Jump to content

Axel

Members
  • Content Count

    1,900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Axel

  1. 7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    I find Gimbal shots really sort of boring as hell. That flying look is hokey as heck for extended times.They are too good in a sense.

    You are right. 

    A gimbal is just one tool among others to make shots stable. Particularly if the operator tries to show off, it gets boring. 

  2. Well, it should be called a gimbal zoom then, shouldn't it. As John Hess knows, there are different names:

     

    Since the first use of the effect, in Vertigo, was achieved by foreground, center (not moving) and background layers of the staircase with a multiplane camera and so strictly speaking was neither a travelling nor a zoom, I find it appropriate to use that name, Vertigo.

  3. Vertigo zoom of course (as they say in the video). Brandon Li uses it a lot in Hong Kong Strong, only there he zooms out digitally, resizing a UHD image to 1080. You *could* name the rotation around the zero anchor point (around 1'20") a 2001 shot ...

  4. 2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

    Does anyone know if the BM box is upgradable?

    Yes, it isn't:

    Quote

    Can I upgrade the GPU chip in the Blackmagic eGPU?
    No, the design has been optimized for quiet operation so it’s better suited for creative customers. This means the design is not a simple chassis with a PCIe card plugged in, but an integrated electronics, mechanical and cooling design that cannot have the GPU chip upgraded or changed.

    As for the performance of the eGPU with Resolve, no guess work is needed:

    Quote

    What is the GPU used in the Blackmagic eGPU?
    The Blackmagic eGPU is built around a Radeon Pro 580 GPU which is the GPU found in the high end 2017 model of 27 inch iMac.

    ... and Resolve performs as good (and in some respect even better!) as FCP X on those iMacs.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that for GPU performance, the said eGPU doesn't need a *new* MBP:

    Quote

    Does the Blackmagic eGPU work with all macOS computers?
    The Blackmagic eGPU will work with all Thunderbolt 3 based Apple computers that are running macOS 10.13.5 or later. This includes MacBook Pro computers from the 2016 model year and later, 2017 iMac and iMac Pro.

    10 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

    Wonder if Apple will sell the new BMPCC like they did/do the Raven... 

    That Apple and BM are still busy with such joint ventures may be a good thing insofar as in my very humble opinion ProRes Raw could substitute CDNG on the long run. Got FCP and Resolve both on your computer? Then you can download snippets of both from here.

    Grant Petty argued that they could get DNG data rates down through compression to almost match those of PRR. Be it as it may, they won't be able to achieve the same performance with that. So it's possible that at Christmas time, when relevant numbers of BMPCC4ks are being shipped, they will have the PRR firmware ...

  5. On 7/4/2018 at 2:12 AM, kye said:

    Bokeh (blurry backgrounds) is trendy right now, but it also has roots in how we see, so it helps to add depth to an otherwise flat medium.

    Bokeh actually is a rather esoteric term because it doesn't mean blur, but the aesthetic quality of the blur. In the same way bouquet does not mean stinky wine. That's why there are so many criteria to judge the bokeh of a lens.

    It had been a trend for long, but it's nothing special anymore.

    Last but not least, why is it a flat medium? There are other factors to make us feel depth:

    fc320637527bb04462403d1c09c6e229_950x600

    On 7/4/2018 at 2:25 AM, webrunner5 said:

    Now some isolation sure that works, but total out of focus blurs, nah I'll pass. We don't see that kind of stuff in real life unless our eyes are watering or something that is so far away we can't focus on it like headlights in the far distance. And even that is distracting more than pleasing.

    We don't *see* it in real life, but something very similar happens. Apart from the fact that our vision has a permanent vignette at the borders, we only see the momentary object of interest really sharp and clear, even if the other objects/persons are optically in focus. If you want to focus on something/someone, it's therefore justified (if also often crude) to throw the background oof.

  6. 6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    According to Ken Rockwell we Do see grain in our eyes if he is to be believed. We probably do.

    https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-we-see.htm

    I entertain myself with niceties of visual perception ever since. It all comes down to what german poet Goethe concluded:

    Quote

    If the eye were not sun-like,
    How could we ever see the sun?

    (clumsy translation)

    He had written on perception of colors early on, and we are talking about the 18th century! As William Gladstone proved later on, we may all *see* the same things, but we take completely different things *for real*. His finding: if you don't have a word for blue, you can't (yes: canNOT) distinguish blue from green. The sky turned blue the instance the color could be artificially reproduced, and the sky and lapis lazuli were no longer the only blue things in the world ("blue" flowers are always light or dark purple, and they are described as such in earlier times).

    So the least we can say is that our perception is way more flexible than we are aware of. But what is still questionable is whether or not ISO grain does convincingly look like scotopic vision. The answer is, it can. Everything that signals a purpose, an intention, a calculated effect, and be it drastically distorted and stylized, will trigger the suspension of disbelief. On the contrary, if an image surrounded us 360°, had 20k resolution, 200fps and 30 stops of DR, we would be smart enough to find it reality-like, but ultimately unreal.

  7. @BenEricson

    Sigh. That's analog to having wine served from bottles with cork instead of Tetra Paks.

    I told one story already. We had a very worn print of Time Of The Gypsies in the cinema where I was projectionist. A thick layer of scratches, rumble in the (analog) audio, hundreds of splices. It was a morning performance for two school classes, kids of fourteen, fifteen. I was certain, they wouldn't stand it. Much to my surprise, they were deeply immersed. Their faces were red, their eyes shone when they gathered in the foyer afterwards. Sure, it's an unbelievably good film, but I think the presence of he medium added, well, something. 

    Did you read Flicker

  8. 21 hours ago, kye said:

    My understanding was that trends in fashion and music are often working in 20 year cycles. 

    (...)

    I have no idea about how it works in film, but it may be similar.  In a sense 20 years is about a generation, so it might be linked to that?

    Like we saw in the thread/video F*** the numbers!, a film from the 50s or 60s could top 8k RED footage with ease, quality-wise. But that's only because analog film is still seen as the superior medium. Digital is limited in unexpected ways, heavy compression being the worst. Apart from that, it's quite impressive how far we came within one decade. A 35mm mass print, projected with the average projector to the average (white) screen, showed comparatively poor quality, resolution 1k, around 4 stops dynamic range, many charming artifacts added like dust and scratches.

    With digital HDR and HFR and of course ever higher resolution, the image quality could be far superior to analog film. But it might take another generation before 24p die, and the reasons for that are not *just* nostalgia.

  9. I absolutely hate my test shots. If there is an idea, a purpose, a plan behind what I'm doing, then it also is much better in every way. My cats also hate my test shots. 

    Testing AF, exposure and gimbal skills with a one-shot. On the TV runs a loop of the intro of Rear Window. I make a long travelling shot over items I arranged in my living room (like in the film), then finally I pan over to the window front, where I have almost the same backyard theater. It's much brighter outside (aperture/ND transition). Need to find he right speed so that vertical edges don't stutter @24p. Need to program AF and see how it reacts. 

    Also: weddings!

  10. 18 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

    Well... there is a cheap 19mm Sigma f/2.8 (don't know how good the AF is in video mode though)

    ...

    The sigma 19mm f/2.8 should be pretty sharp if it is anything at all like the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 and the sigma 60mm f/2.8, which are some of the sharpest budget lenses around for Sony e Mount.

    I'm going to sell the Sigma 19mm. Sharpness and overall look is top notch, really on par with Sigma 18-35 Art (at least @f5.6), and that means a lot! But it has two and a half shortcomings:

    1. Bad manual focus ring (fly-by-wire, slippery)

    2. Very fast, completely quiet AF, but, and that's the main problem, it breaths or hunts: background permanently and annoyingly focusses and defocusses, no matter the aperture, no matter the AF setting. Does so not all the time, but you won't notice the behavior on the display. 

    2½. Too short and lightweight to balance properly on Zhiyun Crane V1 without additional base plate.

  11. The 18-105 would be *the* perfect lens, spec-wise. If it didn't have that kit-lens-look. With OIS and an additional monopod, it's indispensable @105 mm. Also good for gimbal work, because it doesn't protrude. 

    2 hours ago, Dustin said:

    Settling on the 35mm 1.8 OSS Sony and a Lens Adapter for my two Nikon Primes. Should be a fun next couple of weeks!

    Good starting point. I have the Sigma 16mm f1.4 only since a month or so now. Never would want to go any wider (24mm FF equivalent), that's nailing down this side of the spectrum.

    1 hour ago, Dustin said:

    ... but we’ll see how well I like manual land now that I have some ibis!

    Manual focussing is perfectly possible with EVF (and not so much with shitty display), but it definitely is more precise and more fun with an external monitor. Just practise and see how good you are. May I suggest a "rig"?

    See attachment. Made of these parts, all Amazon:

    41GjxyCIfSL.jpg

    Didn't find this on Amazon.com. On Amazon.de it's called Nicna universal bracket and costs €8,99.

    The Arri-rosette and the grip both are Smallrig products (the brand name fits, since I want to "reduce to the maximum"). That particular grip is also not available internationally, it seems, but imo you don't need all those mounting points, and the Camvate grip is 10 bucks cheaper anyway.

     

    That cable is USB to microUSB. Like I wrote, I feed the camera with an external powerbank on my belt the whole day, and then it's still charged. The little cut-out on the "base plate" is for the cable of a dummy battery. 

     

    RIG.jpg

  12. Sorry, I had to make this reference ...

    Here are three scenarios, you decide how far-fetched you find them:

    1. Just another app in the portfolio. 

    It's true. If you are a CC subscriber, you frequently see new little applications come and go. Edit on mobile devices. Why, not bad, is it? Did you hear her say "take it further into Premiere Pro"? You could qualify, organize in the field. Not bad, is it? Probably an app that's going to stay.

    2. Premiere is EOL.

    With it's ancient source code, it had become ever harder to optimize PP for modern hardware and modern requirements. Also the stuffed and stuffy GUI looks outmoded, despite brave attempts to make it up with "dark mode". But what to replace it with? That's risky, Adobe has learnt that from Apples FCP X inauguration disaster. So they start as a modest little add-on, with the typical Adobe PR understatement ("if a big NLE is too intimidating"). Because this app is so streamlined, it will have stellar performance and stability. Indeed, the faster and more responsive Rush turns out to be from the start, the more you can bet that this second scenario is true. Allegedly they have put Lumetri into Rush. The limitation to four tracks on the one hand (a deception, also perhaps they subsequently cut them down until no tracks remain, see point three), the crown jewel in the glove department on the other hand. WTF! Adobe watches anxiously how it is received and then - lets PP die in dignity.

    3. FCP X is EOL

    At WWDC, Adobe was mentioned several times, FCP not once. FCP (you buy it once and for all) has reached market saturation and doesn't generate more money. Also it may be fast approaching the state of rigor mortis Premiere is currently in, in that it's bloating with new features. But clients must have a reason to buy Apple hardware. So this could be a revival of the very old times, when Apple and Adobe worked together to have that synergetic effect: pricey (no longer overpriced) elitist software on specialized, highend hardware. The design similarities of Rush with iMovie are just too obvious. Perhaps it's a joint venture?

  13. Wedding? Just did one with A6500, bunch of fast lenses and Zhiyun Crane ("V1"). No additional light needed. Even not in frigging candlelight! Weight, size, good AF, IBIS (therefore not A6300) and good lowlight make me think: well, would do this again. Get yourself a dummy battery and connect it to a powerbank (Intenso S10000 costs some 15 €, has the size of a smartphone and therefore fits perfectly into a belt clip holster, easily lasts a whole day). Main problem - at least if you are a one-man-band - is audio. Not even an earphone jack ...

  14. 3 hours ago, mercer said:

    Totally off topic, but how do you like full frame? 

     

    3 hours ago, jonpais said:

    Loving it, but most of all, reliable AF-C. sry for the off-topic...

    Oh, jonpais, you've got the A7iii? Welcome onboard the Sony boat! 

    44 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

    This BM might not even be clunky. We don't know yet. But for other than run n gun, and it may do that, this thing is maybe unbeatable for us money wise. I guess we will soon find out. I think we are going to be blowen away by the 4K Raw footage out of it.

    Maybe, but then not because of better resolution than what we already have with our normal hybrids. Just compared a wedding video I shot two weeks ago with A6500 with a four year old I had then shot with BM Pocket - on a UHD TV, from a very short viewing distance. Negligible visible differences of resolution  between "HD minus 20%" - the Pocket has 1920 by 1080 pixels on it's sensor, un-debayered - and "6k downsampled to UHD". 

    How is that? Well, Yedlin was obviously right. The display resolution is of more importance than that of the camera and FullHD is the threshold. The BMPCC 4k also has just 4k pixels (the additional pixels for the wider AR can't be used for debayering).

    Decided I had to go back to the computer and finetune the colors, because in comparison *some* Sony shots looked like "video", colorwise.

    Not all though. And here is the interesting part. I had used GFilm as picture profile. And I'm glad I did. The A6500 may have it's shortcomings (more so if you compare it - on paper - to the Pocket 4k's specs), but it also has undeniable virtues (small size, low weight, good lowlight and AF), the most important one being that I already own it and a combo of good glass.

    Sony cameras are vloggers' choices. They don't care if their stuff looks like video. No one yet showed me a Youtube link to a Sony video to disprove that. But there will be a *few* Pocket clips to show such elusive qualities as better cadence or beautiful skintones. Few, because at least the skintones need the ability of the user-colorist to let them survive.

  15. 5 hours ago, Turboguard said:

    ... but last night when I was watching footage, the “robotic” feel did put me off a bit. But that might also be the result of someone not knowing how to use it correctly, no?

    One part is to set up a natural behavior. This EOSHD member explains it for the Zhiyun (and why you would want to choose different settings):

    The second factor is the speed of pans and tilts. Too fast, and they will stop too abruptly. Not sure how this is prevented with the Ronin S. Must be a very sophisticated algorithm, ease-in, ease-out, with powerful motors.

  16. 10 hours ago, Axel said:

    To say that those Pana/Oly system lenses with very soft fly-by-wire focus (usually ideal for fast and quiet AF) are 'suboptimal' is way too weak. They're completely useless here.

    8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    You guys are funny as hell.  I doubt ANYBODY has even made anything worth a shit with a 14.-140mm or the kit lens. Oh the vanity to throw tons of peoples stuff under the bus  LoL. I did BIF stuff for years photography wise and video wise, and gee, they seemed to work fairly well doing it. Super duper ideal, no, but crap lenses nah.

     

    5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    I know this video is Terrible for movement, my son's first ever use of a video camera I guess, but he is using my 14-140mm on my G7. I think it is plenty sharp enough and the focus is pretty damn good.

    https://vimeo.com/273507992

    You got me wrong. I didn't say the lenses were soft. Or 'crap'. One of my favorite lenses for my A6500 is the Sony 18-105. Mostly for practical reasons. But you can't for the love of god focus manually, because there are no 'positions', and if you try to rehearse a focus transition, the focus ring will just slip under your fingers. Even infinity is infinitely pushed away from you. That's what I meant with "completely useless there" (= on a 4k Pocket). And your son's clip proves little, because it's done with such a narrow aperture, it's almost fixed focus.

    Also, of the category I was referring to I only know Pan 14-40 kit lens, Oly 9-18 and Oly 12. There may be better lenses. On the official Pocket site BM shows the camera mostly with the Oly 12-40 f2.8, and according to this review, the manual focus is very useable:

    1 hour ago, SR said:

    Why couldn't you change the aperture?

     

     

     

    1 hour ago, Parker said:

    Because I primarily shoot on Samsung NX cameras with dumb adapters, so no electronic control of the aperture is possible. Originally I was hoping to get a Nikon version of the Tokina, which has the physical aperture wheel present on the lens,  unlike the EF version, which is electronic only. 

    You might take a look at the Viltrox speedbooster, which seems to have a manual aperture control for the EF lenses (video timed):

     

  17. The following comes from a guy using FCP X, but don't worry, I won't try to baptize you ?

    First thing you have to do, of course, is to manage your media. JBOD is very risky. I have a raid5 TB, and recently one of four disks died. Easy enough to replace this, but what if the whole controller died? Go with JBOD, but provide redundancy, in short: a complete backup, elsewhere. Never ever run out of disk space!

    3 hours ago, User said:

    The project file now has around 18,000 files (LongGop, H.264, ProRes etc.) associated to it and there are a great deal of sequences that I've been building up over the years.

    Sounds wrong, is wrong. You should better split the project. Has nothing to do with performance or launch time. There is a threshold beyond which you simply invite disaster. A project of this size can't be managed. And with it going over several versions of the NLE ...

    3 hours ago, User said:

    Recently I've heard that Premiere Pro 2018 has the ability to open multiple projects at once. So with this, I've been imagining breaking the main big project in (6-7) smaller projects that just include one character as a way to continue.

    Good idea. However, Premiere may be less dependent on a specific OS, but I doubt very much that Premiere 2018 will run on prehistoric Mountain Lion. If it can be installed in the first place, it will probably creep.

    That said, there almost certainly is a way to split your project with your old OSX and PP version. Like, saving as, deleting all edits not used for the part you want to create and consolidating it with copying to an external disk. Or so.

    There may also be third party software to manage the project. 

    3 hours ago, User said:

    But can anyone here comment on an approach that they are using that is working well in editing a massive long form project on Premiere?

    It's all about instant and continuous access to databases. Have your media in compact bundles, separated from caches, render files and project files. Limit the number of files Premiere has to access all at once to a few hundred. Remember, Premiere only has to open the folder(s) that contain(s) material for the current sequence. Close the timelines not in use. Split episodes to scenes (=sequences, rarely longer than 10 minutes). But even if for a short timeline Premiere has to open 8 folders containing 4000 clips, you are asking for trouble.

  18. 1 hour ago, Turboguard said:

    I’ve never owned or used a gimbal. Always shot handheld or stationed. This is kind of in my price point, and my bday is coming up, so should I put in an order? But I own some Sigma Art lenses and they’re heavy and long, so worried it might not work? What do you guys think, and what are your tips for someone interested in getting his first gimbal?

    Long and heavy lenses are notoriously harder to balance, no matter the gimbals' maximum payload. If you choose a one-hand-gimbal, you might want to keep it lighter, if possible.  Follow my (very personal, wedding videographer owning Ronin M and Zhiyun Crane) reasoning or find your own arguments:

    1. The angled roll-motor of the Ronin S doesn't obstruct the cameras' display. Now it seems that this lets you forgo an additional external monitor. But does it? Depends on whether you just need to frame the image - and that's possible even with the considerably lighter Moza or Zhiyun with the motor in front of the screen - or, other story, if you need to focus manually. Because you have no or a poor autofocus. In this case, most camera displays won't be sufficient anyway. Probably. And you needed a free hand (one-hand-gimbal literally) or someone else to pull the focus (watch the promotion video). Heavy gimbal, heavy lens, field monitor, follow focus add up to a total weight not suitable for longer shots and longer shoots.

    2. What is it that you expect from gimbal shots? Majestic crane moves or buttery smooth dolly shots through empty architecture? These are possible even with heavier setups (because they run just seconds), but they require more or less the same skills a steadicam operator must have, hashtag ninja walk. Also be aware that the Ronin S also stabilizes just three axis, and that there are more:

    (these flexible arms can also be added to existing gimbals, see here).

    3. But there is another purpose. You can follow a person. If you consider yourself a good handheld operator, you won't need to practice an awful lot with a good gimbal, set up well (see next point). There are roughly two scenarios for a wedding: shooting static telephoto images with very long lenses, from a tripod or handheld with IBIS and OIS, and do the rest (we are talking *hours*, therefore you will learn to hate every unnecessary ounce!) with the gimbal and 24-35 mm full frame equivalent focal lengths. 50% of all footage you see in films and TV shows fall into that latter category.

    4. Well set up means the gimbal will ignore little shakes (I think that's called dead zone) and smooth out your big, intentional moves. As of now, there is a limit to the speed of pans and tilts, because if you move too fast, the gimbal will of course follow, but the movement will look robotic (because that's what it is). The Ronin S advertises a 'sports mode', and again, watch the official promo:

    I think this feature is the most outstanding one of this gimbal. But one has to be aware how it should be used. Shooting a staged breakdance? Fine. Documentary style (like a wedding)? I'm afraid then it was too heavy.

     

  19. 12 hours ago, DanielVranic said:

    In my usual controlled environments, I do not experience it at all. However, in these run-and-gun situations and LED-lit scenarios, this camera has been falling apart.

    This problem can be addressed. The flicker of LED can be avoided with changing the shutter speed. 

    12 hours ago, DanielVranic said:

    Except in the low light environments of the clubs and venues have made the aliasing of the camera EXTREMELY apparent...

    Poor lowlight has not so much to do with bit depth than it has to do with noise and compression. As it seems (judging from the test and demo clips on YT), the GH5S really has an advantage there. But the Sony shouldn't be too bad. Minimize noise, choose the right profile and the right iso (you can't do much about the compression factor), most importantly: mount a fast lens!

     

  20. I agree with JB's "move on".

    But just one - hopefully last - remark. Frank Glencairn never used the term "sissy", not even "whiner". I know him well from the german slashCAM forum. He never uses questionable language, but he likes to provoke others with what I'd call an old hand's attitude. His article starts with:

    Quote

    Okay, I probably gonna get some flak for this, since this is more an opinion piece, than the usual tec-talk, so keep this in mind, when you break out your flame throwers. 

    You don't need a grade in psychology (which I almost made) to very quickly find out that he is actually asking to be challenged and that his often slightly, but unmistakably condescending tone is meant to hurt.

    Whom? The con- and prosumers that are not up to his professional ethics and complain about missing features (among others, but that'd take too long).

    If you read between the lines, he says: A *real pro* needs no AF or IBIS. jonpais must have felt that JBs comments said something similar. 

    Now how did he come from feeling insulted as an amateur to being dismissed as "sissy" (if we accept the sexist meaning)? I think that's a rather easy transition. Video gadgetry is "a man's toy" (please don't quote me for that, it's not my opinion, I just try to nail down the underlying emotions), and not being a "real pro" is equal to not being a "real man". Rather blatantly irrational, if you ask me, but it's the reason why so many hobbyists insist on using pro NLEs - to which Frank Glencairn often wrote, you can make the same edit decisions (that's your professional or creative part) in Windows Movie Maker or iMovie, I appreciate his views. 

    Let's move on.

  21. jonpais paraphrased Frank Glencairn, who in spirit (if not literally) wrote that battery whiners were sissies. Did he intend to insult gays? Well, english is not my native language, but to me "sissy" sounds more like "pantywaist". Frank is living in Bavaria, a country that's not famous for diplomacy or political correctness or much respect for "snowflakes". 

×
×
  • Create New...