Andrew Reid

  It's understandable. Most people want something they can quantify, take away and do. The creative posts always sink because you can't steal someone's creativity!   Keep shooting guys! It will find an audience, just not in the camera geek community.

  One way around the playback issue (and yeah - that is a pain) is to record simultaneous proxies in ProRes via HDMI to an Atomos or similar and use those to gimp at the footage.   Magic Lantern does do playback, but it's still B/W and low FPS at present time as far as I know. Haven't tested playback on my latest install yet. Recording is pretty bullet proof now though. Card warm up helps. And camera seems to boot quicker too.

There's a lot you're missing, yes.   The whole image is different to a normal lens.   The flare is the tip of the iceberg... And actually, no you can't do it in post. It will look shit.   The aspect ratio is not the main thing either. The way it is achieved is far superior to cropping. You get a wider lens horizontally. With a normal lens, you need to get further away from your actor's head, to allow for the crop of the top and bottom. By coming further out, you lose the intimacy and the depth compression of the shot changes.   By having a lens that is wider horizontally, you also get more leeway to track a moving body sideways. If you imagine a close up of a face filling the screen in a 4:3 box from top to bottom, you'd have no room at the edges... no safety margin in your pan when the person moves. With anamorphic your pans are more graceful and considered, and you are not 'chasing' the moving actor around - yet still have a close up from top to bottom. You see what I mean?   Then there's the bokeh. We're not just talking oval light points. The whole out of focus parts have a different look. Something much more sublime and cinematic, less obvious. Foreground objects and background objects, anything which isn't directly in focus, you can tell there's anamorphic magic at play there.   The resolution gain is very real too.   If you take a 1920 x 1080 image and crop it, you end up with something like 1920 x 720.   Effectively 720p vertically. Not good.   With an anamorphic you maintain 1080p, and can stretch or upscale the horizontal pixel count to 2.5K.   And an anamorphic lens is the only way to make use of 1280p on the 5D Mark III with raw video without the dopy 3:2 aspect ratio making it look shit.   There's a reason top flight productions still spend $$$ renting anamorphic lenses and a reason the Arri Alexa Studio (with 4:3 mode) exists. That should tell you something about the advantages of real anamorphic shoots.   Django Unchained - also anamorphic.   As for the "everyone's screens are 16:9" argument... so what? For me the wider aspect ratio has nothing to do with historic cinema screen standards or current TV standards. Cinema is wider, because it's more artistic and more immersive and better looking that way. That's really the crux of the argument. Anamorphic is just BETTER.

Android is like a PC or Linux, and I switched to OSX and an Apple computer precisely because I was no longer into tweaking stuff and having full control over the OS. I just wanted to get on and edit video.

  Maybe in future DSLRs will be back with new technology - after going obsolete? Maybe one day, something will make them relevant again. Right now, I feel we're moving into a new era of camera design.   I think the Sony RX1 is pocketable full frame, in terms of jacket, though not so much pants.

http://vimeo.com/77825876 The Sony RX1 has amazing stills but awful video! I began thinking how could I use this otherwise great little camera for video? The answer is to rough up the image beyond comprehension, with trick filters. Here's how I did it. Read the full article here

  Dictation or quality control? Have you seen the quality of the App Store vs your average Android one?   I am hardly not having free reign when it comes to how I use my iPhone or what apps are available to put on it. What's missing exactly, due to it being a closed system?

* not really   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-joFyUcBIqk   :)

  The point about the consumer snappy snap crap holding up the good stuff for movie pros is a good point.   There would be no 4K Super35mm Canon CMOS sensor or Cinema EOS if it wasn't for consumer DSLRs.   If the consumer DSLR market does collapse, the pro stuff may suffer too. Perhaps I should have touched on that in my article.   You can't sell the enthusiast photography stuff in the same quantities as you can a 600D.   Maybe Canon and Nikon will in the future end up like Kodak.   But it doesn't matter. We have Blackmagic :)

  Android is a copy of iOS. Before iOS, Android did not exist. That isn't to say Android doesn't have any merit, and all software stands on the 'shoulders of giants' to some extent. But it was iOS which set the template for the others to follow. Let's not deny it. And I am not an Apple fanboy, just stating a fact!!   Android is not as good as iOS anyway. I can't think of one thing it does better that I really need on my smartphone.

  It may be the Linux of the mobile world but it's still a blatant rip off.  

I'm setting up this post because I am fed up of the camera posts going off topic.   This is a thread to discuss the craft rather than the technical side of filmmaking.   Cinematography, lighting techniques, story and character ideas. It can all go here.   If it gets used regularly I'll make it a sticky.   Enjoy!

Artishock. Further posts like yours will be deleted.   Feel free to set up a separate topic on cinematography skills, lighting, scriptwriting, acting, etc. instead.   I have done one for you - http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/3643-cinematography-skills-and-filmmaking-ideas/

  Yep that era is over.

  That's the perception. This hurts mirrorless and innovation, mainly in the US market. A client doesn't know the difference between a 1000D and a 1D. To the layman they look similar.   But the article is not really about the working DSLR world. It's about the consumer DSLR world. Big difference.

  GH3 is easier to get up to speed with than the BMPCC for the general enthusiast audience. The problem is this audience DOES care about image quality and the GH3 just isn't enough. That's exactly where GoPro should step in. Hope they are working on something. CineForm due an update too.   Canon haven't officially said anything about Magic Lantern, despite me prodding them to do so! I guess they have their reasons. Not that I'd agree with them. Software is important!

  The problem with Sony is that their brave innovation usually turns out to be ill conceived. You mention SLT but that is the tip of the iceberg.   That's why the A7 line and RX10 are so refreshing. They are sensibly thought out.   Who the hell is gonna use a QX on their smartphone? It's way too bulky and difficult to operate.   Sony had their chance with the Cybershot phones. I used to have one. They were the best all round feature phones in the era before smartphones. Then the software overtook the hardware side and the rest is history, written by Apple.   If you look at Android (and Samsung) they have basically copied Apple. That isn't really innovation.   Samsung seem determined to throw features and new stuff out there, the complete opposite of Canon, but without the brains of Canon!

Clearly Nikon need to diversify. Historically they've been bad at that. Turning down the chance to own Adobe in the early 90's example numero uno.   Nikon should do a Cinema EOS.   Next they should sell lots of DF cameras. If the specs are to be believed it's the only retro inspired shooting experience where you can use a huge range of existing Nikon DSLR lenses on without compromises to AF or sensor size. The full frame D4 sensor also gives incredible quality images.   Nikon should gracefully bow out of the compact market or do what I suggest and make that Nikon-backed iPhone camera upgrade case. Must be thin and not be a drain on the phone's battery. Must not be wireless, must go into the lightning port and be instant to activate. Must have good apps to go along with it.   Then they should go all out into the software world. Buy some companies. Put out their own rival to Photoshop and Lightroom. And we're not talking Silkypix :)

  Any more info on this?   And yes I do think A7R will be second best of the DSLRs for video overall when you take all features and image quality attributes into account. 5D Mark III and Magic Lantern will still be in a league of its own because of raw, but the A7R is much more usable and has a more flexible lens mount.   RX10 and GH3 seem to give better resolution and less moire than the A7R though it must be said it's very early days to be talking about final performance and how they all stack up.

  Battery life on video is of more importance to me.... Of course a DSLR for stills will have longer life, it barely does anything when you're shooting through the optical viewfinder. The 5D Mark III in live-view mode will likely be similar to the A7 in live-view mode unless you are shooting 60p which drains quicker as the data crunching is more than doubled (both sensor and image processing side).   I get much better battery life on the RX1 incidentally now I have turned off the 60fps live-view and had it drop back to 30.

  Jerry read what I said a few posts above about the AA filter.   An AA filter doesn't operate in the lower frequencies of low resolutions like 1080p, it only has an affect at 36MP, which is why they removed it - to sharpen up the 36MP stills.   What does have an impact on moire in video mode is the 34MP you literally throw in the bin to get down to 2MP for 1080p, by line skipping and pixel binning!!

Engaging the uninterested general public with dedicated cameras was never going to be sustainable - not with smartphones around. But I think the decline of consumer DSLRs will actually be the best thing to happen to photography and video in the digital era. Finally companies will have to get innovative, putting more weight behind enthusiast and pro orientated camera line-ups. [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/11409/consumer-dslrs-dead-5-years]Read the full article here[/url]

  You mean via HDMI? I've not seen it advertised as 4:2:2 yet. Link please :)

Yes great for anamorphic lenses. No other camera offers 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios at such high resolutions in that price range. Indeed it is something you won't find on the F5 or C500 either.

  Of course there's an argument to be had for matching the medium to the content, and against something which looks too sterile and clinically perfect.   Imperfections can be beautiful but they have to be the right sort.   All this digital puke isn't the right kind of imperfection. Well in very rare circumstances it does have a use.... 28 Days Later was shot on DV and the graininess, hard clipping, etc. added to the mood. However, going back and watching that film again I am shocked at how anaesthetically pleasing it is, despite being incredibly well directed and DP'ed. Also, if that look is a creative choice then you can take an Alexa and do that to the image in post. Why purposefully hobble yourself?   Digital puke is not the kind of 'roughing up' of an image that a low contrast hazy Russian lens is... It is a step in the other direction, towards something which looks less aesthetic and less organic.