Jump to content


  1. DSLR Video

    1. EOSHD

      Welcome to the EOSHD forum. The knowledge-base for all mirrorless, DSLR and pro video cameras.

EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
EOSHD Pro Color 3.0 for Sony cameras
EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony cameras
EOSHD 5D Mark III 3.5K RAW Shooter's Guide

  • Popular Contributors

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Jason J Eliot
  • Posts

    • IMO its quite useless - no focus control, and how many mft users haver power zooms? All this controls are doubled on Zhiyun crane handle anyway. 
    • This info may be a bit dated in relation to the ones mentioned that would still provide such lens servicing, but the thread below can at least maybe get you started if you haven't already stumbled upon it. The Anamorphic lens REPAIR thread: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/926-the-anamorphic-lens-repair-thread/?tab=comments#comment-15560
    • We are all comparing apples with oranges. As PS and AAE subscriber, I can test a new Premiere version for 7 days, and I did. Last year I made the double mistake to import 4k XAVC using cmd + i, and the performance was ridiculously poor. This year, I hastily tested just three things, and all seemed to work flawlessly: > I imported a 20 minute timeline from FCP using XtoCC (a little tool that modifies the XML so that as many things get translated as possible, it's also frequently updated). Played back well. > I tried the proxy workflow from a camera card using ProRes Proxy as proxy codec and activating proxy in preferences. A breeze. > I imported CDNG files from the Pocket using the Media Browser and right-clicking import. Appeared instantly as regular clips. Don't know though if they are actually read as RAW, if Lumetri interprets them correctly. I admit that these are no exhausting tests, but the first impressions (two afternoons spent with Premiere) somewhat corrected my view.  OPINION: 1. 30% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with the configuration of my system, and if the software in question is optimized for it. 2. 30% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with the user not RTFM. 3. 30% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with using original, highly compressed UHD media for editing. 4. 10% of all complaints about performance and stability have to do with the software being crap. For point 1, FCP seems to be the winner from the start, but Resolve has done some serious optimization for MacOS. Point 3 is valid for all three competitors. Adobe always bragged about being able to work with the native media. As a matter of fact, UHD needs four times the horsepower than HD, and imho it's simply silly to quadruple your system specs just to be able to keep up. These codecs are not meant to be edited, and proxy historically is a pro solution to edit. Furthermore, as it seems, Premiere has the best proxy workflow now (transcoding runs in the background with AME, it's reasonably fast, and you can start editing in the original codec without being forced to toggle like in FCP or having to wait until the foreground process is done like in Resolve). FCP's strength is optimization through optimized media (ProRes) which not only runs unnoticed in the background but is also the fastest of them all. But just for the sake of proving point 3 to be universal, try to delete all generated media (or how it's called precisely) in the midst of a long UHD project, and you will see how much remains of the often-praised superior performance and stability. Now, for anybody seriously considering to jump ship, you better evaluate by checking these factors.
    • Thanks, works like a charm!
    • He did not say photos, he said capture, and then went on to specifically mention the cinema video mode, saying it can output 211% more colors than the average smartphone. Rewatch it.