hmcindie

[quote name='cameraboy' timestamp='1348642345' post='19060'] Canon 5d Mark III does pixel binning same as gh2 ... [/quote] Pixel binning is the exact same thing as averaging. Duh.

[quote name='riccardocovino' timestamp='1348472727' post='18965'] Maybe it wasn't clear, but I stated under 2K $ Sony has less moirè than Canon, in other words Nex-5N and Nex-7 have less than Canon RebelT4i or 7D, and this fact has been shown in dozens of tests by different users. [/quote] I have the Nex-5n and the 7d and that is 50% bullshit. The nex-5n has slightly less moire/aliasing in 25p mode. When you switch to 50p the aliasing and moire DOUBLES. That is what apparently happens in the A99 too. Did you even watch that clip?? Show me one test by these "different users". Even better, show me ALL THE DOZENS of tests. It's funny how in the forums every half-truth is compounded all the time and soon the truth disappears and you have you people who say "dozens of tests" but can't produce even one. Or the one they produce is done horribly and the other comparison has been deinterlaced or shit like that. Ah...bloggers, love them.

[quote name='riccardocovino' timestamp='1348402763' post='18949'] The moirè/aliasing issue is quite evident. ALl other manufacturers haven't found a way to eliminate it in sub 2k$ products (Althought Sony has much less than Canon).[/quote] Sony has much less than Canon aye? http://fil.io/FL82vTNAM/Sony%20A99%20raw%20photos%20and%20footage This 00023.mts was shot with the A99. Does it look like it has less? Same thing happens with the Nex-5n when in the 50p mode. Horrible moire/aliasing.

If you want to split hairs then a Scarlet is just an Epic with a different firmware. Think about it. 100% same construction with same parts. The only reason is Red claims that they do "binning" so that only lesser parts end up in the Scarlet. I doubt that slightly.

[quote name='douglaurent' timestamp='1348184401' post='18770'] for this amount of money, a scarlet with 5k, higher frame rates, hdr-x mode and raw video is the much better choice[/quote] Scarlet does not do 5k. It's neither good at high frame rates as the crop will be horrible. HDR-x will not work with Scarlet in 4k. You should know this stuff.

Reverie moment? I doubt it. Reverie actually still looks kinda amazing. With the low res contrasty 30p image. I guess Vincent can really photograph stuff.

[quote name='thekgb' timestamp='1347068835' post='17574'] Isn't he the same guy who spent 500 million-ish making a 3D cartoon recently? Cameron lives in his ego, not the real world. [/quote] That cartoon is the number one box office draw. I'd say he is more in the real world than anyone in this forum. That includes 'thekgb' who we all know from such boxoffice draws as "Jack Shit".

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1347078409' post='17578'] Me neither. Please, jcs, go to Apple's trailer website and download a film-acquired movie in full 1080p. Very, very, detailed.[/quote] I just saw the Expendables 2 on the big screen. Quality was absolutely horrendous. Huge amounts of post cropping that completely annihilated detail from certain closeups. It was worse than any 5d mark III image ever. And it was shot on 35mm. I could not believe what I was seeing. Did anyone in the audience care? Has anyone said about this in reviews? Nope. Only on dvxuser there are people complaining like I complained. A film shot on 5d mark III (or even the last generation) would've looked better. Come to think of it, I've never really seen anything quite sharp on the big screen when I was a projectionist. Closest thing was probably Episode III projected anamorphically though that had blurring on the edges due to the anamorphic projection. 35mm film has never been sharp. You could project GH2 material and have it look "sharper" than 99% of the film copies we got. A lot of this is even hyperbole. Consider how Andrew got excited about the "OLPF removal" that did jack. A colleague of mine actually once thought that the 7d material I was editing was shot with the RED as it played on the projector. It just happened to be a good looking shot. I let him hear about that one for a long time. We usually just play different clients material and try to guess the camera. That's always fun.

That's just completely stupid thinking EOSHD is propagating here. The D800 gives you excellent and filmic images. If you can't shoot with it, the BMC will not help you.

Raw gives you extra latitude but it doesn't save your images if you can't shoot worth a damn. You still need to expose and light but you guys don't know how to light so the whole "exposing" stuff goes over the heads. I've seen plenty of shoots by different DOP's going to waste for different reasons and RAW has never got anyone out of those "I exposed badly" sorts of situations. It helps grading, white balance and keeps the tonalities in check but that's about it. All of these articles are like weird "fanboy" stuff where you guys concoct the imaginary wonder cam that makes everything look great by itself. You still need to learn to shoot. If you can't match cameras without raw, you can't match them with it. Do you even have any real clients or is this all just coming out of some odd "I wish I worked somewhere but don't so I come up with stuff" world? You apparently don't do any event work either because this BMC is just not capable of event work yet. So who are these clients you talk about?

I really like the look of the BMC at the moment. Grading RED was always fun and it looks like BMC is right up there which is AWESOME! I'm not agreeing with the sharpness or ISO performance yet though. RED Epic iso performance was always sluggish and I believe one of the reasons is that there is no added gain, just post-work ISO. When you take away the ability to give the sensor more electricity and just do it in post it usually ends up backwards. A lot of people just bake in an ISO with the Epic and shoot and then they cry in the grading room. "Why is that so noisy?" Well you shot it at ISO 1600 and very underexposed, what do you think? You still need to shoot properly exposed, it doesn't take that away at all. This site claimed that the HX9v is a very sharp cam so... I'll take it with a grain of salt haha.

Sure. But when you do stuff, you should be open to criticism.

How can anyone say that the HDV-cam Sony Z1 was sharp? It was horrible. Way oversharpened and compression artifacts everywhere. There is only one HDV cam that almost looked kinda good and that was the Canon HV20 in cinemode. A friend of mine shot a full feature film with the HV20 and a 35mm adapter that got a film print and a run in the cinemas here in Finland. Sharpness was not even close to a 7d. Did anyone in the audience care? Nope. HDV was always horrible, especially now. The 5d mark II blew all of those out of the water. We filmed a documentary that we begun using the Sony V1 hdv-cam and a Canon 7d. The V1 had to be dropped when we saw the footage. The 7d just blew it out. No contest. Anyone praising old hdv cams with small sensors and at the same time bashing DSLR's is really inexperienced.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1343838447' post='14789'] GH2 is AVCHD Canon 5d III is H264 I wouldnt mix the two! [/quote] ... ... I'll just say that AVCHD = H264.

This is not a problem with Windows and Premiere. Works great, better than on the Mac side. I don't know what it is with Macs and quicktime gamma bugs but they are loaded with them.

That's not a breakout hit. This is a breakout hit. Over a million views in 3 days. Shot with the Canon 5d. Beats the GH2 videolook hands down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWpK0wsnitc

I'd choose the FS700. A real production camera, you could use it as a clumsy ENG-style cam or Cinemastyle. Integrated ND-filters, easy audio options, a battery system that actually works, great sensor for lowlight and slowmo. Codec is surprisingly good for being not that well specced. If you shoot 10 hours of material, it will still look great and not fill up your space completely. Though the BCC is so cheap, we could buy them both and be happy. But I wouldn't do any eng-style stuff with the BCC but the FS700 would fit that bill pretty well.

Just like you shouldn't light a scene for film and video the same, you shouldn't light the scene the same for 48fps projection. You can spot those things way easier now. If the lighting is fake (as it always is), audience will be able to spot it easily in 48fps. That's why the outdoor scenes looked great. They are natural! If 48fps is "too good" then why did the outdoor stuff work out really well? Being able to spot that everything is done in a soundstage with cgi, is not a real good thing.

What is this "extensive" post-production work you guys are doing? Everyone is always moaning about h264 breaking up, but are you actually doing anything or just moaning? The reason I ask is that people have made excellent VFX films with even the 550d. I've also personally worked a lot on h264 footage out of the 7d and it really is not that bad as you folks seem to portray. So either you guys have actually not done any real VFX stuff or I'm missing something. Still, this camera looks absolutely killer.

What about the Canon 1dx? What is the quality on that thing compared to 5d mark iii on video side??

Epic doesn't really do 3d. Well it does, but with a huge mirror system. You need to plug in two epics with a mirror and suddenly it's quite cumbersome. There is a reason why Avatar was shot with 2/3" cameras and that was their size. Every camera can do 3d with a mirror system.

Typical GH2 jerkoff from Astro. Lots of talk, little show. Or sense. It's funny how audio world completely abandoned 192khz. And how is SA-CD doing with it's huge resolution jump? Not well at all. But tube amplifiers are actually becoming more and more popular. Astro sounds like a 16 year old who suddenly found a 200 dollar soundcard. Whoop. "You belittled my beloved camera!" Boohoo.

You can't use a RED the same way you use a DSLR. I mean, just one redvolt lasts for maybe 30 minutes. And Act of Valor looks great I think. The aesthetic is something that has been missing for a long time. Vistavision sensor. In a film. Great wide angle shots with excellent dof. Your friend just seems to be butthurt. But it is a cheap film. Even compared to non-action films like the Social Network. Social Network cost 50 million dollars. Act of Valor 10. The other is an action film with a lot of stuff to shoot. It wouldn't have even been possible to get all those shots on the Epic. They shot the boat attack scene in six hours with 10 DSLRs. It probably took as long to light an office in Social Network. Saying that "it doesn't make sense" is so stupid that it hurts. It makes all the sense. "They should've shot with the GH2!" WTf is this? The GH2 didn't even exist then. And considering how much Shane loves Full Frame, I really doubt they would've used a GH2. The 5dmark IIs were fitted with Panavision Primo Primes. Can you fit those on the GH2 without losing the wide angles? It seems like you are mad because a pro might not use the GH2. That's just ... really sad. Instead of saying stuff like "They should've done this and that..." you should be fucking excited that they actually shot a film completely differently than is the norm. With a DSLR! Why aren't you excited? By the way, they did also shoot some scenes on 35mm film and the aerial shots with a Sony F950. Can you spot them from the film?

[quote author=Sara link=topic=157.msg1255#msg1255 date=1326513177] I personally don't think the 5DMK2 is all that great for dynamic range - nor do any pros who shoot with it (listen to the audio in the zacuto shootout where they mention that they doubt it can even get 11 stops). [/quote] That's because people are completely spoiled. Before the 5d mark II what cameras did people use in that price range and how good were they? The 5d destroyed them dynamic range wise. I always wondered why people were claiming that these cameras didn't have good dynamic range. They had WAY better DR than professional cameras in the 10k price range at that time. Now time is catching up but still the 5d does highlights better than an FS100. And now it's not "all that great"? Boy. I wonder what cameras we will have in the future, they'll probably do 4k with 18 stops of latitude for a grand.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=98.msg946#msg946 date=1325004547] Compression at 50p 28Mbit will be much worse than in 25p mode at 24Mbit which is how I use the HX9. There is no better compact for video at the moment, with possible exception of new Canon S100 with DIGIC 5 (haven't tried it yet). [/quote] We are talking about this one? [url=http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews/compactcameras/129187/1/sony-cybershot-dsc-hx9.html]http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews/compactcameras/129187/1/sony-cybershot-dsc-hx9.html[/url] There is NO 25p mode on that camera, unless you use the very low bitrate mp4 mode. So what's wrong here? Yes, there is no better compact for video yet, but the video is undeniably worse than a canon 7d. We did this short competition vid: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg6jlRLA2Tg#ws][ G&G Your Greatest Glory 2011 Video Contest ] - Top Gun Boys[/url] And some shots there are from the HX9v and the compression really brings those shots down. Trees and leaves completely destroy the image.The funny thing is that other cameras with the same specs (AVCHD 28mbps for 50p) don't compress nearly as bad. Intentional cripling apparently. And the huge amounts of sharpening are very apparent and fugly. Especially in good light. Though... It can provide great shots if you work around the limitations as all cameras can. I got some great wide-angle (love the 24mm equiv) driving shots on a mount from it. Auto exposure seriously limits it though.