hmcindie

I own the a6300. And I'm more awed by those 'resolution comparison' scenes than when I actually shoot my own material and look at it. When you shoot a little narrative thing, you're not looking at the little "details" that much, everything else comes before.

The interesting thing is, it still seems like Sony is using the same kind of colorimetry it did 10 years ago. For example, the old Sony HC1. Great handycam for it's time. But when I compared it to the Canon HV20 in cinemode... The difference is actually almost the same now. The Canon HV20 had a mode that disabled sharpening completely and had a very cinematic image, a bit orangey with a great whitebalance. The Sony was a bit more blue, bit more magenta, bit more sharp. Sony was also two years before Canon in the market. Nothing has changed in 10 years haha.

Those black lines were one of the reason I ditched the first Sony A7s. Shot some ok looking stuff and then noticed the highlights and the black lines. Could not unsee them. Coming from a Canon 5d that just looked horrible. I remember the A7sII not having that problem in 4k but I never shot with the A7sII that much. Those are things that are not in the 'spec list'.

That's actually how the best businesses work. You make the client a hostage, that's how you make the really big bucks.

5d mark III + magic lantern RAW will apparently still remain in my arsenal for A LONG time.

tugela has actually not used any cameras. He is a bit like Ebrahim but on the other side of the spectrum.

This is my 5d mark III raw fight scene (with a couple of lone shots of a6300): Can you spot the two lone a6300 shots? I dont think you can. The 5d raw BEAT the a6300 around the block especially as I did not have to deal with shitty white balance as on the a6300. My current reel (80% shots 5d, h264 and raw, a couple a7s and rx10 ii shots): Only thing I shot 100% with the a6300 (and will ever shoot with that shitty camera): Now that I've showed a bunch of shit I've made with the 5d and the a6300, I'd love to see your shit. Show me what you've shot with the a6300 that the 5d raw can't touch?

I remember going through the negatives several times of all the sony cams I've ever owned (a7s, rx10 ii, nex7 and now the a6300) and for someone to claim they are great cams that destroy the competition... that's just a load of rubbish. Works well when used in the right way? Ehmm, what kind of using is that? Shooting b-roll of ones own garden? A one-minute music video? The a6300 is basically as good as the a6000 which was as good as the nex-5/7 for video. Absolutely no progress except worse rolling shutter and 4k for tripod shots (yay?). I had a gig for a client, three hours of shooting in a studio, they had a lowish budget but in the end I decided to use the 5d mark III instead of the "stunning quality" a6300 and I have no regrets. The a6300 would've most likely jammed up with overheating. Also as I did not do any color correction, the 5dIII shots already looked good without all the damn tinkering. Maybe the new firmware has upgraded the 4k to usable temperature wise but the rolling shutter on that thing is such that ... no thanks. Also the usability of the allmighty Sonys is piss poor. The only Sony I'd recommend is the FS7 and up (maybe the FS5 too, depending). A7sII is usable and the A7s used is a good bargain. But man those Sony consumer cams will break on you, sooner or later. Sony cams are as "crippled" as Nikon or Canon. Those people who claim the Sony codecs are "better than mjpeg from Canon 4k" are people who have never used Canon 4k mjpeg files. They are gorgeous. Sony 100mbit codecs are completely full of macroblocks and destroyed detail when the camera moves even a little. Canon tends to lag Nikon for dynamic range and iso 100 shadows, but, for example, the a6300 is not a better camera than the 5d3, no matter how much you look at the sensor results.

From that list the best two codecs are from the Canons. Funny.

Your text implies that Provideocoalition gets money from publishing an article that features the BMCC. Yes you said later that you don't imply it, but also at the same time implying it. Did they or did they not use BMCC cameras? Yes. Did they or did they not find them practical? Yes. This is pretty much what the article says. Are you disagreeing with that? If everything is marketing then what you are doing is marketing too right? Promoting great cameras like the ARRI as some 'mythical objects that will enhance the look of everything' and all the other ones are pure shit. And then Act of Valor. Yes, they did promote the 5d a lot afterwards but they didn't choose originally (when they began shooting) the camera because Canon sold it to them (it wasn't designed to do what they did with it). So which comes first? In these kinds of budgets it always comes down to 'production first'. Those production decisions are never made with a certain "promotional angle" to use, unless you do a microbudget indiefilm. Choosing a director or an actor are promotional decisions, never the camera or a certain tool used in the production. They might be promoted afterwards depending on different factors. They do market and promote ARRI and RED cameras too, you know? But no one decides to use a certain camera because "Hey, we can promote this camera!".

? They used about 70% 5dmkII, I'd consider that very proportional. You can see the full frame aesthetic in several scenes (also the little artifacts). http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-education-online-shooting-act-of-valor-q-a/ Q: How much of the film was shot on the Canon 5D Mark II? A: 70% 5D, 20% film, and 5% F950 for aerials. I think what IS disproportional is someone claiming otherwise. Doesn't work like that. You can't just willy nilly replace a BMCC (or anything small) with an Alexa. "micro shake of smaller camera body in motion...apparent big lift in contrast compared with other footage....has a 'smeary 360 degree shutter look'" The smeary 360 degree look is an operator error. You can see that happen in any film where they hand off the camera to someone who is used to shooting with a potato and who likes a shitty aesthetic (Michael Mann anyone?). Also you could say that the contrast lift is also an operator error but this time in post. Granted, microshake and the jello coming from it is harder to avoid, but every camera makes jello these days so there you go. I've seen all of those mistakes in films shot with any other cameras.

Oh? I mean, if I click the ring to be stepless then yeah, the steps go away and the aperture ring goes smooth... but the exposure change itself is still in steps. You can just turn the ring smoothly.

But isn't the whole idea of a DSLR cinema camera to be a hybrid? So it's not just a cinema camera but it's a kick-ass stills DSLR too. It seems people want it to be a C300/FS7 but those already exist. The question is, do you take photos while you shoot videos? Do you go on still assignments and then shoot video at the same time? These cameras seem to be mostly for those people. When I had the A7s, I didn't really focus on taking stills with that thing so the stills side was almost useless for me.

Compare that to the "stepless" version in the Sony RX10 ii where it is actually not stepless, even if you click it on. It will still change exposure in steps. Talk about great design there...

Most films are actually shot anamorphically (blockbosters I think, or has that changed since everyone went digital?). That essentially makes the sensor area larger and you can achieve that look (especially in wideshots) way easier with a full frame sensor than actually going anamorphic s35. Though nowadays you can get cameras like Arri 65 and you can shoot spherically stuff like The Revenant and give it that awesome FF quality (Or would you tell Emmanuel Lubezki that he is just obsessed for no reason?)

tugelas first post ever in EOSHD was canon bashing in 2014. Talk about salty dude. I've never actually seen him post anything he has shot?

But are the ISO's equivalent in brightness? I did shoot once with the 1Dc in very low light conditions and I could make out stars in the night sky. ISO was over 6400, don't remember the exact figure but I do feel that a c100 couldn't have matched that brightness wise and the 1dc did seem clean with a great noise texture.

What did I just read? How does your world work? When I see the local pros do work here, I see cameras from Blackmagic to Canon to Sony and to Red and to Alexa. The whole goddamn palette. So those pro's in in the screenshot are just wannabes? Or what? I don't get what you are trying to say.

Anytime I hear someone say "We'll shoot it in 4k, then we can reframe!" I just cringe. I've had to edit stuff made by people who swore by reframing and it's just horrible (because they are usually really bad at filming). Zooming into an image is not bad in itself, but when people think you can just do that all the time (we can shoot wide, no need for closeups, it's 4k!) then ... you are creating horrible problems for the edit and some of those problems will be other issues (because you can't grasp how to shoot something to make it look nice). I just edited a commercial shot in 4k with an a7s and an external recorder. They had a previous video that was a benchmark but in the end, the 4k version looked worse than the HD version from years back from another shooter because he didn't shoot 4k and "crop in" but he actually shot all the closeups, pickups and inserts properly. In HD. Like a real cameraman. And the color looked good.

Because they are (for some reason) comparing corner bokeh, not center ones. The upmost corner (right side). The corner bokeh is stretching a bit for the Summilux, kinda like the Canon 50mm f1.2 has ovally looking (and pretty cool too) bokeh balls in the edges of the frame. It could be that the lens is focusing on a different point depending on how farther you get from the edge. There' also something weird going on at f1.4 -> f2 where the bokeh is completely differently sized on the same Summilux lens. Maybe they cropped into the corner on some lenses but not always? It's jsut too obvious the f1.4 shot is taken from a different position, the bokeh balls are just so different versus the f2 ones. And that makes the testing suspect. Unless the lens is really that weird.

The focus is off on the 35mm f1.4L, it's focused closer to the camera and thus the focus point is blurry. The text on the left side of the frame is WAY more blurry, which also accounts for the bigger bokeh balls.

Yeah, you can get a surprising amount of shadow information out of jpegs too. And those are 8bit files. People just never really seem to even try. But the good thing about the mjpeg codec is that it's basically a bunch of jpeg files. So the quality should be in the same ballpark.

It's probably an AVCHD camera edited in Premiere Pro with deinterlacing on (the couch has some weird things going on in the lines there). It could be a Sony FS100/FS700.

But if that's the only thing you are focusing on, then you might screw it up even if you shoot with an Alexa and RAW. Because there's no way the camera will fix A) poor lighting (and that will destroy the key, no matter what you use), B) poor software skills (not doing a proper key but just pressing one button on the Premiere Ultrakeyer and hoping for the best). Even Hollywood films with huge budgets send some of those greenscreen shots to India to be rotoscoped because they can't fix their own greenscreens. And they don't shoot with either a GH4 or BMPC (which are both good enough for greenscreen work, BMPC maybe slightly better because you can enhance the greens a bit more before the key but it can make aliasing on the edges of sharp lines - and that's a bad thing when keying - so then you have to fix those manually...) So attack the lighting first. Make sure you can separate the actors and the BG so that there are no shadows on the greenscreen and as little spill as possible. Make sure that you have tracking marks if you are moving the camera around. Make sure that you don't have to manually mask anything out. Shoot it properly (don't shoot wide and then except to crop in because "it's 4k!". Plan those shots! Then attack the software side. Learn what ever system it is you use (I use Keylight in AE but I do a semicustom pass with and I don't just drop it in and wait for it to work immediately). Go through possible tutorials. Try your own methods. You might have to key separately different parts of the screen (hair vs hard lines). You will have to add motion blur to the key too afterwards so movement doesn't look too unnatural. Etc etc. If those things are working for you, then you are 99% there and the pick between the BMPC and the GH4 is trivial.

Have you guys never done any greenscreen work in your lives? j.f.r obviously hasn't. The lighting, how you shoot it and your software skills play a way more important role than the camera you use. As long as you don't shoot with a potato.