BenEricson

On 10/1/2017 at 11:56 AM, jcs said:

One of the tricks used for softer / lower resolution cameras is to shoot mostly closeups, as was done with the Canon 5D3 H.264. Low resolution is especially visible in wide shots. Aronofsky used mostly tight / closeups where the soft/grainy look worked well for the narrative of Mother!.

To get e.g. the GH5 looking like 16mm film, you'll want to reduce the resolution and add large noise grain (e.g. FilmConvert or 16mm noise scan).

Agreed about the close ups. Any smaller scale formats really shine in this setting. The extreme being Super 8 or Polaroid film. Portraits on polaroid look like they've already been airbrushed. 

On the discussion of 16mm. Stuff I have shot with the Bolex has just been the most rewarding for me. The colors, skin tone, and overall feel are very hard to replicate. 

I think someone saying they can easily copy the 16mm look with filters, is the same as saying the GH5 can look like an Alexa or a F35. I suppose there's different traits that people would to copy. To some people that would mean analog inconsistency; film burns, grain, jumping gate, etc. There is a huge difference in the film stocks alone. 

These first two frames are 1080p scans on the Shadow. This is a 10+ year old scanner. The 3rd frame is a 4k scan from a Scan Station. This is just cheap c-mount glass. I've n ever used Zeiss on a bolex, but I am sure the results would be very nice. 

On 10/1/2017 at 8:34 AM, meudig said:

My go-to benchmark of 16 mm is Andrij Parekh's work with the Arriflex 16SR3 (if I remember correctly) on Half Nelson (2006).

Talk about sexy grain.

I've never seen this but the trailer looks good. I'll be checking that out this week. 

52 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

There is one for $1400 @ ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-PMW-F3-camera-super-35mm-XDCAM-EX-HD-camcorder-S-LOG-SxS-4-4-4-RGB-/172874331382?epid=109366082&hash=item28401cf4f6:g:FdYAAOSwIZBZwdUE

That's a great deal. Another really nice piece shot on the F3. Cooke zoom I believe.

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Luckily, getting a 4:4:4 model is more a matter of diligence and patience than price; my good condition 4:4:4 model only ran me $1200.

Same here. I think I paid 1600 for mine.

28 minutes ago, DaveAltizer said:

Love this frame. Definitely looks like film.

I had thought about doing this in the past, kinda figured the 7Q would generate too much heat. 

I always found the fs700/slog2 to be very difficult to grade. I kinda wish you could have the option to get some sort of cine profile to output. 

I do miss the sharpness and 4k/120.

Agreed. The F3 is awesome. It really depends what you're shooting. The Canon C100/C300 looks really good on skin. 

My work has the C300ii, I love those cameras, but they're in a different price bracket. I wouldn't trade the F3 for anything else at this price level for what I do. 

You should be able to get the Sony F3 and the Black Magic Video Assist for under 2500. the 444 version will output 60p to the video assist, the 422 will not. 

38 minutes ago, iamoui said:

So Nikon did invite female photographers but none of them accepted. How is this sexism, again? Even if Nikon did have some female photographers for the D850, would people complain that there weren't enough of them? Would Nikon have to have an equal amount of female and male photographers for people not to complain? Would they need to have more females than males? Why does it even matter? I think attributing to Nikon that "they think it's too much for women to handle" is incredibly dishonest. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Identity politics is a zero-sum game. Don't play it.

Now in the future Nikon will feel forced to include female photographers for the sake of not being chastised. What if they choose female photographers that don't have as good of work as some male photographers that they wanted originally but they feel the need to choose them just because they're female? 

Why didn't Nikon have any non binary, transgender, or genderqueer photographers? I'm offended!

Yikes. 

3 minutes ago, jonpais said:

My only experience shooting larger formats has been with film - a 4X5 view camera, a Pentax 645 and a Rollieflex.

You could buy a lot of film for 3k. 

9 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

HDR screens already implemented and supported by Netflix and Amazon on LG G6 and Samsung S8.

2 hours ago, jax_rox said:

S-log3 puts skin tones at about 35-40%IRE or something. Which is super low. You look at that in your live view, assume the skin tones are underexposed, crank the exposure so they look right, and then when you come to grade it can't figure out why your skin tones look so bad.

Turns out S-log doesn't put as much information into the exposure where you've ended up putting your skin tones, so of course they start to look ugly. Then you blame Sony for not being able to make a camera that looks any good.

Nope. I have used the F3 for over a year now and sensor and image is excellent. I assume this new camera will be the same. The FS700/S-LOG2 was garbage. Using the 7Q with a LUT preview is not that hard to expose correctly. The image was acceptable and the 120/4k is excellent, but not what you would expect with the bitrates and resolution the 7Q pumps out. I had no problems with the Black Magic Pocket, either. The FS7 is supposedly better, but the large majority of that footage looks orange, dull, or the greens are off.

C-Log 2 and C-Log 3 are not available on the 8 bit c100 or c300 you're referencing. I'm talking about 10 and 12 bit files from the C300ii. 

Do all of the Cine Alta cameras also have "'pseudo-log?" 

On 5/6/2017 at 8:36 AM, webrunner5 said:

A F3 is old just like my Af100, does that make them useless no, but now I think maybe better stuff is out there for nearly the same money. Hard decisions when you don't have a lot of cash. And it is not just the body you are buying, it is the System you are getting into. That is where it gets damn expensive.   But hopefully you can use parts of it on another camera.

For strictly image, no. The F3 produces one of the best 1080p images, similar to the Arri and Red. The c100 is great in the right lighting but the F3 can produce some seriously cinematic stuff. 

I love the 5D3 raw image, but the pocket/micro cinema is actually a useable tool. 5D3 raw is very unreliable. 

All camera have their downfalls. I personally prefer a larger camera that takes one battery and has a mic built in. The weight is good for camera movements anyway. 

35 minutes ago, Papiskokuji said:

Hi guys !

I just bought an XC10 but i'm still in the 14 days of trial so I can return it if I want to. I got the camera for 1600€ new. Took it because I thought it was a good deal and I've always been tempted by it. I thought it would come with the CFAST card and a card reader though but I guess it's just a bundle offer for the US.

Anyway so far I haven't shot much with it because of very bad weather in Paris and the lack of time but I've been a bit underwhelmed with the camera. The grip feels too big for my hand and the bottom of the camera is somewhat a hindrance to get to the focus ring. I also thought the image straight out of it would be less "dslr" and more "blackmagic/organic", some of you said it has some kind of mojo (some people I trust on this forum). It is a nice image but nothing that I haven't seen before. (I assume you can get a cinematic image shooting c-log and color grading) Hence my question :

Do you think there's a major leap in quality with the 305mb codec ? (as I haven't been able to test it) How do you think it fares compared to, let's say, Prores LT ? With C-log pushed a bit, do you get magenta macroblocking like with S-log2 on Sony cameras ? Is there a huge difference between S-Log2 from Alpha cameras and Clog at 305mb ? Like there is with the log of blackmagic in Prores.

I would keep this camera only if I get a noticeable improvement from the other dslr cameras I already have, codec wise I mean.

And lastly, I love Canon colors from my dslr stills but I found them not that incredible with the XC10 (best profile for out of camera colors was EOS Standard) and actually the "portrait" picture profile of my sony RX100 V comes quite close to the eos standard profile !

Maybe I was hoping for a film look right out of the camera (I got spoiled with the Fuji X-T20 a friend lent me and the film simulations are soooo great for stills).

You should be a big step up from S-LOG2, but really depends on the situation. This camera is perfect for outdoor shooting, but not so much indoor. 

The baked in profiles do include noise reduction which can effect the image. 

I recommend C-LOG, exposing a stop or so over to make sure you get clean shadows. You shouldn't get noise or macro blocking if you're exposing correctly.

Good secondary cameras for a doc. Wish they would make a camera like the HPX170. Those were CCD sensors. Really nice color and motion. 

I can't tell how good the color is here. It looked pretty videoish to me, didn't have the Canon EOS look... I'm assuming the product video was mostly shot with a C300?

3 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

That is because on one hand you have color professionals and on the other people that don't even know how to use picture profiles. Once you know what you are doing, PP offer the most flexibility in terms of color in any consumer camera. 

The FS5 - FS7 cannot produce what the CineAlta can produce. I wish the FS7 had the F3 color. I own the F3 and love it, but have yet to see any FS7 footage that I have really liked.

5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Cue all the comments about how terrible Sony's skin tones are and how unusable SLog is  

This is more like what an average person actually gest with the FS5 and FS7. 

I remember my studio going from the FS700/7Q S-Log 2 to the C300ii. The difference in color is absolutely insane. I would do HSL adjustments, tons of masks, etc, still couldn't get close to what the Canon can produce with just a LUT and a quick three way adjustment. 

People want to knock this, but wow the images out of this camera are amazing. It's like getting Arri Alexa colors and feel with that auto focus and 4k/60p. Look at how clean that lowlight is in the first video. I bet this camera is so much fun to use. Lighter than the C300ii and internal raw. 

I could see shooting interviews in 4k/8bit or 1080p 422 to a recorder and shooting the b-roll in raw. 

12 hours ago, Emanuel said:

 

 

John Miller's stuff (Congrats man!) on the 1st one. Nick Driftwood is another part of the chain-link fencing.

 

People want to knock the C200 footage and praise this camera. Come on now. Would love to be proven wrong with some natural looking greens though. 

I love the specs but haven't seen anything image wise that I loved.

I guess it is still 422/8bit out to 4k then? 

15 hours ago, Django said:

Camera is also now off my list. It all the sudden becomes a ultra niche camera for RAW only shooters.. that need 420 proxies ..?!

R3D seems to be doing pretty well. 

Interesting. Looking at photos online, still looks like a film hassleblad with some Kodak Portra cannot be beat. 

Is there a place I can see some images from this camera? 

1 minute ago, dbp said:

Panasonic 12-35 has always been the walk around IS go-to. More like 36-105 equivalent though.

Agreed. This is the best walk around lens for the pocket. There are more options with a speed booster/Canon EF lenses, but the weight and battery drain is an issue there.

On 4/28/2017 at 2:24 PM, hyalinejim said:

Yes, EOS Standard is one of the ready to go profiles but it has the least heavy noise reduction applied to it. 

Does this have less NR than Wide DR? I know this was a later addition.

22 hours ago, Brummy said:

The only thing I would add to the XC10 is fixed aperture and servo zoom. Then may be a masterpiece.

Nice work. I would probably have guessed it was c100 if I didn't know. 

I agree. I wish it was a constant 3.5 at least, a servo would be awesome.

5 minutes ago, bertholddiederich said:

I just got a XC15 and I haven't yet figured out the best way to expose when using Canon Log. I know that middle grey should be at 32 IRE but the on-screen waveform monitor is quite small, so I'm not sure if that's the best way. If I put the camera in shutter priority mode, set it at 1/48 (I'm shooting at 24 fps) and ISO 500, will the camera correctly auto expose for the best results in log? Or should I over expose by two stops? 

Thanks...and I promise to read more of the thread to answer more of these questions myself!

I think it depends on the situation. You could try a grey card. I usually use the exposure guide on the bottom and push it a few stops if there's shadows in the scene that could get noisy. I definitely think it looks better ETTR. You could figure out where your shadows get noisy (probably around 15-20ire in c-log) and try to avoid that. I think you should stress test it and see what works for you. 

I do think that an external variable ND filter is definitely needed. I find I get the best results when shooting between f2.8 and f8. At f11-f16, it seems to get a little weird, maybe too many things are in focus and the compression breaks it. 

On 4/16/2017 at 1:59 PM, mercer said:

Anybody who says the camera is horrible never used one. When it's exposed properly and not pushed too far in post, the camera is as cinematic as they come, with beautiful color. If I was a wealthier man, I would still own it. If they ever go below a grand on the used market, I'll buy another one. 

I couldn't take it and had to buy the camera again. So stoked to mess around with this camera again. 

I found some cool footage shot with a wide angle today. When zoomed through it looks like you can achieve shallower depth of field as well. Around 4:26 the stuff shot with the Wide Angle.

Best I have seen for a one shot that has a concept.

On 6/28/2017 at 10:16 AM, mkabi said:

Even if it is a 2012 camera - lets just be reminded that Mad Max Fury Road used 5D Mark 2s for crash footage and thats a 2008 camera in a 2015 film.

Well, it happens so fast you can't even possibly notice. It is a good thing the whole film wasn't shot on a 5D. 

I think I need to buy a 1DC. So damn cheap and seems so capable. 

Best drone shot ever would be the one that was most cleverly utilized in a film or commercial. 

What's up with the funky distortion?

On 6/9/2017 at 8:27 AM, Kisaha said:

Outstanding image for light RAW, slow motion is VERY soft, that was a bit unexpected (to that degree).

Looks real sharp to me.