jgharding

The Alexa images are so gorgeous regardless of the paper stats or the 1080 resolution. Sigma 50mm f1.4. Leica 50mm f1.4. One of those is horrid and one was crafted by the Gods! But the numbers are the same. It's the Leica bit and the price that give the biggest clue, and the performance and feel of the images that seal it. Anything with Arri in front of it is nearly invincible and fetishistic joyful to use. It may not be RAW, but by god does it look lovely.

Don't get me wrong, the RX100 has a hell of a load more detail than the NEX or EOS stuff, even with the 550D hacked upto 100mbps or so. the RX100 just processes the sensor data more effectively and probably doesn't bin so many rows of data, but actually scales, and I'll bet Sony's codec implementation is just better. But it has a very different 'feel'. It's sharp, but a little flat front to back, if ya get me.

Yeah just has a look too, you've definitely got a good eye for it, it'd be a shame to totally remove the APS-C aesthetic for the sake of a little hassle. The RX100 is a kind of middle ground, a big enough sensor to create shallow DOF but in a body small and well stabilised like a compact, with 50p. Trouble is, it's still very long GOP AVCHD footage on a smaller than S35 digital sensor, footage feels kind of electronic. I think you'll miss the APSC NEX pretty swiftly. Both is a good shout, but just the RX100? That's brave...

I think you can get Premiere alone to use Maximum Bit Depth for grades in the Sequence Settings menu, but really After Effects is best as it 'unpacks' your footage into individual uncompressed frames as part of its processing pipeline. The results just seem to be finer in AE than in Prem. It is a finishing tool, after all.

No not Cineform RAW, I've seen the name chucked around as an option for BMD footage. used Cineform (before GoPro bought them) a couple of times as an intermediate before I realised DNxHD was free and did most of what I needed. If you're grading AVCHD/H264 source in After Effects from a Premiere timeline though, there's no reason to leave native, as AE treats all footage as individual frames of RGB and 32-bit if you tell it to, so you'll get all the latitude you can anyway. At least I don't think it's worth the transcode effort for such compressed sources. But even grading in AE, you do notice the difference between ultraflats and more sensible gamma. It's just how close together the midtones are, even LUTs don't fix entirely, it's just a side effect of using just as many bits to try and store information i think, there are simply fewer midtone values for the encoder to choose from at encoding stage. :/

[quote name='Philip Lipetz' timestamp='1346590726' post='17158'] Auto how well will AVCHD grade with log images? Perhaps wide DR log is just the limit of AVCHD in post. [/quote] I was gonna say, after a bit too much time with Cinestyle and CineGamma, these AVCHD/H264 based files don't seem to deal too well with really flat middles. It's one of the few things I actually tested, and though ultraflat gives you more options in post it invariably looks... slightly ragged... when compared to baking things in a bit, or even entirely. Now if we were recording to ProRes/DNxHD that'd be a different matter, but we're talking the same 24mbps for those extra three stops...

It'd be good to see how the LX7 handles a rather dynamic scene. I've found that when protecting highlights with the RX100, there's still quite a bit of detail in the blacks... One would think the LX7 would drop a stop or two to the RX given sensor size...

[quote name='joeyd' timestamp='1346498655' post='17087'] Last question- im trying to decide on t3i or t4i. Obviously i can get magic lantern on t3i and not t4i- is this enough reason to go for t3i... [/quote] For me, yes. You can use Magic Lantern to raise the bit-rate significantly, producing finer results in terms of colour and the like. Also, the real-time histogram for video lets you see if you are clipping any channels. There's lots more of course, but those two alone make it worth using that simple, incredible stable hack.

Awesome cheers! :)

Would you be able to post a link to the thread where these GOP settings and bitrates are being discussed on Magic Lantern please? I get a bit lost on their forum...

If you want ultimate uncompressed sharpness though, try a BMD. That gives you 1000 lines of res with no subsampling and amazing colour.

Just out of interest, why do you want to use an SLR? If you're green screening you won't need low light sensitivity or shallow DOF, will you? In that situation I'd stick an external recorder into the EX3, personally, it's still a great tool. You'll get plenty of resolution (more than an SLR) in I-frame 422. I've had to deal with tons of 5Dii green screen that keyed fine for most purposes, if delivery in 720p. 420 suffers mostly in the red channel, as long as your green doesn't border pure red you should be alright. 422 is preferable though, of course. If your current tool works, perhaps don't change it... Get an SLR still though, they're awesome for everything else ;)

haha looks like we replied at the same time with pretty much the same opinion!

Wow, that's a lot of options! FS100 is a complete a solution if you can spend the money. Low light and shallow dof means perhaps 5Dii with filter and Magic Lantern is a good choice for cheap. Then get a fast 50mm manual old prime for cheap unique look. I don't have experience with all in this list, but the closest I've used are 5D2, 550D and FS700 (similar to FS100). GH2 costs very little and people have done a lot with it with regard to lenses, which are really important. 5Diii is probably a bit expensive for what it does.

[quote name='XXX' timestamp='1346336854' post='16963'] @JG Maybe you can show sth (non classified) from your editing job...? Thanks! [/quote] A lot of it is internal corporate and the like for European companies, so I can't put rushes or final up myself, but I'll ask and see if anything is out there to share freely! I can likely send a viewing link if you PM me, as that won't be public sharing.

I'm glad to see the whole "50mbps for broadcast" thing has been circumvented. It was always pretty arbitrary, given that codec implementations are so different. They did sign off the 5D under certain circumstances too if I remember rightly, as they were used for some CBBC shows. It seems likey that this will be a nice AVCHD then, as there is a lot of motion in dancing. They use a lot of Premiere now too, which is great, Avid makes me want to kick my own nuts off.

I'm in some loooooong talks about a pilot at the moment (which as some of you will know, means it may or may not happen :S at all) and TBH, we'll probably shoot on the 550D cos we all know it inside out, have two already, own all the lenses and ancillary gear and can turn it around fast. If anything is moire city we'll just use the RX100 or borrow a different SLR. The maximum delivery for it will be 720p, so EOS resolution will be fine, and not hiring anything will make it cheap as chips so we can spend more on the cast and some extra light and grip gear, which will have much more of an effect on if we get commissioned or not than what we shoot it on. I might hire a better tripod, like a Sachtler DSLR, as they're the tits. I don't like sliders, but I might hire a rolling dolly for the tripod too. Those things will just help more with the actual important part of telling the story than a few more megabits of data or stops of dynamic range. 550Ds when hacked can run up to 100mbps or so in low light, that's pretty good with Canon's H264 codec implementation. But if I were doing a "vanity project" I'd probably go nuts and use something RAW or that could go into a Ninja, because it'd be more important to get the ultimate look and there's no money men or commissioners to impress with low overheads. I love RAW photography, so I can't wait to try it with video...

Cheers! :) That shot with the train behind was the 50mm f1.4 Zeiss on the 550D. I'd guess at f2 or 2.8 with a fader ND. There's a lot of post-production scaling in there too, more than I'd usually push it, but the feel of that zoom out is more important than the fidelity of a few frames, I reckon! ;) The first shot of him is 5500D as well, as is the last. All the rest of him are RX100, like the picking the leaf, the close up of his face in the forest, the two far away shots in the forest, looking at the train tracks (so you can see it's possible to focus pull with the RX100, though I'd love if the focus moved more quickly), and the running about shots, which do fall apart a bit under codec stress and jello, but they're good enough for a punk video with a gritty feel. I can't say if it would have been better with the LX7 though, as I've not used it, but I'd like to try it out. I use the Sunset profile on the Sony, with a bit of contrast, saturation and sharpness reduction. That profile is known for smoother roll-off apparently, though I've not had time to test extensively, just to use it in anger on a tight shoot! It seems to give nice colours and good dynamic range. I can't recall ever really finding the time for extensive tests TBH, though when I have briefly they're very informative I no longer pull sharpness all the way out with the 550D, nor do I use Cinestyle or ultraflats (unless it's a super dark shot where I want shadow details, and thus I want everything out the H264 data free zone that is black) as they seem to kill the skintone and other subtle shade details. Just one of the downsides of the 4:2:0 8-bit bullshit... the more range you try and cram into the limited data, the worse the colour transitions become :( If you want to prove it with a fun test, try shooting really flat then converting to black and white, then afterwards try shooting to black and white in camera. It's usually pretty noticeable how much nicer the black and white in-camera footage is, detail wise. The data is used for luminance only, it seems, at least on the EOS

That LX7 video looks pretty nice, it's always hard to know which is right til you try them out though! Such is the most annoying part of these decision :S There doesn't seem to be much footage of the LX7 used in anger on proper projects... I like the sound of 720/120p though, that's pretty cool from a little camera! All the shots of the guy with backpack walking and running around in this video are from the RX100, as are some others like the birds flying away at the start. The band is all 550D though, as is a lot of the other narrative material. https://vimeo.com/48174944 I was really pushing it, running about with it and shooting high-contrast shots. It still has the small-chip 'look' to it -- kind of flat -- but it cuts together with the 550D OK. You can still spot the signature Canon milky movie look though ;)

Actually it seems the R26 has the same noise issues as many other budget recorders :S oh well! [url="http://mixonline.com/gear/reviews/roland_r-26_tascam_dr-40_nagra_sd_portable_handheld_recorders_review/"]http://mixonline.com...corders_review/[/url]

My aforementioned hire buddy actually ordered 3 C100s yesterday! I think he foresees a big demand. People often just cost up the shoot quickly and cheaply, and in those cases, sticking on a hundred a day for a C100 which is quick and easy to use is for most DPs or cameramen is gonna be commonplace. At the moment I edit more C300 than anything else in my editing job, the best thing is that the audio is all there and usually sounds OK. I actually groan when I get 5D ii footage and that horrible hissy unsynced H4n audio. PLEASE, NO MORE HORRIBLE AUDIO! In fact, I actually asked the producers/directors at that company to ban dual-system audio outright. If someone wants to use a 5D with a Beachtek or similar external that puts audio INSIDE the MOV files that's fine, if they want to use a separate recorder and give me another work stage syncing up their invariably poorly recorded audio, they can get on their bike! H4n always arrives at my suite clipped or at so low a gain level that the signal to noise ratio is all hiss. I curse the day that people without even learning basic audio knowledge started buying that noisy piece of crap as if it were gold dust. They are pretty poor pieces of kit. I have one (I got it for free) and I still hate it. I also have a DR100 and that gets more use. And it's still noisy! The Edirol R44 is the cheapest decent audio recorder I've found, though I bet the Roland R26 will be good. After a good decade in professional sound, I know garbage when I hear it, and though the preamps in the H4n are better than those in the DR100, its so noisy you may as well be standing next to a fucking waterfall with anything other than loud, loud sources, which dialogue is not. End rant. Phew. Glad I got that off my chest. It's an important point though. If you want to do narrative with the BMD, you should consider audio gear that works to the same level. I have a feeling lots of new film-makers will be shooting RAW DNG files with beautiful dynamic range, but recording audio on cheap Rode Videomics into H4ns at the wrong level of gain, with really poor signal to noise ratio. That's a severe mismatch of quality. I don't think it will marry too well on screen... but I am a bit of a snob with audio :D It's definitely an area of expertise for me, and something I'd be happy to write about again, now I've had six months away from writing for Sound On Sound I think I'm ready to do it again! In truth, audio recorders are pretty duff until you get to Sound Devices, and then Nagra above that. But saying "use a Nagra" is a bit like saying "use an Alexa" ;)

If you're shooting on a corporate gig though, C100 with easy to use compact form factor and little files that look good enough will be perfect. It's just easier than spending money and time building a massive rig to get RAW capture, which makes workflow into a pig and the client probably won't notice anyway. If I were making a short or a feature or a series I'd be quite tempted to BMD, but for a huge amount of those making a reguolar living out of video this C100 is gonna be a very attractive product. They're just made for different markets. I still hate 24mnbps AVC though :rolleyes:

Sounds like, with your list of advantages, you've already chosen which one is best for you and your way of working, the LX7! I picked the RX100 for low light sensitivity and sensor size (DOF control), also because I know the menus and software are fast and easy... I had the HX9V til I dropped it in the sea, and it was only low light and DOF that it failed at, other than that it was an ideal B-Cam for 550D. I've never been happy with Panasonic menu navigation when I've tried them, so I thought I'd leave the LX7. But of course some people like different things! It all has to start with "what do I want to use it for, and how". Look at how the features stack up against your intended purpose rather than as a spec sheet and you'll make the right choice. It looks like both are great for different reasons. I love shooting in dark environments and natural light, so the RX100 took it because of that, as well as my positive experience with the HX9v. A lot of people have been mentioning the LX7's wider aperture at the long end, forgetting that this is completely written off by the tiny sensor: the Sony is still more sensitive and has shallower DOF at the long end. But of course, if you need a hot shoe and a mic input and often use super close macro and ultra slow motion, AND if you don't always want to shoot at 50p or 60p, then there's only one choice here, the Panasonic.

[quote name='TC' timestamp='1346253524' post='16833'] Yeah, I suspect the 4:2:2 is a mistake. As cameraboy points out, it is not part of the AVCHD 2.0 standard. [/quote] That said, they did make their own MPEG2 in for the XFs and the C300, so perhaps it's a non-standard implementation? We can only hope...

Another good point: the [b]XF100 [/b]camcorder is about 2500 quid and has their MPEG2 [b]50mbps 422[/b]. The use of the lower bitrate codec in this seems like obvious product tiering, if indeed the resulting footage is noticeably poorer, which it may or may not be. Hmmm, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. If it's of equal quality to C300 it'll kill the aforementioned for a lot of users. The Canon MPEG2 is pretty damn good. Not all codec implementations are equal, regardless of MPEG type or bit rate. But yeah, more bits is usually better, so I'm getting pretty sick of 24mbps when the quick SD cards write at 760mbps (96MBps). Canon have, for all their faults, killed higher-end products before though: the 550D made the 7D redundant for many people, unless they wanted to shoot in the rain with L-lenses, or shoot a lot of still frames per second. So it might be that they're doing the same again, and opening up the market a bit. As I said elsewhere, I just finished a long shoot on FS700 and I only really like the slow-motion, the form factor was so hard to deal with compared the the C300, all corners and awkward places for buttons. But I AM IN LOVE :wub: (lol) with the slow motion! It's so good! :) Again though, the low bitrate codec is such a shame, cos the slow motion is tied to that codec as it can only be recorded internally. I wish the whole 24mbps thing would just hurry up and f-ing die! :unsure: