Jump to content

SlimsMcKenzie

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About SlimsMcKenzie

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I think the important distinction is the 3D, on 2D I wouldn't bother with 48p, it detracts an aspect of the 'cinematic' look without much benefit, but in 3D 48p or 60p is really the way forward for a smooth 3D image,  24p is not ideal in 3D film making and in this sense I absolutely agree with Cameron.
  2. It's just a question of people getting used to it. 3D 48p is a different look, it's literally more lifelike and the real world doesn't move at 24p in 2D. I have a 3D DLP HD projector at home and sometimes watch films with the projector interpolating frames into the image to become a  faux 3D 48p or 60p, and yes it is different, no doubt, but is it worse? Not at all! In fact films look amazing in terms of the detail and the clarity. I watch Tron or Avatar this way and it looks just seems so life-like, but it's a more of an artificial reality that plays out in front of you than traditional 2D 24p cinema so some people will find that sort of paradigm shift jarring. Does it destroy the narrative? Of course not, it's just different, it's more immersive. If the sets look fake on the Hobbit, then that's a failure of the set design, the rest is just a case of people getting used to new technology which they usually need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the water on.
  3. Resolution is not the be all and end all, but it's also an exaggeration to say it's not important at all. I think 4K is the standard we will probably settle on for a while, because it's more or less the resolution of actual film (even if a lot of film end up being produced and projected at lower res). Whilst you can get away with lower resolutions in a cinema e.g. Star Wars, Public Enemies etc, some people do pick up on it and certainly I notice it myself, films like Episode 2 of Star Wars looked awful quite frankly. This is all also ignoring the fact though that if you are getting 4K worth of material you can pick and choose your 2K or 1080p shot within that, which is certainly handy in getting a nice composition or in removing shakiness etc, a bit of leeway never hurt.
  4. I only see the BM and FS700 as viable contenders. Canon have lost the plot IMO. The 5D mk3 is a huge disappointment and it's clear BM are targeting Mk2 owners with the BMC, and fair play to them since if Canon won't cannibalise their own market, then Canon's competitors will. 15k for the 1, no thanks, and who wants a C300 when you can get a FS700 for less. RED never seem to get their act together so I've discounted them, plus I just don't like their whole dismissive attitude to the little guys and never have. Panasonic seem slow to respond going off the affection they still seem to have for the AF100 but who knows, hopefully they can bring something competitive to the table, but ultimately I see Sony and BMC in the lead here, still things can change quickly;)
  5. This is a very good question, as I to have wondered about BM vs the FS700, the s35 sensor, the 4K (granted yet to be fleshed out) and the slow mo on the FS700 are a big deal to me, as I like to shoot a lot of slowed down material, The 4K would give you room to crop the image a bit in post and that's certainly nice. NDs are also nice. The other factor is the rolling shutter should be a fair bit less on the FS700 which bugs the heck out of me on DSLRs. Of course this is offset by the price of the FS700 and the fact Sony will probably nickel and dime you on accessories. Plus if working in 4K it's going to be a bit more demanding on your computers etc. By contrast, I love the dynamic range of the BM, and the way it's integrated into Resolve, it's also got a nice filmic image straight out the cam, and well the price is very good considering you get Resolve in the bag as well. It's a tough one, if you combined the two you'd have the perfect cam.
  6. I just find the detail in that 1080p still is significantly better than what you'd get out of the 5D, both due to the codec and the 5D's ability to resolve, try pulling a frame like that out of the 5D and grading it, it would break up under anything more than light grading and it wouldn't be that detailed to start, that' the feeling I get at least, it's hard to say going off the limited stuff that is out there.
  7. I always considered FS100 footage to be pretty good, a lot more cinematic than the AF100 for example.
  8. [quote author=mike_tee_vee link=topic=613.msg4358#msg4358 date=1334852026] You don't edit with RAW files, no one does, you use proxies. RED has a quite cool quicktime proxies system that allows you to create different res quicktime proxies that are just an alias and don't take up any disk space, but they interpret the RED raw footage as lower res quicktimes, that you can edit on any system. [/quote] Interesting.  How long do the quicktime proxies take to render?  Using things like Magic Bullet or any video noise reduction software take at least 3x real time to render before getting a usable preview. [/quote] If you got Resolve you might as well throw your copy of Magic Bullet in the bin, Resolve is quicker and way more powerful but does need the right cards etc as ppl have noted.
  9. [quote author=johnbauerphoto link=topic=613.msg4340#msg4340 date=1334841846] that's what I thought. I can imagine that some people are in this situation. DNG RAW is great but you need to have the power to work with it. And if you don't have it the 3k$ can quickly turn in to some more k... [/quote] Yeah I'm in the same boat, looking at a new iMac probably, ouch, but what can you do I guess.
  10. [quote author=jlev23 link=topic=613.msg4348#msg4348 date=1334846007] why couldnt stupid canon make the 5dmk3 2k raw and prores and the 1dc 4k raw and prores [/quote] Well, because they're great big greedy guts basically:P
  11. [quote author=johnbauerphoto link=topic=613.msg4336#msg4336 date=1334840258] What kind of processing power do you think will be needed to properly work with the camera's files especially the DNG RAWs. Right now I'm editing all my Mark 2 footage on a late 2009 iMac. native h264 or prores both work pretty flawlessly in Final Cut or Premiere Pro. I can imagine the 2.5k DNG RAW files could be a problem for my machine. What kind of power do you think you would need to process these files? I really can't afford the Camera, SSDs and a new Computer. [/quote] You'll need a new comp, i can't see you editing RAW 2.5k files in Resolve on a 2009 iMac, that's a high end workflow after all.
  12. I applaud BMD, as a Canon man myself I've been completely disenchanted by the Mk3 and the C300, these companies like Canon and Panasonic just can't help reverting to their old wicked ways, so thank goodness companies like BMD can come along and start to give people what they want (I say start because I do still yearn for s35), they'll get my money!
  13. Looks great, as others have said quite filmic, which is the latitude shining through, that must grade like a dream.
×
×
  • Create New...