Mmmbeats
-
Posts
414 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Mmmbeats
-
-
Getting quite tempted by these. One note though - don't go diving with your 8000, as unlike the 5000, it's weather-proof rather than waterproof!
-
13 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:
The thing about the internal battery is that it's so light you can almost forget about it's existence. I haven't verified this, but I imagine the Stella with internal battery is lighter than the Boltzen even without an external battery attached!
I did some measurements that confirmed this. The Stella 1000 is significantly lighter.
Stella 1000 :
Fixture alone (including internal battery) - 310g
With Fresnel and AC power supply - 530g
Boltzen 30W (Daylight) :
Fixture alone - 990g
With AC power supply - 1550g
With Sony battery also (NP-F770) - 1770g
However the Boltzen is a much more powerful light, so perhaps the comparison is a bit redundant. Except that people are using them for a kicker / accent light, so if weight is a major concern (as it is for me) then you might find yourself looking at these two units in competition.
Lux at (1m / 3m) :
Stella 1000 @ 25˚ - (1000 / 113)
Boltzen 30W 15˚ - (18784 / 1889)
I've used the manufacturers claims for the output, rather than my own measurements.
-
52 minutes ago, salim said:
I think for a kicker / accent light the CRI (90) is fine. The thing about the internal battery is that it's so light you can almost forget about it's existence. I haven't verified this, but I imagine the Stella with internal battery is lighter than the Boltzen even without an external battery attached!
As to the personality of the CEO, I couldn't comment. These things put me off companies too from time to time, so I can sympathise. As you may know, they are bringing this all to film from their origins in scuba lights, and I think there are some innovations emerging as a result.
-
-
-
19 minutes ago, John Brawley said:
I’ve wanted to get one of these for a while but they’re 5k for the Eksovest.
https://eksobionics.com/eksoworks/
I spoke to one of their managers and he told me that Garret Brown (steadicam inventor) had been helping them design a rig for holding power tools. You can see the heritage in the link.
JB
Yowsers!
-
2 hours ago, Axel said:
This time I will not use a shoulder rig.I am already thinking about the right-arm-only "exoskeleton" isometric contractor. Imagine your right arm was in a sling made of rubber (problem with just a sling is that it will slip). To extend the arm to the position in which you can hold the camera, you'd need to use some force. And concentration. Left hand cradles the lens and pulls focus. Should be as lightweight and easy as possible. Any ideas/suggestions? Let's build this together!
If I'm understanding this correctly it actually sounds quite interesting. Are you proposing a strap or sling that would alleviate arm fatigue in a hand-held (or, I suppose, chest rig) setup? Got a diagram?
-
Does anybody have any experience / info on the battery life of the GH5S compared to the GH5 and GH4. The GH4 has *insane* battery life, but the GH5 has significantly less, which we were told was largely due to feeding IBIS. How does the GH5S rate on that scale?
-
1 hour ago, Luke Mason said:
They measured absolute dynamic range, which they did not do for Alexa: https://tech.ebu.ch/files/live/sites/tech/files/shared/tech/tech3335_s11.pdf If they used the same method from the GH5S test to evaluate Alexa, it would have easily reached 15+ stops of dynamic range.
Any chance you could explain in simple terms what the difference between the two methods is?
-
The author admits that his resolution calculations are speculative. That won't have affected the outcome of his tests though.
-
2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:
I don't know, these aren't my questions, I'm just keeping track of them.
I don't have time to go back and like all those posts, but just to let you know - I like all those posts!!!
- graphicnatured and hansel
-
2
-
One thing to note about Mitch Gross is that he's the *cinema* production manager at Panasonic, and as such has no responsibility for the GH5 or GH5S. I don't know what the context of that comment is, but I've very rarely seen him drawn into comment on the consumer range.
He is someone who would likely know what they're talking about on this topic though. I believe he spent the previous while working for atomos on their recorders.
-
4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:
Yes but to use it you Have to use the Adobe Media Encoder. That adds another step, adding to render times. But you are right, it is possible.
I don't think you do. Never used the codec, but as it's fully supported I imagine you can just import the files like any other format.
-
11 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:
@Mmmbeats - I guess you're right, it just doesn't seem to have any benefits to the workflow right now. Can't hurt to stick with it though I suppose.
As far as I know ProRes is not supported in Windows via any properly licensed means. There are a few apps that convert or support it, but I don't think they use an official licence (from Apple) so it's all a bit dodgy.
-
2 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:
After shooting some tests, I found shooting DNxHD on the Assassin gives me .MOV files anyway, so I might as well stick with ProRes and encode to our .mxf format. At least that way I can review them in quick look on my laptop after a shoot. Thanks for the advice @webrunner5
No, I think you were right first time. It's ProRes that is difficult to implement on Windows, not QuickTime files themselves (which work just fine in Premiere). I'd learn about DNxHR flavours if I were you, as it is no longer just an Avid-facing format as far as I am aware. I use CineForm as an intermediate codec, which works very well for me, but would add a transcode to your workflow that you probably don't want or need.
-
I'm excited by the GH5S to the point that I'll probably pick one up this year. But one thing does trouble me a little...
Somebody on here a while back (sorry, I have searched but I can't find the post) was ranting about the noise reduction leaving a soft, waxy image. I kind of dismissed this, as I'd seen, and am continuing to see, so much excellent footage from the camera. However, some of the images that I see that have been marked as being 6400 ISO and higher do seem to suffer a bit from that 'noise reduction smoothness look'. Any thoughts or experiences?
-
The original comment that I thought was debatable was that FF has more impact on picture quality than bit depth (8-bit compared to 10-bit); that's what I found contentious. But I do think it's become a bit of a derail at this stage.
-
I agree there's a dip. I've never done a side-by-side, but the little I shot, and watching others footage, I'd say you lose around a stop. BMPCC footage in Prores easily bests GH4 / GH5 for DR in my experience.
-
It's also based on my practical experience of using Sony, Panasonic and Blackmagic cameras over the past few years. There are definitely areas in which the FF bodies have had an advantage, but I'm convinced that people have become seduced by the 'bigger is better' hype, and lost all sense of objectivity. I hear and read people tying themselves in knots trying to convince that sensor size itself bestows advantages that it does not.
-
No, I'm quite happy to base my knowledge on industry stalwarts like Adam Wilt, thankyou. And confident in sharing his contributions with others. He's clearly a great deal better informed than your good self
.
I'd love to know what you mean by 'all else' in your phrase above? Surely you don't mean codec? There's plenty of footage from the BMPCC for example recorded on Prores (obv. not RAW) that still displays high dynamic range. You (and others) might have to revise your thinking a bit.
-
I'm picking up a point that @markr041 made about sensor size, which I'm interested in since it's relevant to this conversation about the GH5S, and particularly peoples' misconceptions of it. Join in, or don't - but don't tell me where to post.
-
There seem to be quite a few people here who are under the impression that some of the achievements of Sony's camera's, such as dynamic range, are due to the size of the sensor. DR is inherently initially a product of the sensor (retained or reduced during compression). That's why I pointed out the BMPCC's relatively tiny sensor's ability to produce wide dynamic range - it is not a quality inherent in full-frame sensor acquisition.
-
Full Frame does not confer more detail, or dynamic range. Low light sensitivity I'll go with. And DoF - but APS-C cameras provide more than adequate DoF options.
There are some fantastically well-featured FF cameras about - but people seem to think that some of their features are a function of Full frame itself. This isn't the case. If you think that Full Frame = superior dynamic range then you should take a look at how the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera performs in this regard as a starting point.
-
No, my point is, the actual advantages to visual quality that come directly from FF. A lot of those qualities are not inherent to FF or caused by it.
Stella Pro LED Lights
In: Cameras
Posted
Do you have any detailed info or a link about the differences between the 5000 'Classic' and the 5000 RF? I'm thinking about getting the classic, but want to know more about the CRI change you mention.