hmcindie

7 hours ago, Policar said:

but my friends produced a movie shot on the C300 that looks very cinematic (Blue Ruin), but it required an expensive grade...

Mmm... Every film requires an expensive/extensive grade, doesn't matter what camera is used.

Oh yeah the Canon 7d. Goddayum that thing was a workhorse. My 7d flew several meters and landed on concrete with the kit lens. Nothing. Still worked like a champ.

And I can agree with the evf/monitor not switching. My a7s developed that problem too, had to manually switch. It's really weird when people defend a shitty design by saying "it's consumer grade". Does consumer grade mean "it's shit"?

Your basic youtube shenanigans.

Shot with the Canon 5d raw and rx10ii. Also two shots from the a6300. Weird!

Both my RX10 ii (zoom rocker is now very fiddly) and my A7s exhibited problems quite quick (less than 1 year). A7s got a weird LCD issue with the right side having some bad pixels in a row. Also it lost the ability to notice when someone puts their eye next to the viewfinder.

On other news, my old 5d iii from 2012 has no technical issues, but it just peeled off a bit of the rubber on top of the electronics. Glued it back on. 

"Oo I'm filming you!" - I don't get it. What's so scary about being filmed? We can all SEE YOU in real life too. Some people just kinda hate the idea that someone sees them. Which is weird, we see each other every day.

I mean sure, filming people like this isn't exactly nice. But hey, look at the funny reactions! Totally worth it. Atleast the videos aren't monetized.

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

First 4 minutes are hilarious, then I stopped it - does it get a bit repetitive after that? If not then I'll watch the full 50 minutes

I think in the 90's there wasn't the urge to control our own images quite so much or the suspicion over how the material would be used.

The internet changed all that and it does make it more difficult to capture a slice of life, documentary style, undetected. People behaving naturally. If you ask them permission, it changes the nature of the footage, it feels stiff and staged.

This video from the 1987 is great! Everyone is so... natural.

23 minutes ago, gelaxstudio said:

But sony and zeiss  did make one under $1000 (RX10) and a fast one with F1.8(rx100),and all with powerzoom

And with a shit usability. 

P.S It's funny reading through gelaxstudios message history from 2012. It's like reading a Sony fanboy page. Four years of typing the same messages over and over?

Oh, wait a second, you use an A5100??! And are complaining about other cameras??!

Man people are weird... well atleast it's not a Nikon J5.

I have the A6300 and I feel it is useless for professional applications because A) rolling shutter in 4k and B) overheating.

Nobody will buy an XLR adapter for the A6300 because no one who is doing professional shooting will want to shoot with an A6300. They are not competitors. The A6300 is for consumers who shoot a couple of clips of 4k here and there.

God damn, that looks great...

29 minutes ago, k-robert said:

I am also confused.

There is this whole internet with a galaxy of information, and it is tougher and tougher to find the correct ones. You almost have to be a professional, to be able to see, who you can trust, what is right and what is BS.

There are as many cameras as there are users. Even a "professional" will not necessarily help you in choosing a camera FOR YOU because you are not that professional and won't use it the same way. I can easily pick a camera I like the best, but I can't choose a camera for someone else. I can give hints and tips but I will not tell anyone "buy this, it's the best". That's the thing, you have to learn it yourself.

21 minutes ago, Miklos Nemeth said:

Exactly, no XLR, no ND filter in XC10, and just add the hilarious prices of CFast2 cards just to be able to record 4K. Even the "consumer" Sony A6300 can get an XLR module. In a couple of months, hundreds of affordable cameras will shoot excellent 4K videos on regular SD cards. I have a decent 1" camera Nikon J5...

Wow wait a second. You are criticising cameras for not having XLR's or ND filters but you are yourself shooting with a Nikon J5 out of all things?!

I have the RX10ii and it's terrible as a videocamera. I always wondered why people raved about it so much compared to the XC10 which seemed to give better colors, image and usefulness.

My RX10ii already has the zoom rocker a bit loose and the whole thing is a joyless drab. I was persuated by it instead of the XC10 because of the "stills capability" but I in reality, I have not shot almost any stills with it and just pick up the 5d for those occasions.

What of the rolling shutter? 1DC has quite high RS.

8 hours ago, User said:

As if.

Why so negative? 5:26 was a 50mm f1.2 shot with a canon 5d shooting raw on a ronin-m.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob9td6Ic2f8

3 hours ago, independent said:

That's exactly the problem, which you're contributing to. Some jobs are incredibly hard - if not impossible - if you underestimate the difficulty of focusing unrehearsed movement. 

Yeah, you'll get some out-of-focus moments here and there. But they're kinda cool too? I've never really been that concerned about little moments where the focus is off. It's a documentary, it's not supposed to be perfect, that's the beauty of it.

23 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

I'm talking about holding focus on a moving subject at f2. I don't care what docs you've done...

I've hold focus on a moving subject at f1.2 on a 50mm with full frame. On a Ronin.

It's actually easier than with f8 on a small sensor camera, atleast you can see clearly when it's off. Focusing on an XF100 was harder. So I have no idea about the "hardness" you are talking about.

Would it be easier on the 1DxII? Sure, I'll probably get to try it soon. And don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Canon cameras way more than Sony stuff. I edited a commercial today and I hated the colors coming out of the A7sII, externally recorded slog to 4k prores. I didn't shoot it myself but had to do a "low-budget" grade and it was miserable.

7 hours ago, BenEricson said:

This is the worst argument and everyone who tries to defend it sounds foolish. Maybe we're not talking about the same type of shooting, but documentary shooting/run and gun is extremely difficult, and anything to aid in that is huge.

What are you talking about? It's quite easy (as someone who has shot documentary work with the 5dII and the original 7d, also with the dvx100 and small sensor cameras without any external help). Maybe you should need to ... you know. Learn your craft? How do you think people have focused on documentaries until now?

5 hours ago, Zach Ashcraft said:

I truly don't understand why everyone is so adamant about having C-Log on the 5D4.

Same way as everyone loves s-log on the a7s. Until they use it and switch back to the cineprofiles, hehe.

38 minutes ago, Kino said:

RED Dragon by contrast is listed at 80dB (which equals 13 stops not 16.5 as RED claims). That's a vast difference.

RED Dragon though has a set ISO. C300 ii will increase analog gain so it will keep onto the DR better when you start going up in ISO.

Alan Roberts did claim that the C300 ii has 15 stops and also this:

His method is based on standardised testing of the signal-to-noise ratio within patches of a colour chart under tungsten light. Alan explained to me that you can’t measure noise by simply covering the lens and shooting black (something that people sometimes do in online tests). This is because much of the noise in modern camera sensors is something called shot noise – random fluctuations in the numbers of photons hitting the sensor at a given illumination level. His method of testing is based on varying the exposure of the tungsten lit colour chart by adjusting the aperture, internal ND filters and shutter speed if needed.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/18/alan-roberts-tests-the-canon-c300-mkii-finds-15-stops-of-dynamic-range-and-says-it-meets-ebu-tier-1-standard-for-hd-and-tier-2-for-4k/

That is WAY underexposed.

Make sure you read about +2 on the A7s exposure scale when shooting SLOG2.

That short film looks great! But if someone had that camera and shot a wideshot of a landscape, people would be calling it 'mushy' and 'not enough resolution'.

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

... because we're all slaves in an oligarchy.

You will probably end up creating that oligarchy yourself when you move into producing. Especially producing films. Because you have to call people, you have to tell them what to do, what their role is, how long the shoot is, what they get out of it etc etc. When the shoot starts someone has to herd the mindless masses to do the necessary things. You do need an oligarchy to actually produce a film, they don't just happen by themselves when you put a bunch of people together.

People are different and have different needs and talents. I have some friends who always seem to complain that they are not doing any short films. But when they start making them, they can't even get them started because they try to operate in this weird "everyone is equal land" without understanding the fundamentals of producing. I believe those filmmaking places what PannySVHS said are very rare so if you guys happen to find one that works for you, try to stick with it.

But about blogging and facebooking. There are still LOADS of people trying to find better info and looking into better blogs and stuff. I think the issue is that now that so many people are using the internet, you also get loads of simpler people there too who enjoy just swiping through snippets of "info". How that works, I have no idea. 

11 hours ago, forofilms said:

Ahhh....yes. Buying a $6,000 camera to take cat videos. 

That's very negative thinking. People complain for all kinds of weird reasons. If you do a great looking cinema quality promo, someone will complain that "That cost too much to make, we can't do that!" (actually happened in the comments here for 1dx) and if you just post a cat video someone else will complain that "It's just a cat!". I consider people who complain like that to just be too dumb to appreciate what they can get out of anything by themselves.

7 hours ago, independent said:

So much of filmmaking is just getting the shot. 

I was doing a dolly shot while rack focusing on a target with the FS7. Had to do multiple, multiple takes to get it on and this was with two guys on the camera, one pushing it on a dolly, the other focusing. But because we were going in/out with zooming at the same time, it was quite difficult.. I have a feeling a 1DxII would've just locked it on immediately without any hassle.

22 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

I don't really agree at all with DVX Mccregor DR findings (great man though, taught us a lot, especially on old Sony technology of f35 and nx1) 

His tests see 12 stops of DR in both S-Log2 and Cine4, identical. This is DEFINITELY not the case here. 

When I switch to Slog from cine 4 profile and compensate with NDs/shutter to get the same exposure, S-Log 1 m2 shows a lot, at least more than a full stop highlight DR retention, plus the shadows are quite clean especially after denoising, at 1600 ISO. Definitely more dynamic range for scenes that demand it. In Cine 4 and PP OFF I find the DR to be regular

Remember that Cine4 will show CLIPPED highlights (because they go into the superwhites) unless you bring them down with for example, the procamp tool in Premiere. The display ALSO shows those highlights clipped in CINE4 (which is stupid)

So make sure you are actually comparing the full output (CINE4 goes all the way to 255, slog2 only to 235)

35 minutes ago, JurijTurnsek said:

2x the price and you loose the excellent AF.

You do gain an actual usable camera though