Liam

8 hours ago, theSUBVERSIVE said:

Drum roll for the GH5.

Can't Panasonic make their version of the FS5/FS7 as well?

Other than interchangeable lenses, the dvx200 looks quite a bit more impressive than people give it credit for

1 minute ago, hijodeibn said:

something better than 8bit 4:2:0……but it was just a dream!!!…..I guess GH5 will use the same…..

well there's MORE potential with the gh5 they try and do 10 bit internal or something, but this is no disappointment or surprise. it's actually a pretty decent balance as far as I understand. smallish files, that can record onto a cheap card, edit on any computer, and hold up alright to grading for the most part. some issues with internal v-log, but otherwise no banding and perfectly fine detail. this is like a $500 camera, right..?

I've fiddled with a free way to kind of roundabout denoise a bit.. (basically find the edges and slightly blur everything else). it was probably more educational than functional. though it definitely helped - the t3i has enough artifacts that it really made quite a difference. I would use it more for sure if I had the time. less likely to use it on a portrait, when the loss of detail and texture starts to hurt. and pretty much need to add grain

36 minutes ago, DayRaven said:

Now you're moving from opinion to measurable fact. If Sony's reds are magenta, you should find it trivial to tell me which of the following was from a Sony and which was from a Canon. Both direct from camera, no editing. Both set to the same white balance and the scene was illuminated with an incandescent bulb and natural sunlight, with a cheap and nasty LED with significant green problems.

I'm pretty unbiased, even into the sony colors sometimes. canon can give you yellow skins, and sony can make things muted interestingly, slightly retro or something..? not sure. but these don't seem white balanced the same at all, so somewhere there's a "problem". with a shot like this, if you don't have the other camera right next to it, I'll rarely care if it's "accurate" or whatever. none of those reds are super important or distinctly red... (maybe it's an orange candle, maybe it's a pink one, who cares?). maybe a portrait would have meant more for the test. Canon is usually too warm, and sony is called out for a magenta problem often, so I'd say 1 is sony.

hell yes, the f35 looks awesome all day.

if this camera does raw video, it won't make it a mini alexa. kinda click-baity  probably better off getting one of blackmagic's mini alexas

15 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

But the budget version doesn't do raw video 

I was being sarcastic, since they're both like $30,000. But don't they both do raw video? The 50mpx just doesn't do 4k

33 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I wonder if the start to this was shot on the new camera?

 

 

I was wondering too, but I doubt it. Aside from them not pointing it out, there are no mentions of high frame rate in the specs, are there?

Thank god there's a budget version

the nx1 will be a solid camera forever. especially if you adapt manual glass, if this is totally dead in 10 years, it'll still be awesome and likely an incredible bargain. I'm sure new cameras will be fine too though, I just can't see the image ever sucking in comparison. we already have raw 6k, and the nx1 looks great. Didn't digital bolex start their company saying they're only doing the one camera? they've updated firmware, but you'll never need to "upgrade", obviously, what's more to want? - maybe I'm mistaken about that though... not a ridiculous concept. your camera being discontinued now is better than upgrading every time sony tells you to

36 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

I'd rather deal with soft footage and aliasing then have leaves, plants and limes look like they have been grown in a radioactive wasteland

fair.. a comparison video with the 80D and t2i might make the better point

Lx100?

1 hour ago, pressland said:

I don't understand how a 4k option would at all, impact those who don't use the video function. I also don't understand why 1000 people feel the need to vote "I don't care" if they truly don't care. It is annoyingly passive-aggressive.

yeah, I'd think "i don't care" is a vote for adding 4k..

3 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Share footage! The number one issue with these are lack of footage an video's showing professionals working with the camera.

I've always really liked (most of) this footage as well. But I'm hoping everyone's already seen it. Would love to try out a kinemax

On 3/25/2016 at 9:39 AM, Simon Shasha said:

Any decent telephoto conversion lenses for the RX100 IV?

I got a $10 vivitar 2.2x the other day, which I'm liking. Looked like the highest rated of the cheapos I was scanning for. Could be worth the gamble at that price. Not sure exactly how it would respond in that sensor size and lens. Plus it's pretty big. Forget if andrew recommended one in this review or just said he's using an alright one. Expect a few issues, but maybe for the longer shots, stopping down a little, not needing the best optics, it could do the job (it's actually a 1.4x for focal length calculation btw. Not sure what the 2.2x refers to) 

3 hours ago, mercer said:

So, in the 2.5k mode, this is just a bigger crop?

No it's the full sensor. Don't think it's full pixel readout though.

13 minutes ago, Zach Ashcraft said:

Just a friendly reminder that this forum has an *ignore user* function for those of you who would like to wade past the nonsense a little faster 

right, but be careful with that trigger.. would be a bummer to ignore everyone who's said something you don't like..

the actual look of that was maybe not the most impressive part. the slowmo, choreography, editing of the preview, acting, writing style all seemed to play a bigger part in making it look great. but, if you want saturated, with my t3i, shooting semi flat, it seems like bringing all the saturation up doesn't work quite right. reds seem to clip pretty fast. in hitfilm i raise the master saturation to 40 and set the red saturation to -30. seems to work out well. I may be screwing it up myself by shooting at all flat with a t3i, or I'm in some weird middle ground there. I know others shoot even less saturated in camera with a t3i than I do. or maybe my editor is odd or something. but that may be something to toy with, if it might just inherent to the t3i. there's cool stuff to be down with natural light if you haven't yet made an investment in a lighting kit or are saying you're starting to give up on making something look nice with the t3i and you're going to upgrade. it's a pretty great camera, had it for a couple years and it's still teaching me things. better to have a bad camera you no how to use than a great one you don't

don't think this is the one you meant, ha, but just in case.. I think the other one was a porsche? couldn't find that one

Yeah, for budget raw or high end prores, with good low light, super35, high resolution, that bmcc image has always been one of my faves or like dream cameras. Yeah, I was pretty positive it'd be cheaper than the ursa mini, but even so, I'd pay more for it. Anyway, maybe a Red could drop down into a reasonable price. Or like an fs7. But if you want an ursa mini 4k as your next step up, and you've done your research, you probably can't go wrong with it. Most concerns I've heard are about iso performance, so if you can deal with that

The way you use cameras, seems like it could definitely be worth trying the 1dc. For stills and 4k and if you dislike the a7sii, 1dc for that price would be awesome. You wouldn't use your nx1 in the same circumstances?

speedboosted bmcc 2.5k ticks about every box for a very impressive price. Out of the question if you want 4k? I'd prefer it to the blackmagic 4k for everything but resolution and global shutter of course

Yeah I'd still really like to see what even the low bitrate 2.5k can do in the nx500. Probably more difficult to get in the nx1

Thanks for the blog post Andrew!

you can post private videos on youtube and just send someone the link

awesome! has anyone tried the 2.5k on the nx500 yet?

nx500?