kye

10 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I think webrunner5 might be one of these brand infiltrators Andrew was talking about.

Nah, stick around and you'll realise he's way to grumpy to be a believer in almost anything!!

Welcome to the forums.. home of nice people, good advice, and a bit of snark and hip-and-shoulder too

9 hours ago, Leica50mm said:

Sounded so good, i got one . Pocket Rocket . 

Awesome - what lens is that?

12mm and crazy fast?

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

Now that would be something.

Shallow DoF simulations in VIDEO will come, it's just about processing power.  My understanding is that they do it by having two cameras where one of them senses depth (could be wrong here) but basically they take two images and then do math to work out which bits they should blur.  With computing power going up steadily it's just a matter of time, and Apple has already demonstrated it's something people want that is worthwhile investing the tech into.  

It might be something they do in post - if they record both streams and then "develop" it later in non-realtime even.

6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

All I know is that I rather shoot a video with an Alexa over a smartphone and I see a clear difference under equal lighting conditions. If you dont then all the power to you.

I understand your POV and agree, but also see @webrunner5 perspective too.

I look at it from a few perspectives:

• Image quality - smartphones are getting better so fast that they'll soon be 'good enough' except in difficult lighting conditions (the 2012 Zacuto camera shootout was interesting and we've come a long way since the iPhone 4s which was used in that shootout)
• Flexibility - more DR and function buttons and all that stuff really matters because it makes it a lot easier to get the results you want - lower DR, a touchscreen and lightening/USB port is a million miles from a C300 and that really matters on set
• Connectivity - SDI ports, timecode, external power options really matter and phones are basically nowhere on this
• Convenience - phones are always with you, always on, and don't attract a lot of attention, which means that much more content is available to film, either from the perspective that a dedicated camera would prevent you from getting the shot or that it would just make it more difficult

We evaluate phones on image quality and convenience alone because they lack the other practical things that "real" cameras have.  It depends on what you shoot and your priorities I think.

Arguments start when people have different priorities and don't fully explain themselves.

Please everyone be nice - in person most of us would agree and calmly explain ourselves

6 hours ago, Shield3 said:

I have an 8 plus.  You shoot anything besides casual walk around good light close up items?  I'll post my best MOON pic with a real camera, and you show me yours with a phone.  $1000 cash says mine is so much better.

What phone is going to shoot my kids playing sports with ANY sort of detail at 200 feet away?  Talking video.

Up next, I'll show up and do another wedding video with my phone.  Clients will love that; I'll tell them webrunner5 sent me.

I have to get out this thread; can't waste any more time arguing with people who just don't get it.

It depends on what you're shooting.

If you're in good light, and are looking for a wide angle deep DoF shot and don't need timecode and external monitoring then a phone can be almost as good as an Alexa.  I take shots on my phone when I travel quite a bit because that combination is great for scenic landscapes and such, even though I have an XC10 that has decent DR, C-Log, 305Mbps codec, timecode, and ergonomics that most DSLRs can only dream of.

I've seen a lovely wedding video shot with an iPhone.  It was an experiment, the couple agreed ahead of time, and they probably didn't pay full price, but it worked.

Film-making is all about compromises, we don't have cameras that can meet how well we see so capturing things is always choosing which things the human eye can see that we don't capture, and phones are no different, they're just more of a compromise.

So, you CAN shoot a wedding, but at least for now you probably SHOULDN'T

49 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

I've just started writing off threads the second some of you guys start posting other subjects. 

Great looking footage from this camera Andrew, wish it had mic input.      

Every thread is mostly the same conversation - convergence.  More specifically the convergence of Hollywood, the movie theatre, broadcast television, cinema cameras, home movie cameras, film-splicing editing machines, recording studios, typewriters and telephones.  Fast forward far enough and these will all be included into a tiny device mounted somewhere near our eye.

This convergence is difficult for many people to come to terms with because these things never touched.  Not even the Bell Labs think tank where they predicted the mobile phone thought that it would include a camera inside it.

Everyone is struggling with the fact the tech isn't there yet in terms of what we see in our heads, but we're still interested in it enough to thrash it out in forums because every few iterations take us a meaningful step forwards in being able to achieve that vision.  It's too rubbish to be happy with, but is improving too fast to ignore.  It's actually the creative drive that powers much of these conversations.  

I don't want 4K60 10-bit with IBIS because I like letters and numbers and spending money - I want it because 4K 422 allows 1080 4444 (I output in 1080), 60p enables slow-motion which suits the aesthetic of the home videos I shoot because time seems to slow in the magical moments that I want to capture, 10-bit because I shoot outside in high DR with a log profile and I want to have the flexibility in post and get rich colours, and IBIS because shake distracts from the smooth magic I want to create and draws attention to the fact it's a film rather than a memory.

Do I need all these things - no, do they support my creative vision - yes

On 9/27/2018 at 1:47 PM, anonim said:

https://www.zacuto.com/revenge-of-the-great-camera-shootout-2012 - than look further etc, even at EOSHD and Andrew Read comments...

Finally watched this, and...... I'm in trouble!

I watched it blind like they said, and my picks fell into into three tiers, the top included the F3, the Epic, and the Alexa.  The mid tier was the F65, C300, FS100, and the 7D.  The last was the GH2 and the iPhone.

I swear I watched it blind!!

8 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

2. Use a soldering iron and some wire somewhere within the area shown in red to attach a 3.5mm jack socket to the hole made in step 1.

If you choose the wrong place in step 2 then take the item in the blue circle and drag it vigorously across the underneath of the item in the green circle.

oh man...  that made me laugh!!

ironically, I might actually be able to work that out.  Find the internal mics and trace to their buffers, splice in a new cable, mount the socket somewhere, probably with a couple of resistors and diodes to prevent nasty things from happening and get the right levels...

I've modded enough hifi equipment in my life

Thanks @mercer and @webrunner5 

Posting your creativity online is always a bit nerve wracking, especially around people that do this stuff for a living!

I've worked out that IBIS is the way forward for me.  I thought fast primes were always big and heavy (I was extrapolating upwards from my Sigma 18-35 F1.8!) but after seeing a bunch of lovely MFT suitable lenses like the Hellios and the Voitlanders I now realise that they're not heavy enough to stabilise the camera the way a Fujinon Cine 18-55 would, and I couldn't carry that weight all day anyway.

And because primes don't have IS, I need IBIS for hand-holding.

I suspect there's a GH5 in my future, but we'll wait and see.  So I picked up a few cheap m42 lenses to try with my GF3 and see how I go (Hellios 44M, Yashica Yashikor 28mm f2.8). Assuming I like them I'll work out if a G85 or GH5 or whatever is the right fit and fill in the gaps, the Voitlander 10.5mm and 17.5mm 0.95 lenses look absolutely stunning!  If Panasonics FF camera is 8K then the price of a used GH5 will plummet and my lens budget will be huge!! ???

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Step 1

and...... where are the rest of the steps?

No external audio input.....  bummer!

Shot and edited this today with the setup I pictured above.  GF3 + 14mm F2.5 + Manfrotto pocket tripod.

Shot in full auto with manual focus (because there are no settings available in video mode except focus mode, and autofocus is sloooow and hunts a bit), editing and colour in Resolve.

The setup was a PITA really, the tripod either obscures the screen or the MF ring on the lens, which is focus by wire, the screen is fixed so good angles are almost blind, there's no focus assists during recording apart from a slider showing you where in the focus range you are (when you stop recording it shows a small 1:1 crop so if the focus distance isn't changing then it's ok) and it's so small it's hard to hold steady although the tripod actually helps as a bit of a handle.

Not bad for a metal body camera that came with two lenses, memory card, battery, charger, UV filter, screen protector, air blower, and many other things for under $450 about a decade ago.  Of course, we're now in 2018 and I'd rather a setup that was nicer to hold, use, and could be configured in any way at all

It takes great photos though, and has full manual controls as well as RAW in stills mode.  Pity about video mode.

Just now, Turboguard said:

Not a trained audio guy really. Know the basics, but can set audio levels and talk in some environments that I would assume would be what you’d try to do with it without external mics.

That would be awesome.  I generally just hold the camera a set distance from my head and then just say "back of the camera" "90 degrees" and "facing straight on" as I turn the camera around and that's enough to get an idea of what kind of rejection quality and handling noise there is.

I'm at the complete opposite end of the spectrum on this camera - if I get one it would be as minimal a setup as possible.  Potentially just the camera and one lens.

Thanks!!

36 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

If I get mine tomorrow I can do every single test anyone needs on here. I need to learn the camera so what better way than to take requests!

Could you possibly test the quality, directionality and if there's camera handling noise from the internal mics please?  I've got a suspicion they've done something very clever with them..

@mercer Yes, absolutely.  I'm not sure it's the lens that makes magic in that case, but it's still wonderful.  That was one of the videos I analysed when I was trying to work out how people shoot travel videos without IS, and I did note the tripod-like shots, which work for the tranquil style and pace of the video.

And so, I now extend my travel kit to the 14mm F2.5, Panny GF3 camera body, and Manfrotto tiny tripod!  If I also use my 256Gb SD card, with the ~20Mbps codec it will give me enough space to shoot however much I want, so no pressure to download footage each day  

That may be one of the smallest ILC with tripod setups ever!

@BTM_Pix I'm also one of these crazy film-makers that don't use every special effect in the book to try and jazz up dull footage with no storyline

One of the reasons I chose Resolve was that it was a basic editor but advanced in colour processing and things like stabilisation.  This is because my edits to date have only involved straight cuts and the odd dissolve (which I use as a scene change queue).  However, colour being so important it's great to have the tools really available - the colour performance of the other "all in one" packages is laughable, and stabilisation and other things like that to compensate for my shooting style and lack of skill

I don't own a drone either, and I'm not looking to buy one.

On 10/2/2018 at 9:40 AM, thebrothersthre3 said:

I feel like most people using an FS5 need the cinema camera layout not just the image quality. 

That's what I think too - it's a pity the manufacturers don't seem to share this view!

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Just paste the Vimeo URL and it will automatically embed

It also does that for images too - just paste the URL.

I discovered that by accident yesterday, it's very handy indeed!

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

If you're looking for something compact, versatile and with one eye on not being too far out of pocket if it gets stolen or breaks then......

You might want to consider a used DJI Osmo Plus.

I considered the Osmo camera some years ago - it definitely doesn't get the respect it deserves.  Cameras that don't shoot shallow DoF are almost automatically scorned online unfortunately.

However, after @mercer suggested I take a G85 to India and I was looking at lenses, I realised that I have an old Panasonic GF3 and 14mm F2.5 lens in the back of the cupboard that would be perfect.  The lens is a flexible focal length, and its F5 equivalent is close to the FF F4 Iook that I believe I want.  The GF3 isn't a camera to write home about (for video anyway - it takes lovely stills), but it's tiny and will do the job of letting me test my one camera / one lens theory.

Basically my theory is that having one camera and one lens with IQ that has magic will be better than a more flexible setup that is super flexible and can shoot almost anything but has no soul.  I don't think either the 14mm F2.5 or GF3 have magic, but at least this will be a real test of the concept of having a less flexible setup and see if it works for how I shoot.

What lens would you choose to use for the rest of your life?

What is your favourite lens?

What is the lens you would most like to own?

With the announcement of various new lens mounts what lenses would tempt you to change systems?

I'm increasingly realising that it's the lens that makes the magic rather than the codec or colour science, and my desire for shallower DoF than my XC10 can provide means I'll be changing systems.  What are the lenses I should be lusting after, and then trying to find a camera body for?

If you want to make a recommendation, I do home, event and travel videos for fun, so the results don't have to be saleable, but the lens should be relatively well-rounded.  Zooms are ok if they are magical.

9 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

It's funny you should say that....

I saw this in a shop at the weekend and you immediately came to mind !

It's a bit of a jack of all trades as its a monopod and also has three leg base but these are weighted so that its actually very stable as a tripod substitute.

However, they also fold up not only for shorter storage but also act as a counter balance for its other trick which as you can see by the handle is to transform it into a steadicam.

The monopod itself is carbon fibre which obviously makes it lighter in the bag but heavier on the wallet and there are a couple of versions of it for different camera loads.

I think the price is a bit steep but this was in MediaMarkt which isn't exactly bargain world for a lot of things. I had a quick Google and the aluminium versions of the smaller one as well as different manufacturers of it are a lot cheaper online.

Obviously, I couldn't try it out in the shop so have a scout on YouTube etc for reviews but it seems like it could be a useful product. 

Unless it's shit of course

You thought of me?  That may be a sign you should seek professional help! ???

That monopod did look interesting though, and I've contemplated a steadicam too.  I've never owned a monopod and I'm tempted to buy a super-cheap aluminium one just to 'understand' it.  

I analysed a couple of my finished videos and looked at every shot and thought about how I got the shot and if I could have used a tripod, and the short answer was that very few shots were tripod-compatible in the sense that either I couldn't get the tripod into the location (art galleries, museums, events, etc), the shot was taken faster than I would have had time to setup for, the shot required the camera to move, or the subject was moving too fast or too much during the shot for it to work.  There are some shots where a tripod would be great however, like pans of a nice scenic lookout, and these are the shots where I miss that next level of stabilisation.  In this sense a monopod would be great, especially if it was really light.

I really do struggle with equipment, and my next scenic trip is to India, which is with a humanitarian organisation to go and see the work they're doing as well as see a bit of the country.  As I'm not a professional I think I'd feel awkward showing up to see people who live in poverty with a huge camera and no reason for it other than it's a hobby.  I'm tempted to use it as a film-making development opportunity and just use my iPhone or perhaps something like the new GoPro because of the stabilisation.  I'm also a little bit concerned for the security aspects, and I'm also a bit concerned because whenever I do a tour of some kind the guide always sees my camera and thinks I'm a pro and asks me to send my finished video to them so they can use it for marketing - too much pressure!!  One of the reasons I like photography is there's no pressure..  If I only take my phone then I can use that as an excuse to limit expectations

In a sense, this thread is completely opposite to that - a modular cinema camera + cine lens + screen is a more professional setup, but once you have a camera bigger than a pocket camera I think everyone thinks you're a pro and the size doesn't matter much beyond that point

I also use those padded camera insert bags.

I put one at the bottom of my backpack, so that I can put things on top of it.  This has a few advantages:

• the bag doesn't look like a camera bag, so is potentially less attractive to thieves
• you can use different bags depending on the task (eg, a day bag vs a carry-on)
• by putting things on top of the insert (eg, a jumper) then it's not entirely obvious you have equipment in there, even if the bag is open
• you can open your backpack and put it on your chest and putting your hands in from the sides there's room to change a lens in there without it being directly exposed to rain / wind / dust or even being very visible that you're doing it, and you can do that while standing or walking too so it's really handy

At home I just put things in drawers from Ikea.  Drawers keep things from gathering dust unlike shelves or lid-less containers.

3 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Dear god, now a faster HDR is "a whole new camera"? Most flagship phones are doing it already (for a few generations), so a faster processors that can process a few additional frames does not equal "a whole new camera". HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it. Did Apple decide that the hardware cannot be improved? Are their engineers being beaten by Ive every time they suggest a little bit thicker camera module?

Maybe they should start an honest campaign - this is a small as hell sensor, so don't expect it to blow away your dedicated ILC. But we can blur the background for you, so there's that.

In a sense, it is a whole new camera.  A camera is really a sensor + lens + controller + post processing, and if the sensor is new, if the FOV is wider (it might be the same lens though), if the controller makes different decisions, and if the post processing is also significantly altered then that would represent a relatively significant change.  Marketing does tend to over-do everything, but it's not like they tweaked the settings a bit and called it a day.  

The article is interesting in the sense that Apple has basically departed from the traditional approach to photography.  The traditional approach to photography is that you expose once, and apart from your "colour science" the rest is about using the purist and highest performing elements - the best sensors lenses filters and everything else.  Computational photography says "screw that" and basically reverse-engineers the whole process of arriving at a nice image and ends up having taken a completely different route.

If you do traditional analysis on a device that uses computational photography then it won't apply, it's just different.

Computational photography is just getting started, so it's a bit early to judge.  In terms of your question - "HDR and computational photography in general have limitations, so why lean so hard on it" the answer is that Apple took a ~$30 camera module, put it in a phone, made it the most popular camera on earth, and made zillions of dollars on it.

Go ahead and tell me they're wrong, but show me your world famous camera and fat bank account while you're at it, or I might not believe that you know better than they do....  ???

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Which is why you then need an Easyrig (or at least a shoulder rig, but that is limiting in various aspects, and still is not something you want to do for very long periods once it gets heavy). 

I should also say that I've contemplated buying a monopod, as this could be used as a counterbalance when hand-holding the camera, but would also take the weight and give me completely stable shots, which even though I hand-hold, is still the goal for maybe half the shots I shoot.

4 hours ago, noone said:

Oly has the 2 four thirds DSLR f2 zooms that can adapt to M43 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2

Sigma has the 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8 APSC lenses

Tokina has the 14-20 f2 APSC lens.

Sigma has the 24-35 f2 FF lens.

Those Olympus zooms are interesting, although they are only F4 equivalent.

I didn't know about the Tokina 14-20 F2 - that's an interesting lens although the zoom range seems very short!

The Sigma zooms are great for APSC because they're the direct equivalent of the 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 pro lenses.  In stills photography they're referred to as The Holy Trinity which is made up of the 14-24 F2.8, the 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8.

But that's my point, there doesn't seem to be a direct equivalent for m43 of those lenses, which would be 7-11 F1.4, 12-35 F1.4 and 35-100 f1.4 

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Nope, maybe I should do a vlog with it?

Please do!  

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I bet the reason is : BOTH! 

Both is due to their cinema camera world view, and for cost cutting measures. 

Yeah, I agree.  Unfortunately for us!

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yeah. Even I am sitting on the fence about using this.  Do I want to go this far? 

I sympathise.  In a sense I'm at the next "tier" down from you in weight, but was wondering what a heavier setup looked like and how much heavier it can be without it becoming an issue.

In a way it's a compounding weight problem.  Adding 1-2kg to a camera might mean getting a larger rig, which will add a huge amount of weight to the setup, and also size, which means you need larger cases to carry everything around..  etc etc etc.

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

Parker Wallbeck is shooting this commercial handheld with a Red and beefy Sigma Art lens, but not all of us have got biceps like that!

I think I might have thighs like that!

Whilst out shooting one day I contemplated if I should buy some of those weights you strap around your wrists as a kind of training regimen!

3 hours ago, Shirozina said:

The main reason pro cinema cameras don't need stabilised lenses is not the weight but that with a global shutter camera movement is a lot less irritating / noticable. 

That would help, but I suspect it's the rotational inertia (weight at distance) of the setups, or that these cameras are normally mounted to something that makes the most difference.

4 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

But by the time you get to that point, then you can no longer hold it steady for any extended period of time. Which is why you then need an Easyrig (or at least a shoulder rig, but that is limiting in various aspects, and still is not something you want to do for very long periods once it gets heavy). 

Have been very seriously considering getting a knock of Easyrig from China to use with my Sony PMW-F3 rig.

Yes, I feared as much.  I just got back from a trip where my rig was the XC10 and Rode VMP+ and all I took was a wrist strap and I kind of regret not taking a shoulder strap as carrying around the camera while not using it got a bit tiring on the hand, and that rig isn't that heavy compared to what we're talking about here!

An easy rig is way beyond where I'm willing to go, personally. 

16 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Yes, the KineMON monitor (and power for it, uses an integrated cable like say RED/Sony/Canon do) is just a small 5" one you can clip onto the top of the camera. 
The battery is just a small Sony BP-U30 that slots into the KineGrip side handle. 
The whole thing is not too dissimilar in total size to what a large-ish DSLR might by like a 5D or perhaps D5 might be. 

That's interesting, thanks.  I just started a new thread partially inspired by your suggestion

18 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

And with 9mm f8 it is easy to get your subject in focus even with manual focus!

I've owned one myself for years. 

Have you recorded video with it?  I don't think I've seen any from this lens - only stills.

14 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I’d pass on the KineMon if it’s only 500 nits.

I guess it depends on what you're filming and how good it is at focus-peaking and other assists.  If, like me, you're just capturing what happens, then keeping the composition and focus right can be enough, although I'll definitely agree that brighter would be better!

I shoot hand-held, but because camera shake isn't my aesthetic I naturally assumed that OIS and IBIS were the only solutions, but I'm now wondering if the weight of some of the cine lenses will be as good as OIS.

With rigs that have heavier cine lenses do you need OIS?

I was inspired by this video which has great looking output and looks (relatively) compact.

That setup looks like an XT-3 with Ninja V and MKX 18-55 cine lens.  There are lots of other options too, for example a C100 or Pocket4K with appropriate cine glass.

I am a little bit apprehensive of the weight too, considering that I carry my rig for hours at a time, although if it was something special I'm sure I could get some comfy straps.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

As well as the BMPCC4K, the Kinefinity Terra 4K is also smaller than a C100.

Even in a full rig with monitor and power?  That would be interesting to see, but still no IBIS I think!

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Stick with the Olympus 9mm f/8 Fisheye Body Cap lens! 

That lens is famous in street photography circles.

It is really wide, which is desirable.  There's a saying "if your photos aren't good enough then you're not close enough" so wide and close was the combo to have.

It is MF and has a mechanical control that your muscle memory can learn and then rely on.

It is F8 which is about right for the genre, anything shallower and you don't have time to take the shot, and anything deeper is probably too slow and doesn't have enough separation.  I don't know about eye-focus or anything with the latest cameras, but people with all types of camera would "zone focus" because acquiring focus took too long, not too long on certain cameras/lenses, but too long in any case.  This gives you MF that can be adjusted, which is kind of the best of both worlds.

It is soft, which is desirable because in combination with a bit of ISO noise, makes everything look like film, which is the right aesthetic.

It is cheap cheap cheap!!

I have been half tempted to get a Pocket2 with a fixed lens as a 'special projects' camera, in addition to the setup that I've been pursuing with a flexible zoom lens.  My thoughts were that the fixed lens would have to be a walk-around lens and would have to be special in some way, otherwise a zoom would be better because of the flexibility.  A Pocket2 with one of these on it might be a fascinating thing to see the output of.