mercer

Seriously, I asked the same question last week for Mac. It seams Christina is on the right track with Neat Video, but Dark Energy is supposed to be excellent as well, but more expensive, but I think there is a discount code through no film school.

Plug in more lights...

Lafilm, do you have a distribution deal? Zak, has been kind enough to answer any questions on his. If you do, I would love to hear more about it.

What's nice about that yashinon, is that it looks pretty good right out of the box. If you need a quick turnaround time, that is a nice lens to have. The color and contrast are well balanced.

Thanks Ebrahim, I'll have to test that.

I am new to post work and I found Resolve to be Greek to me. I am usually pretty good with figuring out programs and how to do effects and such. But with Resolve, it took me a tutorial to figure out how to import footage, I didn't realize I had to input where the source footage was before I could access it. It just seems like a little bit of overkill for my needs. But thanks for the help, it has been invaluable. I'll have to give Neat a go. I have read that people usually do their noise reduction before they correct or grade... Is that true and is there a reason for that?

Yeah, I would imagine a denoiser would be a necessity if you're an industrial, or commercial filmmaker, just in case. I don't mind a little grain, or soft footage... I think it looks more filmic. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, guys.

I recently downloaded the trial of FCX and I am very happy with it. The color options are a little basic, but very simple to use. After I license the full program, I will probably pick up the Color Finale plugin and I was also thinking about a denoiser. Do you denoise every shot in your color correction/grading process?

I think the example with eyeball looks pretty good.

http://store.pixelfilmstudios.com/plugin/prodenoise-plugin

Has anyone used this plugin for FCX? I know NEAT and Denoiser II are the big dogs, but I am looking for something a little cheaper.

1 - D 2 - C or D 3 - D interesting test. I found scene 2 to be the hardest to decide. i wrote C or D but I also kinda liked A. am intrigued to learn the results.

Oh yeah, it looks great.

Is that one model the girl from breaking amish?

Yeah, ns, obviously they're not going to make it. But, conceptually, more consumers would be excited about a new FD line, that is backwards compatible, than they are with the current eos-m line.

If you read the original post, you would see that I wrote that they could introduce NEW LENSES in the FD mount as well. Of course they would. That's why I stated it should be the eos-m line because neither their cameras or lenses have been great sellers.

Why wouldn't I? I don't mind adapters, but I wouldn't mind using legacy lenses on a modern, digital camera in it's native mount. But I also think Canon is missing a huge opportunity to utilize a huge portion of the used lens market by offering a modern mirrorless camera with an FD mount. As of now, Panasonic and Sony is reaping the benefits of the excellent vintage Canon glass. Of course someone can use an adapter but the average consumer do not want to use adapters, they want native lenses for their camera systems. A lot of camera enthusiasts have huge collections of old FD glass and I would bet they would love to have a modern digital camera where they can use their good old lenses in a native mount.

As some may know, I have the original eos-m and for all intents and purposes I really like the camera. I also have some older FL lenses, the 35mm f3.5, the non scalloped version, is one of my favorite lenses, very underrated. Just recently I picked up a couple of the nFD lenses. The 50mm 1.4 just arrived today. I haven't had a chance to test it, but it looks like a very nice lens. I also bought a 35-70mm f4, whic I really like, sharp throughout it's range, even wide open and very contrasty. I even did an unscientific test between that zoom and a Nikkor non-ai 35mm 2.8 and it truly held it's own. So, I have been on the lookout for other FD lenses and I thought... Canon should use the FD mount for an upcoming eos-m version. I think it could be a game changer for their mirrorless line. And since they have hinted in the past that video was important to their eos-m line, this could be that camera. Introduce a few new FD lenses with all the modern bells and whistles. Then if it records at 2K prores codec, and a global shutter, with a price tag of 1500 or under, this could be the best low budget cinema camera. I know, I know it won't happen but just thinking aloud on a rainy Minday morning.

Have been waiting on a Canon FD 50mm 1.4 that I picked up off eBay last week. In the meantime I found a Canon FD 35-70mm f4 zoom in excellent condition. Just tested it out and it seems like a nice little zoom. I know the 35-105 is supposed to be the best FD zoom but I didn't want the extra weight or size and this zoom was getting great reviews... even wide open. Anybody have one? Also, how is the 28mm 2.8, or the f2? I have read some conflicting reviews about the f2... Is it worth the extra hundred bucks?

"Yeah, that's my bicep."

Good luck with your documentary. Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I like the shiny new toy aspect of 4K but to be honest, the Raw from the BMPCC has been on my mind since the first time I saw footage from it... So much so that I have been collecting c-mount lenses to use with it when I get one. I also recently saw some footage from a modded gopro to take interchangeable c-mount lenses. The footage I saw looked great and I think they were using cs-mount lenses. Honestly, I'd really just like all 4... The m3, g7, bmpcc and the modded gopro... That isn't too much to ask... Is it?

Thanks, that's what I figured. I do have to reiterate though. I am really a fan of your work. You are getting some good, quality imagery out of these cameras. Are there any future plans for a feature film or narrative work? Also, if you were on a tight budget, which camera would you recommend... BMPCC or the G7 (knowing what we know about it) ? Honestly, if the M3 was a little cheaper. I would consider upgrading to that because I would love to have focus peaking without ML. Either way I am going to shoot a project with the eos-m, but I would like to get a better camera soon so I can familiarize myself with it as I may have back to back projects on the horizon.

Matthias, quick off topic question. I came across your footage of the eos-m with ml raw. I thought it looked great. It has that iq of 70s television. Right now, the eos-m is my main camera. I am looking to upgrade to either a G7 or the pocket but I still am planning a project with the eos-m. I never really thought of shooting raw with it but once again, your footage looks great... Why aren't you making feature films? So, I just was curious your overall experience with the raw capabilities and eos-m? Is it true it records no sound whatsoever? If so, it would obviously be very difficult to synch sound? Or can you do time code with it?

Good idea, I never thought of that. Put it out into the universe...

Gotcha, I haven't heard that about the pocket and ir filters.