February 28, 2015, 02:39:09 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cgdillan

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20
also, I dump the footage after the video is complete and the client is happy, so if i keep one 2TB hard drive on Thunderbolt or Esata then I should do pretty well with storage space shooting one house at a time.

The camera handles like crap, it's really heavy and even with the handles didn't feel great.  Rent one and check it out, but make sure you try to edit some of the footage, even 60 seconds of footage and you'll see really quick what a pain it is.  Believe me I was as pumped about this camera as anyone and mine actually came in last week but I passed on it.  Might get the MFT in the future but there are just too many issues with the EF.

And some of the posters are giving excellent feedback on the camera itself, but I'm looking at the camera AND what you'll be using it for (which is arguably more important).  You're not doing occasional studio shoots, you're doing real estate videos, which means you'll be shooting a lot and very frequently.  Battery life would also be a big issue in your case, since the internal battery lasts maybe an hour.  Also consider that you won't be shooting real estate videos in 2.5K RAW, it's just going to slow you down way too much, so try and take that spec out of the equation and look at it as just 1080p ProRes.

Fair points, all. I don't find raw as cumbersome as you seemed to. Perhaps my two-year-old machine is faster than the one you had available. The dynamic range of this camera still shows in the 10-bit 4:2:2 encoded files. Again, ProRes or DNxHD puts little extra burden on the workflow than the C100. Perhaps a bit more storage space, but with a benefit.

You point about the camera handling different than a proper video cam or a DSLR is also fair. It is clunky. A shoulder rig, slider, or tripod are a must. Whether Cgdillan uses these anyway is something he must consider.

Curious as to what issues the MFT version overcomes for you, given the issues you claim of the camera? None of those issues are changed in the MFT version. Is it just that the extra benefits of the MFT lenses (e.g., wider and/or faster) helps to further justify putting up with the costs you cite? I can understand that. Otherwise, you seemed very negative on the camera for certain reasons, only then to say that you might get one again in the future when none of those issues will be addressed.

In the end, I agree with you Axilrod. For a day-in, day-out workhorse (perhaps closer to run'n'gun), these issues might outweigh the image. A camera must be practical for its purpose. That's why my initial reaction to the OP was quite negative on the issue. Until I saw what I saw on my monitor. I'm just in love with the image this camera produces.

These are all great points to mention. I've been using my 5D3 for all my video work and for RE video i've been really feeling like I need more DR in my videos. I could care less about the 2.5K since the video will be probably viewed at 720p through vimeo. But the raw codec and extra DR I believe would greatly help my image, as well as my pride in my work. I was pretty turned off at first with all the "issues" the BMCC has, but I have totally fallen for the image it produces. I generally use Tripod, Glidecam, and Slider for stabilizations in my RE videos. I downloaded some test footage from the camera and FCP X actually took the .dng files in there native form wonderfully and the rendered extremely fast. I was very impressed. So I'm thinking towards the BMCC now over the C100 (I was thinking C100 over 5d3 for the extra dr and sharper image) as long as I can get in the house, shoot the proper exposure for each room, and get out. Usually takes about an hour to shoot a house up to 3,500 SF.

I just received my BMCC earlier this week (thanks, Adorama!). I thought I'd revisit this thread with some thoughts after playing around with the camera and its files a little. These are still quite initial impressions - so it is FWIW, as always.

First, I am blown away at the dynamic range. Just playing around with the camera, I was taking a few shots of my wife in our kitchen during midday. The kitchen had no lights on - just what was coming in through the windows. I exposed to for the highlights (out the window) and indoor details were still discernible. Not well-exposed, mind you. But, discernible. Far better than I'd ever get with the 5D3. So, I think this might accomplish what the OP intended with regard to having both out-the-window detail and (some) indoor detail. Cgdillan - if there are any specific shots you'd like me to try, I can do so (I learn more every time I use the camera).

Second, the color is just amazing. Colors are so spot on compared to what I'm used to with Canon DSLRs. Not that I hate the colors of the DSLRs. It is just that the skin tones and colors are more natural on this camera. Add to that the flexibility of the color grading using raw, and it really is great if you can stomach/afford the workflow.

Finally, the camera is heavy and bulky compared to even the 5D3. The "bulky" statement comes from the feeling that the camera is just not as balanced as I'm used to with the 5D3. But, it isn't meant to be. It is a cinema camera.

For the OP's question, my suggestion would be to rent one and try it. I know that Lensrentals carries it.

That doesn't sound too bad. You just confused my decision a little bit more. haha. How do you feel the camera handles? picking your f/stop and shutter and ISO? Is it not as bad as some have made it sound? I really want to see a shot a bright sunny day with al the lights on indoor in any room, and in post, push the shadows way up and bring the highlights way down. I imagine I would expose more for the interior as its most important, but still under expose to be able to capture the exterior. If you were able to do that, that would really be awesome. do you think it's a camera that could be used on hand held glide cam? or is it too heavy? I will likely be renting one soon after hearing your thoughts. any suggestions on workflow for if/or when I rent it?

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Foggy Night 5D3 and 50mm 1.8 II
« on: March 13, 2013, 10:35:02 PM »
Love it !

Thank you!

because of housewall and the beach umbrella on right side (Background right Center side of Image) it does not look for me like a night shot...

I know it looks crazy. That was pretty much exactly how it looked to my eye when I was taking the picture. It is rarely foggy like this where I live and the house lights were shinning through like the sun in the shot.
I really enjoy this shot. The sunbeams, the shadows, all very interesting and cool. But I agree that it just doesn't look like night... I think part of it, for me, at least, is the white balance. Any chance of a cooler edit, or maybe a B+W? You're probably swamped with wedding stuff, but I think this is a great image, and worth some time to tweak in post, if you have time to spare...

I took a few variations of the shot and picked this one as my favorite. The others, I experimented with BW and cooler WB to make it look more like night, more and less contrast, and vignette... None of them really had the magic I felt in this one so I decided the first one I took, unedited was what I was happy with.

Gorgeous shot, well exposed

Thank you. I really was in the right place in the right time..

5D MK III Sample Images / Foggy Night 5D3 and 50mm 1.8 II
« on: March 13, 2013, 04:31:49 PM »
Check it out! This is raw --> converted to jpg --> downsized to 3MP. No editing in the shot. Let me know what you think.

I got home after a wedding and it was super foggy. This is the shot I got of a light shinning off my house through the fog last night at 11pm.

Addressing only the DR issue I would think that you may be expecting a bit much from the BMCC. While I am sure the file quality is excellent you may find that the DR is still insufficient to hold detail in windows.
We usually gelled windows with ND and lit the interiors to get that naturalistic look with film and that is still done with video today in productions that will pay for it.
We do still HDR because we want a fast and inexpensive solution to the problem of DR challenged scenes but a few good lights and some time and testing will get better results. However I know that time is money and our clients are not to lavish with either.

Exactly. I'm trying to find the best way to get better results without needing to charge much more than I do now.

Yeah... I think it sounds like I will be going with the c100... I was hoping the raw would make it worth the trouble. But it sounds like the raw aspect of it alone is an issue that would be difficult to work with. And I'm not a huge fan of the lens choices on BMCC.. Thanks for your input guys! It really helps a lot.

The dynamic range of the BMCC is what I'm really excited about. I have a BMCC on order since the fall. However, axilrod brings up the key issues that I would be concerned with for real estate. Also, the wait with the BMCC is becoming quite frustrating. What has become clear to me is that they simply are not producing the BMCC in large quantities. Unless their production increases significantly over what it has been over the last 4 months, it seems that it might be a long-long time before people who order today receive their cameras.

You said that you are mainly concerned about the high DR shots in which you have plenty of time to set it up. Here's an off-the-wall idea. Get a slider (you probably have one already) with a very good motion control unit. Shoot the same shot at two exposures with your 5D3. Edit the footage together to have the "out the window" shot from the lower exposure and the interior from the higher exposure. HDR video.

That's a good idea. I already have the konova slider. I could get the motion controller for it and do exactly that.

I had the BMCC for 4 days a couple weeks ago.  Yeah the image quality is great, but there were plenty of negatives and after using it for the weekend I was a lot less excited than I was when I saw the specs.  Shooting RAW is a huge pain.  My  iMac with SSD/32GB RAM/Thunderbolt hard drives would barely play the files, not to mention they are absolutely massive.    Shoot 10 minutes of footage you have 14400 individual stills to deal with, it's kinda overwhelming.  Also, I tried shooting with a 120GB Samsung 840 SSD, only to find out later it wasn't fast enough.  Only the higher capacity hard drives are fast enough it (500GB in Samsung's case), minimum 256GB.  They are getting cheaper, but shooting RAW 1 256GB SSD will only get you about 30-40 minutes worth of footage.  And if you're doing this for multiple houses that's going to be a lot of files. 

Aside from that, the thing is alot heavier than it looks and the ergonomics suck.  Even with the BMCC handles it just feels awkward, and if you're using the handles how are you supposed to pull focus?  On my Redrock rig it was lopsided, since I had to use a riser so I could look directly at the back of the screen (No HDMI, only 3G-HDSDI, even my $1000 Marshall wont work with it).  When you push the iris button it automatically tries to adjust the aperture, and you have to hold it down and press the forward/backward keys and it just feels weird and you have to use both hands to pull it off.  And it's not like a DSLR in terms of low-light, so you may need to light dimmer spaces.

And then there is the sensor size.  The 2.4x crop feels kinda limiting and for me would immediately make it out of the question for real estate photography.  You want to get ultra-wide in some spaces, but with the BMCC you have to settle for a Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-f/5.6 to get as wide as you can (the equivalent of 19mm on full frame).  But 10mm=24mm so it feels really weird.  On the flipside a 135 f/2 becomes a 325mm f/2 or something like that, so that's cool.

More or less, I felt like the Prores footage looked great too, but RAW is what is so attractive about the camera.  But I wouldn't shoot RAW on this thing unless I was trying to make some serious award-winning type stuff.  You would just need a ridiculously fast computer to edit this stuff smoothly and tons of storage space for the flies.  That, coupled with the sensor/shipping issues with them and now people are saying their lenses won't focus at infinity, it's just really turned me off towards it.  If you're absolutely set on getting it I'd wait for the MFT version, with the Metabones Speed Booster the crop will be reduced to closer to 1.5x-1.6x.

I think the C100 is great though and have heard nothing but praise from friends that are using it.  But I think the BMCC is overkill for what you are doing, honestly I would think your 5D3 would do the job, have you thought about maybe adding something to your setup to improve the quality?  All I know is your average Joe probably can't tell a difference between the BMCC and 5D3, and if they can it's not big enough to make or break a sale.

That is everything I was worried about with the BMCC. Thank you for sharing your experiences. The biggest issue is gradability, and lack of DR with the 5D3. Not sure what else I could add... suggestions? I am even open to other camera suggestions for great DR.

I am currently using my 5D mkIII for all my video work, and I love it. But, I want better images. I love DSLRs for my weddings and they treat me well, but for things where I need only a single camera and have more time to figure out and setup my shots, I need something sharper, some more DR, and something more gradable. Wondering how much the RAW will benefit me from the BMCC vs the ease of use of the C100.

The issue is more with my Real Estate Listing video when I have many shots where I will be needing to shoot interiors but still want to see out the window to the ocean.

BMCC Pros:
RAW - More DR
2.5K - Downgrade to HD for a nicer HD image

C100 Pros
Fewer Components needed - Don't need extra battery pack etc..
Smaller file sizes and Cheaper Media
Much Better Ergonomics

I like everything about the C100 better than the BMCC, but, the BMCC can shoot raw. Will I notice the extra stop of DR when I am pulling down the highlights and bringing up the shadows for the high DR shots? (shooting interiors looking out a window)

I imagine the price of the two cameras would pretty much even out when you consider the cost of SSD drives, extra batteries for BMCC, and more hard drive space on the computer.

What do you think? worth the extra stop of DR and RAW Codec?

Video & Movie / Independent Film: Compost - 5D mkIII
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:47:07 PM »

I learned the reason, yesterday, why a pile mulch begins to "steam" after sitting a few days. It's the process of becoming compost =-) so since I've produced the video "Mulch" I had no choice but to produce a new video called "Compost" which is simply focusing on the vapor rising from the compost as bacteria slowly converts it to a substance that is great for spreading on your flowers =-)

Original Mulch Video:

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Engagement shoot
« on: February 22, 2013, 02:49:57 AM »

Nicely done...5D III + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = Gift from heaven.

Except for the fact that he has a version I of the 70-200. ;)  (Still nice combo - no flames please.)

!FIRE! =-)

Very nice shots!

With all the police I thought a foreign army was invading.

Shots look good, but oh what a difference anti-shake filtering would make.

Yeah no kidding. And for the filter.. i rode over there on my bike and was mostly handheld with one hand and wanted to get it all in the computer quick and online.. I had totally forgot about stabilization =-/

Deputy Shooting Leucadia, Encinitas, San Diego, California

I just walked outside of my house and notice a lot of commotion on the freeway nearby and  I would say about 20 cop cars passed by in the period of 3 minutes. Apparently 2 deputies were shot and swat team was called in. This is the footage I got.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Big Sur and San Fran 5D3 Long Exposure
« on: February 19, 2013, 01:33:59 AM »
It should be evident, that my edit is the superior picture.  If nothing else,....

1st - We're in a Gallery -> Sample Images forum.  At no point did anyone ask for your $0.02.
2nd - One does not simply come in, tear apart another's copyrighted image w/o asking, re-post a badly photoshopped low rez version and stand on a box proclaiming to the entire forum ones clear superiority in every way.  How embarrassing this must be for you, had you been born with any shame.

At lease that's how we roll where I'm from. 
Maybe I'm just too Canadian.

The OP thanked me for my criticism.  I certainly expect harsh criticism whenever I post anything (although I haven't received any yet, that I know of.) 

The whole point of posting images in a gallery here, is for people to look, to comment, to enjoy.  Corey, I think you might be in need of a chill pill the size of the meteor over Russia...But at least a couple users thought my edit was better.  I do apologize if I offended anyone for altering the image!  And I apologize for not getting permission first.  However, he did post it here in a public forum...the original posted image itself is not a full resolution image...and thus could never be printed even postcard size at high quality.  I made no effort to remove the copyright tag, nor would I.  If it had been a full resolution image...I would not have even attempted to copy and edit it. 

I simply like the bridge and the picture, and wanted to show what I remember the color looking like, when I visited what must be almost the exact same location...also at night, back in 2005. 

Cgdillan, I didn't mean to imply you were getting paid to do this shot, but I see where you would like to sell prints of it.  I hope you do. 

It's also nice to see that you are admitting you like a warmer color balance.  That's fine, I even said it certainly is open to interpretation.  I just didn't like what the color did to the bridge itself.  It's an American Icon!  If it were just the city or something else that wasn't painted orange, where the amber city lights would give a nice urban feel or something, then I wouldn't have thought as much about it. 

Also, what I posted was not a reduced resolution picture...it is only barely smaller than his original post, due to the barrel correction edit that I did...unless of course someone else altered what I reposted and made that image smaller.

And the exif didn't show whether it was the f/2.8 or the new f/4 lens...or rather which f/2.8 it is (old or new).  If that's the old f/2.8, then that appears to be quite a bit sharper than the one my cousin uses on his 5D3.  I can only guess, but the corner sharpness is quite decent, and middle 2/3 is very sharp.

I think some of the comments about having the superior edit is offensive to some people. And the lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8 version 1 at 24mm and f/7.1

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20