hmcindie

It's also a 1DX. 1DC now in Finland costs the same amount as a 1DX, 6000 euros new.

Those scenes were really dumb ass tv-quality writing from JJ. "I don't need your help!"- she lets it known while she clearly needs assistance. Also the scene where: Finn runs to Rey to help and then she kicks everyones asses - has a stupid ass look from Finn in the style of:"Wow, she can take care of herself!" which really makes the writing stuck out as shitty. Really? In a universe of Star Wars, where even green little hobgoblins like Yoda can swing a lightsabre (which looked horrible) a Stormtrooper is shocked because a woman used a stick to kick some grunts around? Those kind off scenes would actually fit classic 80's Male Action hero tropes better.

Looks like a scaling artifact. Either image is not even HD.

Sorry for late reply but yes, I think it was all 4k!

Shot this music video with the RX10ii. Continuous 100fps 1080p and 2sec 250fps bursts make it usable. The camera itself is wonky as hell.

Well sure, I did not argue about the merits of the XLR-adapters and the value of 240fps (which we have used several times). I just took both files into After Effects, compared the exact same shot and came to the conclusion: RAW is sooo much better. But of course you can always go even further with that analogy. Is the FS700 a usable camera? Yes, but it's wonky as hell and slow as a dingle dongle. I can grab shots with the 5d in mere seconds (and change the iso, aperture and wb very fast) that would take tens of seconds of fiddling with the FS700 plus - oh my lord - it's such a horrible boxy design and the buttons are horrid. In varying lighting conditions the 5d3 does not suck ass, it's white balance is years ahead of the FS700. Don't use autoISO, use everything on manual. AutoISO etc are for phones. Though doesn't ML enable the use of smooth iso? Have never used it. For example when you say reliability trumps 95% of IQ I agree. That's why I use the 5d even in h264 while I had the A7s or the FS700. It's actually a more reliable camera than either of the Sonys. My A7s got scratches on the LCD in a month and the FS700 is time waster with a fugly image except for the ND- filters. Both need to use emount converters to work with Canon lenses and both have problems with them. 5D3 will give better results for weddings in H264 than the FS700. And that "EVF" on the FS700? That's not an EVF, that's an almost useless loupe.

The only difference is basically the more/aliasing.

Sure, that's true.

I remember a discussion I had on the DVXuser forums where I told everyone (over a year ago, when ML and RAW arrived) that the FS700 looked like shit compared to the 5d III raw and also that the 5d raw was considerably sharper (because it responded to sharpening way better) and had more dynamic range. And people didn't want to believe it. I didn't bother myself with any screencaps but you can pretty much see the difference in these Andrew's captures (5dmarkII isn't that far off from the 5dIII, most visible difference would probably be the amount of aliasing on vertical lines) The same thing with the A7s II and the 5d III raw. The A7s II at 4k has those huge compression artifacts and the difference in sharpness is staggeringly small. Also the shadows of the a7s II (especially in log mode) are almost devoid of information.

Disagree here. 5d mark III gets rid of the aliasing (which is quite strong on the mark II) and bring in slowmo capabilities at 60p in RAW too. Also noise characteristics at low light are better. Considering that my only pet peeve about the 5d mark ii was the moire & no slow motion, the 5d mark III hit all the right buttons.

Also added vimeo link for better quality

Hey guys. We did this revenge story with a bunch of different cameras but mostly it is 5d raw (80%). Most of the slowmos are RX10 ii and one with a7s ii 120fps. A lot of 5d raw 60p too. Hope you enjoy and warning, it is a bit brutal and there is blood flying around.

Dayum, both the FS5 and the Sony A7s II seem to have those ugly black lines over highlights issue. Still.

Cine2 is actually not more flat. The only difference between Cine2 and Cine4 are the levels. Cine2 records 16-235, Cine4 records 0-255. Cine4 basically has a bit more gradations available, the problem with Cine4 is that editing software (like Premiere) will clip the highlights very easily. In Premiere you have to bring the superwhites back into 235 values for them to be visible, otherwise it will clip the highlights away. For example, using the procamp effect with 83 brightness will do that. Levels should also work.

If you take a look at the actual measurements, the A7sII measures better across the board. Sometimes considerably, especially when going up in ISO. For example at ISO 6400 the A7sII has 2,3 stops better Dynamic Range (and this is on print size)

144hz gaming on a gsync monitor LOOKS EFFING AWESOME! That said, I hate those "enhancements" on movies. People spend hundreds of hours grading shots and making everything look as they do and then with one click of a button, everything comes out all wrong on those effing tv's. There's your problem. Hobbit looked more like "real-life" but the problem was that it looked like an amateur theatre production. Because in "real-life" the actual image they record on the set is what it is. People talking in front of a set with a bunch of huge artifical lighting. Holding plastic swords that weigh nothing.

There's a bug in the new Premiere that screws up DNxHD files inside a quicktime container. DNxHD files flagged as 709 will now have crushed blacks / highlights. Worked great in the previous version. What if a client sends you a DNxHD .mov file, would you realize that it's now fucked up? My god Adobe!

That's because they hire people who are not very good at their job. Canon probably didn't pay them that much so they just did it with their left hand and the director just either didn't care about highlights being blown or anything really. Though even if they paid those guys more I don't think the end result would've been any better. They could've gotten something by being smart with who they hire to promote. They weren't, they went the easiest route. The owners of RED do have an eye for these things. Their ad is clearly meant to showcase the camera, nothing else. The C300 II commercial isn't even trying. It tries to be a narrative but it really isn't and the shots themselves are very, very ordinary. Bad even. Grading is very amateurish on the C300 II ad.

Pretty much as described. Interesting thing. Low light is not it's strong suite though.

That is a HUGE fuckup. It took this long for it to be noticed??! I wonder how many have face-detection on (for stills) and are getting way smooth skins because of that 'bug'?

Yeah, just the skit part. Not the rest!

The 4k cropped looks very compressed.

How about a used A7s? They go for like a grand now.

You can't match them equally. The a7sII won't autofocus with the Canon lens nearly as well as a native Sony emount lens.

Both of those images look kinda bad. Unfortunately this forum doesn't allow links to images straight? Here's my test: a7s II (100fps 1080p) after grading: 5d raw (60fps 720p) after grading: 5d didn't shoot her face (different framing so I could pick and choose) so don't mind that. Even in the mode that 5d is usually frowned upon (720p60), it still looks better to me. A7s II is full of little compression artifacts. No compression at all in the 5d raw shots. WAY more color information. Some could say that the A7sII has more information in the shadows. Maybe slightly. But even in this kind off extreme situation the difference is negligible. I'd always pick the 5d raw. And would anyone say that the 1080p slowmo is that much more detailed? Frame two of the A7s II shot where the explosion was bigger: Her face was never in the 5d raw shot so don't compare that area haha. Focus was slightly off in the a7s. (not a scientific test but from a shoot)