Leaderboard

Consider renting. A $7000 budget for a camera package sans lenses seems rather excessive for a short. I've worked on shorts in which the budget for the entire project was a fraction of that of your camera (sans lenses) package. Plus, renting gives you more flexibility/recover-ability. If you rent a camera that has a problem (such as fpn) or if you just don't like it, you can return it and get another camera. Also, for a narrative short, you probably don't even need 4K, which could greatly reduce your budget.

Direct link to more of his work: https://500px.com/edlondonphotographylondon

Like now the Video AF have to be good because people can't focus themselves anymore all of sudden. I'd say we are getting spoiled lol

Thanks for the explanation. For me though, the always being positive thing is common amongst YouTubers. It's not something that I like because it doesn't feel genuine. But I have heard multiple YouTubers in the travel niche say that any amount of negativity on their channels garners a massive barrage of dislikes and negative comments about being "ungrateful" about living a "dream life". So for some, it's just taking the path of least resistance in a career where you're completely open to criticism from the entire internet. Not sure what Peter's deal is, but it could just be that.

I find is a little hard on the eyes, so much white everywhere. Maybe bring the intensity of the background down a tiny bit?

One of my first 'inspired by Edo' shots, from Friday just gone:

Just want to say I love when you do these blind tests, always interesting!

I would have chosen B too actually (didn't see you already posted the results when I read the thread), but it doesn't really mean a damn thing as I am colorblind :D I would suggest having all the pictures fit onto one screen. It's a bit difficult to choose when you have to scroll. What is funny is that, all the cameras you put in the test are doing quite good. It's just a matter of personal tastes I guess. Thank you for this nice comparison

There is a guy that sells Canon LP-E6 to Sony NPF adapters for use on the BMMCC. It'll solve the problem, but I find it quite bulky :s http://www.starvingartist101.com/

Ahh A: DP3Q B: GRii C: X1 D: X-Pro2 E: DP1 F: X70

Here are the results! These where the cameras in the test. The only one missing from the picture is the one that took the picture, the Fuji X-Pro2.

 So without further ado here are the results from worst to best according to you and two other places. 
If I would have counted the three forums individually it would have been three separate lists. The Top-3 was different on all three. (click on them twice for full resolution) #6 In last place and with only 7.7% of the votes and therefor with the ugliest colors,
 The Sigma DP3 Quattro #5 Close contender for the bottom spot with 10.4% of the votes was the most expensive camera, 
 The Fujifilm X-Pro2 (35mm f1.4 R) #4 Only one vote away we find its little sister at 11.7% The Fuji X70 #3 First to receiver a medal in third place and with 15.6% is the modern vintage Foveon marvel, The Sigma DP1 (I still can’t believe I paid $28 for it ) #2 The silver at 18.2% goes to one of germanys finest and another modern vintage legend, The Leica X1 #1 But the gold and color champion title goes to the streets shooters best friend.. no less than 36.4%….
.. Acclaimed King of the B&W and now also colors… The Riiiiiiicoooooooooh GRii!!!!!!!!! Thanks for participating, this was fun imo! /M

Hi With regard to V30, V60 and V90 cards, these specify a minimum write speed, regardless of the state of card (fragmentation, erased state etc) which is the important bit of course for real-time recording, so will be lower than the headline marketing speeds. Also it is important to note that to obtain these guaranteed minimum speeds these cards need to be written to using a different protocol, and the card itself needs to specifically support this protocol as well as the camera (of course the GH5 does). This means buying a card that doesn't show the V rating, because it appears fast enough based on it's other speed ratings or some website bench-marking, is not the best route to take and will likely see problems. Regards Phil

Well, @gethin , this again: Though I've seen one ADATA card with V90 classification that fails to follow this logic, but I would still prefer other cards because it does make me wary (dropped frames and whatnot). I personally will keep getting SanDisk cards, they've been holding up superbly since the GH2 and BMPCC days and I've tried many brands since, but SanDisk are the ones that has that lasting impression of high standard, high quality. Their R95/W90 cards later got classified as V30, so I can imagine the W280 and W300 cards will keep up fine too in the V60+ segment. V60 (or V90 if you feel like it) is basically what you'll need for the FW update (and wanting to use those high bitrate settings). Before 150Mbit/s ~ 20MB/s, V30 of not even, should do, but I'd buy stuff with an eye on the future.

omg look a cat!!! im a cat!!!! ?

I like Matt Day a lot. But that's more analog.

OK camera bought! now, any news yet about what cards needed for the new firmware? I've got a couple of uhs1 U3 cards. Will I get away with them for 4K60?

in DPR forum I know only 3 or 4 female active users (one of them has the most accurate knowledge about optics), and its the most popular photography website! virtu signaling about equality and diversity solves nothing, they can add few females photogs next time and survive the PR disasters. That's what companies are doing, even in the west. Apple ad contents look super inclusive, liberal and cover almost any minority in the American society, but their work space is noticeably male dominated. No, Apple is not sexist, they hire whoever they think is capable of increasing their profit, it's not their fault that many of them are still male, but they advertise in a way you think reality has changed dramatically! I don't want corporations fool me about social issues. I want higher "real" engagement from women in photography community, and I don't think women necessarily need a woman to tell them they can engage more.

additionally, id like to encourage posters to upload an icon if you havent already! bigger icons are sweeet

@Andrew Reid I work in the industry (developer), and these types of issues where addressed several years back, its just that a lot of people outside the industry don't know about them. https://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization https://news.googleblog.com/2010/11/credit-where-credit-is-due.html Other ways to combat this, is to have an xml sitemap so search engines can find your urls faster and easier. another thing you can do is file a DMCA take down request when you see someone is using your content without your permission. I've personally done this, and gotten a few click bait sites shut kicked off google. For example if someone uses your words or imagery even if it links to your site, you can get them penalized. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7347743?hl=en

excellent info thanks @jonpais and @Shirozina

Here's what needs to happen - Google and Facebook should take on more editorial responsibility, have actual humans boost quality content up the ranking, rather than leaving it all to machines. They don't even curate the front page of YouTube, it's all numbers, maths. Facebook should allow content creators to reach 100% of their followers for free with each post. Those followers are not for sale. I don't want to have to pay Mark Zuckerberg a cent to speak to you guys. Next up, the aggregator sites (Nofilmschool, 43rumors) should be demoted down the Google search rankings every time they post non-original content and the content they post should go UP in the search ranking. Eventually you will get the original creator on the first page of Google and SonyAlphaRumors on page 26. Finally, for privacy reasons there should be an opt in on every single banner ad on a page. If you go to SonyAlphaRumors and it has 27 ads on the front page, every one of them stuffing a cookie in your mouth to track what you do on the internet. Browsers should pop a dialogue box up saying OK / Confirm to tracking for every single one of those 27 advert cookies. The more ads, the more hassle for the user, the more people turn to cleaner sources of info. Finally, I'd like to see YouTube PAY FOR ORIGINAL CONTENT like Netflix. No, not $1 cent from a million advertising impressions... A real contract, written on paper, mega bucks. Otherwise, fuck the entire internet, it is going down the drain.

With the second post being a scam. Lol

Does look interesting!

@DaveAltizer completely agree. For the occasional raw project, I will rent. Before the C200 announcement I was eagerly awaited for the C100mkIII, then for the middle C200 codec. Now for the FS5mkII! Canon is loosing customers from all over the segments!

Just a pun. Maybe it was too Ebrasive.

I have a set of FD lenses on my G7 and love them. kidzrevil has posted some gorgeous stuff shot with pre-Ai Nikon lenses + diffusion filters.

And my point is, I wish they would design a camera that isn't ergonomically stupid, so we don't HAVE to rig it up just to make it work like a video camera. Of course there are rigs designed to add this type of functionality, but why should we have to buy $1k work of accessories just to make it functional? Or spend $5k+ on an UM4.6k? Yes, the Micro has a mount for a bigger battery on back, but they went with an LP-E6 instead of a camcorder battery, which I think is stupid, because you can get camcorder batteries in different capacities/sizes. If you want to use it as an action camera or on a gimbal/drone, just use one of the slimmer/lower capacity batteries, and if you want to shoot anything else, you can attach a larger battery that will last for more than 1-1.5 hours.

This is straight from the "new age" SEO play book and Googles recent algorithm changes loves this kind of shit. An example is the "The pros and cons of natural light vs off-camera flash" article/video they posted. Take someone else's content and embed it, put a couple 100 words around a video. Because of the size of DP it already out-ranks the original video post on Youtube for the term "Natural light vs off camera flash" which is the name of the youtube video. Next, they will start blasting social channels, reposting stuff often "in case you missed it" blah blah blah. Signal, signal and more signal. Its thin content but if you have the audience and you don't piss them off too much their search rankings go through the roof. And what about the original poster? They are probably happy with the extra views anyway so they might not complain.

Looks good. Tbh I think you could get the same effect in 2d just with black solids and screening the speculars back in. But of course for the whites of the eyes that would be trickier–any highlights over those would be harder to extract. Anyhow, no arguing with how that looks, it looks good.

Not Dr Who this time...but a 6 part Sci-Fi comedy series that I don't think ever aired. It was totally crap, but the effects were decent ? Here is the shot I was talking about, screen capture is terrible quality though (from good old Digibeta days. The camera tracks into girls face as here body is 'possessed' by evil computer implant, transforming her eyes black by 'bleeding' black goo from the pupil. This was done the way you said, keying real highlights from eyes onto roto black shapes to mask her real eyes. This worked as her eye colour was brown and the scene was dimly lit (enabling an easy key of highlight). A similar shot years later (that I can't seem to find images from) was done with the shiny black ball method - I remember that looked way better, since that scene was lit much brighter, and the camera was much closer...plus the reflections in he real black ball plate had a load of highlight details in there that would have been extreamly difficult to replicate without going down the route of capturing a spherical reflection map - which there was no time for. It is amazing what the human eye can reflect - especially when up close. Depending on the lighting and proximity of camera, I'd say try to capture a real reflection whenever possible. But if that is not practical - tracked roto and keyed real highlights is a good method to try.

Worth trying...I was only recalling what worked for me (When doing a similar shot a few years back on a sci-fi TV show). I'm all for the simple approach, so whatever works...having a real reference of a similar black glossy object certainly won't hurt, even if replicating from scratch in AE - it will act as perfect reference to what your black levels should be, where the light source orientation is in your scene etc etc. keying the catchlight from the live action plate is doable, but often results in shrinking highlights and eliminating any subtle falloff.

While I like cool workflows, I think you're overthinking it. While that could be a good opportunity to play around with 3D, all you need to do is roto in black for the eyes and screen (or track) the extant catch lights back on. Or at most just use CC sphere in After Effects if you want some texture to the eye instead of pure black.

@TwoScoops has the right idea...as it's best to get an accurate reference of the material surface in the same lighting as your actors face. Best practice is to indeed use a dark or black glossy ball or marble (whatever you can find or make to emulate the glossy black eyeball) - then shoot a few frames of that object as close to your actors real eye area as possible....one reference per eye as the highlight pings will be slightly different - This will act as your reference plate. In post, you will have to roto the actors eyes and effectively replace with the reference still of the glossy black sphere. if your actor is turning their head - the highlight ping should stay at a constant point, relative to the lights in the scene....so additional roto and tracking of that area of the real photographic plate may be required if your lighting is more dynamic. It is easy to see what to replicate by looking as the real highlight ping reflection from the original live action plate of your actors real eyes. the other way of doings this is to shoot a 360 degree spherical HDRI map of your environment, then use that as an IBL or reflection map to a CG sphere that is tracked and rendered into your live action plate. That is more of an involved process, and would be the 'proper' way to do it...but the comp method mentioned above can work perfectly well for many setups like you have described.

You can roto the eyes out (quickly in mocha) and luma key/screen the catch lights back on, which is even easier if you have strong catch lights in the first place.

Not a great response by him, but do not take it too personal as missteps occur. Some older people can get grumpy or impatient at times with youngsters who they feel should do a little research on their own first (google, youtube, vimeo and this forum's search engine). Sometimes younger people are also impatient with older people who maybe don't frequently use or understand new ideas, technologies and trend directions as well. Maybe and hopefully, a different approach in response can be considered in the future instead. On can never stop learning and this forum as a whole has more people willing to offer advice than not.

Sometimes we need to enhance the detail of a shot: a very soft lens, slightly out of focus, slow motion, post cropping (for story/emotion or after stabilization), and so on. Most are familiar with the sharpen effect and the unsharp masking effect. We can combine both effects, as well as use unsharp masking to create a local contrast enhancement effect as well. Canon 1DX II and Canon 50mm 1.4 at 1.4, 1080p (Filmic Skin picture style): Multi-spectral Detail Enhancement (let's call it MSDE, based on the physics of Acutance) Fine noise grain: adds texture and increases perception of detail (Noise effect: 2%, color, not clipped) High frequency sharpening: in PP CC this is called Sharpen (as a standalone effect) or via Lumetri/Creative/Sharpen (as used here: 93.4) Mid frequency sharpening: Unsharp masking effect with amount 41 and a radius of 5 Low frequency sharpening (Local Contrast Enhancement or LCE): Unsharp masking effect with amount 50 and a radius of 300 While this may be a bit too sharp/detailed for some, it illustrates MSDE, and one can add detail to taste using this technique. Note we didn't use a contrast effect or curves to achieve this look. MSDE can also be use to improve HD to 4K upscales: apply after upscaling. Also a great way to use Canon's soft-ish 1080p along with DPAF (since it's not currently available in any other cameras on the market). The GH5 is the new kid on the block with excellent detail, however Canon still looks more filmic to me and has excellent AF Someday Adobe will GPU accelerate their Unsharp Mask effect (it's a trivially easy effect to code too!), so this can easily run in real-time while editing.

I wish you did a test with Samsung NX1 using bitrate hack seeing how it does improve 120fps 1080p footage substantially.

The loss of detail is due the pixel binning method used on the sensor to increase the readout speed. It's not due to bitrate. 80Mbit is a LOT for H.265 1080p. That is equivalent to 160Mbit 1080p on the GH4!

Allowed the sun color at this time of day to dominate.

I recently purchased the a6500 around Christmas time and as others have said on this thread the image quality coming out of this camera is to me is unreal. Granted, I've only had the Panasonic G7 before hand; I haven't had the experience of shooting with cinema bodies. But below are some still frames from a wedding I shot this past weekend.

Those images are from a music video I made in Blackpool UK last week, using the A6500 exclusively,mostly in 4k, Slog2, 18-105mm kit lens only. All handheld. Natural lighting. Video out in a month.