hmcindie

On 30/08/2017 at 6:51 PM, NX1user said:

That's too bad... for them. Seriously. I've found, through experience, that clients that lowball like that are also the biggest headaches.

Yup. I've also noticed an interesting pattern where the lowballing clients with the less amount of money demand the most. Then the clients with the actual cash are more easy to work with. Weird.

Thanks, I just noticed that the rx10ii got water damaged too as it won't turn on anymore 8D.

We used yongnyo led lights. YN600 and then a smaller one that gave us a bit of blue light. That's why the rain tends to be on one side of the image as you can't see the water unless it is backlit.

We also did explosions on the ground (bullet hits for the first shots) but they all accidentally blew up at the same time (Risky not?) because the igniter was strolling in water.

We went out to test a DIY rainmachine on top of a tractor. Learned a ton of shit, like backlighting is a must for rain and that the 5d mark III can indeed get waterdamaged (cost me 380 euros to repair it). Also that igniters for explosions can also freak out when they are under water.

On 26/08/2017 at 1:45 AM, noone said:

A7s.

A7s has horrible lighting artifacts with led lights. You can see them here too in the left corner. It kinda is a bummer for otherwise a great lowlight cam (as a lot of low-light venues tend to use those led lights that clip horribly on the a7s)

15 minutes ago, Django said:

high-end cine cams which is pretty niche to start with..

High-end cine cams is what everyone wants!

42 minutes ago, Dunjoye said:

So much undiluted fraff posted in here with regards to canon and mjpeg codec. It makes you wonder if these people have actually used these in real life situations.

It really is weird. I can immediately come up with three really great plusses for the mjpeg codec. Which I've mentioned several times but people just gloss over.

+ Very light compression (no motion artifacts, noise & grain kept intact instead of becoming a blurry mess)

+ 4:2:2

+ It looks great (better than the a7s/r series shitty codec)

+ You don't need an external recorder at all as the codec already gives all the plusses an external recorder would give in for example the a7s. I have a friend who records with the a7sII with an external recorder and it is a hazzle with filesizes as big as the mjpeg files with no real benefits when compared.

The only downside is the filesizes. But that's really the only downside. From that we suddenly go into "Canon is 100x worse than Nikon". Like what in the f? Have people used these cameras at all or just go mad when typing on the internet?

Agreed with cantsin. Who gives a peep about SJW's, Culture Wars or left vs right? It's a complete waste of time.

I don't get it. What is Ed trying to say?

4 hours ago, Shirozina said:

The extent of aliasing depends on how the smaller resolution is interpolated to the larger one. If it looks 'like hell' then it's probably doing a simple pixel multiplier  converting one HD pixel into 4 identical UHD pixels. If interpolated by better methods it can look very smooth with minimal aliasing. Even HD displayed 1:1 on an HD monitor can have horrible aliasing depending on the viewing distance / magnification.

Sure. But people always have that "ooh 4k with my 1080p monitor!" reaction most to videos that have aliasing or are converted down quickly by the youtube player.

21 hours ago, Shirozina said:

1080 on a 4k monitor also looks better than it does on a 1080 monitor.

Which is interesting because usually they alias like hell. That aliasing creates the feeling of "sharpness" eventhough the monitor can't display the 4k.

But if someone made a camera that aliased like that, it would be mauled as shit 8)

You get way more resolution filming in vertically (if doing greenscreen) so if that's what you need, absolutely go for it. We did it in the SD days quite a lot.

Funny thing here is that there really are no blown highlights either. So what is this nasty highlight shit?

Harsh lighting yeah but... nasty highlight roll-off? What in the ffff....

Newer versions should do the indexing faster (indexing and conforming the audio files only happens once, that is when you import them the first time). If your editing a feature film it still might take a while to load every single media asset afterwards. That time is depended on your media drive speeds. But you can just install the CC trial version and give it a test right?

8 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Here are my lessons learned from all green screen shooting I did. This is in order of importance, the higher up the list, the more impact it had on getting a better key.

1. Resolution is more important than bits. I would pretty much choose 4K over any 2K camera for keying, if the key is the most important factor. This goes against much of what I heard around the interweb, but I found it to be true. Think about it, maybe this is why Red is such a popular choice among filmmakers who do tons of green screen - Peter Jackson, David Fincher, etc.

Alexa keys better than Red 5k. Less noise in color channels.

On 19/07/2017 at 10:21 AM, Jimmy said:

Also worth noting that you should set your AE project to 16 bit.... Think 8 bit is default?

Also you need to set ACR to import into 16 bits. A LOT of people keep importing in 8bits which is funny.

7 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Actually, the GH5 has better high ISO performance than 5D ML - about a stop better at least, I would say. I'd hesitate to use 3200 on 5D but have no qualms with using 6400 on GH5.

Any actual tests or screencaptures? I would never hesitate to use 3200 on the 5d raw and have pushed that up several stops too.

5d raw also cleans up very well with neat video, better than h264.

My process for quality:

1. mlvfs -> cinema dng

2. resolve -> editable dnxhd files (sometimes I use these to the end and skip the linking back to the raw files if in a hurry)

3. edit with the dnxhd files

4. online the edit in after effects with ACR to the original raw files (takes a while to link everything as AE wants to link them one by one).

5. effects and grade

6. export a master dnxhd

If I need to do some re-edits or different cuts, I'll send those specific files to AE.

I have this weird memory of the A7s looking better in some aspects (slog had more information, less rs than a6300 in 4k) and worse in others (a7s mark I had this interesting halo/black line effect with strong highlights. I hated that with a passion). A7s was fullframe and that gave it a more interesting look than the a6300.

If I'd have to choose, I'd still use the A7s mark I over the a6300.

Well... GH5 is the easy solution. Everyone and their mother will be carrying one, doing work that looks alike. 5D3 RAW on the other hand is more work. But also more rewarding. It has a look that can't be purchased for cheap. Fullframe raw. What other camera does that?

On 12/07/2017 at 4:27 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Nope, depends on the flavour of ProRes.

ProRes LT for example is considerably smaller than MJPEG 500MBit/s, yet is 10bit 4:2:2. MJPEG is only 8bit!

It's a shit codec. It truly is!

There was a lot of tests done in the HD times where people always recommended NOT using Prores LT. I never did my own tests but always in HD we did use prores hq files. So what happened? In 4k quality doesn't matter anymore? Prores proxy files look like shit and LT is 2x jump from that. Is it enough?

But why are we comparing prores to mjpeg? The other DSLR/Mirrorless cams use 100mbit/s h264 files. Are they enough? If they are then why isn't 150mbit/s enough in the C200? Confusing.

21 hours ago, IronFilm said:

2)

You'll be having to deal with more data than any other non-raw 4K camera

 

Eh? 4k prores is bigger.

On 02/07/2017 at 0:23 PM, gelaxstudio said:

a headphone jack...

I see lots of complaining about headphone jacks. Do people use those? My a6300 doesn't have one and I've never plugged a headphone into one. Even when I'm using an external recorder, I just tend to look at the level monitors instead. But I always see that complaint everywhere, like people actually use them?

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They're not addressing the negative side of Canon's products in the way that I and others expect them to do as reviewers.

I for one am glad that they didn't write 3x blog posts of bashing Canon for not having 4k. Yes it doesn't have 4k. Everyone knows it. How many times can a person write a blog about it not having 4k? 

Also about that "any talented photographer would have switched...". Isn't that the point of the criticism? That people would know that there is an issue and you need to switch to the mechnical shutter?

31 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The article makes no mention of how every single rolling shutter system in the world even an Arri Alexa would struggle under those conditions...

Well to be fair, regular DSLR's do not suffer under those conditions because they use a mechanical shutter. The question is:"Should that banding issue be mentioned in a review or not?" Yes, it absolutely should be mentioned. Any camera that uses an electronic shutter (rolling shutter) will have artifacts with fast strobing lights. That is something that must be mentioned if you want to do a proper review.

EDIT: Jared also did put out the raw files for anyone to take a look at. Would it be better without a clickbaity headline? Who cares?

Freelance- editor here too. Sometimes shooting gigs but I make most of my living from editing. All the stuff I buy is mostly going for my own personal films, if I have shooting gigs then it's usually renting time (except for the occasional no budget music vid).