Fx30

[hojomo]

4 hours ago, Kubrickian said:

This dude is a trip. Keeping fighting against 100 years of cinema history and audience expectation. You do you brah. You got this. 

 

3 hours ago, Django said:

I'm just giving you my honest opinion. If you can't handle it, don't post. There is no loosening up. 60p output = soap-opera, home-video look in my book. Again a good middle ground is 30p. Call me narrow-minded if you please but I'm afraid you are alone here on this one. But yeah keep fighting the good fight!

As for equipment constraints? Any smartphone can do 4K60p today. 1080P60 has been in every consumer camera for over a decade. Consumer camcorders only used to shoot in 60p. It was the default standard on broadcast TV all during the late 70s/80s/90s and still today on certain networks. 60p is nothing new. But aside from fast action sports, news reports or Wheel of Fortune type TV shows I don't really see a use for it today other than slow-mo. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're on to something lol.

 

fwiw I have never liked the look of this person's videos & I've clicked on a bunch.

Do whatever you want, mix it all up in an incoherent, unpleasant looking way & blame people's reactions on whatever you want. At the end of that process maybe ask yourself who are you even wanting to watch your videos.

On one level they're right -- considered use of previous convention is kind of all out the window as audiences turn into evermore complete mushheads; largely forgetting the 'content' before it's done flashing in front of their eyes answays. Alongside that, is a flood of people who don't have a lot of knowledge making all this filler. All that shared naivety IS - and will continue - to shape how mass audiences consume this form of media; but we have our choices to make too. It's the price to pay in the 'democratization' of image making.

[markr041]

8 hours ago, Django said:

I'm just giving you my honest opinion. If you can't handle it, don't post. There is no loosening up. 60p output = soap-opera, home-video look in my book. Again a good middle ground is 30p. Call me narrow-minded if you please but I'm afraid you are alone here on this one. But yeah keep fighting the good fight!

As for equipment constraints? Any smartphone can do 4K60p today. 1080P60 has been in every consumer camera for over a decade. Consumer camcorders only used to shoot in 60p. It was the default standard on broadcast TV all during the late 70s/80s/90s and still today on certain networks. 60p is nothing new. But aside from fast action sports, news reports or Wheel of Fortune type TV shows I don't really see a use for it today other than slow-mo. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're on to something lol.

 

You do have rigid views - widescreen only anamorphic, widescreen only 24p. Post after post your rigid beliefs are stated. I am not offended; I appreciate hearing your views. And I understand there are many people like you. And I understand why.

You do realize that 24 fps was chosen because of original equipment constraints? You do know that anamorphic lenses were used to attain widescreen with little resolution loss to bypass the constraints of film frames? So these attributes of cinema became traditions. They are not born of aesthetic preferences, but from equipment limitations. People became used to them. And some, like you, treat them as sacred aesthetics, which they are not.

Yes, now cameras can shoot 4K 60P. Though, seriously, cell phones cannot match the video quality of any of the cameras you use, whatever their frame rate. Let's forget cell phones, and the silly argument that some well-known director shot one film using one.The point is that cameras that can shoot uncropped, non-pixel-binned oversampled 4K DCI 60P with a large dynamic range, good color science, 422 10bit etc. are still rare. So, widescreen 60P videos with good color and high resolution are a small minority. They are different. They are the future. And they evidently upset the rigid.

Here, be annoyed :):

 

[Emanuel]

10 hours ago, hojomo said:

On one level they're right -- considered use of previous convention is kind of all out the window as audiences turn into evermore complete mushheads; largely forgetting the 'content' before it's done flashing in front of their eyes answays. Alongside that, is a flood of people who don't have a lot of knowledge making all this filler. All that shared naivety IS - and will continue - to shape how mass audiences consume this form of media; but we have our choices to make too. It's the price to pay in the 'democratization' of image making.

I guess the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, the answer is blowin' in the wind ; ) And this answer responds to your subsequent post @markr041, funny to say the least : )

That's what's going on when people forget one thing is to celebrate technology, something else is to ignore what fabrication means or we risk to end to make our stuff look like all of them the same.

This is what everyone or the majority here is trying to tell the world.

Nothing about dictatorship of taste or any beef against your videos, Mark.

I am used to praise them posted.

As tests, yes.

As piece of aesthetics is a whole other subject.

Point and shoot never brought anything special.

There's need for elements those already mentioned.

The technology constraints of past led those filmmakers before us to learn how to handle with. They established a language.

No technology will reinvent the wheel because aesthetics depends on them but aesthetics is beyond. Just mediocracy can pop up when people kill the set of know-how available these other fella are trying to express it by their written words and examples mentioned.

Aesthetics is complex. Requires form. This can be simple but not unusual-reducer. If this makes sense. Up-to-date cannot mean this. To lower the standard. « 'Democratization' of image making » is effectivelly a challenge itself. Open doors. Poor or to be poor is what it is, though.

It's not because raspberries are available your strawberry milkshake will be any better. A skate on fragile thin-ice features is prone to end ruined. Cinema is the proposal of an alternative reality, truth or not, nothing else. Or it's not that.

For something mismatched, dissimilar as chalk and cheese, call it some other name.

- EAG :- )

[Django]

5 hours ago, markr041 said:

You do have rigid views - widescreen only anamorphic, widescreen only 24p. Post after post your rigid beliefs are stated. I am not offended; I appreciate hearing your views. And I understand there are many people like you. And I understand why.

You do realize that 24 fps was chosen because of original equipment constraints? You do know that anamorphic lenses were used to attain widescreen with little resolution loss to bypass the constraints of film frames? So these attributes of cinema became traditions. They are not born of aesthetic preferences, but from equipment limitations. People became used to them. And some, like you, treat them as sacred aesthetics, which they are not.

Yes, now cameras can shoot 4K 60P. Though, seriously, cell phones cannot match the video quality of any of the cameras you use, whatever their frame rate. Let's forget cell phones, and the silly argument that some well-known director shot one film using one.The point is that cameras that can shoot uncropped, non-pixel-binned oversampled 4K DCI 60P with a large dynamic range, good color science, 422 10bit etc. are still rare. So, widescreen 60P videos with good color and high resolution are a small minority. They are different. They are the future. And they evidently upset the rigid.

Here, be annoyed :):

LOL.. lighten up man, why would I be annoyed over some random dude posting random videos of random people in a random widescreen 60p combo? Like I told you, keep doing you, this is just a topic of conversation. My opinion stands though, it looks goofy.  You claim it is the future, will widescreen fluid hyper real 60p motion trend? I personally don't think so. Most people see 4K60p on YT and skip the video (it doesn't stream well on your average device). Netflix only does 24p/25p/30p. Some films tried 48fps and flopped. Clear motion on Samsung TVs usually gets disabled immediately. Old cine standard or not, audiences don't seem to respond well to those higher fps.

Heck even hot vlog cameras like Sony's ZVE1 tout a 24p cinematic mode. Looks like young people are trying to emulate cinema, not soap operas. 60p motion will always have that budget network TV look that is associated with local news, sports, reality tv.. etc.  It has nothing to do with "rigid beliefs" or any particular cinema standard. It is what it is. A certain aesthetic. And no amount of resolution, DR, CS, codec bitrate or aspect ratio will change that. Just accept it instead of being in denial about it. 🙂 

Moving on to a related note, the FX30 V2 reviewer I posted earlier mentions the new DCI 4K option goes to 48fps max so unless he's mistaken how are you even shooting DCI 4K @ 60p? 

[filmmakereu]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

It's not because raspberries are available your strawberry milkshake will be any better. A skate on fragile thin-ice features is prone to end ruined. Cinema is the proposal of an alternative reality, truth or not, nothing else. Or it's not that.

For something mismatched, dissimilar as chalk and cheese, call it some other name.

- EAG :- )

Hard to say it better.

[92F]

There are many factors that make a movie aesthetic
Lens / light / sensor / Log or raw / shutter speed / framing / story / good actors / good direction of actors / editing / ... so the 24 p, the aspect ratio is quite negligible for the viewer.

Picasso and Monet are not paintings because they are not like Leonardo da Vinci? ....is stupid.

 You prefer vertical 24p vs 60p wide ...? 😒

The subject is the FX30 ... Peace and love 😄

[Django]

7 hours ago, 92F said:

There are many factors that make a movie aesthetic
Lens / light / sensor / Log or raw / shutter speed / framing / story / good actors / good direction of actors / editing / ... so the 24 p, the aspect ratio is quite negligible for the viewer.

 

Those attributes go without saying but I disagree about motion being "negligible for the viewer". 

If you have a +120hz TV from Samsung or LG its quite easy for you to test: activate clear motion (which artificially doubles the frame rate) on your favourite indie classic and watch it get ruined with disgraceful soap-opera effect. No lighting, framing, color grading or acting will save it from that.

That being said, not everything needs to be "cinematic". Adding faux widescreen black bars is a form of frame crippling. I'm actually a fan of 3:2 & 4:3 open gate. Its quite refreshing not having the height cropped. Vertical makes sense on a handheld phone, that's about it. Fortunately open gate allows multi aspect ratios so its a win-win.

Hopefully more manufacturers start implementing open-gate on video centric cameras. It has more uses than anamorphic support.

[Kubrickian]

Surely EOS-High-Definition.com is where the anti-24 revolution will find its start in earnest. This is where you’ll get noticed. 

Undoubtedly WB has seen those ultra-smooth handheld shots of strangers milling about and is sending dump trucks full of cash for a feature. 

[Django]

Continuing its steady avalanche of camera roll-outs, Sony is expected to release 5 new E-mount cameras this year alone, including some sort of cine/video centric camera later this Spring and an FX10 by this summer with the same 26MP FX30 sensor but with AI processor (expect ZV-E1 features) plus an added mechanical shutter but no IBIS at an entry-level price.

An oversampled 6K sensor should make better sense for the AI and stab cropping stuff.

[Emanuel]

To neglect motion, I wouldn't call it stupid instead, I'd call it to get the wrong end of the stick.

It's not about style but intrinsic features related to the inherent traits of the medium.

Motion is everything, it's the name of the game. In a word, language.

 

- EAG :- )

[filmmakereu]

I think people have little clue about things they think they know.

[Emanuel]

4 hours ago, Django said:

If you have a +120hz TV from Samsung or LG its quite easy for you to test: activate clear motion (which artificially doubles the frame rate) on your favourite indie classic and watch it get ruined with disgraceful soap-opera effect. No lighting, framing, color grading or acting will save it from that.

Ditto.

And only to testify it, at home, ALL members of the family notice it and complain against the Xiaomi's 'smart ' : D TV which is unable to know what realm of motion pictures fill the cup of educated people used to more than a century of such universe.

 

The interesting part of the story is people truly need history of cinema to understand something while they don't need to appreciate classic movies to reject what looks like crappy dictatorship for real in turn.

That's what I am supposed to realize from what I am used to hear back home without needing to be the first one to protest when the display misbehaves set from default.

 

Stop the bloody automation.

All made without scrutiny of an educated guess rather than humans invariably refusing to see themselves as stupid and claiming the need not necessarily just for once instead. No idea what each of both is more critical.

 

:- )

[Django]

 

not even tom cruise can approve !

[SRV1981]

Soap Opera aside, what’s the thoughts on an fx30 for situations where you will not be lighting? Is the ISO performance good enough to fill in lowlight?  Obviously it doesn’t rival the fx3 but is it close enough that it’s usable ?

[Django]

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Soap Opera aside, what’s the thoughts on an fx30 for situations where you will not be lighting? Is the ISO performance good enough to fill in lowlight?  Obviously it doesn’t rival the fx3 but is it close enough that it’s usable ?

Its really going to depend on your lens choice and at what frame rate you're capturing. 4K60/4K120 is going to be a challenge in lowlight, especially with slower glass. Fast glass and/or a speed booster can help mitigate lowlight performance. I've noticed quite a couple FX30 users have been pairing it with 7Artisans new affordable APS-C T/1.05 cine prime lenses for such purposes:

 

[IronFilm]

22 hours ago, Django said:

Continuing its steady avalanche of camera roll-outs, Sony is expected to release 5 new E-mount cameras this year alone, including some sort of cine/video centric camera later this Spring and an FX10 by this summer with the same 26MP FX30 sensor but with AI processor (expect ZV-E1 features) plus an added mechanical shutter but no IBIS at an entry-level price.

An oversampled 6K sensor should make better sense for the AI and stab cropping stuff.

More E Mount Camera releases than E Mount lenses releases?? haha 

Honestly, I just want to see one new camera release from Sony:

"Sony FX60" (the FX6 body with the FX30 sensor)

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Soap Opera aside, what’s the thoughts on an fx30 for situations where you will not be lighting? Is the ISO performance good enough to fill in lowlight?  Obviously it doesn’t rival the fx3 but is it close enough that it’s usable ?

The FX30 has low light performance people would have given their kidney for a decade or two ago. 

The fault is with the user, not the camera, if you can't get good images out of it. 

[SRV1981]

4 hours ago, Django said:

Its really going to depend on your lens choice and at what frame rate you're capturing. 4K60/4K120 is going to be a challenge in lowlight, especially with slower glass. Fast glass and/or a speed booster can help mitigate lowlight performance. I've noticed quite a couple FX30 users have been pairing it with 7Artisans new affordable APS-C T/1.05 cine prime lenses for such purposes:

 

This video was helpful thanks! Makes me feel the fx30 is good enough for most situations, including lowlight with the right lens pairing.  

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The FX30 has low light performance people would have given their kidney for a decade or two ago. 

The fault is with the user, not the camera, if you can't get good images out of it. 

I'm not sure about this.  We're not living a decade ago and for those who don't have more than themselves and no lighting - ISO performance and options today are what's relevant.  Fault with the user ... could you unpack how that plays out in lowlight as a single operater?

[A_Urquhart]

8 hours ago, Django said:

Its really going to depend on your lens choice and at what frame rate you're capturing. 4K60/4K120 is going to be a challenge in lowlight, especially with slower glass. Fast glass and/or a speed booster can help mitigate lowlight performance. I've noticed quite a couple FX30 users have been pairing it with 7Artisans new affordable APS-C T/1.05 cine prime lenses for such purposes:

 

 

[A_Urquhart]

ooops.

Got my FX30 mixed up with my Pocket4k!