newfoundmass

4 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

That's actually not true, if you upload in 4K youtube uses a different compression method for 1080p as well (VP9 vs H264) making it look much better. 

I've heard this before. And I know a lot of channels upload in 4K even if the source footage isn't 4K. But I also have heard more popular channels get better quality transcoding overall, which is to say a file uploaded on a small channel might not look as good as if the same file was uploaded to a larger channel. 

I'm still of the opinion that most of us don't own TV's that are capable of truly displaying the benefits of 4K, even YouTube's highly compressed 4K, given the size of our TVs. On most things I can't see a ton of difference between 1080p and 4K unless I'm right on top of the TV. 

This is fucking ridiculous. Seriously: fuck Canon. 

13 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

H.264 1080P via Google Drive. 

Most clients don't care about 4K or the codec, and they actually prefer smaller file size. Of course, there are some clients who have specific need, and I will deliver the codec and resolution they want. But more often than not, H264 1080P is the most suitable format for the clients. 

I do event videography mostly, so this is my experience. 

Yeah, it's kinda crazy how little clients care about 4K and bit rate when it comes to event stuff. I'm guessing a big part of it is they aren't really familiar with video, and just want a quick and easy file they can download and share? They also have grown accustomed to YouTube's quality, so it lowers expectations maybe? 

10 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

For personal projects it's YouTube, but i generally upload a ProRes file. Not sure if there's a benefit, but I've done it for years and never had an issue, so why change a working formula?

I know YouTube claims/recommends certain settings for best results but I have never really noticed much difference. I generally just use the YouTube export settings in whatever NLE I'm using, unless I also need to deliver a higher quality version in which I'll just upload that since I have Gigabit internet and so uploading isn't an issue. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Let's be honest, these stupid workarounds are not practical on set.

It is up to Canon to fix the damn camera, not us.

We paid the money, and not a small amount.

Unscrewing the back, prodding the card door sensor, ripping the clock battery out... None of it is acceptable for $4000

It wouldn't be acceptable for $200!

A lot of the stuff I do is delivered in 1080p, with maybe 10% in UHD. I also still make DVDs for some clients, but always send a 1080p mp4 via Dropbox or Google Drive. 

Really I deliver in whatever way the client wants though. A surprising number don't want/expect anything with a high bit rate. I'll often get asked if I can make the file smaller! 

14 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

This is very intriguing.

From a business standpoint wouldn’t they want you to have to buy different batteries for the cameras? More money in their pocket and larger total product margins.

I’m going to double down on my theory that the GH6 will share the S5 body.

Leaked price is at $1,999.

They've always been good about using batteries across different bodies. I mean they've been using the same battery since the GH3!

It is interesting though! 

Looks like they're announcing a new battery with the S5 that will be compatible with the GH5, GH5s and G9. Guessing it might end up being the same battery they'll use for the GH6? 

This PDAF talk sounds just like when people would say Canon wouldn't let Sony do the flip out screen. No one knows the truth and it's all speculation. 

Regardless of what the truth is, all of these companies should probably look into making it so they're not reliant on their competitor for sensors. 

13 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I imagine at this point that he's relieved to be running any test that doesn't involve a thermometer, a fridge or an oven.

 

These are all cheap but I quite appreciate these lights:

* Godox SL60w (x3) 

* Yongnuo YN300 (x3)

* Pixel G1 RGB

* Aputure AL-M9 (x6) 

* Plus a bunch of clamp lights and shop lights depending on the situation. 

* I also use these cheap color LED light bulbs I found at Walmart. They come in a couple of colors (blue, red, green, yellow, purple, maybe others?) and if you're just looking to add a single color of light to the background or something, they're great and cheap! 

I was really considering investing in a bunch of Aputure lights but right now lighting is evolving so quickly and more and more are getting into the game and putting out quality lights, that I figured it'd make sense to wait and see things settle a bit before doing that. 

These aren't perfect, mind you, but they're all tremendous value. I got the Godox SL60w lights for $315, for example. I could have bought 6 of them for the price of one Aputure 120d at the time. 

The Yongnuo are great too and surprisingly powerful, if you get the daylight version. I've done interviews before using just those. I kinda wish I'd gotten the Air version though with the built in diffusion, though the decrease in output might change my mind. Still, they are great lights, especially for starting out, and I bring them everywhere since they're so small and lightweight. 

The Pixel G1 I got for free from Lunascope Film School on YouTube (plug: https://www.youtube.com/c/LunaScopeFilmSchool) and it's actually a good little light. I don't use it a ton though because I generally use the cheap Walmart bulbs for my RGB style lighting, unless I need to add some subtle color instead. I'm very frugal, ha ha. 

The Aputure AL-M9 was so incredible when it first came out. I bought a bunch of them because they're so useful. They're still great, but they show how much lighting has evolved in just a couple of years given the options available now in the same price range. I bought a cheap gel kit and used them similarly to how I used the Pixel G1. I still find tons of uses for them, and they take up so little room in my lighting case that I bring them everywhere. 

I've also started using large shop lights to light venues. They're cheap, and don't have the best color lighting, but that's nothing that custom white balance can't fix. Still trying to figure out the optimal use of them though. Lighting is probably my weakest point, so it's a work in progress!

3 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Oh, I'd rather have the XLR1 for the convenience. But I already own a MixPre3. I suppose I can also record to both and sync in post. I hate doing additional work, but it's not a lot.

You'll get excellent results with the MixPre3, I wouldn't bother with the XLR1 unless you need a real stripped down set up. 

I use manual focus for a lot of work, but Panasonic needs reliable auto focus if only to ensure the viability of their cameras moving forward. It's a feature that people expect and not giving it to them does not bode well for acceptance/growth in a market that is already shrinking. 

This release really, really concerns me about the future of M43. I'll give them until the end of the year to announce something / anything about a GH6, otherwise I'm going to heavily consider a move to a different system while my gear still has some re-sale value. And while the S1H is very enticing, I don't know if I can justify moving from one Panasonic system to another if they're going to ignore their most dedicated users. Sony might be the better long term investment if this is how Panasonic will be moving forward. 

I've been looking at the S1H as I get more and more concerned with the future of M43, so this caught my eye since I don't think there's another variable ND adapter out there for L-mount. 

I appreciate that they seem pretty honest in the video when it comes to AF for video. I've used some of their dummy adapters before, too, so I'm curious how good this is. 

25 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Thanks, do you know if rather than buying the DMW-XLR1 I can just send audio from my MixPre3 and it will still be decent quality (48kHz/16-bit PCM I guess is fine) and I can lock the levels to match the MixPre3, it won't use auto levels? 

That should work well, yeah. You might even get better results than with the XLR1. I use the XLR1 as much for convenience than anything. 

Do these companies ever design the sensor and then send it to Sony to make? Or do companies just depend on Sony to develop them on their own and then use what is available to them? I'm admittedly not the most knowledgeable about sensor tech. I know some cameras share sensors, but like, does it make sense for companies to just rely on Sony deciding whether or not they're going to make a sensor? Cause that seems like a bad idea to me? 

This looks pretty promising. It'll be interesting to see some independent reviews to see how good it is. Has anyone used their non-dummy adapters? How good are they? 

11 minutes ago, noone said:

Nah, it is just a company that makes toys for us to play with after all.       

If the toy is really really good and more so after they fix it to work as it was originally sold, not that many will care.

I care. And everyone else should too. 

We shouldn't have an adversarial relationship with a company we're giving our money, nor should we need someone to spend $4,000 on a camera so they can do extensive testing, take it apart, etc. so we know whether or not we're being screwed. We shouldn't accept this! 

15 hours ago, wolf33d said:

And I will be one of them. I could not care less about Canon, Sony or any other business and how they treat their customers. 

This attitude is what has enabled companies to walk all over us. It's so sad to see it. 

Honestly, whether it's incompetence or intentional, the R5 should be reason enough for people to cease supporting this company until they get their shit together. 

There are companies that value their customers. Reward them instead. 

Imagine that Canon boardroom meeting. 

"Let's create an 8K beast with little RS, RAW video, IBIS, our best auto focus ever... And then cripple it and use overheating to blame it!"

"You're a fucking genius, man. LET'S DO IT!" 

Camera Conspiracies loves EOSHD

I begrudgingly tip my hat to Canon if, to try and hide their crippling, they created fake overheating issues. Like, bravo guys! 🤡

Lots of ups and downs with this camera, huh? 

It really does blow my mind how willing people are to reward Canon with their money even if it means having to use an external recorder, empty card slots, and a dummy battery to get usable results.

2 hours ago, luizhmgoncalves said:

Just downloaded the footage from that James Matthews video.
Great footage by the way.

The A7s iii is now a contender angainst other low priced cinema cameras.
All the information you need to create a good color grading is there. 
Rich colors, shadow and highlight information. 
All packed inside a usable codec that is the h264 all-i 10bit.

All the problems I had before with sony mirrorles footage are gone. Noise compression, banding, poor colors, artifacts, etc.
I aways thought a good codec could turn these Sonys into something else, and here it is.

Personaly I really liked the colors.

Everything except the skin tones look decent in those pictures. Those though need some work. 

13 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

I am still very skeptical about the rumor of Sony denying Panasonic with a PDAF sensor. Why exclusevly Panasonic?

Agreed. Frankly that sounds illegal.