Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About independent

  • Rank
    Active member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Andrew, don't you have the R5? I'm surprised you didn't compare its internal raw w/ these compressed codecs.
  2. You'd really have to add the Atomos Ninja to the R5 at least to make it somewhat of an equal comparison
  3. According to cineD, Alexa has a 1-stop increase in dynamic range over the c500ii or c300iii. What is everybody crying about? First, what are you doing, shooting the sun all day? Second, your audience almost certainly won’t see major differences between these cameras in properly shot scenes. If you see horrible clipping, that’s an exposure error. Or a poor creative decision. Somebody is getting fired. Some of you think if you only had an Alexa, everything you shoot would look like roger deakins’ work. Sorry, a major reason why Alexa footage looks so good is that professionals k
  4. Right, "gradation in highlights" = better highlight rolloff. That's the purpose of the clog3 gamma curve, to allocate data across another stop (or so). Clog has a steeper curve in the highlights, so you don't get as smooth of a transition. But clog3 has a penalty in the shadows though.
  5. I don't get the complaints about dynamic range. All recent cameras (non-Arri, non-Red) get around 12 stops—including the R5 in raw. Raw is noisy, including Redcode, and NR is a necessary tool in post. If you don't want to shoot in Raw, there are other options out there that will give you a cleaner image with higher dynamic range. The tradeoff of course will be more artifacts, limited latitude, or worse color. It's your choice. Even the Komodo has tradeoffs. On image quality alone, it has relatively awful low-light and limited latitude with dramatic color shifts. If you
  6. Try Resolve. No issues w/ the Raw light files on Mac mini M1.
  7. Some of you guys are getting way too caught up in dynamic range "numbers" on tests. All the recent cameras have similar dynamic range, although the processing will manipulate those numbers obviously (see Sonys w/ blotchy NR - is that worth it for you?) For the R5, shoot raw, protect the highlights. Use clog2. When you downscale from 8K, most visible noise will be gone--any remaining will be a fine, film-like grain that's quite nice. No better image south of the C500ii or fx9 in my opinion.
  8. Just updated. Wow, game changer. Must test recording time. Overheating a thing of the past? If the only recording limitation is the 30-min recording time, practically speaking, then overheating might be a concern only in hot environments. The RAW LIGHT (a bit awkward to navigate so many options in the menu now) - I'm genuinely surprised. The regular raw bitrate is proportional to cinema raw light, so I doubted Canon could somehow decrease the bitrate-but they did! A new format that is nearly 40% reduced, even below the C500ii's 6k raw. This has a major impact on storage costs in the
  9. Still 8-bit internal? What’s the point of a compact camera that needs an external monitor
  10. Be aware that the SLR Magic II is bulky and may interfere with your lens hood. The Schneider is very slim and won't interfere. Very few reviews out there, but I believe they own B+W, which is more photo-oriented. The Schneider has a much greater ND range too, with minimal color shift.
  11. Yes, you have to take mic recommendations with a bag of salt, especially from people who have strong opinions about what microphone is the greatest. That's nonsense, because a microphone's particular qualities compose only a subset of factors among many others, including the recording environment or, as you mentioned, the talent's voice. As you see in YouTube reviews, microphone comparisons are often not that helpful, because they're limited to that location, speaker, etc. And even then, you'll get different opinions about what sounds better. Microphones have different pickup patter
  12. Tom. You got DP in your name but the only depth of field that's affected is in your game. Focal reducers do not affect DOF. They reduce focal length and boost speed. Thus the descriptive names. They are not called depth-of-field reducers for reasons that have clearly been explained on the metabones website and of course, mathematically. If you check the DOF formula, the boosted f-stop is cancelled out by the reduction in focal length. Of course, this is also obvious in practice. You seem so sure of yourself...have you actually used them? If so, so why don't you put a 50 1.4 on your f
  13. What is comparable between 8k RAW and 4k 8-bit motion jpeg?
  14. All the non-internal NDs come with compromises. Matte box and filters=$ and bulk. The tangerine ones are pretty good on a budget though. The canon vari-ND adapter is excellent, but the downside is forgoing RF glass. I tested a variety of screw-ons, including the Tiffen, SLR Magic, and Schneider vari-ND ii. The Schneider was the only one that worked with standard hoods, had front threads, and had minimal color shift. I bought three of them in 82mm to cover my usual three-lens kit, so I don't have to deal with screwing filters on and off on a shoot.
  • Create New...