mercer
-
Posts
7,923 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by mercer
-
-
I'm thinking about buying one as well from there. Hope everything works out.
Thanks, I'll post when I get it. I ordered it yesterday morning, and it's supposed to be delivered today, but I am not home, so it may not arrive until tomorrow.
-
G7 vs A6000
In: Cameras
Recommended by whom? Just curious, because i currently use the same settings, but in combination with natural.
In the review of the camera by Cinema 5D, they found that setting produced the best, flattest results. That and either ISO 200 or 800 had the best dynamic range. But, as always, personal preference trumps everything. How do you like natural?
-
G7 vs A6000
In: Cameras
I think he sent the G7 back, so his review may be on hold. And yes, the crop factor can be a problem with the NX500, but for $350, I can deal with it.
-
G7 vs A6000
In: Cameras
I have the a5100 and like it a lot. The 50mbps codec is really clean and flat using the recommended Portrait -3, 0, -3.
I haven't seen much footage from the G7, but on paper it looks good and I can see how that 4K down sampled to 1080p is alluring... It's the reason I bought the NX500.
-
-
I've purchased cameras from 6th Ave before, never a problem. They actually have a big retail location in North Jersey. So no worries.
-
In the US I've never seen anyone record more than a few seconds here and there with a cell phone. Where I am people laugh at the thought of camcorders the way they laugh at 8 track cassettes. And I've never seen anyone do hybrid video at a birthday party. Anyway I stated my preference for myself. Really one birthday party can be easily summed up in a five minute video. I don't need to shoot 2+ hrs of tape to come up with five minutes. And I don't need to bore people with a 2 hr snooze fest. But that is my preference.
hey, I don't disagree with you. I'm just relaying my experience, and I'm in the U.S. too, in the northeast.
-
Does the NX500 have a native ISO?
-
Yeah. I need a source for this Canon story. I don't know which is worse. Maybe he is lying to protect higher margin products, or maybe he is telling the truth and they can't produce power efficient cool 4k sensors. Either way it is a poor showing in the consumer products. 15 minutes of record time is more than enough for me. Unless I'm waiting for a chance fleeting event I usually don't record for more than 30 seconds. I don't do any narrative or journalism stuff. A birthday party can easily be covered by 30 second or less takes. Singing happy birthday will be the longest take most of the time!
Really, most people I know record the entire party. They move throughout the party and hide behind the camera, people wave to the camera and wish the kid happy birthday. They record the entire gift process, the birthday cake, of course you need it on record that the guests are eating the food you shelled out money for or the wife made.
If he is lying, then they are analyzing the market, why spend the money on r&d, if the lack of 4K has zero affect on their sales... or why throw a lot of resources at it?
-
Sometimes I wish there was a "dislike" button.
-
The more I am reading about this camera, the more I think I made a good choice slapping down the $350 for it. I just love these summer deals. Two years ago, I picked up my EOS-M for $197, on the 4th of July this year, I picked up my a5100 for $245, and now this little beast at $350... I better go order some adapters, so I have a lens to shoot with.
No, you can also shoot 24p in UHD (in NTSC or PAL mode).
How's the battery life? Also, I have a couple Transcend 64gb cards... I think it's the UHS-3 95mbps card... is that good enough for the cinema 4K?
-
I read that as an honest answer. This has been said over and over on this forum... Canon cameras just work. If you have 4K and it's overheating within 5 minutes, then it's not working, and since Canon's Rebel line is for enthusiasts, who will film their kid's birthday parties or baseball games, and it starts overheating before Susie blows out her candles, or before Billy gets up to the plate, that becomes a problem and in the end would hurt their brand more than not having it in the first place.
-
Andrew, how well does EditReady handle the transcode? I just bought it for my a5100 and it's awesome with the xavc-s. Are you going to prores 422? Staying in 4K, or downsampling to 1080P?
-
Yes 2.77x in UHD but hey, we got some pretty amazing shallow DOF images with the 3x crop Pocket Camera, and at 350$, I'd happily take a s35 28mp stills camera plus a larger than s16 4K one with Samsung electric client-impressing colours. Plus when shallow DOF is really needed it does do 1080p at s35. So one can use 4K for wide detailed shots and 1080 for close-ups.
But in 24p, it is cinema 4K... does that change the crop factor? I am not too worried about the shallow dof... as long as you frame your shots, with that in mind, you will definitely get some. I have a Tokina 17mm and a Canon FD 17mm... with the crop, it will give me about a 47mm lens, at 3.5... it won't be swirly bokeh, or anything, but I'll definitely get a little background blur.
-
only if my country allowed ebay buying. An APS-C 28mp stills + s16 4K for 350$, less than a 1200D. That's nuts.
yeah, that sucks. I just went into debt and bought one. At that price, I have to give it a go.
-
What is the 4K crop again... 2.7x?
-
The canon has better colours argument is a myth. It's simply that people haven't become accustomed to how to set their sony cameras up properly. If i take an auto white balance picture as a jpeg out of the A7R and compare it to a jpeg from a 5dmk3 the 5d looks nicer. But if i process the image, the a7r image smokes the 5dmk3 image. With careful adjustment of the wb - temperature + the cyan/magenta etc adjustment a sony can be made to look like a canon and vice versa.
I have never used higher end Sony or Canon cameras, so I can only base my experience with the t2i/eos-m vs NEX 3N/a5100. And from that experience I think the Canon colors require much less work to get true to life colors. Even a simple FCPX preset will grade the Canon nicely with one click, and the Sony is not as easy, but I really like Sony colors, it's just not as simple to get true to life.
-
What profile are/were you using on the Canon?
I use neutral, everything turned down but saturation... Which is two clicks to the left... I think. I used Stu's Prolost Flat settings.
-
I have the a5100 and shoot only in the x-avc s codec. My other camera is the eos-m. From my limited experience using the a5100, I've only had it a few weeks, I have found that the image is much flatter using the portrait profile -3, 0, -3 on the Sony than it is using prolost flat profile on my eos-m. But it is much easier grading the Canon footage for real world color.
-
Video when not handled properly looks bad, even on a great camera. Film when not handled properly still at least looks like film. I think in some ways we are all talking about the same thing and btw, I am no one to talk because most of my stuff looks bad too.
-
The problem is in the "not yet as good as film" part. The point is: that is not a fact, but an opinion. Perhaps shared by many, but clearly not everyone.
In any case, every time a discussion comes up about digital cameras and the film look, why do we go off on extraneous stuff like movement, and lighting? Obviously we're talking CETERIS PARIBUS. I'm really looking forward to Mattias' comparison since he'll be holding everything else constant.
Good points
I heard an interview recently with Vince Gilligan (WTF podcast) and it gets entertainingly tech wonky for a few minutes about 20 minutes in. He basically explains his pipeline for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Bottom line, they did blind pre-pro tests with a bunch of digital and film cameras and they couldn't pick out which was which.
But, he said he still wanted to shoot on film. And he had his own reasons for it. If I'm gong to listen to anyone talk with authority about making cinema, it's going to be from a guy like that.
In the meantime, my analogy is that you're choosing a tool. A paint brush. You can use one made from the finest horse hair or one from nylon; still gotta know how to paint, right?
...And finally, there's a crazy wildcard in all of this. Watching film PROJECTED is a whole 'nother experience. Any of you actually remember what that's like? Or gone to see an old movie house spool up a classic film for a screening? If not, you should. When the entire pipeline is non-digital, the details accumulate in a unique way that you can only get from analog.
Sure, it's quaint, but it's also very charming; like listening to Duke Ellington on a lacquer 78. It may not be the highest quality, but maybe that's not always the point.
I recently saw Rear Window in the theater and it was amazing to see. Everything from the title card to Hitchcock's master of shadow was a sight to see in the theater.
I, honestly, like the aesthetic of video with a filmic look and appreciate the skill set involved in working with both mediums. I don't like to be put down for thinking film looks better or trying to obtain the most cinematic look, especially since the dawn of digital video, every camera innovation was made in a quest to achieve the filmic holy grail.
So, if the OP likes modern video, in essence, it is because the development of the technology has been reaching to emulate film as close as possible, since it's invention.
-
I believe digital has evolved into its own animal. The current generation of mid to high-end cameras have a look that is very usable. Yes, early digital lacked dr, motion cadence, highlight fall off was terrible, but I think in their current state it's another matter. I think they can have a look unique to themselves. A very cinematic look, without needing to look like film.
But all of the things you are describing are inherently organic to film. I don't think anyone is saying video is bad, it's just not yet as good as film.
But one thing it does have, which I am grateful for... It's a helluva a lot cheaper and affords me the possibility to make movies... For that, and that alone... Video trumps film.
-
I don't think it's the "past" when a good portion, if not the majority of Hollywood films are still shot on film.
I think it's cool you like the look of digital video more than film, that is very convenient for the times, but video does not look better than film... especially if sharpness is your only reason.
There are ways to manipulate digital to look more filmic, but it doesn't look better.
I really like filmic video, it's a different but similar compromise, and of course the future. I do find it sad, though. We always talk about the technological advancement with resolution or processing, but rarely do people speak about how film has advanced through the years and how there will probably be no major, further advances in film stock.
-
Not sure why everyone feels the need to try to make their footage look like film. It's almost as though footage cannot look good free from the artifacts that real film leaves. Take for example the footage from the Kinefinity KineMax. To my eyes it looks great. I just don't see why it needs to look anything other than great. And by great I don't mean "film like".
kinefinity kinemax footage:
I think this is where the problem lies... that footage does look filmic. I can see why you like it.
G7 vs A6000
In: Cameras
Posted
Here is a link to the article, it's mentioned under Dynamic Range.
https://***URL not allowed***/lab-review-sony-a5100-video-dynamic-range-power/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lab-review-sony-a5100-video-dynamic-range-power