hmcindie

After Effects CC actually has an effect just for that purpose. It's called pixel motion blur, so no need to use timewarp: http://provideocoalition.com/cmg_keyframes/story/pixel-motion-blur-in-after-effects-cc

No effing way they did that with a moderate/low budget. No way. 2 weeks of shooting = a shit ton of money, if a mistake like that would've been done, someone would've gotten fired.

Though we don't how much it's been crippled. It could actually be very fast. Why make two sensors when you can make one and claim they're different thus saving a lot of money? Just read the sensor slower (you can make any sensor read as slow as you want).

Funny because I don't like the smallness of the a7s while doing video. I'd love for that sensor package to be in Canon 5d mark IV (the bulkyness is good!) a7s is a bitch to operate compared so functionality and convenience goes to 5d too. And the size is still a misnomer when I'm using bulky fullframe lenses anyways.

Good stuff. I'm gonna stay in movie mode though because I've locked out the movie record button to only function in movie mode. When doing photos and accidentally pressing the stupid rec button = aaargh sound. But DAMN, Canon still has one the best handling cameras in the 5d mark III compared to a lot of competition. Easy way to zoom (after changing to middle button), easy to adjust iso, aperture shutter. Movies at the same time with a quick flick of a switch, stills also work in movie mode. Picture profile doesn't affect raw stills etc. Actually even my old 7d had wayyy better ergonomics and that thing was old as heck (now sold but I loved it) It seems like Sony doesn't design these things properly. Also the size is a bit too small for my tastes. One thing the sony does better is that lets me zoom in while recording. Worked a treat. Still though, shooting in dark hasn't been this fun in ages ;) _DSC1080 by hmcindie, on Flickr _DSC1052 by hmcindie, on Flickr

The FS700 also has small file sizes (C300 has larger with 50mbps mpeg2), and a cheaper price but - in the end - the only thing FS700 was used for was low budget high speed shots. FS100 was quickly forgotten. A boring industry workhorse is something that the industry professionals need but a pro will use all the tools they can so you can spot an FS700 working alongside the C300 on a gig. That's because using the FS700 is actually quite cumbersome and while it captures slowmo shots the C300 can capture everything else. What I wonder is why there are still people buying 1/3" sensor "pro" cameras for an exorbitant price?

Well the F5 can't actually playback the 4k file natively (so you can't check what you're shooting) so the difference is more than a line of code. Also, when we go right into it, how do we know for example that Scarlets aren't just "software disabled" Epics? And is there a difference between software disabling and cutting parts out from a gpu with a laser (highend gpu/cpu chips are usually the same parts, but some parts of the core are disabled by laser in the consumer versions). Think about that when you buy your new Intel/AMD/Nvidia processor/gpu. Are you gonna boycott them all?

That's not in this press release, are there several? https://presscentre.sony.eu/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=9896&NewsAreaId=2

Funny moment, we shot a music video with the Sony a7s and the 5dmarkIII as a b-cam. While looking at the a7s footage the director was like "this looks great, sharper and more filmic than the 5d". Then I switched material back to 5d and once more to the a7s. He didn't realize it but then said "yeah this 5d stuff looks more soft" while I was playing back a7s shots. Sometimes all these differences just go away when the material itself is good enough. Plus placebo can be very strong ;) BUT the A7s did look very nice with its .mp4 files. ISO 25,600 was really pushing it (it gives more compression errors, we got macroblocks and detail smearing due to noise reduction) but it was UNBELIEVABLE how a simple cellphone lit up a car so much during the night that the specular highlights were BLOWN OUT. I couldn't believe that it was a cellphone doing it, a cellphone that was 5 feet away from the car. It was just so dark that we could light with very little lights and still see forest in the shadows. A7s is a godsend here in Finland as it can get very dark after summer. Unfortunately the Yongsuo ef-mount adapter didn't send the stabilize signal to lenses (eventhough it did with the nex7) so our 200mm shots were almost impossible. One question, has anyone gotten the HDMI and back LCD output simultaneously? Our LCD always went off and I couldn't find anything to fix it. More impressions of the a7s will probably follow. This shot is ISO 51,200 and a bit of noise reduction (still mode) it saw better than my eye: _DSC0490 by hmcindie, on Flickr

The shots themselves look great! But the edit is like "huh?". It just seems to have no context between the music / visuals.

To be fair, they probably replaced the sky from every camera. It's mostly a grading/artistic choice, usually never because of "banding" or technical issues. I worked on a commercial shot on a red that had the sky replaced. Did the 5d actually display that much banding anyways?

Congrats man! It's not easy getting something made!

I agree. I have pretty good eyesight (almost 20/20) and I don't really need more than 2k while sitting in a theatre (I always go slightly back). Most of my friends have worse eyesight so I doubt a lot of people would see the difference in 4k unless sitting very close. And film is full of motion blur anyways.

I may seem like a twit but that was not the intent. The intent was on trying to prove how odd your demand of the A7s and "natural colors" were when there are no "natural colors" in your videos. It's also actually completely ok to say someones creative choices are "wrong". It doesn't mean wrong in a univeral sense of course, that should go without saying. I once had a director who really hated one of my edits and he wasn't afraid to say it (I was editing a commercial for him). I did adjustments that he loved and I hated. Go figure. Yes there is no universal "right or wrong" in subjective taste but that doesn't mean we can't discuss sometimes very harshly about them. They are not "personal" works (or atleast you shouldn't look at them as such).

That's not my grading though (I only shot it, disagree with the grade too) Here's my Vimeo and Youtube Some reason I can't link the vimeo page so I'll just link one video here from Vimeo: https://www.youtube.com/hmcindie I really have no problem in people criticising my "work", it goes with the territory and it's actually quite useful. I'm not a grading guy, been doing it for low budget music videos though. In another note, it was funny as I got to see Arriraw square off with the Red Epic today at work. I am amazed how good the Arriraw looked. It actually looked sharper than the Epic (though I have no idea how well the shots were focused and they were both scaled to HD). It also was very clean in the shadows. Red Epic had some seriously noisy blues. They also shot a color chart. Skintones were pretty much almost the same (daylight). Alexa had a bit less saturation in some tones. Neither camera shot completely neutrally when compared to a color chart. Funny because a lot of people here claim how the Epic has poor skintones. Looked pretty much alike (though we did a slight curve to both cameras)

I took a look at your films on Vimeo and the colors were uniformly bad. I don't think a different camera will help there. What I do think will help is just learning grading. And learning to shoot. It's way better to shoot with a slightly worse performing camera and trying to make it look good than getting an Alexa and learning nothing. Unless what you are saying is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", which is kinda true. Still.

I think you guys just don't know how to grade/shoot and blame cameras for your mistakes. Seriously. How else can someone use any RAW capable camera and say "I can't get the colors I want!"?

Well obviously the a7s wasn't focused on the vegetables as they are slightly out-of-focus. But yeah, differences in color are absolutely amazing (i.e no real difference at all).

Have you guys noticed that you can now reduce the rolling shutter by about 10-15% with the newest magic lantern? http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12656.0

Sony F55?

You mean 1DC in 4k. 1DX has ok rolling shutter in 1080p. It's not as bad as the 1DC in 4k.

What's a lifeless color? Is unsaturated green lifeless? Is heavily saturated color lively? Oh my. How can it be a problem in an era of digital post-production where we can change colors unprecedently?

I wonder how some of these silly people *cough Matt James Smith cough* will explain how the colors look so similar in well done tests where both cameras shoot the exact same scene with similar color profiles. According to Matt the A7s should look effing horrible. It doesn't. It looks great. Skintones look to be about 99,5% the same as in the GH4 (so funny).

Don't do an interlaced timeline. Programs will usually interpret that as actually being interlaced (duh) and they will try using different algorithms while scaling, thereby reducing the quality as the software first deinterlaces, scales and then re-interlaces. They may usually introduce interlacing lines into effects etc. Just do everything progressive first and in the end, flag the file as interlaced.

Sure it looks pretty good. Still, the difference is 99,5%. Ever seen comparison videos where Alexa is straight up shot with other cameras? They are very difficult to spot from one another. Alexa has great highlight handling and an easy way to work with files with straight prores shooting. But don't spew this "magical never looks wrong" stuff, it just makes you look silly. Sony F65 is in many ways better.