Jump to content

hmcindie

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    992

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by hmcindie

  1. hmcindie
      Sorry but that just screams "I have no idea how to make filmic stuff". It actually is more about meticulously shooting and crafting than choosing the newest hyped up cam. Your "Sick Boy"-indie flick would not look any better if you shot it with the BMC because the skills are lacking behind the cam. You might getter better highlights but that's not the reason the image sucks.       Asylum shoots with Red cameras so it has to be quality. (Seems to be the attitude here lately?).   I agree with gene_can_sing, the FS700 can look absolutely great. I loved cinegamma 4 with it's extra latitude and natural colors. Codec is not good but workable. There are also literally hundreds of horrible, videolike images on vimeo from beginning users of the BMC. That's normal and that will be like for every camera.    The only real bad things about the FS700 are the ergonomics, shadow noise and the codec. But they shouldn't stop anyone from shooting beautiful stuff.
  2. hmcindie
      Provideocoalition did a WAY more proper test than Abelcine. 11.5 stops is really down considering how much stuff the cam has in cinegamma 4. 
  3. hmcindie
    Why are people so mad here in EOSHD? This looks great. How often do you see those "perfect" shots in films anyway? Lots of films have shots that aren't perfect or steadyshots that look floaty. I mean...jesus some of the comments.   This is way more important than another DSLR shooting a bit sharper than another. This and the BMC.
  4. hmcindie
    So even though EOSHD is constantly claiming no one should ever buy a Canon now because the competition is SO much better, actual users are still recommending them. How odd.
  5. hmcindie
      But for their video division, very true.   BTW where does all this "Canon is losing money"-stuff come from? It looks like they are still doing pretty well.    End of January: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578273061369407422.html   http://www.marketwatch.com/story/canon-profit-falls-04-sees-14-growth-for-2013-2013-01-30   In the same time, things look worse for Nikon too.   http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/nikon-cuts-profit-outlook-on-price-drops-it-expects-to-continue.html   And how about Blackmagic? How is their profit situation going? Maybe start analyzing all the players instead of horseshoeing your particular prejudices around?
  6. hmcindie
    Remember guys that Canon is actually a very conservative company. They are not Blackmagic. They don't really do the whole "trailblazing thing". They like to let other companies go first and after that maybe step in. That's how they've always worked. All of the previous professional cams (XF300 etc) usually come by a couple of years later than the competition.   This has actually worked very well for them as being the last guy on the block, they usually had some improvements that the competition didn't have (50mbps mpeg2 for example for the xf100-300)
  7. hmcindie
      True I seemed to have missed that point. Still. Talking to friends and colleagues is all well and good but there were hundreds of people doing VFX work on "Life of Pi". Even if the DoP had gone through stuff with a VFX Supervisor, you could still work months on that film and never talk to anyone higher up.
  8. hmcindie
      But you weren't there. You were not actually inside Rhythm and Hues while they were doing previz or the final composites or the grading.    Granted I haven't been there either but I just think it's a bit over-the-top in complaining that the DoP did absolutely nothing. We did a grade for a feature film and that grade is not really the colorists own version either. The director and DoP were sitting right behind him and making demands. There is always someone who has the "vision" about what the shot should be like. Sometimes it's the DP, sometimes the director, sometimes the vfx guys. I have edited a lot of stuff and I can very rarely say that "this cut here is my choice". The director is the guy I answer to and usually they have a completely different style than I have.    Complaining that I haven't read the thread? I have and it's ridiculous. So what am I missing?
  9. hmcindie
      Ok but what the f? You are not the only guy who has worked (I actually still do so there) at a posthouse and every project is different. In some projects, the DoP does indeed sit quite awhile with the 3d guys, working out issues and going through the look. In smaller projects that almost never happens but when the budget is there, and the DoP is recognized properly, he does have a say. He doesn't have the FINAL say, but who really has anyway. Maybe Cameron but a lot of directors are stepped over by producers anyway. Cameron is one the few directors who doesn't really care about his DoP guy anyway, but don't start claiming every director works like that. Some actually do appreciate the input of the DoP creatively.   And yes, in the majority of projects (especially commercials and small gigs) the DoP is nowhere to be found in post. But you can't just categorically claim to know what was done in another project, in another post house, with a completely different crew. Unless you were there.
  10. hmcindie
    Yup. That's why I always wondered why people were crazy about the HX100v. It's electronically sharp (oversharpened) and the AVCHD breaks down. Same thing with the RX100 though I haven't used it personally but every video I've seen gives that HX100v vibe.   AVCHD breaks down even in FS700 but the 5dmarkIII all-i never breaks down that badly. Even the old Canon 7d I still have lying around, never broke down as bad as some of the AVCHD stuff I've shot with macroblocks flying. Except for some horrible aliasing here and there.
  11. hmcindie
    You are talking about the fixed pattern noise that appears at the lowest shadows. They should actually be clipped. Professionals cams feature "black balance" that helps you clip that. It's not "noise". CCD's will have them too if you just dig in deep into the shadows. It just depends on the implementation.
  12. hmcindie
    You sure that it's the graphics card being the bottleneck? It could also be your harddrives if you play several streams at once. 
  13. hmcindie
    I'm gonna so have to disagree with this part. Color was always completely unworkable. I could get way better results with AE and Colorista plugins than anything in Color. It was just so ridiculously ludicrous that I always wondered how could people use that shit. I even went to a course through my workplace where this one dude was talking about Color. I asked a pretty simply question: "What happens to the workflow when the edit changes?". He was fucking stumped. "oo, I think there is a way to ...hmm..it's not simple".    Also FCP7 does not have good media organization. You are confusing it with AVID. FCP X is a consumer program that works well for a limited type of editing.    I also wonder about people claiming transcoding is the thing to do. No it isn't. Transcoding is dumb and it takes away lots of time from actually doing stuff. Just get a program/system in place that can see the files for what they really are. If you work in professional editing environment, that's what you have to do. If you do independent music videos and the like occasionally, it doesn't really matter but if you want to do things the right way, do them.  
  14. hmcindie
    Not noise, I meant blowing out the highlights earlier. That's what happens when cameras go less than native db or ISO usually.
  15. hmcindie
      One of the reasons that it's difficult is that human eye is not very sensitive to color. You can spot the differences when doing greenscreen because the green channel is now suddenly 1/4th the resolution of the luma channel. 4:2:2 brings that up to only half res. But you won't really spot that difference easily, except in motion graphics with clear lines and chroma. There it can actually be quite a distraction. DVD's suffered badly from 4:2:0 artifacting, The Abyss film with it's huge reds and blues really suffered from it on DVD. But in HD the effect is quite a bit smaller. Because when you increase the res from 720x576 to 1920x1080, you also increase the chroma res.    You can also get 4:4:4 from just scaling down a high res 4:2:0 file. Though basically EVERYTHING on the internet, bluray and anywhere you project stuff is only 4:2:0. So this just helps in grading (if you do masks based on chroma, and then it only helps on the edges) or greenscreen.    So a lot of people have misconceptions of 4:2:2 and the like because it is not that easy to spot. Also, if you have an original 4:4:4 file and just convert it to 4:2:0, it will have no benefit at all compared to shooting 4:2:0 originally. Unless you do specific chroma related stuff.
  16. hmcindie
    If you are not using any profiles (just going with the standard one) then you are missing out on some great dynamic range and highlight roll off with the cinegammes.
  17. hmcindie
    I looked at those original files in After Effects. It looks like they are both originating from 4:2:0 material. H264 version looks worse but color wise they are quite equal. Except in h.264 looks like there is some chroma smoothing but I guess that's normal.   Screencaps of red channel:   h264: http://talvi.com/asiakas_ftp/temp_mikko/demo_h264.jpg   prores: http://talvi.com/asiakas_ftp/temp_mikko/demo_prores.jpg
  18. hmcindie
    It's not just 8-bits guys. If you haven't noticed, the D800 and D600 suffer from this a bit more than other 8 bit cams. Why? Because they apparently debayer the image into 8bit and THEN apply a picture profile.   You will get more banding with the D800 and D600 than other 8bit cams so blaming this on 8bits is kinda weak.
  19. hmcindie
    Those tests don't take into account highlights. So even if ISO 125 is clean in the shadows, who knows what happens to the highlights. 
  20. hmcindie
      Exactly. And almost every HDMI device tends to output a 4:2:2 signal, but is it actually 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 embedded in 4:2:2 is a different thing. 
  21. hmcindie
      Erm. That's just because those images have been zoomed in 200% with pixel resizing. So they are actually blocky in both images, only the other one is so full of noise that it looks smoother.   Confirming an ACTUAL 4:2:2 colorspace requires a bit more. It actually requires a scene with colors, preferably saturated reds or blues and then analyzing just those chroma channels. People seem to be mistaking a good looking uncompressed image with 4:2:2. 4:2:2 can actually be quite hard to spot from 4:2:0 without hard contrasty lines with saturated colors. 
  22. hmcindie
    Details are not on par. The GH3 image looks way more detailed. The D5200 has more contrast in that image which increases apparent resolution but it is not as sharp. You can see way more detail on the ground and on the tree from the GH3. D5200 also has wayyy more sharpening artifacts, for example haloing on the left of the tire.   If we could dial that sharpening completely out, this could be good.
  23. hmcindie
      I always wonder about comments telling someone to wait for a camera (or a graphics card, cpu, whatever that is just looming on the horizon). The BMC won't magically help you make money off of youtube/clients anymore than anything you have now.   BMC looks great when done properly but it won't help people make "filmmagic". For that you can start with a way lower cost camera before you get the skills to really appreciate the quality differences and what they REALLY mean. This place is full of pixel peepers which is good but don't confuse that with actually doing something with the equipment you have (there are forums specifically for people doing content). So go with the GH2 / Canon / Nikon DSLR's before splashing into BMC world, especially if you are just starting to make something.   Also please be atleast aware of the requirement of editing RAW DNG files. Especially the file sizes / backup and shoot ability for one day. For a newbie, it's very important to get a lot of coverage as that is one of the things most missing when people just start out.
  24. hmcindie
    Atleast with the Sony nex-5n, the compression is significantly worse when doing 50p instead of 25p. It will also alias more. So I will stick with 25p usually. Same thing with the FS700. When doing 50p, it is significantly worse compression, unless you use s&p. If you use smooth motion, it will use the buffer to record 24mbps AVCHD as a 25p stream so the compression is better.   I have no idea how someone can see it differently, but there it is.   28mbps at 50p = sucks. Just a little bit of motion and half the frames break up. Macroblocking and smoothing.
  25. hmcindie
    jcs: People don't frame 100% the same. That immediately throws out some comparisons. They don't use the same lenses. That throws out even more. Or the same settings. Not to mention the printer resolution problem. Also you can't just "estimate" that stuff like the 1DX is somehow sharper than the 5dmarkIII. I don't think it is. Does your thinking outweigh my thinking? That's why it has to be measured, to get rid of placebo and the human brain which is foolhardy. Some guys on the DVXuser forum think that the 5dmarkII is sharper than the 5dmarkIII which is just because the III lacks aliasing. That aliasing does increase "apparent" sharpness, same thing that is going on with the 1dx. If you are going to do a proper resolution chart, do it properly. Alan Roberts from BBC rates the AF-100 at about 680/pvi ""Resolution is clean up to 63% of 1920x1080, where there are low-level null zones visible. This means that the image has clean resolution only up to 1210x680, which is not good, given the strength of the aliasesResolution is clean up to 63% of 1920x1080, where there are low-level null zones visible. This means that the image has clean resolution only up to 1210x680, which is not good, given the strength of the aliases." http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD66_rev_2_Panasonic_AF101.pdf http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/ag-af100_and_pmw-f3_on_the_charts/P2
×
×
  • Create New...