Nick Hughes

As for the second question: I would like to know the answer too. Since Vimeo downscale the footage to 720p anyway, is it better to downscale the video to 720p before uploading, or uploading the highest resolution and letting Vimeo do the scaling? (Only speaking of online viewing) 

Probably best to still upload 1080 to vimeo. BTW, with vimeo plus ($60 a year or $10 a month), you have the option to stream at 1080.

I'm working on a project that is going to require a fair amount of grading and I want to do what I can to make sure it won't fall apart in Resolve. It's already cut together in FCPX. All the clips are still in H.264- I don't usually tanscode my individual clips because I tend to have a ton of footage that doesn't get used (lots of B Roll and multiple angles) and in my mind it doesn't make sense to use up time and hard drive space on transcoding a ton of clips that may not end up in the final cut.

I'm wondering if sending my entire project to 5DtoRGB before importing to Resolve would have the same effect as if I had transcoded them prior to even working with them? Would 5DtoRGB even read the file if I exported as H.264?

I also have another question about noise reduction. I've heard that it is best do any NR before CC because it helps the footage hold up better. I'm wondering if it still makes sense in this case. We filmed a performance inside of a huge oil drum whose only light source was a hole at the very top. We exposed for the bright spots, making everything else quite dark, almost black. There were also some moments where the sun was covered by clouds, making everything dark.

Playing around in FCPX, there is definitely detail that we can pull out of the shadows. Obviously there is going to be a good amount of noise and we're okay with that, but I'd at least like to try and mitigate as much noise as reasonably possibly. Since we'll be adding a fair amount of noise by boosting the shadows, does it make more sense in this case to do NR after CC? Should we do NR in two passes?

There's already a thread with 15 replies about the Lytro >here

Just called a local dealer listed on Sigma's site and they had one left! They already shipped it and should be here in a matter of days. Local business saves the day.

I just ordered one from Amazon, even though they're on backorder. I've been hard-pressed to find any estimates of when they'll be available again. It's not the kind of thing I've followed in the past, so I don't know how the long the wait for this kind of thing tends to be. Anyone have any guesses? Has sigma had a decent track record with this kind of thing, or do they venture into the BMD territory of historic waiting times?

So for someone with no existing glass, which metabones would be preferable? Nikon or Canon?

Unfortunaly, there's not currently an EF to MFT metabones adapter available.

I can't imagine that this first batch of medium format cameras will have much in the way of actual usable video, but if someone figures out how to do it right, then there's going to be a whole new world of possibilty opening up. I suppose I'll have to reserve judgement until there's actually some test footage out there.

Shame it has no mic input... what would be the easiest/cheapest solution for external audio? Something like a zoom recorder and then sync it with the internal audio?

Are we sure it even has an internal mic?

edit: nevermind, it does according to BH

You know what kind of footage I'd like to be able to play around with? Underexposed, poorly shot, or otherwise difficult footage that needs lots of spot treatment and reconstruction such as keying, masking, etc. When I'm color correcting well-shot Canon footage, I don't find myself running into too many walls. Of course I have a longing for better quality, and the GH4 clearly offers that.

I so often find myself shooting in poorly lit rooms, or rooms with straight-up gross lighting. There are also times where I just do a plain old bad job of exposing correctly. It's when I'm grading this kind of footage that I start to pull my hair out because there's not nearly enough latitude to make the corrections I need to.

I'm not explicitly asking you to go out and shoot poorly on purpose, buuuut if there happen to be any shots that you aren't technically happy with, it might be useful to throw those online as well.

Very nice test, well controlled. My takeaway is that CFLs, even the cheap ones, aren't nearly as bad as a lot of people on the internet have led me to believe. At first glance, it is hard for me to even tell the difference, but upon close examination it becomes more apparent. The slow wipes between the bulbs were very helpful.

I'd defeintely be interested to see more tests in this style, that introduce some more factors. Perhaps higher quality CFLs? I personally use warmer white balances in a lot of the work I do, so I'd be interested to see how the CFLs hold up in WB conditions that aren't totally neutral.

Awesome test!

Really hoping they can actually follow through with any of this. The next couple months are going to be a huge deciding factor for me as to whether I decide to stick with Canon or jump ship and start swimming toward mft island. Of course I'd love to be able to embrace the benefits of both, but when it comes down to it, I just can't afford that. I'm sure many others feel the same way.

@Fuzzynormal Now I realize that. I've been a little scared, because I'm afraid I won't be able to focus fast enough before the moment is gone. I think I'm going to have to pick up an external monitor or something next... On the other hand, I'll be much more conspicuous... I've been told to pick up a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 to start with, along with any cheap adaptor. I suppose I'll start looking for one next month. Do you think I'll also need to pick up a follow focus? If so, is there one you can recommend? This is beginning to be an expensive hobby!

It's a matter of practice and patience. You shouldn't need a monitor or follow focus to develop the skill of manual focusing- these are tools that can be very helpful to people who have already developed an eye for nailing focus, but can easily become a crutch for those who haven't yet learned how.

Yes, that's correct, the 6D is full-frame and the T3i APS-C.  I didn't mean to imply moire isn't a problem, only that in many cases it can be worked around.  I can see how  a studio, with many hard edges and hard lighting would be a nightmare.

 

If that's the kind of shooting you're going to do it seems to me you'd be better off with a GM1/GX7/GH3/G6 (smaller MFT sensor).  Andy shoots a lot of music videos, and has access to RAW video, so that probably figures into his equipment choice.  You could still use the 6D for stuff where you need really shallow DOF, but otherwise, like you say, it works against you.

 

The only other fix is to rough up your image in post with film-grain and blurring.  

My guy who uses the 6D is actually about to invest in the mosaic engineering filter, which should be nice. NR + film grain does help a good amount- it doesn't eliminate by any means, but makes it much less obtrusive. I'm waiting for wedding season (aka $$$) before I start investing in MFT stuff, but it's definitely on the horizon.

I shoot a lot of bands in the recording studio which seems to be especially problematic for aliasing. Guitar strings and even ridges on cymbals end up looking really gross. In my case, it's definitely not the kind of thing that only shows up in tests. It's actually worse on the 6D than the T3i, I believe because the higher-megapixel sensor ends up skipping more lines.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/4k-ff-camera-with-fz-mount-and-a-mount-adapter/#disqus_thread

"I have been told by my trusted sources that this is basically a Sony F5/55 in a DSLR body"

I use mine all the time, they don't add much weight/bulk if you're already bringing a tripod with you. 

For a commercial in a DR's office, I'm sure the 24-70 will be more than adequate. I know guys who own Zeiss lenses who will still throw on an L zoom in certain situations. In my mind, it would be more beneficial to put the $70 towards ligthing or just your pocket.

Rokinon makes an 85 1.4 for MFT. I have an EF-mount copy and it is one of my best lenses.

The megapixel race ended years ago.  

While I do mostly agree with your point, I think the megapixel race still continues in many ways, perhaps mainly in the smartphone market. The Nokia PureView has a 41MP sensor, which seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I don't know if this spec is actually helping their sales, but they clearly thought it would attract some attention.

Supposedly, Metabones is working on a speedbooster for EF to MFT which would allow for electronic aperture control, but I wouldn't count on that being available anytime soon.

Bullshit. I have seen for my own eyes putting more powerful equipment in the hands of aspiring filmmakers does inspire them, does improve their cinematography and does allow them to get noticed. This community wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the gear.

 

You won't know any of my work if it wasn't for this platform, which is based on the gear.

 

Let's knock this content is king nonsense ON THE HEAD permanently from now on. OK?

This whole discussion reminds me of when I got my first DSLR- an Olympus Evolt (remember that shit?). This was before DSLRs were ubiquitous so my photos looked simply because I was able to achieve a quality that others didn't necesasrily have access to (and none of my friends shot film). Over the next couple years as DSLRs became cheaper and more people started using them, my photos started looking more and more mediocre because everyone had access to great quality. It pushed me to have to work harder and harder to make my images stand out.

This is becoming even more true today- as beginner and amatuer filmmakers (including myself) are getting easier access to great quality, I think that we are all being pushed to create higher-quality work (whether it be through better narrative, more stunning visuals, more thoughtful composition, or whatever you think makes a great film). I don't look at the growing masses of people picking up great cameras for cheap with contempt- I look at them as inspiration to create art that will set me apart.

I couldn't be more excited for the innovations that are coming to affordable cameras today.

I'm extremely interested to hear about this as well. I'm a T3i shooter who has been anxiously waiting to invest in MFT. I do a ton of low-light work (almost exclusively) and don't want to jump to a new camera that has worse low-light performance, even if the IQ is better. I've seen plenty of comparisons between the higher-end Canon lines, but have never been able to find anything substantial on the rebel's performance vs panasonic, etc.

Latest word from Metabones is they're in final stages of an electronic EF - M43. I guess it's not really BMPCC specific though. I just picked up a chinese EF-M43 non-electronic focal reducer on ebay. It works great with the BMPCC.

Electonic meaning AF-compatible? Or just electronic aperture control?

We haven't seen any footage, you're right, but the specs are for sure.

I am just wondering, putting this kind of specs into amatures hands (and pro's as well), is it going to raise up the bar in fields like indie films, video clips and even youtube short films.

There's going to be the same quality of films being made, they're all just going to look a little bit better.

That's not to say that I'm not extremely excited.

You are wrong. Actually the speed booster increases the sharpness a bit. If your lens is unusable at f/2, probably you don't want to use it wide open with the speed booster either, but since you win a stop of light, it will act like f/2 lens when set to f/2.8. With the speed booster you still get the performance increase that comes with stopping down the lens.

Glad I'm wrong! Just looked up this slrlounge review, which shows a significant improvement in sharpness around the center of the image, although the edges don't seem to fare as well wide open.