Jump to content

independent

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by independent


  1. Codecs are efficient, practical, professional, broadcast-ready codec that you don't need to clean up in post.  Following the c300iii, the shadows will be noise-free under ISO 25600, SOOC. True, you don't have all the flexibility of raw if you want to do heavy color grading, but you also have great color because of the the parallel readout of RGGB rather than debayer process. 

    Also, due to the efficient codec, you save a lot of cash on media and storage.

    If you're a one-man shooter who shoots fast, all this helps.

     


  2. GG bros.

    I'm not replacing my R5, but I am def picking this up as a personal A camera (goodbye c300ii). 

    This comes in half the price of comparable cinema cams with more features. Full frame (w/ adapter), DPAF, auto ISO, dual gain sensor, tiny size and associated grip package, cheaper media and associated storage/editing costs

    It also knocks off all the hybrid cams: Internal NDs, full featured audio (xls for real shotgun mics, physical controls buttons), all the monitoring tools, no overheating, handle + mic adapter for no bullshit cage....

    The only thing missing is IBIS, which is quite frankly overstated compared to regular optical stabilization. 

    I'm just curious about the dynamic range v. the c300iii...I thought the dynamic range reached 16 stops only in raw.

     


  3. 16 hours ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

    Guess metabones can fix this with a firmware update if they want to.

    I let metabones know when the Speedbooster didn’t work on the R5. Well it worked except for the autofocus. Anyways, that was very early in the shipments and MB didn’t have access to the new camera. I’m guessing a firmware update would be likely. 


  4. 3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

    Only 3rd party are not corrected , most Canon EF lens have correction done in camera

    Really? Such as?

    None of my EF lenses can be corrected in-camera on either the R5 or R. The option is simply grayed out. Also, the R5 manual states that RF lenses are corrected during movie shooting. No comment about EF, but Canon USA confirms the R doesn’t support EF lens correction.:

     

    90DDF4B4-F8B7-403E-B98F-EBC06C1432E0.jpeg

    Here is the info from the R5 Manual:12D82195-4075-42A7-9720-E6994E6C6E6D.jpeg


  5. RF 15-35mm is quiet, fast, stabilized unicorn lens. All you really need for narrative film in most cases.

    RF 50mm 1.2 is possibly the best image I have ever seen from a lens, better than any cinema lenses I have used. But it’s also the full frame and autofocus that probably play a major factor in that. But it is regular USM so it’s about as noisy as the regular EF lenses. 

    If you don’t need on camera sound, and watch distortion, I’d go with the Drop in Variable ND with way cheaper EF lenses. I think the EF 24mm 1.4 is stellar. 


  6. Overheating warnings without shooting anything is a sloppy implementation or a bug. It’s indefensible, and I think this will definitely have to be addressed in the firmware update. 

    As far as any other changes, I can deal with the continuous recording limits to protect the cinema lines, but the recovery times need to be greatly shortened. 

    How about this for a compromise?

    Canon revamps the algorithm to better reflect real use case of their R5 target demographic: content creators and indie filmmakers. For most, the average duration of takes ranges from seconds to only a few minutes, so Canon should offer a more usable ratio of shooting time to recovery time...

    Unlimited 30 second takes?
    30 second cool down for 2 min takes?
    1 minute cool down for 5 minute takes? 
    5 min cool down for 10 min takes?


  7. 6 hours ago, Ben i B said:

    I think the fact that the Canon overheats when recording internally could also mean that not oversampling is causing the heat but the compression. Cause that's the only thing the cam is not doing when recording to the Ninja V. Maybe there's a separate chip for H.265 encoding somewhere on the board that overheats quickly. But this would also not explain the long cool down times. But H.264 for example is meanwhile encoded by the GPU on computers and does not affect the CPU much. 

    Perhaps, but then the 8K raw should have longer recording times than the 8k H265 or 4K HQ.

    So there is some artificial (arbitrary?) limitation or there’s something else going on.

    The only other plausible explanation is that bitrate, the amount of data being written, creates the overheating, real or preventative or artificial, which explains why the 8K Raw and 4K120 have the shortest recording times. So maybe it does come down to the cards after all, directly or indirectly. And the HDMI out to the NINJA aligns with that. 


  8. So maybe the HDMI out is somehow bypassing the artificial limits, or maybe it's bypassing the temp controls and damaging the camera. I don't know.

    Regardless, and more importantly, the 8K Raw is the best I've ever seen. Point blank. Detail and color are next level - I think it's finally approaching what the eyes can resolve. Immersive, transparent, 3D, microcontrast, etc. 8K raw footage is truly a compilation of high res stills at 24 FPS. Can pull stills and send them to editorial—game changing in the way RED advertised w/ EPIC. But RED didn't have autofocus - this does. Every. Frame. Sharp. I was impressed by the BMPCC6K - the increase in resolution made a huge difference from 4k, and this R5 8K RAW is just as big of a jump. It's kind of staggering. You don't know what you've been missing unless you actually scrub through this footage, which you can in Resolve (good luck w/ the h265). 

    Bottom line, the 4kHQ 24 seems viable w/ the Ninja (unless it destroys the camera). But who cares, you can get high quality 4K anywhere. More importantly 8K Raw is 100% the bees knees. That's the only news I care about from this point forward. Andrew, make it happen.


  9. Just got my hands on a R5, tested w/ Ninja V. No cards, LCD display was off, I had mine closed to the body - recorded continuously at 4KHQ w/ autofocus (rf 50 1.2) and IS on. Recorded continuously until 1.5 hours - when the battery (regular LP-E6) died. No overheating temp indicator, but the body was HOT. Hotter than any body I've felt, and I've felt a lot of bodies.

     


  10. The Blackmagic Video Assist 12G is very intriguing.

    1) greatly mitigates or resolves overheating

    2) cheap SSD and external media recording

    3) XLR inputs and quality audio recording

    4) professional monitor

    5) potential BRAW support (currently supports C300ii and Panasonic EVA1)


    The rumors about Canon considering BRAW would make a lot of sense here. I'd take this over the Atomos Ninja.

     

     


  11. 10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

     

    The Fostex FR2LE falls into the same category as for instance the Roland R44 I mentioned earlier.

    In that, for its time (which was well over a decade ago!!) the Fostex FR2LE was an attractive kit for someone on a tight budget, because it could hold up to prosumer standards and thus for the low price of roughly around about £400inc it proved good value for money. 

    But today in 2020, I don't think you can make a solid argument it is worthwhile swapping a DR60Dmk2 for a Fostex FR2LE instead, even though they sell for similar prices eBay. 

     

    EIN (Equivalent Input Noise): 

    Fostex FR-2LE:  -129 dBu
    Sound Devices MixPre3: -128 dBu
    Tascam DR60/70D: -120 dBu

    What's that old saying? Be wary of the internet self-styled sound man who's trying to sell you an easyrig.


  12. Probably the sigma 18-35 gets the most use. If you stay within that focus range, they’re very practical. As close to cinema lenses you can get on a budget.

    We also have canon ef-s 10-18mm and 18-135mm lenses, which are all cheap, lightweight, and mostly good. Some distortion at either end, slow, and not as great if you need to pull focus. We generally don’t with these. We have 3 sets of every lens above for our 3 pocket 6Ks. 

    Less often, we use Canon L zooms: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Canon L primes 24, 35, 50, 85, 100. We’d probably use them more if we could, but we have only one of each lens, earmarked mostly for our Canon c300ii, which we sold after the C300iii announcement.

    On rare occasion, we’ll use the Sigma 20 1.4. 

    I think that’s mostly it for the 6K. We did rent the Zeiss Compact Primes, which were phenomenal in look and use. Definitely made focusing easier and more accurate to get all that 6K resolution. 
     

      


  13. I'm curious about any of these projected calculations of rolling shutter, because I've understood it as a spec that's released by the company or measured by various individuals and websites. Is there some formula for rolling shutter I'm missing? 

    Speaking of logic, if the R5 and 1DX III share the same ADC (via androidlad above), shouldn't the R5's rolling shutter should be worse than the 1DX III's? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the quoted readout numbers are 30ms for 5.5K (1DXiii) versus 25ms for 8K (R5). All things being equal, isn't that illogical?

    I can accept the notion that there are more variables to account for (e.g., the R5 has a different, more advanced sensor and processor than any existing camera, including the 1DX iii), and that people are just projecting and extrapolating. I just want to know how people are coming up with numbers.

     

×
×
  • Create New...