Mark Romero 2

15 hours ago, Matthew Hartman said:

@Dan Wake

Please understand that if you've never used a motorized gimbal before, do not use it without some practice first. These things are great, but they're no magic bullet. Keep your knees bent and walk heel to toe. You'll look like a complete derp, but your footage will thank you in post. 

LOL!

Yes, if you DON'T look like a complete derp, then you are doing it wrong.

On the other hand, just because one normally looks like a derp doesn't mean one will be naturally good at using a gimbal 

2 hours ago, Matthew Hartman said:

Whatever source is providing the ambient lighting, there looks like there's some serious diffusion going on. The shadows have a very soft falloff rate and thats complimenting the modern structures and decor. It's giving it a "clean" look. I'm sure with modern interior design, these types of videos sell the cool factor all on their own. 

In some of the shots the sky is on the verge of clipping so it tells me they shot to the right a little. I don't do real estate so I have no idea if this is a common trend or technique, but I'm guessing seeing the details of the property is pretty important, rather than say the sky? 

On your own example you need to work on your gimbal skills a little. The movement is not seamless and steady. You seem to speed up, then slow down at various intervals, it stood out to me right away. Also, you pan rather quickly, compared to the other example video, is that intentional? When you walk with the gimbal, are you doing the heel to toe method? 

 

@Matthew Hartman Thanks for chiming in.

Usually, for probably MOST real estate videos, they don't take the time (and effort) to light them. I have shot some homes that go for a couple or three million dollars, and the agents want you in and out quickly.

Now the house they shot in LA is probably several million, so maybe they allowed them to take more time and set up some lights.

Usually you are right, the interior is what matters, but a lot of times it is balancing the actual interior "flow" (how the rooms connect to one another) and also just trying to sell the feel of the place, which would mean the views. You know how they say "sell the sizzle not the steak? Well, in real estate you kind of have to sell both the sizzle and the steak.

(Although I know one company in LA that basically sell just the lifestyle aspect. They will have a couple of actors who are acting like they live there. Snuggling on the couch, drinking merlot, having a mini food fight, it looks more like a bad viagra commercial than a real estate video. But, who am I to judge???

Thank you for being polite when you say I "need to work on my gimbal skills a little." That's a little bit of an understatement Yeah, i am still trying to get it down. I think it is a combination of pilot error and having to calibrate the gimbal. Also maybe shoot at 30fps and then slow down to 24fps to smooth things out a little. I always seem to pan a bit too fast. I do try to keep the knees bent and walk heel to toe. Now that the weather is a bit nicer, going to have to practice some more.

Thanks again.

10 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Its not insanely high. The good old bmpcc could pull that of imo.

Thanks for the note, Mattias. I Always appreciate your input.

So you would guess that in the top video I linked to, the dynamic range is close to 13 stops?

(I assume this because I am familiar with your video comparing the dynamic range of the D750 to the BMPCC shot in prores and RAW).

THINKING OUT LOUD TO MYSELF: If it is about 13 stops, then I would have to shoot in Slog 2 on my a6500 to get that range

6 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

It could be any combination of the following:

- Well lit houses with plenty of light coming from the large windows 

- Using lights to bring the inside/outside closer

- High dynamic range camera with log/Raw 

 

For example in my house, I can achieve this effect with fairly large and plenty windows + slog2 with A7rII. 

Thanks for the reply, Don. I appreciate it.

Does they sky look like S Log 2 in the shots where the interior and exterior looks pretty well exposed? I have only briefly used S Log 2 and it hasn't been good for me, so I am not sure what to expect using it out.

Just now, froess said:

Time of day will be your friend. Doesn't hurt to have big windows like the ones on the first video.

On your work, some shots you have very hot buildings outside but not enough light inside to compensate, so you have to compromise.

Choose the time of day wisely and it will be easier to balance inside and outside. Don't fight the sun, use it.

 

 

Thanks very much for the suggestions. I definitely see what you are saying where the views of the buildings outside the window are very hot.

Yeah, time of day is important.

Thanks again.

Firstly, sorry if this belongs in Shooting sub-forum instead of the main forum.

I am wondering if anyone has an idea / suggestions for getting as much dynamic range as this video has (comparing the scenes where the interior of the house and the exterior sky can both be seen).

I shoot real estate videos as well with my a6500, and I am not able to get that kind of DR. I either have blown out highlights or need to bring the shadows up so much that the image really falls apart.

If I were to guess, it looks to me like the tonal range of the sky is quite compressed.  Is it something like Cine 1 ??? or S LOG??? Or something else???

Here's a sample of a recent video I shot for comparison (I shot using Version 2 of EOSHD Pro Color for Sony Cameras), which if your familiar with for the a6500, is MAYBE not optimized for highlight compression??? (My understanding is it might be geared more toward preserving shadows instead of highlights, but I have been wrong many times in the past. Apologies in advance if this is incorrect)

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this. (or general feedback / critiques / suggestions on my video are all appreciated as well).

2 hours ago, Merlando said:

 

Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera, Panasonic Leica 15mm/25mm/42.5mm Lenses.

Nice. I like it.

No more parties in Saskatchewan???

13 minutes ago, Emberlain said:

I sent you a pm about some great lights that Ive purchased. Took a chance on one and liked it so much I went back for a second.

Yes, thank you. They aren't exactly what I had in mind, but they might work if I have to scratch the first choices off of my list and got to a plan B.

Thanks again.

Well... my search for a good, cheap, and quiet bowens-mount LED here in the states has turned out to be kind of a bust. hard to find PixaPros here, and the Godox appear to be too loud (and have too inconsistent color).

So I am looking for ideas for practical lights to join my two yongnuo led panels (YN600L)

Anyone have some suggestions for any DIY or inexpensive lights with LED bulbs and good CRI?

Mostly would be doing waist-up interviews with people in their homes.

Thanks in advance.

3 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

C100 internally is recording 8-bit 420, and externally is 8-bit 422

Oh... what I meant was, how many Mbs is the codec? Is the external 8-bit 422 ProRes?

Also, was hoping someone could point out the OPTICAL differences in those two tiff files. I downloaded them and looked at them and couldn't really see a difference. Maybe someone can help me look at what part of the photos that the optical differences are most apparent.

57 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

I just took the C100 and shoot the sun with internal recording 8-bit 420 and external recording 8-bit 422, then in resolve I took the same frame for both recording and exported as TIFF, I see some difference but minimal, and I don't see the extreme banding showed before.... @cantsin probably you could play with the files and see how bad is really the banding in C-log...

8-bit 420

c-log 420_1.1.1.tif

8-bit 422

c-log 422_1.1.2.tif

 

I'm sure it's there, but I have a hard time seeing the differences exactly. Maybe someone could point them out to me?

Also, what is the bit rates of the C100 when recording internally 420 and recording externally 422? Guess I could look them up but too lazy 

@hempo22

Thanks for the smiles!!! The 1:28 mark is a classic!!!

Yup, good story, good acting, and good audio (despite the lack of talking, I thought the audio was really nice. Great ticking clock in the background) trump camera resolution and VFX.

6 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

The problem with 8 bit vs 10 bit argument is how the footage is being shot. People shoot underexposed with the totally incorrect white balance and try to wrestle with it in post and complain that 8 bit isn’t good enough. Well the same thing happens with 10 bit footage shot in correctly and underexposed you just get a billion shades of crap color over the 16.7 million in 8 bit. If you shoot as close to the final look as possible you literally cannot go wrong in post. If you are trying to convert from one color space to another using a LUT thats a different story. 

I usually shoot a good rec709 image and adjust it properly in post and im fine. You probably wont be able to tell the difference between my 14bit raw footage. It all comes from a 14bit sensor anyway 

When you say that you usually shoot a good rec709 image, do you literally mean you are using the 709 gamma? Or do you mean more like you try to get a shot where all the dynamic range is going to fit into rec709 easily? Or something else that I am missing entirely?

All the videos posted look really good, but can someone post something a little bit more... uplifting??? I have become a total cream puff since my son was born (12 years ago now).

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

On the end where he is using that duster on the green screen he says there IS a big difference between 8 bit and 10 bit internal,  compared to external, and states he doesn't know why??? WTF LoL. How many of us shoot with a external recorder, not many of us. So to me he is Way off to advertise there is no reason to go 10 bit, or even 4.2.2 video!

If that was the case nobody in the world would ever buy a External Recorder. Atomos would be out of business. Now I know he states IF you don't use a LuT or basically edit the footage, well who doesn't do that other than grandma. I used to follow that guy years ago, but he seems to not be as reliable as he should be to state a bunch of stuff on there that he is not a wiz at. And lets face it hardly anyone is a wiz at all aspects of video.

Yeah, i guess he kind of equivocated there. He DID mention (and show) a BIG difference in the noise levels, but then went on to imply that noise "is not that big of a big deal.

BTW: Hope you have some lenses for your a7S. Those Sony lenses ain't cheap. Heck, even the aps-c lenses for my crop-sensor a6500 are pricey Be sure to buy an extra lotto ticket for me

Hmmm...

Wolfcrow seems to imply that there isn't much of a difference 150Mbs 10-bit and 150Mbs 8 bit. He said he expected a bigger difference between 8 and 10-bit footage after upgrading to the 400Mbs codec (although it doesn't look like he actually made a video comparing the differences between 8-bit and 10-bit at 400Mbs).

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

Agreed, but those certain conditions don't happen a lot on the stuff I shoot, so 8-bit 4k for me!

After effects + masking w/blur, NR, layer blending, and adding grain.  The usual.  No secret.

Thanks for the tips on dealing with it.

17 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I believe “thin” is a term taken from film development. A thin negative is underexposed, and can’t be processed or manipulated without introducing photochemical artifacts (grain, color isses, etc.). So a thin digital file is any that's hard to work with in post without introducing artifacts (banding, grain, color problems, etc.). I believe "thin" generally refers to exposure problems and/or problems with the file itself (low bitrate, low bit depth, etc.).

The confusing thing is that some digital cameras look good overexposed (ETTR), particularly raw cameras like the Red, whereas other cameras with heavily compressed log codecs will be “thin” in the highlights. So overexposing will introduce the most banding and the worst colors there. Sony cameras also seem to need the right white balance, whereas with Red you can change it with little penalty other than noise. But then the Sonys have way better low light.

The best solution is to know your camera well and is expose properly and white balance properly. (I set my white balance to 5600K and then forget it most of the time, but it depends on the camera.) You might also consider an external recorder if you're going crazy in post. I've seen very good A7S footage from external recorders, but shot by DPs way more technical than me! Some crazy stuff with a Q7+ and a custom LUT that pulled SLOG2 two stops from 3200 ISO to 800ISO. Looked really nice.

There are good debanding tools in Resolve, I believe. I’ve never had a problem with banding in footage, so I’ve never used them. In After Effects you can use the scatter plug in on gradients (not ideal), or Sapphire deband (expensive, but should be excellent). But I think Resolve has a debanding tool that's good?

Fwiw, I disagree with an earlier post claiming that 10 bit acquisition is unheard of on big productions. I’m mostly a hobbyist but the bigger stuff I work on (not as a director or DP) is always either 10 bit ProRes or RAW acquisition, I wold say more than 99% of the time. 

Thanks for the clarification and thanks for the thoughts on how to deal with banding. Hopefully debanding is in the free version of resolve.

5 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

There's no simple answer here...

...Imo, 10 bit vs 8 bit is hugely overrated and essentially a moot point. But it's one of many many factors that are responsible for thin footage from certain cameras. Rent and run your own tests. And yes, the A7 line in SLOG 2 can exhibit serious banding. You can clean it up in post, though (with other tools than noise reduction, generally), or shoot to mitigate it. But it is absolutely a problem with those cameras, and whether it's a problem for you or you're fine dealing with it in post when it appears, is up to you.

Thanks for sharing your insights and for the advice.

A few follow up questions if I may;

Could you better define "thin footage" for me? I hear lots of people says this (in particular about 8-bit footage), but I never seem to get a clear idea of what specifically they mean. Does the footage lack saturation? Vibrancy? Accutance? DR? A combination of missing a little bit of a LOT of things? (meaning, a combination of lacking a bit of contrast, a bit of vibrancy, a bit of saturation, a bit of DR?)

Also, regarding ways to clean up banding in post. Besides the aforementioned noise reduction in post, what other ways are there to deal with it?

And finally, you mentioned "shoot to mitigate it." Any tips on how to shoot to mitigate it?

Thanks in advance.

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Practically, I don't need it.  IF a shot has a gradient that creates banding I can fudge over it with some post voodoo.  Or, more likely, just live with it.

Can you sahre any of your secret sauce for taking care of it in post??? Thanks in advance.

5 hours ago, Zak Forsman said:

We just had an interview graded with the director of a big franchise release that was shot on an A7RII in SLog. Producer says he was surprised because this shooter was supposed to bring an FS7. The interviewee was wearing a black shirt that was reflecting some purple/pink gelled light (the movie has a vibrant color palette) but the shadows were a disaster because of this. Noise, no tonality, just crunchy garbage. There was also a skin tone issue with a lack of tonality between yellows and pinks. Colorist did what he could to clean it up. Keep an eye open for an HBO First Look debuting in a week to see what i mean.

Thanks for the tip.

1 hour ago, jagnje said:

10 bit is just as unheard off on big produstions as 8 bit is, by no means is regarded as a pro bit depth.

Don`t expect miracles with it, in most cases it is prety much the same. Most diference from what I notice is 422 vs 420. 

Thanks for the insights.

I am surprised about the difference between 4:2:2 and 4:2:0

14 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

People is crazy, y'all.

Indeed!

What season / episode have you made it up to in The Wire??? Far and away one of the best television series ever made.

I remember in the book about the series, the dp was asked about how he made the dreary settings in the wire so authentic, and he replied, "I'm an expert in ugly."

6 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

NX1 !! Because I do not have to spend money on a hybrid for another year, and can continue "invest" on lights, sound and upgrading my editing machines.

(I bet you saw that coming!)

Unless, of course, the NX2 comes out soon...

At what point does one really NEED 10-Bit 4K?

How serious does your grading have to be for 8-bit to not work well?

Is Sony's 8-bit slog 4:2:0 really that prone to banding?

(I read through the recent thread about "converting" 8-bit to 10-bt using noise removal software, and thought it has some potential for Sony cameras, although not technically converting to 10-bit.)

Thanks in advance.

a7 III

51 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

I think you are misreading the press release - I believe it is saying that the 4k 30fps is oversampled 1.6x

Ahh... thanks for the clarification.

So, according to the press release, 30fps @ 4K appears to have a 1.6X crop (don't know if that is standard with ALL sony full frame cameras, so that might not be a surprise to others).

Good to see a BSI sensor in a camera for $2,000

Did they say what the readout time of the sensor is? The a6300 / a6500 oversample from 6K and they have pretty heinous rolling shutter.

I just don't see Nikon being able to top this with a full frame mirrorless at this price point any time soon (if that is even in the cards now). Maybe if they somehow get AWESOME autofocus using all their AF-S and AF-D lenses (of which there are many), then it might. But who knows. Not a hater. Hoping Nikon competes.

5 minutes ago, alexO said:

Too bad 1.2x crop in 30fps. Most likely meaning that readout could not keep up in 30fps, as a result expecting high rolling shutter on the level of 35ms(similar to a6300/a6500). 

Quote from  dpreview: "24p 4K video is taken from a 6K region of the sensor, while 30p shooting comes from a roughly 5K region with a 1.2x crop".

Hmmm... the press release they linked to says this:

Quote

 

In video mode, the camera uses full pixel readout without pixel binning to collect about 2.4x[xiii] the amount of data required for 4K movies, and then oversamples it to produce high quality 4K footage with exceptional detail and depth.

Footnote:
[xiii] 24p recording. Approx. 1.6x at 30p.

 

Here is the press release:

https://***URL removed***/news/8128895545/sony-launches-a7-iii-sub-2000-24mp-full-frame-mirrorless-with-a7r-iii-s-advances#_edn6

A 1.6X crop would make it super 35, wouldn't it? (Sorry if I am wrong; my maths is horrible.)

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

From, I don't want to post his name. He sort of got banned not long after this post for selling stuff that sort of ehh. But it has some interesting info in it...

Thank you for posting this. I remember seeing it a while back but it was SO MUCH info to digest (especially to someone who was newish to video and had only shot footage on a D7000... yuck). So I appreciate you looking for it and bringing it out of the catacombs. Makes a lot more sens now to me.

When he said best HD image = Canon 5D III, I am assuming he meant shooting in RAW, right??? (He mentioned "dealing with the downsides" so I guess that must be dealing with the RAW workflow.)

1 hour ago, Don Kotlos said:

I find the FF HD from A7rII much better than D750 as far as resolution goes. The Sony is almost as good as the oversampled image from A7sII in HD.

24/30 I haven't seen any difference but haven't used the 30p much. 

Thanks for posting this. Yeah the D750 isn't particularly sharp and I think the reason that it doesn't have too much noise is because there is a pretty strong noise reduction as you crank up the ISO in video, and it gets even softer. If memory serves, there was a time when I was shooting at about ISO 3200 and I kept checking focus because it so soft - even softer than my a6000 at 3200.

Is it too late to add a bonus question?

How does the 1080p of the a7R II (either  FF or super 35) compare to that of the D750?

And for the a7R 2, is there a big difference in quality between 24fps and 30fps?