thebrothersthre3

lol 

I hate these auto focus tests because you can make the Fuji fast or slow to focus. I imagine its the exact same with every other camera. The Canon was missing though. 

The colors all look different, auto WB. That said last time he set them all at 4000k and they looked different too so lol 

He used auto white balance. Auto focus test is a bit silly as you can change how fast or slow they focus. 

The Canon and Sony look similar color wise. But this is a pretty straight forward safe lighting situation (single continuous light). 

The Fuji does look softer then the others. I have noticed Fuji skin usually looks softer. 

Debating on whether to fix my Phantom 4 pro (broken gimbal) or get a Mavic Pro 2. 

The color does look nicer on the Mavic pro. It is way softer though.

 

Mainly all I'll do to adjust my video image is use the color curves tool. Crush/raise highlights/shadows and adjust the red/blue/green channels. I'll also add saturation to the entire image sometimes. Thats all I really know how to do in Vegas Pro. 

Lightroom seems to have more options but I don't usually use them, I don't really do photography outside of just for fun. 

This is why I want a good image out of camera lol. 

5 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

True! I would also suggest that shooting at 30fps and putting the footage on a 24fps timeline also helps with gimbal / fake slider / fake jib shots in general (my a6500 has pretty nasty 1080p so I am often reluctant to shoot it at 60fps).

Yeah the A6300 1080p was truly terrible. For some reason the moire was just off the charts. 

3 minutes ago, leslie said:

damn that's bad luck dbounce, receiving two bad units. i'd be about ready to string somebody up by their toenails. rather glad i went with the p4k but even then there's probably a one in a million chance that mine could be a dud as well but at least we both have the warranty as a saving grace

i kinda lean the other way, and have to wonder why someone is selling it. however having said that all my lenses are second hand, so was the car and motorbike. i'm not sure i would buy a camera body 2nd hand of ebay. i prefer the security of a warranty for most electrical items but that might be just me.

Ebay has a great return policy so I just make sure it works well. 

I am a bit crazy though. I bought a camera that was labeled as broken. I asked the seller what was wrong with it. He said he wasn't sure but it seems to work fine, turns on and all. I bought it and its been working good for two years now lol. 

Well it makes me more confident in my video making abilities at least. 

Interesting. The 3D tech is sweet. 

Could be interesting if they put in a heavy duty sensor. 

Damn that is unfortunate. I'll have to see how mine holds up. Two weddings in so far with no issues. 

I usually get things used so they are already broken in and I know they aren't lemons ?

lmao

Gotta agree with Andrew here. 

Its especially true if we are talking 8 bit H264 rather then 14 bit RAW. 
 

If trying to do a slider imitation with a gimbal you could always shoot in 60p and slow the footage down. You can get some pretty slow movements with practice. Having a lens with OIS helps and having a two handled attachment for your gimbal also helps. 

I could see it getting pretty tedious if you have to do a ton of slider shots though, might be easier to buy one at that point. 

I don't really think this test or video proves anything in regards to color science. 

Get a group of colorists together and show them pictures of each of these cameras in tricky lighting scenarios and see which one ends up on top. 


In the end I think it doesn't matter much. The only people paying attention to color science are the types that frequent a website like this. 
 

22 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

The methodology is terrible. Fuji shows the "least bias" because everyone goes for the warm Fuji-labelled photograph first, so even if an equal percentage is switching to their favorite brand, more of them landed on the same one to start with.

I hate to agree with this, but I do. I've always struggled a lot with grading Red footage, particularly before Dragon Color. Always found Alexa footage easy. But I recently watched Maniac on Netflix. The show has problems, but the look is not one of them. The color is fantastic and it's shot on Red. The Red sensors place the green and red chromasticities too close, so muddy brown is very common. But the foliage and skin tones are fantastic on that show. Now I recognize that the biases I had were largely frustrations with my own weaknesses. That said, by accepting those weaknesses, I can still justify getting a camera system that I think is easier to grade than another. But I know the fault is more mine than the hardware's.

I have found the Alexa exceptionally easy to grade. I think that's what people like when they say they like its color. But when I watch something really good shot on another system, it looks better than the Alexa footage I've shot myself. I guess I can justify my own preferences by admitting they're more to do with my own faults than the hardware's faults, weak as that sounds. For me it can be complicated and difficult to match between systems, but after watching some really good work mostly from Light Iron and CO3, I know the fault is my own. I do think you should go easy on people like me and tolerate brand preference–not everyone is an experienced colorist and for us, just choosing a system we like and are familiar with makes a huge difference. And it's much cheaper than bringing in a great colorist.

The one exception I think is color channel clipping. That can be a real bugaboo for some under certainly lighting conditions (imo) for almost anyone.

But you illustrate a good point. Lots and lots of shooters aren't good colorists, for various reasons. That's why good color science can be very helpful for some people. 

Depends on your needs. A gimbal can get good slider imitation shots. However for a timelapse you need some type of slider. Can't replicate that with a gimbal. 

I'd not be happy with that blown out window on that last shot if I paid 100,000

I won't count on Canon utilizing the BM Raw. I can sort of see Panasonic as they are saying RAW will be a feature on the S1.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

Pinch of salt. You need a bucket my friend

Unless that guy's name is Bart or his liver has given up the ghost, there is no way the Z7 is set up correctly.

Again, in the Pocket 4K shot the man with the Apple tampon in his right ear seems off. It's under exposed.

I have not watched the video, I will just get annoyed... But can anyone tell me if Max says ANYWHERE in it, what the camera picture profile and white balance settings were, what kind of lighting was used, what the workflow was in post, what the codec settings were or what he did to the Pocket 4K to make it look about a stop darker than the EOS R at ISO 1600?

If there is anywhere near that level of basic detail in the video I'll be astonished.

I don't care if Max is a nice guy or not, he is misleading as shit with these basic cobbled together test shots.

He simply does not deserve that many subscribers on YouTube, based on the quality of his info.

But hey, that's YouTube for you!

You are Alice. I am Alice. It is always the Mad Hatters YouTube Party. It's eternally 6pm, time to be mislead into buying some shit we don't need.

Doesn't the Pocket 4k just display darker at the same ISO? The fuji looked darker as well. 

3 minutes ago, noone said:

FF isn't any better at shallow DOF than M43 and equivalence doesn't say it is in theory.

It does work out that way practically though because of what is available (not because of equivalence).

The same applies with FF against MF.      MF though has far fewer options and except for some rare expensive aerial photography lenses, MF lenses are not that fast generally.

I have a lovely old FD 24 1.4 L that I miss using on my A7s while it is (still) broken.      To match the DOF on M43, I would need a 12mm f0.7 (and it would then not be an EXACT match so there would be differences).     How many 12mm f0.7 M43 lenses are there?

Same with my old FD 85 1.2 L, for equivalence purposes I would need an M43 42.5 f0.6 aprox lens and to get equivalence with a lens like a FF 50mm f0.95 lens well that one technically you can't use equivalency as you would need a M43 25mm lens slightly faster than f0.5 which is as fast as you can use in air I believe (though stand to be corrected) though a 25mm M43 f0.5 lens would be close-     Any of THOSE available?     

 

 

I would say it is better at DOF, because of lens availability. I mean when most people speak they are talking about real world practicality. 

The other thing is wider lens have more distortion. A 12mm 0.7 lens will not look the same as a 24mm 1.4, in terms of DOF, otherwise no. 

I used sandisk 95MB/s V30 class 10 for 400mbps on the XT3, maybe its the H265 compression vs H264 on the GH5

Does anyone know if you can punch in while recording? 

The XT3 has this feature and I am finding it essential to have. 

Does the battery last any longer when recording only in 1080p?

22 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Then people say Sony has zombie skin tones. Lol not bad Z7! 

 

Z7 looks bright but doesn't hold much detail. 

7 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

No-- ISO measures exposure (though as said before, different manufacturers measure differently), not gain. So the same ISO, shutter, and T-stop should give identical exposure, no matter what camera or lenses you use.

Larger sensors gather more light, and thus require less gain to reach an equivalent exposure compared to a smaller sensor. A FF sensor at 0db should give the same exposure (and thus the same ISO) compared to a MFT camera at 12db. You should see less noise on FF compared to MFT under the same conditions, because less gain is applied.

In the real world, there are other factors with sensor tech and processing. A given FF camera might not have exactly the 2 stop advantage we'd expect over a given MFT camera.

Yes... except they all fudge their ISO numbers.

Thank you for the info, that makes complete sense now. Seems Sony is one of the more accurate ones. I wonder if they are consistent across all cameras though. 

One good thing about a more detailed image is for high ISO shooting. When you raise ISO the image gets softer generally(with NR). The softer the image is to begin with the softer it will look when you get to higher ISO's. 

Something like the A73 may look a bit too sharp to begin with, but when you get to ISO 12,800 retains a really nice looking image while most other cameras look unnaturally soft. 

Wouldn't a blur in post or filter on the lens attain that soft image on cameras like the GH5 or Sony