HockeyFan12

I think those will work if they're bright enough. The only thing the gaffer said that I think is worth considering is you might also want a constant (non-flickering) dim orange source that's very soft/ambient or else it will look too high contrast and fake and also try to make sure the flickering feels a little random/offset. But that depends on the lights you're using. If it looks good as is it's fine. And fog/haze is good but consider adding it in post in addition or instead or else the bright areas will clump around the light sources. And be careful of front lighting smoke, can wash out the frame. Shoot some tests maybe but I think you'll make it work. Also maybe download a high quality iPhone app and then add in compression artifacts etc. in post for the vfx shots imo.

I’ve used this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEv02ALtNY A gaffer I worked with recommends mixing the magic gadgets with a light that’s always turned on (once the "fire" starts) but dimmed way down. If it’s just the magic gadget it will look too obviously like a single pulsing source. You can add a few magic gadgets at different strengths and different speeds or with orange/yellow gels of different color/intensity. Fire is somewhere around 1800K-2500K I think. Tungsten lights are closer to 2900K so you can use orange gels to get it more orange. Or dimmed down tungsten bulbs are more orange already. But gels are most flexible in my experience. You can use a regular dimmer or one like this: https://www.amazon.com/Yescom-Variable-Controller-Settings-Hydroponics/dp/B00U3LD1WA/ref=asc_df_B00U3LD1WA/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198107334619&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8937789165355064762&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001876&hvtargid=pla-351845451838&psc=1 Or use a few of these mixed with one tungsten source with a gel or tungsten balanced LED with a gel, and have that source be soft (the "ambience" from the fire) or even bounced: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1437657-REG/luxli_orc_viola_m2_5_rgbaw_led_light.html/%3Fkw%3DLUORCVIOLAM2%26BI%3D225%26ap%3Dy%26smp%3Dy%26lsft%3DBI:514 On a bigger budget, the magic gadget is a better choice imo. But not too different. Of course you have to plan and time it all up. Coordinate the effect on set with what's going on in post (in your head and then in post). A heat haze effect helps, too. Video Copilot has a pretty good one and it's cheap. I'd be wary mixing real flames and fake. Difficult to match the levels or control them. And you're working with real flames. But if you can pull it off, that might provide the most realistic effect. In my experience, if flames are the light source, they're really going to blow out so sometimes it's easier just to add them all in post even if it doesn't look 100% real. The flames are going to be a lot brighter than the rest of the scene, which will be underexposed, and that's tricky to expose correctly but if you add all the flames in post and use power windows on faces and whatnot it's not so bad imo. Fog elements help, too. Use screen or add transfer mode for the flames imo. That reference vid is comped pretty well imo and the elements look good from that vendor. Shoot and comp tests if you're unsure.

I've liked Canon and Panasonic in the past but if this has A9 AF and Venice color it's game over.

Thanks, I'll have to find an accountant, but that's a good start. Appreciate the advice. @CyclingBen yeah that's just the type of stuff I'm writing off this year. Or plan to. A little tricky since I mostly do post work now but am moving more toward shooting again a bit more (but also might scale down my freelance work and do more work as an employee). Looks like I definitely need an accountant. Thanks again.

I think I spun the same logic back on you in the last thread, so I won't bother again except to take it as encouragement I was doing something right. But I'm genuinely curious what you think is delusional or narcissistic about my posting. (Also, do you actually think there are undercover Canon reps here posting surreptitiously?)

I have my doubts about the licensing argument, too. I suspect this is multifactorial and other factors include available hardware and support costs. Whether DPAF is on or off, for instance, alters the rolling shutter timings on the C200. Who would have guessed? None of us but engineers under NDA know the full story here, but the willful crippling narrative reads as most delusional to me. (Someone mentioned something about sensor temp and that sounds crazy, too, but much less crazy.) Regardless, I can nevertheless see a coherent argument for crippling (market segmentation) and heat (lining up some timing on multiple chips with the sensor) at least existing in the realm of coherent possibility, and even for licensing fees–even if I don't think any of the three tells the full story. But the idea that paid Canon reps are visiting this forum anonymously to spin their decision to cripple the camera is borderline Pizzagate-level delusion. This is a stills camera; it's not a hybrid like the GH5 or newer Fujis and it's not even being marketed to videographers except incidentally. I like the DIY ethos of this forum and the articles on unusual lenses and focus on image quality on the cheap, but thinking Canon cares enough to mess with you like that is tin foil hat-level delusional narcissism and I'm surprised to find it has a place here.

Where is there information about depreciation schedules? What determines whether you use one or do a normal write off? I know directors/screenwriters who write of Netflix and movie tickets, btw. I don't, but I don't think it's unheard of.

That makes more sense. But I still don't buy the argument that Canon is actively cutting features that would otherwise be "free." I do buy the argument that they're willing to save a few pennies per camera (these are high volume cameras) at the expense of alienating a small group of users. Which is ultimately probably even more insulting–rather than being the victims of some orchestrated conspiracy, we're not worth a few pennies. But I suspect that's what's going on. Apologies for being snippy before, btw. I do disagree, but that's no reason to be a jerk.

Canon has reclassified its cinema department so I can't give you the exact numbers. However, their projections for cinema and broadcast for 2019 are -8.5 billion yen in loses: https://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2019q1e.pdf And in 2018 they lost -9.7 billion yen. But point taken that the individual cameras might sell at a profit. I just don't buy the broader argument that someone shopping for a $1200 stills camera is shopping it against a $6500 cinema camera.

Fair enough, the C200 certainly sells for more than the cost of manufacturing, but their cinema department is unprofitable overall. Regardless, I don't see many people being upsold from a 90D to a C200. That said, you're proof of the last sentence being true. So we can agree on that.

This seems completely delusional to me, but what do I know. Is Canon really so concerned with undermining such a small demographic that they go through the trouble of removing a feature across multiple lines so they can upsell them from a (presumably profitable) $1200 dSLR to a $6500 C200 on which they lose money? The very fact that the older models had 24p contradicts this conspiratorial nonsense. We're simply not that important to them. They're not out to get you, they just don't care.

Sure, but don't you think, to an extent, "crippling" vs "ignoring" is primarily a matter of semantics? Either way, it's market segmentation. It is interesting that when the 5D Mark II was first released it shot 30p but demand picked up in the cinema market and Canon had to put in some real work getting it to shoot 24p. But they did. I do think, if there were no EOS-R above the 90D, the 90D would be more likely to shoot 24p. But do I think it's crippling? No, I think it's ignoring. I just think the end result is no different and people like to feel victimized rather than ignored; it makes them feel important. https://www.canonrumors.com/why-has-canon-omitted-24p-4k-recording-in-their-new-cameras-such-as-the-eos-m6-mark-ii-eos-90d-and-eos-rp/ Regardless, 3.4k upscaled doesn't bother me at all and I love DPAF. If this camera had Canon Log and 24p, I would be very likely to buy it despite its other flaws. As it is, I'm not even considering the purchase. I don't like feeling ignored either.

Very cool. How is the low light? I imagine much grainier than the A7SII since the codec is more robust, but probably better than even the Varicam and with a much more comparable image.

I think 25p might make more sense than 24p in a PAL country. Because 24fps content is conformed to 25p for broadcast there anyway. I think in NTSC countries, less so. Probably this isn't the camera to buy for a "film look" if you live in the US, for instance.

Yeah I think whether it is or not, Dpreview's resolution tests will reveal what matters and we can compare it against the SL3 etc. The 1:1 4k from the SL3 etc. actually looks good to me... just a lot of skew and a huge crop and no log profile, so.... maybe not so good after all.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 4k were upsampled, I'm just guessing that particular figure is a typo. There appear to be other typos in the leaked document. That would be nice, though. I guess I'm a "Canon apologist" to the extent that I think they aren't trying to spite anyone by withholding anything but simply don't care about the market this forum represents enough to bother catering to it. While segmentation is surely a factor in deciding feature sets, I doubt these big conspiracies hold much truth beyond that. We aren't that important. Most conspiracy theories flatter the purported victims by making them out to be willful adversaries, equals. Not so, imo. We're more likely collateral damage. The licensing fees argument doesn't make much sense to me, but it makes more sense to me than Canon hating specific users enough to spite them or even to send them upmarket to a cinema line with far lower profit margins. But DPAF is kind of awesome. I like Canon's ergonomics and image. So it's frustrating for sure. I am part of the market being ignored. But no surprise, I'm posting here. And I would have considered replacing my Digital Rebel XT if this camera had log or HLG and 4k/24p. Maybe next generation.

I'm guessing that's a typo, a 2 instead of a 3.

Film is projected with a different motion cadence (something like 3:3 pulldown rather than 3:2) and the projection is dim enough that your eyes are operating in mesopic mode, which smooths things out a bit. There's a legitimate technical argument to be made for 24fps projection being smoother than 24p video. On the other hand... by the same logic that technical superiority is all that matters, anyone using Cooke Speed Panchros is out of their mind.

I agree with you about this camera, even if I'd personally be more likely to buy one if it shot 24p. Regarding Netflix, the footage is re-encoded but it's not interpolated. Netflix content is shot at 24p, finished at 24p, and transcoded and delivered at 24p. If the tv performs frame interpolation later, that's another story, but most people seem to hate that look. I personally don't care for it. (I did used to have a tv that would perform 3:2 pulldown then run at 48hz... I miss it. It was preferable to 3:2 pulldown when you were in a dark room. But that had its own issues.) All I'm getting at is that shooting at 24fps is an aesthetic choice, not a technical one. Saying it's a bad technical choice is easy, but saying it's a bad aesthetic one is like criticizing an oil painting for being low res imo. That said I think shooting online content at 30fps or 60fps is perfectly viable if your clients like it and 5:5 pulldown (or whatever you would call it) is a good argument for 120hz panels.

That's a fair answer, and as regards these cameras, I basically agree. This forum caters to a relatively small group of consumers who want to shoot cinematic video without paying many thousands of dollars. That market is big enough that the GH5S and other cameras are marketed specifically (or at least primarily) toward it, but this camera isn't. It doesn't need to shoot 24p. It would be really nice if it did, but it doesn't have to. On the other hand, every Netflix series I can think of (not that they're particularly well shot) is shot at 24p for consumption on 60hz displays. Do you think the DPs here are objectively wrong to do that? Do you think they're stylistically wrong?

Even if this is true, it's sort of like saying film as a "grain" problem. That's not stopping Pfister from shooting it (at 24fps). I don't take issue with your preference for 60p, though. There's a good reasons sports and most video games run at that speed. VR even higher. I do take issue with your statement that "almost everything" is shot at 30p or 60p. As I wrote before, I've worked on hundreds of (mostly professional) productions in the past few years. Every single on of them, so far as I can remember, was finished at 23.976p or 24p. "Almost everything" of what? Granted that's a small sample size relative to the glut of content that's produced overall, but I am curious what variety of content you're referring to. For YouTube I could get shooting 60p. If you're counting Snapchat and Instagram then I think most content wouldn't be 24p, you're right. And while this camera might be targeted at people toward the high end of Instagram influencers, I still see this as an odd omission. Regardless, this is to an extent a forum of "cinema wannabes" so... I'm not sure why you'd be surprised about the preference for 24p here.

Do you work in sports or are you just picking apart semantics and mean drop frame is more common than non-drop frame? Literally every project I've worked on in the past few years (granted 98% of them I've been primarily in post) has been 23.976 or 24p, but I'm not sure what I work on is representative of the rest of the world. Or are you in a PAL country? Not trying to be difficult, genuinely curious.

That's obvious from the design. What I'm curious about is how. The metabones adapters do shorten the flange distance. Thanks.

Shouldn't a speed booster shorten the focal flange distance? Do you have a different optical assumably designed so that this doesn't have to? As it's EF mount, would it work on C200 or EVA1?

I didn't even want to touch this thread, but I had to laugh at this. "Red Hardy."