Jump to content

Mmmbeats

Members
  • Posts

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mmmbeats

  1. 5 hours ago, omega1978 said:

    You can use clear image zoom in 4k 

     

    You can but I don't fully trust it.  It's nothing more than digital interpolation, though admittedly brilliantly implemented using AI.  I've steered clear of that kind of artifice so far, so I'd want to do a ton of testing before relying on it.  

  2. 8 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

    I’m talking about with a speedbooster. A S35 camera with a speed booster and a 35mm lens will look the same as a full frame camera with a 35mm lens. There is often a slight difference as most speedboosters reduce the crop slightly less than 1:1. 

    It's the same thing.  In both cases, all you are doing is seeing a wider portion of the same imaging circle, so naturally the depth of field does not change.

  3. Just now, TomTheDP said:

    What? Speedboosters effect DOF as well. A full frame camera and a S35 camera speedboosted with the same lens will look the same. 

    You're both right.  The reason is complicated.

    Basically -

    • same lens / different sized sensor = same DoF
    • same lens / same framing / different sized sensor = different DoF
  4. GH4 is simply a great camera.  It has massive usability with all the customisable buttons and menus.  The 4K image is really nice.  The battery life is simply insane.  Use genuine batteries and it is actually difficult to go through two in a single day.  Some shoot days pass without a battery change.  I've never owned a video camera of any kind that managed power like that.  Unfortunately the GH5 has not carried on that aspect.

    Only downsides - 8-bit internal only, and low-light performance, which is decidedly meh.  Any other omission is just a matter of need / taste / luxury really. 

  5. 6 hours ago, independent said:

    Quite a few successful docs and feature films were shot on the c300, including the Oscar winner OJ: Made in America and the great German film Victoria.

    Cameras get better, but talent stays the same. 

    Well if they had an Oscar category for tallest camera utilisation, it would have done pretty well too. 

  6. Just now, EphraimP said:

    Interesting. What were you building the C200 out, er, up with that you don't think you'd need on the C70? A lot of people do rig up hybrid/dslr cameras pretty tall, which is counter intuitive for getting stable in my opinion. Wide is better than tall and long is better than either.

    Well the C200 is already taller than the C70 before you add a monitor, SolidPod, etc.

  7. 5 hours ago, BenEricson said:

    Picked up my C70, Canon 24-105 F4 RF, and EF adapter. Did some quick tests with a 35mm F2 IS and one practical lamp in the living room. Color looks like normal Canon color to me. I'll hopefully have time to shoot more stuff tomorrow afternoon.

    Initial thoughts... Camera feels pretty nice in the hands. The custom presets are really crippled. They took away BT.709 / C-LOG 2. Also, for some reason clog 2 clips at 85 IRE. 

    There are a ton of options for removing all of the noise reduction and you can go all the way to -10 sharpening. I think lowering the in camera sharpness and pairing the camera with older lenses will help to get away from that plastic skin look.

    Practical.thumb.jpg.a86cb876b58893d06965fb5f1c897fe4.jpg

    Some good ideas there.

    This person has gotten quite organic footage by piling on the filters!
     

     

  8. On 11/12/2020 at 6:12 PM, BenEricson said:

    No. I notice the exact same issue with the C300 Mk3 as well. (same sensor.)

    I think the C300iii RAW looks really nice.  The C300iii is really the camera I want.  It's well out of my price range, but maybe I should just pull out all the stops and aim for it.  Apart from price (which I don't have too much complaint about, just can't afford) it ticks every box I can think of.

  9. 20 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

    There’s something wrong with this example you’ve shared. There’s some weird sharpening or bad compression severely affecting the image. Also the exposure for many of the shots is significantly off. 

    It's labelled as C70, but it might not be.  Lots of people spoof early-release cameras for clicks.

  10. I keep getting a bit worried/distracted/obsessed by the highlight rendition with this camera.  The wedding film, above, doesn't look as nice overall as the previous stills.  Don't get me wrong, it's a nice piece, and I'm sure the families will be delighted, but the highlights do look quite abruptly clipped in places, and it does lend it a bit of a DSLR-y feel.

    Am I being paranoid?

  11. 1 hour ago, BenEricson said:

    Man, I just don't see it. I love the specs, but a lot of this footage just reminds me of cheap DSLR footage with a poor attempt at a "film look." 

    The C300ii or older canon footage, (pre DGO sensor,) looks dynamic and beautiful with very accurate and balanced color.

    I do believe that you can a get a more neutral / classic look with this camera, but curious why a lot of the videos have a similar look. Maybe trying to grade a C-LOG2 file from scratch? 

    I've heard multiple people mention they love the IQ and the reviewer above is raving about it. The specs and size are great, and the images have a low noise floor, but do these images really knock people off their feet? All the praise over these images makes it sounds like we're all talking about the Komodo or something.

    https://vimeo.com/472141764 / More C70

    https://youtu.be/ohTfU1trOIo / Random C300 Mk2 video

    Well, you're not the only person saying it.  I'm still a bit torn.  I think it doesn't help much that most of the early films are by camera shops or YouTube types.  No disrespect to either, because they both play an important role, but neither group produces the most stunning images.

    I notice the (really nice) C300ii footage you linked from is by also a rental house, but they seem to turn out quite superior visuals!  😅 I enjoyed some of their other clips too!

×
×
  • Create New...