elgabogomez

The latest GoPro, sure you can find ways to use it after the trip. If stills are a concern let your kid do the video work and convince the wife to still use the a5100.

If you are ok with a green tint on your toast, I can loan you my Sony a5100. Great affordable toaster.

I haven’t seen a Blackmagic production 4k camera for $700.00 anywhere. If anyone knows of that kind of deal, please pm me.

If you ask “regular” people, they prefer hyper realistic paintings... but that doesn’t negate the power of other types of paintings. Abstract, surreal, impressionistic... Are they all for the painters?

None unfortunately, the only dslr-like camera with anamorphic mode is the Panasonic gh series (gh4, gh5, gh5s). You can crop the xt3 16:9 image to 4:3 in post though. Yes you loose detail and information but with 4k is not that bad. The “open gate” modes of the gh5 and gh5s give you almost the same field of view of the xt3 4:3 “crop in post” with more info and details. You need to go to bigger cinema cameras to have anamorphic modes, the cheapest apsc being the ursa mini 4.6, then the kinefinity mavo, and then up in price to a second hand alexa or red epic.

Henry, the problem is the graphics card in your laptop, resolve 14 requires 4gb of video ram for 4k, on a desktop you could get away with a 2gb card half of the time or with a couple of nodes or with a 2k max timeline, but the other half of the time resolve doesn’t have enough vram. If I remember correctly, the 840m GeForce tops at 1gb of ram.

I would have guessed that it covered a mid point between s35 and ff...

Andrew, did you ever tried your Lomo on a Sony FF? How much of the sensor is useable?

Ok, fair enough. That’s counting ef lenses as “native” for the R system, I suppose. But at this point they still need to be tested as equally good than on a mirror canon to be counted as such. It’s still too early to say they work best adapted to the R than the Sony A which has been able to adapt them for years. I don’t want to defend the system I have, but it can be argued that right now it’s a far more adaptable system for every set of lenses, from c mount to medium format which you have done in the past, and that includes everything from fd to ef to every nikon lens you could get on photo stores for very little money. When it comes to video-cine lens sets, the only “matched” set in stops, look, color that canon has is the cine line which can also be adapted to any mirrorless system and that is not auto focus nor inexpensive.

What would you call a complete set of lenses? For video/cine? Or for photography? I normally agree with your comments but this one needs more context cause canon and nikon new mirrorless systems can not be called better at this point, so I really don’t know what are you trying to say.

I guess you can call me a sony fanboy... and I want the xt3! Battery is my one concern.

Kye, I hope such tests get done, gimbals are relatively new and can do great things. I’m just saying that the effort required to do them is bigger and more expensive than just getting all the gear together and creating a machine that can test them. I’ve personally only used a ronin as a camera assistant in one feature and as a camera operator in a short. I’ve played with a friend’s Zhiyun Crane for a few hours and found it easier to set. But the feature was with an alexa mini and the short with a c100... that the Zhiyun was flying my a6300 was obviously a lot easier task. For many things I prefer to use a glidecam but that’s a biased opinion cause I’ve used them for years. So as a user I strongly believe that the end result of a project has more to do with the user/team of users than the tool.

It can certainly be done, but look at the cinema5d tests for dynamic range... there are several ways to compromise results. Not convinced with the example, look at the tests made by ebu to determine if a camera can be used for broadcast, as soon as you add extra tests as technology allows, how can your new results compare to your old ones?... Or look at the anamorphic test by sharegrid, how many people involved do you need to have comparable and quantifiable results? That’s what the challenge is and now consider doing retests cause the motors where acting strange on that day you rented the Gemini or the alexa mini...

The problem are the variables... excluding weird terrain, air, different walking patterns and speed is what your model can achieve. But what about camera weight, combo with x, y, z lens, x, y, z sunshade and filters, cage, extra battery, matte box, external mic... The weight distribution is the problem with stabilizing (be it gimbal or steadycam type devices)... Recreating same conditions for the same camera and ONE gimbal is very difficult, now add multiple cameras with multiple lenses and several stabilizers... good luck!

I might be wrong but it looks like it needs the Zhiyun Crane 2 to work.

I understand the credentials, the institutions represented and the goals of such tests. And I’m not disputing the GH5s findings. But I (person not institutional member of a board protecting standards) believe it’s assessments like the alexa one, are responsible of its dismissal for a project on Netflix and similar projects... Not a 4k native camera... I’ve seen tests made by creative people where ump and alexa are tested next to each other and they can be made to look 99% the same. No poor color on ump, no poor resolution on alexa... Then on a6300 tests, there are several things not tested (including external recording and picture profiles)... so it maintains the upressed 4k of the alexa and the downconvertion of 4k 4:2:0 8bit to near 1080 4:2:2 10bit an internet myth, I strongly believe it’s these experts quasi obligation to do such extra steps to push the envelope.

Neufeldt, that’s the problem of this test. I guess there is logic in how he (Alan Roberts) decides when to end his tests and why... There are certain things he looks the camera to achieve and once they are met that’s enough, but methodology wise, they are all over the place from one camera to the next... ie: why test a6300 and GH5s and not gh5 or a6500 or a7s/r/xyz or bmcc or pocket... is it project specific? Somebody asks if they can use such camera to the bbc then bbc asks mr. Roberts to test it? We don’t know so it almost feels as a fight between Superman, Goku and hello kitty, that’s how random it looks from the outside. They (EBU) are testing them as “television cameras” and passing them or failing them as such. What television camera is better than the alexa??

Well considering that the alexa is barely passing their tests (1440x810 real resolution, 1db more noise at mid gray, some aliasing, some ir pollution) ... their tests are specifically designed for bbc qc and standards... So as the rebel punks anti establishment shooters that we here are, of course we must dismiss their findings.

No! They sound better to me :D

Then yes, throw it to the wall ... A few years ago, I bought avid studio (a consumer nle) and couldn’t get it to install, 70 something % and then an error. Didn’t want to return it, sent several emails to avid about it and no reply for a week. Ended up downloading the “cracked “ “hacked” version and used the code I had for the original dvd copy I legally had... 2 weeks later what I can only assume was an automated email response came saying “sorry for your inconvenience, we are looking for the trouble you have” sorta... less than a year later, avid sold the program to another company...

Iirc the only products that gave free resolve full version (or studio now) were cameras and not the pocket nor the micro, in fact, it was a big deal when the original bmcc was discounted to $2000 because resolve costed $1000 back then. If you got it included with the video assist, maybe that’s why it didn’t work to unlock studio version.

Clean 3200 iso on a cinema camera is a big deal, look at the Varicam, Venice, Gemini. That is if it’s really clean. There is no raw, no prores 10 bit coming out of an a7s which is what has spoiled us into think high isos are the norm but they are not.

I’m not defending that clip, first time I saw it I abandoned it halfway. But it’s not clipped, not blown, not over sharpened, yes the skin tones are not handled nicely but that’s the grade not the camera. The lack of “cinematic “ in that video is not technical, is just not saying much and it’s not even a camera test that brings much to the conversation. So my point is that cinematic look needs as much dynamic range as pancakes need butter...

I remember people complaining about “mtv look” in the 90s and how it wasn’t cinema like... then run Lola run came to cinema and since that worked for the story, it became accepted. At one point, a well choreographed scene like the restaurant scene in goodfellas was considered the ultimate cinematic goal, now you can do it relatively easy with a small camera and a glidecam or a gimbal. So I think cinematic is when it works for the story/style. Whether that is movement or tripod shot, it depends on the meaning, not specific technique. Paranormal activity was very video looking and that was the point.

I saw movies on dvd that were poorly encoded and for several reasons had all of those problems (blown highlights, horrible roll off, oversharpened, compressed skin tones), it detracted from them but still were “cinematic “ minority report had all of those problems for artistic reasons and still looked good... don’t believe me? Watch it again