hmcindie

True but have you actually tested what happens when you change your source from 10-bit to 8-bit? I exported a jpeg-sequence (at 5k though) from REDRaw and we did a test at our workplace. They had done a composition straight from the original Redfiles (greenscreen etc) and I exchanged them to 8bit jpeg-files. After a bit of gamma tweaking and the difference was...almost none. Negligible. It was funny.

The action scenes in all of the Nolan Batmans have been very sloppy and bad. The only really working action scene Nolan has ever done is the vertical fight scene in Inception. Should I credit Nolan or the second unit director? I'll go with second unit for that.

The codec has nothing to do with this. The softness is because of the quick debayering + line skipping. Even if you would put uncompressed out, it would be still as soft.

That's a misunderstanding of the whole modern post workflow. Even just a couple of years ago, the material could be 8-bit all the way through until it hits grading where they generated higher bitdepth images (but that were originally 8bit) that are sent to make the DCP. And who noticed anything? Nobody that's who. We've had shots done with the Red Epic where we replaced orignal 5k RAW-files (that were accidentally lost) with some prores proxy HD-files and no one noticed anything when those shots hit the projector. Haha. You guys drive me crazy. And when you talk about xenon projectors having a great gamut... The contrast is still shitty horrible.

Say that to GH2 owners.

Techradar measured the 5d III at over 12 stops and it still kept it at ISO 1600. That's incredible. Who is right? http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review/6 DXOMark gave the OM-D 12.3 stops, not 12.7. Why the little exaggerations?

I don't know how old you are but a lot of the things you say make no sense. For example that. The kit lens doesn't cause any of those issues.

Oh man, that's just silly. It completely disregards A) megapixel levels. Is the fullframe 36mp D800, 22mp 5d or 12mp a7s? Is the crop sensor 16mp? And b ) light levels. What are the actual light levels? In iso 100 you could argue that a 24mp a6000 takes sharper images with more dynamic range than a 22mp 5dIII. How does that fit in with those silly analogies? It doesn't.

Sure the math works (as I said) but it's irrelevant because it's used to approximate the "look of fullframe" which is a different thing. He draws all sorts of conclusions from it. For example you can see that f2.8 at both crop camera and fullframe do get the same light in. The brightness is the same. But still he decides to draw a conclusion that it's all wrong. It isn't. A ISO 100 is effectively noise free with all crop/fullframe cameras. Some of that math only works in lower light.

It doesn't go like that because the reasoning behind the "correct math" are wrong. It's like 1+1=2 which means that 3=8! Yeah no. The problem here is that he doesn't get that an f2.8 lens will let the same amount of light in, no matter the size of the sensor behind it. There's the fallacy. If you'd call that an f6.0 lens or whatever, it shouldn't let ANY LIGHT in compared. Doesn't work.

Though when people take photos and compare different (but matched) focal lengths, they actually match up almost 100%. Is this the camera equivalent of hifi-placebo?

No matter how many times you say that in different forums...No. IPB is clearly worse than ALL-i on the 5d3. Even moderate movement completely smooths out every single detail with IPB. And the 5d3 needs all the detail it can get.

It's also worth pointing out that "Golden Age" is full of anamorphically shot films which give a way different dof than spherically shot 35mm.

Nope. I had the Sony nex-5n and the Canon 7d and my better pics were always taken with the Canon 7d eventhough Internet- claimed the 5n had the better sensor. I never really believed it as I never saw any quantifiable difference between them. Nex-5n maybe had a little bit less FPN but the 7d handled LED-lighting way better which tended to blow on the 5n. I now have the nex-7 and the difference is still kinda small. 7 has a bit more DR but nothing drastic. Biggest differences will be the lenses you use and your skill.

It's not over-sized, it's about the size of anamorphic s35 film. You know, stuff that most skilled DoP's love to shoot. Blade Runner looks way more 5d like (anamorphically shot) than films shot spherically (like The Room) '>

Only because ACR adds in a ton of sharpening afterwards, unless you dial it down.

Otherwise except the Epic was clearly focused on the tree. It's sharp and detailed, the closeup shot of the house is already out of focus.

The other camera was just a consumer camera to check the scenes. And spy on actors.

Atleast NEVER take that radioactive lens too close to your eyes. You might develop cataracts way sooner than otherwise.

Depends. For me f2.8 was just about right on a 100mm on the 5d. Look wise that is. It just looks way more flattering to the interviewed than 5.6 with smaller sensors.

What are you mumbling about? There is a (0-255 or 16-235) option in Nvidias control panel, make sure it's set correctly.

5dmarkIII with RAW is the best DSLR that shoots video at the moment. The image is gorgeous, the colors are great and lowlight is wonderful. I also think it has a lot of dynamic range (always been a bit skeptical about the 11.7 stops that keeps floating around). You can get great results when applying a bit of neatvideo (works wonders with RAW). Processing time is quite intense but that's part of the experience. The d800 was ok when I used it on a shoot but it had usability problems (couldn't take stills during filming and settings were different between still/movie modes etc.) H264 was maybe a bit sharper but 720p is useless on the d800 while slowmo on the 5d is still quite workable. p.s How come everyone is railing against the mirror? It doesn't hurt or even interfere in my shootings and it's great for photos. What's the big problem with mirrors? Unnecessary dead weight? Like what is that supposed to be?

What handicaps? Just shoot man.

You can do that with the regular h264 on the 5dIII and it'll look better than the D4S. And in the case you wanna play with RAW, then there it is.

You are COMPLETELY missing the cost of making a sensor. An m4/3 sensor will always be considerably, considerably cheaper than a fullframe one because you can get a magnitude more of them out of one wafer. The cost of making sensors has also come down quite a lot during the years but one thing that won't change is the price difference between bigger sensors and smaller ones. So an m4/3 WILL ALWAYS cost less than a fullframe sensor. Or a 1/3" sensor WILL ALWAYS cost less than an m4/3. And I thought the NEX-name was great. The new alpha branding is worse and diluted.