aaa123jc

On 5/3/2023 at 6:00 PM, hyalinejim said:

This is true for all makes of cameras. Adobe Color / Standard / Neutral levels the playing field. These profiles are supposed to be close to natural colour, from what I can tell.

The Camera Matching profiles are Adobe's emulations of the manufacturer's own profiles and are always worth checking out as they may be much nicer than the default.

And sometimes using the manufacturer's own raw converter will give slightly nicer colour (but without most of the convenience of Adobe workflow).

Yes indeed. Though from my experience, profiles of other brands (like Nikon) don't improve the images as dramatically as the fuji ones. Maybe the emulations of fuji profiles are better made? Adobe put in more effort?

On 5/3/2023 at 6:59 PM, SRV1981 said:

I won’t be using log I’ve learned. That said, the xh2s is too big of a body - I’d prefer a more compact setup.  My two biggest worries going back to Fuji - 

1. autofocus 

2. ISO performance 

is the xt5 sensor different than xt4? Is it much worse than xh2s for video and photo? 

Like Django has said, the XT5 uses a different sensor than XT4. IMO the autofocus of fuji in stills is great and usuable in video mode. Just don't expect it has Sony or Canon's level of AF. The newer models like XT5 should have better AF, if only slightly.

ISO performance is again behind Sony technically. However, the fuji usually handles noise in a more pleasing manner. Some recipes even work better in high ISO. Unless you shoot in really really high ISO, I believe its ISO performance will be good enough, especially for photos.

The unique SOOC look comes from both the different sensor technology and those film simulations.

If you just import the raw files into lightroom and using adobe color science, the color is just kinda decent. Then, you change the color profile to those film simulations and the difference is night and day. It's almost a magical moment. That's why I buy a fuji camera for stills (mostly for causal use though).

For video, eterna is a decent starting point, if you don't plan on shooting Log. The XT5 and X2Hs are great cameras with a lot of features, but it really comes down to if you need those high end features.

Personally I choose my fuji camera based on look and erogomics, since the color sciene is terrific regardless of the model. That's why I sold my XT4 and got a XE4 instead. The only feature I ever miss is the IBIS.

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

FS7 has probably shot more professional content in recent years than anything else. 

The FS7 was absolutely dominant in the mid/low end market until just a few short years ago. 

And the C300mk2 was the #2 player behind it. 

People playing in the no budget mirrorless world are very lucky to now have cameras such as the FX30 that outperforms the image quality from a FS7. (but no NDs, no SDI, etc... still a lot of reasons to prefer a FS7)

And the Alexa when it first came out certainly was a big game changer in allowing to shoot in low light, vs what they typically used beforehand. 

The FS7 really is a legendary camera. IMO it deserves to have its own chapter in camera history. I maybe biased though, as an owner of two, the FS7 and the FS7M2. 😄

The image quality of the FS7 sensor still holds up, especially with good lighting. No client has ever complained about the images I produced with it. Not to mention other profesional features like SDI. Both of my FS7 are easily some of the best pruchase I have made ever.

On 4/22/2023 at 6:05 PM, SRV1981 said:

This is exactly what I’m saying. Well said. What cameras would you recommend for those who fit this description?

I can only comment on Sony cameras. I have very little experience with modern cameras from other brands.

TBH, basically any newer Sony camera(within 2-3 years) is going to be great at lowlight. I would recommend A7M4 because it is also a terrific stills camera, and in terms of image quality or high iso performance, quite similar to the A7S3. You don't need a high base of ISO 12800 to shoot in darker condition. For the most part, the high iso performance of the A7M4 is more than enough. It is FF too.

I personally use the FX30. Despite it being Super 35 and "only" ISO 2500, I can still shoot night scenes with it with only street lights and the results are at least acceptable. As long as there is some kind of light source, any capable modern Sony camera can give good result in lowlight.

My other even older camera, FS7M2, does decent in lowlight too. And that sensor is anicent, comparing to the A7M4.

Also, you can always clean up some of the noise in post. I really like the denoise in Davinci Resolve.

7 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

To the point you agreed about needs are different - do you think they're putting the a7s3 sensor in a consumer ZV-E1 because the majority of those users don't light scenes etc and need good ISO performance in challenging situations?

This maybe the case, and it helps marketing as well. Putting a professional sensor into a consumer (or prosumer) model makes the camera much easier to sell.

But yeah, for those vloggers who often shoot at environments where absolutely no lighting is allowed and whose work doesn't require a good image, rather it's more important to get the shot, good ISO performance can be a big plus. I think enthusiasts who just want to film their family or daily lives will also appreicate the extra lowlight capability.

Though back to the topic, I don't think the FX30, FX3 or the A7S3 is necessarily a perfect choice for those users. Unless they want a camera that they can grow their videography and filmmaking skills with.

Great idea! Have played with the EOS-M with Magic Lantern before but have not used the raw capability. Maybe its enough to justify getting a 5D2 too. Always want to buy one but couldn't convice myself to do it. 😄

18 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Everyone's needs are different.  As stated, some folks don't have the time/luxury/desire to setup external lighting and having a competent camera for lowlight would be very helpful.  If the noise was not a distraction/noticeable then i'd agree with you.  That said, I am unsure if it is on the FX30.  I'll have to dig in deeper to see how the fx30 compares in lower lit conditions to the fx3/a7siii to see if it is really a noticeable difference. 

Obviously, everyone's needs are different. If one has to shoot almost always in very dark situation with absolutely no way to setup even the smallest of lights, like a newshooter, then he must have the camera with the best lowlight quality.

The FX30 is good enough in lowlight, as long as there is some light in the scene. Of couse it will do very poorly in pitch dark situation, but the same can be said for A7S3. Great in lowlight doesn't mean you don't have to light the scene. When we use the A7S3 at ISO 12800 setting on set of the short film, we still have to do porper lighting.

You need light to produce a good image. Great lowlight capablity is not the substitute for lighting.

Anyway, a cameraman has to adapt to the situation. In a lot of tight spaces or very poorly lit condition, even a small LED light panel can make the difference. Those are very cheap and portable, not luxurious at all.

There are many differences that make the A7S3 or FX3 the better camera than the FX30, such as FF look, no 4K120P crop. The lowlight advantage is there but IMO not as important as many other factors.

For work, I use the Sony FS7mk2 and FX30. Before I purchased the FX30, the second camera was the FS700.

For causal photography, I use the Fujifilm X-E4. Such a lovely experience.

Before covid I used the Sony A7mk3, but I sold it after there was no photo jobs at all. I still keep my Nikon D810 though. It's ancient, yet still takes beautiful photos. And I wouldn't sell it because of all the memories we shared. Probably the only camera I refuse to sell.

I've never worked in feature films, let alone direct one, but have worked in a few very low budget short films for some local film competitions. They are 25-30 mins long each and the highest budget one still cost under USD$8K.

Of course it is made possible because I'm not living in the US. Things are generally slighter cheaper here.

Basically, we need to gather a small group of aspiring individuals, perferably friends, who are willing to work long hours for free. Everyone has to multi-task on set. It's almost required to have crew that can fill in multiple posistions. The same applies in post production. Luckily, we just have some simple VFX so it's doable.

Also, have to make a lot of compromises. That means very strict and tight schedule. All were shot in under 3-5 days. Crew members had to fill in for extras or even acted as important side characters. Had to walk around the city to find the cheapest places to shoot. Much of the costumes were brought from stores that have a return policy. Most importantly, tons of arguements regarding budget allocations by every departments.

Needless to say it's quite a stressful and gruesome experience. I can't imagaine making a full feature film with only $30K.

The FX30 is great. A perfect camera for me.

Originally bought it to use alongside my FS7M2. Now, if the job doesn't require the bigger camera, I'll just use the FX30. The FX30 is so much lighter and image is also better. The pricing is great too. Much more affordable than the FX3. Super 35 is not an issue for me because I'm too poor to switch to all full frame lenses.

But if you want a hybrid, keep in mind it doesn't have mechanical shutter. Still very decent for taking some snapshots. Also 4K 120P has big crop. If you film a lot of slow motion, get the A7S3 or the FX3 instead.

22 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Exactly the opposite, it has tricks and technical specifications that someone with very limited knowledge can achieve results much above his/hers abilities..

I agree with the technical specifications. The tricks I can't say for certain though. It looks to me that cinematic mode does more harm than good at the moment. It may depends on how limited the knowledge of that person.

Anyways I haven't had a chance to test out this camera, so I'm just speculating.

If the ZV-E1 indeed can give someone with limited knowledge the ability to produce professional result, it's going to be a VERY BIG DEAL, but perhaps not so great for us professionals.😅

Haven't been following the camera market for a while and then this ZV-E1 appears. WOW. What a camera.

Obviously I'm not their target audience so it makes sense that I find it uninteresting and too expensive. That cinematic mode sounds cool until you look at the image and it looks really bad. Almost like the picture effect of older sony cameras. The AI framing thing looks much more practical and interesting but I'm sure it's not yet ready for professional work.

A season filmmaker can make great videos with this ZV-E1, no doubt. But on the hands of newbiew vloggers or regular people who want a travel camera, the ZV-E1 isn't going to give them better results than much cheaper cameras.

I recently purchased a tiny set of microprime (5 lenses). I've only done some minor testing though. Still I think for the price, they are very very nice. 

They are compact and quite well-built. The focus ring is pretty smooth. The images are beautiful, with a slight vintage feel, but the lenses are not very sharp, especially at the widest aperture. It really depends on your taste or the project. 

Unfortunately, looking professional does matter to some clients. They have to look for something to justify hiring an "expensive" videographer. 

But I also believe it is more important to have a camera set up that works for you. Rigging up the camera to impress at the cost of usability is stupid, IMO.

I don't really have this problem because I usually bring my FS7, but I've seen people rig up their mirrorless camera to a point where it is absurdly big and heavy to use properly. The client may be impressed by his look. I highly doubted the client will be impressed by the video he made though. 

It's amazing to see what people are doing with this little camera! 

The EOS M always has a place in my heart. For some unknown reason, it just comes with great colors. It only requires some minimal effort to get it to look good in my taste. Not to mention you can install Magic Lantern and add in many useful features. 

Anyway, a camera which can shoot RAW costing around $100 is unbelievable. 

It's unfortunate I had to sell it last year. Maybe one day I would buy it back and play with the RAW feature more😅. 

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

So moral of story sell your tripods while you can, all 12 of you, they are going to just start gathering dust.

It really comes down to what kind of work you're doing. Event videos, corporate videos, short films...etc. All of these requires a tripod, while a gimbal may not be essential. 

The YouTube community makes many believe working in video production professionally is about making cool shots with gimbals or any other fancy new technologies. Making those shots are cool, but the majority of works are usually done in a more traditional, even boring manner. 

And I'm not even talking about working in a proper film set (I have only worked in no budget short films). I usually work solo or with one or two partners. It is safe to suggest I am the average (or below average) working professional. 

I'm looking forward to the movie. And it's a great idea to go back to the root of filmmaking, which is to actually make a film. And I'm really interested in the new direction of the forum.

Talking about gears and technologies is great, but sometimes, it is easy to get caught up with all these things and forget filmmaking is so much more than just cinematography.

It was after I started to make my first short film have I realized there is so much to learn about filmmaking. And with each short film I make, I learn something new. This is much more rewarding and exciting than talking about gears all day.

After using the Sony A7S3 in one occasion, I quickly realized how reliable and convenient modern AF systems have become. It makes me question why I have decided to stick with my FS7 and not upgrade to a A7S3 or FX3 (well, because I have no budget😆). The new AF system just saves so much time. 

Why Panasonic still doesn't offer a good AF system is beyond me. Almost always the improvements on the AF system are for stills. For stills, that system is great. Very accurate and fast. Somehow the AF for video mode is just bad, and in my experience, worse than even some older contrast detection AF systems. I suspect the problem is not entirely the DFD system. 

Panasonic cameras are always very close to a perfect camera. IMO, they just have to fix the AF system, and they can easily out sale other brands. 

The FS5 is indeed a very capable camera, even in 2022. The eND is a great feature to have. RAW output is nice to have as well, but the FS700 also has it. But the KEY is to find a secondhanded FS5 with all the upgrades.

Without the upgrades, the FS5 is kind of meh. The only exciting feature is the eND. And the offical upgrades are far too expensive. In my local market, a FS5 with the upgrades usually doesn't cost more than $1700 USD. I've got mine for $1300 in 2020.

I wish Atomos would releast a smaller version of Shogun Inferno, say, a 5 inch version. It will make so much more sense ergonomic wise for the FS5 and FS700. The Shogun Inferno is just too big and heavy, IMO.

2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

That seems kind of crazy. Well it IS crazy. Were you using the camera overlays on the monitor or a clean out?

As a clean out. The job was to do a long interview so I had to use an external recorder for my Sony A7 III. I pressed record and left it unmanned to operate another camera.

What a mistake. Missed a lot of focus. Luckily I had another camera angle to cut to so it wasn't too obvious.

That was a long time ago though. I find manual focus for interview looks more natural, given the subject doesn't move like crazy. But I guess that's purely personal taste. The cameras I own right now can't do proper autofocus at all anyway.

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Ahh I was not aware of that, good tip. Doing video is just so addictive. Every shot you have a chance of getting top notch output. A worthy goal for sure. But it can be the most frustrating stuff also in the very next shot. Ehh what a hobby, a profession. Trouble is now as soon as you get good with the camera you upgrade to a better one and start all over. 

Sadly, I learned it the hard way. Almost ruined the whole interview. 😆

3 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Do we know how they operate their business? You cant rent brand X if they don't have enough units of brand X, on purpose! 

IDK. Where I live, the rental houses don't even offer Nikon.

Nevertheless, if certain brand is popular and beloved, the retnal houses are going to buy tons of units of that brand because these products are profitable. At the end of the day, profit is what matters for most businesses.

The 8bit S-Log2 is not going to cut well with the S1H. The differences between the color science and codec are too big. It is possible to match them but takes too much time.

Shooting with a deeper DoF with MF is much more doable. If you want a blurrier background, just create as much distance between the subject and the background.

The real issue is budget.

Within that price range, you can only get 8bit internal, let alone the highly compressed codec, from Sony (or Canon?). I find recording with an external recorder helps a lot, even though the HDMI output may still be 8bit only. But a recorder adds a lot to the cost and for certain Sony cameras, the face detection simply doesn't work with an external recorder.

I wonder why the Canon 5D Mark IV is at number 2? Even for stills, the R5 and R6 are both better.

Nikon is not doing well, kind of as expected. It's sad to see. I still remember the days when Canon and Nikon were the most popular brands, but Sony and Panasonic were doing the right things again and again while Nikon waited and did nothing.

On 12/28/2021 at 8:40 PM, PannySVHS said:

I think I enjoy the thought of possibility of testing and using all this gear and the thrill to buy them for cheap. Maybe we could start a thread with the best cam deals we made the last couple years.

This is such a great idea I wonder why no one had started such a thread. 😄

Buying quality gears for cheap is probably the most exciting thing for a videographer, especially one with GAS. It's not very healthy for the wallet though. And my girlfriend ande I used to have quite intense arguments because of that, until she gets GAS herself.

Anyway, I think the BMMCC is already a great camera. I used to want it very much but could't get myself a good deal. I really like its form factor and what it is capable of. The sensors of older Blackmagic cameras are almost magical.

The Varicam, on the other hand, has a very unique look. Very vibrant color, but the skintone might be a bit too meganta. However, I believe it is better than the EVA-1 in this regard. The EVA-1 has great color except for skintone which almost always requires some tweaking in post.

The FS700 you own is also a hidden gem, IMO, even more so than the famous F3. Pair it with an external recorder, it is as capable as any modern camera. I even use it without the recorder for lower budget jobs and the clients love it.