Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jgharding

  1. apparently "shoot without lens" doesn't exist in the GH5, and they changed it to an automatic thing... What's odd is i can shoot with just the speedbooster, but even just clicking the dumb adaptor into place on its own brings up the "lens attachment failed" message a few seconds later weirdness...
  2. Is it just me who has the lenses (helios, jupiter etc) failing to work even with chip-free M42 adapter? I'm guessing the adapter may be shorting the contacts... but then it's odd since it works right up until the "click" into place...
  3. A quick update: The dumb adaptor for Exakta to EF mount works perfectly, but the M42 to EF dumb adaptor one has the same error as before, despite having no chip. I can shoot as long as I want if i turn the lens to just BEFORE clicking into place, but as soon as it clicks in, i get "Lens attachment failed" Any more ideas?
  4. He means put the lens on a dumb adapter, then that onto the speedbooster, which sorts the issue out. I don't understand what you're saying here...
  5. It's great to have another RedCode style codec coming out. They need to be open with it. Get it in some other cameras... dominate that sector with licensing
  6. Cheers, glad to see it is just the chip ive already ordered some dumb adapters BTW how does one programme such a chip? I never worked that out...
  7. In addition to what I asked about adapters, yes this is also a question. if such an option exists I can’t find it...
  8. Hi all, I've come quite late to the GH5 party so sorry if this is common knowledge: I have M42 to EF adapters I use on Canon bodies that have AF confirm chips. When I attach these to the Speedbooster Ultra on the GH5 get a "lens attachment failed" message. It doesn't appear to have a manual "shoot without lens" option either, I just get a black screen. But if i don't fully connect the lens I can shoot fine, I'm guessing chip-free dumb adaptors will sort this?
  9. this is an interesting point. it depends on your definition of "technologies". Sony certainly innovate, and are always coming up with variations in technology, image processing, sensor and memory architecture, absolutely ingenious things every single year that definitely push the boundary of what's possible technologically in terms of size and speed... in terms of innovation, I don't think anyone matches them. But people don't watch innovation on a screen, and they don't want it getting in the way of a production. Each new Sony camera is full of bizarre processing with crazy acronyms, layers and layers of menus and so on, and the colour is still never very good, it usually feels cool and sharp and a little soul-less. Even the top line and indeed innovative f65 had a very cold and sharp look to it. Check out Oblivion, that's all i Know was shot on it. And they only used it because clinical detail was part of the brief. Arri may not have reinvented the wheel, but they made a beautiful sensor designed to have grain and response as close as possible to film. They focussed on beating film and making a direct digital replacement for it. Sure, around that sensor is a tank-like box that eats giant batteries like M&Ms, but once you get the footage back you don't care. That dual-gain architecture makes it SO clean and gives it insane range. You can pull in Log ProRes 422 from an Amira and you'll probably prefer it to your Red footage, raw or no raw, as I always did. It seemed to have more usable skintone range and nicer colour even when very compressed. And controlling it is so easy. They focused on a simple interface and the image that ends up on screen, not on the spec sheet, and not on selling you a new one every year. http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/tools/alexa_camera_simulator/ I've just realised I'm on the verge of sounding like an unbearable Arri fanboi but really I'm only loyal to a great image. I wouldn't want to run around all day with one too often, though i have... the GH5 is my new fave
  10. I think the main thing holding this back from an Arri is the same thing that stops McLaren making a competitor to the Mazda MX5, for example: the company live at the edge of top-end technology, that is what they're know for and what (in Arri's case) they dominate. They thrive in the pro sector, hold some great patents (like the dual-gain channel sensor architecture in Alexa family cameras) that set them ahead, and they would only open themselves up to un-necessary risk by producing a high-volume consumer/prosumer piece. as volume goes up, quality control becomes increasingly difficult, your equipment reaches the hands of those prone to user error, sometimes even total beginners. you have tighter profit margins, have to deal with distribution and sales channels on a far larger scale, along with all the attendant legal and logistic expenses and staffing costs. the personal touch you have when dealing with higher-end clients simply disappears. It's very expensive and time-consuming to bring a product like that to market. Think of just how many mis-steps Blackmagic Design had with their cameras along the way... if you don't know about that, i wouldn't waste time reading up, but a lot of models had problems at launch. I mean I love em, and they did an amazing job coming from nowhere in that market, but they learned in public and as a result a lot of pros won't touch their prosumer line. And they already has a vast distribution and manufacturing network and so on. TBH I don't think Arri need to. I feel RED may be another question... talking to hire companies, Arri and Canon dominate, with a smattering of GH5 and Sony for budget high speed. Technology companies have to react to the market quickly, or else it's curtains. Disclosure: I used to have a Red and sold it for a C200. Convenience won! If we don't use that, we hire Arri.
  11. I do wonder what sector this is aimed at. 10,000 is way more than a GH5, which is more than enough for your average Joe and great on professional shoots as is. We are about to buy one as a C-Cam, since nothing I've seen touches it in the price range, though the new Fuji announcement looks interesting. If you're renting, an Alexa Mini or current Red can be pretty stripped down and inexpensive in budget terms. If you don't have the money to rent for shoots, well the 10,000 camera is probably too expensive for you to buy! so it goes round in circles. Maybe crash cam? Abit much for that too... TBH I think Red had to seriously rethink, since at the top end they're being wiped out by Arri. In fact even in the mid range now, we've hired Arri Amira for web videos. After the Alexa mini came out a lot of people just stopped flying Reds on steadicam/gimabl settups overnight. Now Arri have a "genuine" 4K acquisition camera in the Alexa LF, that protectionist excuse used by Netflix and so on to stop people from using Arri, that is "it has to be native 4K regardless of how it looks, the number is king" is dead in the water. Don't get me wrong, r3D is still the best raw codec ever, and I think this will be undeniably cool if it ever happens... I just sort of question... what it's for... and thus where i'd find a use for it. I think if it doesn't have full IBIS and so on like GH5, I can't conjure up a use case off the top of my head. I think RED should start licensing R3D now TBH, instead of holding onto it forever while other people overtake in other areas. Don't become SEGA.
  13. Tiny fanless camera with ProRes and RAW to SD cards, released in 2013:
  14. yeah it is only if your directly working with them to produce a piece or series, It stills seems oddly political though
  15. Not allowing the Amira and standard Alexa is straight up moronic. The upscaled 4K in it thrashes the pants of plenty of native 4K sensors in terms of look and detail. I've had them side by side plenty of times. Looking through the list and numbers and so on, the word that comes to mind is "arbitrary" Also demanding Alexa 65 with Arriraw as the only acceptable Arri format when nearly every feature film is shot on Arri... and plenty on Alexa ProRes... it seems more like a political alliance with other manufacturers against Arri dominance than much else. Which is silly, they're dominant because their product is the best. Thought the Varicam is arguablly as good if it gets the uptake.
  16. Oh I forgot to say, the codec gap was the first thing I asked the Canon rep at a trade show, and he said they were planning to introduce XF-AVC in a future update, but he had no details. Lack of a 4:2:2 10-bit option is annoying Well I used the C100 mk i for three years with no issues. I think it makes great looking footage and is easy to use. I have an XC10 but I'd pick the C100 mk ii over it by a long shot TBH. All depends on your priorities.
  17. The GH5 does look great though. I'd quite like one too TBH
  18. Just a joke really, some people do get quite protective over gear. I'm brand agnostic as long as it does the job...
  19. I'm gonna order one, and before you stone me death let me explain I make my living on video gigs, and we have used two C100s for the past three years for most of them. There were only a few occasions where I wanted more than 8-bit, and about 30% of the time I wish I had more data than the brilliantly implemented AVCHD 24mbps. On paper they're shit. In reality they're brilliant workhorses. When I did want more data, a little Ninja 2 with a locking HDMI cable provided more than enough wiggle room using DNxHD 220X, without sacrificing any camcorder conveninece. It looked really good, but what was amazing is well the AVCHD stood up to it with a tenth of the data. What did I really miss on shoots? frame rates up to 100fps. If we really needed this we usually ended up hiring an Arri Amira for the whole job instead of doing things piecemeal. Anything higher than 100fps I took from Amira usually ended sped up in an edit so 100fps would have been fine. So 100 fps is what I'd like. We also have a Red and don't use it much because of the weight and neediness of all the kit that goes with it. It takes a lot more post. It's been used as a B-Cam to an Amira on some shoots and in this situation the far superior colour on the Amira made the Red look poor so it's not really useful for my work. During this time I've had a lot of Sony cameras and always sold them after a brief honeymoon period. Why? Terrible colour. I can't stand it. Yeah high speeds are great and so are high bitrates, but the footage always looked kinda anaemic and dead rendering the slow-mo and bitrates meaningless to me. Even in that bloom review I knew he was shooting himself with a Sony because he was MagentaMan. It's so slow to fix the colour, it's really annoying and takes the fun out of the post. Also they're always clunky to use in terms of menus and often feel cheaply made and ergonmically questionable. So the C200 comes along. The whole "either have really compressed or stupidly massive raw" is a bit of a niggle, but they may add another bitrate option as they did with other cameras like the XC10. In short for users making use of these the way I do it'll be ideal. I can use all the lenses, all the batteries, it'll cut well with the C100s, I get my 100fps and I can do extra special shots for post and so on in raw. I don't have to think too much about adaptors, batteries, dodgy colour and so on, just hand them the money and I can thrash the thing for five years. in other words THEY HAVE ME OVER A BARRELL but they're good at what they do...
  20. Seems like it's a sort of "thought leader" product, in that they're heading for holographic and so on. They have a bit of a market issue in that most Red owners are very protective of the notion of "professionalism" so they can't really make this into a "proper" cinema camera. So for that reason I think you're right, it won't become a proper camera, as it were. One interesting aspect of it is the inlusion of Red's proprietary formats. This sort of thing can backfire if the formats aren't open enough. Sony were obsessed with controlling media, formats and so on and their history is littered with expensive failed experiments: ATRAC3 players (instead of MP3), UMD, Sony Memeory Stick, and so on... even the new wireless headphones I have include some proprietary codec support that only works with Sony phones, though at least that's not all they do. So it's kinda interesting to watch, but if holographic does take off, the format with the low-fee or totally open license will win! I also question the ability of any current battery to run this stuff for a long time.
  21. Yeah... I'm gonna be offloading the Red cos it doesn't get enough use. If I need something like that I'll just hire in future. It's too big heavy and clumsy to be fun. I miss when I started out hacking the 550D
  22. We got the XC10 for this... but no nuts. the fuzzy-motion noise reduction, not great low-light, all kinds of little quirks and issues... they do need a dedicated b-cam, but they're too afraid of losing sale. A litlle half-size C50 with C100 sensor and so on would do it Of course you'd want internal stabilisation, and they'll never give it to us due to wanting to flog stabilised lenses.
  23. But yeah, back on topic! I'm with a few of the others here. I think if you use a LUT at 100% right over your work it tends to be a bit cartoonish or derivative. I've bought most LUT packs going, and I'll put them on to inspire an idea, or at a lower percentage over a whole piece to tie it together a bit. Also I think it's always good to start by neutralising the footage (unless you're shooting baked in) so you're working from a middle ground outwards.
  • Create New...