sfrancis928

1080p30? That is hilarious. Let the mass Canon video exodus continue.

What a horribly executed announcement. Why have a guy who barely speaks English do an English announcement??? Sony need to get some more lively presenters.

  I guess we're kind of just down to semantics now, but really, any fictional story is open to interpretation. Not all fictional stories are allegory though. It would be a WWII allegory if the author meant for it to be interpreted that way, but he didn't. Of course that's not to say his views and life experiences didn't influence his storytelling.

Also, just so you know, LOTR was not an allegory tale. Tolkien made that very clear in interviews.   http://youtu.be/acqOGX62gys  

Just watched it in 2D. It made a HUGE difference. I wasn't so sure about it after seeing it in 3D, but in 2D, I loved it. I think if you've only seen it in 3D, you should give it a shot in 2D.

I wouldn't be quite that hard on the movie itself, but I do agree the 3D is a much bigger concern than the frame rate. I'm seeing it in 2D 24p tonight. I also think they didn't get the shutter speed right. I really don't think it was the frame rate.

Sony's a99 product page: "[color=#333333][font=arial][size=3][background=rgb(238, 238, 238)]The a99 gives you the ability to record Full HD 1080 video at a spectrum of professional frame rates, including 60p, 60i and 24p. Plus, you can output uncompressed, clean-screen 60p/60i video files via HDMI to external recording devices[/background][/size][/font][/color][url="http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666485827"][sup]1[/sup][/url][color=#333333][font=arial][size=3][background=rgb(238, 238, 238)]."[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='QuickHitRecord' timestamp='1347420384' post='17800'] Impressive. But what happened to in-body stabilization? [/quote] The a99 has it. It's in the specs on Sony's a99 product page.

Not much in the "full" specs about video...

[quote name='tttulio' timestamp='1344538967' post='15221'] a FS100 in a NEX body would be awesome. Bring on the NEX100. [/quote] Well, the FS100[i] [/i][i]has [/i]an NEX body... It's called the NEX-FS100...

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1344533565' post='15215'] On the other hand, it seems quite likely Sony will come with a fullframe NEX (mirrorless) in the near future. [/quote] I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, all of Sony's E-Mount lenses are APS-C only. I was watching a presentation on the NEX camera line and when asked about a full frame NEX the Sony official said there were currently no plans to make one, and he thought it was unlikely, mainly because the main point of those cameras is the compact design, and a huge full frame sensor would not really make sense. It's a shame, but we're probably stuck dealing with the Alpha Mount for full frame cameras from Sony.

I'm not saying we shouldn't acknowledge movies like Citizen Kane as some of the greatest achievements in filmmaking history. I'm just saying that as time goes on, we improve based on what we've learned from history's examples. We're just better at making films these days, and that comes from both technology and what we've learned from historic films like Kane. I'm all for a list that celebrates historically great films. It's just that the bar naturally rises over time, and that's a good thing. Maybe it'll top off someday, kinda like novel writing. But we are still learning the secrets of the craft, and the technology continues to improve, so we haven't reached that point yet.

[quote name='Anil Rao' timestamp='1343967683' post='14900'] These films were made by artisans who did not rely upon magic bullet or any other app or plug in or cgi, to achieve such greatness, that's what makes them so evocative for me. Without the digital tools of today or such easy editing applications to pick and choose from what magnitude could be reached by most people, very little. [/quote] I definitely agree and acknowledge the tremendous achievements of these films. But that's exactly why I say this list is really more of a "Greatest Films At Their Time", or maybe "Greatest Accomplishments in [i]Filmmaking[/i] Of All Time" list. It isn't intended for the viewer of a film to think about how difficult or innovative it was for the filmmakers, or how easy it is for everyone to do now. The viewer should be immersed in the film and in what is going on in the story. So in judging the true greatest films of all time, I think all the considerations of how difficult or innovative they were should go out the window. But that's just how I see it.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1343933737' post='14867'] It's not that these movies arn't all great, but a lot of them are difficult to apreciate once you have seen what's come after. Movies like Citizen Kane and 2001 were extremely innovative, but if you watch them out of context they are really sort of meh(for lack of a better word). [/quote] Agreed. It's more like a "Best Films Of All Time At Their Time" list.

I have the NEX-5N. I've had zero issues just importing the native AVCHD files, opening the scopes and grading the highlights down. So I'm gonna just keep doing that. It's simple and easy and it works.

I think I figured it out in FCPX. I just used the built-in color corrector. The exposure levels in FCPX aren't numbered 0-255, they're percentages (0-100). So I figure bringing it up by 15/255 at the low end equates to 5.88%, so bring the blacks up by 6%. The high end is to be lowered by 20/255, which equates to 7.84%, so bring the highlights down by 8%. The resultant waveform looked similar to the waveform of the footage transcoded in 5DtoRGB. Not exact, but pretty much the same. And a slight difference in saturation, like Andrew said earlier. The graded down footage it a bit more saturated. [b]But someone please tell me if I'm wrong in my theory, like if the FCPX color corrector works in a different way or something. I'm not an expert. But the scopes seem to agree, for me at least.[/b]

I knew all the footage needed was grading down, but it's good to know there's a precise calculated fix for this. Is there an effect in FCPX that can do this, 3rd party or built-in? Does anyone know?

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342866338' post='14226'] Tell me one digitally shot film that looks as good as Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, The Tree Of Life?. [/quote] Uh, film had been around for many many decades before those films were made. Good digital hasn't been around for long, and it's still getting better. I'm sure time (and not much of it) will give us digital films that (subjectively) match the beauty of those films. [quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342866338' post='14226'] Too much resolution! The sets start to look like sets, made out of cardboard. [/quote] Time has a way of fixing these things. Sets and visuals like that will be made to look more realistic as they are needed to. Things like that just work themselves out.

If you want to conform 60p to 24p should you keep your shutter speed close to 48? Or should you still set it to around 120?

[quote author=ipcmlr link=topic=853.msg6169#msg6169 date=1339901892] I'm guessing gh2 is camera B! [/quote] Haha really? I wouldn't bet on it!

Exactly what I was thinking. Thanks yellow!

[quote author=yellow link=topic=726.msg5596#msg5596 date=1337813085] I'm not familiar with 'Unwrap', could you explain a little? What waveform did you see for the original MTS if you don't mind. [/quote] As I understand it, .MTS files are H.264 files that are "wrapped" in an AVCHD sort of "shell". FCP X cannot edit .MTS files natively, unlike Premiere. It has to "unwrap" the AVCHD shell and convert them into .mov files. The program does this on import from the camera. It's not transcoding, and it shouldn't have any effect on the video. That's why I didn't have a waveform of the .MTS file, because I can't open it in FCP X. But I looked at the waveform of the original file in Premiere and it was the same as the unwrapped FCP X version, as I expected.

And I just got the same results in Premiere Pro using the original .MTS file.

[quote author=yellow link=topic=726.msg5584#msg5584 date=1337776815] Could you make your NEX original MTS, 5DToRGB and UnWrap versions available to download? [/quote] Yep: Original .MTS: [url=http://files.me.com/sfrancis928/iq8kxk]files.me.com/sfrancis928/iq8kxk[/url] FCP Unwrap: [url=http://files.me.com/sfrancis928/vsitcv.mov]files.me.com/sfrancis928/vsitcv.mov[/url] 5DtoRGB Lite Transcode: [url=http://files.me.com/sfrancis928/k6vvgw.mov]files.me.com/sfrancis928/k6vvgw.mov[/url] Also here are the waveform scopes of the footage: FCP Unwrap w/o correction: [img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7087/7257042324_d8d935a04a_z.jpg[/img] 5DtoRGB w/o correction: [img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7090/7257042492_ec0a2e50bf_z.jpg[/img] Looks to me like the 5DtoRGB transcode has all the same information, just squashed.

Interesting, I tested this out with my NEX-5N footage and though it at first seems like transcoding with 5DtoRGB brings out more highlight and shadow detail, I've found that you can bring out the same detail just by flattening out the original footage in color correction. I imported the original footage and the transcoded 5DtoRGB footage into FCP X, then I brought the highlights down and the shadows up on the original, trying to match the 5DtoRGB footage (not perfect, but pretty close). I think it worked out pretty well. For instance, before correction, no detail of the upper light bulb could even be distinguished, but the information was all still there. I just had to lower the highlights. Same with the shadow detail in the bottom right of the frame. I just raised the blacks and the detail came back. [img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8001/7254628168_903945fd48_b.jpg[/img] So it seems to me that 5DtoRGB is just flattening the image for you, when you could really do it yourself in post and save a lot of hard drive space. Or am I wrong about this? I'm no professional, just a hobbyist, so if I'm wrong please correct me.