amband

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=884.msg6602#msg6602 date=1340839728] [quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6578#msg6578 date=1340793761] [quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598] it was the indie filmmakers, who according to you are "without knowledge", that gave Canon street-credibility amongst filmmakers. That is the simple fact that you can't recognise! [/quote] I recognize a lot of gullibility and lack of knowledge of DSLR negatives promoted by the indie film makers to their [s]victims[/s] Arts college audience [/quote] You can't blame DSLRs. You can only blame people. Give certain people an Epic and they will produce shit. Hell knows I've seen a lot of that. [/quote] quite right Andrew.  That's why I said they were a stills camera and not a competent vid camera

[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598] it was the indie filmmakers, who according to you are "without knowledge", that gave Canon street-credibility amongst filmmakers. That is the simple fact that you can't recognise! [/quote] I recognize a lot of gullibility and lack of knowledge of DSLR negatives promoted by the indie film makers to their [s]victims[/s] Arts college audience

[quote author=TC link=topic=884.msg6575#msg6575 date=1340791928] [quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=884.msg6472#msg6472 date=1340602840] I'm sure Canon has engineered the 1D-X with some major fault which will they hope will spur people to then buy a 1D-C, which will lack something major which will spur people to buy the C-500. At that point, you are one broke Canon Fan boy. [/quote] Of course, it's Canon - they have carefully engineered omissions in *ALL THREE* models!  Not even $30k avoids Canon's deliberate crippling. 1D X: No headphone jack, low bitrate codecs, no clean HDMI out. 1D C: Marketed as a video camera (actually, cinema camera) with internal 4k recording, but no video specific firmware features such as focus peaking or zebra stripes.  No video specific hardware changes either, such as a swivel screen, despite the enormous price difference to the almost identical 1D X.  But it does have a headphone jack. C500: Video specific firmware features and ergonomics, but no internal 4k recording.  Twice the price of the 1D C which has this feature. [/quote] for God's sake.  If you wish to make movies, don't buy a stills camera.

LOL

[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6452#msg6452 date=1340552598] [quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6447#msg6447 date=1340549759]I got news for you.  Canon is a fine still camera.  It is not a motion camera, as Canon will tell you.  All this DSLR nonsense has been driven by indie ( read penniless without knowledge ) movie makers looking to do things on the cheap The " lack of innovation " for DSLR is intentional, as they have never had any intention of threatening their own camcorder line.  Canon are running a profit making business, not a charity for movie directors, and if everyone recognized this simple fact ( not opinion ) in the first place we all would have saved ourselves problems The blackmagic should do well, even if it is CMOS and not CCD, like the Bolex digital.  God knows how that will go? [/quote] Well, you haven't been paying attention have you? - Canon markets their DSLRs as motion-cameras - they constantly do press-releases how their DSLRs have been used for films and TV shows time and time again. They pay Hollywood cinematographers, amongst other influential filmmaking bloggers, to endorse their DSLRs as movie-making cameras. And no, Canon's only "fine" cameras sit above $15,000. And listen here, mate - if it wasn't for the "penniless movie makers" you mock, Canon's DSLR sales would be languishing severely. 80% of all 5DMK2 sales last year were bought primarily for video use according to an in-house Canon survey (I'd share the link, but can't currently find it in my bookmarks). The 5DMK3 will only compete with the D800 due to three things; cleaner ISO performance, it's lack of moire/aliasing (at the cost of shitty resolution), and legacy full-frame EF lens owners. In photography terms, recent tests have put the 5DMK3's dynamic-range at 11.7, with the D800's Sony sensor sits well above 14. Even in still-photography, the only thing the 5DMK3 has going for it is ISO performance. It gets demolished in terms of sharpness and detail, let alone dynamic-range. If Canon was being run by innovative, intelligent people, they would have sold the C300 for $8000, with 1080 60P and 4K 12bit RAW out via 3G/HD-SDI - instead, they got greedy and charged $16,000 for a 1080P camera running an 8-bit codec! You wanna talk profits? Every single indie-filmmaker on Earth would have bought a C300 for $8000 if it had 1080 60P and 4K 12bit RAW out via 3G/HD-SDI - CANON NEGLECTED THE VERY PEOPLE THAT GAVE THEM A FOOTHOLD IN THE FILMMAKING WORLD - it was the indie filmmakers, who according to you are "without knowledge", that gave Canon street-credibility amongst filmmakers. That is the simple fact that you can't recognise! I used to love Canon. Now I hope Blackmagic and Sony bury them in the ground where they belong. [/quote] Indeed they do market it as a vid maker, for amateurs, and they probably pay those pros a lot of money to promote " this film shot on whatever DSLR "  However we know, and Canon know, it's a stills camera with video, and audio, as an afterthought.  I suspect most of the advertising for these companies is pushed through forums & blogs.  You do most of it for them [quote]CANON NEGLECTED THE VERY PEOPLE THAT GAVE THEM A FOOTHOLD IN THE FILMMAKING WORLD [/quote] Canon don't care.  Those that make films like Indie film makers with DSLR are not  part of the market.  Their real market is the millions of amateurs who take stills, and have the convenience of a movie editing program on the PC There is no profit in indie users

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=880.msg6537#msg6537 date=1340739062] That comment above is extremely short sighted to say the least. There's no excuse for not improving existing features, be it stills or video. Convergence is happening. Do Apple sit by and not improve their graphics chip on an iPhone because it is primarily a phone not a games console? The size of the market Canon is pissing off with lacklustre DSLR video modes is sizeable. [/quote] Andrew, you are not running the company.  It is a commercial decision that DSLRs are NOT improved as it threatens their camcorder line, and I fully understand their reasoning. Also, they can fall into a different legal category for importation, a still camera legal becomes a camcorder and subject to different taxes tarriffs etc Canon, Pana, ec, do not exist for the convenience of a few would be if they could be self important film makers. Do yourself a favour, ask the boss of Canon, Pana, for an interview and get it from the horses mouth [quote]The size of the market Canon is pissing off with lacklustre DSLR video modes is sizeable.[/quote] LOL.  If that were true, they wouldn't do it

[quote author=sicovdplas link=topic=880.msg6536#msg6536 date=1340737996] I'm sorry to be an asshole, but you guys are all wrong specifically Andrew. it is made for STILLS FIRST, not video, Canon said way back (in 2011/2010) that they are NOT going to make it video first, hence there are no improvements nor is it on their 'to do list', it is designed for Photos, video is a extra, if you would like smashing video, buy a video camera, or another dSLR that delivers better, but stop being retarded, and crying about video features on a photo camera. [/quote] exactly

[quote author=Germy1979 link=topic=880.msg6555#msg6555 date=1340770508] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=880.msg6537#msg6537 date=1340739062] That comment above is extremely short sighted to say the least. There's no excuse for not improving existing features, be it stills or video. Convergence is happening. Do Apple sit by and not improve their graphics chip on an iPhone because it is primarily a phone not a games console? The size of the market Canon is pissing off with lacklustre DSLR video modes is sizeable. [/quote] You should read my topic on things like this...hilariously ironic. [/quote] lol

[quote author=rommex link=topic=837.msg6002#msg6002 date=1339532342] I agree there is no sense to follow Canon's updates. [/quote] To Canon there is.  They will limit DSLR capability so as to protect their camcorder line. It's a commercial decision based on profit

[quote author=amband link=topic=865.msg6531#msg6531 date=1340728721] Better audio.  It is 50% of your video.  More pro looking.  Slow motion would be nice [/quote] now why would anyone vote in the negative over this HAHA!

Better audio.  It is 50% of your video.  More pro looking.  Slow motion would be nice

No slo mo apparently :(

why not use a camcorder instead of all that aftermarket stuff?

[quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6445#msg6445 date=1340548611] Still looks like shit. Canon is shit. I hope they suffer for their greed and lack of innovation. With the imminent release of the Blackmagic Camera, C300′s, and virtually every other EF mount “cinema” camera are about to lose a shitload of value. 13 stops of dynamic-range, 2.5K resolution, 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes/12bit RAW with a base ISO of 800 for $3000? The downfall of the greedy bastards has begun. When Blackmagic releases an APS-C version, hypothetically speaking, in 12 – 18 months for $6000, with better low-light ability and all of the current features of the Blackmagic camera, what is Canon going to do? Drop their C500 to $6000? HELL NO! Canon’s glory-days are behind them – if only they would snap out of their arrogance and realise it! [/quote] I got news for you.  Canon is a fine still camera.  It is not a motion camera, as Canon will tell you.  All this DSLR nonsense has been driven by indie ( read penniless without knowledge ) movie makers looking to do things on the cheap The " lack of innovation " for DSLR is intentional, as they have never had any intention of threatening their own camcorder line.  Canon are running a profit making business, not a charity for movie directors, and if everyone recognized this simple fact ( not opinion ) in the first place we all would have saved ourselves problems The blackmagic should do well, even if it is CMOS and not CCD, like the Bolex digital.  God knows how that will go?

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=881.msg6412#msg6412 date=1340478674] [quote author=QuickHitRecord link=topic=881.msg6375#msg6375 date=1340380249] I finally had a chance to take my Lomo square front (OCT18 mount) out: [center]http://vimeo.com/44522585 [/center] I actually meant to shoot more footage for a stronger shot sequence but the Lomo is the MOST frustrating lens that I have EVER worked with! It also delivers my favorite image! Very, very cinematic. I bought mine from au8ust on eBay and it is immaculate. Truly a beautiful piece of glass. But the design of the lens is very frustrating. The anamorphic and spherical elements are held together by one small tab (i.e. one point of contact) and focusing is extremely difficult. The front element is very heavy and if I ever tilt the lens down, gravity causes the two elements to separate, distorting the image. And even with the stopper that I added to the Velbon support track to keep the front element from falling off completely, tilting up or down puts the weight on the taking lens makes turning the focus ring very difficult. I have never cursed so much at a lens and many of my shots were not usable. But there is an [i]incredible[/i] look here, probably my favorite of all of my lenses, and I am determined to make it work. I am currently working on a few tweaks that may make it much more usable. One more thing: This is not a low profile lens. Every single person who walked by stopped to ask what it was, which was kind of distracting. [/quote] that looks lovely.  shame you didnt get more usable footage.  re your problem with weight stopping smooth focus ring turning I have found the same thing.  Try to fashion some type of roller support which attaches to a 15mm mattebox rail mount system and provides the front 'anamorphic attachement' to roll back and fourth on a wheel or ball bearing while focusing.  maybe attach the wheel to the bottom of the anamorphic attachment so it can roll on a track attached to a 15mm rail system.  I am considering the edelkrone micro rig as a mounting system for this concept. [/quote] Incredible stuff, is LOMO.  What began as a cheap " toy " camera be be now much loved with a real cult following [img]http://www.hypergurl.com/blog/images/lomo2.jpg[/img][img]https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqUvnf90z4jCcKYUX1FKA0HOLVIckiOd9D5Sa20GkxrCzcwwbv[/img]

[quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6431#msg6431 date=1340500650] [quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6430#msg6430 date=1340495348] [quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6428#msg6428 date=1340494035] [quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638] [size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size] [/quote] Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio. [/quote] well, all this DSLR movie is about being on a budget and working to a budget.  Given all the aftermarket kit required, better off getting a cheap HD camcorder with better onboard audio, easier workflow [/quote] Yeah definitely, if that type of videography is needed then a dedicated video camera is sometimes the better option.  But for narrative work I don't see an external recorder as a problem.  Its what the clapperboard was invented for. [/quote] sure, fair enough if that suits your purpose

[quote author=MattH link=topic=884.msg6428#msg6428 date=1340494035] [quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6427#msg6427 date=1340493638] [size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size] [/quote] Spend the same price on dedicated recorders and microphones then.  An Imax camera doesn't record audio. [/quote] well, all this DSLR movie is about being on a budget and working to a budget.  Given all the aftermarket kit required, better off getting a cheap HD camcorder with better onboard audio, easier workflow

[size=12pt]why bother.  From what I can see the audio is no better.  People here don't seem to be that concerned with audio, which is unfortunate, as it's 50% of quality video[/size]

[quote author=MOONGOAT link=topic=871.msg6409#msg6409 date=1340475763] It's the biggest fucking joke buying retail in Australia. We get ripped off beyond belief, and the government has the audacity to call it a problem and try and tax us harder on overseas purchases. Makes my blood boil... [/quote] exactly.  Many products are like that.  Cameras, Medical drugs, motorcycles and cars, Apple Mac stuff.  One of our pollies was holding an inquiry re Apple computer prices to get prices lowered. No such luck yet by the looks of those prices on the Apple store

[quote author=daomay link=topic=871.msg6403#msg6403 date=1340467765] I did contact lemac and they are selling it for $11000 inc GST but if I get my friend to get it for me in the US, it is only $8500. even if he has to pay duty tax it still work out to be cheaper. He will be going in August for 2 weeks. I don't know if I want to wait till August, I want to have it in July cause I am so excited about this camera hehe. I have about $11500 - I was hoping to get the mac pro retina display laptop to go with my new toy. Can't decided. [/quote] if he just orders it rather than go there, it will be cheaper

[quote author=Liszon link=topic=399.msg2538#msg2538 date=1331740869] I think so, and maybe more. Maybe they are planning to use the same Kodak sensor, and elements from the internal design from the Prosilica. If its true, they dont have to make a camera from scratch, and that summer release date might be right. Its not a bad thing, fine tune and re-design an already existing cam for different needs, but it would be much better and straight to admit and come out with it if thats the scenario. [/quote] that's what they've said all along.  Merely digitizing a proven well known design, and the CCD censor is a proprietry one from Kodak

[quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=880.msg6376#msg6376 date=1340385289] 1dX vs 5dm3, very unscientific comparison. https://vimeo.com/44496874 The canon DSLRs are all clearly being nerfed to protect their cinema line. [/quote] [size=12pt]Bingo!  Exactly[/size]

[quote author=sandro link=topic=880.msg6368#msg6368 date=1340375389] I came across a compact camera from Canon called IXUS 115 HS/ELPH 100 HS with a DIGIC4 processor, it can shoot videos at 1080p, the "big thing" is that the resolution is actually close to be real (considering the sensor size and aliasing everywhere :) ). How ridiculous is this? The t3i/t2i/7d with the same processor have a lower resolution than a $150 compact camera from the same company. Definitely sharper. proof https://vimeo.com/33007523 (download the original file) [/quote] [size=12pt]was there ever any evidence they did?[/size]

[quote author=Tim link=topic=871.msg6392#msg6392 date=1340439556] G'Day fellow Victorian, I'd suggest Lemac in Richmond. http://www.lemac.com.au/Products/SonyNEX-FS700.aspx They do rentals to the Australian film industry and are professional. You might be able to find a cheaper price online, but at Lemac you know they're gonna look after you. Cheers [/quote] yes, that's true

[size=12pt]very good indeed[/size]