Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Robin

  1. Of course it would always be great to have a high end work station but just to add another view point to some of the high spec suggestions above..

    It depends what files you are working with ie low compression raw files will need the fast raid drives but files from gh5/fujis/Sony's not so much.

    I am currently using a i7 7700k with a Amd Rx 480 (8gb) GPU and no big raid set ups. I use resolve with a variety of 4k footage from Pana/Fuji/blackmagics and can run all projects at the full frame rates with smooth editing all around. Only noise reduction slows it down. Even with a bunch of nodes and film convert it still 100% smooth. For me a bigger rig would only cut render times and improve noise reduction performance. 

    So think about your usesage/budget together.

  2. I'm just not sure, the blackmagics are way cheaper, the c200 a bit cheaper and the reds at the opposite side with redraw and a well established system.

    I would love a play with one especially alongside a cheaper and more expensive option to see how it fits but I'd be more likely to get a pocket 4k to go along my fujis. If I was doing a feature film anytime soon I'd look hard at Red Gemini I think. 

    I like that a more established model has more community and range of luts around it.

  3. 7 minutes ago, Alex Uzan said:

    For professional us, of course.
    But it's not about work everytime ?

    It's not jut about the small camera thing, but ergonomics as well.
    I bought the XT3 because I prefered it's ergonomics compared to the A7III.
    But not for the X-H1.
    Maybe it's a size thing after all ?


    Sony has a problem with the grip being close to the mount, if you have a big lens it leaves no finger room. That and skin tones that age you to 2 weeks after death

  4. 19 minutes ago, Alex Uzan said:

    There is always something with fuji lenses ?

    And I don't want a X-H1 since it's the same size as my A7iii, and doesn't have the same feeling in hand than the XT3.


    I honestly don't get the small camera thing. I think the xh1 is small, I have an XT3 too which I love but the palm of my hand gets a bit crampy after a while holding it with a weird crab claw zoidberg grip it makes me use. Xh1 use all day no problem with my human hands

  5. I got a quick look (30 secs) by chance at one of these..... So not even close to having a real opinion yet and would like a closer look. All I can say is as a first impression the 3d effect is half as good as I expecting. Of course it may be my expectations at fault for that ? 

    Initially I would say Nintendo 3ds ISH quality plus 10-20%

  6. 4 minutes ago, Mokara said:

    "Sharpness" in camera is really a debeyering parameter. As long as you have a camera with a Beyer filter you are always going to be in a situation where you have to balance resolution against color accuracy. That will most apparent with anything that has a contrast edge. If you bias towards resolution you compromise color at boundaries, and if you bias towards color at boundaries then you compromise resolution. It is just how it works in anything other than a true grey scale image. In older cameras people used to scrape the beyer filter off their sensors (which was possible in some of the first digital cameras) to make B&W cameras with better sensitivity and resolution, primarily for astro use.

    Sharpening in post is not the same as sharpening in camera. You might make an image appear like it has more resolution through digital effects such as adding artificial halos, but turning down sharpening in camera comes at the expense of detail, and that cannot be recovered any more than edge color accuracy can be recovered in post if you have sharpening turned up.

    If you are not doing a whole lot of color correction and do plan to sharpen the image in post, you are better off setting in camera sharpening to the level you want in your final product to start with with since that will give you the best compromise. Trying to do it afterwards through artificial means in that scenario will result in unnecessary loss of information and an overall inferior image. People who just turn sharpening all the way down no matter what without considering what the final product is supposed to look like or how it will be manipulated in the interim simply don't know what they are doing.

    I guess it's more complex than I realised. Still regardless of whether I know what I'm doing, I still prefer the lowest sharpening settings on all the cameras I have owned so far ?

  7. 1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

    I had sharpness down at -3 on the X-T3 just one notch above minimum (-4), to maintain some grain texture - and the contrast is as low as you can get in F-LOG... Still too much digital sharpness to the image. It is a bit like the GH5 where you cannot quite turn off the digital sharpening.

    I don't want to sound to negative towards the XT3 image because I think it's pretty wonderful overall and a more pleasing image than I had from the gh5.. however I wish all these cameras would add an 'off' to the noise reduction and sharpness. Then we could add a little for straight out cam looks if we like but leave it off for doing later or just leaving it natural. I guess people would be shocked at how noisy beyond iso 400 on a gh5 would be without the processing though ?

  8. On 10/24/2018 at 7:34 PM, Walter H said:

    I understand and appreciate your intentions. 

    I'd say any dark surface. Even better would be to put the lens cap on and take a photo at a normal shutter speed, i.e. not in Aperture Priority which might result in a three-minute exposure. 

    Thanks much! Appreciate it.

    Update for you. One green pixel per camera. (Xh1,XT3)

    How does that compare to what you would normally expect? 

  9. Just had a look at Max's test. The only thing that caught my eye was the sharpening on the z7 (I assume that can be turned down further? Unless he already had it down) not a fan of that sort of thing.

    I don't think I've ever cropped more than 20% at most and 99% of my shots stay as they are. I have seen no footage from the canon that I thought did not look perfectly detailed and sharp. 

    Still not buying one though ?

    XT3 is too good for the price out of this bunch.

  10. 26 minutes ago, Walter H said:

    Thanks for mentioning this.

    Question: have you noticed any hot pixels in the footage? Specifically, could you shoot several RAW images after some longer session recording video and see if any are showing up in the stills? 

    This became so bad with my X-T2 that I had the sensor replaced (under warranty) which yielded some improvement. I've read of others needing to do the same - Zed Pro Media documented their issue, for example.

    Curious. Thanks.

    I thought it may be useful info especially if anyone is filming in a hot climate.

    I have not noticed any hot pixels or any image issues at all, but I have not been looking for them. 

    If I let the cameras run for a bit and then get some raw stills what is best to shoot? A flat colour wall or something like that ?

  11. I think if they released it 6 months ago it would have been 4k 30p at 100mbs but now they have waited and the competition has changed we will see 4k 60p and higher bit rates and 10 bit on the hdmi at the very least. Probably this coming spring time 

    Of course they finally need a full new processor for the new features.... Kind of like going straight to an a7s4 

  12. 49 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

    Sorry. I couldn't resist asking when  you said you're from Cairo.... 

    Ah ok, I have seen people joke about some scammy guy but I'm not familiar with what happened.

    I live in Cairo but I'm from the UK 

  13. I just did a little overheating test on my Xh1 and XT3.

    What triggered this was my Xh1 freezing after 10 minutes filming in direct sunlight in Cairo. (So not unexpected)

    Back at home with a room temperature of 31c...

    The xh1 recorded 15min 4k(max rec length) but upon hitting record again froze. Took battery out and straight back in and got another 15 minutes..... Same thing happened 3 times in a row, got the full 15 minutes but then a freeze upon hitting record again. It did not freeze while recording like it did out in the sun.

    The X-T3......... No problems at all. Did 3 30 minute recordings back to back. No freeze's. Was hot to touch but less than the xh1.

    Next time I'll try taking the X-T3 out in the sun, just the lack of ibis is why I used the xh1 in this case.

    All recording at 4k in 25p

  14. 1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

    The X-H1 I have as well, and I like it a lot. There is however a very slightly clinical soul to it because of how damn sharp the 4K is and how utilitarian the body is. It could actually be too perfect? IBIS too stable. Image too detailed. Just too...... good?

    I got an XH1 a few months back and (unexpectedly) replaced my gh5 with it for video. Although the image has a certain magic to its rendering I do find myself using only vintage lenses (Nikon ais with speed booster) and almost always some diffusion. It's almost like the colour magic gets you half way there but that hyper real sharpness that comes with oversampled 4k needs taming a little.

    My last short I used a Blackmagic Micro cinema cam and to be honest never felt the need for any more sharpness or resolution. I have filmed half of my new short on the XH1 (4k, eterna,dr400, nikon ais, black pro mist') and so far although I really love the image I think I would go back to the low-fi bmmcc and Russian c-mount next time. 

    Edit (I forgot I was posting in a Canon thread) ... I would still really like a play with the new canon to see how it's colour and lower natural sharpness lend to filmy pretty look on old lenses


  15. I assume the benefits of uploading monster proress files to be not worth the effort as they will only encode it down to a small 8 bit file regardless? Maybe there are some benefits I'm not aware of ? It's not like YouTube is showing people the good file.

    YouTube aside if you are doing a DCI for a film festival or such then you get to keep all the goodness for that ?

    At least a few people can see your work properly hehe

    I guess ideally I would always record Raw, then are are ready for any future formats or exhibition opportunities. Maybe in 2020 YouTube gets taken over by something better or offers better quality itself. Then all your footage is ready to go 

  16. 37 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

    So when people were talking about banding on x-t3 footage, I bet it was because the clips on youtube were encoded as h.264. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you have 10-bit h.265, color grade it, then export in h.264 I would think you can have your footage fall apart with certain grades since h.264 is 8-bit (At least in PP CC)

    I have a top spec PC & it still takes too long imo to export h.265 with a higher quality setting. I know you can export in ProRes or Dnx, but that would take ages to upload to youtube. What is the best method to encode a 10 bit project to share without it falling apart in h.264? Seems pointless to have a 10 bit camera if you export in h.264?

    Recording in the the highest quality possible give you more freedom to create a look or 'grade' without image issues. Which yes is then often used to create low quality masters for YouTube etc (or high quality ones for screening etc)

    Even if you end up only in 8 bit h264 you still had that initial freedom to create a look that acquiring footage in the low quality codec would not allow.


  17. 29 minutes ago, Álex Montoya said:

    The Original Pocket was great for mimicking S16. I did this some years ago in El Salvador.



    That looks great ! 

    Will be interesting to see someone try this sort of film look on the new camera, so far nothing looks close to this.

    Can you tell a bit about the gear used? Rig,lenses?


  18. 23 minutes ago, seanzzxx said:

    I personally think most diffusion filters look kinda cheesy (especially the highlight bloom), would you have any good tips?

    There are different types with different looks. The popular 'black pro mist' has some bloom and contrast reduction. But the Tiffen digital diffusion with no contrast reduction or bloom, and the ultra contrast is no diffusion, just contrast reduction, no bloom. The Tiffen hdfx combines those last two for both diffusion and contrast reduction without bloom. There are of course many more options but those are the ones I currently use. 

    My favourite (for now) is a Tiffen HDTV (sometimes called hdfx) at 1/2 strength. I use it on Nikon ais lenses for when a softer filmy look is what I'm after. 

    I just used one on a Fuji xh1 and (mostly) Nikon ais 35mm 1.4 on a speed booster for part of a short film. I'll see if I can get a screen grab together

  • Create New...