hmcindie

There is one thing missing here and that is what anamorphics do to DOF. When you shoot anamorphically on s35mm the DOF gets smaller. This is because a 50mm becomes quite wide but the DOF characteristics stay the same. So to say all films are "deep dof" is quite wrong.

This one was actually good! I've been criticising EOSHD a bit in the past about superflous articles but this blog post was killing it. Great stuff and good reading. One thing about the FS700 is that it has way better highlight roll-of than the FS100 because of the included cinegammas. Cinegamma 4 is unbelievable, almost giving 14 stops of exposure. Offcourse it's then compressed to hell but anyway. And yes, NLE's tend to clip those 236-255 levels but they can be brought back with a filter. But I don't get how the FS100 and 700 are so poorly designed otherwise. Extremely fiddly to use. I didn't believe it but then I used the FS700 on a shoot. The buttons are all over the place. Changing gain was horr-i-ble. 99% of videocams use this method of changing gain/iso and it's so silly. ND's were great though. I actually loved the 5dmarkIII's USABILITY more than the FS700 which was a pain compared. One little thing about the 5dmkIII (As I've been using it) is that you can get the shadows cleaner when using those intermediate ISOs. So instead of going ISO 1600, go either 1250 or 2500. That way the cam pushes the shadows down and brings the highlights down too. You won't lose any DR but will gain cleaner shadows. The thing with DNG raw is that it just sucks up so much space that there are not many projects I can shoot like that.

I find it funny how when someone has had a bad experience, he will always expand on it a trillionfold and hold that experience as sacred. The first time I used a mac...it crashed twice in two hours. They still crash, five years into the experience. Macs only work when you don't really do anything with them. For surfing, light photowork and the like, they are great. And when something goes wrong with them... that's when they get really ugly. I managed to convince my boss that we need to get rid of all the effing macs on our workplace. Replaced them with custom W7 pc's and everything has been so awesome that it blows my mind. They just work. For example, Finder is one the worst file managers I've used in six years. Can't paste addresses. Can't copy them. (10.6.8). It wants me to always manually connect to network drives. Image sequences are a horrible pain (try looking through a folder with 30 000 files or copying them). And now you are suggesting an OS that hates image sequences to be used for Blackmagic DNG-image sequences? Funny. Another example is gamma shifts in Quicktime and OS X. Haven't encountered those in Windows. You like those? Like transcoding? On our Windows side...they just work. That's why it's funny when people who don't really do anything with their machines except browse the net, write about how this and that OS is such and such. Maybe get a bit more experience first? There are a billion little niggles about the OS X I could make but maybe I should write them in the proper place. Though you did diss Windows in the article and have OS X commercials here and there so I guess this thread could be as good as any. Still you know...it's just an OS. It's meant to get out of my way and occasionally let me manage my files & settings. On other news, the BMC is actually looking quite good. Surprising how much dynamic range you can squeeze into ISO 800. Contrary to what it sounds like in the article, there should be just as much dynamic range in a DSLR raw file. Yes, they are ISO locked but it's more that the BMC is locked to 800 with no real gain adjustment. I wonder why Red and Blackmagic don't add real ISO (more voltage to sensor) adjustments as that should improve lowlight?

Motion blur depends on your shutter angle. Check that it is the same.

I'm gonna have to slightly agree with the assessment of the Alexa. Have you guys noticed how a lot of tv-series look very much alike nowadays? Yup, that's Alexa for you. Also I disagree with a lot of these "hyped up" great looking shows. Game of Thrones. Shot on Alexa. Every damn review site claims it looks great. To me? Very average. You can see exactly how each shot is lit. Half of everything is done on a studio stage. No character, no persona. And every show is starting to look 100% the same. It's a great cam but people are using it completely alike.

So wait a second. Canon produces the 5d mark III that gets of rid of aliasing albeit with a soft image and an ALL-i codec. People bash Canon for not delivering. Sometime after Panasonic comes out with the GH3 which goes backwards from the GH2 with a softer and more aliased image. Also with an ALL-i codec (which is moot as everyone has hacked their GH2 anyway). And they get props? Hah. Dynamic range seems to be completely the same. Highlight handling maybe a smidgeon better. These real-life "tests" are not tests. We could be having another "take out the anti-aliasing filter"-moment.

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1351643009' post='20671'] I'm taking a different road now till proven differently. Logic. Sony gives 4K with the FS700 but you need a specific recorder, which costs more money. The FS700's 1080p footage isn't as good as the F3. Therefore protecting the F3 market. Big f'n announcement. People are pumped. Sure the specs look great and the sheep get excited. Talk of very positive pricing. Yet no official pricing from this leading company on the debut day!!! Sony could give a very attractive price but remember they are in the business to make money. Don't fool yourselves folks. Till we see the actual pricing, I'm staying negative neutral - if that positively makes sense? Why no official pricing??? Perhaps they are gathering their intel and deciding how much they can squeeze out of the lemons? Cheers. [/quote] Cheers? That load of text was so bollocks it was funny? What's with the constant questions? Who's the sheep here? Cameras cost money? Shocking? You have none? *Tears*

Global shutter is revolutionary. Hope they can get them to cheaper CMOS cams in time.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351511513' post='20532'] but it will eventually crap all over Premiere for the price. [/quote] That sounds like Applefanboy talk. In the time it took for FCPX to get the latest patch out, I've already edited about 24 commercials on Premiere. That's a huge mistake Apple made and switching back to get the same features is a no-go.

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1351117293' post='20249'] I think the [b]video image[/b] of the GoPro looks very cinematic. $400 vs $3500??? Is the 5D3, 9 times better? :) [/quote] This is cinematic to you? http://vimeo.com/52004301

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1351099795' post='20232'] I'm just saying, if you're going to get rid of 25p get rid of 30p too. [/quote] You do realize that in 4k you only have 24p with the 1DC? I guess not.

Couple of bad things. One is that the exposure is automatic. If you like jumping exposures, no problem. Second is that a DSLR is actually way more versatile for narrative POV's. The look in Hurlbut's film with full-frame point of views is definitely way more interesting. It's also harder to achieve as you need to mount the cam various ways. Also I've never been impressed when GoPro's have been used for narrative but I've been impressed when a DSLR has been used as a POV cam.

One thing that is kinda bogus is DXOMark ratings. The Canon 7d gets considerably lower scores, even in lowlight than the Sony nex5n which is just not true. I had both and did some tests. The ISO100 on the nex5n is slightly cleaner in the extreme shadows but ISO6400 is slightly better on the 7d. My examples: [url="http://hmcindie.pp.fi/5n_7d_test/"]http://hmcindie.pp.fi/5n_7d_test/[/url] Not very scientific but it confirms my findings. The Sony Nex-5n is not better in lowlight AT ALL than the much older 7d sensor. They are quite equal. This contradicts a bunch of reviews (Except dpreview seems to get it correct). Same lens on both cams (5n causes odd horizontal distortion in the highlights - 7d has sensor noise at ISO 100). Shot raw, only exposure adjustment in lightroom. No testing of the jpeg engine as I never shoot jpegs. There is no way that the 5n should get that much better score than the 7d on DXOMark. I mean the D800 looks considerably different than the 5dmkIII and there the score kinda matches. On these two cams, they don't.

One really good thing about the All-i codec on mark III (and now on the GH3 as well) is that we don't get stuff like this: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?294411-Strange-quot-blocks-quot-in-the-image-from-the-FS700

[quote name='quobetah' timestamp='1349748566' post='19503'] Really? In what way does sthe D800 and the Mark 3's internal video quality be any better than the A99's/VG900? They are all compressed h.264s! And Sony's AVCHD is the best of those compressed formats..so really..can you please explain to me how any of those two are any better? I dont get it. You can record externally thru hdmi if you want less compressed image ...you get that from the D800..but NOT on the MK3. [/quote] First of all, owning the Sony nex-5n, Canon 7d, Canon 5d mark III and regularly using the FS700...Your text is a load of bullshit. Respectfully. Just shot a music video with the FS700 and the 5dmkIII as the b-cam. Absolutely gorgeous image on the 5d. Soft but no aliasing, no moire and significantly better compression than previous DSLR's have had. It's significantly better than the internal compression on the Sony nex-5n, though the FS700 does give a good fight. FS700 bands slightly less but it does breakup (as avchd does) when there is a lot of movement. 5dmarkIII does not break up as badly and that is great. Also the lowlight ability of the FS700 was not considerably better. If at all. Though I did not do any scientific tests, it's just how I felt handling it around. I can say that I do prefer the 5dmarkIII image in certain situations more than the FS700. It's not about technical ability as the FS700 is considerably sharper and has more dynamic range. But the dynamic range difference isn't so big that I can't overcome it while shooting. Also the softness tends to hide our low-budget style quite well.

Overheating may heat the sensor and that increases noise. Sensors work best when cool. I doubt that it would break though.

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1349312960' post='19376'] No. that's not right actually. Getting data off the sensor has never been the bottle neck. It's getting that data into the card fast enough. [/quote] I disagree. Some sensors are way too slow to be read fully. That's why they skip lines. The faster the sensor is, the less there is aliasing. If it's so fast that you can basically do a full scan in 1/60s then no line-skipping is necessary. Line skipping is also used to make the sensor faster and then they can go to 60p. That's how the FS700 works. Pair a natively fast 4k sensor-readout to lineskipping and you get a nice HD 240fps slow mo. Aliasing is increased as it starts to lineskip but atleast there is no crop as in the RED cameras.

[quote name='cameraboy' timestamp='1348642345' post='19060'] Canon 5d Mark III does pixel binning same as gh2 ... [/quote] Pixel binning is the exact same thing as averaging. Duh.

[quote name='riccardocovino' timestamp='1348472727' post='18965'] Maybe it wasn't clear, but I stated under 2K $ Sony has less moirè than Canon, in other words Nex-5N and Nex-7 have less than Canon RebelT4i or 7D, and this fact has been shown in dozens of tests by different users. [/quote] I have the Nex-5n and the 7d and that is 50% bullshit. The nex-5n has slightly less moire/aliasing in 25p mode. When you switch to 50p the aliasing and moire DOUBLES. That is what apparently happens in the A99 too. Did you even watch that clip?? Show me one test by these "different users". Even better, show me ALL THE DOZENS of tests. It's funny how in the forums every half-truth is compounded all the time and soon the truth disappears and you have you people who say "dozens of tests" but can't produce even one. Or the one they produce is done horribly and the other comparison has been deinterlaced or shit like that. Ah...bloggers, love them.

[quote name='riccardocovino' timestamp='1348402763' post='18949'] The moirè/aliasing issue is quite evident. ALl other manufacturers haven't found a way to eliminate it in sub 2k$ products (Althought Sony has much less than Canon).[/quote] Sony has much less than Canon aye? http://fil.io/FL82vTNAM/Sony%20A99%20raw%20photos%20and%20footage This 00023.mts was shot with the A99. Does it look like it has less? Same thing happens with the Nex-5n when in the 50p mode. Horrible moire/aliasing.

If you want to split hairs then a Scarlet is just an Epic with a different firmware. Think about it. 100% same construction with same parts. The only reason is Red claims that they do "binning" so that only lesser parts end up in the Scarlet. I doubt that slightly.

[quote name='douglaurent' timestamp='1348184401' post='18770'] for this amount of money, a scarlet with 5k, higher frame rates, hdr-x mode and raw video is the much better choice[/quote] Scarlet does not do 5k. It's neither good at high frame rates as the crop will be horrible. HDR-x will not work with Scarlet in 4k. You should know this stuff.

Reverie moment? I doubt it. Reverie actually still looks kinda amazing. With the low res contrasty 30p image. I guess Vincent can really photograph stuff.

[quote name='thekgb' timestamp='1347068835' post='17574'] Isn't he the same guy who spent 500 million-ish making a 3D cartoon recently? Cameron lives in his ego, not the real world. [/quote] That cartoon is the number one box office draw. I'd say he is more in the real world than anyone in this forum. That includes 'thekgb' who we all know from such boxoffice draws as "Jack Shit".

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1347078409' post='17578'] Me neither. Please, jcs, go to Apple's trailer website and download a film-acquired movie in full 1080p. Very, very, detailed.[/quote] I just saw the Expendables 2 on the big screen. Quality was absolutely horrendous. Huge amounts of post cropping that completely annihilated detail from certain closeups. It was worse than any 5d mark III image ever. And it was shot on 35mm. I could not believe what I was seeing. Did anyone in the audience care? Has anyone said about this in reviews? Nope. Only on dvxuser there are people complaining like I complained. A film shot on 5d mark III (or even the last generation) would've looked better. Come to think of it, I've never really seen anything quite sharp on the big screen when I was a projectionist. Closest thing was probably Episode III projected anamorphically though that had blurring on the edges due to the anamorphic projection. 35mm film has never been sharp. You could project GH2 material and have it look "sharper" than 99% of the film copies we got. A lot of this is even hyperbole. Consider how Andrew got excited about the "OLPF removal" that did jack. A colleague of mine actually once thought that the 7d material I was editing was shot with the RED as it played on the projector. It just happened to be a good looking shot. I let him hear about that one for a long time. We usually just play different clients material and try to guess the camera. That's always fun.