Jump to content

DBounce

Members
  • Posts

    2,520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DBounce

  1. That's great news. Could you do some side by side comparisons of the lens with and without the rangefinder installed? That way we will have a baseline.
  2. This might be a silly question, but does the rangefinder destroy sharpness? I've yet to see anything that looked sharp from this thing.
  3. What is called for is really a change in perception. To say something looks like video does not mean the same thing today as it did 20 years ago. Years ago it was an insult, because most video looked pretty darn bad. Today it is simply a different feel... Cleaner, sharper and it can still be very cinematic. It think instead of saying something looks like video, what most people really mean, is it does not look cinematic.
  4. I believe digital has evolved into its own animal. The current generation of mid to high-end cameras have a look that is very usable. Yes, early digital lacked dr, motion cadence, highlight fall off was terrible, but I think in their current state it's another matter. I think they can have a look unique to themselves. A very cinematic look, without needing to look like film.
  5. So if it looks good you claim it as filmic? This looks like video to me, way too clean, much too sharp to look like film. Seriously, too many people living in the past. no, but not because it doesn't look filmic or organic. There's more to an image than film grain, fake vignette, shooting at 24fps and softness.
  6. Not sure why everyone feels the need to try to make their footage look like film. It's almost as though footage cannot look good free from the artifacts that real film leaves. Take for example the footage from the Kinefinity KineMax. To my eyes it looks great. I just don't see why it needs to look anything other than great. And by great I don't mean "film like". kinefinity kinemax footage:
  7. Until it breaks and you find out that a new tranny is $50k. And oil changes cost $900 a pop. No warranty... Gotta love it.
  8. are you certain you're not confusing cinematography with the media used to capture it. I point out again, that Alexa 65 looks pretty darn good in the aforementioned trailer, but it sure doesn't look like film.
  9. Comparing "used" to "new"? This makes no sense. Just keeping it real.
  10. Updates on ship date, black sun etc.. Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6k Preview:
  11. Agreed. Comparing the A7s to a camera that cost more than 3x as much is pointless. It makes more sense to compare the c300 mkii to the 1DC, after all, that only cost twice as much.
  12. I was just about to type that it looked soft, but these stills make me want to reserve judgment until I see more footage. If it can hold its sharpness I'm all over this thing. If not it becomes more of a special use device.
  13. Now you're just being silly. Whatever...
  14. What exactly does this mean? I used to think that it meant that the image lacked depth. Or perhaps the image looked somehow artificial. But anymore what I think it really means is that the image is clean. The truth is many modern cameras produce clean images, and frankly that's okay. My eyes don't see film grain when I look around at my surroundings. So why do we expect cameras to show this when it's not really there? The so-called "organic feel" is nothing more than distortion. My eyes "are organic", and the images I see with them are free from this grain and other artifacts. This whole "video look" thing reminds me a lot of when CD first came out. Many audiophiles complained that CDs sounded too digital, too clean... Sterile. Some producers even went as far as to add noise and hiss to their digital recordings in an attempt to make them sound more organic. I think that many filmmakers are following in these same footsteps. Trying to make the new digital format appear more like the old noisie, distorted, soft format that they are accustomed to. I watched the trailer for Revenant... That's the new movie that was shot on the Alexa 65. It looked wide, it looked impressive. But you what? It didn't look like film? And do you know what else? I really didn't care that it didn't. The truth is, if you are attempting to make your video look more "filmic", what you are really trying to do is make your video look more vintage... You are living in the past... clinging on the a memory of how movies looked when you were a kid. It's not bad to look like video, this is what the Alexa 65 has shown us.
  15. Yes but compare apples to apples... This camera is $8k compared to $2.5. Why not compare it to the Ursa Mini, the Kinefinity Max, the FS7 or Cion? One thing is true of the Canon... The resale value sucks... Spend $8k today and it's immediately worth $4k tomorrow. I'll pass. But to those that are so desperate to get one, they're in stock new... Knock yourself out.
  16. This camera is $8k new at bh. Should this not be compared to something in the same price range? Sorry, but I'll take an FS7 all day long over this awkward format. Let's be fair, can't compared used prices to new. Maybe you should include five finger discount price?
  17. I recall hearing about this awhile ago. Slr magic showed it at cine gear 2015 along with a prototype standalone anamorphic lens.
  18. ​Sounds like it will be a good read/view. Looking forward to it.
  19. You might be onto something. An A7sii with raw. Maybe?
  20. How about full frame readout without pixel binning? Given the decrease in pixels, and new super high speed memory I believe this should be viable.
  21. Not too sure about that. Who here would buy the S over the R just for better low light when the R probably is good enough in low light anyway? I'm thinking 4k 60fps is going to be the big thing. Don't think 10 bit will happen, that's getting into FS7 territory. Not sure about S-Log 3 either. Tho I would certainly welcome both in a package this small.
×
×
  • Create New...