zenpmd

I watched this film on the weekend. I loved it. Defo in my top 10. What I don't understand is that, if those candlelit scenes were shot with 0.7 50mm, they didn't seem to have anywhere near the shallow depth of field that lens would imply. Any idea whats happening here? Thanks

I just think its been cheapened - and now one cares about images anymore as they are everywhere. I also think photoshop has KILLED sincere portrait photography. Pulling stills from video is the nail in the coffin. But video isn't dead - if anything it will grow and takes more skills than photography (over simplified, I know). However, statements like this from Billy Corgan worry me It’s not like there’s not development either - there's an increasing synth direction with the past couple of records… Well nobody likes the guitar any more. We're just giving the kids what they want. I feel like every year that goes by the political argument of guitar or synth is pointless, the audience wants to be excited so it's about whatever excites them. But you're dealing with a different kind of audience now, because you meet the fifteen year old and say "what are you listening to?" and they say Muse and Led Zeppelin, "how do you listen to Led Zeppelin?" "I go on YouTube." They're living in this era-less music, their playlists represents 70s, 60s, 90s, new, so production to them is no different than the difference in video quality on Youtube clips. You watch someones shitty phone video, and then you go over to a pro-shot video, to some video that's shot in '72 that's all grainy. The public has reached the stage where production styles don't phase them anymore, which is why you can even have an album like Monuments... where the production style is all over the place. In essence it sounds more like the production feel of a greatest hits, it's not an in-period production style, it's basically all production styles all the time. That's how I feel.

Not my vid. My question was really: 1. what is the point of cinema primes 2. especially on something like a 5d

"We’re shooting on RED EPIC, some FS100 and 5D creeps into every shoot. We shoot almost exclusively on the Zeiss ZF prime set (21, 35, 50, 85mm) and the canon 70-200 series II zoom. " its a lovely film, but my question is serious. note the "cheap" cameras also

Some great observations there Andrew. Much more balance: "Samsung are one of the largest semiconductors manufacturers in the world with one of the biggest investments in chip design R&D. It shows with the NX1. I can’t stress enough how different this camera is under the hood to a high end Canon or Nikon DSLR. As cameras move from the optical / photographic era to the computing era this advantage is going to become more and more pertinent. Some of the technology utilised here is simply not found on anything else it competes with. Unless Samsung set up a supply chain to Canon & Nikon they are going to reap the rewards for a very long time on future cameras of such bespoke tech. There’s little evidence at the moment that Canon & Nikon are on a level playing field when it comes to semiconductors. In my view they’re condemned to buying off the shelf hardware and sensors for future cameras just to stay competitive and gone will be any kind of bespoke image quality advantage which Canon historically have enjoyed with their CMOS sensors prior to the 5D Mark III. Canon’s recent remarks that they will simply use whatever sensor is best, no matter who makes it, hints that their management are resigned to this fate anyway." I've long been a big believer in Samsung. So big and so much money and capable of so much.

Renan Ozturk uses this phrase to refer to super run and gun I suppose - smaller sensor, stabilisation, take anywhere. What is the best for this? GM1/GM5 - no stabilisation RX100 series - stabilisation good enough? OMD - good stabilisation but poor video What should I get? This is all because of when I have the time and want to put in the effort Ive now decided to shoot 5d raw, so want something convinient when that doesnt work.

I do think people get used to the Canon "look" - like someones taste in ketchup - everything else seems bad, but in reality it isnt, just different.

Having said that, I did love the a7s footage in all other respects - straight out of the camera it looked lovely: clean and sharp

Agreed Tim. Although it sounds like a fanboy thing to say, Nikon (using Sony sensors) are the same. With stills, Canon's WB is perfect EVERYTIME also. Nikons you can spot a mile off.

Its on ebay no so no worries. The video image is so lovely from it, but: 1. Get rid of it now and wait for IBIS version 2. Camera ergonomics suck for stills 3. Want bigger EVF 4. Blue colour clipping worries 5. Very bad low light AF - worse than fuji for stills (yet oddly better than fuji in good light) I seriously recommend the 50mm 1.8 though. Insane lens

This is still for sale, in mint condition. £1100 posted.

I think the nay-say is response to the hype of, say, this site saying anything but 4k IS TERRIBLE

The only good thin about resolution is for stills and the ability to crop. means having an aps body which mainly wildlife shooters used to have, now redundant. But I still think Nikons decision to go to 36 sucks because ultimately low noise is always more important

THIS IS SHOCKING

Someone else made the point about stills quality, and I agree with it, that, because you look at a photo for a long time, quality is probably more important, whereas films rely on lots of other stuff (to put it bluntly). Would the Godfather be any better today? Doubt it. When I look at the a7s video image I fail to see how it can be usefully improved. It looks that good to me.

That video posted above, the 30 minute discussion, is really good. I learnt a lot. And of course usefully reminded me that everything is about lighting

I see no meaningful differences at normal sizes between a my sony 7s and d810 for Nikon. I see colour, dynamic range etc.

something that shows how nice 4k downgraded to 1080 looks

Can anyone point me toward anything? Thanks

Yeah so thats the key. 4k Capture - DEFO WORTH OT 4k TV - Jury still out. I suspect in the end this will tip me over the edge to finally buy a projector where presumably at its massive size 4k will be great. They are about6k plus right now. That leaves the question, what about monitors for editing? Can you get away with 1080? I see Eizo just released a 31 inch 4k monitor. I have their Color Edge which still costs about £1000. The 4k is going to probably cost 3 times that amount...

other than pulling stills from 4k footage, does the ability to shoot 4k video change stills in and of itself? i assuem not? sorry i find this a bit confusing. i think i understand the other points made but the outstanding one is - does the resolution matter and can you see it?

if I have a 18meg plus camera doing 1080 (eg 5d) am I getting all the detail?

This chart seems to suggest its pointless. I assume it doesnt tell the whole story? '>

"The 7D had a huge video following, actually." Thats a bit like saying lots of hairdressers buy MX5s, so our next mx5 must be REALLY GOOD for hairdressers. The 7d was used for video due to the lack of choices elsewhere, that is all. Canon doesnt care. You cant please everyone. They have made the perfect aps-c wildlife cam. The real things they do which annoys me are in stills (to the 5d range): 1. Not linking AF point to spot metering (only 1dx does this, Nikon does it in every cam) 2. Stupid hard to see black dot for AF point which is invisable in low light 3. 1/250 max shutter speed for auto ISO - annoying for action the list goes on So dont think im not critical, Im just saying if the 5dmk4 sucks for video THEN we should all let rip and I probably will sell, but they havent fkced up yet...

But the implication is that Canon will cripple the 5dm4, whereas Sony will always put top spec in. Sure the a7s is good, but CANON HAVENT REALEASE THE MK4 YET! And yet everyone says its a failure before its began with no evidence. 7dmk2 is not a video cam and was a happy accident previously. It is a highend wildlife/sports stills camera