Fx30

[MurtlandPhoto]

20 hours ago, Django said:Why they are still withholding shutter angle is a bit of a mystery though..

Its like we can't give away too much too soon.

It’s the strangest thing isn’t it. I actually thought this was finally the update that gave it to us but as I read down the list I just got disappointed lol 

[Django]

12 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

It’s the strangest thing isn’t it. I actually thought this was finally the update that gave it to us but as I read down the list I just got disappointed lol 

Same when I read this was the major update that turns it into a proper cine cam I thought surely shutter angle is there. What's crazy is that its the most requested feature since cameras release and surely the easiest to implement yet no dice even though we're up to V3.0. Odd to say the least, considering every other FX/FS line camera has the feature built-in from the start. I guess this is further proof FX3/FX30 are managed under the alpha stills division. They haven't got their priorities straight..

[markr041]

Here you go: 4K DCI (2.39:1) in the French Quarter, New Orleans

 

[filmmakereu]

I don't mind to watch your stuff but that aspect ratio, oh my, it is so strange to see it coupled with such soap opera style. Really.

[markr041]

1 hour ago, filmmakereu said:

I don't mind to watch your stuff but that aspect ratio, oh my, it is so strange to see it coupled with such soap opera style. Really.

OK, here is one with a less cinematic aspect ratio:

I really do not see why an aspect ratio has to be tied to particular frame rate. I like widescreen aspect ratios and I like realistic motion. I get that low frame rates and widescreen are what some people are used to, but why should that be so limiting? There have not been many cameras that can actually shoot non-crippled 4K 60 fps in widescreen.

And I really do not think that soap opera style is defined by a frame rate. TV soap operas were (are?) shot with flat lighting, little contrast (and stilted dialogue deliveries). There is a TV soap-opera look. It is far from the look of my videos.

Are football games - shot and shown in 60 fps on TV (Fox, ABC, ESPN) - soap operas?

60 fps = realistic motion. And now we have a portable, inconspicuous, camera with IBIS and great AF that can shoot 4K 60 fps, with oversampling and no additional crop, in widescreen. Which is why I use it. I can shoot the videos I like.

And here is a parade in 4K 60p. Lots of motion - why would anyone shoot a a sports event or a parade in 24 fps?

 

[92F]

What is your binaural system ?

[Django]

So the DCI 4K in this update is revealed to be fake.. it just crops the image to make it fit 17:9. You don't gain any width like on a proper DCI mode. This is so lame and not so different from the fake ZV-E1 cinematic mode. SMH Sony. Other weirdness:

 

[Django]

4 hours ago, markr041 said:

And here is a parade in 4K 60p. Lots of motion - why would anyone shoot a a sports event or a parade in 24 fps?

99% people shoot 60p for slow motion purposes on a cine cam. here is for example your parade in 60p conformed to a more standard 30p timeline for slow-mo:

30p is a good in between if you want more fluid motion. Direct 60p output is what gives the dreaded "soap opera" look or "home video" look or "camcorder" look, pick your choice of attributes. The reason why a lot of sports is shot at 60p is to allow the editor to slow-down the footage during replay. The fast motion is also suited to fast action. Shooting humans at regular motion in 60p just feels awkward. That said you are free to do as you please and "innovate" with your faux cine/tv broadcast combo of high motion widescreen aspect ratio..

[markr041]

5 hours ago, 92F said:

What is your binaural system ?

Roland CS 10EM.

[markr041]

2 hours ago, Django said:

99% people shoot 60p for slow motion purposes on a cine cam. here is for example your parade in 60p conformed to a more standard 30p timeline for slow-mo:

30p is a good in between if you want more fluid motion. Direct 60p output is what gives the dreaded "soap opera" look or "home video" look or "camcorder" look, pick your choice of attributes. The reason why a lot of sports is shot at 60p is to allow the editor to slow-down the footage during replay. The fast motion is also suited to fast action. Shooting humans at regular motion in 60p just feels awkward. That said you are free to do as you please and "innovate" with your faux cine/tv broadcast combo of high motion widescreen aspect ratio..

No, 60 fps is used for live broadcast of sports to better depict motion in real time. No "editor". Slow motion in boroadcast sports is done with specialized hfr cameras, using framerates above 60 fps. You just cannot get out of a cinema mindset.

What is awkward is fast movement shot at 24 fps. You are just used to seeing that.

There is nothing "faux" about my videos. Narrative films are faux, on purpose. They distort reality for artistic purposes - with unnatural motion, coloration, sometimes aspect ratios, etc. I respect that. I am not pretending to ape narrative film looks or soap opera looks. 

[PPNS]

3 hours ago, Django said:

So the DCI 4K in this update is revealed to be fake.. it just crops the image to make it fit 17:9. You don't gain any width like on a proper DCI mode. This is so lame and not so different from the fake ZV-E1 cinematic mode. SMH Sony. Other weirdness:

 

This is also the case with the fx6 fyi. It gives you a 1:1 sensor mode so it crops more than just the top and bottom.

[Django]

11 minutes ago, markr041 said:

No, 60 fps is used for live broadcast of sports to better depict motion in real time. No "editor". Slow motion in boroadcast sports is done with specialized hfr cameras, using framerates above 60 fps. You just cannot get out of a cinema mindset.

What is awkward is fast movement shot at 24 fps. You are just used to seeing that.

There is nothing "faux" about my videos. Narrative films are faux, on purpose. They distort reality for artistic purposes - with unnatural motion, coloration, sometimes aspect ratios, etc. I respect that. I am not pretending to ape narrative film looks or soap opera looks. 

So why the 2:39 aspect ratio if you are not attempting to ape narrative film? Surely you know that is the old historical Panavision/Cinemascope aspect ratio? Combining that with a sport-oriented 60p motion is just super odd. And I'm the one that cannot get out of a particular mindset? Mkay.. stick to your quirky formula. I dunno of anyone doing it like that but that's ok -you do you- I'm just trying to help you understand why me and others here find it so jarring. 

Me? I am not stuck in a "cinema mindset". The current standard for broadcast here in Europe is 25p. 50i is the old 80s/90s standard and has the dreaded soap-opera / home-video look. It is somewhat similar in the US although you have dated broadcast standards (FOX,ABC) still using 720p 60i. 1080p cable network uses 30p natively and premium sport channels can go up to 4K60p. So you see it has nothing to do with cinema actually. Personally I shoot mostly at 25p, sometimes 30p, rarely 24p. 60p/120p/240p for slow-mo only. This is pretty much the norm today. 

[PPNS]

shouldn’t 50i with the right shutter speed just convert to a perfect 25p? 

[Django]

FWIW I don't do black bars for faux cine sake. Only if shooting anamorphic do those widescreen aspect ratios make sense to me, ideally using open gate. Same with DCI, the only point is gaining extra pixels on the side. If its just cropping in cam I don't see the point.

7 minutes ago, PPNS said:

shouldn’t 50i with the right shutter speed just convert to a perfect 25p? 

correct which is why shutter angle is useful, just follow 180 degree rule.

[markr041]

25 minutes ago, Django said:

So why the 2:39 aspect ratio if you are not attempting to ape narrative film? Surely you know that is the old historical Panavision/Cinemascope aspect ratio? Combining that with a sport-oriented you motion is just super odd. And I'm the one that cannot get out of a particular mindset? Mkay.. stick to your quirky formula. I dunno of anyone doing it like that but that's ok -you do you- I'm just trying to help you understand why me and others here find it so jarring. 

Me? I am not stuck in a "cinema mindset". The current standard for broadcast here in Europe is 25p. 50i is the old 80s/90s standard and has the dreaded soap-opera / home-video look. It is somewhat similar in the US although you have dated broadcast standards (FOX,ABC) still using 720p 60i. 1080p cable network uses 30p natively and premium sport channels can go up to 4K60p. So you see it has nothing to do with cinema actually. Personally I shoot mostly at 25p, sometimes 30p, rarely 24p. 60p/120p/240p for slow-mo only. This is pretty much the norm today. 

I like wide aspect ratios. I like motion depicted realistically. I don't care what most people do, often done because of equipment constraints. 

It is a rigid mindset to think something is awkward because you are not used to seeing it. 24p and 25p motion is literally awkward if the midset is reality. There is nothing natural about any aspect ratio - 16:9 is a TV standard, 2:39.1 is a cinema standard. So what. Loosen up, man. Some combos are inappropriate, like 24p sports video that is not part of a fictional (faux) story. 60p live sports do not look like soap operas and are not dreaded or awkward. And, a 60p video of a jazz trio is not either of those also, whatever the aspect ratio.

[Kubrickian]

This dude is a trip. Keeping fighting against 100 years of cinema history and audience expectation. You do you brah. You got this. 

[Django]

19 minutes ago, markr041 said:

I like wide aspect ratios. I like motion depicted realistically. I don't care what most people do, often done because of equipment constraints. 

It is a rigid mindset to think something is awkward because you are not used to seeing it. 24p and 25p motion is literally awkward if the midset is reality. There is nothing natural about any aspect ratio - 16:9 is a TV standard, 2:39.1 is a cinema standard. So what. Loosen up, man. Some combos are inappropriate, like 24p sports video that is not part of a fictional (faux) story. 60p live sports do not look like soap operas and are not dreaded or awkward. And, a 60p video of a jazz trio is not either of those also, whatever the aspect ratio.

I'm just giving you my honest opinion. If you can't handle it, don't post. There is no loosening up. 60p output = soap-opera, home-video look in my book. Again a good middle ground is 30p. Call me narrow-minded if you please but I'm afraid you are alone here on this one. But yeah keep fighting the good fight!

As for equipment constraints? Any smartphone can do 4K60p today. 1080P60 has been in every consumer camera for over a decade. Consumer camcorders only used to shoot in 60p. It was the default standard on broadcast TV all during the late 70s/80s/90s and still today on certain networks. 60p is nothing new. But aside from fast action sports, news reports or Wheel of Fortune type TV shows I don't really see a use for it today other than slow-mo. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're on to something lol.

 

[hyalinejim]

I guess if Peter Jackson couldn't get the world to embrace 48fps with The Hobbit then nothing will.

It's an interesting question though, whether there is something inherently pleasurable in viewing motion at 24fps, 180 degree shutter, or whether it just seems good by association. I remember reading that cinema arrived at that frame rate as it was the bare minimum at which motion looked fluid (and they didn't want to waste frames unnecessarily).

However, if cinema had evolved to use 48fps and greater than 180 degree shutter and we suddenly were presented with 24-180 would we think "Wow, that looks great!" or "Wow, that looks shit!"?

[Emanuel]

This is a representation of reality... Invariably fake. There's no point to look like that's what our eyes take.

- EAG :- )

[Emanuel]