Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jgharding

  1. With so many hacks going around for Sony, I hope someone hacks the RX100! It really does have a special market position, and being able to access 24/25p as well as much higher bit rates than 28mbps would be wonderful. It'd also be great to be able to change the speed of focus using the ring, and a couple of other tweaks.
  2. It's odd but even back at the very start I decided not to buy any Canon glass at all, thinking it was likely that the race would hot up. But then I ended up getting lovely glass that won't fit Nikon or Sony legacy mounts! Still, once everyone chucks out the mirror it wont matter eh?
  3. Sony are an odd bunch, there's always that battle between the company philosophy of locking people into their accessories. Does anyone remember ATRAC3 (the alternative to MP3), or the UMD disc, or Sony Memory Stick?! They've killed a lot of products with attempts to control accessories. So I've been surprised that they're not too fussed about NEX adapters. It's just a shame they picked the longest possible mount when designing the Alphas. It was the old Minolta mount, right? As you say, if it's super awesome enough I could just flog a bunch of Zeiss Contax for newer Zeiss and Samyang. If they can pull the price below the BMD camera and the 5D MKiii yet make it a proper video camera, this could be huge. As you say, they don't have huge lines to protect like Canon...
  4. I hear what you're saying about glass. On a day to day basis I deal with editing a lot more C300 than anything else, and so much of it looks really brittle and electronic, even though it grades really nicely. It's not that it's bad, just that it's a bit lifeless. Nothing that wrong with it, but not much very right either. It's usually shot with those overpriced dull-looking L lenses too, though sometimes stuff comes in from CP2s and looks a bit nicer.. But then recently I had some 7D footage from a Hot Rodded model, using some older hired PL-mount cine lenses. F**k me it looked amazing (aside from the moire). The sense of 3D depth to the movement was something else! Plus it was all nicely lit. But even the rather flatly lit shots were just lovely... the glass really makes a huge difference. I can't wait til you can get some of your Iscos on the BMD! Speaking of monitors and compression doing justice, I watched Drive recently on standard def DVD on the Dell U2711, so compressed to hell and on a sharp monitor and it STILL looked amazing and nice and 3D and lively (sat back a little way ;) ). So I can't get into the theory that it's web compression or monitors that make footage feel flat, because if it has a real feel in its raw form it'll be there when it's compressed. If you shoot something looking dead, it's not gonna liven up because you add a few MBPS at encoding, but if you shoot it with real life, it'll maintain the life even when it's crushed down for web! Little 360p movie trailers really prove that. So perhaps if someone whacked some really nice glass on a GH2 and used high bitrate and lit exceptionally well and used it to tell a great story I'd change my mind... but I dunno... I think there's just something about that sensor I don't feel. I suppose it's similar with old film stocks, where some would prefer one type and one another, or the way some people love the Nuemann signature mic sound and some hate it! Maybe I should put my money where my mouth is, and buy one and see what I can do with it! Having watched that Zacuto shootout I picked the Alexa, F65 and GH2 blind, and the GH2 only fell down a step or two cos I thought it looked kinda.... flat, especially in the deeper focus toward the start :/ So I suppose it's all taste! But the scene was just ugly and looked like something of Tommy Wiseau's The Room, so it was kinda hard to get into the feel of the shots either way. I guess we just end back at: if the film is awesome, you won't care too much which one it was shot on. :wub: I'm shooting for 3 days with FS700 soon so I'll be giving that a tough time to see what it can do...
  5. That's pretty exciting! :lol: The only possible downers are: judging by RX100's cost this will be really expensive.... and the Alpha mount flange distance is longer than Ron Jeremy, so I couldn't use my big expensive sack of Contax glass :(
  6. Oh dear, I spy a sinc graph! I've not read this many graphs since I read Dan Lavry's paper on AD/DA conversion and digital sampling in audio... I shall save this for the next train journey! ;) Thanks for that... So to continue a little, why would a sensor with a 2.3x crop and only 2.5K sensor still appear so 'flat' in depth terms, despite using Zeiss glass (which can produce wonderfully 3D results with stills cameras cramming far more pixels into the same space on APS-C or full-frame) and using so little compression? Surely the physical size of the sensor has an effect regardless, as a larger sensor is capturing light over a broader area, so the resulting image is bound to be a 'deeper' point of view?
  7. @CPC so effectively you need a lens that is 2.3 times sharper in terms of resolving power in order to achieve the same 'feel', as the sensor is simply less forgiving? That's a tall order.
  8. [quote name='cpc' timestamp='1344421732' post='15122'] This is normal and is related to how lens microcontrast interacts with sensor pixel density. At the same image resolution subject "pop" will be more noticeable in an image made with a big sensor/film-size. This is usually immediately noticeable with still images but is generally masked out by video compression issues in moving pictures. .... This is normal and is related to how lens microcontrast interacts with sensor pixel density. At the same image resolution subject "pop" will be more noticeable in an image made with a big sensor/film-size. This is usually immediately noticeable with still images but is generally masked out by video compression issues in moving pictures. [/quote] Wow! That's fascinating stuff! Is there somewhere I can read more about this, or would you mind going into more detail? I'd love to learn the science that's behind my natural reaction to said footage. It really is noticeable with RAW stills: medium format beats full frame beats APS-C beats M4/3 and so on in the "3D" stakes in my experience, I've even double blind picked them from selections of portraits. I see what you're saying saying: that ordinarily the interf-rame compression and the like will smear this feel in video footage so that it's less pronounced, though I think it's getting noticeable with the likes of high-bitrate GH2 and BMD CineCam. Just as with microphones, where the physical size of the diaphragm simply is a contributing factor to the sound no matter what other tech is strapped around it, it seems the same is true of the image-capture area: you can't fake the physical reality of the size of that part however hard you try. Will there ever be a way to make photo-diodes behave more like film? Some kind of pseudo-lightfield microlens technology but used for traditional capture not gimmicky post DOF control? to broaden their angle of absorption and the spread of light in an organic way? Am I being intuitive here, or absurd?
  9. I went and got one of these to replace my broken (dropped in the sea) HX9v. It's exceptional: manual control plus super stablilisation and 50p, and a one-inch sensor, AND it's tiny! Customisation of functions is brilliant too. All my wide steady shots are shot on this now, rather bothering to stick a wide on an SLR and that on a rig, which is a bloody hassle. If you want ND, you can buy some Lee ND gel as it costs nothing for a huge roll, and you can pop it over the front using tape or blu tac, or a custom ring of some kind if you're good at that kind of thing. The LX7 will drop a lot of points on noise on dynamic range probably with a sensor that little, but it could still be good in its own right. The aperture numbers are kinda deceptive, with a sensor that small, even the wide aperture at the long end won't give you equivalent DOF or light to the RX100...
  10. [quote name='John Brawley' timestamp='1344378082' post='15084'] Hmm. Not a single L series lens was used for this clip. Maybe you should read the post that gives this context. [url="http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/some-more-blackmagic-cinema-camera-footage/"]http://johnbrawley.w...camera-footage/[/url] JB [/quote][quote name='John Brawley' timestamp='1344378082' post='15084'] Hmm. Not a single L series lens was used for this clip. Maybe you should read the post that gives this context. [url="http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/some-more-blackmagic-cinema-camera-footage/"]http://johnbrawley.w...camera-footage/[/url] JB [/quote] Hmm I missed that link before, cheers, I've now read it in full! I'm into Zeiss, so it's something else then. Maybe I just don't like small digital sensors. I've never really been able to "get into" hacked GH2 even with huge bitrates, I just can't say I 'feel' it. I don't 'feel' the stuff from the RX100 either, but it's just a cheap practical and usefull B-cam for running about with. That's a 1-inch sensor. Small film? Great, I love how 16mm looks. Perhaps a small sensor treated with many many layers of post until it feels as organic will be good. But photodiodes are fundamentally very different to film, so it's not fair to compare them straight up (as some in this thread have) and say "film this big looks awesome so a sensor this big will be awesome!" Still I see very few final products that come from small sensors that don't feel slightly... flat... in a depth sense. Something I don't see as often with 135 full frame regardless of detail or resolution. Does anyone else get what I mean? Or am I off my swede? Is it actually just the lighting or the lack of subtle post in many productions shot with small-sensor cams? I've yet to watch the Zacuto shootout, maybe that'll change my mind. This is certainly the most fun I've had in ages chatting before a camera's release, but we'll all know soon enough... I know I'll be giving one a try either way.
  11. Hmmmm the plot thickens. I wasn't [i]that [/i]impressed with this stuff. I mean I know it's natural light with little augmentation so it's never going to look blockbuster, but larger-sensor cameras are able to make even mundane daytime scenes seem otherworldly, I think it may just be the nature of super 35 size and up. My recent experience with digital medium format confirmed this for me! Looking through the lens is really eerie. Even with one eye it's almost stereoscopic looking. Panning has a beautiful but surreal sense of depth. Then again, since Leica lenses also have this look, perhaps it's more glass choice. But there is an oddly electronic 'feel' to the image here. The motion itself is filmic (low jello and I-frame compression hand in hand there I reckon), but overall it's kind of... dead. Something tells me it's a combo of heavy sensor crop increasing DOF and reducing the 3D feel, plus the lens choice. It could be Canon L lenses here as the image is pretty warm, and I usually find them kind of sterile. Incidentally, I don't think this camera should have an EF mount, it should have a removable electronic EF mount with a mirrorless one behind, then people could play with hired, high-end PL glass and the like, to give the camera a fair run against RED and Alexa. The whole raw/prores/no in-cam NR or sharpness stuff is great, but this clip left me feeling a bit disappointed. Will be nice to see some footage that's really gone through its paces. I mean, in order to make EOS footage look the way I want takes a lot of processing (noise reduction, grades, film grain and more), so I'd love to get hold of some rushes and REALLY go to town on them, then judge the cam again. I suppose on balance, if we'd only ever seen straight rushes from the 5D MKii none of this revolution would ever have started ;) But still, I've yet to feel excited by a real image from this camera, it's only the spec sheets that have got me going, and that doesn't feel right. Perhaps it'll look nicer with a good super fast wide on the front... I'm still watching closely. Perhaps it's simpler than the above, and I just don't like the work of the film maker. After all, I've seen phenomenal work and average work and bad work come out of 5Ds.
  • Create New...