filmmakereu

Got the R5c today, checked the video AF and it locked on fine.
512GB only last 30min of 8k50p, on 5.9k 50p it last nearly an hour which is more doable.
Might have to use the speedbooster again for 5.9k raw 🤔
And battery life is much worse than R5, 4k50p last 40 something min so I guess I will be pairing with my 18w pd powerbank for long tripod shoot..
Btw absolutely no video on photo mode. You have to switch mode to do video and vice versa.
Body and operating wise it feels like mini c70 when shooting video, better balance with lens than R5 I reckon.
 

In the meantime... who doesn't like slo-mo 8K? ;- )
 

...and it's not April fool's ; )
Versatile enough... looks like pretty clear to me we have here a hell of a camera :- )

So I did many test and the face tracking the R5c thanks to the Face Only mode is more reliable/usable for video than the R5. I did shoot a school theater (not my usual stuff) and with a 70-200 at 2.8 with even changing lights etc the Face AF worked almost perfectly and when it loses the Face the fact that it does not jump focus it does not ruin the shoot.






In pure speed R5 and R5c with the AF settings to the max speed/reactive they are exactly the same, I tested side by side with the same lens.
Now here is where my problem was the "large AF area" of the R5c is similar to the second smaller AF area of the R5 the one that I use the most for action and it turns out that R5c tend to stick to the BG and not refocus on the subject but surprisingly when using the smaller AF area the R5c works like the R5 in the second smaller area. Bottomline this seems to fix my issue.

Still it would be cool to have R5 AF engine animal, vehicle and all the other AF area at disposal but with this setup it seems to work for my stuff as I normal use either Face or the small area AF. 










Bottomline the camera is growing on me, but it could be just amazing if they would really share more between the two systems.
 
 

A useful battery hack for the R5C. Basically if you hit the Media button and keep it in that mode while you aren't shooting, you can almost triple the battery's life:
 

To those who still complain on lack of IBIS...
Here is a test made without it on the inexpensive RF 24mm f/1.8.
 
It's not the R5C but just for the sake of it shows how it does the job done though, eventually more suitable than any wobble/jerky artifacts for poor handheld work anyway.
 

On R5/R5C 8K/4K Fine it is 15.5ms, on 4K standard mode and 4K50p it change to 9.6ms, on 5.9K RAW APS-C it is 11.5ms
On R7 the 4K Fine mode it is around 31ms according to the graph, so if 4K50P is 14.5ms then I think 4k non standard will be the same as 4K50p.
I knew Gordon done the test of 4K fine, 4K standard and 1080p quality comparison on the R5, 4k standard is still way sharper than 1080p.
 

Roger, it is even more complex, for example see this CML discussion about perceived discussion, different DPs, different opinions: https://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/percieved-sharpness.htm
 

Do you even read the articles that you link to?
Messerschmidt: We shot 6K 2:1 with a 5K center extraction. This method gave us tremendous freedom in post for stabilization and re-framing when necessary. The editors work with a lot of split screens, so having the extra room to reframe and adjust in the cut is very helpful in that process.
also:
In addition to giving Fincher another crack at getting the exact composition he wants, it allows for the elimination of imperfections in the operating of the camera.
“If you are shooting an actor sitting up from a chair and the operator tilts up with him, you might do 10 takes of that and the operator might keep the headroom perfect for six of them, but if they chose for editorial a take where the operator clips the headroom it can be fixed in post,” said Messerschmidt. “Same thing for stabilization – rolling on a slightly bumpy floor or doing a crane move where the crane has a little wiggle in it or whatever, being able to take that out in post very much informs David’s aesthetic. It lets the show maintain that very ethereal, almost robotic look, letting the camera be anonymous in the storytelling process.”
I was speaking of your average Joe, not necessarily you.
Here you go again pitting one against the other. In your b&w mind one is either pro something or against the other. You cannot seem to fathom a person can value multiple aspects of IQ. Filmmaking is more complex than just resolution & color science you know. It’s not just one or the other. I shoot all types of resolutions, it depends on the project and the budget. I shoot all kinds of brands/codecs/sensor sizes etc. Whatever I feel fits the project. That how pros think and work. Enthusiasts come up with these dead-end theories and tend to clinch to one side.
You seem quite obessesed with color science, especially from ARRI. You keep claiming nothing has improved in that department in over a decade “none” “zero”. Sorry but that’s just plain incorrect, you musn’t have been following much. Canon/Sony/BM keep updating their CS. Canon offers you classic eos cinema color matrix or neutral which is ARRI inspired. Sony has had Venice’s S-Cinetone trickle down to FX/Alpha range. BM are on Gen5 of their CS.
Furthermore, the biggest improvement relative to CS in recent mirrorless tech is 10-bit Log & RAW. These types of codecs finally allow footage shot on hybrids to get proper color grading treatments, and potentially compete/match with big boy ARRI/RED footage.
If your complaining about CS in 2022 on a latest gen Canon/Sony/Nikon/Panny/BMD you perhaps should start taking a look at your grading skills.

Imperfection doesn't necessarily mean less...
EAG :- )

More comparison footage of the polished and unpolished Moller 32/2. Along with a flair test of the polished moller at the end,
 
 

After reading a facebook post in the vintage lens group, where a member asked about polishing a lens with damaged coatings on the front element, and where the responses were basically, "throw it in the garbage", I decided to make a quick comparison video of 2 moller 32/2 lenses I have.
One is in perfect condition.
The other was one I picked up for cheap.
When it arrived, the front lens cleaning marks were so excessive, it was truly unusable. So I decided to try polishing it.
I used diamond polishing compound 14000 grit, and a dremel with a polishing tool.
Look at the video and tell me which one of these lenses is unusable, and should be thrown in the garbage.
 
 

Wanted to say thanks again man! It seems to be working well and it's so much fun to use!!! 
 

I sincerely think both standpoints have their own merit and it's useless each side to take the other angle otherwise.
May business ethics play a role but not everyone cares about it, though. I believe past should count much more than people today are willing to. Take a look on the general elections in my native country last weekend... Scandal after scandal didn't take the political party in power away from a majority in the national Parliament.

@kye You’re the guy who wrote that the “new” canons have “clay like skin”? That statement alone kind of disqualifies you from any serious color science debate, no matter how many lengthy posts you write with images from high end productions shot on high res (lol) pro cinema cameras.

Kye just one question and please don’t take this personal. How much have you
 
1. Tried to actually create a specific ‘aesthetic’ (let’s focus on that for a second and ignore all other considerations to a production, some of which might be more important than that aesthetic) in a real world scenario by:
- Conceiving a type of look you want up front, often in coordination with clients and collaborators that may have wishes or needs that differ slightly or massively from your own taste or initial instinct, 
- going about selecting the tools that you need for achieving this. Keep in mind that you will need to test this equipment because some ideas that you had up front that seemed great or that you’ve heard about as performing X might not actually create the effect that you thought they would in practice. Sometimes locations or the camera/lenses that you preferred will not be available due to whatever reason. You will still be expected to achieve the previously agreed upon look. Quitting because you couldn’t get an Alexa will never get you another job again.
- actually creating  the look on set and MAINTAINING it across different shots that may be shot days apart. Remember that you might have less time in the schedule than you thought or that conditions changed beyond your control, you will still be expected to come close to your initial idea otherwise your look won’t match.
- gone into a grading suite with a colorist and perhaps even a client and graded a large project in a very limited amount of time. Keep in mind that you will not be able to try fifty different experiments just for giggles because you will get fired.
 
vs. 
 
2. Downloaded some clips off the internet and played around -however skillfully or elaborately- with the footage on your pc.
Because everything I’ve seen from you  around here -and I might be wrong- indicates to me that you fall squarely into the second category. There’s nothing wrong with that and I do not mean to gatekeep or to shit on the enthusiasm for the craft that you regularly display on here (which is AWESOME!), but I am a little astounded by the confidence and boldness at which you make some claims.
Please reflect upon your skill and experience and consider displaying some humility (know what you DON’T know), especially when looking at your experience (enthusiastic amateur filming their family on vacation) versus that of Django (working professional that has actually used some of the equipment that you make such confident assertions about). 

People debating over screen grabs of a Youtube video, I do not see anything wrong about.
I have seen Oscar level cinema of every kind here or anywhere else outside Hollywood bubble.

People debating over screen grabs of a Youtube video, I do not see anything wrong about.
I have seen Oscar level cinema of every kind here or anywhere else outside Hollywood bubble.

People debating over screen grabs of a Youtube video, I do not see anything wrong about.
I have seen Oscar level cinema of every kind here or anywhere else outside Hollywood bubble.

LOL You answered to your own previous first lines. Of course, that completely unscientific joke of mine is anything more than that... Now let's try to go there with less acquisition under the same circumstances/variables then ; ) Roughly gives an idea.
 
Andrew is right anyway, as far as the cinematic properties goes. 100% accurate. There are natural human limits to be reached too. Sweet spots as well. For sure : )
From then on, 'better' is wider and its peaks speak higher, a full step critically ahead and a way much relevant than 'more'. No doubts.
Take a look on 14-bit or 12-bit RAW, even lower res, just to have the whole picture how this makes a valid point.
But, I and you, alias Django user here, just understand one doesn't exclude the other.
 
That said, to follow all that, as @cameraeye @DWX have also pointed out the post route, we have yet many other applications for. With a plain hand of implications over the production process itself. Daily consequences business-wise on the fact our craft is affected or can proceed.
When I mention large format printing is not for nothing. I've already faced a few situations where my wishful thinking fits a hybrid tool offering us 50 fps acquisition at least, and the highest resolution at the same time going along the same shot -- for many different use cases later. This capture device comes closer.

Hello - I have been studying anamorphic the past 8months after stumbling into one of Titos youtubes.
As he explained, that he made many financial errors in the beginning. While i was skeptical, it turned out he was 100% correct. I did waste lots of money with total experiment stuff I now would not use for anything. But I guess one has to find his or hers own path. What works for one may not work for another. I was the same
So the 1st debate - How much did you waste in the beginning?
#2 - which setup did you find the most appealing?
#3 - For me the KEY ELEMENT is sharpness. I cant afford a 20K scope, so dual focus it must be. Flares are secondary. 
        Ive found That the scopes touted as the sharpest just were not - the ULTRA-STAR red and gold. Many of the older and less champined scopes I found to be sharper.
        I have not yet found a KOWA/B&H or the KOWA 8z to test.. With that, what scope surprised you that was unexpected?
Best regards - Dave w

Shooting on the 50mm 1.6 on an S1H open Gate 6k as per Tito's suggestion...   this lens is GREAT.   Even for "talking head" stuff.   
https://youtu.be/cx-up6YXMrM

I don't think it was ever a test, other than for walking around vlogging!
The only really valid tests are the one's that are at least close to your own intended use.
It's pure entertainment. If you like his particular form of entertainment...
His 'process' (because there is a semi-serious side to it), is in finding the perfect vlogging camera for his needs...which is in order to create content for his channels, so by it's nature, will be never ending. It's become a self-perpetuating thing now.
But as a serious educator? He's about as far from being one as most YouTubers are, but having 10's of thousands of followers does make you some kind of guru these days, even if that info is often conflicted. Or just wrong!
It's amusing in small doses, sometimes, but as you say, gets a bit tedious after a while.
As with most things, you can always take away a positive and in these types of cases, it's often NOT how to do something. And that in itself is a positive takeaway!
Who is imparting the information is as important as the information itself.

Of course not, I can understand you and this has been 'a new normal' with smartphones massification towards the content published on social media today but...
...why should we professionals or knowledgeable enthusiasts be unable to know how to properly shoot to begin with?
 
I come from film school where we had 2-3 takes per shot and no more than a full hand at best rate(/ratio) to further selection. Do you think when digital arrived people, used to such discipline, left and simply abandoned the norm?
 
Technology exists to improve and bring an increase of our potential skills range. To open them wings and fly, not to kill anything we got already earlier. The same way we sell our house for something bigger, we don't start from scratch or move lower, unless we fail. Don't blame technology but the human being behind, either on lacking something or the whole world around lacking all, if any.

It's Canon XH-A1. HDV footage.  A 1.6MP CCD sensor signal onto actual physical video tape @25 Mbps. 15 year old camera.