Jump to content

h00b00

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. h00b00

    Fuji X-T4

    X-T3 is already great for "normal" shoots but for better green screen work I'll take the 10bit HEVC long-GOP 6k24p 420 and 4k60p10bit 422 internally and a launch price of around $1500. I think the data rate should play well with a v90 UHS-II. In terms of a good key, the 4k RAW of BMPCC4K should tie with a 10bit 420 6k image. Oh and the faster processing should also help make autofocus on adapted lenses better. The EF-FX2 already does a decent job on current gen cameras.
  2. Lack of 24p doesn't affect me much as I do all my shoots in 25p. But the biggest feature that's missing from this camera's coverage is the support for clean, 10bit 422 HDMI out: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/learn/education/topics/article/2019/august/4k-and-full-hd-video-with-the-eos-m6-mark-ii/4k-and-full-hd-video-with-the-eos-m6-mark-ii/!ut/p/z0/lZDBboMwDIZfpT1wjJxVqGqPHahqp6KqN8gFeSQFj9ShEMr29st4gEkcP-uTf_8GBTkoxhfV6Mkx2sCF2pbZ7bQ7nRN5kellL2_X63t6PCbn-BDDB6j_hbBh02dJVoPq0DeC-O4g38i3PeQ41uPgIY9bgazFfbRWNFq8SBsnJgq2b4wwbhCPrXhg3wqipTYU9PV8qgOoyrE33yGuQnZcspkm81nOU_aR1FSTR1tagz0T15E0eqzmR6xC3op46KifOZLYe6qsGSL51yTw3CSSS25bZkPXqiL9mda_3X4sFA!!/ That and support for speed booster with DPAF makes this even better than EOS R in value. Yes, the 4K is pixel binned and there's no log profile (although Cinestyle/EOSHD clog can alleviate that somewhat) but full frame 10bit 4k with Canon colors, great Canon glass and dpaf is a pretty competitive feature set in 2019. I'd sell all my Sony gears (they're the new Canon) and switch to Fuji if it were not for their pricey lenses that autofocuses slowly in video; thankfully Canon has provided a decent option.
  3. Hey Andrew, forum noob here! This feature is quite interesting because it seems to use the entirety of GH5's 5184 x 3888 sensor. Now, I'm wondering whether using an 1.33x anamorphic adapter in 4:3 mode will give us a "wider" 16:9 footage (in addition to being 5K) than the internal 16:9 footage? My logic being that the internal 16:9 is obtained by cropping the height of the 4:3 sensor whereas the "anamorphic" 16:9 will be obtained by squeezing a wider image onto the whole-ish 4:3 sensor. 4:3 example: "Internal" 16:9 example (same setup/subject distance): I'm I wrong? I really won't mind the lengthy transcode of the HEVC, long-GOP footage if it means I'll get a wider and higher resolution result without the black bars. I'm not a fan of 2.39:1 but I do like the wider FOV of anamorphic sans the perspective distortion that comes with ultrawides and I'd like to get something similar on 1.78:1 with the GH5 (speed booster is expensive).
×
×
  • Create New...