Jump to content

jax_rox

Members
  • Posts

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Zach Goodwin in How about YET another "Guess the Camera?"   
    There's a difference between creative under-exposure, or balancing levels of exposure relative to the chosen aperture, and general under-exposure.
    Take this example frame from Miller's Crossing. It's not underexposed, everything is designed in such a way that it feels like night-time. The important thing is ensuring your bright spots are sitting right - in the OP shots, the bright spots are underexposed, and so the exposure should be bumped. Alternately, it may be a log gamma shot, or not have had it's exposure corrected properly from a log shot.

  2. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in The Right Camera for The Right Job   
    I said it in the last thread, and I'll say it again. The 'right camera for the job' depends on so many more things than just the type of job. There is a right camera for you, and there is a right camera for your project, that's for sure. But there's no definitive 'right' camera for a particular job. Again, it depends, and the more we suggest that it's cut and dry, the more people get disappointed because this camera doesn't do this or that, or doesn't work the way they like. In the end, they blame the camera system, when it's not really the camera system's fault.
    To your point, an Alexa Studio can certainly be used for making a documentary or a wedding video. Is it the best choice? Well, that depends on you. Do you own an Alexa Studio? Do you have clients willing to pay to be able to access that quality of footage? If so, then maybe it is the best choice for you. If not, and you're looking for a camera for weddings, then it's going to depend on a number of different factors. I know wedding shooters who still shoot on prosumer 1/3" sensor cameras like the Z1, NX5 etc. I also know wedding shooters who shoot on A7s'. I know wedding shooters who shoot on F5s and REDs.
    I know BTS shooters who shoot GH4, and I know BTS shooters who shoot Alexa.
    It depends.
    The 'what camera should I get' question may be annoying, but the reality is that people asking that question are better served once you know what their needs are, rather than selecting it from a chart. Big DPs when deciding what to lens a movie with, they don't just go to a chart that says 'Feature - Alexa Studio' and choose that way.
    If you really want to serve these people, you'd be better off having a thread that outlines the pros and cons of each camera system, and has a preamble about how to ascertain what you need in a camera system.
  3. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Geoff CB in What's the best camera for the job <5 000€? (Poll)   
    Except it would actually go more like this
    Friend: "I need a camera for a commercial shoot tomorrow, what do you recommend?"
    Me: 'What's the commercial? What's your budget? Are you going to go and buy this camera off the shelf, or can you rent it? What's the plan? Commercial for YouTube or for television? Are you lighting extensively? What are you looking for out of a camera for this job? Will you be grading? Who will be grading it? Studio or location or both? 
    Friend answers questions and I can recommend a camera accordingly.
    Conversely, if a friend came to me and said 'hey, you know about cameras, what's the best camera for a commercial' (and this has happened exactly like this in the past), I would say 'well it depends on what you're doing, there's no real best camera for a commercial, it depends on so many things - not the least of which is your budget. Tell me more about what you're doing and I can give you a recommendation.'
  4. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Geoff CB in How about YET another "Guess the Camera?"   
    Bump that exposure up 
  5. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Zach Goodwin in How about YET another "Guess the Camera?"   
    Bump that exposure up 
  6. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from HelsinkiZim in What's the best camera for the job <5 000€? (Poll)   
    Except it would actually go more like this
    Friend: "I need a camera for a commercial shoot tomorrow, what do you recommend?"
    Me: 'What's the commercial? What's your budget? Are you going to go and buy this camera off the shelf, or can you rent it? What's the plan? Commercial for YouTube or for television? Are you lighting extensively? What are you looking for out of a camera for this job? Will you be grading? Who will be grading it? Studio or location or both? 
    Friend answers questions and I can recommend a camera accordingly.
    Conversely, if a friend came to me and said 'hey, you know about cameras, what's the best camera for a commercial' (and this has happened exactly like this in the past), I would say 'well it depends on what you're doing, there's no real best camera for a commercial, it depends on so many things - not the least of which is your budget. Tell me more about what you're doing and I can give you a recommendation.'
  7. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in What's the best camera for the job <5 000€? (Poll)   
    But a general guide doesn't exist, unless your general guide is a discussion about the pros and cons of each camera for the situation. A poll provides no context. What's best for a feature film? Well, what's your budget? What sort of film? Is it a sci-fi involving green screen and VFX, or a gritty drama? Is it a studio set-up with jibs and dollies and steadicams, or will you be handheld for the whole thing? What's the intended output (i.e. do you need 4k)? Do you have the budget for a lighting and grip package? There's so many variables that it's impossible to say 'Blackmagic Cinema Camera'. The BMCC, for example, is a worse choice for low light than say an A7sII or a 5DIII. So is your film being shot at night without lighting, or on a set with a full lighting setup?
    The premise of the thread is not a bad one, but it should be as a discussion, not a poll with a definitive, or 'general' answer.
  8. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in Panavision DXL revealed, an 8K 60fps RAW cinema camera using RED's codec   
    No, it's not like that. It's like saying you can't expect a $3,000 2016 model Ford to perform like a top of the line 2010 model Ferrari. 
    My point is Sony already rivals, and in some cases beats Arri, depending who you're talking to. The F65 is a very different camera to the Alexa, of course. But $3,000 cameras, despite being expensive to some, are still built to a price point. 
    Let's not forget the F3, lauded by many as the 'mini Alexa' - a camera that also happened to hit the market in 2010, and also cost ~$16k - cheap! 
    If Sony could and/or wanted to, they could put that sort of sensor into a $3,000 camera. But they won't. They'd rather you spend $10k+ on an FS7, F5, F55, F65 etc.
    The fact that the Alexa still sells at the price point that it does is the reason you can't get an Alexa image in a $3,000 body. If Arri brought something new out, and decided to offload Alexas for $5k, you can bet your bottom dollar that other companies would be selling their Alexa-matching sensors for $3k.
    Take a look at the VaricamLT. It has dual-ISO, and an amazing picture, all for ~$20-30k. It can even come with an EF mount. Cheap!
    I'm just saying - the reason you can't get an image that rivals an Alexa for $3k is not because no-one can figure it out, or are not allowed to...
  9. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in Panavision DXL revealed, an 8K 60fps RAW cinema camera using RED's codec   
    Why should they have to? Why should a consumer camera have to match a $50k+ high-end cinema camera? I would argue that the F55 matches, and the F65 beats the Alexa in many areas - of course both have differing looks to the Alexa.
    I just don't really understand the comment. Of course a $3,000 camera doesn't 'match' the Alexa.
  10. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from jasonmillard81 in Can 4K eliminate the need for DSLR?   
    Depends what you need from your photos. There's differences in resolutions, dimensions, quality etc.
    Not to mention it's significantly easier to grab your SLR/ILC and take a few shots than it is to have to build/rig an FS7 and have to shoot video all the time if all you want is photos.
    Each to their own.
    You also may want to shoot high shutter speed so as to get rid of potential motion blur, which may not be the look you're after for a video.
    My general feeling is - what are you doing more? What is more important? Photos or video? Personally, I think nothing beats a proper SLR/ILC for taking photos. Quick, easy, light fast AF etc. etc. etc.
    I'd rather invest in an SLR/ILC and also a video camera that uses the same lens mount.
  11. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in sony F3 vs A7s   
    Don't have footage right at the moment (my HDD just died on me ), but I'll tell you this. THe a7sII (and original) do give a great image. For 4k, they're your only option with the F3 tapping out at HD.
    But man, that F3 footage... 10-bit 4:4:4, and even 4:2:2...
    The a7sII doesn't match it IMO, especially in the grade. The a7sII has a lot of other things going for it, and still gives you a great image.
  12. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in sony F3 vs A7s   
    I own both and they both have pretty great images. Image-wise, the colours are not dissimilar.  
    Personally, if I'm looking for something quick, 'more run-n-gunney' the A7s is generally my go-to. It's smaller, lighter, gets onto a gimbal significantly easier, and the XAVC-S is super malleable, despite the fact that it's 8-bit. It also is easier to use - my biggest gripe with Sony professional cameras is their menu systems. The F5/55 is improved in that regard, but the F3 sucks for having to dive into menus to do simple things.
    A7s will give you much better high ISO performance, thought the F3 performs pretty well in low-light as well.
    The F3's internal codec is nice, but it really shines when you pair it with a recorder. Once you do, you'll be very happy, especially in Slog2. The images you can get out of the F3 are amazing. If I'm not using a recorder, or don't want the extra weight, or annoyance - the benefits of the F3 over an A7s are diminished IMO. I own the XLR adapter for the A7s, so XLRs isn't really a plus for the F3 for me. The F3 does have internal ND, which is really nice. A7s is full frame, which is also really nice.
    I have a Shogun Flame which I use to get 10-bit 4:2:2 out of the F3, or 4k out of the A7s. It's a pretty neat setup.
    Keep in mind that you can get away with using a cheap tripod with a small DSLR, but a cheap tripod will struggle to hold something like an F3 with a decent lens on it.
    I've shot commercials for television and cinema, and all sorts of other projects with both of them, and with decent lenses on them, they can both give you pretty incredible images. I don't think you'd be disappointed with either camera. 
  13. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in How Do You Record Audio To Your Arri Alexa Mini?   
    You can sync dual system audio using Genlock timecode and/or with a slate.
    I don't know how you'd monitor your internal audio either, unless maybe you use an external monitor or recorder with a headphone jack. Realistically, unmonitorable line-level audio is little more than a good cue/scratch track.
  14. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from kidzrevil in Capturing the best A7s skin tones   
    I haven't done any scientific testing - but I couldn't say equivocally that you lose two whole stops of dynamic range. Honestly, it depends on what you're shooting and how you're exposing. If you put the camera into REC709 Picture Profile, you do easily lose a couple of stops of dynamic range, but in PP off, or in different Picture Profile settings, it's not as cut and dry.
    Even with PP off - it reminds me more of the difference between REC709 and Log-C on an Alexa, rather than two totally different images with different dynamic ranges to boot.
    You can still shoot pretty damn flat without going full Slog, being able to maintain low ISOs. Again, I haven't really put it through major testing (I will be soon), but even Cine2 compared to Slog2 doesn't seem to have that drastic a difference in dynamic range.
    I dunno - I usually try and shoot within my dynamic range anyway,,
  15. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Mattias Burling in The Digital Bolex just got False Color   
    I want one with a mechanical shutter...  Make me feel like I'm shooting on film again... 
  16. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from forofilms in Lenses to Invest In   
    It's also almost impossible to predict if a lens is going to appreciate in value. Certainly small flange depth lenses won't hold their value as much as they're significantly harder to adapt.
    Older lenses like Super Baltars and Zeiss Super/Standard Speeds, Cooke Panchros, Lomos etc. have seen their values increase hugely, thanks in part to the lust and want for 'older' glass for a specific look, now that we're trying to take the 'edge' off digital. In addition, the rarity of a lens adds significant value. Super Baltars haven't been made since the 70s. Zeiss Supers and Panchros since the 80s. One imagines that an older set of lenses that can cover and resolve 8k/full frame+, and are rather fast, will continue to appreciate in value as other sets break, deteriorate etc. 
    Think back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s... how could anyone have predicted that old school 'soft' lenses would come back into fashion?
    EF glass is unlikely to appreciate simply based on the fact that there's so many of them.
    There's really no secret recipe. If everyone thought they knew what would appreciate in value, everyone would buy those lenses - which would stop them from appreciating as they'd be so common.
    Think of the expensive Canon 50mm f0.95. Sure, they made around 20,000 units, but it's still a pretty rare lens - and that's why it's expensive. Compare it to the Helios 44-2, one of the most mass-produced lenses ever. Production on both cameras stopped a long while ago, and yet one can be had for $40 - the other $4,000.
  17. Like
    jax_rox reacted to Jimmy in RED Scarlet-X or RED ONE MX (full kit) with lens   
    They can call it what they want.... It is simply not a full frame camera (36mm x 24mm)
    When they say Full Frame on that spec sheet, they just mean "non windowed"... eg, it uses the full frame of the sensor... They have been (mis) using that term since day one.
    I guess Raven is full frame too?

  18. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from IronFilm in RED Scarlet-X or RED ONE MX (full kit) with lens   
    Well, considering an Arri from 10 years ago would be a D20 - there would actually be a lot of benefits to using the GH4, depending on what you're shooting. The D20 has a nice sensor and can give you a nice image, sure - but the mucking around to get that into some sort of workable format and workable image is ridiculous. The camera has been discontinued, and even its successor has been discontinued. How easy will it be to find parts if something goes wrong? 
    It's actually more like saying 'I'm not going to spend money on a 10 year old camera that's been long discontinued, when I can spend the same or less on a camera that will give me an image that's nearly as good, and be 10x easier to work with, and is newer, so is likely to stay relevant for a bit longer.'
    You should only ever consider buying a camera if you can be confident you'll be able to make a return on it within 18 months. The technology moves so quickly these days that a 7 year old camera becomes irrelevant very quickly.
    Not to mention, the RED One is already 8 years old. To expect it to continue to hold up in another 7 years is naivety. Would you call the Sony F900 still relevant?
    Unless you've just got money to blow (in which case just buy something, why are you asking), you should be pretty certain you can pay it off within 18 months. If you need a camera that's going to attempt to stay relevant for the next 7 years, you're going to need to buy a relatively new, relatively expensive camera now, and even then you'll likely be disappointed if you really can only pay the camera off over 7 years.
    --
    On the question of RED One vs RED Scaret - the Scarlet is by far a better camera. But the ROne kit is pick up and shoot, whereas the Scarlet one you're going to need all sorts of other things.
    If I were you, I might think about something like an FS5 - gives you pretty good quality, soon to give you raw, can have a PL mount put on it, is 4k, pretty new, etc etc. Plus you can put cheap lenses and expensive lenses on it.. I think overall you'd probably be happier. The FS700 has been able to stay somewhat relevant thanks to its raw recording (though it is still only four years old). Otherwise, maybe a second hand F5. You'll probably only get the body, but that's essentially what you're getting with the Scarlet anyway.
    It doesn't necessarily have the name recognition of RED, but realistically you're not going to book jobs based on the fact that you own an 8 year old camera. Maybe if you can find the money to upgrade the Scarlet to a Dragon sensor..
  19. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from jgharding in Calling all Sony users - share your whitebalance settings!   
    Actually, in 4:2:0, both Cb (B-Y) and Cr (R-Y) are captured equally, but on alternating lines. 
    I would posit that the reason things can fall apart on any digital sensor when shooting in warm white balances is because most sensors are weakest in the blue channel. Digital sensors are most sensitive to green - hence the proliferation of green screen. This mimics the human eye, which is also most sensitive to green.
    Sensors are least sensitive to blue, so when you're shooting under Tungsten light with a Tungsten white balance, the blue channel gets very noisy, especially when compared with shooting daylight balance, where the light is mostly blue, and therefore the blue channel gets the 'saturation' it needs to stay 'quiet'.
    Therefore it makes sense that even shooting daylight balance (considering digital sensors are 'biased' towards daylight) to saturate the sensor with more blue, will clean up better as the blue channel will remain quieter/less noisy as compared to shooting under tungsten balance.
    I can't imagine chroma subsampling post-sensor does wonders for the blue channel either, so you've got an already noisy blue channel having its resolution reduced and compressed - which is why it's much less of an issue on a raw, or 444 subsampled camera.
  20. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Axel in Mac OSX/ Editing Software - Poll   
    Personally, I don't think it really makes much difference these days. Not sure I'd want to try and run Avid on an underpowered Macbook, but Premiere or FCPX will be fine with it. Granted, Premiere plays nicer with Nvidia/CUDA cards, and Apple only allow OpenCL AMD cards in their new Mac Pro (which FCPX is tuned for), but there's no reason why you couldn't/shouldn't run Premiere, or any NLE on a Mac.
    There are plenty of things that FCPX still can't do - like export an OMF, for example. There are things it is good at, but there are certain projects where I would avoid FCPX if I could. If it's the only thing you have - you've gotta work with it. The 'magnetic' or 'lack-of' timeline is both great and awful, depending on what you're doing and how you like to edit. Things that are quick in other NLEs can end up being much more difficult in FCPX. And vice versa. Simple things like fine adjustments to cross fades, or lengthening a clip that has a crossfade on it become more tedious and annoying.
  21. Like
    jax_rox reacted to richg101 in Is a Sony F3 worthwhile buying in 2015??   
    The 1080p from the f3 is better than the 4k from any camera system within the same budget (sub $3-4k).
  22. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from andrgl in A7S II Questions   
    I don't mind, overall, the focus peaking on the A7s though it's sometimes vague. Neither the VF nor the LCD screen are really big enough for peaking to be super useful. An external monitor will be better
    I don't believe you can use PlayMemories to pull focus. I've never tried, though.
  23. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from Shield3 in Sony FS5 firmware update version 2.0 - FS RAW costs $600 / 500 euros   
    Quoted and usable DR are two very different things, and you'd find real world they're very close in terms of usable DR. FS700 for me comes close to, ergonomically, one of the worst supposedly 'pro' cameras I've ever encountered. It does have a lot of great features though. Sensitivity will be similar between the two, but the FS5 will be better at higher ISOs.
    Big distinction, I think, is that the FS700 is more or less sorta a 4k-geared camera, whereas the FS5 is sorta an HD geared camera. FS5 gives you 10-bit internally @ 50Mbps which you can't get out of an FS700. FS700's SDI output is also only 8-bit, so to get more than that you're forced to shoot raw.
  24. Like
    jax_rox reacted to independent in NAB 2016 = Boring   
    4K 10-bit Prores - This is what the blackmagic ursa mini 4.6K is about. It's the only one that does that in the price range. It lacks the lowlight and autofocus, but those are specific features (some would say niche) for other cameras. It has a few bugs, but so does every new camera that pushes  boundaries. Some of you are looking for a perfect solution for features, performances, and price, and it doesn't exist. You demand it like some God-given right. "Why can't X, why can't Y" - because these are companies that operate in a market, as do we, in various segments, and these products also must obey the laws of physics. The Sony A6300 is a prime example of that. It's both brilliant and terrible, an incredible value and useless. But somebody is probably going to use it to make a movie, that will also probably be terrible but not because of its visuals.
  25. Like
    jax_rox got a reaction from TVDino in Craft Camera is coming!   
    Except most 'cinema' setups have in-camera scratch-tracks at a minimum, if not Genlock TC as well. Even middling corporate shoots tend to have that these days. Where's the Genlock? 
    I agree. This looks like the modularity that RED wanted, but even RED with their R&D money, and cost of modules couldn't quick get it to work that way.
    And what's the go with the price? The website (unless I'm mistaken) tells you nothing about what the eventual price will be. The previous email said 'somewhere between' x and x. IIRC, the higher end of the number was ~$2800. Is that for a 'fully moduled' camera? Or is that just the sensor/single lens module? If so, how much will the other modules be? What is it going to cost to get a semi-workable camera? How do you power the camera without the battery module? How do you record without the Media module? Via SDI/HDMI? What are they outputting? 8-bit signals? 10-bit? 
    What's the sensitivity? Base ISO? 
    Shooting in a studio won't need an ND?
    The last camera I remember seeing 3D renders of before seeing the actual camera pictures, or any footage, is the AJA CION. Whatever happened to that camera?
    Some nice 3D renders with nothing that really provides confidence that these guys (or girls?) know what they're doing, or can even deliver a product at all, is a big red flag for me.
    Also, by the time this camera comes out (December seems ambitious, based on what we have to go by, not to mention their statement of 'yep, December, totally.. unless it isn't'), we'll be approaching next NAB. You'd want the camera to really deliver, considering what might take place between now and next NAB. 
     
    Because they don't have a camera yet. Just 3D renders. And most likely, not the money to attend. The whole thing, including the, 'we really wish you didn't ask for your money back, but I guess if you absolutely have to..' stinks of 'we don't really have the capital to do this properly'
    Hence the shifty marketing campaign. Someone with the capital to do it properly isn't deliberately vague and teasey, and releases full camera specs at launch, rather than simply leading with the things that are 100%.
×
×
  • Create New...