pablogrollan

I thought RX100 M3 already had XAVC-S, or at least was supposed to (maybe via frimware upgrade). a6000 should have it since it is supposed to be a higher model than the a5100. What I'm wondering is if this means an RX10 Mk2 is not coming soon... I thought Sony would respond to the FZ1000 (which uses the same Sony sensor) with a new RX10 Mk2...

Nope, F5 owners knew what they were buying when they purchased and Sony delivered on the agreed terms. They knew that they had to spend a lot more if they wanted 4K, either via the recorder or buying an F55. If anything, they have received some unexpected "gift", but they deserve no explanation/compensation from Sony. They should be really pissed. Sony's fuckup is not the pricing policy -though it could be argued if it was right-, but failing to protect their customer's investment. They can charge whatever they deem reasonable for their cameras, and they are right because their cameras DO sell. One of the main reasons to pay a premium the we all know is not hardware/feature-justified is the fact that having the most advanced and expensive tool adds a certain "exclusivity" that can be charged to the client. This amortization takes some time and usually product cycles in higher end models are a lot longer. "Annoying" is the fact that the a5100 gets full pixel readout and XAVC-S and the higher a6000 released four months earlier is stuck with AVCHD, not to mention higher end cameras like the FS700. So essentially, the low end consumer a5100 probably has better video than pro cameras such as the FS100 or FS700 which are not that old. In the case of the F55, Sony's failure does some serious financial damage to the people who trusted their business to them and opted for the bigger and better investment. We have to keep in mind that this guy has done nothing to void his warranty (unlike ML). He has not modified the camera nor the firmware, and has managed to add around 8.000$ of value to his camera. So he's not to be blamed and Sony should start looking for a way to compensate F55 owners.

The thing with reels is that -in my experience- they are not really useful for the director/producer. If you want to showcase your talent as a filmmaker, clients are going to want to see complete and finished work so that they can judge on the editing, pacing and how you've decided to develop an idea -what's your focus, is the approach innovative, etc-. Reels are very useful for graphic artists, 3D modelers, VFX composers, DPs, and people involved but not "concerned" or responsible for the finished product. Those are authors and fully responsible for just a few seconds of each project they work on, so an edited reel is the only way to show their work.

Well, it should. The implementation of XAVC-S would not be difficult and one thing is not updating earlier models (Sony's policy) and a different one is offering the better features in the lower end of the line. The a6000 was released in late April as the first of the "new line" of cameras to replace the NEX. Shortly after they released the a5000 and now the a5100. If they had released an a7000 with XAVC I wouldn't expect an update on the lower models, but the a5100 is going to be 100$ cheaper than a6000. This is their new NEX lineup and won't be replaced by new models until mid-2015 or later. It seems Sony wants to make XAVC-S their new standard codec, like they did with AVCHD. It was on the RX100Mk3, now on the cheap a5100 and for sure will be on the RX10Mk2. Given the timeline, it arrived a little late for the launch of the a6000. What I wouldn't expect is S-LOG2. Until recently, that was a paid upgrade and it is adressed to top-of-the-line cameras.

DSLRs are far from dead in videography. A7S and GH4 are two clear examples -though technically they are not DSLRs- of photo cameras designed with the videographer in mind. Having said that, I do not expect the 7DMkII to have 4K video, and I don't think anyone is. It MAY have a better codec (h.265), improved detail/moire/aliasing, some video features such as zebras and focus peaking, maybe even a headphone jack. But mostly it will have improved specs for stills. Keep in mind that the 7D is still Canon's flagship APS-C camera. That is the top of the line for professional sports and nature shooters, and it is almost 5 years old.

50mbps and 4:2:2 are submission requirements for the BBC -and some other channels- to ensure QC after possible adjustments by on-air technicians. Sensor size does not matter, but the fact remains that (except for Alexas, F55s, REDs et al.) most cameras meeting those requirements are small sensor broadcast cameras (Grass Valley, HDCAM, DVCPRO HD). The only large sensor/DSLR style cameras approved were the 1DC and the C300. But I think that's total BS because they have no trouble using footage from a bystander's phone if the circumstances demand it... Still, WSJ is not a TV channel, so as long the footage & editing looks nice, I guess they -and other online media- will accept anything shot on GH2s, 5Ds or even the Sony RX100 (I read it was becoming popular for run & gun due to the fixed lens and sturdy compact body).

Does Wall Street Journal have a TV station? My guess is they only publish online (no "air" in the traditional sense) and that they are not publishing "daily headline news" like CNN, but more like in-depth analisys and reportage (not so "perishable"). In my years in boradcast news (Betacam SP and Digibeta later) the rush of the news cycle meant that news were edited "as is" (no CC), so the camera settings had to be pretty neutral and the WB right on the spot. I'd imagine if any station used GH cameras for daily news (though supposedly they are not broadcast quality) the idea would be to use a preset that could serve as a final look -provided the white balance is right-. When you have a couple of hours to go some place, shoot, go back to the office, write a piece, record a VO edit and publish ther is no time for finesse. On top of that, very often the person in charge of the news piece is a journalist with little video background that will not appreciate grading or even proper editing. For many years TV news have been closer a "radio that you could see" rather than "small format informative cinema". Fortunately in recent years more producers/editors are replacing the traditional writers/journalists, which means editing is no more sticking one shot after another to cover a voiceover. Newsshooter.com has interesting articles and videos on this new trend which I'm afraid has not yet settled in daily news.

Hi ddire, I think you got it wrong... The Metabones speedbooster has no effect on rolling shutter, and you don't need it to be "speedbooster". In order to reduce rolling shutter you just need to use the camera in APS-C mode. Works with any lens. If you want to use Canon Glass on the A7S your options are: 1. Metabones Smart Adapter Mark IV: preserves the lens IS and AF (though AF is very slow) and there is no focal reduction. In Full Frame mode the FOV is FF and in APS-C it is APS-C. 2. Metabones EF to E-mount Speedbooster: no electronics, aperture is changed manually and it is a focal reducer, which means it can only be used in APS-C mode. It actually is designed to be used with APS-C sensors and full frame glass. It concentrates the light beam making the APS-C sensor behave like Full Frame in terms of field of view an DOF. As a "byproduct", the resulting concentrated beam is 1 stop brighter. 3. Dumb adapters: they are basically an aluminium alloy cilinder with an EF bayonet on one side and an E-Mount bayonet on the other. Their only mission is to compensate the different flange distance. They have no optical elements and do not correct or improve anything.

5D Mark II is quite an old camera that has exactly the same advantages/disadvantages than a 60D (well built, good ergonomics, lack of headphone jack, soft video, no peaking or zebras...) The only difference is that it is full frame. It all comes down to your video/still needs and what you want to buy. If it were me, going to the artic, the desert or a combat zone would be the only reasons to choose it over, say an A7 (1300$ new with kit lens). Specs-wise, both the 7D and the 5D MkII have long been surpassed. They are still around just because they are really well built cameras and the stills world has evolved very little in those years. A raw still from the 5D has only a little less dynamic range than from some other modern cameras because the improvements in stills have been incremental: a few more cross focus points, one or two more frames per second in burst, a few more megapixels, but -for many photogs invested in Canon glass- nothing to justify switching to a new mirrorless system after many years of faithful professional service. For that price (1300$) you can get a new 70D body with improved autofocus and tilting screen... I do 95% of video and 5% of stills, so for me switching to mirrorless was a no-brainer, but many of my colleagues in the stills world, working for newspapers and magazines still have their old 1D or 5DMkII and have not seen reason to even buy the 5DMkIII. As for audio, I'd look for the Tascam recorders of the same price range. Depending on your needs you can plug a Rode mic shotgun or a lav like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618739-REG/Sennheiser_EW_112P_G3_A_EW112_p_G3_Camera_Mount.html Yeah, I know that lav is expensive, but totally worth it if you are going to shoot an interview for example. Cheap Lavs sound plasticky and terrible. And mics are not something subject to crazy innovation, so this lav will still be a workhorse ten years from now.

It seems we'll know soon enough is Canon is ready to respond. http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-to-make-a-big-splash-at-photokina-cr2/ Depending on whether or not the announcements are a disappointment and if that new sensor tech is really "revolutionary" we may see Canon repeating the cycle again... or not.

a6000, no doubt. I shot with the 7D for many years until it became an extension of my own self. Menus, dials, wheels and buttons are top notch (it still is the flagship Canon APS-C and buid quality is better than 5D MkII). The a6000 was released in April and is not as "intuitive" for me yet. But image quality wise, it is much shaper without the digitally over-sharpened look of Panasonic's M43 sensors (IMHO) and light sensitivity blows the 7D out of the water. I use it with a Nikon to e-mount speedbooster that gives me Full Frame FOV & DOF plus an addtional stop of light and sensitivity is great with much less noise. Back in the day, the 7D was better than the 5D when it came to highlight protection and rolloff, but the trade off was that it was not nearly as sensitive and the blacks got really noisy. Even in properly lit situations, if you had a tad too much shadow even in 320 ISO the noise was very noticeable, and with the a6000 the noise is calm, less obvious and very "cleanable" with neatvideo. Moire and aliasing were also a problem of the Canons (7D, 60D or even 550D were the same) that forced you to avoid brickwalls and wires. Not a problem at all with the a6000. Rolling shutter was decent on the 7D but it is also much better on the a6000. Like I said, what I really miss in the a6000 is the build construction and weather sealing of the 7D (a tank). With the 7D I shot a whole morning in a Spa-Sauna and though I had to clean condensation from the lens every 2 minutes the camera worked flawlessly and no moisture got into the electronics. Wouldn't try that with an a6000. Still the 600€ consumer Sony kicks the 2000€ Pro Canon's ass in terms of image quality...

Well, as an owner of both 7D a a6000, I believe the video functions of the a6000 would make your life much easier. - 60D has a mic input but no headphone jack, which renders the mic input useless (recording without monitoring??) unless you install ML and use a miniUSB to jack adapter to monitor through the AVout of the 60D. For paid work I personally would never use a hacked camera, and the 60D is not the most recommendable ML camera for raw video, not to mention the hassle of raw file mangement and workflow. - Exposure is hard to judge with the good ol' Canon DSLRs. The meter is just a reference that won't tell you if part of the frame is overexposed. Zebras on the a6000 make it easier. The AVCHD is not the best codec, but keep in mind not all implementations of the codec are the same (Sony FS700 vs. Olympus EM-10, for example). The AVCHD footage from the a6000 is at least as gradeable as the quicktime h.264 from the 60D. - I use legacy Nikon and Tamron glass + Samyang Cine Lenses on the a6000 and they are much easier to adapt to the Sony e-mount via speedbooster than to the EOS mount. I can't speak about AF speed beacuase I hardly use it, but I can tell you that having focus peaking is a must for video (in the Canon you have to either measure exposure and focus distance first or eyeball everything). As for the a6000 EVF, I like it for stills but for video is not so comfortable and I still prefer to use a kinotehnik loupe (120 €) on the lcd screen (which you would also need on the 60D). Canon batteries last longer, but Sony's are smaller and you can easily fit 3 in your pocket So unless you really go the ML way (which is not my cup of tea), the only advantage of the Canon is body sturdiness. Though the a6000 is well built, it is so tiny that it doesn't feel nearly as robust as a Canon body with its large grip and big buttons, but I guess that's a matter of taste. Fully rigged with separate audio recording or on a tripod the difference is not so noticeable.

If you're using Twixtor in Premiere, you have to do what Matt said. If you drop a 50p clip in a 25p timeline without "interpreting footage" first you are basically telling premiere to discard every other frame to maintain the clip length. So, first select the clip and "interpret footage" (right click) as a 25p clip. You'll immediately notice that the clip length has doubled in your media browser. Then drop it in the 25p timeline and apply twixtor.

Hi ddire14, As far as I've heard the issues with the metabones adapter have to do with the electronic communication between the lens and the body. The fully manual Samyang lenses could not care less about those contacts. As for build construction, I use a metabones Nikon to E-mount for my Nikon mount Samyang lenses and have never had a problem. It is solid, with no wiggle and as tight as a native lens. MTF Services also makes a very good dumb EF to E-mount, but the price is in the ballpark of the Metabones... Regarding filters, I use Tiffen circular screw-in filters and work great (also available in 4x4).

Sorry to hear that Richard. What seems unprofessional to me is that they accept the camera for repair knowing they won't be able to solve the issue for weeks... Design/firmware flaws are not Panasonic UK's fault but at least they should be honest about the solution -or lack of- and recommend that you send them the camera a month from now... In the meantime you could get familiar with the camera and the features that do work.

The iMac monitor is beautiful, for granted. But it is still the same LG manufactured IPS panel that you can find under many brands, some expensive (HP, Dell) and some cheap (Hazro). Like the rest of the iMac and MacPro it is a standard, not very powerful generic PC in a beautiful enclosure, and even that remarkable design has its cons (upgradeability/expandability). It's obvious you have not been in touch with your PC side lately. I use both and some Apple solutions work better (email management) and some are far superior on PC (sorry but Finder sucks!!). If you must go the Mac way -which I cannot understand nowadays since the reliability gap between Mac and PC is nonexistent both in HW and SW- Hackintosh is probably the best solution config-wise, and it'll save you Apple's markup. Unfortunately, Apple's standard configurations never had the editor in mind: you either get a fantastic display with a poor GPU, or a super fast SSD with insuficient storage capacity for editing or a decent CPU with hardly any RAM. That's why a hackintosh is the closest to what you would configure should you choose to build a tailored PC.

I've used both the Kinotehnik and the Zacuto and both work great. It's pretty much a matter of taste. The Zacuto is more robust, but also bulkier. I love the eyecup foam on the Kino, it really beats the Zacuto for long use (you know, when your eyebrow starts to sweat pressing your eye against the rubber of the Zacuto is less pleasant). Zacuto has antifog (Kino doesn't but I've had no "fog" problems in the summer). If your sight is not perfect, the Kino uses additional glass vs. the classic diopter adjustment (my sight is OK, so no problem for me but the Zacuto might be more convenient for those who need adjustment). I see that you are in NY, so maybe drop by B&H to try them and see which one feels right? As for the Hoodman, I haven't used it but I have heard from different sources that it is quite disappointing.

Well, not really. To that you have to add the price of a lens, plenty of memory cards and additional batteries. Not saying that it is expensive -though it would pretty much double the price-, but the RX100 with its fixed lens is more of a ready-to-go camera. Other options under 500$ would be the Canon EOS M -kit with 2 lenses- which is a Rebel T2i in a compact body, the Sony a5000 which is pretty much a replacement of the NEX 5 (with video limited to either 24p or 60i) or even the Panasonic GM1 with kit lens -now listed at 750$ though I've seen it at 500$-.

This "indie" film trailer was shot with the a7s -doesn't specify if crop or FF- and the RS does not look that terrible. I had a Nikon D90 back in the day and be sure this wouldn't have been possible no matter the rolling shutter repair tools used...

Neither do I. With all the in-camera colour profiles available plus the possiblility of tweaking them and the added felxibility in post of XAVC-s I don't see where the problem would be unless the WB is way off...

First of all, thanks for sharing. It seems your "how to" was in demand, though I do not get why some people think grading the a7S's is that much harder... The luma corrector is unnecessary, you're just performing an operation and undoing part of it with the Fast CC. The luma correction can be done within the Fast Color Corrector, adjusting shadows to 0.3, highlights to 1.0, and the mids to wherever you like in the upper mid section of the waveform. I know you were not aiming at such a punchy and saturated look -it was just for demonstration purposes, right?-, but the effect of the applied LUT is too "light" in my opinion. If you'd like to get that kind of look punchy from the start and tone it down to your taste I have found that the standard Alexa LUT from Speedgrade/Lumetri will give you that (at least until we have more a7S specific LUTs). I agree with you that slight color casts (or "color interpretations" from the camera) are not a problem, especially with cameras in which you can dial the preferred color cast in camera. True, Canon got it right with factory defaults, but with the A7S you have the possibility of modifying it and even tweaking it further in post so, I don't really see a problem that cannot be solved by using the camera. Over time you'll get to a point were you have it profiled for every occassion to your liking.

Well, if you take a look at what's being sold right now, most of it is footage from small sensor cameras (TV look, not filmic). As long as you choose a professional TV camera -4K woud be great-, your footage would be OK. I imagine it has to do with who buys stock footage and what for. I'd say its mostly low level corporate video and news... so your footage would be more useful if it cuts well with whatever they have shot (tripod or very steady shots, locked camera & short smooth pans, some slider shots, deep focus with vivid colors). Apart from the usual crappy "office worker" "handshake" and "meeting" clips, I've seldom found FF look in stock footage. Would you use stock footage if it were a commercial or music video you were shooting? The few times I have used it have been upon client request of some aerial shot or establishing shot of a landmark in a foreign city (after any budget for travelling or shooting had been spent). Maybe a Panasonic LX8 is actually a good choice, except for the compressed codec...

I have edited Canon MXF files without a problem in Premiere, and those files where handed out in a simple folder in a hard drive... Maybe the files are corrupt?

What I mean is whatever the camera says, you cannot record 60 frames per second with a shutter speed of 1/50th. There is nothing to "prevent", no failsafe needed, it simply is impossible. Maybe the mistake is that the on-screen info says 60p 1/50th, but be sure the camera is not recording that way -just as if the in-camera calendar told you it is June 32nd you'd know the date ain't right!-

How could you shoot 60p at 1/50th? That should be physically impossible...