Jump to content

Lintelfilm

Members
  • Content Count

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lintelfilm

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Durham, UK
  • Interests
    Avoiding conflict. Peace and good will to all camera nerds. Being nice.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://lintelfilm.uk

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @AndrewReid The XC10 outputs 10bit 422 via HDMI in 4K mode, and paired with the Ninja Star it's auto-downsampled to 1080p. That's probably why the Ninja Star - 10bit HD rather than 8bit 4K = more bit depth and less data so the cards go further. I do the same sometimes if I know I won't want to crop in post. By the way, was sad you never got around to posting that XC10 video shot in Italy. I really love this little camera. It has a lot of annoying 1st generation quirks in terms of usability but the image is fantastic. If the C200's supposed 400mb/s codec update is equal to the XC10's that
  2. I've given up on MLRAW on the EOS M. As was said above, the bitrate hack is better. RAW has too many issues with the *oh my god please go away why wont you go away* pink/focus dots - and horrible aliasing/moire with anything other than 3x crop mode. I've tried 10 bit and it's not any better. I've tried a load of different resolutions, aspects, etc but between all the artifacts, the low resolution if you want longer than 4 sec clips, etc, it's pointless. The image just doesn't deliver anything very exciting IMO. The bitrate hack on the other hand gets rid of the horrible macroblocking, ups reso
  3. What most people forget is that the native FCPX colour tools are for colour correction. They're not grading tools and have never claimed to be - the effect is even called "color corrector". I do correction with the native tools first (I especially love the 3 saturation sliders for darks, mids and lights 0 Colour Finale can't even do that). Then I use Color Finale (largely just for the curves and often the awesome vector tool to grade and Film Convert last for final touches. I do think Apple should add curves to the native tools though. It would save me a lot of time in the long run as som
  4. For pros turning jobs around FCPX is the bees knees. It's the Canon of the NLE world in many ways - easy to get snobby about its tech specs but in real world use its super reliable, straightforward to use and performs fantastically where it matters. For factual content and solo filmmakers it's a dream. The filmmakers you see using it are the ones consistently putting out content, not those dissecting the latest greatest tech. Its fast, gets out of your way and lets you focus on the storytelling. Nobody should be writing it off as a top contender for any reason now, especially not solo fi
  5. As a mac user with pro video needs and only mid level photo needs, I do fine with no Adobe products at all. FCPX is fantastic, especially with Color Finale and Film Convert plugins for grading. iZotope RX plugins for audio and Coremelt for tracking etc. Motion 5 is fine for graphics and FCPX has good native title options. I own logic but rarely use it. I use Affinity Photo and Designer in place of PS and illustrator and they're more than good enough for my needs. The one thing I really feel the lack of is a Lightroom alternative. It still boggles my mind that Apple dropped Apert
  6. If this rumour is true (and I'm sure it isn't) the really big news is that canon are overhauling their stance on hybrid video, ditching decades of conservatism regarding releases and showing they are genuinely concerned about mirrorless domination. It has to happen sometime but Canon's MO is incremental change with hardware releases and that has basically never changed.
  7. Not if it's the same Vlog that shipped for the GH4. My grading skills are perfectly adequate and never had a problem with the hundreds of hours of Blackmagic film or C-log I've worked on, but the externally recorded 10 bit v-log I got from my GH4 was truly abysmal. Infinite skill and patience can't do anything about the weird banding and colour artefacts. Great if it's different on the GH5 but the Cinema5D analysis didn't fill me with hope.
  8. Panasonic can shuffle around their company as much as they like, but until they offer colour science on par with Canon and Nikon, a log profile that is useable and good video AF, i stand by my switch from the GH line to an 8bit 1080 camera (C100Mkii) and for small body 4K an XC10.
  9. The problem is with V-Log. It was an outright disaster on the gh4 - even 10bit to an external recorder it showed huge, horrific banding artefacts like those separated colours in the 5d article. It doesn't surprise me at all that the GH5 is the same. They simply haven't fixed v-log. I'm not very hopeful what difference high bit rate will make. Fair enough the GH5 10 bit might be better with a non-log profile, but it's hard to get excited about 10bit with 10-11 stops DR. Andrew you yourself said you couldn't see any difference between 8bit and 10bit external on the GH4. Why do you thi
  10. Have you tried this in comparison to Wide DR? Is there an advantage of shooting Standard over Wide DR? Certainly in low contrast situations C-Log should not be used as you're stretching the codec for no reason ... but I find Wide DR a happy medium.
  11. Look at how the blacks/shadow areas are rendered in the two images (the girl's hair in the photo, the squares between the crossed lines on the blanket). Then look at how the highlights are rendered (e.g. on the spiky ball). This is about contrast, not resolution. I don't know if in-camera sharpening is in the equation too (only Canon know that). I made a post related to this on the other XC10 thread about C-Log: C-Log is for grading - you can put that contrast and sharpness back in there (pretty much anyway - not perfectly with an 8-bit codec). The happy medium is Wide DR. Reso
  12. Resolution in C-Log on all Canon cameras (C100, XC10, whatever) is EXACTLY the same as it is in the other profiles. Sharpening is turned off in C-Log by default, so that can be one explanation for the perceived difference in detail. However - and much more crucially here and on the other XC10 thread I think - higher contrast is read by the human eye as "more detail". This is just a fact. It's an optical illusion if you like. That's what this is about - perceived detail - not resolution. The resolution is the same. If you want a "punchy" image with well defined lines/detail,
  13. Personally I think this looks pretty awful. I haven't seen much from my XC10 that looks that bad, but if I did I'd be loathe to use it.
  14. Indeed! I never wanted to use them - in fact I didn't even know they were there! But after I updated to 10.3 the metadata from my cameras saying "shot in Canon Log" started getting read by FCPX and automagically processed. Not what I wanted at all. Particularly as I didn't know it was doing it or where to find the place to turn it off. The function of the Log Processing however is not to act as a grading LUT. It does have its uses. It's for editors working with log footage who want to work with a more "realistic" image prior to the grading stage. The processing would always be turned off
  15. Just to let you other FCPX users know, since updating to 10.3 my Log footage ( CLog on XC10 and C100 too i think) has been displaying as totally over exposed. I thought I was doing something wrong in camera but it turns out FCP has been automatically applying Log Processing! I was annoyed but relieved to discover I could use the two days of footage I thought I'd ruined. To turn off log processing go to the info pane of the inspector and choose "settings" view. Then select "none" for log processing.
×
×
  • Create New...