gt3rs

1 hour ago, kye said:

The original quote that I disagreed with was:

So, @gt3rs, you're saying that because you, as a professional, are frequently asked for a mix of horizontal and vertical content, that the sensors in my phone, in my laptop camera, in my cars reversing camera, in every GoPro, in the GX85 update, in the Sony A7C, in the A6800, etc, should all be square?

Really?

I've said recently that the primary failure of folks is to not understand that others aren't the same as them, and the second failure is that when they learn of differences that they automatically think that everyone else is less valid than they are, less deserving, less relevant.

To think that every camera on earth should be changed just because it would be nicer for you....  I mean, that's the complete peak of ignorance and arrogance, right?

Really? Not sure why you are so aggressive?

You can make any ratio out of a square sensor but not the inverse.

It allows also auto horizon level, better stabilization and more anamorphic support too but according to you I’m the only one interested in the world in this but yet Gopro hero 11, 11 mini and 12 have a 8:7 sensor, Insta360 go 2 and 3 have a 1:1 sensor…

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/features/i-think-gopro-hero-11-blacks-87-sensor-is-the-future-of-smartphone-photography

The new Black magic phone app let you film landscape by keeping the phone portrait a square sensor would be even better and so on…

But honestly why are you attacking me? Having a bad day?

This place is getting worse by the day… call me ignorant and arrogant because I asked a feature in a forum that some companies are already implementing…. wow

13 hours ago, kye said:

I completely disagree.

People watch widescreen content on 40" or 50" or 60" or 70+" TVs at home, but only watch vertical video on sub-7"displays.

Putting equal effort into both is ridiculous.

We are also talking about photo either from video or directly as photo. On top of social media, a lot of publications, books or photobooks have portrait format so I don't agree with your assessment.  Just one example the hockey team that I cover wanted a vertical photo for their year book and also an horizontal poster for the vip area of one of the most iconic photo we did. It was a live action no time to rotate bla bla. Square sensor problem would be solved. As it was a 45Mpix photo I could crop vertically for the year book cover.

Plus what about anamorphic... stabilization, auto horizon level so many application for a square sensor. Not everybody just do films....

 

iPad with iPadOS 17 and USB-C supports UVC so you can use them as monitor with a cheap hdmi-usb-c dongle. Will iPhone 15 support this too this is the question…

From a 8K you get a portrait 3:4 image of almost 14 Mpixels, a vertical 9:16 video slightly above 4k. 
From a 45 Mpixels 3:2 photo you get a 3:4 22.5 Mpixels portrait one.

For my uses cases I rarely take pictures in portrait mode as I can give two versions instead of one by shooting landscape. For the video I never shot vertically as most vertical video are for social media anyway and 4k is more than adequate. I found framing in post vertical video it gives me more control. Btw I hate vertical video but I'm just too old 🙂  

Never the less why no 3:2 open gate RAW !?!

Or although I understand is much more complex why no square sensors (I know then square EVF, square LCD, incompatibility with many lenses etc...). Gopro and Insta started to get this right in some of their cameras... 

40 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

If you have an iPhone 8 or above, the Acsoon SeeMo can do the trick (and a couple more like recording and streaming( for around €160.

https://accsoon.com/accsoon-seemo/

Official video here but there are a lot of user reviews on YouTube who in general seem to not completely hate it.

 

I saw that it has one big flaw for me it needs a battery and is a Sony battery that I have none. So one more charger, set of batteries, etc. Would have had power by USB also I would have brought it…

Maybe as on the iPhone 15 Pro with USB-C there will be more elegant solutions…

I also from time to time intercut to (R5, R5c) iPhone footage, you can spot it but most of the audience does not even notice. I even intercut 360 reframed content that is even more lower quality. But is more important to get the shot.

As you said not everywhere is easy to be there with a R5 type of rig. I also started to record with the iPhone on top of the R5c as I tend to use really long lenses in the  300mm to 600mm range so I can have a second view much wider with the iPhone (77mm).

I have a 13 Pro Max and contemplating a move to the 15 Pro Max for 3 reasons: 120mm instead of 77mm, satellite emergency (I can skip the Garmin and its subscription) and the most important for me the workflow as the lighting (non really lighting speed 🙂 ) is a huge pita. Hopefully with direct SSD/CFexpress reader support I can record directly or quickly copy to an external storage.

I use to use Filmic Pro but is now a robbery and also the UI imo was a bit cumbersome especially when I'm in hectic places so I went back to the normal camera app. I just installed the Blackmagic one and it seems ok but I need to test it out more.

Overall I truly hate filming with the iPhone but it get the job done when it would be hard to have a bigger camera. 

Btw my R5 in 8K RAW never overheated but I had once the iPhone on top in 4k 25fps overheating and shutting down 🙂 

It would also be cool if you could use it directly as a wired monitor..... but for Apple is too much to ask...

I have an iPhone 13 pro max and I some time use video that I intercut with my R5c and R5, is better than gopro and co imo but I really hate the shooting experience due to the internal storage and slow transfer speed and hard to manage file system..... also it does not keep the focal length selected e.g. 3x. I used iFilmic in the past, imo also not relly great, but now with the new subscription is a robbery.

The new on is intriguing if you can really shoot to an external SSD or maybe even a CFexpress or SD reader... this would be good. I also hope that with the USB-C transferring video to a pc will be much faster and reliable. 

When I shoot athletes with long lenses I mount the iPhone on top of the flash shoe so I have a "safety always in focus version" and a more wide shot too, but the 77mm is still too short, I feel that 120mm is a good focal length for this. So in one pass I get  400mm/500mm and 120mm. 

Probably the most underwhelming release in gpro history.

This should have been a free firmware. Ripping off customers…

Gopro really needs a new leadership.

1 2 3 … ready fo the next Gopro disappointment. It seems a HW and Firmware fix of the Hero 11 issues but of course they will introduce new issues. 

56 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

Skip to 7:30 - you can essentially jam a device like Tentaclesync or Deity TC1 with the Rode's timecode, and since they're also super accurate (one frame drift in 48 hours), you can keep those devices plugged into as many other cameras as you like. This is the same as pretty much any other timecode system out there. 

 

I don't want another device just another Rode RX on my second camera. If I have the RX sending TC to Deity or similar I cannot send the audio to the camera... a dual RX would make it much more simpler. I don't want an additional set of devices. 2 TX, 2 RX, 2 Cameras a common scenario.

2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

They already do.

As far as I could see you can have only one receiver, you can jam sync a camera, move to the next and so on but you cannot have 2 receivers at the same time. 

2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

Interesting take, but I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying. He's right, in saying that this system doesn't work with multiple cameras. However, TC can still be valuable for a single camera shoot, especially when recording 2 audio sources externally.

In my opinion, this is the same as complaining that the one tripod you bought doesn't hold all three of your cameras. Rode have noted that they system can sync other 3rd party TC generators and get them in sync, so you can have multiple cameras running the same TC, with some extra hardware. Which is the same as any other TC system.

He also mentions that the transmitters have to be connected to the reciever for TC to work, and you lose the function if the reciever shutsdown or loses connection. But Rode have said they'll stay running accurately for quite a while, and when they reconnect to the reciever, they automatically double check that everyone is running on the same TC.

 

 

I agree with you, classical youtube non sense, yes is not a professional time code system but for 400$ you get time coded 2 x 32 bit recording, really nothing to complain about.
Would be cool if in the future they would support additional receivers to sync time code across cameras instead of jam sync.

 

There was a thread a few months ago claiming that RF lenses were not a step forwards compared to their EF equivalents, happy now to see that I'm not the only one seeing the improvements and value. Having said this adapted EF lenses works so well that people can skip RF altogether either by using their collection or by buying quite discounted used EF lenses. 

1 hour ago, Django said:

Of course testing a camera for yourself is always the ideal thing but it ain't that easy when it comes to the R5C. It's just not the most available camera. Kind of a niche product like the 1DC, but I will certainly try to hunt one down when I get back to Paris..

Not a lot of comp tests either on YT but I did find this R5C vs Z9: Canon R5C vs Nikon Z9 Hands On Camera Comparison

The stab tests are interesting since they're using longer 100mm lenses. Clear advantage to Z9.

In other areas such as DR I was surprised to see the R5C had the edge, and the Z9 had it for AF.

Although not the most scientific tests that video has got me curious about the Z8/Z9 again so I will definitely spend more time on the Nikon before I commit to either R5/R5C!

 

You are right that is far from a scientific test, especially when they do not publish the AF settings that they are using. Btw the use case of people facing away is something that improved a lot with the latest firmware the video was made before the new fw. 

The stabilization test is a wired one either you mount both cameras on the same bracket or is not really scientific.... is even a different framing.....

As I said multiple times the Z9 seems a really good camera, so it make sense to learn and test both cameras before investing.

 

1 hour ago, Django said:

 

You mentioned earlier in the thread that not having custom modes was a PITA. I assume there is at least a "My Menu" type page or maybe even custom button where you can quickly access FPS/S&Q settings? Would love to know what is your fastest method to switch resolution and frame rates.

 

Yes, it has mymenu.

You can also assign a button to change the S&F framerate quicky, but it does not work for me as I normally go from 8k RAW to 4k 120 10bit and back.  

 

15 hours ago, Django said:

Lol I know I’ve been going back & forth a lot with purchase decisions but this will probably be a fall purchase (maybe even early as next month). R5 mk2 is expected in 2024 and R5Cii 2025 so those aren’t really a concern to me.

Besides R5 & R5C are already at an attractive retail & used price so I will not be waiting for replacement models to purchase. 

What really put me back in the Canon camp was trying out R5 with latest FW on a shoot. I also played around with a Z8 and got mixed feelings although I really like the specs and the files.
 

So in the end I’m still not at all sure what way to go, hence all my questions and research about R5 vs R5C. I really want the R5C for all the cine features, codecs, no record limit, 8K60p and the fan.. but I’m afraid I’ll miss IBIS and that the battery life may still be on the short side. R5 has IBIS and decent battery life plus I loved having C1 8K, C2 4K, C3 4K120 custom modes. But lack of exposure or magnification during recording, no shutter angle and the pain of editing 8K h265 files may push me towards R5C in the end..

Besides a good compromise might be R5C + R3 for handheld/run&gun/action shots. That’s my dream combo!

I think best for you is to rent a R5c for a day and try the hell out it.

For me when I do video 9 out of 10 times I pick the R5c as A cam and eventually the R5 as B cam. 

If you plan to use quite a bit 4k 100/120 the R5c is noticeable sharper than the R5, can also record audio (separately on the SD) but does not have Face AF in 100/120 fps. I try not to use the R5 in 100/120 as the quality is not too great and the editing is a pain due to h265 10bit 4:2:2, R5c XAVC so much faster.

One recent R5c 4k 120 fps segment. Don't look at the motion cadence as it was shoot at 1/2000, F2.8. It was a test for a lens and I did not have an ND filter for that lens diameter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AjNP0MdwXs


Fro anything slow motion R5c wins hands down with 8k and 4k 60p and better quality 4k 120...

@Django I feel that by the time you decide the R5 II and maybe even the R5c II will be available 😃

Maybe a used R5 when the new model will be announced is not a bad idea.

57 minutes ago, kye said:

Yeah, this isn't making any sense.  I think you're confused about how EIS actually works, although the RS considerations make sense and would be relevant.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread.  The EIS on the Canon wasn't very good and I was surprised.  I don't really care though, so carry on!

You are the one confused that has no idea why a gopro or insta360 or DJI Osmo have a much more effective image stabilization than Sony (including Catalyst) Nikon, Canon, etc. 
 

Is called physic and the longer the lens the bigger the shake will be amplified, it will have more motion blur, much bigger delta between same pixel and more rolling shutter effect due to sensor size, and the result is not comparable.
 

So please don’t call me confused when you have zero explanation why…. 

Btw I wrote software in the past for images alignment so I kind of know how eis algorithms works

8 hours ago, kye said:

That makes sense but has nothing to do with sensor size, it's lens FOV.  

Shutter speed also makes sense, but only so much that the edges can be detected easily, which would have been easy on that test clip of the guy as he was crisply in focus and contrasting sharply with the background.

It is the sensor size that dictates the lens length in mm for the same FOV. 

Let's assume you need the same framing so the same FOV of ~150°, Gopro needs a ~2.9mm lens, APSC ~9.5mm lens, FF ~15mm lens. FF 15mm will have more shake and blur than 2.9mm.
It is not the only reason but it also a key aspect why 360 cameras have even better stabilization than Gopros. Insta360 X3 has a FF 6.7mm equivalent where Gopro is FF 12mm equivalent.

Now if you take in consideration that Gopro is 12mm FF equivalent, rarely you will film with a FF at 12mm but more > 24mm this challenge is even bigger. 

Also the smaller the sensor size the less rolling shutter issue tends to have (assuming similar tech), as an example Gopro has a rs of 1/240 in video mode that is twice as fast as the fastest "consumer" FF camera A7s III at 1/120... 

I'm sure EIS could do better that the current status especially if you would allow much bigger crop, use really high shutter speed and have faster sensors but for the moment it cannot compete with Gopro size sensors.

https://docs.gyroflow.xyz/app/getting-started/common-filming-tips-and-issues

17 minutes ago, kye said:

I've seen people say things like this before, but it never made any sense.  Digital image stabilisation is a data processing operation done by a chip - you give it a stream of digital video and it does it's thing and gives you a modified stream of digital video.  It wouldn't matter if the source of the video was a GoPro or an array of telescopes the size of the entire planet - it's data crunching.

Is physics just try with your ASPC or FF camera disable IS whatever, move the camera with a 15mm and then with a 150mm you will see how much more movement, EIS would need much bigger crop, blur will be much more between frames and larger sensor (in general) will have more rolling shutter issue that also affect the software stabilizing.
Gopro lens is like 2.9mm not 15mm.... so the movement between frames is not that severe to start with and will have way less motion blur although to work well still need high shutter speed. 
 

Render it in 4k, youtube will compress less. Try it yourself, upload at 1080 and at 4k the same 1080 video and you will see. 

5 hours ago, kye said:

What surprises me is the poor performance of the DIS on that guys clips.  GoPros, for example, are DIS-only and are gimbal-like, so it is possible to get very high performance.  Perhaps Canon have implemented a very limited crop, or similar?

Gopro, uses a tiny sensor with extremely short lens and very high shutter speed. The movement magnification of a FF with a 35mm compared to a Gopro is just a complete other order of magnitude. 
Unfortunately any digital stabilization requires a high shutter speed to be more effective, put a ND on a Gopro and 1/50 and the great stabilization is gone.... 



In my experience, and I posted multiple times, any lens above 70mm that has IS for video performs better on the R5c than R5 (in my case 70-200, 100-500) and I do a lot of handled, of course I'm not walking or running, for this you need a gimbal.

Below 35mm on the R5 you will get wobble effect especially if you walk or pan rather fast. So a R5c with an IS lens wins here. 

IBIS is very useful from 35 to 70mm on non IS lens. I use quite a bit a 28-70 2.0 that does not have IS and I tend to use it handled on the R5 or on Gimbal on the R5c (there is really no contest against a gimbal if you walk.... gimbal wins by huge margin).

I did test but I never use Digital IS, I prefer to stabilize in post in Resolve if needed. I also shoot mostly in RAW so Digital IS is not available. Would be cool if Canon would embed the gyro data so we could do digital IS in post, but if you look at Sony catalyst or Gyroflow both requires high shutter speed to be effective.


Probably for @Django the question would be how well it compares R5+IBIS+RF 24-70 vs R5C + RF 27-70, handheld both static and walking. Unfortunately I don't have an RF 24-70.... but once I should try with the RF 35 1.8 IS to see...

 

With IBIS up to 30/35mm the wobble is an issue and you cannot fix in post, with no IBIS but with lens IS you can always add more stabilization in post.

Remember you cannot disable IBIS and keep lens IS on on canon body….

4 hours ago, Django said:

Yeah I meant proper exposure tools like on R5C. 

By the way to those that own both is R5C more rugged build quality than R5? Like FX3 vs A7S3?

Or is it really the same body, screen etc as R5 with just an added fan?

100% the same other than the fan and the TC port. Never had any issue so far with both R5 and R5c.

I much prefer the R5(c) size than R3 or 1Dx series that i used to own. Not sure I will go back to a 1 series size… but you never know.