fuzzynormal

It'll be adopted as a viable form of entertainment or art, of that I have no doubt. I'm not particularly interested, but there are plenty of creatives out there with the skill to make it viable. As all nascent tech, when it's in the hands of the engineers to create content, or, worse yet, when non-creative "creatives" are making things, it's gonna kinda suck. Early motion pictures were kinda crap for more than a few decades, for example. Heck, most commercial entertainment in motion pictures still is kinda lame, we just have a vocabulary for the craft now. Ideas as presented in this thread will help define the potential for VR.

Just curious, but aside from what can or cannot be accomplished with RAW, why weren't the scenes lit and exposed properly to begin with?

I'm an older guy and grew up in the age of publishing. Magazines were an enthusiasts connection to new developments. As such, I'm perfectly happy with the pace of content on EOSHD. It ebbs and flows with gear development. And doesn't that make the most sense?

Mmmm, gotta disagree on that one. If someone envisions that "pan&scan" can emulate dolly shots, then they're not comprehending how or why a dolly shot is visually worthwhile. Stabilization in a camera is a fun, great tool that offers new potential, (I rely on the Em5II for this purpose) but that (and/or 4K) is not a substitute for effective shooting. If you need a dolly shot, to get a good one, you have to move the lens through 3D space. Haven't used the new Pany cam...but I can say I've seen a lot of lousy examples of EM5II footage, and it looks bad most often because of user error.

That's a bad cable and/or connection. And yes, as the other poster replied, get a handle on the concept of mic placement. The world's best microphones are pretty much worthless if you don't utilize them correctly. Btw, as you found out the hard way, (and I'll say it here so other's might avoid the mistake) never record an interview while not monitoring the audio on your recording device.

For doc work, I would think that just shooting without a monitor would be easier; one less thing to worry about. plus, it keeps your public profile low is often better for doc work, depending on circumstances And, yes, I'd think no need for LOG. Just dial in flat settings with the basic color profile.

I've used 5d2RGB a lot. It does create an image in encoding that's slightly better than what QuickTime can do. It is a slow transcoding process, however. If proresHQ offers a better IQ than regular prores, I've not been able to see it. I'll also use proresLT at times to save hard drive space --depending on how much footage I'm trying to convert.

If you're using manual lenses then no. I've used a dumb eos adapter with the camera and the 10-20 Sigma without a problem.

My wife has been shooting random video shots while we're here in Japan. Stuff to test the limits of the camera in between grabbing still shots. 3200iso, moire prone scenes, etc. If we hit up a biz hotel with good internet and a card reader, I'll see if I can get some more video examples of the xP2 uploaded. Im with you on the xt2. It's tempting.

It works as well as any other non-flip-screen-photo-that-also-shoots-video-camera that I've ever used. Maybe a bit better since the exposure controls can be manipulated by old-school hardware instead of user menus. The EVF previews 16:9, so I'm not sure why you're assuming otherwise.

Stopped in the local camera shop today. Not on display yet. Will try in the future though. What I'm seeing from the online clips looks promising.

Based on my experience with the EM5II, I plan on continually shooting exclusively with 5axis cams. I've developed a style with them that I really like. To shoot documentary productions, I mount a wireless receiver to my EM5II and record audio straight to the camera. I'd have a hard time giving that up and then dealing with hours of b-roll sync in post. Still, with 4k, it's probably worth the compromise. Also, this is a $800 camera! Gol'Dang this stuff is so cheap now. Anyway, I'm in Japan at the moment, maybe I'll pop into a Bic and see if they got one on display. Give it a try and see how it measures up to what I'm used to with the EM5II.

Their PR vid seems to show it working on a competitive level with Oly's. Of course, that's in tandem with a Panasonic OIS lens, but still very encouraging. Obviously, all manufacturers are gonna get this kind of stuff in their cameras, but I'm eager for it to happen sooner rather than later, no doubt.

Cool. If it's on par, or even close, with the Oly then it'll be a fun production tool. I've had nothing but good times with the EM5II for the past year. If only it had that Pany level of 4K IQ... well....

There's a lot of options because everyone's needs are different. For instance, having something that delivers on set editing with relative ease makes the decision a bit more narrow. I love camera gear and I love using the latest and greatest, but if you only have a small budget you make the decision and then move on. Whatever you choose will have limitations. The cool thing is, those limitations push your other skills. And those other skills are the things that actually matter the most. I look at using low-end gear as a kind of win-win situation. Cheap, good IQ these days, and forces one to be much more considerate when shooting to eek out better shots.

I'm on a film festival committee. Trust me when I say almost all indy movies look really good these days. IQ looks on par with just about anything. Even work that has limited dynamic range still looks pretty impressive. As for all the other stuff that's actually more important in making a narrative film... well, not so much. So, if you think what camera you're shooting with is what's holding you back. IMHO, you're wrong. So, you pick up and use what you're going to pick up and use. That's it. Stop thinking about the limitations of it. You made the choice, move on. Now, make smart lighting decisions. Get a good audio guy (for god's sake please do this), concentrate on telling a good story, and find some actors that can actually do so. Trust me, no one's going to give two shit(es) if you're dynamic range in 10 stops or 13. Your skin tone looks a little goofy? Oh well, I forgive you if you're showing me some interesting characters on screen.

Fair enough. I think, for me, my attitude is also a product of my age. Whereas I see all this gear as being incredible compared to the stuff I had to pay for in the past, new folks coming up focus more on the minute differences between cameras/brands; simply because those small'ish differences are the only things that separate one product from another. So, it becomes not whether or not the camera can do good skin tones, but rather: is it easier to do it on one over the other? On top of that, resolution capabilities are stunning, regardless. I mean, here's a Panasonic cam that does 4k for $700. Here's a Sony cam that does it for less than $1K. It's all a candy store to me. I'll pig-out on taffy or chocolate, doesn't matter.

Okay, okay. You don't want someone looking green...but what new camera when properly set up for studio shooting is going to fail at acquiring decent skin tone? Or any camera made in the last few years, to be honest? Serious question, that, Mattias, you play with more cameras than just about anyone. I'm just amazed people will dismiss a camera because some other camera makes human flesh look subjectively "dreamy." Even though that may well be true, when you can control your set up and setting, you can dial in the colors to your liking. Maybe I'm the one being nuts here, but I really think that for this level of production, one could buy a used $200 G3 and a used $10 Pentax lens and still make it look great.

All this going on and on about color --as if content creators could never make a good video without someone's skin tone looking like a Vermeer painting right off of the sensor. C'mon, someone's skin tone should probably be the least of your worries with modern gear. All of it is more than good enough. Sorry, I really shouldn't gripe and be an old fart about this. It's just that you're making interview videos for freaking YouTube. If you have half a clue what you're doing... Sony is fine. Panasonic is fine. Canon is Fine. Nikon is fine. I mean, look what you're getting for less than 1K. It's practically magic these days and it only costs a handful of beans. Use it, make fun stuff, and be happy. (Jeez, I'm seriously getting curmudgeonly about things these days. Don't get old kids, it makes you cranky!) So anyway...I'd buy a G7... and why would you need a speed booster for talking head studio stuff?

Look at my avatar. It doesn't get much smaller than that. GM1 with a set of a110 pentax prime lenses.

Maybe if you have any sort of stabilization turned on inside the Sony cam, turn it off?

Yeah, you set to 60 and then adjust the shutterspeed using the thumb dial that's next to the joystick. As for skin tone: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e0g8hfy6bl8tf99/DSCF8449.MOV?dl=0

They may be referencing the musicians in the studio footage? Not sure. As it is, the stuff we shot at the horse race track is 60p. So, if anyone is using that footage to analyze, keep in mind that it's a high frame rate and will certainly look like video in that regard.

How is the camera mount point in relation to the center of gravity on the three different cameras? Since you're flying other cams without the problem, it's not the total weight that's an issue. However, it may certainly be how the weight is balanced --or improperly balanced.

From what I can tell, no. The luminance space is definitely off a bit.