Shirozina

15 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

In all but the most extreme cases (~90% of them) the internal XAVC recordings are just as good as a ProRes external. 

 

 

Not my experience - esp with Slog.

Micro HDMI is fine as long as you use a cable lock as even full size hdmi cables can be dislodged.It doesn't need 10 bit or RAW to see the advantage over internal codecs when grading log. It's the massive compression that's the problem not the bit depth. Ext recorders / monitors also give you better monitoring tools to enable you to focus, expose and WB more accuratley  - the later being more crucial if you are shooting log ( severely compromised anyway on an internal codec). Downsides are not insignificant - bulk, weight, power requirements, extra media for capture and storage, difficult viewing in bright light. I rarely use my VideoDevices Pix-e anymore for the above reasons and since I have moved away from log capture to getting the image 99% right in camera the improvements in image quality are not enough to justify It's use outside a studio or static setup.

14 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

No. Absolutely not. There are plenty of comparisons online that show even under pretty severe grading it's not a big difference. All you'll really be doing is increasing the amount of storage you need by 4x-7x. 

Totaly disagree  - IME on my A7s and A7r2 the files from the external recorder stand up to much more grading than the internal codec esp with Slog2 and particularly where blue skies are involved. I can't see  A7sII files being any different in that regard.

Btw - have you used an ext recorder with these cameras and compared the output and can you provide some links to these tests you refer to?

There is just as much DR in Cine 2 as Cine 1.All that happens if you use Cine1 is that there is another stop of DR above the Zebra clipping point so if you use cine 2 you can use ETTR more effectivley and maximise your DR.

Internal codec?

I obsess over image fidelity, skintones, and motion cadence.

That is a political act. - no it's a technical concern

Because im an upper middle class white guy so i am allowed to do this. - no as it's open to anyone who is interested in the technical side of image making

So are most of you. -  - no we are not

Its called white priveliege. - no it's not

And we are not in a vacumn - speak for yourself ( it's vacuum BTW)

The president of the united states is a white nationalist and is wrecking havoc. - quite possibly but what has this to do with any of the above esp as his support base is largely lower class white ( ex) workers

And where are we? Defending a photo company that discriminates against women and race. - who, what ?

Classy. - just delusional

BTW as a 'self-confessed' upper middle class white guy the system of privilege you so despise seems to have failed you spectacularly with regards to your education in basic  spelling and grammar........

55 minutes ago, hmcindie said:

Which is interesting because usually they alias like hell. That aliasing creates the feeling of "sharpness" eventhough the monitor can't display the 4k.

But if someone made a camera that aliased like that, it would be mauled as shit 8)

The extent of aliasing depends on how the smaller resolution is interpolated to the larger one. If it looks 'like hell' then it's probably doing a simple pixel multiplier  converting one HD pixel into 4 identical UHD pixels. If interpolated by better methods it can look very smooth with minimal aliasing. Even HD displayed 1:1 on an HD monitor can have horrible aliasing depending on the viewing distance / magnification.

15 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its a bit of a torture test with the light here at that time of day in combination with those shiny spoons and reflective table top so I could've been kinder to it to avoid the cliff edge drop highlight drop off but at least you get to see a bad case scenario of it

Its never going to match the DR of a number of cameras but it makes up for it in other ways and its capable of some subtlety in different conditions.

*Disclaimer, these are old jpegs blown up so the quality suffers accordingly when viewed supersize on this upload.

Looks like CGI..................but CGI can look more real than current CMOS sensor rendering of reality.......

1080 on a 4k monitor also looks better than it does on a 1080 monitor.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the 400mbps will be for a codec where every frame is recorded individually ( not made up of parts from frames either side) and thus the overall compression ratio will be higher than with the current  150mbps codec where it stores only certain frames fully and interpolates the inbetween ones. Thus there is no guarantee therefore that the images will look better with 400mbps due to higher compression. It may look better for motion?

There is nothing intrinsically inferior about CMOS in comparison with 'other' technology - MF digital, CCD, film, Foveon etc. The main reason it's colour performance is inferior in current implementations is that the RGB color filters over the photosites are so weak. This is done to enable better high ISO performance  which everyone demands but it seriously compromises color fidelity. If we had CMOS sensors with denser CFA's we would have  better colour fidelity but they would not be profitable as they would be ISO limited and the market is limited. i think I'm right in saying that MF digital backs are now CMOS ( they used to be CCD) but likley they have better CFA's optimised for colour fidelity over light transmission as the pro user base wants this. Sony also does some baked in NR to RAW files even at base ISO which is visible in fine irregular detail like foliage. It looks like a watercolor photoshop filter has been applied to it. Mostly though with such big files you are never displaying at 1:1 to see it.

1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

Funny thing here is that there really are no blown highlights either. So what is this nasty highlight shit?

Harsh lighting yeah but... nasty highlight roll-off? What in the ffff....

No need to be nasty..........

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

I don't know, Shirozina, but if you went to a lot of trouble to upload a test of a camera you obviously loved, would it bother you in the slightest if someone called your footage 'garbage', 'nasty', or whatever? But hey, this is the internet, anything goes!

If you post a purely technical test then it's open to comment - I'm not criticising the person. If anyone 'loves'  their camera and is hurt by comments on it's technical abilities then maybe they need the kind of help that I or anyone else on this forum can't give......

I was expressing my honest opinion about the technical quality of the footage which was posted as an example of the technical capability of a camera - how is this rude? If you want a more refined opinion it has a nasty highlight rolloff possibly caused by clipping in the red channel. 

Looks pretty nasty in the highlights. 

Even if you deliberately choose to  'shoot' at 1080 your camera is very likley to be capturing at a much larger pixel size and converting to 1080p internally so you are shooting 4k - like it or not!

Some cameras can capture 1080p nativity that looks good when displayed on a 1080p device. Other cameras need to capture at a higher native resolution in order to produce good 1080p. Shooting with a higher resolution than the output is perfectly normal in stills photography and the same applies to video. More resolution than the output size allows re-framing, straightening, image rectification and stabilisation in post production without compromising the resolution. When 4k output becomes the norm then likley 6/8k capture will be required......

On 11/07/2017 at 2:04 AM, Hanriverprod said:

Resolve 14 on windows 10 has issues with Sony files like xavc-s and a7rii files. 

What problems exactly?

Starting on a budget I'd not look at any of the suggestions to be honest - here's my take;

Best sounding starter sound recorder IME is the tiny Sony PCM-M10 which can take self powered mics via the 3.5mm jack. Can be mounted on a hotshoe, 2 AAA batteries last for ever, tiny put in your pocket take anywhere recorder you will still keep even when you buy more expensive gear. 

When you have saved up for better phantom powered mics then the best and cheapest option is to get hold of a used Fostex FR2LE - it's pre amps are not far off the SoundDevices 7 series i.e if you can't get good enough sound for your film with it then it's not the fault of the recorder. ( sometimes wonder why I upgraded......)

Spending a bit more  or simply an alternative  would be a SoundDevices mixer pre to combine with a Sony M-10. 

Beyond this you are really getting into the realm of being a  dedicated sound recordist and we are not even talking about the real tools of sound - the microphone.

What's so special about the FD 17mm that it's worth adapting it for?  

2 hours ago, enny said:

2 One more question if you don't mind meatbons has Canon EF Lens to BMCC T Speed Booster 0.64x and 0.58x what am i looking at here between 64x and 58x and EF is basicly canon mount lenses like Canon FD 17mm F/4 S.S.C that i am planing to buy

 

Thanks again

Canon FD is different to EF and will need a separate speedbooster or some major lens surgery to change ( shorten) the mount to EF. 

No as the flange distance is wrong. Better to trade your Speedbooster for an EF version and then convert your CY lenses to EF with adapters.

Is it dim or just more accurately representing the Picture profile?

My A7r2 only dims when I have the mode set to M and it switches to the picture profile in movie recording. Not noticed any dimming when I'm in Movie mode.

15 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

Tokina 11-16 is cheap. This guy tried it here: 

 

I can see why it's cheap - the amount of CA is monumental!