scotchtape

The canon SB reduces the AF coverage to 60% of the frame or something like that.

Thanks. I don't know why I still have that lens, I've used it like 5 times since I've owned it and it's brother.

Af motor hella loud though, comparatively.

I'm currently using two LG 27UD68P-B monitors

My opinion is that as long as it's "good enough" it doesn't really matter unless you are professional colorist, in which case you probably wouldn't be asking here.

90% of the grades on YT look bad anyways, it's crazy what gets put out there.  I'm willing to bet most people on this site just use whatever they have, which is a decent monitor with good color reproduction and a calibrator. 

Unless the budget for the job is over $50K client probably doesn't even know or care as long as it looks "good" which is 100% achievable even on "cheap" $300-$500 monitors.

Not to mention if you aren't a "pro" colorist, the monitor is not the thing that is going to make a difference...

What does "pretty good" AF mean in terms of the 18-35mm? Like native e-mount? Does it stay locked on to faces or does it hunt?

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

Given the choice I’d have preferred eND I’ve ibis in the A7Siii...

Why don’t camera manufacturers offer such options? A sort of “build-a-bear” for camera-kiddies.

Questions like this show why the camera people aren't in charge of the business side of things... 🙂

1 hour ago, barefoot_dp said:

Everyone: Please Sony, give us an A7sIII with professional video features! If you do I will buy at least seven of them.
Sony: Ok, here it is!
Everyone: Meh it's just a rehashed A7sIII. This is lame and I'm not buying it. 

If it had everything A7SIII had then you might have a point, but there are things the FX6 doesn't have / does less well, features like the codecs being less flexible for seemingly no reason.

Aside from the APS-C vs FF I think C70 wins vs FX6, although both companies are infuriating.  Special speedbooster that ONLY WORKS ON C70 etc. So $4,500 is now $5,000 etc.  FX6, why do I have to buy new media when the A7SIII can record intermediate codecs? FFS... same sensor...

I want to be positive but I can't.

Doesn't look like there are intermediary codecs. for 4K, 10-bit, so basically if you want to use 4K, you NEED to buy new cards, what fun.

No real increased functionality except for the XLR inputs and ND filters, for 2x the price. Negatives include new media, still annoying to gimbal mount.

Marketing in some places say "like" s-cinetone color... like s-cinetone "like"... so not even the real s-cinetone, but presumably close enough.

Interest went from 5/10 to 2/10. 

4 hours ago, mkabi said:

Yes. Please share your workflow. Do you label the clips in camera? Do you jot down which clips look the best on a clipboard or something? What about retakes? Bloopers and mistakes? 
 

 

If it's interview / standups I either make a mental note of best take or write it down. After bringing all the clips in I just watch it all at 2x speed and pick out the best parts and put that in a timeline

Scrub through b-roll to find best parts, put best parts in another timeline.

Then I have the best parts of each sections and I can pick and choose which parts to add.

These are like 1-3 minute corporate videos, pricing is like shop work, oil change is billed at a certain time regardless of how long it takes, unless it takes longer because of clients requesting changes etc. But it doesn't take weeks of actual work time...

I don't do weddings, time depends on your deliverables.  If it's like one 3-5 minute video that's probably like 20hrs of editing.  However, plenty of people do same day edits, so really it's up to you as to how long you want to spend in the edit.  (Of course SDE is not the same as final product, just saying you can rough cut something together pretty quick...)

56 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Weird release. Would have much preferred an oversampled 4K image. The dual iso gains are way too far apart for a cinema camera.

Full frame is great though. Canon better release a C90 FF with R5 internals.

I really can't see them doing this, all their "affordable" c-series options are all aps-c.

Cheapest c-line with FF is c-500 at 20K so... if they did do it, they would probably price it above FX9...

2 more sleeps! Rumors say basically A7SIII in FS5 form factor.

That would work a for a bunch of people, but for the increase price I'd be hoping for better IQ, at least something that can more closely match FX9.

I was thinking of maybe stretching for one, but if the actual IQ isn't any better than the A7SIII then there's no point for me...except, to look like I have a bigger camera.

I feel like FS5 made sense at the time compared to the A7SII, but FX6 when A7SIII is around, less of a need for it unless you need the form factor and internal ND.

Definitely not helping swing people waffling about C70 vs FX6.  Oh well.

The last few vids really don't look amazing, subjective I know, but the sailor one the grade made the guy look like a zombie.

So much for magic color science - the magic happens in post, or the unmagic.

I see Resolve is trying to catch up to Adobe in instability 🙂

I used 15 free for years.  Finally a few months ago paid full price for resolve studio. Crashes constantly for me, all it takes is a click at the wrong time.  It's infuriating. Literally I try to change tabs at the wrong time and it crashes.

Something more stable than 16? 15.2 was solid for me. 16 crashes all the effing time for me. I turned on live save because of all the lost work.

The GH5 does have continuous AF it just sucks. So if you're willing to put up with it, it can work ok for unpaid work. It's a bit unreliable and pulses a lot, but if you already have the camera and have no budget it still "works".

Depends on your budget. Canon is just going to be way more $$$ all around for full frame (if you care about that).

If money isn't an issue or the R5 debacle, then Canon is a pretty safe bet.

RF mount is new and there aren't the same options for affordable glass right now.

Canon still isn't great in the shadows, yes the fancy dual iso thing I forgot what it's called is pretty good, but not always available.

Reason why sony got so popular with FS7 was the pricing, just couldn't beat it for the features. Still true if you want full frame, and frankly the lack of intermediate codecs on the older c series was not helpful either.

Aren't those things like $1 on eBay or Ali Express???

I don't know why you wouldn't get the Tamron 17-35mm... Cheap and good and light!

I doubt there will be a fix as the sensor is just hella noisy at high ISOs, which is why there's so much NR in the first place. In the PB video didn't he say that external raw bypasses the NR?

Crossing fingers for 10 bit and decent codecs. I'm assuming screen will blackout when using HDMI output, and it will have micro HDMI, probably no unlimited recording.

I'll take oversampling over 120p, maybe this will be a good b cam for a7siii

A good image starts with good lighting. I did an outdoor interview with a 1/2 frost shower curtain for diffusion as a key light, and reflectors for fill/back light and it completely changed my mind about lighting.

Image and skin tones looked amazing, colors looked great. I then realized why so many people's images look like poop.  If you're talking about narrative as well, you need to pay attention to your set and color design. Not to mention you know, exposing properly and working within the limits of your camera.

Without good light there's not too much you can do to save the image.  Camera's can't capture what isn't there, if you're missing spectrums in your lighting your image just won't turn out well. It's why a lot of corporate / on location stuff looks good but not great - you can't change all practicals and light sources so you deal with the factory lighting or the office lighting and make sure you have a decent key and call it a day.  And even then for most of us, our "good" lights don't even come close to the quality of sun/incandescent, but LEDs are so much easier to use and cost effective so they get used.

If you can't get the lighting and the set/frame right, then you can't do that much about it. The reason more footage from the "better" cameras looks good is that they are too expensive for most people to use, so they end up getting used by people that know how to make any camera look good and have the budget to do it right (obviously not all the time, but much higher % than randos on this forum). Give those cameras to these same randos and I imagine you'll end up with the same crappy images, just with better DR and a bit of special color processing sauce.

Try using a color chart on your next shoot too, it can actually make a difference. And maintain proper exposure, if you are trying to shoot your subject -2EV against a sunny back drop, of course it's going to look like poop.

Thanks for sharing.  If only it had more oversampling 😞 

34 minutes ago, Mmmbeats said:

From what I can see this is literally the least expensive fully-equipped cinema camera by any of the major manufacturers currently available in the market. (I'm not including the z-cam range and things like that).

Apologies in advance if I've missed anything.

If you read the post the context is scoffing at the idea that Canon is purposefully trying to "keep prices low" for your benefit. From the same company that has a cripple-timer? I think not.

This is completely separate from the relative price in it's tier. It's literally the new ENTRY level c line, why wouldn't it be their cheapest c line in it's generation... (obviously not counting the older discounted models)

Maybe if it was full frame it would be more of a deal but not at apsc level considering the crippled r5 or a7siii (half price, full frame, full coverage af, cheaper/more lenses, no internal nd though, but has Ibis)

I've said this camera looks pretty great, but if you don't think Canon wants to make money off of it...

Also fully equipped means different things to different people, but it has no RAW, no evf. (I don't use either of those but other people do).