Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Damphousse

  1. My fear is that non-technical users will want to hit the button and just blindly accept what it gives them. This will be a particular problem for assistant editors and others who weren't on the set and have no idea what was shot that day. If they blindly "trust the button," things could go south very quickly.

    Don't forget that Resolve has had the "Auto Color" button for many years, and I don't know of anybody using that, either. This is just a more sophisticated version of Auto Color with a fixed reference. "Make this chart look like the reference, and it'll be perfect." It's a good theory, but I see a lot of danger here.


    By Marc Wielage over at lift gama gain

    You're contradicting yourself.  You acknowledge the "Auto Color" function has been out for awhile and it is not optimal.  You also claim you don't know anyone using it.  So it seems to me in your experience people won't use something that doesn't work well.  What am I missing here?

    I use the "Auto color" function.  When it works I just move on with my grading.  If it doesn't I just hit undo and adjust the color manually.  I don't lose anything.  In all honesty though i don't use "Auto color" properly.  I don't have a white balancing card in the frame.  I was actually waiting to get the X-rite package and have an all in one solution.  DSLR custom white balance works better than "Auto Color" for some reason so with a DSLR you can actually be okay in a lot of situation even if you are sloppy.

    Really there is no "theory" here or people "blindly trusting."  Most of us are grading our stuff ourselves.  We have eyes, a decent memory, and know what we want.  If any of this automated stuff doesn't give us the result we want we just hit undo and default to manual.  I mean if you press the shutter button on a camera and the auto focus locks on the wrong thing do you just "trust the button" even though you are staring at a blurry picture?

  2. Tascam DR-60D is a much cheaper option.  Just be aware it has no built in mic.

     That’s where the Zoom shines and one example of how incredibly versatile it is. On the flip side, it always feels to me that the Tascam DR-60 and 70D recorders are a little more purpose built for film makers and a little more ergonomic and quicker to operate. Need phantom power? There’s a switch for that, no need to menu dive. And even when you do need to access the menu, the dial is very quick. As always, there are tradeoffs and both are great options and neither is 100% perfect for everyone. For now, I’ll stick with my Tascam.


  3. I'd recommend the Sony PMW-F3 for sure (I have one myself! And I'm using Nikon lenses with it).

    They're an insanely good deal. Can easily pick one up for roughly two grand ish each on eBay or elsewhere. I even saw one go for a grand and a half earlier this week on eBay (I paid even less for mine!).


    Only significant drawbacks about this AWESOME camera: weight, max 60fps, and only MF (except for rare FZ exceptions).

    Lol!  M'man!  That F3 maneuver you pulled for $1,200 with 4:4:4 is classic!  Preach, brother! Preach!

    What if there were no 4K available in cameras today? Would you still recommend an A7something, GH4, NX-1, based on their other features? I like some of the high FPS slow motion coming out on new cameras, but not enough to be the sole buying point.

    I need to record video for work - A few talking heads, how-to steps, finished product, QA testing, etc. It will never be at a theatre near you. I do not need 4K, just clear quality and pleasant colors. Used models are also fine.

    Staying at 1080, what camera system would you recommend based on quality, features, workflow, codecs, etc. ?

    I think you missed the whole point of 4k for most of us.  We are working with bayer pattern sensors with various limitations.  For the majority of us the point of shooting "4k" is so we can down convert to decent 1080p!  You can't just read the side of the box and assume you have all the information.  Plenty of Canon DSLRs that say 1080p on the box are NOT 1080p.  With a bayer sensor you have to sample A LOT more than 1080p to get true 1080p.  The stuff that is claimed to be 4k at affordable prices isn't 4k.  Maybe the NX1 downsamples 6k to 4k?  I don't know.

    As far as DETAIL the best way to get 1080p is to down sample 4k.  I am a BMPCC man myself.  The DETAIL is not up to downscale 4k standards but the robust raw and prores provide superior color.  It's all trade offs.

    Your whole approach seems wrong.  Drawing a line at 4k is very arbitrary.  Depending on what you are going for some 4k outranks 1080p and some 1080p outranks 4k.  And really with the falling prices you can get multiple solid 4k cameras for less than $1,100... including the GH4 used.

    Whether you get an F3 with external recorder or a GH4, with skill you will make a nice image.  Honestly I consider all this stuff in the same bucket and try and figure out the trade offs that work for me.


    That would be me you're referring to :-) And yes mine does come with 444!!

    Nice job!  Thanks.  Couldn't remember who got the deal.



    But even so, I think you're over stating this point. As I think most people like myself who are buying it up now in 2015 on the ultra cheap, are not going to pair it with an ultra expensive 444 recorder but will instead use it with an affordable 10 bit 422 recorder. (Although, this is changing and improving too! As now the PIX-E5 offers a very affordable option for 444 recording)

    So keep an eye out for if a camera comes with 444 or not, but in the end I think what matters more is getting a good bargain on its price. I'd still buy one again even if it didn't have 444 as the price is great. 

    I agree with you regarding your thoughts on 4:4:4.  I did a lot more research after starting the thread and Andrew echoed what I found.  There was some debate as to how much difference 4:4:4 really makes.  I also wasn't sure about the recorder issue.  I hadn't stumbled across any economical 4:4:4 recorders but I didn't want to assume.  Thanks for clearing up that mystery.

       Don't think you can reasonably compare an FS100 over an F3 (unless you *really want* that lighter weight, or the E mount).

    No NDs, no s-log, no SDI, no 10 bit, and the list goes on. These are serious commissions vs an F3.

    I agree.  Neither camera for me would be my choice for run and gun.  I would use it strictly on sticks.  The NDs and 10 bit SLog would be stuff I would use all the time.

    Difference between 422 and 444 isn't really perceivable.

    You won't see much benefit from the 10bit 422 and you can have that anyway with the GH4 and external recorder.

    Yeah but the GH4 is no low light monster and it doesn't hold a candle to the F3 in terms of connections, robust build quality, built in ND, etc.  And of course S35>>m43!  By the time you add in a speedbooster and XLR connections for the GH4 the price has skyrocted well above what an F3 is going for.  And I think your depreciation risk is way less with a Sony F3.  Conversely I wouldn't walk around with an F3.  They are different cameras for different purposes.  I have a BMPCC but I wouldn't sell it to get an F3.


    F3 - nice price, but big heavy bulky unergonomic old-style camcorder.

    That's what is nice about it.  People look at it like an ugly duckling so you can get it cheap!

  5. In Sweden a c100 is cheaper than a 5dmkiii. A few years ago it was what, 4 5Diii on one C100?... Crazy I say :) 

    Fits in with my thesis I've been posting about for years.   Stills has kind of plateaued.  The go go days of the 00's is long gone.  Back then Canon and NIkon were bumping up the megapixel count by 2 megapixels every 1-2 years.  That might not sound like much but going from 6 to 10 megapixels means a heck of a lot more than going from 18 to 24.  You can go out and do a high end pro shoot with a 5D MK III and no one will complain.


    There's an easy reason why the majority of people wouldn't be buying in 2 years... A7RIII  or Samsung Nx1 mark 2 (or some other "jesus camera" we don't know about) that does 8k video, internal recording, high iso and high dynamic range... Do we need all these features.. hell no.. But it's good to have for cropping, panning, future "proofing", etc.. etc.. ( whatever reasons people have to buy the "newest" and "greatest")   hahahhaha... Same excuses, different year :-)

    I think with the maturation of video cameras we are going to see less and less dramatic deprecation on pro gear.  What would the F5 MK II have that would cause the F5 to become rubbish? Maybe internal 4k Prores HQ 4:2:2 like Blackmagic?  Figuring out the various ways Sony is attempting to juice people for money on that camera is dizzying.  First they are holding everyone hostage by disabling 4k on all future firmwares.  Then they are turning around and selling the 4k hack back for $1,000!  Then you have to buy a $2,000 part to enable Prores... and you have to send your camera in.  And when it comes back even after spending $3,000 total you won't be able to get 4K Prores!  After all that time and money you will only be able to record 4k with the Sony codec.  Prores is HD only!

    Now that I think about it yeah maybe the F5 will also be relegated to yard sale status.  But eventually we will see complete products without stupid gimmicks designed to line corporations pockets and at that point the upgrade cycle will slow way down.  Till then enjoy the ride and avoid being an early adopter.


    Although the 4:4:4 RGB output is truly the selling point.

    I think for most of us not doing an extreme grade SLog 4:2:2 an external recorder with a robust codec for $500 or less does the trick.  Honestly I think the type of person looking to get the F3 for $1,200 isn't going to pony up the cash for an Odyssey 7Q+.  My concern with all this equipment as a nonpro is depreciation.  A Sony F3 for $1,200 means you pretty much have zero depreciation to worry about.  I would be more interested in a $495 Blackmagic Video Assist to record externally... Although I don't think the Video Assist would be able to do slowmo with the F3.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


    Aaah, that must have been the scandal girl. Oh the memories.

    Please leave that out of this thread.

    I just got one with the slog 4:4:4 upgrade, Berkley top plate, zacuto base plate, rods and Anton Bauer battery plate for just over $2100 shipped.

    Was this a "make an offer" on evilbay?

  7. lets face it, was never seeing sales on the same level of RED or Canon

    According to anecdotal reports around the web it did seem to sell okay.  But then the C300 came on the scene and people in various forums speculate that is what prompted Sony to offer SLog for free.  Once again this idea that Sony is a benevolent innovator who is giving the farm away for free out of the kindness of its heart and Canon is evil is probably false.  I still remember the butt hurt over the F55 F5 4k fiasco.

    I've seen speculation on the interwebs that the volume they sold in is what is depressing the used market.  There simply isn't a big enough enthusiast market to absorb all the production companies dumping their Sony F3s.

     That being said, I'd take a $1200 F3 with 4:2:2 over a $4k one with 4:4:4.

    That's really not the choice any of us are making.  There was ONE report of someone getting the F3 for $1,200 in a private sale.  The cheapest I've actually seen it change hands on ebay is about $1,700.  Also the NEW price for the 4:4:4 variety is $4k.  You can get it used for $2,350... maybe less.

    I do take your meaning though.  I haven't seen any convincing statements on the web that 4:4:4 adds anything to the package... especially considering the cost.  I only realized this after doing further research.  Unless the difference was negligible I guess I too would go for the 4:2:2 version and put the rest towards an external recorder.  Low light with SLog is impressive.


    wow! This is actually a camera that rivals the C300 and Red Scarlet at its time (and now, the the three are still the same cameras). http://nofilmschool.com/2012/01/reason-sony-f3-canon-c300

    What a deal. The image and functionality/pro features at that price is just great.

    Yeah.  Just depends on your needs.  It can't replace my BMPCC but if you needed a pro 1080p camera to use on sticks this thing looks like a steal... built like a tank, XLR, SDI, etc.

  8. Unfortunately from the ad it is ambiguous whether the RGB 4:4:4 upgrade is present.  While the form data does have the RGB model number entered, in the list of features the seller only mentions SLog.  Anyone bidding on that item would really need to nail the seller down on what is actually being sold.

  9. One of the other forum members alerted us to the new Sony F3 price drop.  It is currently showing at B&H as $3,995 which includes $10,000 of instant savings.  This camera debut years ago at $16,000 not including SLog.  I wouldn't be too keen on paying almost $4k for this camera but it does set up an interesting dynamic in the used market.

    Unfortunately there has been a lot of confusion about log on this camera.  People are selling this camera and claiming it has the SLog update.  Well as far as I can tell the SLog update is free from Sony.  It can be found here.  What people selling older Sony F3 cameras are NOT telling you is that the SLog update does not include the RGB 4:4:4 update.  Now the latest F3s all come with the ability to output RGB 4:4:4 and some of the older models have been updated...  but a lot haven't.  If you decide to buy this camera used be sure to ask questions so you know what you are getting and how to price it.  The RGB update, if you can find it, ain't cheap.  Search for Sony CBK-RGB01 and see what I'm talking about.

    Someone posted that they picked the Sony F3 up in a private sale for $1,200 or there about.  They mentioned the camera had SLog... but I don't recall them saying it had RGB 4:4:4 output.  Be careful guys.  Don't get burned... Although in either case depending on your needs $1,200 ain't too shabby!

  10. Yes it is. Clipped highlights aside.

    We are discussing clipped highlights in this thread.  You are making this guy's highlight problem seem common and unique to BMPCC.  I saw this guy's thread yesterday and I didn't respond.  The reason I didn't respond is I saw all that pink everywhere and I hadn't ever seen it before in a BMPCC clip.  I didn't have a solution because I wasn't familiar with the problem.  Lumping these shots in with a grab bag of other issues and claiming it's a common problem is a thorough misrepresentation.  I am not a pro nor an expert on the BMPCC.  But even with my inexperience and incompetence I never encountered massive fields of pink in multiple shots neither have I seen that result on other videos I've seen on the internet.  Either his camera is broken or it's being used in an unusual fashion.

    And if you shoot raw and do an extreme ETTR on ANY camera you can't judge what the final image will look like till you process the raw files.  That has nothing to do with Blackmagic.

  11. Looks like there doing tons of discounts with that code...



    $600 off a fully-loaded 13" MacBook Air, $300 off a key iMac 5K model, $300-$900 off select Mac Pros, $520-$600 off some MacBook Pros, $40-$45 off WD Passport Drives, 10-30% off photography gear, and more.

  12. It's a crap shoot with Blackmagic on what's going to be jacked up when you review the footage in post.

    No it's not.  As was stated he clipped the highlights and as with any camera highlights rarely clip evenly.

    You can of course deliberately lose detail. If, for example, you have faces in the sun at noon, it can be better to let the sky clip. The sky is always several stops brighter than anything else, and imo there is no point in trying to get an HDR image then. In extreme cases, you can even cause noise in sun shadows (even on faces) if you don't sacrifice the sky. We all know how a sky looks anyway. A professional DoP would bounce the faces but sometimes let the sky clip nevertheless. In Hollywood, as everyone knows, there is always blue sky, and not many things can be more boring.

    I personally avoid clipping as much as possible.  I think one of the biggest problems with digital video is clipped clouds.  As you yourself pointed out weird things can happen when you clip.  Clipping less gives more room for smooth highlight roll off.  Of course there are times when you have to clip but I don't go crazy with it.  A bit of noise to me is less noticeable than badly clipped highlights.

    What I find baffling is I use Prores HQ 99% of the time and I've never seen highlights like this guy is getting.  I wouldn't trade whatever noise I am getting for the terribly clipped highlights he's getting.

    If I am shooting indoors with a window in the scene then I have to make decisions or in an extreme back lit situation.

    I think everything in moderation.  I never set my zebras to 100%.  I give myself a little breathing room to avoid clipping just one or two channels unknowingly.  It's been stated numerous times that if you set zebras to 100% one channel may clip and the indicator won't necessarily give you are warning.  I also don't push things very far in low contrast scenes.  Unless it is a high dynamic range scene I don't push things right up to the clipping limit.

    Turboguard should really just experiment.  Do exposures and take notes.  See what works.  Try and be methodical about it.  Honestly though going this long without a UVIR filter with a blackmagic pocket is a bit much.  Turboguard, you need to search the web for Blackmagic specific resources and experiment.

  13.  Are you saying Sony, Nikon, etc. don't "just work?" Did you forget Canon's recent messy sensor issue with t6i already?

    Never heard of any issue with the T6i.  I pretty much knew the T6i wouldn't be my next video camera before it was even announced and Andrew's review didn't make that possibility any more likely.  I checked out your link.  Just a heads up...

    Basic design issue affecting 100% of cameras ≠ manufacturing issue that affects a minority of early cameras.

    You are posting your question in a forum with several threads talking about Sony cameras overheating between 5-30mins.  Click around man.  It's not a secret.  As far as Nikon I never said anything about Nikon.  But from your link...


    I believe my post pointed out a DESIGN flaw in older Canon rebels.  Not sure why you chose to ignore that.  Irreparable design flaws are much more of a concern than a manufacturing flaw affecting an isolated number of cameras on an early consumer product run... That is promptly fixed by the manufacturer free of charge.  Hit me back when Sony accepts every single RX10II, RX100IV, and A7RII and at no charges address all their overheating issues in a timely fashion free of charge.  Are you beginning to see the difference or do you need me to go on?

    And by the way it was nice of you to leave out the fact I actually said I was capable of working around the 5 minute overheating limitation and was actually disappointed Canon, due to their business model, wouldn't implement something like that.  But I guess it wouldn't be a forum argument without blatantly ignore factual information in a person's post.


    Unfortunately for Canon, people on vacation no longer buy shoulder size video camera to visit Paris, Rome, or New York.

    Concrete thinking much?

    That is one video about one camera that spawned dozens of threads of controversy.  And it is a bunch of PROS explaining Canon's corporate philosophy.  If you can't watch that, look at their product line top to bottom and see the difference between them and Blackmagic I can't help you.  I own a Blackmagic camera and a Canon camera and I'm considering a Sony camera.  Each of those companies has a different corporate philosophy.

    Canon simply won't put out a camera pro or otherwise that overheats the way Sony cameras do.  That doesn't mean they are a perfect company and don't have other issues and that doesn't mean Sony is a bad company.  Understand?

  14. The sad part is nobody seems to be truly objective anymore, you can spin things any way you want. Canon (especially the hallowed, beyond-any-reproach-of-any-kind 1Dc) can have any number of flaws, but you can always take refuge with two words: "color science" (whatever that is). And be sure to ignore what you can do in post, it don't matter. Kind of like the $8K Leica M Monochrom buyer ignoring all objective comparisons and calling it worth the price because it's just "magical" (whatever that is).

    And it's not just with cameras. Last night we had a Republican debates with 10 candidates, want to know who the winner was? Any of them, depends on who you ask. Heck, we don't know anything for sure anymore, from if there is a multiverse to if OJ was guilty to if a7RII or NX1 can render color as well as 1Dc. Reminds me of what Jack Nicholsen tells Diane Keaton in Something's Gotta Give: "I've never lied to you. I've always told you some version of the truth."

    I disagree.  What the poster you quoted said about Canon making cameras "that work" is objectively true.  I've been saying it for years.  When everyone raved about Blackmagic and cursed Canon I pointed out that Canon wouldn't destroy it's brand equity by releasing bugging cameras missing a bunch of essential features half a year or more late.  The worst thing I've encountered with Canon is the autofocus on the Rebels in live view mode.  And obviously on their mid to upper end cameras they made fixing that a huge priority.

    I am saddened by this review because it makes is almost certain that we won't see 4k from Canon in smaller lower end bodies for quite some time.  Knowing Canon they simply will not push out a product that is going to shut down frequently or have a five minute recording limit due to heat (RX100IV, RX10II asian version).  Personally I could live with a five minute recording limit.  I've never recorded longer than that.  But that doesn't seem to be the Canon way.  I'm glad Sony is pushing the envelope but you simply can't overlook serious issues like overheating and claim it's just subjective.

    If you want to learn more watch 60 seconds of this video to learn what the Canon philosophy is all about...


  15. Landscape still and video are worlds apart .... jump to conclusions is what seems to be the standard here.

    I agree.  Better to wait for dynamic range assessments from more traditional sources... like Andrew.  I've never seen a dynamic range test like the one I tracked down researching this thread.  Would have been nice for the OP to post the pictures with blown highlights and state the fact the A7RII used a different exposure but I guess that wouldn't have been as fun.  I've found two other lengthy threads on the interwebs expressing the same consternation regarding the methodology of this test.

  16. If you check the raw files using rawdigger rather than just using Lightroom (which will be affected by white balance etc) then you'll be able to see. The links to the rawdigger screenshots are in the post. 

    The highlights in the Sony images are blown.  That's a fail in my book.  I could get nice shadow detail if I blew the sky out on all my pictures/video.  But then my work would look like a lot of stuff you see on the web... crap.  BMPCC, shoot raw, expose to the right, and for goodness' sake don't blow out the sky... unless you do it for an artistic reason.  Properly exposed film keeps the highlights.  Video blows them constantly.



  17. What is this BS?!

    Did anyone even bother to follow the links back to the original "article"?  Here is part of the original article's author's methodology...

    We exposed such that the brightest area of non-sky was exposed to the right (using rawdigger to check) and then stopped down 6 stops and took our ‘under’ exposure.



    I mean just look at the pictures.  He blew out the sky in the two Sony shots and retain information in the sky in the Canon shot and then went and compared shadows.  Umm... why not mentioned the blown skies in the Sony pictures?  What a pile of BS.  Just do a proper test and get back to us with proper results.


    Ed, and if you'd still shoot with some 5-7 years old camera? Imagine, no GH4, no NX1, no a7S, you see what I mean.

    The last year year and a half saw dramatic progress in hybrid video, but that rate of change is going to slow markedly.  Look what happened with Canon and stills.  As someone else stated, I picked up a t3i in 2013 for a pittance.  I could probably sell it for the same price I paid for it.  There are newer cameras that cost four times the price but they aren't four times better... as far as stills.

    People can chase specs but really cameras are beginning to check off all the necessary boxes for me.  A 4.6k S35 raw camera with good color science and DR pretty much does it for me.  The size of the URSA mini is a bit big.  The URSA mini is not discrete.  It also doesn't do stills.  So it won't work for certain applications where an A7RII will shine.  Different horses for different courses.  But if someone said I just need a studio setup or dedicated video camera that doesn't require stealth then I would think the URSA mini is a better choice... assuming you don't mind grading (another caveat).

    I like some of these 4k cameras because they have so much detail and all but eliminate moire/aliasing.  But I still just can't let my BMPCC go because it has such a robust codec, DR, and great color science.

  • Create New...