hmcindie

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 2:03 AM, no_connection said:

You do realize ppl actually use these professionally for photo and video editing right? A thing that starts at 4999$ is hardly marketed to consumers or excusable to throwaway.

They do. It's weird. I work in a company that has been using a broken mac pro (those trashcan shits) that overheats and renders video with errors occasionally. My laptop windows 10 shit works better. 

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:49 AM, kaylee said:

aaahahaha that goddam armbar!!!! 

that was great @hmcindie~! question: am i correct that you recorded this without being able to see what you were recording??? :o

 

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to see the actual shot in 3k raw haha! You can see the framing but the image lags like hell.

11 hours ago, mercer said:

Looks so cool!!! Great job!!!! How is the 3K to work with? What’s the crop at 3K and what lens did you use?

I think I mostly used a 16-28mm tokina and a 24-70mm tamron.

I had some issues where the shot was comped either to the left or right (you can see the distortion of the 16mm in the beginning "talking" shots). Also you can forget about watching the recording as it records haha.

-ml-

Did a fight choreo test with the 5d III raw shooting 3k.

I love the bokeh of the 1.2 50mm. It looks like anamorphic in some situations (stretched out over the corners). One of the best lenses I've ever bought.

19 hours ago, DBounce said:

I really feel that for so many reasons moving to other cameras is a downgrade from the Canon 1DXMK2. The Canon color science really hits the spot. I shot video of Alcatraz also while in SF using the 1DXMK2, and was blown away by how good it looked. 

The only thing that the 1dx lacks... Is a log profile so we could protect highlights a bit. 

6 hours ago, kye said:

I went 4K because I was interested in pulling out still frames and printing them as pictures...

I love using a DSLR because I can just hit the shutter button and get a raw still with fullres of the situation. I dislike how the Sony mirrorless models force me to also change the shooting mode. An old school shitty Canon 7d did it right where it just paused the recording, took a still and everything continued. Pulling scheenshots from 4k is ...aahh...blah.

To the OP, yeah. There are definitely times where a nimble A7sII will get better shots than an FS7. I was on a really, really fast turnaround shoot with an A7sII and another operator was using the FS7 with a tripod. I got much more coverage with the A7sII. I also do enjoy operating the A7sII/1dx more than the FS7 or C200 series unless there is a client and we have to plug the cams into a monitor. The FS7 particularly is a weird mix of bulkiness and boxiness.

5 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

You literally make a video 'better' by one metric by making it 'worse' by another. 

If you think about it a bit, that's how films are shot. You take a scene, then block and eliminate things that you don't want the audience to see. Is the table in the background necessary, do I want to focus on a certain characters face on a certain moment? By taking AWAY that table and focusing on a character instead, you might be making the film better. But the table is gone! Now it's worse if the metric is "where is the table?".

It takes taste & skill to know when that table should be in the shot and when not. That's what filmmakers do, point the focus of the story on certain elements and away from others. If that includes softening the image from a certain part of the shot (be it using dof or masking it out in grading) then that's what the film needs. It's not about "making it worse". It is about "making it better". What is better is subjective but film grain is usually a pretty good addition if done well, even though on a certain metric it might be bad. But good taste is what a director is there for.

45 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

Basically what you are saying is that the IQ for video hasn't changed all that much in quite a few years.

Well it hasn't.  The A7rIII that I tried mostly improved on usable issues like having the APS-C mode settable on a button. The actual usage / image quality is not that different in real life use compared to the A7sII.

So if someone says that the A7iii changes everything, it's kinda weird. It's the same camera just cheaper.

2 hours ago, sam said:

 But.......

I use a decklink, a 24 Hz monitor, and resolve studio set as specified. There appears to be jumps in motion both ahead, and then back, most noticable on the s8 and somewhat on the 1dc.  

That indicates a too slow hard drive (for the 1dc material, that stuff needs speed)  that results in dropped frames. No idea about the s8 but jumps in motion are usually dropped frames.

On 21/04/2018 at 3:42 AM, mercer said:

So cool. Did you shoot with the regular build for your 60p? And which shot was RX10ii... I couldn’t pick it out at first glance on my phone. 

I shot with the experimental build 1920x6xx 14bit compressed at 60p. Rx10 is the wide slowmo flip (aerial at 250fps) at the end.

I'm still quite proud of this one. It takes a moment to start but after the 3-4 minute mark it really starts to gel together.

Damn that London footage = socks blown.

Here's a recent fight choreo test we did with the 5d raw at 60p with one shot with the rx10ii.

What the? That screengrab of the GH5 vs C500 shows a completely different part of the building for both cameras. You can see the "not as much in sunshine"- part on the right side of the C500 shot and that same part fills up the GH5 shot (because the angle is different). Both have burned out the hair at the same area.

On 23/03/2018 at 3:07 AM, Robert Collins said:

As an example you could take your camera and do bracketing -2,0,+2 and combine them in post which would increase the amount of dynamic range you could capture. What Red is effectively doing is equivalent to this but doing the post processing in camera.

A lot of cameras have temporal noise reduction. Actually I would say about 99% of the current market uses temporal NR when the ISO goes up. 

DXOMark usually doesn't measure video so it seems weird that they did as the noise characteristics are quite different when the image is processed and the DR results will be skewed.

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

We’re not talking about segmentation in the same way many here are. We’re talking about having to move up into the expensive cinema lineup rather than being able to shoot uncrippled 4K with an interchangeable lens camera like Fuji, Olympus, Sony and Panasonic.

That's actually segmentation. You wrote it yourself, move up into the expensive cinema lineup. I wouldn't necessarily call those others "uncrippled" as for example, Sony does have a tendency to do some clever tricks to it's 4k image. Take the A7rII. Yes it does 4k but badly unless you use the aps-c crop. Or they dim the screen when using 4k. Sony can be really clever in these but don't think for a second that they just accidentally release new features and then do a "but it won't work correctly until the next model"-stuff. Panasonic and not crippled? The GH4 was worse than the unlocked GH2.

This is just silly. It costs way less to offer the same hardware, then cripple it in software than building different hardware for different price points. You think any business is different? Well graphics cards, the GTX 1070 is basically the same as the GTX 1080 but crippled at the factory (They fuse parts of the GPU for "yield reasons" and of course that customers couldn't unlock them later for free). The Intel lineup of 7900-7980x processors are just basically renamed xeons sold at a lower price and ECC taken out. Etc etc etc.

Some of you guys are acting really weird around this issue like you've never run a business where you offer different services for different price points. The market segmentation happens at the software level. As software companies do too. For example, you buy a plugin (neat video for example) and it costs a different amount depending on are you using the "pro" version or not. It's the same software just "crippled".

1 hour ago, Jadesroom said:

With the RX10iv having a 1" sensor,  how are the dynamic range and the low light capability? In addition, your thoughts on the camera's hlg results.

The dynamic range in stills is about the same as the previous models. In ISO 100 it's pretty good with about 13 stops.

In video it seems to be improved from the RX10ii model but I didn't do any straight comparisons, most of the improvements in the visuals came from better profiles (slog2 / sgamut 3). Lowlight is as shit as any 1" sensor. HLG was not tested. I don't have an HDR monitor and I don't really care about it at the moment. I would assume (??) it's the same as the A7rII/rIII models.

Man this could be a great camera. I've always kinda hated the RX10ii and it's only been used to get 100/250fps shots. The 2 second buffer was always a bit low and the colours were wonky. The RX10iv improves upon those two things. But not much else. Also the manual focus ring of the RX10iv is just horrid. Why can't they make them mechnical instead of electronic? Same with the slow as heck zoom. Just a little bit of improvements and these things would kick ass. Also the ND-filter of the RX10ii has been taken out. Love the new zoom range though. We shot some shots for fun, any questions about the cam and I'll try to answer though I only played with it for a day.

It still features some funny 4k shenanigans (like autofocus is worse in 4k than in hd, digital stabilization that works wonders in hd doesn't work in 4k...)

Regarding the two first videos, one tell tale difference is that the second video (which is more amateur) lets the highlights be at 100. The first video has all the levels of the highlights brought down way under 100 with a custom curve. Use S-LOG 2, it will help you keep those higlights with the a6500.

Same with the shadows. First video avoids clear 0 blacks. Second video doesn't. Get those gamma curves with a more pleasing look, it also applies when grading stills.

Yes, Neat Video is VERY good in going from 8-bit to 16-bit. I've used Neat Image in Photoshop when cleaning up 8-bit jpeg files and it's astonishing how much it can clean them up towards 16-bit stuff, especially shadows. Neat video does some excellent interpolation with bit depths.

And yes, it is CLEARLY doing upscaling in bit depths. Take an 8-bit jpeg, increase the shadows, look at the banding. Now mash that 8-bit file through neat video / neat image in a 16-bit comp / workflow and it will increase those shadows so much more cleanly, it's not even funny.

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

It's your choice. But your logic is questionable - just because there are lousy ("oversaturated, shrill") videos in HDR and really good videos in REC709 that you like does not negate the advantage HDR has over REC709...

It is funny how people try to rationalize not investing in new , better technologies...

I've had a Pioneer Kuro plasma for about 7 years. Rec709 through that thing looks brilliant, especially films. At has dynamic range to spare (not as bright as LCD's but who cares about brightness? Blacks is where it's at)

What would an HDR television bring that does anything better? I have a phone that does HDR, whoopty doo. I'm not changing my Kuro until OLED reaches a good point.

53 minutes ago, Matthew Hartman said:

I'm going to be honest, I actually can't explain it in technical terms. I just know it when I see it. 

Take a face for example. With my NX1, every freaking clogged pore, wrinkle and hair stubble is very detailed and pronounced along with of course the eye area. (Which is excellent) 

But when I see footage from an Alexa, RED, BMD, Canon (cinema) only the eyes are in crisp detail, everything else is somehow smoother or more "weighted". Skin looks thicker and there's generally a sense of more dimension in what the camera resolves. I also notice edges don't suffer from chromatic aberration, or edge fringing. 

That's because the NX1 has a lot of sharpening artifacts. Those cinema cameras do not add sharpening to the shots. It's like using unsharp mask in photoshop. Works great, but it is not a natural look and if it goes too far, it will look weird. A lot of low budget cams do that, phones have HUGE amounts of unsharp masking going on.

On 2/12/2018 at 1:39 PM, IronFilm said:

Sony RX100mk4 / etc  "bad" because it is a bad camera...

The RX10mk2 IS a BAD camera. (Notice I switched to the RX10 but they have the same image/sensor soo...)

And I still own one because of the 2sec 250fps...Tried the RX10mk4 and it improved three things:

1. 4 sec buffer!

2. Better color profiles (rx10mk2 looks like shite)

3. Autofocus.

And one thing that's worse:

An absolutely disgusting manual focus ring. You can't use it. Sometimes it goes from 1inch to infinite with a slight touch (or even not touching), othertimes you have to roll the wheel 4x over.

Looks way better than in your first clip where even the jutter was juttery. That looks like normal 30fps.