Jump to content

independent

Members
  • Posts

    278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by independent

  1. Compared to the R5, fewer pixels, bigger body. Maybe they'll go crazy and add a dab of thermal paste. Throw in a copper heatsink and your R3 will run forever and mine bitcoin too
  2. There’s no overheating in the 1dx iii for 5.5k raw. I’d be surprised if the r3 we’re different.
  3. Depends. If you can't shoot raw and need more reach into the shadows, clog2 for compressed codecs would be a major feature.
  4. Like the R5, prob no clog 2 in the compressed codecs. Left for the cinema cameras.
  5. Andrew, don't you have the R5? I'm surprised you didn't compare its internal raw w/ these compressed codecs.
  6. You'd really have to add the Atomos Ninja to the R5 at least to make it somewhat of an equal comparison
  7. 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 know how to light and expose - for any camera. This is why we use dimmers on practicals, sheers on windows, and use lighting to control levels and contrast. The differences among arri, red, and the best Sony and canon cameras are quite small on set. Yes, currently Arri’s highlight roll off is a bit nicer and has a bit more reach in the highlights, but nothing really changes the way we shoot with any of those cameras. The truth is most of the current top cameras look very similar - properly exposed. Sure, you can stress test some cameras to show weaknesses - arri and red included, which would struggle in extreme low light. This is why these aren’t common for run-and-gun documentaries. If Canon produces new technologies (very possible) that ends up capturing more dynamic range than the Arri, I wouldn’t be surprised. Also, I wouldn’t consider the Arri trash for having a stop less of dynamic range.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 just can't live without 13 stops of dynamic range or the world will be bereft of your creative potential and professional skills, you have a simple answer: C70.
  10. Try Resolve. No issues w/ the Raw light files on Mac mini M1.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 post-production chain.
  13. Still 8-bit internal? What’s the point of a compact camera that needs an external monitor
  14. 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.
  15. 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 patterns, frequency responses, sensitivities, etc., that make one more suitable than others. All things being equal, if you're considering mics with similar characteristics, very few will be able to tell the difference between brands or models. This is why real sound guys aren't gear heads. There's no magic mic. Skill and knowledge are 99% of it. They'll look at the space, see what needs to be treated, look at the script, microphone placement, and pick the mic that makes sense. This is why they have a variety of mics in their bag. Beware of any sound guy who talks too much about gear or who pimps a specific mic. He does so to make up for skill or knowledge.
  16. 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 full frame camera and compare it with a speedboosted S35. The enhanced cropped sensor will display a similar field of view and depth of field, but the image will be exposed a stop brighter (f1.0).
  17. What is comparable between 8k RAW and 4k 8-bit motion jpeg?
  18. 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.
  19. The 1dxiii’s internal raw is still a compelling reason to buy it and the R5. There are no other true internal raw hybrid cameras. Canon almost certainly paid the toll troll for Red’s hole.
  20. Why, how much do they pay at a Wendy's these days?
  21. In comparing the two, I think the Canon focal reducer/ speed booster needs to be added to the equation. Not only would that make it more equal in price, but it makes the c70 essentially full frame. There is a technical difference of course; while the focal reducer increases field of view and brightness, it doesn't change the DOF. Personally, I think that's a plus. I'd prefer the unique flexibility in gaining a stop in light without the accompanying razor-thin plane of focus. Just more practical.
×
×
  • Create New...