pablogrollan

Well, the FS700, FS5 and RX100V shoot 960fps in crappy quality -never used it-. If you dont' mind your video looking like the Youtube video above, you won't even need Twixtor!

The latest versions of Premiere come with "Optical Flow" built in, which is basically the same as Twixtor (create new intermediate frames through interpolation) but with better results. I've used it to convert 4K 60p to 100p in a promo and the result was good enough for broadcast. Twixtor is still useful as a re-sync tool, which was its main intended use, allowing you to slightly alter the playback speed multiple times throughout a clip with a few keyframes. It's just that the "create-super-slo-mo-from-nothing" use became the most popular in spite of the artifacts and seldom satisfactory results... I still see the use of an Optical Flow/Twixtor tool even though we can shoot high framerates with cheap cameras, just not as often.

True, but you also have to consider the very, very useful electronic variable ND of the FS5, its ability to shoot over 200 fps with top 1080p 422 10 bit quality (plus ridiculously high framerates at lower quality), the adaptability of E-mount, and the fact that 500$ plus renting an Oddissey (or a Shogun) gives you gorgeous raw video. The size and type of camera point to a broadcast-documentary style for a single operator with occasional use as cinema camera, just like an FS5 or C100. I'm not sure the better Varicam sensor outweighs the versatility of the FS5, not at that level at least, where versatility is key. For more refined uses (commercials and narrative) where the FS5 is a very portable B-cam I could see the better Varicam image worth the price difference. I mostly use the FS5 and FS7 (owned), and whenever 422 10 bit is not enough for the job, I rent. I personally find the FS5 much more comfortable to use than the FS7, C100 or C300, and I'd be tempted by this camera if it were as useful as an FS5 -unlikely- with better IQ -likely-. My bet is on SDXC, too. P2 cards are dead, as most absurdly overpriced and obsolete propietary media (Sony SxS anyone?) in favour of more readily available and universal media.

Yep, and still it could be too expensive if it is indeed aimed at the C100 MKII/ FS5 crowd. Unless we see some extra features like high framerates and so on, I doubt the Varicam badge is incentive enough. For that price you are getting close to the FS7 or FS5 with Raw recording... not to mention the gap with the C100 or a rumoured C200.

Usually you can do it from Lumetri, you just need to check the box "High Dynamic Range", though I haven't tried it with GH5 footage at all.

There actually is a Sony to Sony speedboster, obviously Sony A-mount to Sony E-mount... and Kiwis do fly, mostly with Air New Zealand and Qantas

It could be... but my guess it would have to be around 4000-5000$ in order to compete against the C100 and the FS5. The recent Varicams have IMHO been overpriced; they look nice and all the feedback is positive but they are deep into Sony F55, Alexa and RED territory... You need to offer something else if you want to beat those established workhorses at their own game. The FS5 is a little less than 6000$ and the C100 MkII is 4000$, so if it is in fact a small s35 cinema camera with EF mount, it would make sense to target the same price range and offer maybe a higher bitrate or better codec.

Nope, 10bit 4K from FS7 is handled easily... as well as 10bit FullHD, both XAVC-I and L. It is disappointing that GH5 footage is not supported by Premiere, which has bulit a renewed reputation in the last years as the NLE which was compatible with pretty much every format -not needing to transcode in 5D mkII and 7D back then-, and Adobe as the company that actually listened to pros... Does any NLE actually support those files? Maybe it is not so easy and Adobe may have not felt "compelled" to rush it given the fact that lately they still have been the first ones to support new cameras and formats (h265, CDNG) though admittedly they could have been faster to do so (DNG for example, or XAVC-L which was buggy at first)

I think you probably misunderstood... I said a lav is NOT an upgrade because it doesn't sound as nice a boom. I'm not a sound guy myself but my sound guy takes 5 minutes to set up a lav, and if done properly -which takes experience- you mike the guy and forget about it (there are many ways to hide the mic and protect it from cloth noises). In narrative and film the lav is usually the backup, only to be used if there is no other choice. On live TV shows and news on the other hand, lavs are everywhere and since they can be visible, they are quite easy to place: you just need to make sure no wires are too tight, that the setup is not going to move and if possible -on live TV- use 2 lavs per guest, just in case one of them fails.

Maybe that's the key: laptop vs. desktop rather that Mac vs. PC. If you are going to be editing, 3D rendering, encoding or doing some other "intensive task" for long periods of time day after day, a laptop is not for you! Components get hot in every system and more often than not the limiting factor of their useful life is heat. Components literally burn slowly, and the better the cooling system the longer they last (all other unexpected failures aside). Xeon processors are old and less powerful than modern Core i7s, yet they are still sold with a premium pricetag solely because they are built to withstand that heat better; it takes a lot longer to wear them out so if you are planning on building a server that's going to be running 24/7, you use a "crappy" Xeon. In the same manner, if you use your laptop for productivity and for a few hours you'll probably end up updating before it breaks down, but if you stress it to the limit for long sessions -and editing is quite stressful for that laptop- you are exponentially increasing the chance of failure and reducing its useful life a lot. There are noisy, uncomfortable, hot-running gaming laptops suited to the task and even those would probably not last as long as a properly cooled desktop...

Not sure any sound guy would consider that an upgrade... lavs are "easy", as you just "mike the guy" and forget about it, but sound quality of a proper boom is better (super cardioids are usually more flattering for speech than an omni lav).

Unbelievably it is cheaper in Europe!! https://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/miller_184&sourceRef=int%3Asuggest&userInput=miller%20ds20&sid=fmb4b01ijhnv3e0lgstao2akt2 Try one -rent it- for a small job and you'll see... it's night and day. Maybe bulkier, but the shooting experience is very different. No need to get to the really high end stuff (O'connor, Cartoni, etc.), even a Sachtler Caddy or a top of the line Benro or Manfrotto is enough.

+1 on the FS3, but maybe it would make more sense if it had an integrated lens, kinda like the canon XC10. I love that form factor as far as small caneras go, though the lens sucked. I know something like the Zeiss lens on the RX10, even just the mark I -25-250mm equivalent was it?- would be huge translated into APS-C but the 18-105mm f4 is quite compact so I'm sure some solution is possible...

After using both for quite a while the a6500 is slightly oversharpened and IMHO the IQ is slightly lower than the FS5 in every situation. That much oversampling doesn't improve quality and makes rolling shutter jello way worse than what should be acceptable for a pro video camera. There is a a reason why F55, F5, FS7 and FS5 share the same 12mp s35 sensor optimized for video. S35 is still the standard for cinema, narrative and commercials. Given the FS7 and FS5 intend to be hybrid cinema-broadcast cameras, they're right to stick to that standard -many cinema lenses don't cover FF- though I agree with you it would be very interesting to revive the VG series... it was a failed project but it was a good idea and I'm sure it could be done better with today's FF sensors, faster readouts, faster cards, etc. I agree, but the same could have been said about the FS7 and look what happened. An FS5 II could be an update more than a replacement: improved EVF, new SD card slot to allow UHS3 cards with the second row of pins-, higher bitrates and/or XAVC-I -though using both L and I in many projects I can say 90% of the time you won't miss XAVC-I-, continuous 100 fps, etc. The "global shutter" part is what sounds wierd... What for? it's not like it RS is a problem on the FS5.

Even though you don't really need a heavy duty tripod for a GH4, that Manfrotto range is crap and IMHO a total waste of money. Like Kisaha said, if you can get to the 400-500€ range you can find decent solutions from second tier brands like Benro (and even the Sachtler ACE, which I've used and is a really nice head on "just OK" sticks). http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/benro_a373fbs8 http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/benro_a573tbs7 http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/benro_bv4 I found this one: https://www.foto-klik.si/en/video-oprema/video-stativi-in-glave/genesis-base-cvt-20-kit-video-stativ-z-glavo-18551 I have no Idea how good or bad it is. Never used it nor know anyone who has used it. It is 10kg payload head on 50kg payload sticks. For that price I would be suspicious, but if you are willing to take the risk...

Has anyone tried Premiere? I have no problems to edit 422 10 bit 4K from the FS7 (XAVC is based on h264) so I imagine it should play them without issues...

I'm surprised no one has mentioned audiojungle.net yet... They have a large catalog and unlike most sites they allow you to sort search results by sales and rating, which is very useful when you need to find something decent and don't have the time to explore the library...

Truth is whatever the Trump administration tries to "force" as security will obviously be filtered by authorities -the FAA for example- who actually know what they are doing and have sensible goals beyond a political agenda, meaning Li-Po batteries will probably still be banned from the cargo hold.

There is a "soft skin" filter in the a6000 and a5100 which was "on by default" in the 5100 when using auto settings... not in the a6000. I only learnt about it after it was turned off in a firmware update -like most, I shoot manual-.

Not only keep up, the Canon Dual Pixel Autofocus is way better (for video) than the a6000's AF. The A6000 has a very fast AF for stills, probably faster than Canon's midlevel APS-C cameras as the 80D, but the video AF is so-so. I have used the A6000 extensively and the video AF is only usable in scenes with good contrast, well lit and and with very clear distinction between foreground and background, but it is a bit unreliable/unpredictable sometimes. Dual Pixel AF -I have used it in the C300 and briefly the 70D- gives you greater control and tracks subjects beatifully. I believe the Sony A6500 has the best video autofocus of any Sony camera -haven't tried it- but as far as I've heard/read it still is not as good as Canon's Dual Pixel AF.

I would say those are pretty much the specs you need to edit without proxies... MSI has probably the largest selection and best bang for the buck. The Dell XPS is nice, but not as poweful/gaming oriented as the MSIs. One thing to take into account that many gaming laptops overlook is the need for several HDD/SDD, which is not a must for gaming but is essential for editing IMHO. If you can customize the configuration of the model, it is very recommendable to have 3 separate drives (OS and Adobe CC suite in one, footage and media on another and temp files/render/exports on the third one); if not, at least 2 drives. Having the OS and installed programs on the same drive as your source footage is not a good idea...

Maybe not wide enough for your taste, but how about this one? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html I'd say it's one of the most useful for a c100

If you don't mind the inconvenience of not having proper "cinema ergonomics" and focus breathing, fast-sharp-cheap is doable. After all, Zeiss CP2s are rehoused stills lenses and there are many, many used fast and wonderful primes in pristine condition on sale at ebay, Keh and similar places. Anamorphic is another story, though... I'm not convinced by the quality I've seen from any of the anamorphic adapters out there...

In cinema lenses the housing is kept consistent across the whole setup regardless of the glass element size so that you can swithch lenses without having to reposition the follow focus and mattebox, but in photo lenses the filter thread size is pretty much the diameter of the front element plus 1 or 2 mm because the goal is to make the smallest lens possible without compromising speed or optical quality. Usually... but the Sigma 50mm f1.4 has a 77mm filter thread and weights over 800 gr. which I'm not so sure means a huge optical improvement over my old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 with a 52mm thread. Same applies to some Zeiss/Contax designs which are very compact yet fast and optically superb... With stills lenses there isn't as direct a correlation as with cinema lenses...

In my experience -for broadcast- the 80% safe zone is used less and less... instead the 90% frame is now considered both action safe and title safe. Most TV station bugs are now placed in the 90% safe zone, but as Hans Punk pointed in those cases you just adhere to whatever rules and guidelines each broadcaster has. As for "social media" or any direct to web content, I believe it's better to follow the same rules (including loudness normalization, not just safe colours and titles) to keep a standard, and even just because it is aesthetically more pleasing.