Jump to content

jgharding

Members
  • Content Count

    1,714
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by jgharding

  1. They match well under these conditions! The left-hand camera has rendered the reds in the lipstick with more blue so I'd guess Sony, but it's evidently not so hard to match them when they're not being used at extremes, that's good news.
  2. This matches my experience recording C100 with Ninja 2. I was using DNxHD 220x which is 10-bit, and was thinking "is this somehow filling in the extra bits?!" But it isn't, the output is 8-bit, it's just having so much more data really helps.
  3. Amazing that there are so few in the world! I'm sure one day such sensors won't be so expensive.
  4. Thanks for clearing that up, I knew i was rusty. Still, it remains a fact that red comes out far more blocky than blue, so I'm guessing all of it as at play at once: chroma subsampling, blue sensitivity, bitrate priority and so on... Even using Redcode raw with a red camera things are nicer at daylight balance. I think most sensors and processing pipelines are just optimised for it. Red's web site has a good description of what';s going on which I should have read before posting: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/video-chroma-subsampling
  5. I'm a bit more relaxed today than when I wrote that first post - production stresses!!
  6. Yes, this is due to chroma subsampling. in 420 footage the 0 is the red channel. It is encoded with (Im rusty here) one quarter the resolution of the luma channel and half that of the blue channel. Red is not prioritised. my exact number details could be rusty, but this is what's going on. The edges of red out of focus lights will show you just how fuzzy things can get. the more red your balance, the lower the resolution of your image. when I used to use Canon 600D I used Visioncolor, which is a profile that enhanced blue, and used to balance cool. I also used a hack that upped the bitrate a lot. If you shoot very warm with and 8bit 420 codec then yes things are more likely to fall apart if pushed around. so if in doubt cool/green it a bit would be general advice. HOWEVER I've got rid of all my Sonys because I hated the colour, and the endless grading just to fix problems, so perhaps trying to go cool and green will just ruin your footage: you can but try!
  7. LEL! My Scarlet standard setup is 7kg with a small prime lens. So if i can I'm happy to use a little camera, if I don't need the nicest image quality. Every Red should come with a set of these: *** In this situation battery life would be a real problem, as batteries massively underperform in freezing conditions. You'd need a huge sack of them for an SLR. I'd definitely want to run with big goldmounts or v-locks, and yes 10-bit at least for smooth transitional tones.
  8. C100 appears to capture over 100 into super. Using it in Premiere you can just pull it back, it's not a hard clip, that's probably the float engine at work. It's really useful. You'll probably lose that when you transcode I'd guess. I wonder if "full range" in 5D2RGB is pushing that down into a 0-100 file, hence the look? 32-bit in AE sees it all, slows working down though. I often work in 8-bit, occasionally check 32, and render in 32. Ah I missed that, sorry. Yes if you're having trouble with Mercury I'm sure ProRes will be easier on the system.
  9. They still have their place in shoot arsenal, although I don't use them for video since the XC10 came out.
  10. I was thinking dropbox but do they have bandwidth limits for public downloads? Between a gig and two
  11. What's the best online host for big files to keep links alive? I have a few Amira clips so y'all can compare with a few other cams.
  12. This seems to have very drab colours compared to most Canon in video clips, so this testing is useful in that it proves this is not an illusion! For the price of this you could go and buy a proper video camera 2nd hand. I can't see why you'd get it unless you're primarily a stills guy, weddings and so on. I think it's a sort of last-gasp of their current sensor style. They will HAVE to innovate sooner or later. As soon as Sony fix colour and menu system they're in real trouble. its clear that Canon engage in "perception management" and refuse review stock to people who have an opinion, and I for one like the alternative voice at EOSHD. They can't stop you buying it in a shop so that's what Andrew does, like the rest of us. there's no "Andrew Reid edition slider" here, no banner ads for products that are supposedly impartially reviewed. one doesn't have to agree with everything said in order to appreciate free speech.
  13. With the release of a $6000 1D body that has no peaking, uses an ancient 8-bit codec and has no log, don't expect the lower range 5D body to be whipping those specs... the writing has been on the wall for so long it's faded and someone has graffitied toilet-dicks all over it: Canon has seperated video and stills for the foreseeable future. sad times.
  14. My favorite was the Chinese University ones. That was 15 pages wasn't it?
  15. I'd upgrade to CC and save the transcoding trouble! :0
  16. Just did another shoot with an Amira and a Scarlet. There's just no competition for Amira/Alexa in overall image. The Amira resolves more with upscaled 4K than the MX sensor does at native. Its noise pattern is fine and has soft colours, while the MX sensor's is blotchy yellow/purpleyblue. The colour and grading latitude are stunning with no need for raw in most circumstances, the hardware and software are rock solid. It's just jaw dropping to use in post. BUT I can't justify the cost to own, so an older Scarlet for £5,000 for the whole kit was more sensible. A decent Amira setup will cost you £35,000. I've not used Dragon sensor yet. An MX sensor still kicks most images, it's just when you put it next to the Arri sensor, it's a jaw dropper. Next shoot though will be two C100s. It's all horses for courses as they say. One always has complaints about an image but it just depends how spoiled you are! Blue Ruin is a great example of how good the C300 is as the whole thing was shot on it, but some of the listed pieces it was an occasional B-cam.
  17. I've used C100 AVCHD native in Premiere for a couple of years with no problems. You don't gain any grading latitude by transcoding to another codec even if it is uncompressed 16-bit or whatever, as the Mercury Engine is moving around in a 32-bit space anyway using acceleration to decode and render. Just be sure to render your final with "render at maximum bit depth" ticked and you'll be good. Transcoding is for when you don't have a native engine or your computer can't handle the playback so need to make it iFrame. I've A/B tested it with Premiere and unsurprisingly, there was no difference. Most of the ones where there's difference are people not ticking the right boxes on export. That's my experience!
  18. As well as the aforementioned comically giant 8-bit files, every film I've watched so far seems to have clipped flat highlight areas knocking around. It's not the end of the world but it's not that nice when even cheap cameras come with log now. What's the excuse? It costs 4 grand! Sony give you log in a pocket compact. Why make you use an ancient 800mbit codec at 8-bit with no log? Because this doesn't have a "C" on it, so you aren't allowed nice things. I do start to cringe when the "well it doesn't need it" defensive arguments come out, it reminds me of Mac fanboys who tried to defend the Mac laptop with only one USB slot that doubled as charger. "Well... I DONT NEED IT! I LIKE NOT HAVING IT! ITS A GOOD THING" Yes you do, no you don't and no it's not. You're trying to feel better about being stiffed there's no prizes for It. And also it has no peaking right, or so I hear?! and I suppose no one needs that either? So a 550D with magic lantern still has a bunch more video features than this?! I'm a canon fan, I have three video cams of theirs. But I'm not a fanboy, and won't cuck it up and pretend that cheaping out on features is somehow generous. It's not, they've really held back on video here quite obviously because it's not C series. maybe if you're a still+video guy this is a good option. Weddings etc. Shoot stills, roll baked-in 8-bit video. But It all seems a bit ropey for video only use. I can see no reason to drop that kinda cash on it TBH and in hiring terms the C300 mk ii has it beat. still, each to their own. It's not a bad camera obviously, but as far as I can see it's just more proof that they're determined to separate stills and video.
  19. Well put! Yes they do it very well in real life, as opposed to brilliant on the spec sheet and poor in practice.
  20. LOL! Straight in there with latest meme! Nice one! It's the new Hitler Downfall! I love that it's an argument about Krautrock.
  21. I don't have the DAF upgrade on either C100 body, so I have no STM lenses. I don't think I'll look into it at this stage really, I'll probably wait til C100 MKiii if it ever arrives with 4k. I use the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the 24-105L f4 mainly. The latter is not by any means spectacular, but it's a sort of "camcorder" workhorse with the IS. That's what puts me off this one a little too: lack of stabilisation. I have a bunch of nice Contax primes and so on but they only come out for the big projects to reduce general wear and tear on them, and because using primes is very slow in comparison. What you talk about there is the secret to Canon success: doing all of it well enough. The package is just very usable. You can rescue the AVCHD from much worse mistakes than you'd think too!
  22. On one shoot I was using a C100 with a Ninja 2 and DNxHD 220x and it dropped one shot, meaning i had to use the AVCHD backup shot from the C100 internal recording. Even with some heavy grading, you couldn't spot the AVCHD in amongst the Ninja 2 shots. It was a still shot, but there was smoke. It's the best AVCHD implimentation there is, a great piece of work. An external recorder is better, but the AVCHD is still very, very good.
×
×
  • Create New...