KrisAK

14 hours ago, Stathman said:

Although the AF speed is waaaay faster with DR100, I think it is not so smooth.

Can anyone else see it or my eyes flipped out? 

Yes, even at DR100, it looks herky-jerky. Is that somehow usable? There's a difference between saying that it's less bad at DR100, and saying that CAF for video is actually usable.

Also, I find it disturbing that folks seem to be almost preemptively anticipating problems as inevitable; that they'll later be fixed in firmware as part of Fuji's world-class Kaizen.

My understanding is that Kaizen (the Deming cycle, Toyota Production System, call-it-what-you-will) was meant to discover and prevent flaws like this from being pushed into market in the first place; not to fix errors that were sloppily discovered only after the release.

A more accurate term for what Blackmagic, Sony, and now Fuji and others are doing is the well-known strategy of "Release it Now; Fix it Later."

For $1800, I expected more. (And a headphone jack.)

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

One particularly interesting snippet from that video that caught my attention was the reference to Fuji having an ETERNA LUT for F-LOG.

This peaked my interest and it does indeed turn out that they have updated their LUT pack to V1.1 to include ETERNA.

http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/lut/

Apologies if this is already a well known fact but it certainly sneaked under my radar.

This makes recording externally with the X-T2 suddenly a lot more interesting....

Speaking of external recorders...

If you're using one of those, what does the X-H1 bring to the equation over a cheap, 2nd hand X-T2 (other than IBIS and maybe ETERNA.)

Any 'gotchas' when using the X-T2 and and external recorder?

Is overheating an issue when recording externally?

I'm asking because I've seen conflicting reports...in one instance the camera gets "as hot as a cup of tea", even when using an external recorder (they might have simultaneously been recording in-camera, which would explain things.)

But assuming you're ONLY recording to the external device, with the camera simply switched on, does the camera not overheat, and not shut-down after 30 minutes...allowing the recorder to fill to capacity. (This would be for covering long-form events.)

The POV threw me...I though it was the perspective of someone looking AT his home. I think it's because his eyes are initially shut, and when he opens them appear to be looking down, while the POV is looking straight out. Maybe a close angle on the guy's face before cutting to the POV?

17 hours ago, seanstiller said:

Hi guys

I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. I've got a C300mkii and hoping to use the XC15 as a b-cam. Some of the footage posted is quite stellar!

I'm not sure if it was fully determined to what extent the XC15 suffers the same problems as the XC10. Seems like people have chalked it up to a camera by camera situation.

Are there any other XC15 owners here who can attest, either way, to similar ghosting/noise reduction problems?

Thanks in advance!

Sean

Has anyone posted a side-by-side that demonstrates this variation, either between two XC10's or the XC10 and XC15? I've read plenty of speculation, but no actual tests.

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Wonder if this might be bad news for indie filmmakers trying to sell films to Netflix? 
(good news though if you're pitching an original series to Netflix! But for the vast majority of us, that isn't applicable)

Anyone using Amazon Video Direct?

https://videodirect.amazon.com/home/landing

AVD probably accounts for all the (extremely) low-budget genre films...even short films...that show up in searches on Amazon video. Every now and then I'll find a gem, and once it picks up votes, it bubbles to the top of the rankings and gains word-of-mouth on genre-specific websites.

On 1/2/2016 at 10:58 PM, Sekhar said:

Vimeo is as bad or worse than YouTube in my experience, so I don't agree with the "you get what you pay for, and YouTube is worse than Vimeo because it is free and Vimeo is not." I have the PRO account on Vimeo, and EVERY ONE of the videos I uploaded to Vimeo turned out to be similar to or worse than on YouTube, so I just don't get what you guys are talking about. To be sure, there are other benefits (no ads, can replace video, have custom links, etc.), but WRT to picture quality I don't see any benefit.

If you guys can show a single example of the exact SAME FILE uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, with Vimeo generating better PQ, I'd love to see it.

Thanks for the reminder. I've got a now empty Vimeo account, and need to cancel auto-renew.

I have zero issues with other streaming services, but for some reason Vimeo refuses to cache properly, and playing the pause/catchup game is tedious in the extreme. Watching anything there has become a miserable experience.  I'd much rather download an entire file from Google Drive or OneDrive.

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

...

If I were looking for a camera for shooting family events, I'd take the G80 or G85 any day of the week....

I admired the crisp backlighting in this footage...shooting directly into the sun-blasted windows. My sense is that m43 might struggle a bit with that, but perhaps I'm being unfair?

I'm zeroing-in on my first iMac, and there doesn't seem to be a way to NOT buy these magical things.

(This explains all the white-box "kit keyboards" I'm seeing on eBay.)

1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

The worst in all this, is that they will announce in a couple of months a FF mirorless, it won't be any better for video, and that will be even more a shame. 

Sad. 

I wouldn't expect 4K in that, either.

But for god's sake implement electronic (fully silent) shutter, the lack of which is the only reason I didn't purchase an M5.   

Some reviews are up for the previous Kickstarter version:

https://www.amazon.com/Vufine-Inc-VUF-100-Handsfree-Wearable/dp/B01HY18A9U

On 6/12/2017 at 3:45 AM, Trek of Joy said:

There are threads about FCPx benchmarks like this one, lots of hardware configs to choose from:

http://www.fcp.co/forum/hardware/18250-brucex-try-this-new-final-cut-pro-x-benchmark

I have the previous gen 4ghz i7 (bought used, 3 mo old with 3-year AppleCare for $2000 last year, over $1000 less than new) with 4gb vram, a 1tb SSD and 32gb ram (from B&H when they were having a sale) and its really, really fast cutting 4k from my A7rII or my XT2. I don't use proxies and I never convert to proves, just files straight from the camera. My iMac is noticeably faster than my previous trashcan Mac Pro with dual video cards and 6gb vram. After testing the iMac at the Apple Store I decided to dump the pro for the faster machine with the better monitor.

Thanks. And thanks for the link.

Sounds like what you've got would be more than enough for my uses. Funny thing, a few weeks ago I purchased a similar unit (i7/m395x/256GB, $2379) from Apple's refurbished store, but the SSD died while upgrading to Sierra (so much for SSD reliability) so back it went. I was waiting for a similar unit to become available when the new iMacs were announced.

I'm still considering used, but prices for a used i7-equipped unit haven't budged, and the difference between a refurbished 2015 and an equivalent 2017 works out to be $300 or so. Not much, but $300 more than the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM I'd decided to spend. (And exactly the cost of FCPX, which I also need to purchase.)

I'll probably head to the Apple store with a CFast reader to see how an i5 copes with 4K footage. I'm less concerned about render times than I am about moment-to-moment responsiveness inside the application.

On 6/8/2017 at 7:07 AM, Bioskop.Inc said:

 

Would be really interesting to hear from someone what specs you actually need for the normal iMacs....

As someone coming from a PC, that's my question, as well. More specifically:

Is the additional 4GB VRAM in the Radeon 580 of any real use for 4K editing? FCPX and plugins that interest me list 1GB as a requirement for 4K, so I'm wondering if 8GB VRAM is overkill. (I noticed that the 580 is the only card rated as "VR Ready." The cynic in me wonders if it's there primarily to allow Apple to advertise the iMac as "VR Capable." As someone with no interest in strapping on an Oculus Rift, would that money be better be spent on memory?

Is the hyperthreaded i7 required for relatively straightforward 4K editing (Canon XF-AVC Intra...though that's apt to change)? I've read anecdotal reports that recent i5 iMacs outperformed earlier i7's, so, again, is the i7 overkill?

11 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to find little subtle references everywhere. I'm guessing in the movie it'll be a specific date, which is 2 years after the original Blade Runner took place.

Yeah, it's a reach. The quasi-religious element of the book (Mercerism?) was absent from first movie; I keep hoping it might pop-up somewhere in this... 

Nice writeup.

I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical:

Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God):

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Or not.

23 hours ago, IronFilm said:

That is the one I also really REALLY want! :-D

Anyone heard of any overheating issues with it?

There's a thread on DVInfo about those recorders (I'd considered one for myself): http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sound-devices-pix-series-recorders/

They're apparently designed to get hot,  but I'm not sure if thermal shudowns have been reported, or under what circumstances.

DPreview is just a communal front porch leading to Amazon. Anything driving traffic away is probably viewed a threat, though for their own sake (i.e. maintaining the illusion of editorial integrity) you'd think they'd leave it up.

Dumb move by DPreview.

Dual-pixel focus would be the only thing (at the moment, anyway) that that would make me consider an upgrade.

Thanks for the thread. I'd been meaning to dig up and watch the following film, the tone of which is fascinating. (It made the rounds as an Internet meme a few years back, which I somehow missed.)

Anyway, if you ever forget the title, just Google "cardboard MRI..."

What do they mean by "native" ProRes?

A native decoder (that doesn't require Quicktime)? A native encoder (which would be very surprising to see on the Windows side)?

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Sorry, I know this was an old comment, but is the HD downsampled internally from 4k like the C100?

Yes, if this what you mean: (from https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/camcorders/professional/xc10)

"The advanced CMOS sensor uses Over-Sampling HD Processing for 1920x1080 capture, the same high-image-quality signal-processing system used by the high-end Canon EOS C500 4K Cinema camera." 

New firmware improves HD low-light a bit, as well as AF.

5 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Imo the design is more professional and look more like a real cinema film camera. But people like DSLRs. Same thing when the BMCC came out. People and reviewers ripped on a cinema camera not being designed as a stills camera?? strange imo.
Regarding the "toy" design of the box etc, that is the same graphic design that all professional Bolex cameras have had, always. They just stayed true to the legacy.
And no, it did nor come in a leather bag, it came in a box, nothing more.

But I agree with you. They didn't do the best of marketing. If it was me I would have let the team step back and hire some snappy gents in suites for the publicity. Also I would have lended it to reviewers, they didn't. The only reviewer was PB who bought one and he is alway (imo) very unclear and doesn't have a broad perspective. So the pro use got lost in his review since he compared it to a F55, like everyone owned one of those.

(BTW, "Hipster" as far as I know means "I dont know what this is and feel embarrassed so I call it Hipster to hide my insecurity". Just saying  )

"Hipster" has a pretty specific meaning: the forced-retro aesthetic, the vintage or thrift-store fashion sensibility, most of Etsy.com, the Bettie Page bangs, martinis & Mercury astronauts, graphic designs that ape early 60s magazine ads. In short: inauthentic and store-bought, appropriated wholesale from an earlier era, just like the Bolex name they licensed from Bolex International. (That, I though, was frankly obnoxious.)

Of course, this has nothing to do with the camera, but it tells me a bit about how a company perceives itself, and that their priorities might be a little skewed. Certainly enough to make me second guess a $3000 investment.

Here's another startup going down that same hipster path:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/294564710/mercury-the-worlds-first-universal-camera

As for the box, I get what Ebrahim is saying: only one of these looks like a toy:

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Great.  Now I can record the feature lecturer at the insurance adjusters conference next month without having to miss a single moment by pausing the recording and then restarting.

Seriously though...is non-stop recording (a feature that many people seem to go on about) not at all a big deal?  Legitimate question: does anyone here really need to record this long?  I'm actually curious.

Yes, for wildlife. if you've established an area of "routine" wildlife activity, you can plop a camera nearby, hit record, and walk away. Of course, that means sifting through hours of footage, but at 8x speed in an NLE, it's not really that big of a deal.

This is also why heat management is essential, as well as good DR..since the light shifts dramatically over the shooting period...as well as high ISO performance.

5 hours ago, josef said:

...What about removing the lens and giving us an EF mount so we can use our own glass? I think if Canon did that they'd find more buyers for this kit.

That would be a very different camera, and for certain uses would actually be less appealing.

(And if that's what you need, I think Canon expects you to cough up for a Cxxx-series camcorder.)

2 hours ago, Mikestern said:

Andrew. 

When I read that part about the image quality comparison of these 2 cameras, I was surprised. So I went to DPreview and put the images side by side to check.

???

xc10 image quality is no where close to RX10III. Honestly. It doesn't even offer RAW. You mentioned this under "cons" for Canon, but why not mentioning the same thing under "pros" for Sony?

Canon does not have to have a better image quality, I understand, but near 2000$ camera that doesn't offer RAW for this category of a camera is not easily acceptable, not only for me, for so many of us.

i really would like to believe you conducting this article unbiased. Having difficulties.

 

What do you mean by "this category"? The XC10 is sold and marketed as a professional camcorder.