KnightsFan

A lot of skills will overlap between software, so even if you switch later it wont all be wasted time. I should mention that i was referring to standalone fusion. I would not recommebd using the fusion tab in resolve for serious composites. I have had a lot of crashes and terrible performance compared to standalone Fusion 9. I am sure it will improve, but at the moment i see it as more a beta feature than a solid tool.

i find resolve and fusion to be better than premiere and after effects. While premiere does have some nicer editing features, i have spotty reliability and significantly worse performance than on resolve. Node based compositing is easier for complex comps, and overall i find fusion's design to be more consistent than after effects'. Fusion does have a timeline as well. Using fusion is less intuitive coming from traditional video editing software, but is very nice to use. However, blackmagic software is GPU heavy. Your mx150 might not be sufficient for resolve. Fortunately, resolve and fusion are both free so you can go try it risk free. But if you decide to use blackmagic software, you can upgrade your gpu for the cost of a year subscription to adobe.

I have this condition where I can't leave well enough alone... That's a really good idea for down the line when I've got a mostly-finished product! It's still early days. I looked into a lot of those systems when you mentioned it before. I checked out Movie Slate Pro and a handful of other apps. My app is primarily for personal use/just a fun project that will do a LOT of work for me in post. My idea is quite different, with a little bit of overlap of course. Thanks for all the advice!

Bluetooth transmitter and receiver. They are dirt cheap, and i've already got a couple receivers lying around. Range isnt a huge issue. The only reason i'm doing it wirelessly is so it doesnt throw a gimbal off balance. the app stores metadata, and i use tc to match that metadata with video and audio clips. As long as the latency is within a reasonable time (1 or 2 seconds) and the clock doesnt drift by a drastic margin (30% faster or slower), it works for my purpose. In my tests so far, the system works, except it has always been wired since i dont have a transmitter. Scene, angle, and take stored in user bits for now. Its an early prototype (i am the app developer). Eventually there will be more, so it can be linked to storyboards and camera info for a more complete system. There is a companion desktop application that sorts everything in post. I suppose technically there is no reason i am using ltc per se, except that its an existing standard that i can piggy back off of. It lets me test a lot of my custom code against existing ltc for debugging without wondering which end is failing. Which brings me back to the wireless problem. I hope to borrow real transmitters on my next shoot when i take this system for a test drive, but if that falls through, bluetooth could be a $20 solution. Edit: And of course bluetooth is built into phones, so eventually I will make a single-device solution. The only problem is that my (cheap) phone can only connect to one device at a time.

Overall, it looks excellent. I'm impressed by the fact that someone had this idea, and made it into a competitive stabilizer for a competitive price. But I do have a few concerns. 1. there seems to be lag between panning with your arms, and the camera panning 2. The footage looks like it has less of a level horizon than I get with my glidecam (and I'm not an expert at a glidecam). Maybe the problem is that you can only hold it in front, meaning you have to sidestep for X axis movement (e.g. dog shot at 3:41). 3. 3D printed parts... that will have to change if they make a bigger version for heavier cameras

Why not? Latency, unreliability, or what? So that was actually another question. Are the bnc connectors LTC compatible? As in, will the F4 sync to LTC generated from a smartphone app and then properly send it from bnc? I read that it would not work. The tc is being generated in a smartphone app along with other metadata. In fact, i am more interested inthe metadata than having perfect sync. So i can't generate tc in the f4 itself. Alternatively, it could be sent from the phone to both the f4 and camera, but that would still require a wireless link in roughly the same place.

Someone should tell Picasso that his art does not accurately reflect real people. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is always created and viewed in reference to previous work. Over time, film has deviated from being completely in reference to the real world, and has developed its own conventions, symbols, and nuances. New films are viewed in reference to other films, not the real world. In the same way, narrative storytelling, sound design, musical scores, and all other aspects of filmmaking are built on previous films, not just real life You seem to be implying the color should be accurate to real life unless the artist specifically wants it to be different. This implies that using color as accurate to expected film convention is the work of a "hack." I think this is false. Would you consider Max Richter's album Vivaldi Recomposed to be creative?

@IronFilm Great into about the car rig. Speaking of bluetooth... Have you ever used bluetooth to transmit LTC to the camera? I'm trying to send LTC from the Sub Out of an F4 to the camera.

Better how? You mentioned easier to balance, is it easier to keep it balanced when in use, and on which axes? How easy is it to pan, tilt, or do canted angles? It looks like a very interesting concept with a lot of potential. Yeah, its way too little payload for me, too.

The XT30 could very well be the first <$1k to shoot 10 bit 4k video internally, but if not, then I think Z Cam's E2c will cross that line later this year. I too am skeptical that the XT30 will have 10 bit internal, but overall I'm optimistic about the camera. Fuji got everything right with the XT3, let's hope they pull it off again.

I'll have to take your word on it for "better optics." As far as extra contacts, extra lens ring, corrections, etc, all of that could have been done without changing the physical mount. Adding more pins and checking them for connectivity to determine what kind of thing is attached is essentially how USB OTG cables work. It will be interesting to see if Canon actually follows through with much smaller lenses. Looking on Canon rumors, the RF 70-200 2.8 changes in length from 173mm to 243mm when zooming, whereas the EF version maintains a constant 199mm. So depending on your zoom level you are gaining or losing length, though it is nice that it can be stored in a slightly smaller package. I can't find any information comparing the weight.

...that's because it isn't FF anymore...

What is Panasonic holding back from the S1? It's the first FF camera to shoot 10 bit internal and the first to do 4k60. The S1R even does the latter without any crop. Like the GH5 there's a paid upgrade, this time to full VLog instead of VLog-L. I guess this was my question from earlier in the thread. What does RF bring that EF didn't?

I dont know if anyone would seriously hate the eos r if it didnt crop. You get trolls and such in any case, but most people would forgive slightly lower frame rates and bit rates in exchange for reliability and great color, as they have been for years with canon. But the crop is an actual dealbreaker for a lot of people, and moreover it is just so silly. Its not like having poor autofocus, which is still evolving and pushing forward with competing technologies and software. Its a simple concept of having 60% of the sensor taking up dead space when shooting 4k. It would be like if blackmagic put that 5in screen on their camera, but only the middle 3in worked while shooting. Is canon somehow the only major camera manufacturer who has not discovered the technology to make full frame 4k? Its hard to imagine, but the equally perplexing alternative is they slapped thousands of people in the face by witholding it.

That's the funny thing. EF lenses were universal, so even if Canon didn't make great bodies, people still bought EF lenses. In the past 4 years, the vast majority of lenses that I've used--mine, friends', borrowed--have been EF. I've used them on Samsung, Blackmagic, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, and even on a handful of Canon bodies. Despite never owning a Canon camera, I saw the EF format as a good investment. RF won't have that status. How many people think that RF is superior, compared to a mirrorless EF camera with that vari-ND adapter built in? They could have updated the lens communication protocol to allow for that extra ring on the lens, while maintaining EF compatibility.

@thebrothersthre3 a lot of people get great results with gimbals. with some practice you can build the muscle memory with little joysticks for control, which i definitely do not have. But i certainly found the experience of using a glidecam for the first time to be more enjoyable than my first attempt at using an electronic gimbal. The quality of the gimbal helps a lot too. I used two different glidecam 4000 pro's. One was decent, the other utterly sucked. If i had used that bad one first, i probably would have given up and never touched a glidecam again. And then an HD 4000 is in another league entirely. Its magic compared to the pros.

I often use a Glidecam. I once used an electronic gimbal and hated it for this reason. It was so difficult to smoothly and accurately pan/tilt, and I couldn't lower the handle too much or the camera hit the motor on the back. And forget canted angles--If there was a way, it was buried in the app. With the glidecam, all movement is a direct, 0 latency result of me aiming the camera. It provides the tactile feedback of a fully mechanical system, like handheld. If I pan too far, I feel it between my fingers before I see it on the monitor. As far as freedom of movement, I find mechanical gimbals to be a lot closer to handheld than electronic gimbals.

I hope they go all RF, then maybe the used market will get flooded with cheap second hand EF lenses.

I didnt watch the whole video. But i like the concept. I think a removable grip is the way to make DSLR style cameras better for drones and gimbals, while allowing them to have ergonomic photo functionality when needed. I also think that the only way for global shutter to make a widespread appearance is for photo cameras to adopt it as a means of removing the shutter. GS purists are a tiny fraction of DSLR videographers, who are already a tiny fraction of camera buyers. We've got to convince photographers that they need to be ablr to take silent, skewless photos. And perhaps once we get rid of the shutter we can also finally get in-body electronic NDs.

On some level, anything is good enough. It's like saying 16mm film is good enough compared to 65mm. If the price and weight of 65mm dro the way FF cameras are, no one would shoot 16mm anymore.

I completely agree. However "one day" doesnt help anyone who is shooting now. So until then, many of us are stuck with smaller sensors as the best option.

Agreed. However, newer features will come to smaller sensors first. Right now, if you want internal 10 bit (S1 isn't shipping yet), or 4k120, or global shutter, there is no FF option anywhere near the price for those features in smaller sensors. While I'm sure all of those features will eventually come to FF, they're still a few years out. And I know from other discussions that many of those features don't speak to you personally, but everyone's got different priorities. That's why I'm not out here saying FF is objectively better than M43.

@Video Hummus There are plenty of great M43 cameras, I agree. I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from using it. I jumped into the conversation only to point out that the "spreading light" wasn't really true. For me, though, I am really looking to get a FF camera next because it goes better with my lenses. I love that old voigtlander I mentioned above, but it's really tough to use vintage lenses on anything smaller than FF, simply because that's what they were designed for. Speed boosters... I'd rather not tbh. A new GH5s with a speed booster was more expensive than an S1. Might as well just . And while Olympus have great pixel shift cameras, none of the M43 cameras with phenomenal video have it. The fact that pixel shift exists in one camera, and that another camera has good lowlight just means that M43 has produce a camera that does both. The way it's shaping up, the S1 beats the GH5s for low light, takes 24MP photos out of the box, AND has pixel shift. And it's certainly cheaper than getting a GH5s, an Olympus, and a speed booster. So at this point it looks like a better system for my needs and I'm pretty excited for the future of Panasonic's full frame lineup.

The larger sensor with the same photosite size has the same signal per pixel, but more pixels. Thus, more total signal across the sensor. And that's something we can directly measure as SNR when downsampling, which combines several signal samples into one larger signal sample. I'm not sure how this is a different concept altogether, but maybe I am misunderstanding you? It all leads back to capturing more total signal to begin with. The only voigtlander I've used extensively is an old 50mm f2.8 from West Germany. A true character lens. I hear good things about the modern ones, too.

What is a different concept altogether?