Subforums
16,731 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.2m views
-
- 1.7k replies
- 352.7k views
-
- 0 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 211 views
-
- 8 replies
- 94 views
-
- 2 replies
- 59 views
-
- 121 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 1.1k replies
- 126.2k views
-
- 4 replies
- 209 views
-
- 14 replies
- 3k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 8 replies
- 381 views
-
- 100 replies
- 10.8k views
-
- 331 replies
- 74.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 267 views
-
- 55 replies
- 3k views
-
- 18 replies
- 635 views
-
- 13 replies
- 445 views
-
- 41 replies
- 2k views
-
- 39 replies
- 15.7k views
-
- 443 replies
- 32.4k views
-
- 39 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 600 views
-
- 235 replies
- 16.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 312 views
-
- 53 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 17 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 30 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 16 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 78 replies
- 14.3k views
-
- 17 replies
- 5.2k views
-
- 19 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 473 replies
- 125k views
-
- 55 replies
- 9.9k views
-
- 2 replies
- 558 views
-
- 0 replies
- 282 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics16.7k
-
Total Posts338.2k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I don't think so.. all the photos I found showed the Angenieux has the writing on the outside and not visible from the front Filters don't tend to have writing on them like that - that pattern looks like lens info anyway. None of the ones on here have writing that looks similar either: https://www.oldfastglass.com/cooke-10860mm-t3 It seems to have one of those boxes that controls the lens and provides a rocker switch for zooming etc, maybe that narrows it down? Maybe it's an ENG lens rather than a cinema lens? -
It's ok - neither does anyone else!
-
I've heard that the 12K files are very usable in terms of performance, but it will likely depend on what mode you're shooting in. Most people aren't using the 12K at 12K - they're using it at 4K or 8K. Regardless, Resolve has an incredible array of functionality to improve performance and enable real-time editing and even colour correction on lesser hardware. This is a good overview:
-
Well that is pretty decent. In that case, I might look even harder at the system next year… The R3 is for my needs the best body currently on the market. A Nikon Z6iii with additional battery grip is probably going to beat it…maybe…for me and as someone now 50% invested in Nikon, almost certainly where I will be going. But at the end of every season, I review my needs and Canon could be an option, especially now that Sigma have joined the party, but would need to have brought out a pretty extensive FF line by next Spring. I think Canon really do need to lighten up on their lens stance though or it will bite them in the arse. If it is not already nibbling… -
When you say "like they are emitting light themselves" you have absolutely nailed the main problem of the video look. I don't know if you are aware of this, so maybe you're already way ahead of the discussion here, but here's a link to something that explains it way better than I ever could (linked to timestamp): This is why implementing subtractive saturation of some kind in post is a very effective way to reduce the "video look". I have recently been doing a lot of experimenting and a recent experiment I did showed that reducing the brightness of the saturated areas, combined with reducing the saturation of the higher brightness areas (desaturating the highlights) really shifted the image towards a more natural look. For those of us that aren't chasing a strong look, you have to be careful with how much of these you apply because it's very easy to go too far and it starts to seem like you're applying a "look" to the footage. I'm yet to complete my experiments, but I think this might be something I would adjust on a per-shot basis. You'd have to see if you can adjust the Sony to be how you wanted, I'd imagine it would just do a gain adjustment on the linear reading off the sensor and then put it through the same colour profile, so maybe you can compensate for it and maybe not. TBH it's pretty much impossible to evaluate colour science online. This is because: If you look at a bunch of videos online and they all look the same, is this because the camera can only create this look? or is this the default look and no-one knows how to change it? or is this the current trend? If you find a single video and you like it, you can't know if it was just that particular location and time and lighting conditions where the colours were like this, or if the person is a very skilled colourist, or if it involved great looking skin-tones then maybe the person had great skin or great skill in applying makeup, or even if they somehow screwed up the lighting and it actually worked out brilliantly just by accident (in an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters one will eventually type Shakespeare) and the internet is very very much like an infinite group of monkeys with typewriters! The camera might be being used on an incredible number of amazing looking projects, but these people aren't posting to YT. Think about it - there could be 10,000 reality TV shows shot with whatever camera you're looking at and you'd never know that they were shot on that camera because these people aren't all over YT talking about their equipment - they're at work creating solid images and then going home to spend whatever spare time they have with family and friends. The only time we hear about what equipment is being used is if the person is a camera YouTuber, if they're an amateur who is taking 5 years to shoot their film, if they're a professional who doesn't have enough work on to keep them busy, or if the project is so high-level that the crew get interviewed and these questions get asked. There are literally millions of moderately successful TV shows, movies, YouTube channels that look great and there is no information available about what equipment they use. Let's imagine that you find a camera that is capable of great results - this doesn't tell you what kind of results YOU will get with it. Some cameras are just incredibly forgiving and it's easy to get great images from, and there are other cameras that are absolute PIGS to work with, and only the worlds best are able to really make the most of them. For the people in the middle (ie. not a noob and not a god) the forgiving ones will create much nicer images than the pigs, but in the hands of the worlds best, the pig camera might even have more potential. It's hard to tell, but it looks like it might even be 1/2. You have to change the amount when you change the focal length, but I suspect Riza isn't doing that because of how she spoke about the gear. It's also possible to add diffusion in post. Also, lifting the shadows with a softer contrast curve can also have a similar effect.
-
