hmcindie

DNxHD does not cause banding. Ever.

Though if you shoot 60p it will most likely start skipping those lines a bit and hence get much faster rolling shutter like the NEX-7.

Horrible stabilization. Appalling, I can't watch it! Is something wrong with me? Have I been pixel peeping too much? If they had just bumped up the shutter speed to 1/100 it would've been cleaner (now even when it's stabilized it blurs) and there is an option on Warp Stabilizer that disables that warping effect (I don't think it's 100% from the rolling shutter). They should've disabled it and just used regular position stabilization. Or maybe just get a better rig, they obviously had the budget? Looks more like an artistic decision that they made afterwards. During shoot they're like "Hey, looks great!" and afterwards they're like "We need to smoothen this".

But is it visually visible even in heavy processing? Probably not. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/raw-vs-craw_topic66231_post745209.html#745209 "all in all, cRaw is a very smart and efficient (nearly loss-less) encoding of Raw files. For almost all images, there is no difference at all with the Raw file. And based on the technical algorithm, I agree that there will be perhaps 1 in a 10.000 images where a difference might perhaps be noticable -- perhaps" Dxomark also agrees and based on their measurements there is not much difference (though I don't consider DXOMark to be 100% accurate always anyways. For example, the Sony nex-5n vs canon 7d results do not - in any way - match my photographic experience with both cameras). I also do not consider the nex7 a match for the 5d eventhough DXOMark thinks ;)

I disagree vehemently and I expose to the right (even with the Sony nex7 which has a pretty good sensor DR wise). I always tend to get better results that way.

I also had one, preferred the 5d. Isn't that weird? Yeah I guess the D800 raw files were pretty good. 5d starts to show pattern noise when bringing up the shadows. Though I've never really been bothered much with it, 12 stops has been good to me. And in very lowlight the 5d catches up with the D800 DR wise anyways (if maybe goes ahead by a smudge) Took this photo with ISO 6400 and 30s exposure: http://hmcindie.deviantart.com/art/Milky-Way-Caged-417917237 5d was usability wise WAY better especially when shooting movies and stills. After the Magic Lantern hack came out the choice was even more obvious (though I chose the 5d couple of years ago because the h264 files were better than the D800, especially with compression and 720p - 720p is USELESS on the D800 and pretty ok with the 5d)

This is not really true. In 4k mode the GH4 has worse rolling shutter. But what happens in 1080p mode? If it's faster then there has to be line skipping.

Are they shot at the same frame speed? Is the shutter speed exactly 100% the same? Is the contrast in the shots the same? Is the encoding the same (are you watching the same quality h264 files? Nope, one is Vimeo, other one is Youtube, encoded into them god knows how) Even motion that's EXACTLY the same will look different depending on the contrast of the scene. I don't buy this "different cadence" hogwash. The only difference in motion nowadays is the amount of rolling shutter (which is very important though) When people do 3d animations INTO scenes shot with high end cameras vs low end cameras, is the motion rendering different? Nope as long as the rolling shutter is the same. I don't think ANY highend software has any settings for motion cadence except motion blur. So what is this "magic" people keep referring to?

It seems you just came to the conclusion "10 bit from GH4 is better!" without actually seeing anything that confirms it. Everything I've seen makes the A7s looks considerably better in every single category except 4k internally. Rolling shutter is still undetermined but Matthew Allard did say it's comparable to a 5d which would be usable for me. Having a 30 minute "dealbreaker" is also funny as I work with people who do documentaries with a 7d still, heh.

C100 will look "cleaner" than C300 because AVCHD will apply more NR and thus decrease noise (and details). C300 has 50mbps 4:2:2 mpeg2 and it will keep noise grain better and not smooth it. If those two are your only complaints and a test becomes immediately "irrelevant"...that's just weird.

Umm, yeah great except Raytracing is ONLY for 3d layers in 3d space. Which is not your DNG sequence. So you probably just rendered it first and AE had cached it, so the second time (as nothing had changed) it just spooled it off the harddrive.

Because - for example - the FS700 looks quite bad. I've never gotten a good "people" look out of it (and I've tried). On all the shoots I've used it as an A-cam and the 5d as the B-cam, I've actually liked the image from the 5d more. Trying to grade the FS700 to match the 5d is just... hard.

That home.comcast (whoever does those) measurements makes no sense. 7d has six stops of latitude at ISO 1600 according to that? Yeah no. They must be measuring completely bonkers. And about that Imaging Resources link. They say this: "The total dynamic range score is about as high as it can get with the Stouffer 4110 stepchart using an actual lens (the lens likely introduces a small loss in dynamic range)" You CANNOT get a higher score than that with the Stouffer 4110 stepchart. DXOMark measures better.

EV = stop. Same thing. EV 2 is one stop away from EV 1. Etc. Straight from DXOMark: "Maximum dynamic range is the greatest possible amplitude between light and dark details a given sensor can record, and is expressed in EVs (exposure values) or f-stops, with each increase of 1 EV (or one stop) corresponding to twice the amount of light." I've shot with the D800 and it definitely has more DR than 12 stops just by eyeballing it. It has DR to spare (atleast in ISO 100). It makes no sense to just "ignore" measurements.

They did test the Red Dragon http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Epic-Dragon-review-First-camera-to-break-the-100-point-DxOMark-sensor-score-barrier/Dynamic-range-and-color-depth-First-place-in-both-categories-14.8Ev-26.5-Bits It's funny how it's dynamic range is "only" 0.4 better than the D800 considering how much Red was touting a huge dynamic range before release (something like 16-17 stops). Though DXOMark can't get the actual sensor data out of the Dragon so I don't know how comparable those numbers are. The A7s will sour above the Dragon in dynamic range and also create lots of articles for people to click in the near future.

Sony NEX7 scores the same amount of points on DXOMark as the 5dmarkIII. But I can say (I have both here in my hands) that the images from the NEX7 are considerably worse. How do those measurements work?? And why DXOMark seem to go out of their way to avoid measuring for example Fuji sensors? I will bet my ass that the Sony A7s will be the best sensor they've ever tested just because they don't really test anything else except dynamic range.

Looks great! But still no handheld shots by Den? Maybe the rolling shutter is too severe...

I disagree. Walking Dead is 16mm btw. Game of Thrones is about drama and it looks great. Though I think it would look even better with a bit more grain and lower amount of studio lights. Nothing looks weirder than people sitting besides a fire that is obviously lit up by a megaton of light from elsewhere. Game of Thrones doesn't even use that much shallow DOF. Does this shot look shallow? '> Or how about this one? '> I don't get this place and it's love for deep DOF. I effing hate deep DOF but that's because I grew up with 1/3" cameras.

Heavy beast. Man, you will be in for a surprise when you try actual pro- videocams ;)

The only reason I use the FS700 is 240fps anyways. If the 5dmarkIII had those framerates, the FS700 would fly into the river and never come back.

At least in this thread the insulting was not started by Michael. And the blue mask joke was hilarious! Besides how "far" can you go in a forum anyways Lasers_pew_pew_pew? Like when you reach 2000 posts, does something magical happen?

So? Red Epic is 27.65mm x 14.58mm at 5k. Dragon sensor is 30.7mm x 15.8mm at 6k. Most new cinema lenses actually do fit fullframe 35mm. I don't see a problem. I see an opportunity.

I still use h264 from the 5d a lot. Usually on paid gigs funnily. I never shoot interviews with RAW or stuff that I have to give to someone else. It's soft but sharpens well and almost no compression artifacts. It makes talent look great, isn't over sharpened and just works.

Though just a couple of years (3-5?) ago, commercials I edited (that were shot on 35mm film) were transferred to us on Digibeta. That's 8bit 4:2:2 720x576 here in Pal land.

I've done several music videos with Premiere and it works great. Way better than old FCP7. You can easily align the tracks, I have mapped zoom out/in buttons and can go very, very fast around the timeline, zooming in, snapping, zooming out. I usually don't even look at the waveforms, just scrub, match and edit. Why would you want to NOT trim that second clip if you drop it ON IT? I don't get it. A Vegas thing? You can add effects in Premiere either with clips, nesting or using adjustment layers. If that's not enough you can go to AE. Next CC version will bring with it the capability to add effects into the master clips. I don't even remember the last time I had to render an effect in Premiere or even seen the red line. When I add too many effects and it slows down, I just drop the resolution a bit and off I go. You using GPU acceleration?