DBounce

I guess the problem is I don't spend my time shooting studio charts.

Just watched it. Looks OK, but I will confess this footage does not exactly blow me away. Waiting for more.

It's not on your list. And it's not one I would have thought of using in the past for monitoring. That is, until I used them. Which? The Bose QC35 These headphones are noise cancelling. In the past I used Sony's and Sennheisers to monitor. However, in noisy environments I would often times have a hard time discerning if the noise I was hearing was getting in from the ear-cups or if it was in fact being picked up by the microphone. But with the QC35s this is no longer an issue. Because the only thing I hear is what the microphone hears. No single audio purchase improved the quality of my captured audio more than the QC35s. Now I know exactly what is being picked up by the microphone. There is no more guess work.

I guess I miss the point of this thread? Since the only thing confirmed is that the title is wrong... iPhone 7 / 7plus does NOT have 4k@60p. That much IS confirmed.

Thanks, that's me. I also find test of vacation pictures or toys less useful. This particular test was really so I could gage the latitude of the various profiles. I may shoot a short with some actors soon. It's really about learning the art and how best to effectively use the tools. Noise seems pretty good on the 1DX MKII, which makes it much more flexible than a traditional cinema camera when lighting is less than ideal. Did you have a preference for any of the profiles?

Just messing about with the in camera picture profiles and some 3rd party one that I loaded on the camera. Some can be pushed further than others. I tried to keep it all even, but in the non-flat profiles I had to dial it back. Just a quick and dirty grade using Magic Bullet Looks. Opinions welcomed.

Smartphone app works with the DPAF. It may not be the best, but I hate the added weight of a monitor.

I know real innovation. And now they charge $159 for the wireless ones that sound identical to the free ones they use to throw in with the previous phone.

For a while I was using a video devices pixie. But the weight was becoming a problem. So recently I have been monitoring from my smartphone, which is ok.

I speak figuratively. I'm sure their business will adapt as the market changes.

Well from my experience there is no better AF out there. And it's the only one I would trust for a shoot where money was involved.

I can confirm it's not on the spec sheet. If you want this kinda innovation look to Samsung, not Apple.

There is no such camera. So why would anyone compare the 1DXMkII to something that is imaginary? Why not just compare to the A12... specs should be killer.

Call it what you want. I have both so I do get to regularly compare the two. PP plays fine with MJpeg. Set your ingest settings from Project Settings>Ingest Settings When the window opens select ingest, next from the drop down menu select create proxies. I generally select 1536x720 H.264. FCP creates proxies by default. That's why the playback is smooth. I use both.

Not for me. The biggest reason I favor the Canon over the Sony is motion cadence. And I can tell you regardless of what your frame rate or shutter speed is you will never completely rid the Sony of the video like motion cadence. Believe me, I have tried. Not that the Sony is not a good camera, but it does produce a much more videoish footage than the Canon. As for colors, the files from the Sony are much less forgiving in post. They will fall apart long before the Canon files. The great AF of the Canons is the final nail in the coffin for the Sonys. Granted the Sony A7Sii can make night look like day. But honestly when I shoot night I want it to look like night. So this feature is only useful if you are doing surveillance.

There may well have been a debate a few years ago, but clearly the question has been answered... digital is the way forward. Film is costly to shoot on and the workflow is more complex. I do agree with the idea of not constantly rolling. It requires more discipline. Film had a good run, but those days are nearing the end.

Can we get a shout out for Ra?

Wait.. what?

You need the wireless module canon wft-e8a. It's expensive at $600, but I opted to purchase it as it is useful when monitoring on a gimbal. And yes it can be used to pull focus. There is some lag, but it's workable. As for focus tracking if you have a focus puller on a tablet all they need do is tap on a subject and the camera will work is magicoming and provide a prefect pull from subject a to b. If you are a single operator you will need to select an appropriate focus mode. Of which there are several for different situations. Each can be tweaked.

But do you carry it everywhere?

There will always be cheesy filters. Snapchat allows cartoon noses. Your point?

1/40 or 1/50 are your choices. I generally opt for 1/40. Difference is small, but I think 1/40 moves better. Yes, but regardless of shutter angle, the gh4 does not look anywhere near as cinematic... so, what does it matter?

120 FPS is not how the human eye sees, and so feels unnatural to us. We see motion blur in normal vision. Anamorphic plays to our peripheral vision. And yes, I'd love a camera with impossibly high dynamic range, because it will allow greater latitude when grading in post. Aspect ratios are dictated by delivering requirements. Colors are used to express a mode... blues cold, great for horror for example. Birdman was edited... you are clearly confused. All your huffing and a puffing will not stop the winds of change. Mark my words. The idea of emulating the traditional film look are numbered. It will soon only be used for nostalgic purposes. The iPhone and GoPro generation has no warm and fussies for film. They do not feel the need to add grainy distortion to otherwise clean footage. Look at the likes of Blackmagic. Their new cameras produce a much more sterile look.

No, I'm suggesting that the idea of emulating the look of film is an practice thats days are numbered.

Yes this is great n all, but that means a shutter speed of 120 minimum to get motion right. And this is on a tiny sensor, so low light will suck... even more than usual. Just a guess... hope I'm wrong.