Jump to content

Jonesy Jones

Members via Facebook
  • Content Count

    867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Jonesy Jones

  1. Yes, like I said, motion cadence is a mystery to me too. But at the same time, some footage I see looks natural and organic. And some looks choppier. I can't tell if I'm just seeing things, or if internet compression is doing ugly things in some cases and not in others. Lots of variables. I have wondered if maybe a global shutter would simulate the way film is exposed a bit more and therefore reproduce motion better. It's just a thought. Sacrificing 2 stops of dynamic range is a bummer. I wonder why they are just now getting around to suggesting this? Is this something that may be worked out eventually in firmware updates?
  2. Are you suggesting I shoot with film? I mean sure, that would be ideal. But if that were an option for me, why in the world would I be discussing the URSA mini? I think its perfectly reasonable to wonder if a global shutter would affect the look or motion cadence of digital footage. Maybe it won't, but its a reasonable question.
  3. I guess my question is not so much about rolling shutter as it is about the look of the footage, aka, this mysterious motion cadence I've been hearing about. I don't mean that sarcastically. I think I do have a sense of this. I guess my question is, could global shutter raw create a nicer motion cadence than a rolling shutter version? Maybe it has no impact, I don't know. But if it does, would that be more valuable than dynamic range?
  4. Sounds like the 15 stops of dynamic range will only be available when global shutter is turned off. Bummer. Any thoughts on this? There's been talk lately on this forum about motion cadence. I have been hoping that the global shutter would assist in this aspect. But now having to choose between that or dynamic range is frustrating. I know it's all speculation at this point, but what would you choose, dynamic range or global shutter?
  5. ​That is a very good point. And using a shallow dof for those reasons is logical and reasonable. But doing that and then calling it more cinematic is not reasonable, and that is my point. I think another reason filmmakers like the shallow look is because it is instant gratification. Even myself, which I have grown tired of the overused shallow look, find myself gravitating towards it to spice up a boring shot, when the correct solution would be to reframe, relight, dress up the set, or a combo of all 3. Shallow DOF is just easier, but not the right solution many/most of the time. IMO.
  6. ​If you're referring to my comment, I was being cynical... thus the . I posted that because it really drives me nuts how much I hear filmmakers talking about this lens or that camera and the shallow DOF capabilities. But when you look at actual cinema 98% of it has an extremely 'wide' DOF. And this trailer was an example of that. I thought it even more compelling to bring it up because of the large format of this camera. On another, only slightly related topic, people have mentioned that this camera and lenses don't have distortion. Watch the first shot of the trailer and keep your eye on the mountain on the right side of the frame. Looks like typical cinema distortion to me.
  7. ​Do you know of any focal length comparison videos where you see something like a 50mm on FF, 35mm on S35, 25mm on m4/3, maybe even down to the BMPCC. It doesn't have to be that focal length. In fact it would be great if there were several. This is something I've always wanted to try but I don't have all those cameras and lenses. People always talk about the FF aesthetic. Would be nice to see it.
  8. The reason it looks so amazing is because of the super shallow DOF.
  9. ​Oh my! It appears that you are right. That could be a deal breaker for me. Let's hope Resolve 12 is different.
  10. Dude. Really good stuff. Thank you for contributing all that great info. If you don't mind I may reach out when I start to make the transition.
  11. ​Exactly. And there is increasingly more 'Click Here if You Agree' BS that I would like to separate myself from. My plan is to create a nifty Linux system this Fall and install Resolve and Fusion. I'll also be looking for alternatives to the other stuff too. My goal is to wade in the shallow end before going all in. I'll share my experiences. I wish Pixelmator did Linux. That would be a sweet little package.
  12. Interesting. Is that a 7' parabolic umbrella?
  13. ​That's a very nice frame Fuzzy. I know that's not what this thread is about, but I had to comment. Very nice soft half light. Are you using an overhead diffuser? A bounce to her left?
  14. ​Yes. That's pretty much what I'm hoping will happen. Anyone else aware of Linux apps relevant to our industry please post!
  15. Btw, when I say Linux everything what I mean is that, I know I can edit in Linux, but what about a Photoshop replacement? Or Illustrator (vectors). Or a robust audio software? Or a true After Effects replacement? I think without 'everything' it's hard to migrate. You need a complete ecosystem to be confident in making the transition.
  16. So I just emailed HitFilm about the possibility of a Linux version, and they responded 'not interested'. I get it. Few really use Linux. However, I do not think creative pros and prosumers are typical computer users. I sometimes think that we're not using Linux mostly because few companies in our industry have really embraced it. I know Resolve and Fusion will have a Linux version and am fully committed to trying this. But I wonder if more of us would migrate if companies supported Linux. If you have any thoughts about this please respond, both for my benefit and, maybe, possibly someone is listening.
  17. Thanks a bunch Matt. That is great info. Yah the use of 35mm for stills and cinema always gets me. That's an incredibly close MFD. Awesome. This camera is looking sweeter and sweeter.
  18. So I realize this is a pretty basic question that I probably knew the answer to at one time, but 24-200mm, is that FF equivalent, or 35mm equivalent? I know it says 35mm equivalent, but for some reason I'm just confused. (I always get confused with this lens equivalent stuff). For instance this chart says 35mm Full Frame as though they are the same http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/10/allsensors.jpg So what is this lens equivalent to in FF? Roughly 36-300mm? Or is it 24-200mm? Also, what is the minimum focus distance of this lens? Can't seem to find that. Also, what is the DOF equivalent? I think someone said f8. Really? I'm not a shallow DOF guy but that seems more like the ultra tiny 1/3" sensor days pre 2009. Thanks.
  19. I for one do care tremendously about this. As RAW and higher res cameras become more common place, inexpensive storage solutions become extremely important. I would encourage other members to share their practical storage solutions too. This looks great for the field. Personally I'm interested in a 12-20 TB hard drive for studio storage.
  20. I hate bureaucracy. If some idiot's drone is in the way of a firefighter, let em shoot it down. Simple. No lame laws please.
  21. +1 Thank you for asking this. I would like to know this too.
  22. ​Well, to each his own I guess. Nothing wrong with that.
  23. I have to agree with Oliver Daniel. Specifically the 18-35, which I believe is nearly the perfect lens. I think we have lenses that are as sharp as they'll ever need to be. Consider Tarantino's Hateful 8 where he and Richardson actually looked for lenses that were NOT so clinically sharp. The Sigma 18-35 is the perfect focal length zoom. Rehousing it as a cinema lens, keeping the t stop to at least T2.6 (which is what it is now), add hard stops on focus and make it a parfocal zoom (I think that's what it's called). I realize the price would at least quadruple, but it would be one of the last lenses I'd ever have to buy. Additionally, if we're dreaming, I'd love to see cinema housed Sigma Art 11-16, 35-70, and a longer lens, like 125, or 70-200. I wouldn't use those nearly as often as the 18-35, but knowing I could rent or buy would be sweet.
  24. I haven't read every post but is anyone talking about bits? I think this thing is 8 bit. Doable for a bunch of stuff, but I have all but vowed to not shoot 8 bit any longer. Maybe it does 10 bits with external recorder..... probably not.
×
×
  • Create New...