Nick Hughes
-
Posts
376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Nick Hughes
-
-
When we're all done slinging mud, let's talk about the camera. I'm seriously considering buying one for smaller jobs and docwork. Though usability is always a top priority. What in particular makes the menu "dog shit". Can anyone give specifics? I use an Amira for my day job and it took my AC all but five minutes to show me how to set the camera up. Big Fisher Price toy like buttons, even a caveman.... I've used F5/55's often and the Sony menu is a bit maddening but after enough swearing and clenched fists you learn it like anything else. At least unlike RED it won't change settings on you when you're not looking.
As for the C300 2 destroying S Log 3, it's still vaporware.
If it's anything like the FS700, probably just clunky and convoluted. It looks like it has the same 3-setting ISO switch on the side, but now it's shared with WB and Shutter (so an extra button push). If you want to change your ISO to anything other than what's available from your three presets, you need to dig through a few layers of menus, change the preset options, leave the menu, and then flick the switch if it's not in the right position already. There's a similar 'ethos' to the whole system- everything is there, just takes longer than it needs to. Again, this is judging by the FS700. Hopefully someone can give some specifics on how it's improved.
One feature that was great on the FS700 was the ability to use one mic in both channels. You could set the level manually in channel 1, but use channel 2 on auto in case you're in a busy environment with lots of volume changes and can't ride the level. I had a doc gig with the C300 where I was filming a band practicing and had to constantly adjust the mic level between loud music and normal talking. Is this feature held over on the FS7??
-
They're not same image- you can test yourself using photoshop and the "difference" blend mode. I overlaid A with every image in the third example. The first box is black because it's an exact match. None of the other images disappear because they are all slightly different. Certain points line up and cancel out (it's very close after all, that's the point of the test), but no matter how you move, resale, tilt the images, they never cancel out completely.
-
-
Alexa Mini!
In: Cameras
Because only highend and indie filmmakers have the luxury of time. TV is an extremely fast-paced delivery-oriented business, they simply can't afford longer production times that RAW requires.
Definitely. TV editors (for reality at least) are already working 15-20 hour shifts 6, maybe 7, days out of the week to meet the ridiculous deadlines. They might also be working with footage from 6 or so cameras that are rolling for basically hours and hours on end. RAW doesn't seem like it would fit into that production workflow very well.
-
Yes, I think a healthier relationship with the smartphones we already have would be a better option. No point in making the camera replace the smartphone, because that's not going to happen. I can't help but imagine what it would be like if Apple made a camera. It would probably be painfully simple, with very limited manual control, but it would synchronize beautifully with all of our other Apple products.
-
There are a lot of really big IFs. I have no doubt that Canon has the ability to completely smash their competition to the C-line. Whether or not they will actually do so is another issue. The thing is (and what Canon knows as well)- people will gobble it up even if they're only offered the most minuscule of upgrades.
Sure, given the rumors, 4K does seem pretty likely for the C300, but what about high frame rates? What about RAW? Personally, I can't use the C series camera for any kind of fast-paced work without a rig. With a zacuto recoil-style rig, it's a dream. BUT, the FS7 has that form factor already.
The FS7 could certainly get some bruises in this fight, but I have serious doubts that it will be beaten on all fronts. C500ii might be able to beat it, but without a substantial price drop it's in a very different league.
-
I don't agree. It's a big difference in the end if you add it all up. It's just very subtle that's why people can't define it but see that something is different/nicer/better looking.
Producing bigger digital sensors than FF is still a big deal, same with better lenses than what it is now.
Fair. At the end of the day, practicality is what makes the difference. If it's important to your work to have that subject isolation and all the other things that are associated with the 'FF look,' then it makes sense to go with FF over a smaller sensor size, even if you could theoretically match it with another lens. The converse is true as well, if, for example, you really value deep DOF.
-
There are many ways to open the doors. Meditation can you get you close, without any of the potential side effects. It's also incredibly helpful in all aspects of life (especially with a wife and baby, I'd imagine).
Anyways, how about those trillion fps??
-
Yeah, sensor + lens defines the look but can you really match bigger sensor system with smaller one? On the smaller sensor system you have to stand back further to frame the same portion of the subject, thus changing perspective distortion or go wider, therefore changing optical distortion. Is it correct? So I guess, sensor size doesn't have a direct impact on the "look" but it has an indirect one.
You pick a wider lens for the smaller sensor and you can theoretically match the image- it is possible that there doesn't exist a lens that will perform optically as well, but that is an issue of lens manufacturing and not necessarily sensor size. This whole discussion seems to be really about theory vs practicality. There is a very big area where the two overlap, but there are certainly areas where they diverge. All it takes is more innovative lens design to bridge the gap.
-
Jcs I think all the discussion is revolving around this: is it not correct to call it a ''FF look'' if you can technically match it with a smaller sensor, or is it correct because it is much eaiser and more commonly achievable and available with a FF format?
Exactly- it's not that FF is better because it has this otherworldly look that can't be replicated. It's that it is cheaper and more practical in many situations to achieve this look using a FF camera. It might seem like a moot point to some (same way that it's not a tele lens that causes compression, but rather your own distance from a subject), but I personally think it's an important discussion to be having. If you know what's really going on with your camera, then you have more opportunities to 'exploit' it to your advantage.
-
Also, make sure "Constant preview" is enabled. That will make sure that you exposure you see on screen will match the actual photo once you take it.
-
Could be a lot of different things happening. If your videos are looking nice and sharp, then I don't think that there are any issues going on with the glass.
Perhaps your shutter speed is getting set too low. I usually try not to shoot photos at anything below 1/125, or faster for longer focal lengths. Some people can get good shots with slower speeds, but I like to play it safe. Try shooting in Manual and see if that helps at all. Use the LVF if you aren't already.
I would also advise against using focus peaking alone on the 18-35. I can get good results with an 85 and longer using just focus peaking, but don't recommend it for wider lenses. Try zooming in (Fn.3 by default) and see if you can nail the focus that way. Personally, I try to avoid shooting stills with MF only lenses. There are some decent options for native MFT prime lenses between $200 and $500 that would work well for photos and have decently quick AF. A good zoom would be more expensive.
-
You might also want to try and borrow a 5Diii from a friend if you can. Do some tests using the same lenses/settings just to make sure you don't somehow have a bad camera.
-
About to drop some links on ya:
There's a pretty big variety here, some more uptempo and electronic and some more restrained and organic. I can't make music without imagery in my head, so they are all fitting as soundtracks.
https://enhues.bandcamp.com/track/theres-a-soft-glow
https://enhues.bandcamp.com/track/cold-fron
http://enhues.bandcamp.com/track/ramakrishna
http://enhues.bandcamp.com/track/where-were-going-when-the-sun-comes-up
-
-
So who of the greatest film directors has used hallucinogens before? Has somebody confessed yet? This is quite interesting by the way. I think in the creative field, using hallucinogens gives you an edge, someone disagrees
? Jodorowski is the first to pop into my mind. Still, I don't think psychedelic usage is exactly a well-kept secret in any of the creative fields.
-
The camera doesn't record sound internally though, at least when shooting 96fps with a GH4 or 120fps with a Samsung NX1. There's nothing to sync the audio file of the external recorder with, so that's a fairly big problem.
Duh. I forgot what topic I was in and why the question was asked in the first place.
-
Stuff happens very quickly and you're constantly have to push the record button on your camera, push the record button on the external recorder, pause both recordings, somehow sync it up in post. It might work when you shoot the race runs where there's a one or two minute gap between each rider but it's close to impossible when shooting practice in my opinion and experience.
Just let the recorder run constantly. You'll have one long audio file and a bunch of video clips than can be very easily synched with software if you make sure to get good levels with your on-camera mic. With FCPX, you can just throw everything into a multicam clip and it will automatically find all the points where the camera audio and external audio matches up.
-
Nutshelling it, what are the big differences? The shouldermount must be one right? I don't like the ergos of the fs700.
FS700 is absolutely not a camera to use without rigging it up IMO. It can be very usable once you get a decent riser (+shoulder pad) and some good handles on it. Difference is that the FS7 already has that built in. I haven't used the FS7, but I do love shooting a kitted up FS700 with a 7Q right in front of my face.
-
Flying small cameras is, in my experience, much more difficult than larger ones (aka dslrs). You have to spend much more time balancing- smaller changes make a bigger difference when your camera doesn't have a lot of weight to it. Mozim is right about adding some weight- even something like an on-camera LED would be helpful.
-
Andy Lee is always praising the Nikon 28-70. It's going to be a little tighter than what you're looking for (especially if you're coming from FF), but it certainly ticks some of your boxes.
-
Be careful in thinking it's 'just perfectly amazing' though. I mean... it can be. But there's some trickiness to it at the same time. Mathieu of Mirrorlessons did a good video on that:
Wow, in the second example where he's trying to do a still shot with the fountain in the foreground, there's a really weird parallax effect going on between the foreground and background.
-
I sample the aliasing in Neat Video and use a 0-radius temporal filter and extremely strong low frequency noise reduction settings.
Nice suggestions. How do you 'sample' the aliasing in Neat Video?
-
Agreed. But not impossible -- if the clock generator is purely software driven, you potentially could overlock it at the expense of heat and battery life and get a slight improvement in performance. It also depends if the sensor readout is at full performance or not. If the memory or other CPU is the limiting factor then software improvements can work.
Because if 1080p is still reading the whole sensor and not line skipping the actual sensor read could be faster than what we're seeing right now.
I wonder if it would be possible to implement this on a buffer so as to not overheat the sensor. Could be 15-30 seconds (I really have no idea what would be feasible) and include and trigger like on the FS700 so you can set it to write the footage after you know you've captured what you need.
Sony FS7 Review – Shooting 150fps in the dead of night
In: Cameras
Posted
If you get the expansion unit and a V-lock battery, I bet the balance would be pretty spot on. Of course, that's another $2,000 + batteries and the charger. If you want to shoot RAW, you'll need it anyways.