Jump to content

markr041

Members
  • Content Count

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

markr041 last won the day on March 30 2018

markr041 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About markr041

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Another try, still using Edius: https://youtu.be/oH7ECNMTWp8
  2. Another go; edited in Edius. https://youtu.be/L7fFftpjY5M
  3. I agree with you about the blonde as being the worst case, I tried hard to fix that look, but could never get it right. I use Windows. The only option is Edius. I had never used Edius before, so I was on a learning curve. This is what Edius does: it puts an HLG gamma curve on the ProResRAW clip and assumes it is REC2020 color, which it is. I chose REC709 as my project, so in principle it should have made the transformation and I was looking at REC709. This, as I noted, seemed to work ok for the garden video (with no skin). But in the video with lots of people the skins were all over the map in looks. Lighting conditions were the worst - the blonde has very bright late afternoon (very yellow) sunlight directly hitting her face, but I do not think it was clipped. WB was also odd in some cases (this was run and gun, so AWB) and I had to try and correct color. Everything was with scopes as guidance as well as my eyesight. It is the most trouble I hav had working with any non REC709 file (I have shot with Slog2, C-Log3, N-Log, Z-log! and even RAW DNG from the original BMPCC). I can provide a RAW clip - they are gigantic, so I need a method for that. Choose a scene you would like to poke at.
  4. I agree, but then we probably disagree about what "good" color grading is (and also how to post comments). The problem is the transformation in Edius from REC2020 to REC709 (no LUT) gives you not a good base. My criterion is reproducing what I saw (in this case). The colors are fine by that criterion *except* for the skin tones, which I just could not get right. The colors look fine to me in the other RAW video shot in the garden (above the "faces" video). If you think that the color grading in that video is "bad", then we surely disagree. Also, the WB was all over the place, and I do not think ProResRAW is like RAW from stills in that regard. Anyway, it would be helpful to have a LUT from Nikon to go from RAW to REC709 and REC2020, and a better understanding about what ProRes RAW clips reflect in terms of camera settings. Anyone wants a RAW clip or two to play with, I am happy to provide.
  5. On the Z 6 the 1.5x cropped option is available for HDMI RAW: UHD DX (as opposed to UHD FX). I have not seen any YouTube reviews that assess the image quality of that option.
  6. Your "model" videos speak for themselves, as do your insulting comments. I showed them to some students I know, and they were shocked. Get a hold of yourself. I gave you the chance to back out gracefully, I have been a supporter of your video work. As I said, I would have been happy to remove what you found so surprisingly offensive, but you insisted on lashing out publicly. I still think all of these posts should be removed. Please complain to Mr. Reid, as I did. My original comment on the model was based on my belief the subject was indeed a model, and I just found the poses amusingly ridiculous for a professional. When your defense was that the subject was a student, then that brought enlightenment about your defensiveness. since jonpais wants to make personal messages public, let me post what I initially wrote to him (typos included): "the poster you accuse of joining the lens thread to trash your model supposed to be me? The link is dead, but it seems you really took offense, even though it was a criticism of the subject not of your work!. I said: "Nice image as always." That is a complement, and I meant it. I have in fact stayed away from criticizing the truly awful color grades people have posted. Your colors and lighting are very nice, as always. 2. I came to the lens thread for the first time to post a video with an old lens to show what it could do; it followed your post almost immediately. Why in the world would I join the thread just to criticize the "model". I actually found the content - this teen model acting phony - offensive, actually. It was not a criticism of her looks, but her behavior. But so what, the key point of this forum is technique and I said it was great. Why do you care if anyone does not like the model? In any case, your criticism of me and my work and my intentions is way off base. Am I being paranoid, did you really mean to trash me personally, my videos and impugn my motivations? What is going on? What is that link?" To which he replied he had nothing more to say to me. So I then privately told him what I thought of him, based on his behavior and his "student" videos.. And other insulting posts he has made in which others were victims. This is repeated behavior, not a one-off, though I think it is the worst I have ever seen from him or anyone.
  7. Now we know the source of your defensiveness as manifested in your over-the-top, paranoid public over-reaction to my public mild and accurate comments about your "model." It is out in the open, for all to see. My public remarks were harmless, unless they struck a nerve. Which they evidently did. For good reason. Nothing justifies your public personal attack. If you want to make my thoughts conveyed privately to you public, you are in worse condition than I thought.
  8. I have sent a personal message to jonpais asking what is going on in his posting such a personally insulting post (and yet another) in response to a post with criticism of a model he shot along with praise for the video quality and for him! jonpais and I have had many nice communications and share similar likes. So I was shocked by this response. I have also contacted Andrew Reid about it. I think any such personal attacks should be removed. If that offensive post is not removed I will have more to say - but I think it best that all posts pertaining to that video to be deleted so we can get back to lenses. Note: I posted a lens demonstration video right after jonpais' video, which was in fact my purpose in joining the thread. It is ludicrous to believe that I joined the thread "with the sole purpose of trashing the model in my video." Also, the link in his ugly post does not work. I am not sure what it is a link to, as most of my videos are posted on Vimeo and this is a bad link to YouTube. If jonpais was truly offended by that post (beginning with "Great images as always") he could have sent a personal message to me asking me to edit it - and I would have! But a public personal attack (and again) on motives and work is unacceptable.
  9. Back to lenses. The $289 Sony DT 55-300mm lens gives you reach and shallow DOF with ok bokeh and good resolution and contrast: HDR (HLG) version: SDR version:
  10. Great images as always. Terrible model - 100% phony expressions (I am not talking about the cat, who appears genuinely interested in something).
  11. I like and agree with these important points but without a gimbal you cannot move with the camera. This may not be something you want to do, but purposive camera movement is an important dimension of video. IBIS is not a complete substitute for a gimbal, and the GH5 (not really pocketable) is really too large for extensive gimbal use. Of course, this new BM camera is no better in this regard, and handheld use is even more limited.
  12. Here is the freshly produced HDR (HLG) version of the FS700R beach video - 6-year old camera can produce 4K DCI 60P and 120P HDR videos!
×
×
  • Create New...