Jump to content

anonim

Members
  • Posts

    1,138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by anonim

  1. I think that everything starts with inspiration as motivation - so, my suggestion would be to watch tutorials about manipulation and effects in 3D space done with Fusion, Nuke, Flame (how to change background, tracking components, even how to make enough visually suggestive simulated 3D objects from 2D images via projection maps etc). Although great and best for fast 2D effects, AE is not as much suitable for proper 3D, but has tone of ready made templates, great plugins. Also, for everything higher than several layers/intervention, nodal structure or 'tree'  becomes more and more suitable.

    So Fusion for obvious integration with Resolve, Nuke still a bit more if you really plan to get a job into big industry players, Flame if you like to feel yourself as noble and elite member as it could be. UI logic of Flame is for me pick of the software aesthetic. Of course, there's also powerful Mistika, but it becomes, I'd say, nowadays more exotic than really differentiated.

    Besides, I found that nodal thinking in accomplishing 3D tasks is the most interesting encounter of logic and creativity in all software's usage. (If you wish to happily lost your mind in endless possibilities as, say, top chess players - than go into cosmos of Sidefx Houdini.)

  2. 14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    (The competition in 2020 is finally caught up to the 2017 GH5.)

    - Time for Panasonic to give us a GH6 in 2020 from 2023! 😉

    Just to mention that I noted it (sometimes I record for enjoy most perspicaciously witty comments when I'm faced with them :) Thanks.

  3. 1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

    And even you don't get a straight-forward burn-in, OLEDs deteriorate and become dim with age (because they are organic material).

    I mentioned it earlier - particular problem of usage OLED in cameras is simply different heating level, but in simulation of discussion forced in this liberal 100% biased thread there's no reason to insist on anything, except for fun - what is, of course, also nice, at least for me :) But this is strictly technical quote to add to your benevolent contribution :

    „While OLED displays do not require a backlight, a variety of other electrical components may be placed in various locations beneath a display. These components facilitate the operation and function of the electronic device. Some components of an electronic device that may be beneath an OLED display include processors, radio transmitters, batteries, speakers, cameras etc. Some of these components draw current and may warm during use. Some components, such as a processor or radio transmitter, may get particularly warm during use or extended use. As a result, portions of the display may also warm due to these warming components beneath the display. Moreover, because some components may warm more than other components, some portions of the display may warm more than other portions.

    Heat may affect characteristics of emitted light from OLEDs. In addition to accelerating aging, the color and brightness of light emitted by OLEDs may be affected by the operating temperature. The brightness of some OLEDs, particularly red OLEDs, may decrease as operating temperatures increase. Over time as each OLED ages due to use and temperature, images shown on parts of the display may appear different from the intended image. Controllers may make changes to compensate for such shifts in brightness and color. However, color and brightness shifts may occur differently across a display due to unpredictable use of each OLED and the components beneath each OLED.“

    As addition, one of the solution could be using of some sort of thermal sensors which open another problem of powering (and that's possible what BM engineers do right now being ashamed for their incompetency from our address).

  4. I really got it and agree (who would not) - it would be much better if/that Pocket cameras have 1000 nit screen.

    But here I see two moments - first, it becomes discussion in absolute terms, and to my logic I find it ok just if BM is used merely as represent of all camera makers. Because there's no any better screen anywhere in comparative camera world, actually it seems that BM has the best one quality at the moment, and surely quasi revolutionary the biggest. Every camera that I had was unusable 3.x inch screen in daylight, and seems that it is trend to be continued with so called beasts and monsters.

    Second, I think it's no so easy to comment all engineering tasks without being extremely high specialized in every of aspects (including mutual dependency) of their multi collaborative work. As everybody know better than me, camera is now highly sophisticated computer, heat dissipator and transmitter, optical instrument, net of different wired and wired protocols, field of chips etc - so it is easily possible that any mm more in body size (battery wise) makes the whole out of balance, especially when goal is to keep it "pocket".

    Third, I can comment Grant Petty even professionally, but I'm afraid that my CEO here will send me again  Amy Winehouse as  lovely gift :)

  5. It's not a question about powering just screen but powering balance in system as whole. And it's hard for me to see why it is question addressed to camera maker that made still one and first breakthrough to 5 inch screen in comparative cameras world.

    OLEDs are much more sensitive to heat (here from inside camera processes), especially regarding more pronounced danger of burn-in images.

    Really, why BM engineers didn't use respectively the most expensive and more vulnerable screen technology two years ago, found a place for NFP 9900 battery, why they didn't consider electronic viewfinder, hinge-on screen and find  at the same time way how to protect themselves not to be criticized why body is not more boxy? 

    Maybe answer is that they just wanted to keep price at 1300$ P4K level with 60p 4k RAW, USB disk writing, full HD 5 inch extremely sensitive-accurate screen, slot for CFAST card, invention of n in house brilliant codec, give free Resolve, free firmware anamorphic updates, with well founded strategic idea to sell bigger quantity for lowest possible comparative profit margin - and not to fulfill all our dreams?

  6. I guess they think as I wrote - screen is bonus for 1200$, average 500-600 nit, even 1000 external monitors are not so common.

    But it seems they actually robbed so many of us for 1200$ with their black magic that even not give best and more power hungry screen at the moment.

    And what rests than to use non-offensive paraphrase: surprised Blackmagic haven't considered superior common sense attempts from you, instead of my weird Alcatel-level one.

  7. 2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    So it is 625?

    Or 1290?

    I don't know - I have Alcatel from 2012 :)

    Apple promises a maximum brightness of 625 nits for the iPhone 11 and screen contrast ratio of 1400:1. We measured 644 nits of maximum brightness and combined with the not so dark blacks, the contrast ratio turned out 1500:1.

  8. As far as is written Apple promised that mighty iPhone 11 will have 625 nit screen. Actually, BM screen is around the same max nit value. Anything less than 1000 is unusable on sunny day. Also common sense type 2 may say that 5 inch screen on hinge doesn't allow enough comfortable  (or not at all) usage of HDMI, audio, usb, power connectors - it obviously could be made, but for the price that some other type of usage must be severely sacrificed.

    Of course, having suggest potential arguments of common sense type 2, I'll also wish that screen has 1000 nit. But it seems to me that BM treat screen as not too important bonus addition. Iтt could really be matter of preferences - wouldn't it be actually better if there's not any screen, and instead of it just box as Z-cam: even  without it, price is 800e different. They choose to put screen, as step toward casual and travel shooter, or shooting on tripod in interiors  - they might choose also to cut screen for easier rigging and gimbal usage, but it might be solution for new addition to Micro-type line.

    At any case, if there are obvious logic argument for any side of proposed solution, I simply can't call any as lack of common sense.

      

  9. It could be much more than 40$ - something about much more power needed for such monitor that make out of balance in total for all components. I escaped of buying 2200 nit monitor because of very high consuming power vs other of 1000 nit. It could change whole circuit concept started for cooling, distributing power for other tasks etc. At least we can see how great it might be 5 inch monitor, it seems that others still don't think at all about it in their bombastic announcing. And not strangely, first who may give us step further in that direction, is again from m43 camp, i. e. Sharp. I'm pretty sure that BM unique philosophy exactly is not to cripple anything - but, contrary, being in constant rush to be the first to give everything they at the moment have in operative disposal.

  10. 12 hours ago, eleison said:

    Benefits of a larger sensor:
    1) Environmental portraits in film subjects causing shots to be more intimate.
    2) In general, you don't have to break down walls because the lens are wide enough to cover the subject.
    3) Obviously, bokeh; when the film/story calls for it, you will have it in spades.
    4) in general, low light is better in bigger sensors.
    5) taking pictures on a full frame sensor has the same aesthetics as taking pictures with a "quality" full frame image camera (5d2, d850, etc..) - basically, the full frame sensor acts like a hybrid image acquisition tool (both images and video).

     

    Thanks. Since I asked question, just to note that, of course, all that points I had in mind, calculating and testing - as much as I know everybody here know about UW and extremely fast lenses in m43 camp. To sum up practical usage, I'd say that all of points belong to easier/more pronounced way to get some special effects. I could also put 5 analogue points that, contrary, can m43 do with easier/more pronounced way to get some other special effects, regarding rolling shutter, easier manipulation of DOF vs ISO for focusing, special macro usage, distant shooting etc. - but I'd not to go far away from topic.

    My point was that m43 cameras/lenses combination are today totally  capable to achieve identical result as FF cameras at the most demanding movie making tasks. I mean, without any any compromise. But for the 2-3x less money and less clumsy bagage, what is important for me in particular.

    I'm assuming that nobody here is in love with camera, including me. My sole interest is how to convey mine ideas in art form of movie without compromising them technically, concerning modern field standard - but for the less money. That's why I make accent to the price that seems maybe banal, but, luckily, today could be crucial to be disscussed.

    In that regard, for some of mine ideas for the project I desperately need proper parfocal  zoom - and at the moment I can get both Dzofilm zooms of range 10-70 for less price (3100 dollars) than one Fujinon that even is not FF (neither Tokina's nor Sigma's)! If you need similar zoom at the field - and this is much more important and frequent demand than effects of bokeh used as, say, in Anderson's Master - you have to pay at least 12000euros/dollars

    That's I call logic argument for stance that, actually,  m43 (mostly) or APS-C (less complete and more expensive in concerning offer) are formats where lies money to be spent (of course at user base that being target with dslr-form or similar video/cinema cameras, and that probably is best represented here in EOSHD) - and that's what, sadly, imho in their marketing projections understand just Blackmagic and Chinese companies, (I hope Panasonic also) probably Fuji, but, again, in lesser degree and ready potential at the moment.

  11. 2 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

    I hope this puts a fire under the butts of Panasonic to really come out swinging (maybe for the last time) with a MFT camera that does the GH line proud. It has to compete with BM cameras as far as codec and Image quality.

    They could do it by adding practical features that every person would use: internal NDs, improved IBIS, better AF, better screen and EVF, 6K options, and perhaps ProRes.

    If it needs a bigger body that’s fine. Most of the savings with MFT is in lenses (especially as you scale to telephoto). They already have small MFT GX10 coming...

    If idea for GH6 is to exist (it seems so surely) at the moment it has to be already in phase of testing/resolving what final specs they want to incorporate in it or cripple from it.

    But, as I wrote, imho, all of the main Japanese companies lost their mind - I mean, proper market estimation/orientation. World is moving toward more democratization and more creative appetite from mass willing to be more distinguished from mobilephone users, where close-to-cinema-quality video-for-all is nearest future and the most potent market with money ready to be spent - but people nowhere are not becoming richer, just low middle class could be more numerous. Instead to approach closer to that market as Blackmagic and Chinese companies more recently try, biggest Japanese companies (Fuji is not so big) choose to compete toward niche-ization and higher profit margin per one camera. Panasonic already doesn't know what to do with unsold EVA1, selling of FF line is, as expected especially for first steps, disaster, they lost their pace with GH5s... which is so pity, as they didn't already found great formula with GH line.

    If all of them proceed to be so stubborn (covering loss with profit from other divisions those who have it), next we will again have topic with 1 million views and comments about new iteration of, say, BM Micro as best selling and best targeting model in spite of reliability issues, and endless talking about specs of others while truly buying them just by few.

    From my modest experience to the date, that include just range from all m43 cameras to C200 and Ursa 4.6k, I'm really curious to finally know and learn (honestly and seriously) what explicitly is comparative advantage of FF dlsr-form camera over m43 GH6 or Pocket type and cappability for video or movie making, at the current moment of their sensor sensitivity evolution, existing of plethora of brilliant low light lenses, and even cheap proper cinema parfocal zoom lenses? Maybe one percent cleaner image while all are trying to escape from oversharp images putting Pro Mist filters as relief? To spent 5-6000e or so for what as better, otherwise non-achievable result? What I'm missing? 

  12. 21 minutes ago, rawshooter said:

    The problem is that Canon, like all big camera manufacturers, uses an ASIC architecture for the camera electronics and signal processing: single-purpose boards where most functions are hard-wired, generally resulting in smaller bodies, less cooling and is cheaper to manufacture in high volumes. To implement ProRes, Canon would need to develop a new ASIC from scratch, which is expensive (and is only done every couple of camera generations, for all Canon SLR and mirrorless cameras).

    Blackmagic, Arri and RED and other smaller manufacturers use FPGA instead of ASIC: basically, fully programmable boards (or mini computers) where new codecs and functions can be implemented in software. While FPGAs are more flexible and cheaper to develop initially, they are larger, require more cooling andbigger camera housings, and are more expensive to manufacture per piece than ASICs.

    The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K and 6K cameras are good examples for thosr advantages and disadvantages of the FPGA architecture.

    The Sigma fp is a good example for the advantages of ASIC (smaller body with a full frame sensor), but also for the disadvantages (lots of limitations that likely can't be fixed in firmware).

     

    Great, thanks! Do you maybe know what architecture use Kinefinity or Z-cam?

  13. 29 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    But you talk about achievable tools for target market - indie and aspiring filmmakers - we need IBIS, we need an EVF, and a screen visible in daylight. We also need the option for a sensor larger than S35. When does ticking off a specs sheet become innovation? I see the EOS R5 specs less as a trophy item, more of an all-guns blazing approach vs Blackmagic's paired back cost cut mission.

    Probably shame on me, but I have to admit that I see m43 as quite enough and the most capable sensor for getting comparative advantages at the moment - for concerning user base :) Although, I could compare my own shooting experiences with just two proper cine-cameras: Canon C200 (marvelous) and Ursa 4.6k (great but clumsy) - sadly, never touched any ARRI or RED, but I'm expecting better days...

    But, if I understand well, first of all we yet don't know too much about EOS R5 (from experience dubious) implementations of specs (but I read that new DX3 write raw at 2500mb). Second, it'll be above 5-6000e without rigging, without professional audio solution, without ND, etc... so bare trophy to show other who (think) is the boss :) Third, at the moment of this all-guns blazing Billy the Kid seeing the market, (say) Kinefity Mavo's will be three years old or mature.

  14. 24 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    We are talking top end cutting edge mirrorless cameras not consumer low-end.

    I am talking about successors of cameras that founded EOSHD as truly user-base of aspiring indie community who actually will buy it, not just blabbing and salivating about specs. Problem exactly and indeed is: they are more and more becoming as trophy items, not a really achievable tools for targeting market. I have no problem with it, but just look at results of your voting list about actually used camera here.

     

  15. 38 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    "EOSHD" all capitals.

    They are not more inventive. They just understand the appeal to filmmakers, enthusiasts and videographers, of the phrase "Cinema Camera" and the codec options "ProRes and RAW", for cheap.

    Things that so far completely allude the Japanese!

    ...that understanding is also sort of comparative inventiveness.

    But - writing to external USB disk? Inventing own property brilliant RAW codec? (Even Z-cam keep evolving it also.) Plethora of open protocols? Establishing another type of connecting to external monitor - as Z cam? Come on...

     

  16. Imho nothing special but to put the price way way lower. They all share and could use pretty the same technology. With 5000-7000e price range of bodies and 2000+e for lens, regarding their logical targeting market - well represented here in EosHD - it seems to me that they all lost their mind or fall in self-obsessed narcissism, looking just to each other - who has the most pompous announce and spectacular advertising. And watch  how Blackmagic and other more flexible and more inventive newcomers eat their market.

  17. It would be so nice if they could make some joint venture or so deal with Blackmagic. At least they share for the moment some influential ambassadors.

    It seems as that, for some reason, they are not allowed to put at least one 10bit (24p) recording option. Having IBIS that now reach gimbal level but with more natural movement,  being best waterproof in a whole with lenses (plus not so extremely expensive underwater adds) , Olympus could be very special and unique tool for indie's just with base 10bit solution.

  18. 1 hour ago, eleison said:

    Things that I learned in this thread.  Blackmagic needs to treat Andrew better and send him a free, pristine, flawlessly built camera (ursa/pocket/etc.)  because there is much hate in him towards BMD even though both are catering to the same gear heads.

    I thought something similar, but in a meanwhile I learned that them (BM) are arseholes, and those who don't see them exactly as such, must see them (BM) as the messiah.

     

  19. 1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

    If you enjoy your Blackmagic don't let my experiences stop you... But let they be a lesson for Blackmagic to improve their lot.

    If it might be word of compassion - I think that buyers of BM cameras (me personally had 8 during time) are much much more aware of all of that than you (judging from lines of worry) assume. Actually, imho that's the main reason of bad selling P6K - not just because of 2800e  as initial price, but because it is 2800 for product of BM... that as company is far away of having reputation of  highest reliability, regarding many different aspects (but also with great history of update improvements). But, I think that BM will not improve their at all.

    Simply, somebody without stable income of camera-usage is willing to take even a, say, 70-30% risk for 1200e of marvelous technology, but not at all for 2800e after carefully reading whole experiences at all forums. (Especially in Western countries, where there's easy way for reclamation and where,  to be honest, there are also many positive reviews of BM readiness to help.) Or, from another side - it is great to try Z-cam e2, but its not so easy when, for the same money, you can buy P4k with best raw codec plus, say, Olympus 12-100. Why such total newcomer, even without proper established selling network in EU, has to be so much more expensive? Who will not buy instantly Panasonic GHx with same recording capabilities with same sensor and processing power as P4K for 800e more? But such camera doesn't exist, exclusively by the will of Panasonic - choice was to ask 2500e for less capable same cine-type product. Panasonic plays its own market game, as BM his. I'm totally cold to them all.

    And that's also all about real reason for quasi David vs Goliath argumentation -  not as apologize, but as anatomy of one's game - it seems to me that BM, simply, even if actually wishing to be better, has no enough resources for better quality control, while being at the same time devoted with full forces to bring proper biggest-guys technology to a hands of just aspiring mm community... moreover including for free (even bizarre-fast-evolving ) software(s) that already destroys big-players as Flame, Avid, Premiere etc market. BM, even more than similar Fuji, has no luxury to lose market covering flops with other lines of products. BM choose to act fast, with mistakes, being in advantage to the shocking level. Fuji choose to be slower, little bit falling behind, but more credible. Having just one view at Petty's funny proudly-juvenal excitement while announcing his hurry-to-be-first-truly-missionary, or big-shaking-experience cameras - and it will be clear what to expect next. The same story again: two steps ahead with list of advantages, one step or two behind in term of reliability. If you, little Joe, want to shoot raw at the field, you have to keep praying that BM camera will not break down at crucial moment (also you always have to have one BM in reserve).

    That's BM psychology, its market and dignity gambling. Before we make our breakthrough to Oscar, every of us simply has to choose his/her own poison.

     

×
×
  • Create New...