Jump to content
IronFilm

Z Cam E2 will have ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FPS in 4K??

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, deezid said:

Finally found some footage with sharpening set to weak (which should mean it's off).
Looks great to me, but still looks like it's gone through some temporal noise reduction (could be the codec as well though)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14FoFmymWaGRdAkOC24Zzn4MdAbLxDvr6/view?fbclid=IwAR2hlml1Ysb3x3RX1U4LdQu0zFmC33cmpy_JMOkmH5uY9jofHgHVr76ftTo

What's the trick then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Yes, 4K 120p offers good looking footage for sure. But that sample here? C'mon mate, that's simply rubbish, it doesn't bring any justice to this device : ) Instead you underestimate much better examples from P4K. What's up with you and your self-trolling behavior lately? You say P4K is hard to work with. You have no immediately funds for. You need to buy something to buy anything else. You praise any mediocre outcome you see on your pretentious loved ones?!

We all know this camera is unique with 4K 120p, genlock open door to distinguish her to begin with, but... Never shot with one yet. I bet it is another camera league though.

I just claim perspective to you, my friend, focus on objectivity for your own sake. Some other poster could make my silence. You count to me : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, 4K 120p offers good looking footage for sure. But that sample here? C'mon mate, that's simply rubbish, it doesn't bring any justice to this device : ) Instead you underestimate much better examples from P4K. What's up with you and your self-trolling behavior lately? You say P4K is hard to work with. You have no immediately funds for. You need to buy something to buy anything else. You praise any mediocre outcome you see on your pretentious loved ones?!

We all know this camera is unique with 4K 120p, genlock open door to distinguish her to begin with, but... Never shot with one yet. I bet it is another camera league though.

I just claim perspective to you, my friend, focus on objectivity for your own sake. Some other poster could make my silence. You count to me : -)

I happen to like that look or I would not have posted it. I bought my new iPhone XS for the same reason. And I like the Osmo Pocket because of it. And I would imagine the vast majority of people that buy a video camera would prefer the look of the above video to most of what I have seen from the PK4. You are behind the times, in a day or two it will be 2019. The Cine look is dead. HDR, HLG is about as far away from a Cine look you can get. 6K, 8K is Not going to have a Cine look to it. It will be sharp as a tack. The new Smartphones, the Osmo Pocket, GoPro's, the new Action Movies are all sharp as hell for a reason. It is what people want. And that above video has that look. You bought the wrong damn camera I am afraid my friend. You are behind the times. You done screwed up. Such misguidance on your part. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know. Al these cameras are good today. I am just not so much into the PK4 to be honest. I like the look but I don't. I guess I have gotten lazy in my old age. I really like the look of a Canon C100 in WDR. Looks good ooc and needs very little work in post. I have sort of given up trying to make me happy with the output, I am more geared to what other people I might show it to, or who just happens to click on it on the web are looking for. And I think what I Used to like is not the look that is in now, or hell maybe was never in to the masses?

I know you sort of are supposed to please yourself, but making others happy is maybe the paramount goal here, and I think the times are a changing as they say..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I don't mind. I am behind the times then... LOL

I'm still believing people are able to appreciate a fine outcome. Art and science don't change their paradigms. As much as diversity, richness...

Because other than that risks to end in the instant you watch it.

This fashionable outcome ends already outdated nearly the same as every poor electronic look from 80s analog or 90s digital video today.

HD has resisted but even HDCAM then looked like acceptable, it is underwhelmed with these up to nowadays 12-13 stop tools at least.

I still stand DR and superior bit rate codecs able to manage superior color science coupled to unique glass qualities such as bokeh is (take a look at the best from Osmo Pocket closeups as for instance, not the oversharpened edges hyperinflated to the limit to become pretty nasty to the visual perception fully artifacted), they are the best way you have the future proof in your hands.

Throwaway resistant ; -)

 

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/artifact

"(...)

Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency rather than an inherent element.

A structure or finding in an experiment or investigation that is not a true feature of the object under observation, but is a result of external action, the test arrangement, or an experimental error.

(...)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't really know. Al these cameras are good today. I am just not so much into the PK4 to be honest. I like the look but I don't. I guess I have gotten lazy in my old age. I really like the look of a Canon C100 in WDR. Looks good ooc and needs very little work in post.

Trust me P4K came to be with us for a longer stay. I know I am not wrong when I easily got this what 5DII was a decade ago.

Don't be afraid of that RAW and Resolve high requirements. The most innovative to me along this new tool is how easy is to extract a lovely picture SOC. Import the LUT of your liking and be happy to quickly manage WB at your taste just in a few seconds.

Don't be skeptic with my take, mark my words, I am your friend, this is the camera you've ever dreamed for all those outdated decades now : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

The Cine look is dead. HDR, HLG is about as far away from a Cine look you can get. 6K, 8K is Not going to have a Cine look to it. It will be sharp as a tack. The new Smartphones, the Osmo Pocket, GoPro's, the new Action Movies are all sharp as hell for a reason. It is what people want. And that above video has that look.

The “Cine look” has nothing to do with resolution. I also believe sharpness has less impact on cinematic aesthetics than one may believe. It’s more about lighting, mood and camera motion. And I might add, how to move the camera is an exact science, if you want a cinematic result. Just as there are basic guidelines for framing a shot, shutter angle, fps; there are also guidelines for panning speed and how to move the camera to avoid unpleasant stutters that result from using the slower 24 fps... which is not really 24 FPS... because TVs don’t play back at 24 FPS.

The Cine look is not dead. The Cine look is expensive if one lacks the knowledge of how to produce it. Barring financial resources the only recourse is investing time and energy into learning the art. But very few are willing to actually devote the required time and work to do this. 

Most give up, and then try to justify their decision with absurd statements like, “the Cine look is dead”. When what really died was their willingness to forge ahead and master the art.

There’s no shame in giving up on art of creating cinema. There is a whole world outside of the lens. I just shoot for fun. If anyone likes what I shoot great! But if no one does I really don’t care that much. It’s just about capturing precious moments and having fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the people having pre-ordered - or own - a Pocket around me I see 2 distinctive age groups:

A) younger people, or younger professionals (meaning, being older in age, but started working in the "industry" near their 30s) that for the very first time in their lives can play with a "man's" video file (raw or 10bit pro res), and these guys started with an a6xxx camera, or A7xx if they had the money, so the shortcomings of the Pocket is nothing, compared to the limitations of the first Sony (external battery, no touch screens, very dim monitor output, e.t.c) and they already have the means to power the Pocket (usually F batteries, power banks).

B) older professionals that already own a camera, or searching for a specialized camera that can offer them something special (a smaller B cam, a crash cam, a specialized raw cam, e.t.c). Having the Resolve license is great for the office also.

Among those 2 groups, the A is the majority in my social and professional circle. You just can not believe how many people are gaining money with an a6300 and a 18-105, a P4K with the 18-35mm is like a spaceship to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but how many of those young people that bought the PK4 are actually going to keep it very long. That is the real question. I would bet the majority get tired of it and dump it sooner than later just like people did with the original. Probably not because of the output, but for the pain in the ass it will be to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but how many of those young people that bought the PK4 are actually going to keep it very long. That is the real question. I would bet the majority get tired of it and dump it sooner than later just like people did with the original. Probably not because of the output, but for the pain in the ass it will be to use.

OBJECTION : )

It is not. There's no pain at all to use it. ON THE CONTRARY.

Where have you gotten that idea? Because of the superior set of codecs?

You're acting like you could say to have a million dollars in the bank account is PITA, I'd rather have a grand instead LOL

For your own sake, Don, stop this nonsense. You have zero of experience with this camera. Anyone to read you with that pic profile : D will certainly believe you. That's not a good service to the truth at all! : -)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is just a trend in the end. Movies shot on digital are still adding film grain and IMHO, the younger generation has a continued obsession with older stuff. Shows like Stranger Things were super popular for that very reason. The push for 8k and higher resolutions has a bigger benefit for VFX and live event capture. Of course its easier to manipulate a high res image to look softer then a soft image to look sharp. That said I honestly can't tell the difference between film and digital. The Force Awakens was shot on Film and I couldn't tell. Looked super sharp and detailed to me. Unless its being shot on Super8 or 16. When things are being lit and exposed by professionals it all looks very similar at least with moderately professional cameras.

I don't know about people ditching the pocket 4k like they did the pocket. I think the original Pocket sensor was kind of outdated when it came out. In terms of overall usability I'd say the Pocket 4k is Black Magic's best camera in terms of usability. It crushes the Ursa 4.6k in terms of ISO performance, which is important for most prosumer low budget people. I am pretty excited to see what Black Magic puts out next in a bigger camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DBounce said:

The “Cine look” has nothing to do with resolution. I also believe sharpness has less impact on cinematic aesthetics than one may believe. It’s more about lighting, mood and camera motion. And I might add, how to move the camera is an exact science, if you want a cinematic result. Just as there are basic guidelines for framing a shot, shutter angle, fps; there are also guidelines for panning speed and how to move the camera to avoid unpleasant stutters that result from using the slower 24 fps... which is not really 24 FPS... because TVs don’t play back at 24 FPS.

The Cine look is not dead. The Cine look is expensive if one lacks the knowledge of how to produce it. Barring financial resources the only recourse is investing time and energy into learning the art. But very few are willing to actually devote the required time and work to do this. 

Most give up, and then try to justify their decision with absurd statements like, “the Cine look is dead”. When what really died was their willingness to forge ahead and master the art.

There’s no shame in giving up on art of creating cinema. There is a whole world outside of the lens?

I probably spend on average 14 hours a day on the web. I know I need to get a life. ? And a lot of it is on You Tube, and a reasonable amount on just about any site that jumps up news wise I look at. There is Hardly Any Cine looking videos on You Tube. Even ones that claim, Oh look at this Cinematic, Filmic look I got. Sure we hang out with people that are into the same thing, or some actually work in the business of video production. But that is a Freaking incredible small amount of people that produce videos content. We don't represent shit percentage wise. 99% of content on the web is Not Cinematic. I say the Cine look is maybe not dead, but it sure as hell is on life support.

Sure I like it. Who doesn't like Philip Blooms stuff on here. But a lot of  his stuff is Slo Mo hell, and I just F ing don't like a lot of Slo Mo stuff. I hate it going on, and on, and on. And his stuff does. And he is not alone. It has it's place, but not the whole god damn video. To me that is what Cine has become. A lot of grain, Super shallow DoF, and Slo Mo. I am not much into that anymore , and I don't think the average person was ever into it. I see no trend to go back to film, no going back to SD. I would be amazed if you could ever get a Cine look out of 8K HDR footage. And that is where video is going like it or not. I think people need to change gears and learn HDR if you want to survive. Young people couldn't give a rats ass about the Cine Look. Smartphones probably produce 98% of all Videos and Photos in the world now. And they sure as hell are not on average Cinematic. And people are watching content on a HDR 60" TV, not going to movie theaters. Most of the content on TV is far from Cine looking. Sure the big movies are but even a lot of them are not dripping with a Film look like they used to have. Most TV content is shot with a Sony anymore. They are not as Cine looking as a Arri would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never watched Netflix. I hardly have Ever watched TV in my whole life. Would rather read or be on the web.  And I doubt the vast majority of people haven't watched Netflix either. They don't count LoL. ? ?

Well I just looked up Netflix on Wiki and it seems like most people are at least subscribed to it. No wonder this country is so screwed up LoL.  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I have never watched Netflix. I hardly Ever watched TV in my whole life.  And I doubt the vast majority of people haven't watched Netflix either. They don't count LoL. ?

I think streaming is probably the future. I don't know though. 

I personally think all this 4k, 8k HDR stuff is pretty much nonsense that is being pushed to make a profit. 

I've never heard a person come back from a movie and say it didn't look sharp enough. I just saw the original Jurassic Park at a theater. Pretty sure they were just using a BlueRay disk to show it. But it looked great to me. When something looks fake in a movie its the CGI, sometimes. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was shot in 8k and I never remember thinking wow this is so much better looking then Star Wars which was shot on Film. 

Everyone young person I know has netflix haha. Amazon and hulu are big too. 

I love YouTube, but its not a good representation of video. Pewdiepie is one of the top 5 viewed channels or something and he uploads vids in 720p from a shitty Canon camera. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I think streaming is probably the future. I don't know though. 

I personally think all this 4k, 8k HDR stuff is pretty much nonsense that is being pushed to make a profit. 

I've never heard a person come back from a movie and say it didn't look sharp enough. I just saw the original Jurassic Park at a theater. Pretty sure they were just using a BlueRay disk to show it. But it looked great to me. When something looks fake in a movie its the CGI, sometimes. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was shot in 8k and I never remember thinking wow this is so much better looking then Star Wars which was shot on Film. 

Everyone young person I know has netflix haha. Amazon and hulu are big too. 
 

About the Only time I turn a TV on is to watch the News.. Soon as it is over I turn off the TV. Not interested. So no I have no subscriptions to anything TV related. But yeah I agree streaming is the future once they got enough bandwidth it will be the majority way a lot of people get their content. But to keep selling new stuff I don't think there will Ever be enough bandwidth for 12K, 16K on and on content LoL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, webrunner5 said:

About the Only time I turn a TV on is to watch the News.. Soon as it is over I turn off the TV. Not interested. So no I have no subscriptions to anything TV related. But yeah I agree streaming is the future once they got enough bandwidth it will be the majority way a lot of people get their content.

I get my news from Facebook, probably not a good thing??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a silly topic you 2 have here.

"Filmic" was always a youtube conversation, and stayed there.

Also, what exactly is "filmic", and "film", there is What happen in Vegas (Ashton Cutcher and Cameron Diaz) on the TV right now. Is it more filmic than Roma, which I am planning to watch in Netflix in a while, or less, and how much?

In my 19 years of career, I never heard anyone in the films, documentaries and eposidic TV I have worked  "let's do this, because it is more filmic".

You use the tools most appropriate for the job. 

@thebrothersthre3 I do not even have a FB account. Try media with real journalists, doing real journalist's job, this is very serious!

@webrunner5 you always say how old are we and how demode, how did you miss the Netflix revolution?! Now at its peak, most believe that Netflix is over (everyone with content, and their mothers are doing or have streaming services).

I think (and hope) it will be like spotify in the future. Everything will be available to everyone, for a price obviously, but that is cheap already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

In my 19 years of career, I never heard anyone in the films, documentaries and eposidic TV I have worked  "let's do this, because it is more filmic".

@thebrothersthre3

@webrunner5

 

And you used cameras that are Filmic, Cinematic. High dollar PL lenses. And you shot in Log. What did you expect, Smartphone output? Your telling me you just used ooc footage with no grade? You shot for a distinct look. Not just what Bob down the street shot. You would have been out of a job if you just did what Bob was doing.

I worked in TV also. I know what they did. It was perfection down to gluing knobs on certain equipment. It was a Look you Had to maintain on every shoot. If not you were looking for a new career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...