sanveer

I don't know why you're suddenly spewing vitriolic around, like some nutcases from other forums, but, YES, I do format my card in-camera, cause sometimes its faster, and sometimes, I do forget to do it on a laptop. I hope the answer did not disappoint you.

No sound metre, and no battery indicator? I just read above that formatting in camera is coming. That's possibly the best update so far.

I would like the Sony A7S being compared with the C100 and the C300, for extreme low light/ extreme high ISO testing. The C100 and the C300 seem to be highly competent, especially after the ISO 80,000 firmware update:

Its amusing how everyone has an opinion on how DXO Labs seems to have gotten everything wrong, and yet, none can substantiate their theories about how to calculate actual dynamic range, in anything even remotely scientific.

Suddenly everything under 14 stops of Dynamic range looks little. While not so long ago the Professional RED Epic MX was doing between 11 and 12 stops of dynamic range, and that seemed perfectly fine. http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/next_stop_the_last_stop_red_mx_latitude_tests/P2

The Dynamic range of the GH4 is rated at 12.8 stops (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-GH4) and the A7S is rated at 15.3 stops according to Sony themselves

I obviously have absolutely nothing to back this, but, I have a feeling, that the noise reduction and sensor read-out for video is smoother than for stills. Also, in the Comparison video, at upto ISO 25600, the A7S clearly had more details in the trees and the Caesar's Palace sign-board. Also, I found the dynamic range noticeably greater, and therefore, it looked brighter than the Mark iii. Also, after 25,600, the image quality didn't seem to deteriorate any further, and it seemed as usable at ISO 25,600 as it was at ISO 1,02,400. After that it looked like a 640p video. Beyond that it looked like the GH4 at ISO 3200, the only difference being, that it has insane Noise Reduction happening internally, so much so, that the noise didn't seem organic at all.

I apologise for the late reply. I didn't notice this post for a while, and then it slipped my mind to reply.

I think banning people from sites lacks greater pleasure. Clever Repartees are wasted on cerebrally challenged and ineloquent whackos. I am sure they come nowhere near hurling rotten food at someone. Andrew, you don't need a certification from anyone. If anyone thinks they can run a successful website with a comparable number of visitors and members, they should do that. Btw, Michael Thames was in the Wrong Site. This is what he posted in this thread: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> "Spec sheets are boring to me, and I have to admit I don't like reading manuals. I find I learn much more by apprenticing myself to a master, or to someone whom I look up to and respect. In this way I seek knowledge about my particular craft." This Site does not have a MASTER, but, All of Us know a site, which has a master, where Michael Thames can practice being disciplined :D ;) :P P.S.: No guesses for what the site is called ...

Hahaha, Andrew, I noticed this, after your post. I felt both embarrassed and stupid, for having jumped the gun. My bad ... :P

It's not about making a good camera. That the Canon did not just with the expensive yet well-features 5D Mark ii, it did it with the 550D and that range of much cheaper cameras. For most Indie Filmmakers, especially those not making Features, it was more than sufficient to pick up any of the cheaper range of Canon DSLRs shooting in Full HD. The C100, C300 and C500 is a completely different target audience. And, it does have advantages over regular DSLR video (Flatter Colour Profile, Higher Dynamic Range and Higher ISO). But the C100 starts at $5500 (for Dual Pixel) for AVCHD which doesn't even do 60fps, and the C300 does 60fps at 720p, and costs $14000. While these cameras are good for broadcast standards, they don't really cut it for Filmmaking (more due to the fact, that that there are emerging cameras like BlackMagic and others, which are far better for coloring and grading and cost a fraction of the cost of the Canon's Cinema Range). The Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A7S are the future of Independent Filmmaking, especially for productions will smaller budgets. The Canon Cinema range, is almost there. Though not quite precisely.

Canon should probably fire its engineers for coming up with this in the first place. Whats an over-sized piece of _ _ _ _. And this is incomparable with the A7S for filmmaking. Also, after seeing that the A7S does clean 4k video upto 100,000 ISO, I am sure it can be used for more technical and scientific purposes.

I guess if Canon does not genuinely innovate and allow technology to trickle down to its mass buyers as oposed to the Niche C500 buyers, its headed for extinction. Also, apparently, in sensor technology Canon hasn't really innovated in the last half decade. Almost At All. Only on paper, not in actual field tests.

I remember, last year, Canon teased a sensor, which, apparently did Superb low light. What we saw, unfortunately, was a highly pixelated and Very Noisy video of fireflies. The Sony A7S is actually the camera that Canon spoke about, but did not make. Anyway, that sensor was only 2MP or something, so it wasn't really made for production. Here's the url and the video: http://petapixel.com/2013/09/13/canon-debuts-exciting-prototype-sensor-exceptional-low-light-capability/

I am curious why none have discussed the GH4 B&H Webcast, which I thought was pretty interesting, highlighting a few things that were either in doubt, or were things that users thought, needed to be addressed: 1. Most people recording 96fps on the GH4, found the video rather soft. Panasonic (Matt Frazer) explained that one must set the shutter speed to 1/200, so that they get the right kind of sharpness for the image. 2. In the GH3, people could switch between the Shotgun and Stereo mic pickup pattern (on the Panasonic DMW-MS2), and, apparently, now, in the GH4, even the angle of pick up, for the shotgun can be adjusted, making it narrower or wider. And, also, apparently, it can be set, to self-adjust with a zoom lens, depending upon the amount of zoom employed. I think, on paper atleast, this feature seems amazing. 3. Also, there was a reporting of noise by many people, saying, that, there was a strange buzzing noise, coming from the GH4, at all settings. Panasonic explained this in the Live Webcast, saying, that this was due to the fact, that most plus in 3.5mm jack mics are not grounding out correctly, which is apparently due to the Tip, Ring, Ring, Sleeve Adaptor on Panasonic Mics vs Tip, Ring, Sleeve Adaptor on most other mics. They explained, that they understood that the mics are not grounding properly, and their engineers are working to resolve this issue now. Did anyone else notice anything else extra, which wasn't already discussed, about the GH4.

Thanks Andrew, Great Review as always. I am curious: 1. I am curious as to comparisons of screen grabs between the C100, GH4 and C500. 2. I would like to know the Exact Flatness of C100 vs C300 vs GH4, from in-cameras, and otherwise. 3. Most importantly, how much Flatter does the Cinema D profile, with everything dialled down (-5 Highlights, +5 Shadows + 15 Master Pedestal) make the profile? With the optimum settings, I suspect the GH4 pushes a tad bit under 12 stops of DR, in video (according to DXO labs it does 12.8 stops for stills). What do you feel?

From Andrew's write up on the gGX7 vs A6000: " ,,, Handling The A600 has a number of problems here. Whenever you insert a card used in another camera, a computer says “NO†and begins building a database whilst your crew sits around tapping their fingers impatiently or a shot sales off into the distance." Someone's Obviously been watching a lot of "Little Britain" ;) :P

Blanche, I think you have started a brilliant post. I think we are so glued with technology (which does indeed forma very important part of film-making, style and narration, apart from Many other things), that we have forgotten completely about content, minus technology. But, story-telling is something that is hardly discussed, anywhere on the internet. Most of the launch Videos of New Cameras (ala the GH3 and GH4), have either only story-less footage, or poorly narrated stories. Admitted I am absolutely ignorant where Documentary Narration Styles are concerned. I had a very close friend, who disapeared a few years ago, and then, passed away, even more mysteriously, before she could tell me about it (she was a national award winning DoP). Also, I don't really get to interact with documentary makers, at all. I like themartists suggestion. I think its creates co-operation and collaboration of talents. I could propose something, if everyone agrees. We can make a list of things we could collaborate on, without any kind of commercial aspect, though by not indulging in plagiarism, or or one-upmanship, of any kind. We can always broaden or change the list of topic and the nature of the exchange, as we go along. How does this sound?

See, story telling, is like all other aspects of film-making, Whereas, a Film School can ONLY make a film school student of person, and actual, hands-on field work, will make a cinematographer, writer etc etc, of you, the way to go about with it, to to meet people with ideas, stories, narration styles etc etc. For me, apart from people, I get inspiration, from watching short films, and reading works of prolific writers like Roald Dahl and Jeffrey Archer. These two really nail the precise amount of narration (material, as well as style) necessary, in a short story (the things needed to write for a short film). Read lots of short stories, and when you start feeling that you have got the length necessary to write a 10-15 short film, you have hit the nail on the head. After that, have it reviewed by someone who writes lots of short stories (such as yours truly). I could send you one of 2 short stories, if you promise not to share them. :)

Quite true. Some of the most beautifully shot videos on Vimeo are usually just videos, tagged or labelled as Short Films. They have absolutely no story to tell. Actually, I feel there is so much one can narrate in terms of a short film. Gear and everything is nice, but actual story telling must have a strong edifice based on story-telling.

I am jealous. hehehe. Actually, its nice that this group is being moderated, and that all that random spam won't find its way here. I was almost tempted to order a few _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h$#kers online. hahaha. On a more serious note, I am only curious, but, Andrew, do you think that this could have more people contributing to Front Page Articles (as opposed to merely Forum postings), like in the case of NoFilmSchool, being under standardised and moderated instructions?

I guess this is the opportunity of a lifetime, for new cinematographers. My friend's production company is looking for a cinematographer for a Low Budget Indie Film, to be shot in India. It requires a Cinematographer, who doesn't have too many years of experience, since the budget is not too high. Anyone (even fresh pass-outs), who are comfortable with shooting on different formats (especially DSLRs), please write in to us. We will cover air fare to India, put you up, and also cover your fee for your work. Please write into us at (and please try and paste the urls for some work of yours): admin@Happyhoursentertainment.com

:P

Wow. I have been quite irregular of late, on the site, but, this is by far the best decision you have taken Andrew. I was finding the cheap Ads and porn far too much to digest. I guess the source of the trolling must be a certain gentleman who thinks he's better than Magic Lantern. No guesses for who that is. Anyways, I look forward to the post monitoring. Best of Luck.

I, like everyone else saw the Sony A7S videos, and was completely blown away. While it is superb strategy for Sony to COMPLETELY handicap the camera, despite its insane potential. I believe Sony will introduce this sensor in its 'F' range as well as 'FS' range of cameras, which will see its full potential. While the GH4 sensor is nowhere in the league of the A7S's, Panasonic has not purposely handicap its potential to 1/10th, to make way for its professional range, which is both respectable, as well as sensible. Right now, the A7S is something that could have killed the entire 'C' range of Canon (C100, C300 and C500), as well as many other cameras which use the small form factor. I am quite unsure of why this ridiculously unfriendly anti-workflow monster has been created. I think Sony needs to seriously re-consider undoing the handicaps.