Andrew Reid

I really think you are attributing far too much to the look of film. I can put life into a $700 digicam. The right light and the right lenses, the right grading and the right sensitivity of handling in post is all you need. Film has a nice grain and latitude. The mythology of a cinematic image is not just in film like grain and latitude, it is in so many other aspects of the camera, lens, light, location, actors, costumes and most importantly cinematographer.

I think the way film is processed and projected in this day and age makes it look more like digital anyway. I don't think it even has much of a classic look to it any more on most film shot big budget features I've seen, it is not much in evidence. Nolan is a good director, but a little over hyped. Better is Paul Thomas Anderson. Never seen someone better at getting the most out of talent that he manages to do. His characters light up the screen... No, they set it alight completely. Burn baby burn.

They've gone profit mad. 550D, 600D, 7D, 60D, 650D, G1X and probably EOS M too. That is a lot of cameras based around one 3 year old sensor. OK the G1X gives it a trim and the 650D gives it some phase detect pixels - oh great. By the way with the 18-55mm kit lens, I just cannot see what benefit the phase detect AF sensels on the 650D's CMOS give. AF was just as crappy as before when I tried it out. Whilst D5100 was nailing it, albeit not quickly, the 650D was failing altogether and doing lots of REALLY SLOW HUNTING. Build is also really really dodgy and I am not just talking about the whitening rubber issue. There was wear on the side of the ISO button too, and the whole thing felt a notch down from the 600D with a lower grade of plastic. I know Canon have had a difficult time recently as have all Japanese companies with the faltering global economy, strong Yen and major issues with natural disasters but for Canon to be dropping the ball big time like they seem to be doing is just completely unacceptable.

It isn't 1.7inch, it is 1/1.7". That is much smaller than the 1 inch sensor in the RX100. The LX7 looks good but it really will not benefit from the small sensor no matter how good the lens is. Let's see what the noise and dynamic range is like, if it beats the DSLR rivalling stills I am getting from the RX100 for those two attributes, I'll eat my lens cap.

There are some nuances yes, I agree. But really no camera has a soul if the person behind it is soulless.

That thread is still here http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/794-the-panasonic-gh3-product-suggestions-for-panasonic FZ200 - constant F2.8 is very impressive for 25-600mm on a bridge camera. I have tried the very long 30x optical zoom lens on the small chip HX200 from Sony and that is actually a very cool tool, loved shooting at extreme telephoto with it. At 30x it also gives you a very 'DSLR feel' with a shallow depth of field despite the small sensor, and that is at F5.6 not F2.8 so I can only imagine the FZ200 will be even cooler. 720p at 120fps will also be a reason for getting the FZ200. Really is will be an amazing shot grabber for telephoto slow mo. Good to see that Sony and Panasonic are still pushing even if Canon isn't. Had a go of their bridge camera today and it was SO poor. Zero AF ability, rubbish screen, poor build, awful grip (I almost dropped it the first time I picked it up, it really is shocking) and signs of major cost cutting throughout.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500ad15a53a2c_in495munchbstscream1893.jpg[/img]

I actually think for all Nolan's insistence on shooting Batman on film it looks like it was actually shot on digital. Very clean. Will be interesting to see what job Roger Deakins does on Skyfall with the Alexa Studio and anamorphic. If anything is designed to mimic the overall aesthetic of film and not just the specs side, it is that and it is him.

I agree digital needs roughing up. Some don't agree. This is all subjective. I agree with you that digital needs careful handling if it is not to look too clinical and better technical capabilities do not always improve the image. 24p is less technically capable than 60p but it looks more cinematic. However putting the life into a shoot is YOUR responsibility isn't it? The lens has a lot to do with it as well. The reason so many modern films look lifeless and plastic is not because they were shot on digital. It is because of the decisions people are making in post and when shooting.

Wait a few years and medium format cameras will be shooting video. IMax camera for the masses. In terms of sensor size the 5D Mark III is Vista Vision, i.e. 35mm turned on its side. Sort of!

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/1/500ac56b6b1b1_1280pxIMAX_camera_1.jpg[/img] IMAX camera - Makes so much noise that dialogue has to be dubbed when shooting with it.

Great images there Andy. Didn't realise IMAX film was so insanely large and that it runs sideways through the gate? I thought 65/70mm was the largest it came. [quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1342881595' post='14244'] Are we beating a dead horse here or something man? Digital is badass. I'm sure it mathematically beats the brakes off of film with a spec sheet pimp slap. & i like the Hawaii video on the F65. It looks really sharp. [/quote] Where is this F65 Hawaii video? I want to see it.

Digital HAS beaten film. I am pretty sure 5K or Super Hi Vision would look more detailed than the best S35mm film scan on IMAX. Would you notice even more resolution from 65mm on IMAX? I haven't yet. For sure digital has better sensitivity to light with less noise. With the Sony F65 it also has a wider colour gamut and better dynamic range. Case closed!

Set to the theme of Danny Boyle's Sunshine here is what I think could well be the best timelapse ever shot. Likely taken with a Nikon full frame DSLR (NASA have used Nikon cameras in space since the 1960's) it shows a view of the Earth at night from an orbiting International Space Station. The colour and light is just fantastic. Full screen it, project it, darken the lights and put the volume up a notch. It is worth it believe me. Read the full story here

[quote name='brano.vaclav' timestamp='1342636539' post='14105'] Hi guys, Regarding the RX100 US/EU video frame rate difference... in the US it is 1080@30p/60p, in the EU it is 1080@25p/50p. I live in Europe. It seems these values are hardcoded and I don't want to perform any unofficial firmware patching (I don't even know whether it's possible?). It seems to me that EU frame rates are quite a limitation, and I'm deciding whether to buy the camera here or wait until somebody gets it from the US. I'm not an experienced videographer, but it seems in case of frames-per-second, bigger number is better, am I right? I was planning on using 30p, because I think 25p won't be that fluid. Youtube supports 30p and overall it seems is more widespread format on the internet. Is there any reason I should prefer the EU 25p/50p? Btw, I don't care about the 30min. max-clip-length limitation. Please if any of you have some experience with video editing & similar stuff, which one's better? Is it worth to wait and bring the camera from the US? Thanks a lot. [/quote] No the bigger is not the better. The cinema frame rates are 24p and 25p. 30p and 60p look too smooth which gives an electronic sheen to the image. The higher frame rates are only useful for 3D footage and slow-mo. Both 60p and 50p can be changed to 24/25p in post so you can have the more cinematic slower frame rate. The reason they differ between the US and Europe is that the electricity supply frequency is 60hz in the US and 50hz in Europe. The frame rate needs to be in sync with this, or evenly divisible into it like 25p is into 50.

Try doing a low level format of the card on your PC or Mac. That should solve the card's issues. If it does not, then return the card to the store under warranty.

Correct D4 is only sharp in the most extreme 2.7x crop mode. In that mode you get a sensor which is effectively Nikon J1 sized on a $6000 camera. It is not worth getting for video, only if you need it for stills.

In cinema a 6 minute continuous take is pretty epic so well done!! Children of Men had a great one. Hitchcock did a whole film - The Rope - as one take but he cheated, cutting on the 12 minute mark in a clever manner so nobody would notice.

Now for that you would need to set it to Shutter Priority in the creative movie mode menu and use a lens with a manual aperture ring.

The main luxury of digital for me is that I can carry 10 memory cards in a shirt pocket and not pay for processing costs. 29 minute continuous clip is merely a bonus and if I were shooting an event I'd have more than one camera, because who wants to look at one shot for an hour straight? The 29 min limit is of zero concern to me, but I do think the tax law in Europe is a complete ass.

Is there a chance KineRaw can get their servers sorted out for the raw material too? I've been trying to download some for a week and it is just too slow, then a time-out.

Yes I nabbed it :) But if it makes you feel better, two went for cheaper on eBay a few weeks ago!! Bargains can still be had keep the faith.

Yes because 12 minute per reel was unacceptable in Hollywood for the last 60 years :rolleyes:

[quote name='sandro' timestamp='1342744585' post='14174'] Could the GH3 (with the right technology) ever match the same light sensitivity of APS-C sensors? [/quote] Well considering the GH2 (in video mode) and E-M5 (in raw) already does... Yes.

That is incredibly cheap for the S8. What resolution does it do 220fps at?