Chris Santucci
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Chris Santucci
-
-
On 3/26/2016 at 4:07 PM, TomasSunyer said:
Whoever did the test was pointing the camera at a car headlight beam at a really short distance at night on a street that isn't badly exposed with the street lights. Without knowing the ISO and the actual light output from the car is really difficult to judge if the issue appears because the camera is Faulty or as Cris Santucci mentions the camera was at a X thousand percent clip and then the issue appears. Note how the artifact appears in the shape of light only on the parts the light is way more strong.
It's set to 3200 ISO and with lens wide open. Maybe he should try a laser next :-p
-
Because it's completely normal to achieve clipped highlight level X a thousand percent. Yep.
-
2 hours ago, Ian Edward Weir said:
I have a hacked GH2, then I got the GH3 "Lol" and I currently use the GH4. I must say that I'm thinking of jumping ship to Sony. Who wants noisy 6k footage with f4 at Ido 800. I will take an Sony A6300 and have 4K f4 at Iso at 3200 or double that with little to no noise. Thoughts?
I'd rather have the better color and 10 bit color depth. Sony color and skintones especially are less accurate. But if you need to shoot in the dark, Sony is great.
-
My only complaint and this is minor is the omission of a two pin lemo or D tap out in it's non AB/Vmount form
-
-
If you showed an average consumer a picture taken with a $100 kit lens, next to the same picture taken on the same body at the same focal length with a $1200 lens - they may or may not see much difference.
I did a lens comparison a while back between Leica R, Zeiss ZE Primes, Canon L series primes, and 60's/70's era Nikkor primes and there was no difference to my eye between any of them except for a slightly wider dynamic range with Leica. All other optical aspects like sharpness and color were visually identical. That's a pretty wide range in years and lens cost and I would suggest that even the top cinema prime is no more than maybe 5% better optically than any of these I tested.
-
Still waiting for my lens...
-
Oh sure - I choose my words very carefully!
What's interesting is that, and bear in mind ALL these monitors are for professional use and calibrated by people who know what they are doing!
When viewed on a Viewsonic PLS panel with the AG coating removed driven by a Quadro, I really like the original best.
When viewed on a Dell IPS panel with reasonably aggressive AG coating left on driven by a Quadro, the original looks flat, I prefer yours.
When viewed on an ASUS IPS panel with the best AG I have even encountered, driven by a Quadro, I like both equally.
When viewed on a Viewsonic PLS panel with the AG coating removed driven by a Firepro, I really like the original best.
When viewed on a Dell IPS panel with reasonably aggressive AG coating left on driven by a Firepro, the original looks flat, I prefer yours.
When viewed on an ASUS IPS panel with the best AG I have even encountered, driven by a Firepro, I like the original best, the colors on yours look way too much.
When the same monitors were driven by both Geforce/Radeon, the results are the same as above and predictably when viewed on a TN panel, they both look muted.
And on my TV, I prefer the original, but yours matches most programs!
So in conclusion, I think the AG treatment on monitors has a massive effect but mostly it's all in the eye of the beholder!
Interesting...
What does this file look like to you? Are the grays neutral?
-
Ohhh... proof positive that colour is in the eye of the beholder (and their monitor)
Yours, on my monitor and to my eye looks over saturated and like you've put it through a tv's "cinema" mode. I find the original (and I share some peoples concerns about the A7s colour rendering) much more natural, much more pleasing and far less Michael Bay.
But please don't take that as criticism, I'm almost certain if I looked at it on your, doubtlessly scrupulously calibrated monitor (as is mine) I would share your opinion, it's just the difference in rendering and taste.
I never touched saturation just so you know. All I did was remove all that GREEN and add a tad bit of blackness.
ALL the still frames associated with this post look excessively green (and a bit flat) to me. When I download the doggy image and open it in photoshop, the big reflected highlight under the Beagle shows a pronounced amount of green.
And I keep my 32 bit monitor calibrated and do all my (considerable amount of) grading on it.
-
Does anyone else think the color science in this camera is still complete crap? I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.
No offense to the authors, but these still frames are horrendous from the standpoint of color. "Stunning results?" Really?
Here, I fixed the dog image for ya:
-
Still waiting for my dog shit lens <_<
-
Funny how *sharpness* elicits oohs and aahs from certain people who then put 40 or 50 year old (sometimes uncoated) lenses on these cameras.
Nobody wants to see ultra sharp footage of people's faces, especially when the skin tones are produced by a GH series camera.
- Shield3 and themartist
-
2
-
Wow, people are still whining about stills cameras that have added video functions? And an 800 dollar model at that!?!?!
What's next? A scathing critique of a Flip UltraHD camera?
-
How is all this 4K going to be delivered? Mostly on tablets and smart phones, right? And laptops? And 20 something inch monitors?
-
Facepalm award goes to JVC this year.
-
Are you saying that you are having trouble or limitations with dynamic range?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Photoshop indicates the raw file is 8 bit, but I opened it in another program and it indicates it's actually 14 bit.
-
As of today, I have a MK3 that records raw as far as I can tell. Photoshop indicates the DNG files are 8bit, but they sure don't act like 8bit image files. Anyone else seeing this?
-
Well - my thinking is... They're a small company, small team of 5 people. To do the kind of quantities a low price point would have necessitated wouldn't be possible. Sorry but that is the way it is. Better to provide it first of all in small quantities to pros - and they are certainly willing to pay for such a thing.
I hope - really hope - they will grow significantly and in a year to 2 years be offering price competitive devices, as the market is sure to flood with similar things for cheaper very soon.
In a related note - How did the steadicam builders miss this? Have they been ignoring the quadrocopter scene altogether? Strange.
What does the size of the company have to do with anything? Are they manufacturing and assembling the things themselves?
At the $7.5 and $15K prices, this is a rental item for most people. As mentioned, those who could afford to buy this, could afford to hire Steadicam or Technocrane, and this then becomes a specialty item for use in creating only select shots (and hence - rental item).
The big issue is, this thing is only really functional with a lightweight camera and lens which rules out digital cinema camera.
And what of remote follow focus? Video transmitter? Cine lens? All adding weight which then makes any form of long term operation difficult.
-
-
Meh.
Anyone can still buy the amazing and affordable Canon T series and MKIII and whatever else.
If you can't afford cine grade gear, then you can't afford it. Does Canon somehow owe all those who decided to shoot films on the MKII and 7D?
I don't think so. Are they supposed to sell cine grade gear at a loss? I briefly considered the C500, and then realized the Scarlet-X was a far better deal and Red a far better camera company.
I love the MKII and shoot commercial work on it every week, but I won't touch Canon's cine gear in part because I don't need it and because I can't afford it. I'd rather upgrade to the Dragon sensor Epic when the time comes for what? 20 grand?
Sorry, but there's no point to a plastic C500 for almost $30K (including the external recording device) when the new Epic will record about (or almost) 20 stops of range at 5K with ALL that color depth - in camera, for about the same amount of dough or less. -
Comparing two cameras that have a $10K price difference? OK...
-
You can't compare the ludicrousness of a 2.3 crop factor with the C300. Sorry, you just can't.
-
Bow to the flare.
-
Oh look, it's [i]another[/i] anamorphic lens test!
GH5 Prototype
In: Cameras
Posted
Not really. The user buttons on the smaller GH4 are much easier to depress accidentally than with 5D, especially with the thumb while normally gripping the camera.