Leaderboard

Honestly really makes me want to rebuy a D750 and shoot in 1080p.

Canon rumors released some specs on the new G7X III and M5 II. I'm most excited to see what they do with the M5. The M5 is supposed to be a higher end camera from the M50...but the M50 is so so good IMO. If they have 4k with DPAF and no crop...now we're talking. That new sensor paired with the Digic 8 might allow that to happen. My thoughts are maybe at VidCon Canon will release the G7X Mark III. It's the perfect "vlogger" camera and would be a nice splash in the market coming off the trails of the Sony RX100 6. We are going to VidCon next week so I will let you know if anything happens there. Here are the specs from Canon Rumors: EC804 – Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III 4.2x Zoom 1″ sensor DPAF 4k Video (no DPAF) GPS This camera features a new Canon 1″ sensor EC811 Canon EOS M5 Mark II 28.3MP APS-C mirorless camera 4K@30fps video and DPAF. This camera features a new Canon APS-C sensor http://www.canonrumors.com/are-these-the-next-canon-cameras-to-be-announced-cr1/

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age." And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs. But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost. Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus. So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots. But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs. Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots. I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper. But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for. Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources. All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

I agree with Geoff Boyle, and this discussion is so timely for me as I am looking to buy a new camera, primarily for stills. I've been looking at many of the portfolios from the Magnum Photographers and what strikes me is the poor technical quality of many of their images. Many are slightly out of focus, have blown highlights, low resolution or been shot on low quality cameras. I haven't found a single mention of a camera on the Magnum Photographers web site. To them, the camera is just a tool. What counts is getting the image, capturing the moment. Creating awesome content. I've spent hours comparing tech specs, reading reviews and comments, watching YouTube videos, trying to find the best camera and the best deal. Sure, that is important, but my time would be better spent studying great photographers and their images, and learning from them. Then grabbing almost any camera and shoot as many photos as possible to improve my technique and learn to see better.

Again, there's no doubt Sony is at the forefront of sensor tech, but the D850 sensor combines all the good stuff across the A7R3 and the A9, so I wouldn't say that Sony is the only game in town. I do shoot RAW, and I am talking about RAW. There is a subtle but noticeable difference in the way Fuji RAWs handle colour that is different from other manufacturers, this is true for LR and Capture One.

This is probably a bit low brow on populist for most of you but anyway.... So I went to see Jurassic World in 4DX the other night. Not a great film but definitely a great experience. I don't really know what I was expecting, maybe just a bit of motion rumbling in the seat and a few gimmicks of the odd tiny blast of air and a bit of water but it was way beyond that. Of course, its not going to work with every film type but with something like Jurassic World you've already left any pretence of high brow at the door anyway so if you're going to go for it then you might as well really go for it. The range of movement in the chair was way beyond what I was expecting both in distance and velocity which made every crash or shock point really shake you but I was also surprised at the subtlety that really put you inside the aerial shots and also when the camera was tilting up to reveal something. The air jets coming from the front were obviously good for weather stuff but the ones in the head rest were very effective for bullet fly bys but the big surprise where the ones behind your calfs which they used to simulate little creatures running around your ankles. And honestly, the rain effects with the water spray were fantastic ! As an old cynic, I shouldn't really be getting excited by this stuff but I had an absolute whale of a time as did everyone else in there. Its a long time since I've left the cinema and people have seemed as euphoric as that. And that is with what is a decidedly iffy film as well. Also, as I've said before on here, we really all did give up on 3D too soon. I would love for Spielberg to do a version of Saving Private Ryan for 4DX as it would lend itself very well to the inclusive immersion aspects. Flame away

I'm gonna call both/and here. There are no two types; we are snowflakes. We are all limited in different ways: some in our ability to master technical details, others in composition, in content, others still in understanding what makes a good image on an emotional level. There are simply an incredible number of levers to pull to create a stunning image: lens and camera choice, f/stop, filtration, lighting, subject, location, subject distance and on and on. The process is inherently imperfect and complicated by the huge number of decisions there are to make. What I like about Geoff's talk is that he doesn't choose one or the other. Yes, the talk is called "fuck the numbers," but then he goes on about an 8K scan of a classic film negative and the resolution in the chainmail of a costume in a terrible movie. Understanding the process of image-making is messy. It is a journey. Over time our attempts to master as many of these levers as possible will show on the screen but we will all have strengths and weaknesses.

if that's the case it's even worse..not sure a firmware will be helpful for those bad copies

For the lazy (like me), to save people a link click:

'Techno Marching Band', something I didn't know was missing in my life but was. ?

I believe the source of all the non-Sony speculation was the angry photographer guy on youtube that just sits in front of a mic and blabbers about cameras. I don't watch his stuff because he posts 5 or 6 videos every day with no content other than himself. I don't know how anyone can take him seriously. But he's been called out for false claims before and I'm sure it will happen again. He's also been called out for stealing other people's images and claiming them to be his own. That alone gets a permanent ignore from me. Though I did watch the "Shootout" with Jason Lanier and my suspicions were confirmed watching angry guy fumble with his camera like a 15-year-old trying to undo a bra for the first time - he's just a gear collector. At least it puts that silly debate to rest. Cheers Chris

I had an Apple Newton and I'm not sure what was the bigger death knell for it fashion wise - me buying it or Steven Segal using it as a recipe book in Under Siege 2. My patronage also saw off Windows CE, the PalmPilot and the Compaq Ipaq so Light will be encouraged by the fact that I haven't bought an L16

The Light L16 is probably the Apple Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton) of photography. Too many cameras/lenses and not enough processing. But it is probably showing the way ahead, when good small sensors cost a tiny fraction of the price of good large sensors.

And tears in your eyes no doubt !

Since when have bayer sensors been a problem? I have taken lots of pictures with my Nikon D80 that I have come back to and went wow, that looks amazing, and back then I didn't shoot raw cause I only had 2GB SD card. He goes on that numbers don't mean anything and yet he completely dissed anything "modern" with high "pixel count" as being not good enough? a step backward? I thought he meant to make a point that content was the important part but it was kinda lost when he pretty much went to spec war film vs modern, which on paper had the better spec(k). (pun intended) Oh and you also need to shoot on Cooke. Not cookie or cake.

The Tamron 28-75mm is really something else. Wide open sharpness at every focus distance and zoom. Almost no CA. Excellent flare control. All in a relatively compact and cheap form. But still, I've decided to return it as I can't really afford it. I have a sigma mc-11, canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50mm stm and yongnuo 35mm f2 on order. Kind of interested in their performance compared to the Tamron, Sony 50mm Fe f1.8 and Samyang 35mm f2.8.

There is no installation, it's just specific settings in camera to achieve the look. Made a quick Comparison between S-LOG 3, GFILM, and EOSHD HDR. Love the results right out of camera with this. SLOG 3 just straight up breaks, GFILM still breaks but less so, and EOSHD seems to show the least compression. I've been leaning more on getting the image right in camera and not in post, and am heavily leaning towards this profile unless I'm using an external recorder.

Yeah, I probably should have read the 'magnetic mount' part before offering up solutions to a problem you weren't actually having But if you don't want to have a magnet near your camera to hold them (and I can think of a couple of reasons why I might not want to) then you nowat least have two additional clunky solutions available

I wasn't being entirely serious, of course. But yes, I have seen various ones that can move without looking like they've had an accident. Surely our problems would be solved by them being exactly like us but without our problems. Which is exactly what my wife says about me by the way They can analyse data that builds a model of what it is we like about something though, which is all that pleasure from a certain aesthetic translates to. Give anyone/anything enough data and enough time and they could transform what we'd currently call "je ne s'ais quoi" into "Not only do I know exactly what that certain what is Monsieur but here its is as a preset for your Panasonic BrainInterface20000 camera". Its no different to current practices of EXIF mining and cross checking it with Likes/Retweets on social media to find out what sort of image capture components drive the most interest and affection. It may be cruder now but its the same principle that given enough processing power and time can be extrapolated out to a more granular level that will provide a fair idea of what sort of images ping the pleasure sensors of most people. The Lytro got a lot of hate - much of it justified - but if you ever played with one for a little while then the glimpse was there of where we'll end up going. Take that concept on two or three generations (which may or may not happen now Google own it) and with enough data mined about what works then I can easily envisage a camera system that slaps an instant and satisfying enough auto-aestethetic on it complete with not only colour and dynamic range adjustments but focus point, depth of field and re-composition as well. And then they'll cripple it by putting a slow lens on it and no microphone input obviously.

Finally feeling better...woo hoo! Here are this week's new free tracks: "Paper Route" (Looping) on my Chiptunes 2 page. http://soundimage.org/chiptunes-2/ "Break In" (Looping) on my City/Urban 2 page. http://soundimage.org/city-urban-2/ "Caribbean Skies" (intended for aerial videos) on my Events/Travel 2 page. http://soundimage.org/events-travel-2/ "Fishbowl Romance" (Looping) on my Fantasy 8 page. http://soundimage.org/fantasy-8/ and "Stranded in the Asteroid Belt" on my Sci-Fi 6 page. http://soundimage.org/sci-fi-6/ Enjoy and have a good weekend!

I'd imagine that the Xume would attach to a magnet pretty well, so if you were to attach a couple of magnets somewhere then you could pull the filter off the lens and stick it on the magnets and install the second one pretty quickly. Of you could just have a kind of holster on a belt or strap somewhere handy. They're very simple to operate, if a little pricey as @Phil A correctly mentioned.

Thorlabs do this, which might work for you. It takes 5 filters up to 60mm width and you'd just have to rig up some narrow rails for it. Its not cheap but it would do the job https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=2805 If you are looking for a cheaper DIY solution then if you used a Cokin (or no name equivalent) system then you could use two graduated NDs like this but, unlike this picture, keep one of them upside down. Lets say that filter 1 is 4ND grad and filter 2 is an 8ND grad What that would let you do is slide filter 1 up and filter 2 down (they'd both at their clear graduation positions so no ND) and then by doing the other permutations of position on the each filter (i.e. one in its clear position and the other in its ND position and then both in their ND position) you'd be able to have the following with a couple of slides and not having to remove them. 0 ND, 4ND, 8ND and 12ND

Same with my screens. I do like the second frame a lot too. If you're shooting at 6400 iso, and aren't already doing this, you could add a soft fill over camera axis 2-3 stops under key using a really cheap (low power) light to bring the shadows up a bit just so you have more to work with and controlling the dr a bit more.

Just shoot 4K RAW on the H6D-100C. Completely silent, very wide, large sensor for a nice cinematic look, and 8MP RAW stills are fine.

can you test plz if you can record in full or hd at 120fps with a monitor conected? maybe trying with full hd and change record speed at x0.25?

I believe the people in "these forums" are exactly the ones that will find them helpful. At least these are in the right direction and people with no sound experience at all, can improve their sound. I am a professional soundman for 19 years, and I know that my experience, education and expertise can't be simulated on a few presets, but there is a huge percentage of video makers outhere -amateurs, one man bands, photogrpahers turn to video, cameramen not willing to hire a sound man, ultra low budget productions - that could be benefited for those presets. There is an increasing attitude in this and other forums, that even camera's internal mics are sufficient for sound, at least now they have a few presets to back up their claims! For the price, I see a lot of people invested on them.