tugela
-
Posts
840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by tugela
-
-
6 hours ago, mercer said:
Yeah, I noticed the macroblocking too. I transferred the footage to ProRes 422 via EditReady before I brought it into FCPX and then I exported as a JPEG screengrab, so I'll check the footage on the card and see what's up.
What program do you use for color... It looks pretty good.
I'm not sure I understand this... The XC10 was always marketed as a professional camcorder. It's described as such in all of their literature. It's listed with other professional camcorders at most stores. It shares the "C" moniker with the C line of cinema camcorders. The reviewers decided to compare it to hybrids, but Canon has been pretty consistent with what it is.
No, Canon initially marketed it as a hybrid. That is why reviewers were comparing it to hybrids.
-
On 7/25/2016 at 8:16 PM, mat33 said:
Well, I just called my local camera store and ordered a XC10 (I try to buy local as much as I can, as we only have one decent camera store). They were a bit like 'you're sure you want one of those' so the initial bad reviews have certainly made their mark.
I am now in a bizarre situation where the largest sensor I own, is in my smallest camera (a ricoh GR).
It is not the reviews, it is more a case of it occupying a niche that it doesn't fit into. It is not quite a video camera ergonomically, but it isn't really a stills camera either. It was marketed as a hybrid, but there are far better options in the hybrid segment that do both functions really well. The GH4, NX1 and FF Sony cameras for example. That is the problem with the camera. IMO they would have been better off building the electronics into something like the G/XA series and updating that line for 4K instead. Ultimately that is the niche that would actually use the XC10, but even then I expect those users would have preferred the G/XA body. If they had done that in the first place I think the camera would haven been considerably more successful than it has been. But instead they chose to make a stab at the hybrid market, but implemented it poorly so that it does not really fit the bill.
-
4 hours ago, Damphousse said:4 hours ago, Damphousse said:
I keep my $800+ lenses for a lot longer than 4-5 years. A good lens is a lifetime purchase. My canon L lenses work on my canon film cameras, my canon DSLR, and my BMPCC. IS works even on the BMPCC with speedbooster.
The Samsung lenses will be paperweights in a few years. Total false economy.
I keep my $800+ lenses for a lot longer than 4-5 years. A good lens is a lifetime purchase. My canon L lenses work on my canon film cameras, my canon DSLR, and my BMPCC. IS works even on the BMPCC with speedbooster.
The Samsung lenses will be paperweights in a few years. Total false economy.
I suspect there are going to be better lenses for all cameras in a few years anyway, as lenses become more integrated as complementary electronic components in a holistic imaging system. In many ways, most lenses around today are still holdouts from the past. It will be the sort of transition that the avionics industry went through, when wireless flight became adopted.
4 hours ago, DBounce said:Well the two videos previously posted demonstrate it adequately. But honestly virtually everything I shot with it exhibited this trait. Can you post some examples where the blacks have details in the shadows? In my experience black detail is only preserved in very light shadows.
With or without the bit rate hacks? I imagine that blacks are among the first to go when compression is applied, so higher bit rates should preserve them better.
-
2 hours ago, jpfilmz said:
Also 4K only records to the Cfast card and HD records to the SD card only.
That is a bit weird, I wonder why they did that? I would have thought the option to record HD to CFast at a higher bit rate would have been attractive to many users. If you are interested in maximizing quality you are probably not going to quibble over the (relatively) small premium you would pay for the faster card.
-
4 hours ago, veraguth said:
At least, in most democracies, the State cannot throw a new charge at you in the middle of a trial. That is one of the problems with these courts of public opinion in the internet. If you are concerned about this footage issue, please open a new topic. Thus, there we can have a sane discussion about this case and copyright ethics, proper credit in film, and so on. Mixing things up will not help.
Umm....they can introduce evidence that puts your credibility in question, which that essentially was.
-
1 hour ago, dahlfors said:
Right.
Joining a site in December 2013, then put in the effort of writing more than 2000 posts in a forum for two and a half years, to do six scams worth of a few thousand USD? If you want to scam, I think you could have as well done that after the first 300 posts or so...
Six that we know of. There could be a lot more for all we know. I think the problem with this whole saga is that there is very little information and all of it comes from people with a personal stake in the matter who may or may not be fully forthcoming. We just don't know.
-
I would guess that you don't see the flaws on the Canon due to the poor resolution on that camera. The 550D is essentially 720p resolution, and soft even at that. It would be hard to compare the relative lens performance unless you mounted them both of the NX1. I have shot some stuff with my Canon zooms using the NX1, but not having an electronic lens is a problem. It is also hard to get critical focus with the Canon since the throw distance is so small. Fine adjustment of manual focus is an order of magnitude easier with a native NX lens.
-
What we need is an electronic adapter that will pass signal through. Is suspect that it is not so simple in the case of NX though. I would guess that most of the mainstream lenses, such as Canon and Nikon ones, have dumb electronics and it would be just a simple signal passthrough. The NX lenses may be partially intelligent and operate off codes sent to/from the camera rather than just a signal. That would represent a fundamental system incompatibility and make an electronic adapter considerably more expensive to produce..
-
On 6/22/2016 at 10:54 AM, Ed_David said:2 minutes ago, hmcindie said:
What did I just read? How does your world work?
When I see the local pros do work here, I see cameras from Blackmagic to Canon to Sony and to Red and to Alexa. The whole goddamn palette. So those pro's in in the screenshot are just wannabes? Or what? I don't get what you are trying to say.
They use those cameras because that is the brand they have been brought up on, the brand their network supplies etc etc. I doubt any of those guys have even used anything else. Never underestimate pavlovian conditioning when it comes to consumer choices.They are not making the choice of one over the other because it is "superior". If you have always used a Canon, or a Sony, or a Panasonic, or whatever, you are probably going to continue using that brand, no matter what, because it is familiar. Inherent superiority has nothing to do with it.
The cold reality is that most modern cameras are adequate for those applications. When you start reading nonsense with terms like "organic", "filmic" and "cinematic" when describing sports footage, you know that you have just encountered someone who has been consuming way too much cool-aid
-
On 6/20/2016 at 6:45 AM, Shield3 said:
I noticed in the "champagne" celebration room folks with c100's. Then I noticed out on the court the same thing...Makes you think about how important pros value reliability over high Sony specs...:)
Keep in mind I am biased as I have a c100 mk2 due here today and have been burned twice in the last 3 months with 2 Sony a7r2 failures that required the same camera to be sent in for repair.
I think it is more indicative of how pro's value the name plate than anything else. You can't be a real pro unless you have a Canon. we have heard that often enough. If you use anything else you lose respect among your peers.
-
Somehow I don't think that you will get much in the way of funding from crows.....
-
16 hours ago, jasonmillard81 said:
I'm not sure if the conversation has gotten far from the original post but interesting points here. As an amateur, I jumped off the 5d3 bandwagon just to ride the GH4 one. After spending too many hours reading and watching for "sharpness" I have come to realize I, and all of my layman friends, prefer color, cadence, and highlight roll-off to sharpness. In an unscientific test a group of documentary and movie fan friends of mine chose canon over Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony when comparing sub $10K cameras.
I did this independent of each other as to avoid group-think or "mob mentality" and without question: color, is what was the number one factor for them. I think paralysis by analysis and spec-sheet intellectual meandering gets away from what matters to the unbiased brain processing images.
Again, in the video I posted the fact of the matter is world renowned DP's try to soften the image and focus on lighting, motion, and color to get an image that appeals to the audience. So the original question: is 4K necessary if most DP's and audiences are choosing HD images that demonstrate superior color to 4K sharpness?
I'll weigh-in and say that unless 4K is demanded it is NOT needed at all and color space is where its at when looking at an image. While many Sony Fx cameras may boast specs superior to canons, the color depth of canon at 8-bit looks better to me and others. I may bypass 4K until a 4K camera combines color with sharpness at an image and price that is reasonable. The NX/A7S/GH series need too much to become appealing. I'll pass for now.
The issue with that panel discussion is that it is a bunch of people trying to recreate the work of their heroes from the 60s (or whenever), because that is what they grew up with and learned as the "right way". Whenever these debates are held, it is pretty much always about copying someone else's style, and never about having one of your own. IMO those sorts of people are basically hacks, and they lack enough creativity and vision to forge their own path, so instead they follow. Perhaps skilled technicians, but technicians none the less, not artists.
4 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:(speaking of blind tests
)
Still making stuff up I see. It never ends does it. I suppose you are one of those people who think that if you say something often enough it becomes true.
-
4 hours ago, sudopera said:
I agree that 4K is far less important for a great image than some other features mentioned above, but there are also two kinds of 4K. There is 1Dc or most cinema cameras type of 4K that has the detail but not in camera sharpening, so it can still look very pleasing even in closeups, and there is 4K that is oversharpened on top of big resolution and that tends to look not so good. I believe you once already wrote about this Ebrahim. What I am trying to say is that for me 4K is a great feature if it is the right kind of 4K.
The argument has never been that 4K is the only thing that is important, it has been about the idea that 4K is unnecessary and even undesirable.
For me personally, the acid test is when friends watch footage I have shot on my TV, and all of them, without exception, are blown away with the resolution and detail. Now, no doubt my filmmaking skills are no where near the level of many here on this forum, but for me the proof of the argument is pretty clear in the comments of my friends. That is why I say over and over that the individuals who keep slagging 4K are living in a cocoon and are out of touch. I think it is somewhat disturbing that these are people who potentially produce content we might watch, and they just don't get it.
-
Write speed specs change depending on the size of memory available on the card even within a particular brand/model.
the Lexar Professional 633x cards for example have write specs of 10 MB/s for the 16GB card, 20 MB/s for the 32-128GB cards, and 40 MB/s for the 256-512GB cards. Likewise for 1000X UHS-II cards, which range from 40-80 MB/s depending on the memory size.
-
On 6/19/2016 at 2:32 PM, NX1user said:
I'm experiencing the opposite. People that are seeing what my NX1 can do (especially after the bitrate hack) are now seeking them out but can't find them.
He is referring to those who buy cameras as an investment to pay for their grandchildren's retirement, not those who buy cameras to shoot with.
-
On 12/17/2015 at 9:17 PM, IronFilm said:
Where did you sell stock footage? (and what of?)
I live in NZ, I'm afraid if I had to buy a bunch of KomputerBay cards and send them back and forth that would end making them more expensive than the other options due to postage costs! Are they really that likely of not working as fast as they claim & not even reaching their minimum specs???Keep in mind that the write specs of a lot of these cards are pretty dubious, particularly if they are a generic brand.
-
On 6/17/2016 at 3:58 PM, BrooklynDan said:
I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about SOUL. Something our industry is sorely lacking in.
You mean you are talking about magic. Physics is physics. Ignoring that and believing something to the contrary is what magic is.
-
19 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:
Only user issue is your reading, I had a iv not a iii
It is basically the same camera, other than an updated processor.
-
On 6/11/2016 at 7:00 AM, Mattias Burling said:
Both A7sii and RX100iv jammed, froze and needed battery pulled almost daily. Never happened on Canikon or Panasonic.
My RX100iii never froze, jammed or needed battery pulls. Had it since the day it was released in Canada. A user issue perhaps?
-
5 hours ago, outerbeat said:
I could ask the same question of you. You were claiming that it was recording higher frame rates, with the implication that it was actually shooting at that frame rate until someone pointed out that was not so. My point was that not only was it not shooting at the higher frame rate, it was not encoding at that rate either. It is actually shot (and recorded) at 30 fps. The "120 fps" is fake, and is achieved simply by changing a flag at the header. The camera could equally well generate "1200 fps" for example, but it would still be the same footage as 30 fps.
-
On 6/6/2016 at 9:03 AM, Clayton Moore said:
I understand Canon is saving the real video muscle for "Cinema" line, at least as far as large single sensor interchangeable lens cameras. But, I'd love to have a nice compact ENG style camera in my arsenal. RIght now its either SONY or Panasonic in terms of new 1" and micro 4/3 sensors. Canon has the nice color and good glass, they just need to decide to update their standard camcorders. Could they be super competitive in the $3,000-$4,000 of course, if they actually wanted to. All the XC10 does is make me wish they had a camera, they don't yet have. A (4K) 13 stop, C-log, version of an XF-200.
Yes. It is somewhat mystifying that they have not modernized their XF/XA lines. Even though they get occasional updates, they are still basically the same cameras from 3 years ago. Things have moved on a lot in the field in those three years however, so the low end pro camcorders are badly out of date now.
-
On 6/6/2016 at 6:08 PM, fuzzynormal said:
Ironically, I think lots of folks ultimately use these hybrid cameras for rather mundane personal purposes. They're the one that seem to be clamoring for a camera that does absolutely everything top in class. And oh, for 1-2K please.
One thing I believe I've sussed out from online rants about specs is that a camera enthusiast is not necessarily an accomplished craftsman or an artist. (not that there's anything wrong with that) Maybe they just like playing with new toys and want what they think is the best; not that they'd do anything terribly creative with it, but they got one, dangnabit!
God bless 'em though. They're the ones keeping the market alive.
The hybrids are primarily for consumers who want a single camera that can do both jobs very well, and can switch from stills to video mode and back again at the press of a button. They are not really intended for professionals, even though marketing materials might portray them that way. The marketing is not aimed at professionals since they (we hope) know better, but is intended more for advanced amateurs who want to appear "professional". That is why you see Blackmagic cameras all decked out with giant rigs and professional lenses in their marketing materials for example. It is aimed at the wannabe amateurs and "I can barely make it" pros for the most part.
In order to be considered an adequate hybrid, a camera has to excel both in stills and in video, not just one while doing a shitty job in the other.
-
Keep in mind that these are supposed to by hybrids, not pure camcorders. The XC10 is a piece of crap for stills. If you were to go out and have the option of carrying one camera for all of your imaging, the RX10III does it all, whereas with the XC10 you would need at least another camera.
That was always the big problem with the XC10. The image quality was ok in terms of color, and fine for HD, but resolution not so much when you were looking at 4K. The stills capability is a sad joke. You also require relatively expensive media to access the advanced end of the video spectrum, and, with all due respect to Andrew, having a giant loupe attached to the thing is awkward.
If you want a one stop shop and you are traveling/hiking/generally mobile, the RX10III is the better camera.
-
3 hours ago, outerbeat said:
Well, as I said on dpr, codec can do even 4K @ 120 fps, here it summary of files that I record, camera was able to create a file with this properties:
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 119.880 fpsSo, UHD @ 120 file is exists and it's smooth. With dublicates though (every 11th = every 10th frame). And it's x4 speed timelapse. But in principle it is possible.
Not really. Even though your file says "120 fps", it is actually being recorded at 30 fps. It is being shot at a lower bit rate and then conformed to a higher bit rate for playback. You could conform it to whatever playback speed you wanted to in principal, it would just be a matter of setting a flag somewhere. There is nothing to suggest that the camera can handle shooting at the higher frame rate however. The critical limitation is the amount of information the camera can handle RECORDING, not doing playback. I doubt that the processor could handle the amount of raw data coming off the sensor to record 4k at 60 fps.
Canon XC10 versus Sony RX10 III. The Canon is underrated!
In: Cameras
Posted
http://www.gizmag.com/canon-4k-video-c300-m2-xc10/36923/
https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-announces-new-xc10-4k-video-stills-camcorder/
http://www.canonrumors.com/announcement-canon-xc10-a-breakthrough-compact-4k-video-and-stills-camcorder/
http://canon.ca/inetCA/en/products/method/gp/pid/44258
https://***URL removed***/reviews/crossing-the-bridge-canon-xc10-review
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/review-canon-xc10-1-4k-hybrid-compact-cameracamcorder.html
https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/products/xc-10/xc-10.shtml
And watch this video at around 8:20, where the Canon rep clearly states what it is for:
Facts are a bitch