austinchimp

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I would agree. But they are mainly to be used with the touchscreen or the Apple Pen. So the keyboard and mouse is really no needed often. Sure it is just a start on them, but I can see them nearly taking over MBP sales for most peoples needs down the road.

I agree with that, except that for me and many working professionals a mouse and keyboard is essential to the way we work.

im also aware that this is perhaps old fashioned already, and in 10 year sales time younger editors might be doing their work with swipes and finger gestures because they will have grown up with iPads since birth. I’m excited to see where it goes, as everything changes and no workflow lasts for very long these days.

as someone in my late 30s I’m young enough to move with the changes for now, but I’m also certain that this new technology is going to radically alter video production very soon, probably with the vloggers and youtubers first, with that filtering it’s way up over a short amount of years.

6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

The older ones a a lot slower than the new ones. The 10.5" one is down there with a iPhone 7. We have a case for the 11" with a Bluetooth keyboard and it is not too bad. My Apple keyboard went belly up so haven't replaced that yet to try. We haven't spent to much time utilizing the new features. Been busy as of late.

https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks

And as you can see here the new 11" is as good if not better than a 2018 15" MBP. Pretty amazing. And they are half the price of the MBP. And the Type C port on them is the same as Thunderbolt 3.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/11/01/2018-ipad-pro-benchmarks-geekbench/

All true, but that doesn’t change the fact that the iPad isn’t a straight laptop replacement for most video or photo professionals yet in my opinion. It needs a proper file system first and foremost, and the secondary concerns are proper external monitor support, and better mouse and keyboard input.

once you’ve added a keyboard, mouse, and got all the necessary dongles, cables and drives hanging off it, you really might as well get a laptop!

of course if you’re a casual user who just wants to consume media, or even do some less demanding productivity tasks, then the iPad is beautiful machine.

I recently got an iPad pro with hopes of being able to use it for Lightroom editing, 360 editing with the Insta 360 One X as well as potentially some basic video editing. I've downloaded the new iPadOS beta and so far I don't think it's there yet.

I'm using an older iPad Pro 10.5 inch so it still has a lightning connector and not USB-C, but connectivity has been patchy with drives, I've only managed to get it working with HFS formatted drives and not exFAT drives, which most of mine are.

Using an iPad for productivity still feels like a hack to be honest. Maybe I'm so used to traditional operating systems and form factors but nothing about it feels easy right now. The screen is small, it feels weird to hold it and do detailed work, using a touchscreen feels slower and less precise than a mouse, and the file system and file management is horrible. Even with the new iPadOS it feels like it's been bolted on. You still don't have true access to a proper file system, which makes professional work very hard, especially under time constraints.

For amateur, fun work, I can see it can be pleasant, but my idea of hell is being forced to do all my work on an iPad instead of Mac Pro with dual screens and with a mouse and keyboard.

It's an interesting experience, and I'm sure in a few years it could be different, but right now I think iPads are just not ready for pro video and photo use, certainly not when you regularly have to copy, rename, organise, transcode, export, reversion etc large amounts of big files. Even if you can do it, you can't do it as fast and as directly as you can on a proper OS.

Added to that, the apps available are very dumbed down right now, even something like Lightroom, which I was impressed by. Dongles and trying to connect everything to get files on and off the iPad? Don't even go there.

I think I'll keep it, but probably just as a toy now. I'm also seeing if it can replace a paper note pad for my scribbles in the office.

8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The Z cam E2, no internal ND's though. 
 

This. I got my E2 earlier this week and it's fantastic. Still working out the rig and monitor situation though and haven't tried the audio yet but it has XLR in.

No internal NDs or IBIS, but then as others have said, these aren't common on 'cinema cameras'

One thing I've discovered - and this might help some people - is that the rendering settings in Premiere can create extreme banding and blotches in your h256 footage once you apply a lut.

I had terrible problems with this on my Mac, before I realised I'd accidentally created a sequence with the Metal hardware acceleration setting selected under Project settings. When I changed it to OpenCL, the banding went away completely.

Might be something worth playing with. I usually find Software rendering to be the most reliable for quality, albeit by far the slowest.

2 hours ago, thephoenix said:

i am wondering if canon ef-s lenses (canon aps-c lense) would work on the xt3 with the fringer adapter ?

i am afraid it won't cover the sensor.

All the ones I've tested do, yes.

15 hours ago, thephoenix said:

good news only problem is the 1.6 crop, i like wide angle

I'm using the Fringer with my Canon lenses. Yes the AF is a bit dodgy but the main benefit is being able to use IS. To cover the wide angle problem I'm planning to get the 10-24mm. I have the Canon 10-22 APSC which works well, but doesn't have IS, and even at those wide angles you still need IS in my opinion.

If it would have had an optical zoom I would have been more interested.

I've learned the hard way that gadgets like this aren't really right for me. There's the initial excitement and the feeling that 'this is going to change the way I work!' then I use it a few times and realise that in most cases I prefer a more conventional image from a bigger camera. And then I never use it again, maybe for a special job very occasionally.

It could be a useful tool in very specific circumstances, and I bet we'll see loads of videos from it on YouTube for the  next couple of weeks, but in 3 months everyone will have moved onto the next thing. Similar to the Gopro 7 hyperlapse, and the Insta 360 which came out lately.

Don't mean to sound jaded but I've been burned out by the endless stream of consumerism lately with each new toy being sold as a transformational creative tool, when really they're playing to our desire for shiny new things, and that illusive special gadget that's going to make me into the next Casey Neistat or Martin Scorsese.

1 hour ago, pressland said:

Would anyone recommend this camera over the Pocket 4k for recreating the soft look of film? Most of the  XT-3 footage I have seen looks very slick and modern (not a bad thing), whereas the Pocket 4k samples seem to convey motion and detail in a more subdued way that mimics film. Is there anything different about the Pocket 4k from a technical standpoint?

I would say that straight out of the camera the Fuji colour looks very nice, but not necessarily like film. You probably wouldn't mistake it for film, that's for sure.

The BMPCC4k, from what I've seen, looks a little more filmic with vintage lenses, but both of these cameras are going to require some work in production and post production if you're trying to lose the video look entirely.

I think there's also a bias in the kind of footage we've seen from both cameras. The Pocket seems to have been bought by more indie filmmaker types, while the Fuji seems to be in the hands of more photographers from what I can tell by going on YT and Vimeo. So I think the Pocket footage is appealing if you match that profile. A lot of the Fuji footage is badly shot, exposed and graded.

The Fujifilm can also shoot stills, so it kind of depends if you need a hybrid or not. It also has good autofocus.

Do a search for H1 footage, and you'll see more Fuji footage with a filmic treatment.

https://vimeo.com/265565687

6 hours ago, Cameramoto said:

I bought the Viltrox and IS (image stabilisation) is not supported. Autofocus doesn’t always work on all lenses. So I sent it back. I’m waiting for the fringer ef-fx pro to test it.

This is why I returned the Viltrox and bought the Fringer too. So far the Fringer has worked great, with very good lens compatibility.

30 minutes ago, seanzzxx said:

Using steadicams/glidecams as opposed to gimbals really does the trick I think, it adds a certain flow to the movement that is very filmlike in my opinion.

 

Here's one example, all shot on a glidecam:

 

Yeah that looks great. Ideally I don't want to use anything large though. I'm not asking for any particular job. Obviously if a project requires stabilisation I use it. I'm only asking because it's something that's been on my mind for a while.

I do find that most electronic gimbals look very in-organic and steadicams do look more cinematic to me, like in your example. I really like a little organic wobble in the movement, like a cinema verite thing. That's what I'm trying to recreate with a small camera.

I just hate micro-jitter and shake that reminds me of 5dmkii videos from 2009.

I find that one of the main differentiators in feel between small mirrorless or DSLRs and larger cameras like the Alexa is the movement of the camera itself when it's handheld.

Small cameras have that horrible jittery shaky distracting motion while larger cameras can feel 'cinematic' even while they're being carried while running for example, and using unstabilised lenses. Like in this clip at 1'35.

The obvious factor is rolling shutter, but assuming that my camera has low rolling shutter, how best to replicate this look and feel with - say - a X-T3?

Two things I want to avoid are shoulder mounting, and making a big rig. I've thought about actually weighing the camera down somehow, or perhaps using a handle mounted on the top to avoid the usual mirrorless shooting position of holding it out in front of you.

Any ideas??

On 11/16/2018 at 6:44 PM, thebrothersthre3 said:

Let me know what kind of results you get. I'd love to use something like a 70-200mm or 85 1.8

The Fringer is working with all my lens's I.S. now. After updating the firmware on the adaptor it seems to work better than the Viltrox. Annoying really as I'm going to have to keep it and send back the Viltrox, and the Viltrox is half the price!

AF-C fails under some circumstances, but I'm hoping I'll get some usable results. Getting IS on my EF lenses was my main concern and that seems to be working so far.

1 hour ago, thephoenix said:

i was lazy not giving you the link but here it is

 

Great, thanks

25 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

for the viltrox it seems that you have to downgrade the firmware to get proper is. at least that is what happening with bm4k, maybe the same with fuji.

Interesting info, thanks. Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen anything about this.

3 hours ago, TurboRat said:

New comparison:

I also prefer the Canon here. Don't own any of these cameras though but I tried the A7III and liked it but decided not to upgrade from a6500

Actually surprised how close they looked here.

12 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Has anyone tried adapting lenses to the Fuji xt3 with a Fringer adapter? I am interested in the auto focus reliability in video and how it compares to native lenses. 

I've tried the Viltrox with mixed results, have a Fringer on order. I'm hoping the Fringer will have better lens compatibility, make my Canon lens' IS function properly, and have faster autofocus. Otherwise I'll send it back and keep the Viltrox. I do like how responsive Fringer seem to be regarding firmware updates.

2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I am wondering / hoping this might be a bit of hyperbole. Maybe you can elaborate on this a bit

yes, I have been impressed with what I have seen of the colors coming from the X-T3 (in particular using the eterna profile).

But it seems to me that the colors coming from the Panasonic are pretty good as well.

Is it really that much of a time-saver to get pleasing results from the X-T3 compared to the GH5? For instance, in 4K 60p is the 10-bit 4:2:0 of the X-T3 better than the 8-bit 4:2:2 out of the GH5???

Thanks in advance for any elaboration you can provide.

Sorry if this is taking the thread off topic...

I haven't spent a great deal of time working with the Fuji files yet, but I have played around with them a bit so this is based on that. I've worked with the GH5 since shortly after it was released so know it quite well.

From what I've seen so far the X-T3 has better dynamic range, particularly in the shadows. Gh5 shadows tend to get quite crushed and noisy. The quality of the image also seems more organic to me and less brittle and sharpened.

And I agree the GH5 has good colour, maybe not so much out of the camera but with a little tweaking, mainly on skin which can be a little yellow.

However there is an illusive sweet spot with colour and skin tones for me where it just feels right, and the Fuji lives in that sweet spot a lot more. I haven't done much testing but I'd predict that on the vectorscope Fuji skin tones will be closer to the skin line under more circumstances. GH5 skin was often awry or distorted. I've also noticed Canon skin is pretty much always bang on the line.

51 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I agree, the GH5 and S variant are both fantastic for video. X-T3 works well with the Ninja V, but the internal footage is also good when you want to travel light. Granted my personal experience with the Fujis did not go as intended. I can tell you while they worked, they were a lot of fun. I'm hopeful that the Nikon Z6 will live up to the usually high Nikon standards and become my new daily driver. I am still keeping an eye on the P4k, but that's more of niche camera imo. There are always tradeoffs. The Panasonic offerings are a good balance of features, price and performance. 

From my experience of having used the GH5 extensively and now a new X-T3 user, the X-T3 files blow the GH5 away in H265. The colours, as everyone knows, are just superb and so much easier to get to a good point.

Howeverso far I'm finding that the GH5 feels so much more solid and more suited to a professional video setting. Maybe I haven't gotten used to the Fuji yet, but it's certainly not as solid and the controls for the GH5 always seem great for video use. My main problem is IBIS if you use a lot of handheld. The Panasonic is a million miles ahead when it comes to stabilisation. If you're using a gimbal then maybe it's not an issue though, but I personally loved the freedom of going handheld with the GH5 and getting stability similar to a tripod or at least something comparable to a much heavier or shoulder mounted camera. 

36 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

So I've just experienced working with images from the C200.... absolutely stunned! So stunned that I'm considering getting one. 

Who has experience with it? @DBounce? 

My main reservations... Cfast2 card costs. Storage costs when shooting raw. Anyone got any pointers here? 

How do you feel it compares to the EVA1? I've used the C200 in 8 bit and love the colour but wasn't crazy about the camera itself. I mainly run and gun though, so I found it heavy.

3 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

metabones does one but not sure it's greater than others.

i've read that they are working on new one but didn't find any real confirmation

I think so far all Metabones adaptors for Fuji are dumb, and don't do autofocus?

1 minute ago, thephoenix said:

problem is that the fringer does not reduces focal length

True. I'm waiting to see if Metabones come out with a Speedbooster for the Fuji cameras. I've used them before and always found them to work very well, so I trust the brand more than I trust Viltrox for example.

8 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

anyone tested this http://www.viltrox.com/en/index.php?m=index&a=show&cid=145&id=227

cannot find much informations about it

I'm not sure that's available to buy yet. Personally I've also ordered the Fringer to see if it's better than the Viltrox. There are a few quirks with the Viltrox that I'm not happy with. It struggles to focus on some lenses at maximum zoom length, and also with my Canon 70-200 F4 the stabilisation switches off after a few seconds even if I'm recording. I'm going to test both and decide which to keep.

The Fringer seems to have very good support and frequent updates, so I'm hopeful they will have sorted out some of the kinks. Having said that, it is more than twice the price of the Viltrox!

2 minutes ago, BjornT said:

Just got the X-T3 yesterday and currently figuring it out. Coming from a GH5 I wondered when shooting 4K in 50FPS and  1080p in 100fps in high speed mode saves as 50 does one have to adjust the shutter or does the camera do it? I assume when shooting 4K at 50 shutter should be 100 and for 100fps should be 200 to conform to cinema standard but just wanted to check.

Anyone know of a good video or page out there on how to set it up for video?

I think if you're shooting at 100fps it will only allow you a minimum 200 shutter speed, and it will switch to that automatically. I'm not completely sure as I don't have the camera in front of me right now.

11 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

did you use af or manual focus ?

All auto. Some shots it didn't lock, or some shots it missed all together. I still put them in the edit as it was just a quick chop job. Some of the wide closeup shots are completely out of focus.

On a couple of the shots where the kid or board is moving towards the camera, it locks focus and follows quite well.