Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eugenia last won the day on September 4

Eugenia had the most liked content!

About Eugenia

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Spokane, WA, USA
  • Interests
    Filmmaking, illustration, collage, cooking, tech, sci-fi.
  • My cameras and kit
    BMPCC HD & 4k, GX85, Sony A6400, Canon M/M50/5DMkII

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For that sample I used a manual 7Artisans lens which has vintage characteristics. Except the Sigma 18-35 and some Tokina zooms for their versatility, I avoid modern lens designs (like the ultra sharp Panasonic/Leicas, for example). Regarding GFX 100's sharpness btw, here's a test I did yesterday comparing it to the BMPCC4k (more information on its youtube page, not via the video itself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efx6i5LMPK4&t=2s
  2. On Davinci Resolve Studio (not the free version) there are various blurring algorithms/plugins. I use "sharpen and soften" plugin, adjustment node, then Filmconvert itself blurs, and if it's still too sharp, I use any of these plugins or the default blurring found in one of the tabs on bottom half of the color page. At the end, I add one more adjustment node, and contrast pop (another Studio plugin). Modern digital cameras are too good in sharp details but with an anemic look, while film was traditionally softer but with much more acutance and midtone detail (particularly older film, modern film is closer to digital). Basically, details are still there, but "thicker". There's "texture" rather than outright "sharpness" (difficult to explain). These adjustments make the image look more like a moving painting, rather than video (at least to my eyes, who is after a vintage film look). Example below, using Panasonic's CineLike D and a rather soft, low contrast lens: https://imgur.com/a/FZoTc8j (open image in its own tab to look at full 4k size).
  3. My husband's GFX100 arrived yesterday for his studio. In a very short test I did, I found it to be sharper than my BMPCC 4k (its native Fuji lenses are very sharp, they resolve a lot of detail). I honestly don't think I need even sharper or whatever "better" Fuji thinks it can give us (better color/midtone detail sure, but even sharper details heck no). I had to soften the image in post by a lot to make it look anywhere near cinematic. There was a reason why Alexa was sitting at 2.8k resolution for the longest time before Netflix forced them to make a 4k camera. For true traditional cine stuff, 4k is enough. I personally have no plans on updating on 6k/8k any time soon, not even when 8k TVs might be commonplace. I end up softening my 4k clips in post by either Panasonic or BMD, but the GFX100 required a lot more (f-log). If you're after super crisp, commercial style look, that's your camera.
  4. Very, very, very unlikely. Such logic operations are done inside digic. And EVEN if that was true, their $0.03 on savings will cost them millions on bad press and sales.
  5. That is true. Just not for 24p. As I said above, it costs nothing to have 24p in there, it has always been a feature. The OS used is the same as in other cameras. The Digic8 can do 24p just fine too. You are trying to take Canon's side with a very generic argument that does not apply in the specific problem we are trying to address. As I mentioned above, they've done things like that before, and I described that in detail. And I forgot to mention above how around 2014-2015 they started offering 1080p at 32mbps instead of their usual 48mbps they had at that point (same exact encoder btw) for their dslr line. Little by little, they started stripping interesting features away from video, after their initial success with the 5D MkII. No conspiracy here, just facts. The most obvious conclusion here is that they're protecting their pro video line. For better or worse. And it's their right to do so if they want to. But let's not be blind to the fact that their competitors offer more video features at this time and age for the same price. As a Canon consumer, I've simply jumped ship. It was a simple move + the cost of an EF adapter.
  6. Regardless, this does not exactly play in their favor. Sony chipsets and other chipsets in the market are able to do in 1 chip what Canon's do in 3. Either way, they're behind. It costs them $0 to include it. The feature was always there for 10 years now, and it was always part of their OS. This was a clear move to push people to buy more expensive models. They aggressively segmentize and they've done so in the past (I will explain below). And that would work if they were a monopoly. But they have competitors that include more than just 24p in their cheaper cameras, they also have zebras, log etc. So why go with Canon then? Only Canon thinks that Canon users will stay with Canon no matter what. Little did they know, their EF lenses are getting adapted well to other systems as well. So, for a little history lesson. As a few people mentioned above, I indeed used to run a video-related blog back in the day. My little niche was "filmmaking on the very cheap". Basically, back then there wasn't much processing power to do 1080/30p on P&S digicams, manufacturers were often forced to use 24p (just because it was easier to encode). So Canon had a line of P&S cameras with 1080/24p at 36 Mbps. There were no manual controls, but there was exposure compensation & exposure lock. Which was enough to create artsy videos or short films on the super-cheap that looked rather professional -- if you were careful of how you were shooting with them. Add on top the ability to get a rather flat look to widen the DR (there were sharpness/contrast/sat controls), and it was a pretty sweet deal for cameras costing $150-$300. So for a couple of years, we had a number of P&S cams from Canon specifically that could be seen as alternatives to their 5D MkII, T2i, and 7D of that time (at least for people who couldn't afford these cameras and their lenses). I even shot a couple of music videos with such cams (we were not allowed to use my 5D MkII in the Santa Cruz Boardwalk to shoot a music video, but when I showed to the guards the tiny Canon SX30 HS P&S cam, they had no problem -- so they were really good guerrilla cams). The magic feature here was the exposure lock, that made those videos look pro. Fast forward to 2012. New Canon P&S line up announced across the board. And each one of these had exposure lock in video mode REMOVED (AEL for photos was still there). And in some other models, they removed exposure compensation as well (again, these features had been there for years at that point in video mode). They had to remove these because they couldn't remove 24p outright (simply because their processors were not fast enough yet to do 30p at 1080p, they were stuck with it). They probably saw that some people who could not afford dSLRs used these small cams as a cheap replacement for filmmaking, and they wanted to push these same people to upgrade. The thing is though, if these people had the money to buy a dSLR, they would have done so anyway. So, since then, I have a love-hate relationship with Canon. But their recent removal of 24p from a rather high end super-35 camera (the M6 MkII is not as low end as say, the M100) is unforgivable, sorry. Just because that's the EF-M line, should not make it a useless line for filmmaking. Some of us, want such cameras simply because they are small. The EOS R is much larger in comparison (and expensive when you account for native lenses). So yeah, what Canon is doing now, they've done before. It's part of their MO. And if it's true that they are upscaling 2.8k to 4k and lying about it, then they are really unforgivable. I have lost all the respect I had for that company all these years ago.
  7. I replied about the x-t3 in the previous page. It's the one I'll get, but when it's updated with ibis (since it on an bigger budget range, I rather get the full monty in that case). I give it a year or so. Until then, the A6400 should do the job for half the price.
  8. Not for me. I need a small package. While the EOS R itself is not that massive, its native lenses are and an external display/rec would be a no-go. I'm only 4'11" and I don't have much strength to keep such a rig on my shoulder for more than a couple of minutes (same reason why I don't use my BMPCC 4k rig much). I need a package the size of the M50/A6400/X-T30 with a 16x-50x kit-lens-size IS lens, along 10bit log rec. And if it happens to have ibis, even better. GH5 comes closest, but its AF is not good, so I pass. My hopes are for next year's Fuji. I need a true "one-man-crew" camera and I do have a feeling that it's Fuji that will deliver that.
  9. Thank you Mercer! These were great times back then, reporting on cameras etc. 🙂 I personally use the M and the M50 for small short films like this (M50 below, with the nifty fifty). So despite some people saying that 24p is not needed, I actually need it, and I rather use such a small package camera rather than a larger or more expensive camera for these smaller film projects. Canons have their problems, but with the VisionColor's Cinetech picture profile I get an excellent cinematic look, and more DR than Cinestyle. If only they could do proper 4k and have a 10bit codec. I tried ML a few times, but the aliasing and overheating keeps me from using it further.
  10. It used to be. I used to be in the HV20 community forum back then, I was quite active (and a moderator). These days, it's the 5D Mkii, M50, and three EOS M. I was looking forward to upgrade to the M6 MkII, but Canon had other ideas... I didn't want to pay almost $1100 more (kit lens, plus Fringer adapter) and not get IBIS. So basically, I see the A6400 as a cheaper, in-between camera, until an updated Fuji next year. That way at least, I have one sample each from all major manufacturers, lol...
  11. I own 4 Canons (along a BMPCC og & 4k, and GX85) and I was looking into upgrading my Canon M50 with the M6 MkII (as a walk-around video camera). I was shocked to see no 24p in there. So instead, I pulled the trigger just last week and bought a Sony A6400 with its kit lens, and an EF/S adapter. The A6400 has its own crippled sensor with (surprisingly high) rolling shutter. But at least it provides me with the right tools to create a cinematic image, if I'm careful of how I shoot. The M6 does not. No 24p, and still no zebras, spot metering, or a log profile after all these years. So despite its own problems, the A6400 was a better buy for me. Canon lost a sure sale. And now I'm hearing about pixel binning and upscaling, which makes me happier about my decision to go Sony. At the end, it's Fuji that it's going to win me over though, I know it in my gut. As long as they have an updated X-T3 with ibis, I'm there. I'll get their f/2.8 kit lens zoom, and the Fringer EF/S adapter, and I'll be golden for many years to come, I reckon. The last camera I'll buy for a good long while. It'd be good enough for what I need.
  • Create New...