Jump to content

dellfonic

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Kisaha in Canon Cinema EOS C70 - Ah that explains it then!   
    Of course I would love to have everything the world has, thrown into the C70, but I am trying to be realistic.
    Yes, I would love it to have raw, and e-ND, and full XLRs, and SDI, and ProRes, and Braw, and other things, but then it wouldn't be the C70, and it wouldn't cost 5000$, or whatever it costs.
    I have the P4K, I have never shot braw, and that camera has NO AF while the C70 may have the best AF at the price point, less audio options, terrible battery life, no ergonomics whatsoever, less I/O, a smaller sensor ofcourse, no ND - which is like number one priority for video cameras. Why don't you go to the P4K thread to complain about all the issues and omissions, I wonder? 
    If you compare the C200 release, which HAS raw, you can go and check my opinion back then, and you will see that I was right (same with the first Canon RF cameras), they were stop gap releases, not long time solutions like this C70 is. If you need raw more than what the C70 offers, the C200 will be quite cheap for people to buy it really soon.
    Discussing for ever what a product does NOT have, it is just a waste of time in my opinion, but feel free to express yourself as you like ofcourse, sorry if I sounded autarchic, just can not see the point I guess.
    The turning point for me, and a lot other professionals in the field, was 10 bit files, and that will be enough for most things in the near future at least, raw is good to have for cheap (P4K) but it isn't a selling point for me and the pros I see working around me.
    Cheap raw solutions is more for hobbyists and semi-pros as I see it in real life. I literally have seen noone shooting raw in anything less than a feature, and definitely not on a C200 (par example), I believe using raw is a lot less important than we believe it is in some forums, and maybe Canon knows it.
  2. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Towd in Canon Cinema EOS C70 - Ah that explains it then!   
    In regards to Raw vs Log formats, while its nice to have a the ability to change color temp and ISO in RedRaw, etc.  The Kodak Cineon system, a 10 bit RGB 4:4:4 Log format was the gold standard for over 20 years when scanning film for digital processing in VFX and later for Digital Intermediates.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineon
    Every post house on the planet worth its salt should be comfortable delivering professional results using a 10 bit log "digital negative".  It wasn't until the rise of HD video acquisition over the last 10 years that raw became a thing.  And the early reaction to Red's raw format was mostly met with derision due to its lossy (gasp!) compression format.  Attitudes have definitely changed as people got used to the new formats.
    I think the big step up in the video/DSLR space was when we went from 8-bit video recording to a 10-bit log format like the GH5 offered.  The 8-bit log formats from Technicolor's Cinestyle, to C-Log, S-log, V-log are just too prone to banding and color artifacts when pushed heavily.  The ability to shoot raw is nice, but 10 bit log is a totally viable format for any post house to work with and deliver great results.
  3. Like
    dellfonic reacted to joema in Canon Cinema EOS C70 - Ah that explains it then!   
    There are several recent trends that make this difficult to assess. Past experience may not be a reliable indicator.
    Historically most use of RAW video has been proprietary formats which were expensive and complicated in both acquisition and post. By contrast both Blackmagic's BRAW and ProRes RAW are cheap to acquire and easy to handle in post. However they are both fairly recent developments, especially the rapidly-growing inexpensive availability of ProRes RAW via HDMI from various mirrorless cameras. If a given technology has only been widely available for 1-2 years, you won't immediately see great penetration in any segment of the video production community. There is institutional inertia and lag.
    However, long before BRAW and ProRes RAW, we had regular ProRes acquisition, either internally or via external recorders. Lots of shops have used ProRes acquisition because it avoids time-consuming transcoding and gives good quality in post. BRAW or ProRes RAW are no more complex or difficult to use than ProRes. This implies in the future, those RAW formats may grow and become somewhat more widely used, even in lower end productions.
    Conflicting with this is the more widespread recent availability of good-quality internal 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs on mirrorless cameras. I recently did a color correction test comparing 12-bit ProRes RAW from a Sony FS5  via Atomos Inferno to 10-bit 4:2:2 All-Intra from an A7SIII, and even when doing aggressive HSL masking, the A7SIII internal codec looked really good.
    So the idea is not accurate that the C70 is somehow debilitated because of not shipping with RAW capability on day 1. OTOH Sony will also face this same issue when the FX6 is shortly released. If it doesn't at least have ProRes RAW via HDMI to Atomos, that will be a perceptual problem because the A7SIII and S1H have it. It's also not just about RAW -- regular ProRes is widely used, e.g. various cameras inc'l Blackmagic record this internally or with an inexpensive external recorder.  The S1, S1H and A7SIII can record regular 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes to a Ninja V, the BMPCC4k can record that internally or via USB-C to a Samsung T5, etc. 
    With a good quality 10-bit internal codec you may have less need for either RAW or ProRes acquisition. OTOH I believe some camera mfgs have an internal perceptual problem which is reflected externally in their products and marketing. E.g, I recently asked a senior Sony marketing guy what is the strategy for getting regular ProRes from the FX9. His response was why would I want that, why not use the internal codecs. There is some kind of disconnect, worsened by the new mirrorless cameras. Maybe the C70 lack of RAW is another manifestation. This general issue is discussed in the FX9 review starting at 06:25. While about the FX9 specifically, in broader terms the same issue (to varying degrees) affects the C70 and other cameras: 
     
  4. Like
    dellfonic reacted to SteveV4D in Canon Cinema EOS C70 - Ah that explains it then!   
    Its not so much RAW, although RAWlite and BRAW have brought it to the masses; its about having an edit friendly codec.  Its about the ease of editing with what you shoot with without proxy or transcode.  I've shot in BRAW on a SSD drive and edited it directly on a laptop and delivered a video onsite within the hour.  So quick and works well with Resolve.  In comparison, H264 can take longer to edit.  I actually work quicker with BRAW in Resolve than H264 in Premiere.  Thumbnails load quicker, playback smoother so you can preview the finished video without encoding first.  Saves so much time.  
    A Cinema camera should offer a professional codec for editing rather than a deliverable one you need to transcode. You say RAW workflow is as time intensive as transcoding H264, no its not.  The flexibility to work with what you have, to alter white balance and ISO so quickly can take the pain of correcting shots that didn't come out just right.  You can apply a LUT you used when filming for quick turnover or spend more time if you need to.
    And yes, I have the P4K and soon P6K for that.  Its not unreasonable to ask for a similar workflow from a camera costing more.  
    That said, I do like a lot about the camera.  The lack of proper codec is a negative, but for me the only major one.  I can live without the evf.  This camera ticks so many boxes for me; I am very tempted to look to buying one.  Its the camera the R5 should have been. 
    With Canon it feels like specs are all over the place.  No consistent pattern across their line with what they offer.   The R5 should have the video recording specs of the C70 and the C70 those of the R5.  Then the R5 wouldn't need an overheating cripple to stop people from using it professionally and the C70 would be video camera of the decade.
  5. Confused
    dellfonic reacted to John Matthews in Olympus announces new firmware development to allow RAW video on the E-M1X and E-M1III   
    They used to be in that "galaxy", not any more, even less with JIP. Sony sold 100% of their stock in Olympus. Just search for it. "Sorry". 
    It looks like you lack key information to call out other people and try to make yourself like the all-knowing guru/historian of the camera industry. We're all idiots in comparison.
    BTW, Japanese companies still work in a system called "capitalism"- it's not some karate dojo where they fight for honor!
  6. Like
    dellfonic reacted to John Matthews in Olympus announces new firmware development to allow RAW video on the E-M1X and E-M1III   
    This might be wishful thinking, but you're right. Not much needs to be done for Olympus to kick ass in MFT (sorry, watching too much Cobra Kai!). I will say, about their menus, the super control panel is the best thing since sliced bread. Decent slow-mo and internal, editable, 10-bit should be a top priority. Finally, they simply need to tweak their face detection to work at a greater distance from the subject. With all the rest being the same, it would be a winner!
    Again, ain't nobody goin to buy that GH6 with PDAF IMO. There are just too many other options at the same price-point. I'd rather run a two-camera setup with Blackmagic 4k and a Sigma quatro, or something there the likes.
  7. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Dave Maze in Olympus announces new firmware development to allow RAW video on the E-M1X and E-M1III   
    I still have an em1mkiii and the three Pro prime lenses. It’s a buggy camera and I’ve had issues with it locking up on me. I’ve stopped using it for that reason. Hopefully firmware will solve those issues. I think Panasonic made a bad move going to full frame. They should have just embraced m43 and dominated the space and that in turn would help boost Olympus. With cameras like the XT3 being only $999 now I don’t see a point in the Oly anymore. The ibis and colors are great but low light is bad and video features are lackluster. Maybe we will see some firmware updates that will add more video features... but for the price... I don’t see why anyone would go for the EM1 anymore. Not to mention the EM1X. That camera is way too expensive. 
    I don’t know... just my thoughts. Loved Olympus for a while. Still love them... but it’s starting to seem a little outdated at this point. 
  8. Like
    dellfonic reacted to PannySVHS in Is full frame really necessary?   
    FF gives me cheap wide angles and cheap entry into all focal lengths. Nuff said. Thank you for dropping the wisdom. Spend money on camera body, save money on lenses, if AF does not matter. Just the thought of putting a 28mm or a 50mm Canon FD on my S1 makes my heart rush. Beautiful! Now, Panasonic, give your beautiful Lumix S1 a free 10bit VLOG update, 10bit 4k60p included. Put out a paid update for 10bit 120fps HD and your ALL Intra Codec for 799 EU and S1, S5 and S1H will coexist and all become megasellers. S2H, SDI and internal NDs for 4499EU in 2022.:) So, FF is great.
  9. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Trek of Joy in Sony A7C - harms the camera industry   
    The a7c line has no impact on the future of the a6000 series. Its just another gateway to get people invested into the E-mount and buying FE lenses. There's nothing low cost or entry level about FF with the cheapest current body at $1798, and there isn't much by the way of small/cheap lenses which is where the low margin/high volume a6000 market sits. The marginal improvements made to the APS-c line in the last few years likely make it very profitable since they're the volume sellers. Many casual shooters have no interest in anything beyond the cheap 2-zoom-lens kits, and they're not going to spend $3000 for a FF equivalent when that a6000 kit is like $600.
    The a7c simply a parts bin camera - much like the a7III was/is - and they're testing the market for a small body in response to competitors like the RP and Z5. If its a success - and despite its shortcomings its going to sell well IMO - we'll probably see other variants pretty soon. Quite frankly its no different than Panasonic's S5 - which uses the same sensor as their others non-R bodies in a cheaper body. They're trying to recoup investment in the hardware/software development by amortizing the costs over multiple variants to hit sales volume needed to keep imaging afloat. That's also the business model entire Fuji X and Olympus (RIP) m43 line BTW.
    While this one doesn't interest me, drop the 42mp a7r3 leftovers into this with the new AF, processor, menus, touchscreen and such and they'd have me.
    Cheers
    Chris
  10. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Elias in Sony A7C - harms the camera industry   
    Hi Andrew,
     
    This would be the very first time ever that I disagree with you. Let me explain why:
    1. In a free market if a product does not meet user's expectation and a better alternative shows up the market will balance itself out. If there is too much competition prices will come down. If the prices hurt producers some will die and the market will balance itself out again. In the end we all win as we'll end up with better spec'ed cameras at lower prices.
    2. It's best to eat your own lunch rather than having someone else come eat it for you. I think this is a decent move from Sony to protect itself from the likes like Fuji in this segment (should they decide to come into the market with a compact full-frame alternative. And it's better to get a consumer to invest into a lower-margin Sony camera than spending the money on a competitor. And finally if someone decides to go for this camera instead of an A7III is because they know what they're into and wanted a lower price option with similar features, and again it's best for Sony to grab that money rather than losing it to someone else.
    3. There is a specific user-case for this camera: People who know and understand the value of a full-frame sensor, but who do not want to carry around a massive camera with them, and also have the spare money to buy such a camera (maybe as a second camera). I aaaaaalmost fall in that category but I don't want to pay US$2,000 for it. Had this camera been US$999 I'd have placed my order right away and never look back (and probably later spend a lot of money on lenses, maybe even selling part of my huge Canon collection of lenses).
     
    Bottom line: This camera is not for everyone, but competition and experimentation is a good thing IMHO.
     
    Cheers and keep the good work.
  11. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Video Hummus in Sony A7C - harms the camera industry   
    It’s not surprising is it? Everybody wants full frame look, full frame low light, full frame image quality. Influencers scream it at the top of their lungs. “Great camera...but its not full frame.” So I’m not surprised at all. Sony asks a lot of money for their ASPC cameras. I’m not surprised they are moving their FF into smaller and smaller bodies.
    I recently picked up a used Pentax K1000 for cheap and bought some film and have really been loving it as an escape from the optimum capture settings mini-game we all play with these digital cameras.
  12. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Trek of Joy in Is full frame really necessary?   
    I'm not speaking in absolutes, but some buy speedbosters to get shallower DOF or reduce the crop factor. That's why I said its an individual thing. I'm aware of the other aspects, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes there's no FF specific aesthetic, but there's no lens available that gets me the same thing I get with a 24/1.4 or 135/1.8 with smaller sensors. Aesthetic was just a poor choice of words for DOF at a given FOV.
    But again its an individual thing, I shoot with available light and I need photos for everything I shoot. For me FF has significant advantages over everything else, its the sweet spot of size/cost/IQ - for me. YMMV.
    Cheers
    Chris
  13. Like
    dellfonic reacted to Trek of Joy in Is full frame really necessary?   
    Its such an individual thing, its an impossible discussion to have - hence the millions of mind-numbing arguments about equivalence. They're all tools that can get the job done. IMO the best balance of IQ with camera/lens size and cost is FF for stills and now - for me - video too. I need great AF, and really don't want to juggle two (or more) sets of lenses anymore. Now that FF cameras have some mind blowing video specs, its all come together - again for me. Personally I like the look of a fast wide, my 24 or 28/1.4 is my favorite, and I can only get that on a FF. Fuji's 16/1.4 and various m43 options come close, but its just not the same. I can't imagine the size of a Fuji equivalent to Sony's minuscule 24/1.4 GM since they said the 33/1.0 needed a tripod collar for support and was too large/expensive to make a reality. The new 50/1.0 is huge. I like the creative options with shallow DOF at times too, and again its much easier with FF. But I recognize everyone has different needs, I'm not trying to say one is better, I just prefer the IQ and aesthetic options FF gives me.
    The arguments against FF years ago - mainly big/expensive lenses and bodies - are a thing of the past when you look at the Tamron zooms and lenses like the Sony 20G, 24GM, 85 1.8 and so on - compared to Olympus Pro primes or something like that new Fuji 50/1.0. Unless you shoot Panasonic's S lenses LOL! Its easy to go small/light, or no compromise with IQ or speed and thanks to so many jumping in on the E-mount, there are more 3rd party options than anything on the mirrorless side. I'm deliberately ignoring DSLR stuff because I don't shoot anything with a mirror anymore. But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.
    As always YMMV.
    Chris
  14. Like
    dellfonic reacted to thehebrewhammer in Panasonic in trouble?   
    I switched to Panasonic in the first place for the GH5 because it was a great camera with very few software driven limitations and lots of support from the company after release. Panasonic kept improving it.

    In full frame, it seems like that strategy of releasing the most capable gear per price point has already been abandoned. Panasonic is playing a game of cynical market segmentation (like Canon, etc.) and they won't sell people on a whole new system this way.

    I'm now an S1 owner and I already am frustrated by Panasonic. The S5 addresses design flaws of the S1, and is getting features the more expensive S1 doesn't have - and that Panasonic hasn't said they'll implement via firmware. The S5 is similarly compromised, possibly by design but possibly to protect products further up the line, mainly in the viewfinder choice and 30 minute recording limit for 10 bit. I simply cannot afford an S1H, but I know my S1 is being deliberately limited by its firmware.

    It can't be hard for Panasonic to offer some kind of firmware to bridge the gap between the S5 and S1H with the existing S1.

    If L-Mount is to thrive, Panasonic needs bodies that bring in features you can't find elsewhere. I appreciate the build quality, and the XLR adapter that works across many cameras, but I want full in camera encryption and built in electronic NDs. I don't want to go backwards and buy a camera that limits recording time.

    As it stands, I'm only investing in vintage glass and converting it all to EF mount. I'll switch systems if the right camera comes along, because Panasonic's thinking here seems like a dead end.
     
  15. Thanks
    dellfonic got a reaction from Yammaku in Canon EOS R5 / R6 overheating timers, workarounds, and Magic Lantern   
    It works! Just tried it:
    15 mins recording 8K IPB to CFExpress, overheating icon
    Day +1, pulled battery
    Inserted battery 30 secs later
    No overheating icon
    Turn off camera
    Turn on camera, change date to current date, no overheating icon.
     
×
×
  • Create New...