Damon Mosier

Unless they came out with a last minute firmware update before they shipped, the cameras do NOT have FULL MANUAL control over exposure, much to my disappointment. Our shop got one early and I've messed around with it a bit. You have a limited amount of manual adjustments you can make, but nothing that can be called full control. ISO: 400, 1600, and 6400 NO APERTURE SETTINGS! Instead you are left with EV compensation of +/- 2 in 0.5 increments, but it will only work if the exposure is within range of you ISO settings. For instance, if you are in a darker situation and want to shoot with as little noise as possible, you might want to shoot at 400 ISO and then open up the iris to get your exposure. But if the camera has already determined that it is getting the most exposure it can within the ISO settings you are using, the EV adjustment will actually have no affect on the image at all. I was shooting at 400 ISO and couldn't use the EV at all because it thought it was too dark. I actually liked the lighting, as it was an intentionally dimly lit room with only a few pools of light. When I changed the ISO up to an awful looking 6400, I was able to then make EV adjustments. I just didn't like it. I wanted to keep the shadows dark and set exposure for the lit areas, but it was looking at the image as a whole and thought it needed to brighten up the shadows until everything in them was visible. Thus locking me out of making any EV change. Ultimately the lens is a fixed aperture f/2.8 lens and the EV is nothing more than raising or lowering gain. So 400 ISO with +2 on the EV is the same as shooting at 1600 ISO (though I haven't done noise tests to confirm that the results are actually identical) so that is why they left out the intermediate ISOs. Also, even WITH the EV adjustment, the iris still automatically sets the exposure. The difference is that it takes your choice into account but will still adjust mid-shot if the camera thinks it needs to. It will just do the adjustment much slower. I had it in "full manual" mode and pointed it at brightened and darkened parts of the room and sure enough it opened up or closed down. No control at all over shutter speeds. It will choose that for you. So basically it still ain't a cinema camera in spite of the fact that you can shoot in a flat color profile for color correction, yet can't do something as simple as set a specific aperture or have any control whatsoever over shutter speed. I supposed you can trick the camera into using a slower shutter speed by using the ISO and EV settings together, as long as the camera agrees that your settings are within the parameters that IT thinks are the correct settings. Still a great camera, don't get me wrong. The 3+ is used professionally all the time and this camera is an improvement pretty much across the board. But it isn't "manual" like actual filmmakers were expecting. It's more like "manual" as a surfer who wants to shoot his wipeouts would understand it. I do find it odd that they think professionals want to be able to have as much ability to use color correction in post as possible, yet overlook the idea that the camera guy would really just like to get a proper exposure first...

When you are the company selling the software it is edited on it matters a great deal. They aren't advertising it to soccer moms. They are advertising it to editors. You know, kinda like how Arri crowed to all the cinematographers about how all the Best Picture nominees were shot on Arri cameras. And to put this in perspective, Final Cut Pro wasn't considered to be a credible platform for editing "professional" movies on until Walter Murch used it to cut Cold Mountain. That legitimized it in the eyes of many and that's when more "professionals" began using it in earnest. Ever since the debacle that was Final Cut X rolled out, Adobe has been aggressively pursuing the segment of the market that Apple was abandoning. With this announcement, I would say it is a sign that they have gone a long way toward succeeding.

Like hell. One of their cinema cameras costs more than all the cars I've ever bought put together. That's the whole point. Like when the guy says "But we do have a 4k option" he is referring to a $12,000 8bit DSLR or a $25,000 C500, that also requires several thousand more dollars to actually get that 4k recording. Meanwhile the new 4k GoPro, due out in a few weeks, sells for a few hundred bucks.

Figures. I originally worded my question specifically asking whether the color gamut was 709 or 2020, but didn't want to look ignorant if it was an obvious question for those familiar with UHD monitors. So I did some looking on the internet first and I saw that Rec.2020 was what UHD was supposed to aim for, then assumed this monitor had it. Thus, I ended up looking ignorant anyway...

I know that you said color reproduction wasn't exactly 100% accurate, but just the fact that the UHD color gamut is Rec.2020 instead of crappy Rec.709 is a major improvement...

I might suggest that you are actually both saying the same thing with different words. If I may: "To escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring people back to the movies, while avoiding cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio, they designed the anamorphic lenses." At least, that's how I took both of your comments. One was describing the "why" and the other the "how."

Is it just me or do the out of focus people look a bit... smeared... in that video?

ML is the one and only thing that could possibly make this useful as a cinema camera in 2015. But even then I think this camera is too little, too late. It's cutting edge 2012 DSLR video for the year 2014/2015. Like it was said, this camera will be on the market for several years and money would be better spent on something else now or next year that isn't so outdated out of the box.

I should clarify that I work for a rental house in LA. I showed my boss the camera and he thought it sounded great until I said it was E mount. We have tons of EF and PL lenses and I said we could always get adapters. He said "Nope. No adapters," and the conversation ended right there.

If this camera had anything other than an E lens mount it would be killer (though obviously being a Sony cam that's all you'd expect). PL would be nice at the very least.

I think you are missing the point. I don't think the argument is about convincing the average joe that they need to plonk down thousands of dollars instead of using their phone. It is about convincing the person who is already in the market for plonking down thousands of dollars why they should spend those thousands on a particular camera. The only reason to release a MkII or MkIII of anything is because you want people who already have the earlier version to upgrade for the latest new features. The manufacturer is attempting to cash in on the reputation of the previous version, but updating it and making it new and improved. But for the last five years, there haven't been any new features! Or barely any. The MkIII was only an incremental tweak of things the MkII already did just fine, and if the leaked specs of the 7D MkII are true, there is nothing in that package to warrant spending money on if you already have a 7D or 5D. The rest of this isn't directed specifically at you, but just a general statement. I don't understand it when people complain about somebody complaining about the lack of innovation. It's like people say "What are you complaining about? People don't care about new features. They aren't going to spend lots of money because a camera can do X." Then WHY would they spend money at all? If they aren't going to be enticed to spend a few grand on a camera regardless of the advances, then why are those people being included in the conversation to begin with? They aren't the market. Period. The only people who's opinion matters are the ones who would buy it, and if there is no reason to buy it because the tech in the particular line of cameras has been stagnant for five years they aren't going to. Sorry if I seem like I'm rambling. My point is this: It may not be the case that the person buying the GH4 did so because they didn't like the 5D MkIII's features. They may not even be the same market. In all likelihood, the people who would buy a new DSLR feel like they have no reason to, while people who feel like buying a new mirrorless camera are finding a reason to. ---------------- So basically, I'm saying I don't really understand what your point is, other than that it appears you are suggesting that there is no point in Canon or Nikon making better cameras because nobody is interested in buying them in the first place, regardless of how much better they are. And I think that Andrew is saying that there ARE people out there who want to buy better cameras, but they are sitting on their cash instead because there is nothing out there they feel is worth buying, aside from the portion of that crowd who is seeing something in the mirrorless market that is actually convincing them to purchase one. Or am I off base?

According to Dave McGavran over on Creative Cow, Adobe has only implemented cinemaDNG playback in this update and not raw capabilities. That is something they are working on for future updates. Would have been nice if they were upfront about this ahead of time, but there it is. Basic functionality first, more robust capabilities later.    

    Yeah... like I said, this isn't a "good" example because it isn't a problem in this shot. But this is the only one I have at the moment because my drive with all the cineform files completely went up in smoke last night and I lost everything. I still have the raw stuff on another drive but I have to reprocess everything from scratch. When I get another copy of the raw files from the director and can start reprocessing I will find a clip that is more noticeable. In any case, I enabled downloads for this clip but it still looks pretty clean when you download it.   I'm not sure if contacting GoPro is going to yield any help since RAW2GPCF isn't officially part of their software. I know the guy who wrote it works for them and uses it as the basis for his program, but I don't think they will help in any way. I will have to look into those other things you mentioned.

I've just shot a short film using the ML raw hack for the 5DmkIII. We are using a PC workflow so we transcoded the raw files into Cineform raw using GoPro Studio Premium, RAW2GPCFv113, and RAWinizer. Cineform seems like a much easier workflow than cinemaDNG, so that is what we went with. However, the resulting Cineform .mov files that come out are pretty noisy. I shot almost the entire film at 100 ISO with Canon CN-E lenses so I'm pretty sure the noise is a result of the transcoding process.   Has anyone else worked with Cineform raw? Is the noise typical or am I doing something wrong? We purchased Andrew's 5D raw guide and I didn't see any mention of this, as either a problem to avoid or something typical to expect. I assume Neat Video Pro would be capable of noise reduction while maintaining the high bitrate of Cineform raw, but is this really necessary? As it is some shots almost look unusable "out of the box" so to speak without some noise reduction. I am posting this from work so the only clip I can show, at the moment, is this one I previously uploaded for the director to see. This one isn't particularly noisy but it is more noticeable in other clips.   https://vimeo.com/76398367

  That is why I am watching the Kinefinity line very closely. Frankly, I hope it does very well.