hmcindie

That's just completely stupid thinking EOSHD is propagating here. The D800 gives you excellent and filmic images. If you can't shoot with it, the BMC will not help you.

Raw gives you extra latitude but it doesn't save your images if you can't shoot worth a damn. You still need to expose and light but you guys don't know how to light so the whole "exposing" stuff goes over the heads. I've seen plenty of shoots by different DOP's going to waste for different reasons and RAW has never got anyone out of those "I exposed badly" sorts of situations. It helps grading, white balance and keeps the tonalities in check but that's about it. All of these articles are like weird "fanboy" stuff where you guys concoct the imaginary wonder cam that makes everything look great by itself. You still need to learn to shoot. If you can't match cameras without raw, you can't match them with it. Do you even have any real clients or is this all just coming out of some odd "I wish I worked somewhere but don't so I come up with stuff" world? You apparently don't do any event work either because this BMC is just not capable of event work yet. So who are these clients you talk about?

I really like the look of the BMC at the moment. Grading RED was always fun and it looks like BMC is right up there which is AWESOME! I'm not agreeing with the sharpness or ISO performance yet though. RED Epic iso performance was always sluggish and I believe one of the reasons is that there is no added gain, just post-work ISO. When you take away the ability to give the sensor more electricity and just do it in post it usually ends up backwards. A lot of people just bake in an ISO with the Epic and shoot and then they cry in the grading room. "Why is that so noisy?" Well you shot it at ISO 1600 and very underexposed, what do you think? You still need to shoot properly exposed, it doesn't take that away at all. This site claimed that the HX9v is a very sharp cam so... I'll take it with a grain of salt haha.

Sure. But when you do stuff, you should be open to criticism.

How can anyone say that the HDV-cam Sony Z1 was sharp? It was horrible. Way oversharpened and compression artifacts everywhere. There is only one HDV cam that almost looked kinda good and that was the Canon HV20 in cinemode. A friend of mine shot a full feature film with the HV20 and a 35mm adapter that got a film print and a run in the cinemas here in Finland. Sharpness was not even close to a 7d. Did anyone in the audience care? Nope. HDV was always horrible, especially now. The 5d mark II blew all of those out of the water. We filmed a documentary that we begun using the Sony V1 hdv-cam and a Canon 7d. The V1 had to be dropped when we saw the footage. The 7d just blew it out. No contest. Anyone praising old hdv cams with small sensors and at the same time bashing DSLR's is really inexperienced.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1343838447' post='14789'] GH2 is AVCHD Canon 5d III is H264 I wouldnt mix the two! [/quote] ... ... I'll just say that AVCHD = H264.

This is not a problem with Windows and Premiere. Works great, better than on the Mac side. I don't know what it is with Macs and quicktime gamma bugs but they are loaded with them.

That's not a breakout hit. This is a breakout hit. Over a million views in 3 days. Shot with the Canon 5d. Beats the GH2 videolook hands down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWpK0wsnitc

I'd choose the FS700. A real production camera, you could use it as a clumsy ENG-style cam or Cinemastyle. Integrated ND-filters, easy audio options, a battery system that actually works, great sensor for lowlight and slowmo. Codec is surprisingly good for being not that well specced. If you shoot 10 hours of material, it will still look great and not fill up your space completely. Though the BCC is so cheap, we could buy them both and be happy. But I wouldn't do any eng-style stuff with the BCC but the FS700 would fit that bill pretty well.

Just like you shouldn't light a scene for film and video the same, you shouldn't light the scene the same for 48fps projection. You can spot those things way easier now. If the lighting is fake (as it always is), audience will be able to spot it easily in 48fps. That's why the outdoor scenes looked great. They are natural! If 48fps is "too good" then why did the outdoor stuff work out really well? Being able to spot that everything is done in a soundstage with cgi, is not a real good thing.

What is this "extensive" post-production work you guys are doing? Everyone is always moaning about h264 breaking up, but are you actually doing anything or just moaning? The reason I ask is that people have made excellent VFX films with even the 550d. I've also personally worked a lot on h264 footage out of the 7d and it really is not that bad as you folks seem to portray. So either you guys have actually not done any real VFX stuff or I'm missing something. Still, this camera looks absolutely killer.

What about the Canon 1dx? What is the quality on that thing compared to 5d mark iii on video side??

Epic doesn't really do 3d. Well it does, but with a huge mirror system. You need to plug in two epics with a mirror and suddenly it's quite cumbersome. There is a reason why Avatar was shot with 2/3" cameras and that was their size. Every camera can do 3d with a mirror system.

Typical GH2 jerkoff from Astro. Lots of talk, little show. Or sense. It's funny how audio world completely abandoned 192khz. And how is SA-CD doing with it's huge resolution jump? Not well at all. But tube amplifiers are actually becoming more and more popular. Astro sounds like a 16 year old who suddenly found a 200 dollar soundcard. Whoop. "You belittled my beloved camera!" Boohoo.

You can't use a RED the same way you use a DSLR. I mean, just one redvolt lasts for maybe 30 minutes. And Act of Valor looks great I think. The aesthetic is something that has been missing for a long time. Vistavision sensor. In a film. Great wide angle shots with excellent dof. Your friend just seems to be butthurt. But it is a cheap film. Even compared to non-action films like the Social Network. Social Network cost 50 million dollars. Act of Valor 10. The other is an action film with a lot of stuff to shoot. It wouldn't have even been possible to get all those shots on the Epic. They shot the boat attack scene in six hours with 10 DSLRs. It probably took as long to light an office in Social Network. Saying that "it doesn't make sense" is so stupid that it hurts. It makes all the sense. "They should've shot with the GH2!" WTf is this? The GH2 didn't even exist then. And considering how much Shane loves Full Frame, I really doubt they would've used a GH2. The 5dmark IIs were fitted with Panavision Primo Primes. Can you fit those on the GH2 without losing the wide angles? It seems like you are mad because a pro might not use the GH2. That's just ... really sad. Instead of saying stuff like "They should've done this and that..." you should be fucking excited that they actually shot a film completely differently than is the norm. With a DSLR! Why aren't you excited? By the way, they did also shoot some scenes on 35mm film and the aerial shots with a Sony F950. Can you spot them from the film?

[quote author=Sara link=topic=157.msg1255#msg1255 date=1326513177] I personally don't think the 5DMK2 is all that great for dynamic range - nor do any pros who shoot with it (listen to the audio in the zacuto shootout where they mention that they doubt it can even get 11 stops). [/quote] That's because people are completely spoiled. Before the 5d mark II what cameras did people use in that price range and how good were they? The 5d destroyed them dynamic range wise. I always wondered why people were claiming that these cameras didn't have good dynamic range. They had WAY better DR than professional cameras in the 10k price range at that time. Now time is catching up but still the 5d does highlights better than an FS100. And now it's not "all that great"? Boy. I wonder what cameras we will have in the future, they'll probably do 4k with 18 stops of latitude for a grand.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=98.msg946#msg946 date=1325004547] Compression at 50p 28Mbit will be much worse than in 25p mode at 24Mbit which is how I use the HX9. There is no better compact for video at the moment, with possible exception of new Canon S100 with DIGIC 5 (haven't tried it yet). [/quote] We are talking about this one? [url=http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews/compactcameras/129187/1/sony-cybershot-dsc-hx9.html]http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/reviews/compactcameras/129187/1/sony-cybershot-dsc-hx9.html[/url] There is NO 25p mode on that camera, unless you use the very low bitrate mp4 mode. So what's wrong here? Yes, there is no better compact for video yet, but the video is undeniably worse than a canon 7d. We did this short competition vid: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg6jlRLA2Tg#ws][ G&G Your Greatest Glory 2011 Video Contest ] - Top Gun Boys[/url] And some shots there are from the HX9v and the compression really brings those shots down. Trees and leaves completely destroy the image.The funny thing is that other cameras with the same specs (AVCHD 28mbps for 50p) don't compress nearly as bad. Intentional cripling apparently. And the huge amounts of sharpening are very apparent and fugly. Especially in good light. Though... It can provide great shots if you work around the limitations as all cameras can. I got some great wide-angle (love the 24mm equiv) driving shots on a mount from it. Auto exposure seriously limits it though.

[quote author=sandro link=topic=98.msg943#msg943 date=1324997502] that the dynamic range is worse there's no doubt since it's a smaller sensor, but that it resolves more resolution is real [/quote] You are confusion sharpening with resolution. Sorry about the different FOV:s. Also the hx9v at f3.3 has extremely deep dof. : Hx9v (no settings to adjust, you can see a lot of sharpening halos): [url=http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hx9v/Sony_hx9v_1.jpg]http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hx9v/Sony_hx9v_1.jpg[/url] Canon 7d (sharpened, iso 1250 at f6) [url=http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hx9v/Canon_7d_iso_1250_sharpened.jpg]http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hx9v/Canon_7d_iso_1250_sharpened.jpg[/url] Canon 7d (no sharpening) [url=http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hx9v/Canon_7d_iso_1250_no_sharpening.jpg]http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hx9v/Canon_7d_iso_1250_no_sharpening.jpg[/url] Sony hx9v also has horrible compression. Very bad. 1080p50 here in pal-land. It breaks up even in moderate movement with macroblocks everywhere. Movement doesn't even have to be that high. The 7d actually holds up pretty ok with fast motion. I can only guess what a hacked gh2 looks like. Have one on order but enjoying my 7d in the meantime. The macroblocking and shots of detailed areas that are in motion always go into a mush because of the compression on the hx9v. Huge oversharpening artefacts. I shot a lot of acrobatic movements with the Canon 7d and when I used the hx9v...it just looked all around worse. Though one absolutely amazing thing with the HX9v is that it's always in my pocket :)

Well the HX9V that I have is definitely not that sharp compared to my 7d. Or is it? I've been using them together on the same shoots and occasionally used the material out of the HX9 but I've always enjoyed my 7d way more. The hx9 looks oversharpened and with a limited dynamic range. Here though it looks the best after GH2. Odd. Gonna have to run some tests now.

So how big is the crop really? The sonys are 1.5, Canon DSLRs are 1.6 and the GH2 is supposedly somewhere around 1.85. Where does the videomode crop go? Theres been so much smack about the crop but no one has said what it compares to.