mkabi

*Applauds*
This isn't bad, not bad at all.
5.5K RAW at 60fps - damn. And, internal?
Only 5.5K at 30fps & cropped DCI 4K at 60fps with DPAF.... come on... could be worse, right?
I think its a true successor to the 1DC - given all the above comes with C-Log this time.
 

*Applauds*
This isn't bad, not bad at all.
5.5K RAW at 60fps - damn. And, internal?
Only 5.5K at 30fps & cropped DCI 4K at 60fps with DPAF.... come on... could be worse, right?
I think its a true successor to the 1DC - given all the above comes with C-Log this time.
 

Ok. I am going to come out and admit that I am floored by this camera. I have been a Canon hater, but this camera is an absolute beast. To have a pro body and amazing photo capabilities - which most already know the 1D line has and then on top of that have internal RAW and amazing DPAF?! It has dpaf autofocus and shoots internal raw and I think the most exciting part for me, is it FINALLY has focus peaking. That was the one thing that was going to make this a non purchase as I use a lot of vintage manual focus glass. Though this prices a lot of people out, if you are a serious hybrid shooter - meaning you do a lot of both - this is a dream camera for you. Obviously there a few downsides, such as the screen for video - but most have external monitors. 
 

If his macbook worked fine for him he doesn't nessesarily need a big update. A used one that was a gen or two after his would work fine and probably save him a lot of cash.

I guess thats the direction of progress... if you enjoy stuff of old, then thats that.... content will always supercede resolution though.
You know what it is.... you have a television that you are comfortable with right now, and I am assuming that it is 1080p. And, I'm sure that television will work for another 10 years (give or take), but what if it broke down today/tomorrow? Have you checked out your local electronic store for TVs lately? For every 10 4K TVs, I probably see 1 1080p TV.... funny thing is.... I've spotted 2 8K TVs at my local electronic chain so fast forward 10 years, you will see 10 8K TVs for every 1 4K TV - 1080p is obsolete - are you going to complain then "Whats wrong with HD?"

Is it under the weight limits for the (increasingly heavy-handed) drone laws in most western countries?  I'd imagine so, but confirming that would be useful.
No point anyone buying one if they have to study and register to become a commercial pilot in every country they visit! ???

I suggest you go straight to work. I know Escape studios but what they offer can be learned on the job. I worked as a compositor out of college with just my portfolio, and a BS degree. You learn so much more from your Seniors and your colleagues while working in the industry, plus you'll get paid to learn and to build out your reel. So for me, you should get a job in production first, then rethink if you really want to do your Masters

I'm very happy with doing a part-time study program in filmmaking. Most of my class mates are already industry professionals but want to have a more creative role, so it has been perfect for networking and I've been able to join several of their projects not related to the class. At the same time it doesn't interfere much with my daily work and lets me build my portfolio efficiently. It also helps that higher education is next to free here. My decision might have been different if I had to pay for it.

From everything I heard connections are the real benefit of going to school, of course the better the school the more useful the connections. If you are a socialite you can make connections without school though. It can definitely help motivate one to actually do work and learn, but if you can get a production job that accomplishes the same thing. For corporate type 9-5ish jobs having a masters on your application can definitely help, though in this visual land your work can also speak for itself.



 

Saw the movie yesterday.
Its good, but a bit long... and I still feel the same way, some people are going to come out of it thinking - "I've had it rough too, I've been bullied too, I've been abused as a child too, so lets go shoot up a place."
I guess its very much like this: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/24/jim-carrey-violence-kick-ass-2-sandy-hook
Anyway, the movie theatre I went to see it at, had some kids with full face paint like the Joker, I was like isn't it a bit early for Halloween???
 

i must be shallow, i have nearly the whole set on dvd?. I find them lighthearted entertainment. Life throws enough drama my way during the day, i dont need to watch more of it on a screen at night. I guess i'm after the escapism aspect most are so far fetched  thats it a load off the mind for awhile. Perhaps thats just me.
i reckon barefoot_dp might be onto something with his theory, but its an industry it gives people a job, so who am i to begrudge them and they get paid for it some more than others no doubt ?
edit : my first thoughts were that this is a mature age gent from a different era and i'd expect his views to represent that, and i am fine with that, but then i think of stan lee who wrote alot of this comic stuff he was also a mature aged gent. So now i'm thinking its like a perspective, none are really wrong its just what works for the individual.

If you get a chance, to do something like this again or something similar. Can you do a test.... i.e. have people like even 4 to 6 other people in the room, they can just be crew (behind the scenes i.e. people without any actual screen time), see if that changes the ambience and/or volume. You can even over-ride the actual ambient noise with fake ambient noise. Also, share the results, cause I need to know as I am curious too (cc me or try to grab my attention with @[my name]). 
I have a feeling it makes a difference...
For example, my wife and kids were watching Cinderella (the live action one from 2015) and they happened to be watching the BTS.... they said that during the ball sequence, they had 500 extras... I thought it was excessive given that not all 500 extras would actually be shown in any particular shot. All 500 people had an additional 500 makeup artists and choreographers.... well you get the point. They could've gotten away with 100 or 200 people... But, now that I think about it, I have a feeling that those 500 people had to be there for the ambience of that scene - to sell that scene for what it is....
 

Definitely a good short (dialogue isn't cliche), but something about the actual speed dating at the bar felt fake. It felt like the bar was empty and it was just them two (+ camera man) with added fake ambient noise. In terms of crew, other than the camera man, how many people were there?
 

WARNING: MATURE CONTENT. Speed Date is a black comedy about Jack and Natalie who approach their allocated time together with different mindsets. What could go wrong? [Best with Headphones]
Shot on a Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera + Sigma 18-35mm Lens.
 
 

Check this thread out: 
 

Anytime someone is questioning why there's shots in slo-mo, it's cheating. 
 

It's nice to have a nice camera, but a lot has to do what is happening in front and behind (!) the camera body. It's like when you were a kid shooting silly videos with your friends, playing out a combat scene perhaps or something. First thing that ruins it is an inadequate casting/wardrobe/location. A battlescene with 12 yr olds running around in casual clothing in a suburb neighbourhood with cringy acting doesn't really sell it. Same for the post production with too epic music thrown over it and Red Giant Magic Bullet Looks set to overdrive on the 'Michael Bay'-setting. But you live and you learn. Get the right talent in front of the camera, put 'em in a convincing setting, with the mood set right from the get-go and suddenly it's already much better. You change the kit zoom to a set of primes. You're giving camera movement more thought. In post you still stylize, but you don't go overboard. It's those touches that have little to do with the camera body itself that make the biggest difference. So when the title of this thread says 'everything else instead', indeed, ND filters and audio gear are exactly those kind of things.
I just got a little too carried away with pixel squeezing and forgot about the time and effort it takes to obtain and work with such thicc footage. And for what? So it looks slightly better to the 1% that would actually be able to tell a difference. I realized that I enjoy the shooting process the most. Thinking carefully about the scene, what it needs in terms of lighting, what look am I going for, what lens would suit that? That sorta thing. I actually don't enjoy just about anything that happens in post, so it was a bit foolish of me to get a new and exciting camera that would however make that whole part more tedious, but it's an easy trap to fall into. Atleast I realized it. ? Maybe I'll consider it once I can afford to have an editor work for me (that shares a similar mindset/creative vision).

And, I've said this before in another thread (changed for the above argument):
Here is the problem with that argument, and many people have made that same argument.... in one version or another.
So you are are saying Canon has "done their market research, they will know what their customers are doing" and the end product of all that research is to exclude 24p
The problem with that statement is that companies like Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Blackmagic also have market research teams and pros telling them what the people want.... why is it that they include 24p???
See the thing is.... Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Blackmagic, etc. are not even number 1 in this segment.... so that doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing or don't know how to be number 1, its more along the lines that they should be more hungry to be number 1 and they will do anything to get to number 1, hence they will include 24p.

Yes I meant XT-3. One of the issues I'm having with the Z6 is that so much of my work ends up on a 2048x858 Theater Screen at 24 fps. I'm a Theater Manager in Massachusetts and that is the format that we display our preshow and some mini documentaries which is the majority of the content that I create. So currently I'm shooting 4K on my Z6 and have to change the format from 23.967 to 24 for everything I do. Small issue for most people, but annoying for me because I have to do it constantly. (Side note: people defending Canon for leaving it out of their new body, I can never even consider using that camera because of the lack of 23.967.) 

So the XT-3's internal 2048x1080 24p and good audio is very appealing for my weekly work needs. We'll see how it performs after some testing on my end.
My main worry is the battery life on the camera. Hated the A7rII's battery and how often that was an issue with it. Thankfully the XT-3 you can power through the USB-C port, so I'm hoping it will be less of an issue. Have 4 paid shoots on top of work related material that I need to shoot in the next two weeks, so I can really see if it fits into my workflow. Really it's about being able to do my job and shoot fast, getting the coverage I need and deliver. Camera brand should be secondary to that, otherwise it is just playing favorites. I would be looking into the panasonics as well, but m43 sensor is to small for my liking (will be using this camera for stills as well) and the new full frame bodies are huge and the glass is lethally expensive on them. 

And, I've said this before in another thread (changed for the above argument):
Here is the problem with that argument, and many people have made that same argument.... in one version or another.
So you are are saying Canon has "done their market research, they will know what their customers are doing" and the end product of all that research is to exclude 24p
The problem with that statement is that companies like Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Blackmagic also have market research teams and pros telling them what the people want.... why is it that they include 24p???
See the thing is.... Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Blackmagic, etc. are not even number 1 in this segment.... so that doesn't mean that they don't know what they are doing or don't know how to be number 1, its more along the lines that they should be more hungry to be number 1 and they will do anything to get to number 1, hence they will include 24p.

Regardless, this does not exactly play in their favor. Sony chipsets and other chipsets in the market are able to do in 1 chip what Canon's do in 3. Either way, they're behind.
It costs them $0 to include it. The feature was always there for 10 years now, and it was always part of their OS. This was a clear move to push people to buy more expensive models. They aggressively segmentize and they've done so in the past (I will explain below). And that would work if they were a monopoly. But they have competitors that include more than just 24p in their cheaper cameras, they also have zebras, log etc. So why go with Canon then? Only Canon thinks that Canon users will stay with Canon no matter what. Little did they know, their EF lenses are getting adapted well to other systems as well.
So, for a little history lesson. As a few people mentioned above, I indeed used to run a video-related blog back in the day. My little niche was "filmmaking on the very cheap". Basically, back then there wasn't much processing power to do 1080/30p on P&S digicams, manufacturers were often forced to use 24p (just because it was easier to encode). So Canon had a line of P&S cameras with 1080/24p at 36 Mbps. There were no manual controls, but there was exposure compensation & exposure lock. Which was enough to create artsy videos or short films on the super-cheap that looked rather professional -- if you were careful of how you were shooting with them. Add on top the ability to get a rather flat look to widen the DR (there were sharpness/contrast/sat controls), and it was a pretty sweet deal for cameras costing $150-$300.
So for a couple of years, we had a number of P&S cams from Canon specifically that could be seen as alternatives to their 5D MkII, T2i, and 7D of that time (at least for people who couldn't afford these cameras and their lenses). I even shot a couple of music videos with such cams (we were not allowed to use my 5D MkII in the Santa Cruz Boardwalk to shoot a music video, but when I showed to the guards the tiny Canon SX30 HS P&S cam, they had no problem -- so they were really good guerrilla cams). The magic feature here was the exposure lock, that made those videos look pro.
Fast forward to 2012. New Canon P&S line up announced across the board. And each one of these had exposure lock in video mode REMOVED (AEL for photos was still there). And in some other models, they removed exposure compensation as well (again, these features had been there for years at that point in video mode). They had to remove these because they couldn't remove 24p outright (simply because their processors were not fast enough yet to do 30p at 1080p, they were stuck with it). They probably saw that some people who could not afford dSLRs used these small cams as a cheap replacement for filmmaking, and they wanted to push these same people to upgrade. The thing is though, if these people had the money to buy a dSLR, they would have done so anyway.
So, since then, I have a love-hate relationship with Canon. But their recent removal of 24p from a rather high end super-35 camera (the M6 MkII is not as low end as say, the M100) is unforgivable, sorry. Just because that's the EF-M line, should not make it a useless line for filmmaking. Some of us, want such cameras simply because they are small. The EOS R is much larger in comparison (and expensive when you account for native lenses).
So yeah, what Canon is doing now, they've done before. It's part of their MO. And if it's true that they are upscaling 2.8k to 4k and lying about it, then they are really unforgivable. I have lost all the respect I had for that company all these years ago.

From the OP link, "How can Canon ignore such a large amount of interest from filmmakers in smaller, affordable, 4K shooting cameras?"
I first became aware of 4K video back in 2010 while attending Canon's gear Expo at the Javits Center in NYC...it was my first time seeing 4K camera prototypes, first time seeing 4K monitors outputting 4K footage, first time seeing 4K sensors on display. I was immediately blown away by the clarity and detail possible at that resolution and I was convinced on-the-spot that Canon was clearly the brand to "hitch my wagon to" going forward.
I had been shooting my 7D and 5D Mark II for both stills and video up to that point and I was feeling a bit cocky that I had chosen wisely "going with Canon" leading into that expo. I thought, "Ooh boy, I can't wait for their 5D Mark III and Canon 7D Mark II, whenever they get announced! I've got to get my hands on some 4K gear, pronto!" And with the arrival of the 4K-capable 1Dc in late 2013, I was eagerly anticipating my "impending good fortunes soon-to-come"! Ahahahah!
The 2012 no-4K announcement for the 5D3 was a true "WTF?" moments for me, as was the 2014 7D2 announcement. "Really Canon?! What's the hold up?!" I was dismayed. Plans were dashed, my future shooting goals, postponed seemingly indefinitely, I was not a happy camper. Who, if anyone, was going to bring 4K DSLR-style camera gear to the masses?
The subsequent arrivals of the 4K-capable GH4, FZ1000 and the Sony Alpha lines began to offer a glimmer of hope for me and my "4K Canon master plan", "surely they'll come through now!". But, as we all know now, I was "hoping against all hopes". "What a shame and disappointment, Canon." I thought...and still do.
I began to jump ship from Canon with the FZ1000...and it was a revelation in "what the competition was up to"...sensible menus, fabulous in-the-field ergonomics, great video output quality (for me, at the time). I opened myself up to see what other manufacturers were offering and soon ended up with a Sony a6300 and a7SII...not as user-friendly as the Panasonic and more than a few-notches-below on image stabilization and rolling shutter, but usable, not a fan of their color vs Canon and Panasonic.
In the past year+ I've been a razor-thin phone call away from grabbing either a GH5 or GH5S after getting some 2017 PhotoPlus Expo hands-on time with Panasonic's G9/100-400mm combo...now here was Image Stabilization realized! A small piece of kit that can effectively do what my Canon/Sony FF camera + Sigma 300-800mm lens can do, but handheld with IS?! I was absolutely floored and that kit was under the holiday tree for my sweetie two months later!
I'm onto the S1, now...as I roll my fingers daily still waiting for that mythical V-Log upgrade to make that long boat trip to North America...thank goodness for Cine-D to sort-of hold me over in the meantime.
And, "whither goes Canon?" I know not and, truthfully, do not truly care any more. And I do not write this with malice or from "sour grapes", it's just that they are no longer innovators and pioneers in my eyes. Based on what I saw and experienced back at that 2010 expo, Canon could have and should have owned the 4K DSLR/M market today...how they managed to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" is beyond me. Haw! And should they ever decide to produce a DSLR/DSLM camera worthy of my attention and shooting needs and desires, I'll surely give it a look-see. But, to the OP's question, yeah, they lost me as a customer a while ago.

Reusing this picture. Thanks.

I was being sarcastic and irreverent! I DO believe Cannon has executives that are completely BLIND to what is happening in the industry today. They are leaning heavily on their logo's historic reputation right now. I dont think they truly know that their logo's gas is running out! Cannon is turning into a dinosaur right under their own noses!
I think that Cannon is doing exactly what BlackBerry did that caused their great fall.
Arrogant....absolutely arrogant in every way. They will look back at themselves 5 years from now and clearly see how their own attitude ruined them.

Bah... who cares... I’m not an investor...
Im a consumer... and I don’t see Canon producing anything of interest to me to anymore. Period.