thebrothersthre3

17 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Yeah, that is what one of my "competitors" does. The problem is that it takes a lot of time (on location) and most realtors aren't willing to pay a couple thousand dollars for a two-minute video. At least, I don't have any of those realtors as clients.

https://youtu.be/h5zOW0t-Tms?t=101

https://youtu.be/Bfz_qTJOU1k

 

That does look really nice tho

13 minutes ago, mercer said:

Hmm, I took it the other way around based on the comments... hahaha.

Looked at it again and I can't tell haha

7 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah that looks great. I’d love to know where he used which camera. I have my guesses from looking at the trailer. I assume the X-T2 was the main camera and the GH5 was the run and gun handheld camera.

From the comments it sounded like the GH5 was the main camera with the XT2 as a b cam. 

7 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

What is the best profile for 4k60p excluding Vlog? 

CineD, CineV or Natural and with what settings would you use? 

 

CineD for dynamic range, natural for color

32 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Thanks for posting this.

It appears the X-T2 has more DR than the X-T3

Yeah, in the shadows probably. The XT2 is slightly cleaner than the XT3. Its why I find tests like Cinema 5D does not that useful. In a practical over under they would probably look identical, only the XT3 codec is way more robust.

50 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

So you are saying a Sony a7s mk II is really only maybe 11 stops? Interesting.

https://***URL not allowed***/the-cinema5d-camera-lab-is-back-dynamic-range-tests/

Cinema 5D says its 10.6 while the FS7 is 12 stops. They tested the GH5 at 9.7 stops and the OG BMPCC at 11.2 stops. 

I find over under tests much more useful. 

22 minutes ago, androidlad said:

I like your choice of word "SEEMS".

Most of his video has little to no reference video, I watch them for entertainment.

In this particular video, his testing method (NOT methodology) was flawed from the outset, how do you know the dynamic range "chart" he put up on a screen was exactly 1EV apart between the steps? There's a reason for Xyla 20-stop Dynamic Range Chart to cost $4K.

Next, for the deep shadow stops, how much noise is acceptable? There's no way for him to quantify without using professional tools such as IMATEST.

This is why I only reference Cinema5D's DR testing results: https://***URL not allowed***/the-cinema5d-camera-lab-is-back-dynamic-range-tests/

They haven't done A7 III, but I can say it won't be higher than 12.

Won't the A73 likely be very similar to the A7S2 certainly not higher. 

44 minutes ago, rarp said:

You are right, I like very much the look of the Zeiss 85

So, in order to record high quality codecs like prores, the recorder can have access to a higher bitrate than the camera itself can record?

Yes, I know about lightroom and its dislike for xtrans sensors. Until some time ago, I have been using a Fuji X pro1 and switched to using capture one for the raf files. And I remember the mushy details were a little bit tricky to sharpen. But probably things have evolved also in the last few years.

Yeah I am pretty sure the current version of lightroom is pretty decent. I just did a comparison between converted DNG's to Fuji RAF files in lightroom. There was a difference but only visible when cropping in and it wasn't that noticeable even then. 

Yes the external recording is completely different. It uses Prores data rates which are a lot larger than the 150mbps internal(I believe its 150mbps?). A single minute of ProRes UHD file (3840 x 2160) is around 5.3 GB (880 Mbits/s)

That is the nice thing about compressed codecs, Fuji's 400mbps is half the data rate. 

I do like full frame, which is why I have been using a speedbooster a lot on the Fuji. Though I have to say the 50mm f2 and 23mm f2 get nice bokeh for most situations when I need auto focus. 

Yeah I really don't like using anything longer than 50mm on a gimbal(M43). That said its definitely a bummer when tech gets worse rather than better. Maybe its improved for photos but doesn't translate well for video. 

19 minutes ago, ThomHaig said:

Hey everyone - infrequent poster here looking for some lens advice, please!

I own an X-T2 and I'm looking for a macro lens for 4K shooting. I was all set to by the Fujifilm 60mm f2.4 macro, but then I learnt it's closest focus distance only allows for 0.5x magnification, which doesn't seem idea considering I'm looking for something for dedicated macro use. Fujifilm do an 80mm OIS macro, but isn't really priced for mortals, so I'm looking at other options and considering adapting, be it a vintage or modern macro lens. I would rather keep things to a sane budget (up to around £300 ish) and would rather something relatively compact to match the smaller body size of the x-t2, but it's no deal-breaker. Would appreciate any opinions, thanks!

Lots of vintage Nikon glass that does the job. I had my eye on the 55mm 3.5

Well his point that it holds dynamic range better than the other profiles is true. But yeah I kye is right he's confused by the HLG looking clip in FCPX

that was lovely

This was shot all on the GH5 and XT2. Looks pretty amazing. 

31 minutes ago, DanielVranic said:

400MBps UHD on both

Heat was not a factor. The camera (XT3) directly next to it ran for 15 mins longer (filled the card, non-heat)

Have not swapped them in a while, so i do not recall if there has been a change. I will test this afternoon.

 

Is it the card you used?

7 hours ago, rarp said:

Thanks everybody for your replies. The idea of having image stabilization to my Zeiss 35 and 85 is kind of nice.

 

I have tried once an external recorder and found some features really nice to have, like false color. Not to mention that, in the long run, I think it's also cheaper to use than internal recording. A good quality 500gb ssd can be found for 80 euro. Having 500gb of fast sd cards for internal video recording cost the same or even more than the external recorder itself.

 

Besides the colors, what intrigues me about the Fuji is also the much higher bitrate: 400 vs 100 mbps of the Z6. But for stills, the fuji files have sometimes a kind of mushy appearance in the details, which I don't like that much. I tried to work on some raw files from the fuji and that mushy look is tricky to get rid of.

Talking about bitrate, maybe I miss something, but how can be possible to have some options like the coming z6 raw recording available from a camera with lower bitrate?

Its possible because the the external recorder is doing all the work not the camera itself. The internal recording is a big plus for me. Internal 10 bit at 400mbps is crazy good C300 mk2 territory. That said I find 200mbps perfectly fine for anything I've ever used. Also I've found the Sandisk V30 cards handle 400mbps. I just don't like the extra bulk. 

As far as stills I've never noticed any issue of sharpness. Could be an Xtrans sensor issue if you are using lightroom. People recommend converting the files to DNG or using another program like capture one. I shoot jpegs a lot. 

I would think any moderately honest person would return gear with a phone number on it?

Seems like a good idea though.

2 minutes ago, Turboguard said:

I don’t know if I’m understanding you correct but you want to add the effect to everything in say V1? If so, just add an adjustment layer in V2 and make it as long as your in to out. Then just add the effect to that adjustment layer, everything below the adjustment layer with take its effects. 

Yeah just read that is an option too. Good idea

Looked amazing in that video. Really nice and smooth focus transition. Would like to see if it can handle very shallow DOF and of course high backlit conditions. 

10 hours ago, Zeng said:

Like I said, this is very subjective. For instance, based on how Geoff Boyle discards the stops under, overall X-T3 wouldn't have any more stops beyond the charts. However, if you find acceptable strong color loss you may say X-T3 has more controlled noise with less chroma in it, and thus a bit more in the shadows. I'd say, total range is about equal with Fuji having less color and less noise, and Z6 having better color and uglier noise.

opps my bad, I got the videos mixed up, the Nikon looks better. At f8+/ ND1.2 the Fuji takes a big drop and the Nikon comes out ahead. 

2 minutes ago, MeanRevert said:

What kind of performance are you guys getting in Premiere vs Resolve when it comes to just using the H265 files themselves (i.e. no ProRes transcode)?

Its decent on my PC, better than Vegas Pro. 

16 minutes ago, Attila Bakos said:

Yeah that's the old way of doing it, but the method androidlad mentioned is faster, I'd recommend that one. The presets are under Effects->Lumetri presets->Technical.

Yeah that is faster, wasn't sure how to do it until you layed it out, thanks. To bad you can't apply the effect to the entire track. I'll have to see if I can transcode my files to full range. 

transcode to legal range I mean*** 

 

13 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

There is in Raw. If it used the full sensor, it’d have to down res/ process the image, making it no longer raw. ProRes has no crop in 1080p

 

Ah that makes sense, interesting. 

For anyone interested the method I ended up using was adding the Fast Color Corrector tool in Video Effects under Obsolete. I changed the Output Black Level to 16 and the Output White Level to 235. Both transcoded prores and original H265 files look the same now (no more blown highlights and crushed shadows). 

On 3/8/2019 at 6:00 AM, Anaconda_ said:

I think it's a 2x crop on the MFT sensor, so 4x crop of full frame.

Uh, I don't think there is a crop unless shooting at 120fps. 

On 3/8/2019 at 1:54 AM, Newway12 said:

I wouldn’t use b and h. It took forever for me to get mine from them.

I think its Blackmagic not B&H, they have always been very fast for me. 

Testing this on mine I'll let you know if it works.

15 hours ago, Zeng said:

I've uploaded test for X-T3 and Z6. It was based on cinematography.net testing method. Highlights range is clear there, while the shadows range is open to anyone's interpretation... 

 

 

The highlight retention looks the same. XT3 does look quite a bit better in the shadows though.