pablogrollan

Far from perfect in my opinion... The range seems OK and has manual rings but I bet it is focus-by-wire and zoom-by-wire like the 28-135 F4, you know, the "better" kind of focus-by-wire, but still... and F4 is too slow. We'll have to see how it performs before casting judgement but I don't find it more appealing than a Canon 24-105L with Speedboster Ultra that becomes a 16-70 f2.8

Is 4K a must? I noticed you listed the a7S II and URSA mini 4K, two cameras as opposite as they can be except for the 4K recording... I'd never get a Blackmagic for any "event jobs" -anything but a very safe and controlled environment-. If you don't really need 4K, as Michael Coffee said a C100 would be a great choice: can't see in the dark but it is quite good in low light, much better than URSA. Batteries last forever, having proper xlr audio and ND filters is priceless and it feels better than rigging any dslr. It's only 8 bit 4-2-0, but still really nice and gradeable, plus AVCHD means you can record hours in a cheap 64GB card and you can edit it easily in a mid-range laptop or old workstation (Sony's XAVC and Canon's new MXF 4K oriented codecs require a beefier computer to handle).

The kit lens is decent, not stellar. Well built, compact and a bit of a pain in the ass to focus manually. A little better now -the lens had a recent firmware update- but far from the feel of a manual focus lens. With a metabones speedbooster ultra you could use the Canon 24-105 f4. Speedboosted It would behave as a 17-70 f2.8, so you would sacrifice some range but gain a faster, easier to focus lens. Needless to say the bulit quality of a Canon L lens is nice, but I haven't tried the autofocus of the FS5 on that lens. On the kit lens is not good; might do for jobs without sudden focus changes in well lit environments, but in my opinion it is unusable in most situations.

Dynamic range is of little relevance when it comes to green screen (one of the few situations where it really doesn't matter). A studio lit green screen scenario is going to require just 5-6 stops of dynamic range. Colour sampling and bit depth on the other hand are crucial... I'm sure a pretty decent key can be pulled from a GH4 in close to ideal situations, but in those same circumstances the key from a 422 10 bit high-bitrate source has to be better, or at least much easier to achieve. Just think of the time you'll save in post: the BM will require a lot less matte cleaning. In addition, probably not every single shooting day will be smooth and uneventful... for those days when the actor has a "difficult" costume, the actress has wild thin hair, a prop seems to be trying to ruin your shot or your lights go out you'll be relieved to know you have a camera that can save the shot and needs a lot less to deliver a decent key. Having said that, does it have to be the BMPC 4K? Have you considered renting a higher end camera with a similar workflow (recording in prores or any other 10 bit high bitrate codec)?

Having used both traditional steadicams with vest and arm and a few 3 axis gimbals (BeSteady, Ronin, Pilotfly) I believe there is one major point missing: the learning curve. I kinda disagree with DPStewart that switching cameras is as inconvenient in a Steadicam as in a 3 axis gimbal. In my experience it takes considerably longer in a traditional steadicam, even if only because the gimbal has motors that allow for a slightly unbalanced or misbalanced configuration (sure, battery drains faster and it may not be as smooth, but still works perfectly) while an improperly balanced Steadicam will make your life hell... But above all, with a 3 axis gimbal you may need a few hours until you get the hang of how to balance it quickly, and maybe an afternoon until you fly it with confidence and proficency (hardly an hour to get decent results!). A conventional Steadicam is much better in some regards but it takes a lot of practice, and I mean a lot! That's why steadicam operators have been very well paid for so many years. Not to mention that, though heavier means smoother "floating" movements, it also means overstraining your back. I've seen several steadicam operators forced to retire in their 40s because of their back problems...

You probably don't need excellent low light performance to shoot a concert. I have shot a few on several Sony EX3 without a problem. The camera feels a little cheap (too much plastic) but it is a great 1/2" camera with very nice IQ and the "kit" lens (anyone ever changed it? not that I know of) is an f1.9 31mm-439mm equivalent, so a very competent all-around zoom. I imagine they can be found cheap on ebay... The only downside are the absurdly expensive SxS cards, but there are cheap dummy cards that can accomodate an sd card inside. 32GB would give you around 100 mins. if I recall correctly.

In Spain I can't get any decent actors for less than 350€ a day, though usually it ends up being around 500€ (for corporate or web advertising) and at least 750€/day for a commercial. And yes, feeding them properly and general pampering is worth it -they work better in a good mood-.

Though I'm not Mr. Reid I believe I can help: Yes, you can shoot timelapses to turn them into high quality 4K videos. Not only with the D5, but with pretty much any dslr since they all have resolutions higher than 4096x2160. The video functions of the camera don't come into play here. You'd be using the camera as a stills camera that shoots a single picture every x seconds, so not only 4K is possible, but also 8K, depending on the camera used. To record the timelapse you would need either an intervalometer or the built-in app/function of the camera to shoot pictures at regular intervals, and then load those pictures as a sequence in After Effects, for example...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Tony Northrup... I've heard him "state facts" that are somewhat questionable, and in that same video he starts saying there is no improvement in sharpness to later talk about the cases in which the same lens is actually shaper on a aps-c body... In general terms, aside from in camera software corrections and other factors that would make you have to judge lens by lens, a ff lens on an aps-c body would show better center to corner sharpness. That's one of the reasons why some of the better cinema lenses for s35 almost cover full frame: you avoid any possible vignetting and corner softness at the expense of a bulkier lens. Northrup's pixel calculation does not apply to video with the relatively low resolutions of HD and 4K.

True, to a certain extent. The problem might be that, if the smaller sensor (aps-c) has a much higher resolution than the cropped area of the ff sensor, you just might hit the limit of what the glass can actually resolve and it would not look considerably better or more detailed. Still, you compare the full image of a camera vs. the full image of the other, and in any case with the same full frame lens, the aps-c image would show a tighter framing (due to the x1.5 crop sensor) with better center to corner shaprness.

On the contrary, the 24-70 mounted on an aps-c sensor will only "use" the center of the lens, which is always the sharpest and best performing area. You can even get away with using full frame lenses that have good center sharpness and contrast and poor corner sharpness/vignetting, etc. since all those defects visible in a full frame camera will not be seen mounted on an apsc-camera. Full frame lenses always look better on aps-c (comparatively). The downside is that it is a little "overkill", since you would be using a much larger/heavier lens than you need given the size of the sensor (and in some zooms that extra weight and size is considerable).

Yes, I do but as hmcindie said That's why an 11.6 MP sensor is enough oversampling for an 8MP (4K) image. Come on, there are several reasons why Sony develops different sensors for video cameras and stills cameras. Not to trash the a6300 which looks like a very promising video camera, even one I might buy...

I disagree... There should be more than just the necessary pixels in order to remap blown pixels, etc. but apart from a little better sharpness -which is questionable-, color is not improved by pixel density and noise in generally worse. Usually, the bigger the pixels, the more light they gather and the lower noise is... if that 24MP sensor were better for video they wouldn't have used the 11.6MP one on the F5 and F55 -rolling shutter would not be so problematic on those cameras with more computing power-. That's why people speculated with the possibility of a FF video camera with the A7S sensor, because MP count makes almost more sense for video than stills -unlike most full frame sensors-. The a6300 is a hybrid camera and as such it has to be a capable video AND stills camera. The 11.6MP is listed as having around 9M effective pixels, which most photographers -pro or enthusiast- would deem too few. I'm sure the a6300 is a very nice stills camera. What remains to be seen in video is if they have managed to overcome the extra difficulties implied in using a stills aps-c sensor. On paper it sounds great...

Nope. The sensor listed for the FS5 is 11.6MP s35 and the one on the a6300 is 24.2MP aps-c. Makes sense since in a video camera a full pixel readout is a given, and those additional 12MP don't really add anything to video... It is to be expected that heat management and rolling shutter will be better in the FS5.

It was meant to be an example of a show in which the producers decided to spend a considerably large budget -with more than decent script, photography, set design, costumes, etc.- to get a show with enough production value to be sold worldwide, since Spain is not a market big enough to justify such large productions. Neither is Germany or pretty much any European country on its own, in fact Deutschland 83 got mediocre ratings at home but was sucessful enough in many other countries. Quality standard of acting is not the central issue here, though I disagree that "the acting is so bad in Spain". There are many very good actors in Spain, even though they do not always reach the star status that some other young pretty actresses have. Perhaps a show like "Crematorio" would be a better example for you? Scorpion is quite a successful show both in the US and abroad and the acting is way worse, not to mention the dialogue... If there were a sure formula for success everyone would follow it, but it turns out some people are willing to put up with an actor they dislike or a weaker subplot if they like the show as a whole.

Youtube right now is just valuable as a CDN and a user database. Not long from now regular broadcast will disappear and all content will be streamed on demand -a la Netflix- and Youtube will lose its major draw; that's why they're rushing to offer real content before all networks become "netflixes" (or "youtubes") and Youtube becomes just another one... especialized in cats, toddlers and tutorials. There's still place for factual shows (semi-scripted content), documentaries and news, not just Youtube. John Landgraf's fear is unavoidable, I'm afraid. The trend is segmentation (fragmentation has some negative connotation, right?). There will be more players in the market with a wider variety of products to suit all tastes. There'll still be products for the masses, but probably there will be several "masses" with fewer members, but enough to be a market for a certain theme or show. American networks are starting to look outside of US borders (though only a little), something streaming platforms have done -or tried- from the beginning. Hollywood is already -with a golbal mindset-producing high budget films that are likely to bomb at the domestic boxoffice simply because they might be successful elsewhere. On the other hand, if a new NBC shows has poor ratings in the US after a couple of episodes, it gets the axe... I disagree about the excess of shows and lack of talent to maintain the level. It's about time they look abroad for content creators, too. Shows like Borgen, Sherlock, Deutschland 83, El Tiempo Entre Costuras, etc. have proven that top quality shows with a worldwide audience can be created and produced outside the US. The market just got a lot bigger, yes, and so did the pool of content creators.

Probably a Mac issue? I have edited several 4K formats on PP CC 2015 -Sony XAVC-I, XAVC-L, C300 MkII MXF, etc- without a hiccup on a lower specced PC (Win7 - GTX970 - 32GB Ram - separate Samsung SSDs for OS-PP, Rushes, Previews, Exports). Always played in real time with effects applied (Lumetri mostly). I know PP CC 2015 should perform similarly on both platforms, but it isn't the case, both with Premiere and After Effects. I also edit frequently on a top spec 2015 Mac Pro (dual CPU and GPU) and in my experience it is not as responsive, drops frames every now and then and render times are slightly higher... I suppose it depends on how your workstation is configured but my experience is that Adobe CC runs better -in general- on Windows. Macs are great, but also have their quirks. I remember having trouble a couple years ago with a 2011 MacPro (the tower before the cookie jar) that struggled to play long youtube-encoded mp4 files; it lost sync and dropped frames after a few minutes while an average windows laptop on crappy windows media player had no problem...

Really? Because most reviews since the first speedboosters came out agreed on it being a fantastic product with excellent build quality. Apart from that, I have and use several metabones adapters and have had no problems so far with internal reflections so far. The one I use the most is a contactless Nikon F to Sony E speedbooster. And the reason so many people use them is probably because if you are already heavily invested on a particular system's glass (Canon or Nikon), it's great to be able to use it with newer Sony bodies with better specs. Also, many people believe that legacy manual lenses -that can be found really cheap on eBay- are actually better suited for video than AF lenses without aperture or decent manual focus rings.

To early to tell... The trade show stand was for Wodden Camera, Metabones, SLRMagic and Filmpower, and the guy was fluent in Japanese, which makes me think he is probably just a local rep and not a anyone from Filmpower. Perhaps that explains why he didn't have a clue what to do with the gimbal or how to configure it. Still, it surprised me how huge the gimbal is (at 24:10). It looks like a full sized Ronin on a popsicle stick. The other hand gimbals I've seen are proportioned and compact. This one doesn't look like it can be really operated with a single hand... Regarding the 5 axis version, let's see if all those who alledgedly are about to receive the first shipped units are willing to test it out and post some footage. This gimbal so far seems to lack the compactness and travel-friendly size of one-handed gimbals and the reliability of larger models.

Don't know about the quality of this one: http://www.ebay.es/itm/191698181213?ru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.es%2Fsch%2Fi.html%3F_sacat%3D%26_mPrRngCbx%3D1%26_udlo%3D%26_udhi%3D%26_sop%3D12%26clk_rvr_id%3D909923748515%26rmvSB%3Dtrue%26_nkw%3D191698181213%26_rdc%3D1 ...But seems similar to the Pilotfly and is really cheap!!!

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. I own both lenses and I have to say the Sony G 18-105 PZ f4 is way better than the Canon 18-135: - metal construction vs. fiddly plastic (and the Sony feels much better overall) - constant f4 vs. variable which starts right after the 18mm, making it impossible to use as a zoom. - parfocal vs non-parfocal - internal non-protruding zoom vs. protruding: also, the Canon has so little dampening that it extends itself when shooting downwards at a steep angle. - super silent zoom and focus motors vs. noisy one: the Canon doesn't have a zoom motor and it is considerably noisy if you choose to autofocus on both the C100 and C300. - annoying focus-by-wire vs. conventional focusing: this would be the only "but" on the Sony lens (why, Sony, why??), but at least both the zoom and focus rings have a very nice feel and are large enough for manual use. The Canon 18-135 focus ring is rubbish: tiny, wobbly and with a minimal focus throw which make it pretty unusable. - 550$ vs. 500$: money is not the issue here... Keep in mind the Sony G series tried to be equivalent to the Canon L series. I think Canon L lenses are in another league in terms of handling and build quality, but this Sony G lens is still many steps above the cheapo Canon EF-S kit lenses...

In terms of sharpness, contrast and fringing, there is no problem with the current Samyang lineup. In fact, I've seen tests showing there's little difference with the Canon and Zeiss (which are not as fast). Keep the Samyang at 2.9 and you'll see they are quite sharp and hard to tell apart from the more expensive lenses. The problem with them is the plasticky housing (good plastic, well finished but plastic after all) with a more or less inaccurate scale and the breathing, which makes sense since they are re-housed stills lenses and stills shooters don't rack focus. I agree the 85mm is outstanding, and so is the 35mm. The 24mm not so much but it is not uncommon to see the 24mm underperform vs a 50mm or an 85mm. What's really missing from Samyang is an affordable cine zoom, even if it is with the current plastic housings. S35 sensor cameras don't have that many zooms with full manual controls and proper focus and iris rings. A 16-105mm with a fast constant aperture would be in really high demand. If the alternative is a Fujinon Cabrio, they could make a lens of the sort (hard to do, I know) at 5,000$ and sell it like cupcakes...

​I totally agree with you Ebrahim. It took me 5 minutes of browsing to find this: http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/20/columbia-rape-saga-lingers-after-mattres/ So once again Ed you have raised a controversial topic of little filmmaking interest (IMHO) and portrayed a seemingly innocent guy as a sexual predator. That girl is "the voice of our generation"? First of all, she's 21 or 22 years old -not my generation, and I suspect not yours either, Ed- and as far as we know she's just making a show -and getting magazine covers- out of something that is tragic and scarring. Furthermore, it was turned into a "preformance/Degree thesis" and now into a video to keep the wheel going. Perhaps the crime we are "passive" about is how easy it is to destroy a person's life by means of online slandering without any proof. There are certain issues we are all very sensitive about -such as violence against women- and somehow the importance we grant them overrules other "lesser" rights such as presumption of innocence. Big mistake. That right is the cornerstone of western legal systems, and the only difference between trial and lynching. And BTW, I personally believe that the inclusion of that blogger/cameraman's last name in the title of a totally unrelated thread is shameful, to say the least.

​My advice, do not upscale your 1080p footage to 4K to later downscale it againg to HD for delivery. You will see noticeable loss of quality due to the first upscale. It is claearly stated in many threads on the Adobe forums that scaling is one of the most time consuming processes, so it is no surprise that working in a 4K timeline is faster and renders faster. "​I was curious about this myself. I just did a test and it looks like zooming in 200% on a 4K timeline/rendering at 1080 is softer than keeping 4K footage 100% on a 1080 timeline." Again, placing 4K footage in a 1080p timeline is doing a "natural" crop, interpreting pixel to pixel without any scaling, which means less processes to deal with and likely a better result (Premieres scaling is not bad, but still is a reinterpretation which may or may not introduce quality loss in the final footage). Also when scaling during delivery (final encoding) ticking "Render at maximum quality" is supposed to make that scaling more accurate. "Render at maximum depth" only concerns the usage of 10 bit or 12 bit colour space source material and downconverting it to 8 bit for delivery.

Sounds OK. I only have SSDs on my editng rig and so far I've had no problems. If you go down the SSD path I'm not sure you would be needing Raid 0 since the SATA port would be the bottleneck (the 6Gb/s limit translates into roughly 750 MB/s and a single SSD would give you 550 MB/s). Just having separate drives for OS, rushes, exports and previews will ensure that you are maxing out on speed by not reading or writing simultaneously on the same drive.