Jump to content

ghostwind

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ghostwind

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yep, which is why trying to emulate or imitate what Hollywood is doing, what I was saying in my posts, is a losing battle. Focus should be #1 on story and #2 on acting. If you have those 2 nailed, it doesn't matter if you shot it with an Alexa or a DSLR. Everyone agrees on story, but without good acting, you will not evoke emotions from your story. Way too many "pretty" movies out there from young, independent filmmakers with nice images, expensive cameras, great lighting, and even decent stories. But a lot of bad acting. It's not easy to have great acting on a small budget, but it should definitely be a priority over everything else IMHO. I believe this is overlooked at the expense of other items.
  2. We have never seen more mediocre and bad films that look so good since the advent of digital made filmmaking more affordable. As I said, it's an imitation game for most people for now. People making movies because they can, not because they have something to say. I see a lot of stuff shot on REDs or Arris that looks great, but feels like I'm back in college, watching aesthetics with no content, no message, no anything.
  3. I'm actually not that surprised. People need to fit in to get in. With digital photography people are still trying to emulate film stocks (among other things). It's still new, and an imitation game for now. It will take a while until people stop trying to copy and emulate the past with current tools, and use the current tools for what they have to offer instead - different and unique ways of looking at things (not just low light abilities, technical advantages, etc.). But it will happen once the romance with the past is gone. But my post was really more as it pertains to this thread - shoot for your audience - 6K -> 2K or even less. And the audience is more and more watching on phones. That means you need to change how you think, compose, expose, grade, etc. Wide, very detailed shots? Not so good on small phones. Shadow detail? Hmm..Same with photos. Vertical vs. 2x3 landscape. I can go on and on because I'm living it with my photography work somewhat. Reminds me of the cinematographer who shot that super-dark Game of Thrones episode - I forget the one. He was saying he was shooting it for a large "canvas" (he was shooting for HBO...), and that people should not be watching on phones, they should calibrate their OLED TVs, etc. I get it - he wants the best quality. But the reality is you have to shoot for your audience if you want your stuff seen and out there. Look at the legitimate backlash that guy got over that episode. And understandably so. I'm not saying shoot for crap, and compromise your vision or artistic integrity, but think differently if you want to stay relevant.
  4. I disagree it's a "mere gimmick". The phone is small, even rigged up and will allow for a different type of filmmaking and look. It's not just about being cheaper, but about allowing for a different look that will become more and more popular. It has AF, OIS, is very small, etc, etc. Blackmagic "Pocket"? Not so much "pocket"
  5. Some food for thought. I tend to agree. The future will be this on one end, and on the other end, very high end cameras/production to differentiate. The middle, for the most part, will diminish. https://noamkroll.com/why-iphones-are-now-the-inevitable-future-of-independent-filmmaking/
  6. 5.7K/6K sensors are really needed to output true 4K after the deBayering process required off the sensor. So to get true 4K, you need a 5.7K/6K sensor, as a 4K sensor after deBayering produces roughly a 2.7K image. The cameras with 4K sensors out there add sharpening that's not in the source (some more than others - e.g. Sony more than Canon) and aliasing. So yeah, for true 4K, you need the larger sensor. In terms of consumer, 4K is nice on my 65" OLED, but the HDR that comes with it is junk, so I don't watch 4K content for the most part. No consumer display can be calibrated for HDR REC.2020/P3, so the colors and black levels are all over the place and differ from display to display, as do mastering and display maximum nits. It's a total mess. 4K without HDR would have been perfect, but unless everyone had a 65" or greater, and the source was true 4K or scanned 4K film, nobody would be able to see a major difference worth investing in.
  7. @Michi Thanks! Perhaps I should have clarified or expanded on my statement. What I simply meant is that no 4K sensor does actual 4K, because of the deBayering required off the sensor. True 4K would require a 5.7K sensor for example, like the Panasonic EVA1 for has. A 4K sensor produces about a 2.7K image. Now some cameras do it better than others, but in the end you still end up with artificial sharpening that's not in the source and aliasing. This is why the Canon C200/300 4K is soft. They are less aggressive than Sony in processing, but in either case it's not real 4K. Does that matter? Yes and no. My comment was in the context that a 4K sensor (like in the C100MKII) can actually do a true 1080p, while no 4K sensor can do a true 4K on output (C200). So that's why the difference is actually not that much between 4K and 1080p. It's more like 2.7K vs 2K
  8. @Michi Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. But I'm ready to bite the bullet on a C100MKII and start shooting. I just think for me it makes the most sense given what I said in my last post (and initial post really). I think the C100MKII does 1080p extremely well, but I don't think the C200 does 4K very well at all, unless you shoot RAW, which I don't plan on doing for reasons stated. I do think RAW is the future on more and more <$10K cameras, as I've said, but I don't want to get into it yet and not with the single slot / Cfast card that is on the C200. 1080p isn't changing, it's proven/known, and it's still most of what's out there. So getting the best 1080p camera for relatively cheap (C100MKII) makes the most sense now, even if the camera is old. I'll wait for a <$10K proper 4K camera from Canon in the next 1-2 years. Until then, as I've said, if a client requires 4K, I'll rent. I do plan to use my DSLRs in conjunction with the C100MKII, and they can do 4K and HFR, gimbal, etc. So I have a good mix. C200 would overlap too much. The DPAF is very good, but my 1DXMKII is better I feel. And for when I need that, I can use the 1DXMKII in 4K. This would be mainly for sports, where I have to track an athlete for example, or other special cases. For most use, the DPAF in the C100MKII is plenty fine for me. I'll use a lot more MF anyways on the C100MKII / for video work, because well, it's nicer looking and I have total control. Yes, the C100's monitor is not in the best place, but at the same time it sort of is because I can tuck it away and be more compact. As I *do* plan on using the NINJA V most of the time, it makes sense. I know what you mean, but I cannot use any of these C100/200/300 LCD for critical focus, framing, bright light conditions, so yeah, I like the 5" NINJA. I'll put it on a small ballhead cold shoe mount and move it around as needed. I shot this way yesterday and loved it. Loved having the larger screen, brighter screen, with aspect ratio markers, focus peaking, waveform, etc. I can see people hating it, but to each his own. I can shoot in ProRes 422 HQ for like 12hours on a 1GB $340 SSD. And I'll have backup files to both SD slots too. And it will all be sensible in terms of file sizes but at very high quality on the ProRes side. This C100MKII can shoot forever and battery lasts long too. So I do understand and appreciate your points, but for me yeah, the C100MKII is a bit more special. More importantly, it's the right tool for me, now. I don't think I'll ever sell it. I think it's going to be one of those cameras that you keep. I still have my original 5D, my film 1V, and some others. Anyway, again, this thread has been super helpful and informative, even if we have different opinions. I did learn a lot, and will continue to. Thanks to all, especially @kye, @User, and @IronFilm!
  9. Guys (Tony Stark mainly), look, I truly appreciate all the replies and wanting to be helpful, but I'm not looking for advice on (or to talk about) framing, lighting, the history of cinematography, sound editing, pulling focus, video shooting 101, or whatever else you may assume I may or may not need to know before getting a decent cinema camera. I've discussed my background briefly and some other things early on in this thread as they pertain to the question I posted originally. I also discussed what I will be filming and plan/want to. I went over the fact that shooting with my DSLRs is a headache and described why. So no real need to keep at it, as it's not complicated really. Some of the analogies made don't quite work, but I don't need to go into details because it's pointless and time consuming. Yes, I'm "obsessing" a bit about the details, because as I've said, I like to do my research before investing in something. And I've learned a lot in the past few weeks since starting this thread. There are a lot of questions I don't need to ask, because I know the answer to them. The Canon 1080p threw me off, because although I've come to somewhat understand it, it should have been more clear. As you move on up the line, things should improve (which they do for the most part), and basic things should not get worse! Like I said in a prior post, I still use the single, AF point in SERVO mode for my sports photography (heck for ALL my photography), even with all the fancy AF modes the 1DXMKII has. For me it's the simplest way to work, and I'm glad Canon didn't remove it if you get my analogy. For what it's worth, I finally rented a C100MKII and a C200 yesterday morning and did a lot of testing. I shot in low light, in harsh and bright light, played around with all the settings, internal vs. external to a Ninja V, imported and played around in Premiere, etc. I spent about 10-12 hours doing all of this. Basically dedicated my entire day and night to it. I went to a track meet to see how the DPAF would work, and to have real things to film instead of brick walls, cats, and trees, etc. I wanted to see which camera would also feel best in my hands for a long period of time in terms of weight, ergonomics, etc. For the latter, I prefer the C100MKII. For 1080p, which was my big question, I was surprised that the C100MKII is pretty much up there with the C200 in terms of acuity and detail if not better in some cases. This is from external Ninja V ProRes 422 HQ. Internal to SD @ 24Mpbs is pretty damn good, but not as good in post as external to the Ninja - no surprise there I suppose. I wish the C100MKII would have more ND stops than 6, like the C200 does with the 8 & 10, but it's OK. For the C200 I compared internal UHD 420 8bit downconverted to 1080p in Premiere and also external 1080p 422 10bit to Ninja V. To be honest, it was hard to see a difference between the two methods - with the C100MKII it was more clear that external is the better way to go for IQ. I was also surprised that the 4K is kind of soft on the C200. In terms of the sensor, yeah, the C200 has more latitude for exposing, less high ISO noise, and a different color to the files (though I can't say it's better - just different). I did also shoot RAW for a bit out of curiosity, and yes, indeed that looks exceptional. For the other things, I don't think it's worth it over the C100MKII. So yeah, I confirmed a lot of what was said or what I thought - the C200 is great, but if you don't plan to shoot mostly in RAW, for me it's not worth 2x+ the cost over the C100MKII for the 1-1.5 stop more DR, less ISO noise, etc. And I suppose this should be obvious - it's meant for people that want to shoot RAW. I was just wanting to see if the C100MKII could do as good in 1080p. I didn't rent the C300MKII, but that's what I would use if someone wants to pay me extra for 4K shoot/delivery. Otherwise it's overkill for me now, and the C100MKII is the cheaper/safer bet until I wear it out. I was honestly surprised at just how good it really is, so many years later. EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about the DPAF. Yes, on the C200 it's a lot better, but not worth it in the end for me. The screen is also nicer on the C200, as are the audio inputs on the body, etc. But since I'll be using the Ninja V most of the time (and not just for recording, but for having a larger screen to monitor, to see framing, focus, outdoors in bright light, etc.), the Canon screen is not critical. I actually like that I can move the C100's screen off to the side or even close it when shooting. Simpler and more compact.
  10. I saw this after I posted, but pretty spot on! I looked at the EOS R, but even if excellent at 1080p (with the caveats you spell out), it's still easier to shoot video with a dedicated cinema camera for reasons stated in my prior post. I also found working with it (when I was playing with it for stills) frustrating, as I like to have dials, buttons, and an OVF. If I had to, I would get used to it, but man, it was like I was fighting the camera to work fast.
  11. Well this is a "gear advice" thread, so yeah! Of course it's one aspect, but right now the costly aspect. Give up what million things for example? What features specifically? Should I talk instead about lighting and composition in this thread? Sound? No, no need for that here. I know what you mean, but again, this is about the best Canon camera for 1080p. I said earlier on, I want the best 1080p camera Canon has to offer. After 5 pages, it's still not very clear , and it should easily be. And Canon is to blame for that, but yeah...8bit crippled here, 10bit there, RAW somewhere else, etc. I'm just navigating the Canon landscape, marketing decisions and all leaving consumers scratching their heads. So it takes some time to figure it out, which is OK. I'm appreciative of the people contributing to this thread. It's all good. The other things - the feel, the ergonomics, button layout, other features one camera may have over another - things I spoke about, are personal decisions I will (and already have for many) figure out on my own. Usually those take longer but in this case it's the other way around. The tech stuff should have clear answers. It was very easy for me to choose my 1DXMKII or 5DMK4 for stills work, even if there were better sensors out there or whatever. It was not a mystery like the cinema stuff!
  12. Thanks for that. It does look like the C100 is about 2 stops noisier, but that's a way older sensor and processor than the C200's, so to be expected. Otherwise it holds up well. I wonder how the C100MKII fares against the C100 in terms of noise. Funny enough, I never cared much about high ISO noise in photos (even before I had the 1DXMKII), but in movies it bothers me. I wonder what the difference in DR is though. 2 -3 stops?
  13. I read some of your older posts when searching. Did you go to the C200 and if so how is it compared to the C100 you had?
  14. @User Actually the C100MKII - it's the one I've been playing with along the C200 at a local store here. @Kisaha No need to be condescending. I mistakenly left out the word "your" before "movies", as in "your movies" the movies (run & gun docs) @User was talking about shooting and why no desire for a FF sensor, and I was just agreeing basically that it's a pain to pull focus and not easy like in 1 still. I'm editing the post to put the missing word in, then hopefully you can relax and play nice, w/o assuming things about people you don't know, their experience, and writing on and on about it. FYI, cinematography was the first medium I was attracted to and films are what got me interested in photography. I know quite a bit about the process and the history. And to this day I'm more influenced by cinematographers than photographers, as I don't see them so differently as you do. Not to belabor the point, but now that you brought it up, it IS one of the reasons in many cases. Decisions are not just artistic, but technical, budgetary, etc. in nature too. Often times driven by other media - television for example if you look historically and how it's impacted DOF (among other things like aspect ratios). And in the last 10 years, the move to "bokeh" and very shallow DOF because of technology allowing it to be easier. So it's not just about storytelling, but it's a bit of a fad as of late due to technology. Like lifted blacks. But yeah, let's get back on point.
  15. @User Hard to predict, but if Canon sticks with the C100/200/300/500/700 lineup, I can see the C100/200 keeping S35 sensors and C300 and up going to FF. I think having options is the best thing, and if the FF sensor can also shooting in S35 crop mode (like the C500MKII), then nothing to worry about. When you need more DOF for a given aperture/ISO, go to S35 crop mode, otherwise stay in FF. Flexibility is good. Of course movies typically have more DOF than photos, because of the focus pulling nightmares involved, which in photography is not really an issue. But going forward it's hard to say. The move to larger sensors and future AF will allow films to have shallower DOF. @kye Thanks for the advice with the vertical video / shooting. This is the part that still has me on the fence with the C100MKII among other things, in that I can't shoot 4K and crop a vertical 1080p as we discussed earlier. I can razz it up as you say, which may be ok for social media use though. But the EVF on it is awful, and the LCD in the wrong place for me (I like to cradle and brace the camera against my body when shooting handheld). With the C200, better form factor/LCD/EVF, and I can shoot everything in 4K YCC 420 8bit internal, and output as needed = simpler workflow, 150Mps good for SD storage, less worries in a way. And I can always shoot RAW/CRL as needed - option is there. But yeah...damn C200! In any case, either would need an external monitor like the Ninja V so I can properly see the focus and framing and record externally as needed (e.g. on DSLRs, C100MKII, and possibly even C200 2K 10bit). It's hard to say what I'll do in a few years, but I don't see myself going away from Canon for my stills work, as I love the 1DXMKII and 5DMK4 and have so much glass as I listed in my first post. I've been shooting Canon 20 years now, with the 1V film camera being my first, and am so familiar with the ergonomics and like/prefer them to any camera out there. So that would mean to have 2 systems for photography and videography, if I go Sony or Panasonic, which is a pain. To be honest, on the stills front, I have no idea what Canon will do, but I don't even need more camera than what I have now. I don't want more megapixels, my lenses are plenty sharp, ISO is crazy good, etc. It's all diminishing returns from here in the photo world IMHO, unless you need some auto AF mode, but most pros never use that. I tried all AF modes withe the 1DXMKII when it came out, and still (like most sports photographers I know) only use the center AF with 4 point expansion at times. Keeping it simple! Yeah the Sony A9 can do crazy fps, has a ton of focus points over the large sensor, etc. I used it, and hated it. Dunno.
×
×
  • Create New...