Jump to content

Damon Mosier

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Unless they came out with a last minute firmware update before they shipped, the cameras do NOT have FULL MANUAL control over exposure, much to my disappointment. Our shop got one early and I've messed around with it a bit. You have a limited amount of manual adjustments you can make, but nothing that can be called full control. ISO: 400, 1600, and 6400 NO APERTURE SETTINGS! Instead you are left with EV compensation of +/- 2 in 0.5 increments, but it will only work if the exposure is within range of you ISO settings. For instance, if you are in a darker situation and want to shoot w
  2. When you are the company selling the software it is edited on it matters a great deal. They aren't advertising it to soccer moms. They are advertising it to editors. You know, kinda like how Arri crowed to all the cinematographers about how all the Best Picture nominees were shot on Arri cameras. And to put this in perspective, Final Cut Pro wasn't considered to be a credible platform for editing "professional" movies on until Walter Murch used it to cut Cold Mountain. That legitimized it in the eyes of many and that's when more "professionals" began using it in earnest. Ever since the deb
  3. Like hell. One of their cinema cameras costs more than all the cars I've ever bought put together. That's the whole point. Like when the guy says "But we do have a 4k option" he is referring to a $12,000 8bit DSLR or a $25,000 C500, that also requires several thousand more dollars to actually get that 4k recording. Meanwhile the new 4k GoPro, due out in a few weeks, sells for a few hundred bucks.
  4. Figures. I originally worded my question specifically asking whether the color gamut was 709 or 2020, but didn't want to look ignorant if it was an obvious question for those familiar with UHD monitors. So I did some looking on the internet first and I saw that Rec.2020 was what UHD was supposed to aim for, then assumed this monitor had it. Thus, I ended up looking ignorant anyway...
  5. I know that you said color reproduction wasn't exactly 100% accurate, but just the fact that the UHD color gamut is Rec.2020 instead of crappy Rec.709 is a major improvement...
  6. I might suggest that you are actually both saying the same thing with different words. If I may: "To escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring people back to the movies, while avoiding cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio, they designed the anamorphic lenses." At least, that's how I took both of your comments. One was describing the "why" and the other the "how."
  7. Is it just me or do the out of focus people look a bit... smeared... in that video?
  8. ML is the one and only thing that could possibly make this useful as a cinema camera in 2015. But even then I think this camera is too little, too late. It's cutting edge 2012 DSLR video for the year 2014/2015. Like it was said, this camera will be on the market for several years and money would be better spent on something else now or next year that isn't so outdated out of the box.
  9. I should clarify that I work for a rental house in LA. I showed my boss the camera and he thought it sounded great until I said it was E mount. We have tons of EF and PL lenses and I said we could always get adapters. He said "Nope. No adapters," and the conversation ended right there.
  10. If this camera had anything other than an E lens mount it would be killer (though obviously being a Sony cam that's all you'd expect). PL would be nice at the very least.
  11. I think you are missing the point. I don't think the argument is about convincing the average joe that they need to plonk down thousands of dollars instead of using their phone. It is about convincing the person who is already in the market for plonking down thousands of dollars why they should spend those thousands on a particular camera. The only reason to release a MkII or MkIII of anything is because you want people who already have the earlier version to upgrade for the latest new features. The manufacturer is attempting to cash in on the reputation of the previous version, but updating
  12. According to Dave McGavran over on Creative Cow, Adobe has only implemented cinemaDNG playback in this update and not raw capabilities. That is something they are working on for future updates. Would have been nice if they were upfront about this ahead of time, but there it is. Basic functionality first, more robust capabilities later.    
  13.     Yeah... like I said, this isn't a "good" example because it isn't a problem in this shot. But this is the only one I have at the moment because my drive with all the cineform files completely went up in smoke last night and I lost everything. I still have the raw stuff on another drive but I have to reprocess everything from scratch. When I get another copy of the raw files from the director and can start reprocessing I will find a clip that is more noticeable. In any case, I enabled downloads for this clip but it still looks pretty clean when you download it.   I'm not
  14. I've just shot a short film using the ML raw hack for the 5DmkIII. We are using a PC workflow so we transcoded the raw files into Cineform raw using GoPro Studio Premium, RAW2GPCFv113, and RAWinizer. Cineform seems like a much easier workflow than cinemaDNG, so that is what we went with. However, the resulting Cineform .mov files that come out are pretty noisy. I shot almost the entire film at 100 ISO with Canon CN-E lenses so I'm pretty sure the noise is a result of the transcoding process.   Has anyone else worked with Cineform raw? Is the noise typical or am I doing something wrong
  15.   That is why I am watching the Kinefinity line very closely. Frankly, I hope it does very well.
  • Create New...