Andrew Reid

Ha. Don't hold your breath!

No idea why the Vimeo clip shouldn't show for you. Here's the video on YouTube It was a pleasure to shoot this, I even had a Bolex pistol grip

You hit the nail on the head there... it's so much fun Simple, satisfying image, great peaking and EVF, no real quirks getting in the way of you making an image, at least if you have the glass to match that crop.

It's 2018 and a good video feature arrives on a Canon EOS! I immediately assume it's an accident, so taunt is Canon holding the leash on performance. The 6D Mark II even managed to step back on quality from the 2012 predecessor which was already dreadful by the standards of 6 years ago. That's no accident! Indeed, what makes the M50 appealing to me is the happy accident of what crop factor you get when you cut an 8 megapixel window out of a 24 megapixel sensor. All the best things are happy accidents when it comes to Canon, who gave us DSLR video by accident, then later RAW video on a 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern by accident, then with the M50's ridiculous crop - a Super 16mm camera! Read the full article

Yeah it's a 2.4x crop so similar to GH4 4K and the c-mount lenses need to be over 25mm to cover. Wide angle and zooms tend not to work. Check out the Blackmagic Super 16mm c-mount lens thread here... And the lenses sticky always worth a look My M50 has arrived as well and been shooting c-mount with it. Zeiss Tevidon 25mm F1.4 favourite so far, looks lovely! The Canon TV 50mm F1.4 is also nice. It's just that they are a bit soft wide open and the M50 doesn't apply much sharpening to the picture so it can look a little mushy... filmic and analogue though, which is better than over sharpened and digital.

I think since the X-T20 is already such a bargain, it would be churlish to complain about the T-100 not doing proper 4K. It's not like Fuji is pulling a Canon and leaving us no alternative but to spend $3000 if you want Super 35mm 4K on their stills cameras. They have offered plenty of very good value for money 4K cameras - indeed one of them became 4K for free, with a firmware update. Pretty generous if you ask me. The 4K 15p on this should have stored each frame as a JPEG instead, and they should have called it a continuous shooting mode. Marketing it as "video" is the mistake.

I have the 18-105 F4 G and it works very well on the A7 III in crop mode, as long as AF-C is selected. The camera doesn't quite perform as well in AF-S mode so I keep it in AF-C where it uses phase-detect AF full time. In video mode not noticed any weird behaviour, you just let it go... Don't be tempted to do a half-press for AF-S in video mode, that will hunt. Does it with all lenses not just APS-C. For anyone looking for a more lightweight full frame zoom with big range by the way... Nikon 24-120mm F4 is the way to go. Superb lens, not as heavy as the Sigma 24-105, yet longer too. AF should work on the Commlite adapter using phase-detect. Going to be trying one out tomorrow.

All good to know. I am in final stages of tweaking the new EOSHD Pro Color V4 for A7 III and A7R III so anything I can put in the guide to help people is a bonus. It is an absolute must to know these weird software things as you can't use a high dynamic range image straight off the card if your system is going to mess with it. The new Pro Color will have two profiles and one is based on Hybrid LOG Gamma. I found the Rec.2020 colour space very problematic as a straight off the card setting, by the way. It has the green-shifted, yellow skin tones by the bucket load which weren't there in Hybrid LOG Gamma. But S-Gamut and Rec.709 colour modes are MUCH nicer on this camera. Anyway, expect the guide and profiles to launch pretty soon.

What's even more stupid on Apple's part is that by default FCPX now adjusts the gamma curve of Hybrid LOG Gamma footage so that effectively it is automatically grading your image. You have to go into the settings and set "Show HDR As Raw Values"! It is not working as it should be because the colours are fucked. Premiere is fully representative of the original material as I shot it. Quicktime and FCPX change the gamma curve and colour to convert the Hybrid LOG Gamma material to the final graded HDR image... Which isn't much good if you are using Hybrid LOG Gamma as a flat image profile to manually grade or apply your own LUT.

It is wrong for Quicktime to be applying the monitor profile to the video file. It should be remapping the video file to your monitor profile, not imposing the display preferences onto the video file, causing the colour to shift.

Here's a preview of what's going on... VLC Player and Premiere seem to have same result. Quicktime Player and Finder Preview have different result. Camera LCD is in a world of it's own, I'll talk about that later. VLC on left / Quicktime on right: This clip is using Rec.709 colour space in HLG. It appears desaturated in Quicktime and correct in VLC Player: This next clip is using Rec.2020 in HLG:: Behaviour is the opposite. It appears desaturated in VLC Player and more more saturated in Quicktime, which incidentally matches the camera LCD when View Assist is turned on, as if Apple is converting the colour to rec.709 in Quicktime without telling us. The following clip is using S.Gamut 3 Cine as per my new EOSHD Pro Color settings: It is a shot through some grass but you can still see the differences especially to red balance. VLC Player has the punchy, correct colour. Quicktime is desaturated and shifted to orange. So be very careful when setting up colour on your camera, as what you see might not be what you get. By the way, Quicktime changes based on what Color Profile you have selected in MAC OS Display Control Panel. Therefore if the display profile and camera colour space are mismatched, you get the wrong colour in Finder, preview, thumbnails and Quicktime Player. VLC and Premiere do not change and seem to maintain the format of the file. This is stupid behaviour by Quicktime because if you record a mixture of clips with different colour spaces, you cannot keep changing your display profile in MAC OS to match each clip (i.e. Rec.709 if you record in 709, or Rec.2020 if you are using Hybrid LOG Gamma)!!

Would A7 III owners like to help research into this and report their findings... First of all find a bright red object, preferably a car in daylight. Set white balance to auto / ambient priority white. Set Picture Profile to Gamma HLG and Colour Mode to BT.2020 Black Level -15 Saturation +10 Now test two clips - one with Colour Mode BT.2020 and one with Rec.709 (both with HLG selected in the picture profile). Use HLG not HLG1,2,3, etc. **** What to do... 1. Report what you see through the finder and how this compares to what you see afterwards... 2. Compare camera screens to what you see on your computer. On a Mac use space-bar to run the clip from Finder straight off the card. Now use VLC player. Report the difference again between these two. On a PC, also describe if there is a difference between your multiple media players. 3. Put the same file into Premiere or whatever NLE you are using. Again report differences - more or less saturation? More or less orange? **** Here is a report card - Focus on saturation, contrast and balance between scarett-red and orange-red. Camera EVF vs LCD Saturation - rate on scale 1-5 for both Magenta - rate on scale 1-5 for both Orange - rate on scale 1-5 for both Contrast - rate on scale 1-5 for both Camera LCD vs Computer Saturation - rate on scale 1-5 for both Magenta - rate on scale 1-5 for both Orange - rate on scale 1-5 for both Contrast - rate on scale 1-5 for both VLC Player vs Quicktime (MAC OS) Saturation - rate on scale 1-5 for both Magenta - rate on scale 1-5 for both Orange - rate on scale 1-5 for both Contrast - rate on scale 1-5 for both Adobe Premiere vs Quicktime or VLC Player (State which) Saturation - rate on scale 1-5 for both Magenta - rate on scale 1-5 for both Orange - rate on scale 1-5 for both Contrast - rate on scale 1-5 for both Windows Media Player vs VLC Player (PC ONLY) Saturation - rate on scale 1-5 for both Magenta - rate on scale 1-5 for both Orange - rate on scale 1-5 for both Contrast - rate on scale 1-5 for both 4. Now run the same test again with HLG profile set as above but Rec.709 instead of BT.2020. *** My findings: There are major differences. I'm going to do a blog post with my report card in it and you can read about it there soon.

It's anything but a direct relationship. I have an old Hasseblad H3DII for instance which is 39MP, Medium Format, much larger sensor than my A7R III which is a similar megapixel count (42MP). The A7R III is FOUR stops more sensitive, with a smaller sensor. That's because the quantum efficiency of the chip is higher, the micro lenses are larger, the active surface area of the chip is larger, and the readout circuit is less noisy. The CCD in the Hasselblad has a lot of front-side wiring taking up space on the front of the sensor where the photo sites gather light. So yeah, no direct relationship between sensor size and light gathering power. It's more of a positive correlation with pixel size if anything, rather than total surface area. But nope... You don't. They are two completely different things. When that video came out it was just plain confusing and a swipe at the Micro Four Thirds market. It is actually written 14-42mm on the lens any way so who says they are marketing it misleadingly?

The world needs less brutality in reality (you know... real life) In art and fiction there is always a space for brutality and violence. Violence can be done well in a fictional form... as a form of art... many films and actors are an example of that. I am against mindless violence in films seen by kids and idiots and don't want it normalised in the general public. But in an art-house film by Von Trier, it has an artistic purpose. Some people can't see that artistic purpose, and will complain. But as it's a work of fiction not a real murder spree, it is your artistic freedom as a director to do what you fucking like. And the freedom of the audience to decide whether to watch it or not. "His violence" Has he personally inflicted real-life violence on anyone through his fictional violence? So what's your goal here exactly Richard? Censor what you don't understand? Nice find Agree with this bit... "I did a couple of tests by giving a few scenes from the film to Éclair Laboratories in order to get an HDR copy (EclairColor standard). I found the tests to be a great success and I would really have liked to have shown the film in that version at Cannes. Unfortunately, I was told that it’s too early to do that in terms of equipment there. In any case, what I like about HDR is that the increased contrast you get with digital cinematography absolutely doesn’t look fake. But, that’s almost always the case when you want to get a flashy image in SDR from a digital camera. It helps me to get away from the obsession of low-contrast images and to provide films with a new palette of expressions." For me HDR is about getting a more realistic high contrast scene, with lots of colour and pop, that looks like it was shot on film. I hate high dynamic range for low contrast scenes.

In final testing stages now, so early next week hopefully.

At the end of the day you can project the same image into a smaller space. That's physics. What Northrup was suggesting was wrong. An F2.8 aperture is always an F2.8. The optics don't physically change shape when you have a smaller sensor behind it. A lens that covers a smaller sensor at F2.8 is still a wider opening than F5.6 - with the same brightness as a full frame F2.8. So no, manufacturers should not be calling a Micro Four Thirds F2.8 lens a F5.6 lens at all. Using equivalent aperture to calculate depth of field vs full frame, is the only useful use of it. It's for us in our heads to use. It doesn't apply to other aspects. If you put the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 on the Speed Booster XL 0.64x on 1.86x GH5S, you get... A 1.19x crop sensor, practically full frame. An F1.8 effective aperture. 15-45mm focal length on a 1.86x crop sensor, so an equiv. range of 28-84mm. Not bad I'd say. You forgot the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a Speed Booster 0.71x as well. That is a 28-52mm F2.7 equiv. on the M43 SB and Super 35.

A lot of people shoot in aperture priority mode that I know, especially for stills.

Looking forward to seeing how you guys get on with the adapters... post some videos!

Nice find. Have you also tried their Nikon F mount for Sony E-mount adapter? Curious to see what the AF is like on that.

This is another reason I shoot video from stills mode - I can do a quick AF-C burst to confirm and lock focus before I hit record, then it stays put during the recording of the clip. Don't always want focus to move during a shot.

Will be joining the YouTube party at some point.

Bigger sensor, or faster lens? Which is most important? Well, a lens you can change and your sensor you cannot. Here's how to stop worrying about crop sensors. Read the full article

Hello, I don't have a DVX200 unfortunately so have never developed Pro Color for it!

"Knowing Sony"? I think you might be confusing Sony with Canon! Sony have given us stuff well above and beyond expectations. Aside from the FS5 II, which was never meant to be anything less than a minor update, if you look at the jump between A7 series cameras they have been HUGE.

@ntblowz Regarding the Speed Booster, do you have a link to this guy in Korea doing the conversion? Also does it Dual Pixel AF through it after conversion or are the electronic contacts completely useless? I've been very lightly toying with the idea of an M50 but only for my Super 16 glass which adapts and matches the 4K crop factor. If it becomes a Super 35mm camera, that means it goes from nearly 3x crop to 1.5x crop with your Speed Booster - which would need a reduction factor of 0.5x!!... Seems a bit of a hefty step? Isn't the Speed Booster 0.71x for APS-C? Which would mean 2x crop like Micro Four Thirds on the M50...