hmcindie

Why single out DSLR's? Have you seen what a cheap camcorder looks like?

As has been said... you can downscale that 4k 4:2:0 image to pristine 4:4:4 HD. Just shoot 4k, edit 4k and in the end (when you downscale to HD) you will get 4:4:4. After that you can compress it to prores 4:2:2 or anything really.

My greenscreens tend to be very noisy.

Look a bit harder. http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa

Isn't this a technical topic, not about how something is used or isn't? Or anyone can just add their own "I don't like this and that"- to any topic.

You haven't seen any films in the 2000's with zooms? Because I've seen several and they've all worked just fine. Even some really good looking films have used them several times. Not to even mention tv-series that are now full of whip pans and snap zooms.

You will not notice a difference between the C100 with an external recorder and the AVCHD implementation if you just playback stuff and watch it. Pixel peeping still frames you will notice differences in noise texture and artifacts.

Interlacing. Horizontal resolution is halved anyway in 1080i material.

4:2:2 still leaves those artifacts. Only 4:4:4 is completely free of them. 4:2:2 has half the amount of chroma than 4:4:4 so edges are still blocky. Some video playback software automatically smooth chroma during playback. It helps surprisingly much.

Hi, mostly used the 20mm sigma f1.8. It's a great lens for wideangle shots following people and blurring the backgrounds! It did take some time to export, but if you just leave the computer to it during the night, it's usually done by the morning. Depending on the amount of material and multicore settings etc. Davinci is way faster than AE though. You can export stuff in 30 minutes that would take hours on AE.

And last year was the year of 3d.

Now added to Vimeo for better quality than 'tube:

First of all, here's the end result: And here's the story: We recently embarked on an adventure. To shoot a shortfilm that is loosely inspired by “Last of Us†(and more recently even DayZ)- games. It would be in length somewhere around 5-10 minutes, with some action and survival elements but still focusing on the characters and their point-of-view. Survival would be the name of the game. But we would shoot it on RAW. Specifically the Canon 5d mark III- RAW which Magic Lantern had enabled. This turned out to be easier and also harder than I first imagined. We had shot some specific tests using the hack earlier, a couple of fights scenes and just nature. Stuff everyone does when they first try it out. So I was somewhat prepared for the postwork. But it actually changed the way I even shoot stuff. For the better. Using the RAW- mode itself is easy. You just set the settings correct (framerate, resolution) and have a fast enough card. We were using the Transcend 1000x 128GB card which gave us about 25 minutes of 1920x860. I thought that was maybe enough if we just shot everything very meticulously. But when we started shooting I realized a huge difference. Before RAW I was not even thinking that much, hurrying from shot to shot to get the coverage I needed for the edit. But now I couldn’t do that anymore. Because of having only one card and transferring 128GB stuff took a long time, I had to develop my shooting skills. I had to shoot like shooting with film. Thinking about shots. No more would I take a shot if we didn’t plan it first. I couldn’t just wave the camera around yelling orders and just take a bunch of random nonsense. I had to slowdown. This actually really improved my shooting. As someone who had never gone through filmschool and just started shooting with cams in the DVX100 era, I had developed this method of “just shootâ€. Which meant that I wouldn’t really tinker that much with shots after awhile. RAW- and the difficulties in shooting with it actually improved my skills. Which I really didn’t think would happen. We ran into a bunch of problems when the card inevitably ran out and had to wait hours for stuff to transfer (I didn’t think we would run out so that computer we were transferring to had only USB2.0). The camera also sometimes did a hardlock or screwed a shot. But those didn’t happen that often to be a real problem. They were little nuisances. But the gradability of the shots just jumped out. We shot everything in very low light, with a lot of ISO 3200. RAW- really handled that lighting well. There was noise but it was organic. A bit of sensor pattern in the dark areas but manageable. Postwork was a bit time consuming because I was going through AE, doing the DNxHD-files for the edit and grading. After “firstlight†in AE, I never want back to the original RAW- files. The DNxHD’s were good enough through the whole post-process. What I learned is... Sometimes the difficulty and limits of shooting (in my case, shot limits) makes you think and that can prove to be more fruitful than getting it all easy.

Canon 5dmarkIII let's you: 1. Record at 24,25,30,50,60fps 2. Also manual control 3. Manual ISO control 4. HDMI output that works 5. No overlays 6. High bit-rate mode that is visually the same as HDMI uncompressed. Soooo, where's the beef? You can't just lump a bunch of allegations together. Or you can of course, this is the internet but still. What camera were you using five years ago anyway?

4k is great for nature stuff. So if you guys like to shoot flowers and streets (nothing narrative) it will be absolutely grrreat. For stories? Not necessary and that's why Alexa is king. There's a reason all the 4k screens are just projecting nature stuff at the moment. "The sensor in the AX100e is a 2.7x crop over full frame" Sure, the sensor is 2.7x crop but I really doubt that lens is actually covering the whole sensor. I think it's as with the Sony AX1 that's promoted using a 1/2 inch sensor but it is actually using a 1/3" area of that sensor so the little ass lens can cover it. The problem with 4k is that 1080p HD is pretty damn good already and I don't really see the need to see sharper images than a sharp 1080p already is. A lot of those "sharp" 4k videos are already done using a lot of sharpening techniques and a huge contrast so that they look as sharp in HD too. A low contrast Alexa image never actually looks sharp even in 2.5k until it's been tuned and sharpened. Besides, I'm already missing a lot of focus with fullframe DSLR's and those being in 4k would be horrendous.

That looks more like 4:2:0 material. Are you converting it to what?

Maybe just lower the exposure? I mean...that's how we've always shot stuff? Isn't it? Ir is everyone here an Epic user?

Are you like blind? It is SPECIFICALLY listed as a plus for the pocket cam.

I just read it and I can't for the life of me see this being skewed. At all. This is actually a very nicely done "first thoughts" post that gives a lot of stuff to the reader.

I was a projectionist during the 35mm/dcp transition and once screened one of my shortfilms on the big screen. Not even as a dcp but as a high quality 1080p h264 through a PS3 that was plugged into the digital film projector through HDMI. It worked once you did the setup. And it looked great. Which is funny because the film was shot on an old JVC HDV-cam with a 35mm adapter. And it only shot 720p. Probably resolved less. And the bigscreen didn't really care. Looked good. Some actual 35mm films that were projected could be even softer. I found that highly amusing.

That's because you actually have to change ISO on the 5dmarkIII. On the Blackmagic cams, you only have one ISO value and that's that. Like with Red cameras. 5d has actual analogue gain so you have to change your exposure. Which really, is not that big a deal. You don't even want to control exposure anymore?

Also the Canon 85mm shot looks like it has motion blur. One of the blurry dots is sideways blurred which is quite impossible to happen by just default. So the camera probably jerked a bit and the A7R with it's huge sensor is quite sensitive to movement.

Not better. Just different.

The great thing about RAW is that you can squeeze stuff out. Even if the shadows are noisy, neatvideo can do absolutely magic to RAW. It doesn't clean up H264 nearly as well.

Sometimes it's great to just pickup the C100, shoot, edit and be done with it. Most of the productions done by C100 are just that. Work to be done. You can shoot good looking images and get audio straight in. Really boost your productivity compared to a DSLR. But the 5dmarkIII is absolutely wonderful for personal projects that you WANT to fiddle with a long time. It's also not just the RAW aspect. It's also the fullframe.