprised. So yeah, very, very important for it to feel right. We're on the same page here - feel is very important!

I wish he would shut up already. This thing has already been debunked and he is still going off.

@ghostwind Your approach sounds sensible. I appreciate the buy-once-buy-well approach, and it sounds like you probably have a good enough idea on what your requirements are and how you work to be able to determine what will work for you, both creatively and from a return-on-investment perspective, and considering that the image you deliver may even be secondary for some clients compared how how impressive your camera looks or the specs you can advertise (like shooting in 4K). I don't know what platforms you're creating for, but 4K would give you the ability to deliver 4K 16:9 and also >1080p 9:16 vertical video from the same shot. We've spoken on these forums about vertical video and I recall a lifestyle/branding/advertising film-maker suggesting that filming vertical video for social and also for portrait-mounted TVs was becoming more in-demand. The framing may be different for different aspect ratios, but I would imagine not having to have a 90-degree adapter to flip the camera would be a plus on set, as for each shot you could just reframe and do another take, and then be able to produce a vertical and horizontal version of the same video without much extra time on set. The only other piece of advice I have is to get your hands on a few options and see how you like them. Even if you assume that Canon knows how to make a decent cinema camera (which is pretty well established) there may be little personal elements that would work or not work for you specifically. Ergonomically, conceptually, and for your workflow too.

Yeah I assume it'll be in Ursa Mini territory. The Ursa Mini 4.6k G2 is nice, but having amazing auto focus is a huge plus. If its FS5 size or smaller its pretty compact too, compared to the URSA. Having the ability to do small files sizes in 4k is nice too.

I don't mind it, but sometimes I think it looks a bit choppy, obviously it's a personal choice. I decided to do it in this video where I cut true anamorphic with Fisheye angles and the reception was mixed, some people didn't like it, but it got people talking. I'm un-decided really, but I think if you can make it flow it's cool. I like to see 8mm 4:3 chopped with crispy 16:9 35mm, but I think chopping from 2.35 to 4:3 is hard to make look fluid.

All valid points, but it makes me wonder how much you want to spend for a "what if" scenario. An alternative to this is a C100 and if the client wants 4K then hire a C200 for that project. At the point that clients routinely ask for 4K then you can consider how long a purchase would take to pay for itself based on data rather than a general concern. "What if" is the enemy of photography because it leads you down a path where you buy so much equipment that you don't have time to learn how to use it and you take so many things with you that you can't actually go anywhere or shoot anything. True wisdom is knowing how much is enough.

I always wondered if I would ever be able to laugh at a 9/11 joke.

I was inspired by those Cinama5D P6K tests and take attempt to exam BMMCC in near similar conditions. DNGs processed with workflow described here https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=65149&p=543725#p537852 My background is simple black fabric, so it is darker and so more extreme test than Cinema5D examples, you can compare things by Color Checker patches. Let's be honest, even P6K can't provide usable underexposed 5 stops. It looks too noisy and became plastic mess if you add SNR. Sort of horisontal FPN lines also became visible in Sony sensors. So we see here is 5 years old native HD camera with Fairchild Imaging dual gain sensor fights against gigantic 6K/4K modern Sony sensors in downscaled to HD mode. 3 stops under expose is pretty usable with BMMCC as well as P4k/P6K. If only we can fight FPN it could be extended even further... P.S. I only can imagine what newer Fairchild Imaging dual gain sensor is capable of. Along to 4K it technically waaaay less noisier (Dark Current: 2 e-/sec compare to BMMCC sensor: 25 e-/sec, Ursa 4.6K sensor: 15 e-/sec) (Read Noise 1.0 e- RMS. BMMCC sensor: 1.2 e- RMS, Ursa 4.6K sensor: 1.5 e- RMS) It is better to see images at full size in new tab: And same examples, but with noise reduction (applied before expose push) and with fIlm emulation LUT applied:

That's kinda the point here, that once the interpretation issue is fixed in RCM there will be almost no difference. Right now RCM is different from the others but yeah, you have to open the files in separate tabs and click back and forth to see the difference. A real world scenario might be more telling.

Thank you Mercer! These were great times back then, reporting on cameras etc. ? I personally use the M and the M50 for small short films like this (M50 below, with the nifty fifty). So despite some people saying that 24p is not needed, I actually need it, and I rather use such a small package camera rather than a larger or more expensive camera for these smaller film projects. Canons have their problems, but with the VisionColor's Cinetech picture profile I get an excellent cinematic look, and more DR than Cinestyle. If only they could do proper 4k and have a 10bit codec. I tried ML a few times, but the aliasing and overheating keeps me from using it further.

I own 4 Canons (along a BMPCC og & 4k, and GX85) and I was looking into upgrading my Canon M50 with the M6 MkII (as a walk-around video camera). I was shocked to see no 24p in there. So instead, I pulled the trigger just last week and bought a Sony A6400 with its kit lens, and an EF/S adapter. The A6400 has its own crippled sensor with (surprisingly high) rolling shutter. But at least it provides me with the right tools to create a cinematic image, if I'm careful of how I shoot. The M6 does not. No 24p, and still no zebras, spot metering, or a log profile after all these years. So despite its own problems, the A6400 was a better buy for me. Canon lost a sure sale. And now I'm hearing about pixel binning and upscaling, which makes me happier about my decision to go Sony. At the end, it's Fuji that it's going to win me over though, I know it in my gut. As long as they have an updated X-T3 with ibis, I'm there. I'll get their f/2.8 kit lens zoom, and the Fringer EF/S adapter, and I'll be golden for many years to come, I reckon. The last camera I'll buy for a good long while. It'd be good enough for what I need.

Funny. Actually it was Fujifilm that introduced eye AF to video a year ago with the X-T3. So yes, other cameras can do that I don't think this post was about a pros and cons list. It was about two things: 1. Sony not introducing new hardware like a new, higher performing sensor 2. Sony not doing anything new with it's codecs. XAVC-S has been out like what? 6 years? Back that it was state of the art. But at the moment, Sony is lagging behind by quite a bit. Those things need to be pointed out. It's like a kick in the a**. Otherwise Sony might become like Canon and only introduce marginal updates, maybe even removing features.

Guess you have to live in France to see it.

one music video that i thought was creative visually and an interesting song musically in itself is another song i like is i kinda like the juxtaposition of a woman onscreen and a man voice singing. plus the acting fits the song i think. the brunette is kinda cute which sells it for me lol But the eighties definitely had some cool things happening musically another dude i think is pretty interesting musically is this bloke, i dont want to take anything away from tommy or phil emmanual or Mark Knopfler but i think you have to be pretty switched on to play like this.

That HIAM song sounds like it was ripped off from this song. Hmm, surprised see hasn't been sued.

I've really enjoyed Paul Thomas Anderson's recent jump into music videos, discovered HAIM thanks to him (easily among my top 10 bands/artists now), but also check out "Anima" if you have Netflix!

Indeed. And pretty determinant to launch the career of a song. Now or before the digital revolution. Recalls this classic I was used to play and open my first radio program back to my teens and where actually I began my adventure on media -- visual matters and we were used to make reference to the video-clip as music videos started to be called in my native country then: