kye

What about if you want performance while in the studio but also need to retain portability? For example for those who shoot travel films and will need something to do media management and the odd quick edit in the field, but who will return to the studio and will want more power. Your solution proposes to have two computers, which is the least economical of all. I've raised this point before, and it's not specifically aimed at you Robert, but there's a pretty significant undercurrent of "if you want high quality you have to shoot the way the pros shoot with a huge camera and shot lists and studio editing suites" or "if you want portability then you obviously don't care about quality - go and buy a camcorder and stop pretending to be a real film-maker" on these and other forums, and it's basically discrimination against the new types of film-making that technology is now enabling.

I'm surprised that no-one has made a cooler for the MBP. Considering that these computers use the case as a heatsink, all you would have to do is make a platform to put it on that gets a good thermal couple to the bottom and then have some way of getting rid of that heat elsewhere. Things like these would have some effect: but even something like a larger aluminium heatsink would probably get a better thermocouple, especially if you shaped it to fit snugly, and then you could have a much larger surface area underneath that with fans. This might seem a bit ridiculous, but eGPUs only make commercial sense because they improve the speed of your computer, which lessening the thermal throttling will also do, and installing some fans and a heatsink is a lot cheaper than having an entire device with a video card in it!

I use the Transcend CFast cards in my XC10 and they work fine, but at 305Mbit I'm not exactly pushing their performance limits! When I first researched them I read lots of reviews about the cheaper cards and these were the cheapest cards that people said were reliable in the higher bitrate cameras. If I didn't already have any CFast cards then I'd use USB for the Pocket 2 for as long as possible, and only then buy CFast. CFast is something like 8x more expensive per GB than SSD! The Transcend are currently $2 per GB (128Gb $250 at B&H) but the Samsung T5 is 25c per GB. There are probably cheaper reliable CFast now available, but the T5 is also probably not the most economical device either, and even if it's only 5X or 3X difference, that's still a huge cost considering the amount of storage required for the high-bitrate codecs.

Absolutely.. sound design is massively important, and we can tell that because Silent Movies are not common, but Blind Movies (aka, music) is a $17B industry!! But, to be a bit less tongue-in-cheek, it's a hell of a lot harder to make people cry or jump around (dance) with a silent film than with music

Here it is: Summary is that you can't simulate it perfectly, but you can probably do a passable job in certain controlled situations. The more I see from this camera the more tempted I am to just buy one too! I told myself I'd wait for the Pocket 2, and Canon and Nikon FF Mirrorless unicorns, but it's very tempting!!

I quite like the look of the Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter, and thought that I could simulate the effect in Resolve. (This conversation started in another thread but I think it deserves its own) My theory was that if you can simulate it in post then it's more flexible, so you can mix it in to taste, and its also cheaper, applies to all your lenses, can be applied to historic footage, etc.. Here's the video showing what these filters do thanks to @heart0less I've had an attempt and I'm now convinced that a completely accurate simulation is not possible. To explain why, here's an unmodified screen grab: and here's the waveform of that shot: Here are the reasons you can't do a completely accurate emulation: The Tiffen doesn't "clip". The flare from the light globe is much brighter than the flare from the hair light on the blond lady, but in the "no filter" waveform you will note that these have very similar values because the globe is clipped. Also, the flare from the globe is coloured, which presumably is from the tint of the globe, however because the waveform is clipped that colour information is lost. The Tiffen has a very wide flare pattern and will include lights outside the field of view. There don't appear to be any flares from off-camera lights in the above shot, however we can tell that the Tiffen has a very wide pattern because the level of the dark background is raised for almost the entire width of the frame but the exposure seems to be the same (by comparing the levels of the grey cards at the left of the shot). If you are using this filter and it is being hit with sunlight from any angle I think you'll get the influence of that everywhere in the shot, because although it might be very off-angle the sun is practically an infinitely bright light. However, I think we can probably make a passable attempt that might work in some situations. Here's the original of lady #1: and my simulation: Lady #2: Same simulation as above applied to lady #2: The logic of this preset is this: The Tiffen has a non-linear rolloff, so I have simulated it using blurs of two different sizes, one smaller size applied to the Highlights and a larger one applied to the Mids and Shadows. If I really wanted to get serious about it I might try converting to a Log colour space and doing the blur in there before converting back to REC709, but that's something for another day. I think that preset looks pretty good for both of these shots, but unfortunately, if we apply that preset to the main shot then we see that it definitely isn't suitable for all shots: If I play with the levels and add a third blur that is highlights only and is even smaller radius then we get a better result, but it highlights the issues I mentioned earlier: If you're going to try and use this effect in post then I would suggest a number of things: Shoot in Log and don't clip any highlights from any colour channel If you move the camera don't have any lighting going in and out of the frame (because the effect will start and stop when it does which will look very un-natural) Experiment with applying the effect before you convert from log to any other colour space (after all, a Tiffen filter gets applied before the conversion) Experiment with different blur types - I used Gaussian Blur in the above, but maybe other types will look nicer? The Mids and Shadows processing chain is the kind of "beauty" element, and the Highlights processing chain is the "flares" element, so you can mix these to your taste I hope that is useful, and that Tiffen don't object to me using clips from their video!!

Yes, I noticed that and have already opened a YT search for reviews! I think I've looked at it previously and concluded that I could get a similar effect in post, but I never actually did an A/B. I think I might grab a few examples of with/without shots and see what Resolve can do to simulate the effect. There's a lovely plugin called Glow that does a similar thing (I believe). If I have any progress I'll share it, as doing things in post is more flexible (and cheaper!!).

Thanks! Those videos are lovely. The more I look at footage the more I think that there's something about the way cameras handle highlights that I am sensitive to, the shot at 1:40 in the A7III video (the light bulb in the background) was very nice. I'm looking forward to the A7III finding its way into the hands of the masters who know how to make it truly shine and we can get more examples of its potential. In a sense if it can shoot Slog to match their cinema cameras then the rest is in capturing and grading well.

It would have been good if he quoted a percentage figure for how much faster the i9 was - those bar graphs all looked quite consistent at about 10-20% faster with the i9.

Is that ML records the focal length, or Canon records the focal length and ML displays it to you? I was hoping to get it for clips from the XC10 as well as my 700D.

Is there any way to tell what focal length a zoom lens was at from looking at your footage? EXIF data? any other tricks? I shoot with zooms and would like to know what focal lengths ended up in the final edit. (and no, I don't have logs or anything - I shoot completely unplanned home and travel videos, most of the time I'm just trying to capture and anticipate whatever is going on). I suspect the answer is no, but maybe someone will surprise me and make my day? ???

Nice video.. lens flares and colours look really good. But the content! All test videos should be so entertaining!!

That video is wonderful.. any camera in the hands of a skilled operator is a good camera. This is precisely my problem - good camera unskilled operator lol ??? I see the Moment guys always using counterweights and that anamorphic adapter looks pretty sizeable, so my guess would be yes to counterweights. Even if it was powerful enough, you'd save a lot of battery life by having the weight relatively balanced to begin with, although the battery life on these things is pretty amazing now.

Time to get into post sound too?

The Black Magic cameras all seem to share a similar look and feel with how they handle light. It is very nice, almost like they have put a diffuser over the sun. There seems to be nothing harsh about the image. What is it about their cameras that creates this effect? Is it the DR? Colour science? High bitrate (either prores or raw)? I really want to own a camera that has this look but my style of film-making relies heavily on stabilisation, zoom lenses, etc so they're just not the right tool for the job. Nice video - I particularly like the fun / different editing style!

Low contrast looks sure can look gorgeous - one of my favourites is Peaky Blinders on Netflix. It just looks spectacular!

For those of you who shoot (or are connoisseurs of) beautiful travel films, what types of movement do you prefer them to contain? I recently binge-watched a couple of hours of BMPCC travel films and I noticed that the vibe was quite distinctive, partly because the lack of stabilisation meant that most shots were static. What mix of freeform movement vs controlled movements (pans / tilts) vs static shots do people think suits the genre the most? I shoot mostly travel / home videos and the vibe I'm going for is kind of like the nicest version of real-life - in the same way that you'd take holiday photos using the best light / best angles / nicest smiles to create the warmest memories.

One thing I noticed about YT microphone reviews (from people who don't know much about audio) is that they tend to be judging the EQ of the microphone instead of the quality of the sound overall. I'd hear a microphone and think it would be fine with a bit of EQ and then the person would say something like "it sounds thin and hollow - not even usable!" and I'd just roll my eyes. @IronFilm is this something you also see across lots of reviews? In a way it's like filming in RAW and then saying the camera footage looks "too grey - not even usable!!".

In a way that's a side effect of the large aperture lenses - those things are so fat it's more like the lens is squishing your fingers against the grip instead of the other way around!!

@wolf33d interesting information - thanks. The internet isn't keen to tell you the weaknesses of various products! In terms of the size, I'm sure that lots of accessories are (or will be) available for making the camera bigger - if only there were accessories available for making a camera smaller and lighter!! Then I might buy a C700 and as many accessories as it takes to make it the size of an RX100 ???

Nice video, especially the funny bits from Grandma! I did a bunch of research before I ended up with RVMP+ and the TAKSTAR SGC-598 and Pixel MC-50 seemed to get positive reviews, and at $40 or less are HUGELY cheaper than the Rode or the Azden. However the reason I went with the Rode was that those two mics are quite large and I'm trying to fly under the radar with my setup, so that matters to me. I'd watch a bunch of reviews to see if there's a reason to pay more than $40...

My understanding is that you're right, in that it doesn't really matter if you have a disk speed of 2X your bitrates, or 10X your bitrates, however I have a thought. Fast drives tend to be SSD instead of physical drives, and one thing about physical drives is their poor latency performance, which does have an impact to performance. So, if the drives in question are different technologies then perhaps it's not the straight read-speed but other differences?

This is a good intro to the structure of proxies and caches in Resolve - it's from v12 but the overall structure is likely to be similar if not exactly the same in 15. There's also a google doc of the diagram: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1pbBbA4I2q3RZYrOSELPXgfdzp0X6B9OngVimTeSmbuo/edit Resolve is a complicated beast. I had to watch a few tutorials on manual Online / Offline editing workflows to find one that worked, especially considering my proxy files were slightly different filenames (extensions were different than proxies) but this was one of the ones I watched and might give an idea about the logic involved.

Definitely done in post. Yet another example of when a capture resolution / format should be much higher than the output format.