October 02, 2014, 01:11:28 AM

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 - syder

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS C200 & C400 at NAB? [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2014, 06:50:57 PM »
So, basically, what you guys are saying is that they can't develop a new camera since it might interfere with the sales of their old obsolete camera?

When is it ok to develop a new camera? two thousand years from now?

Surely it makes more sense to produce a new modern camera that replaces the old obsolete camera? And do it right now.

Oh right... So the non-4k C300 is obsolete. Perhaps you should tell the oscar nominated camera crews who were using it as a B cam on films nominated for best film and best cinmeatography.

And come to think of it, the Alexa isn't 4k so that must also be obsolete. Despite being the most popular camera for both film and tv.

But hey, I'm sure you make far better films and so need cutting edge gear unlike those clueless noobs.

We keep on hearing this Oscar nominated bla bla bla. What the people who say this don't point out (or apparently unaware of) is that those movies were made YEARS ago. You know, when their were not a lot of 4K options around, and those that were were relatively untested technology. If they had capable professional and reliable 4K products freely available then, they would have used those. Professional movie producers are not stupid, they know that to future proof their productions they need to be able to capture in the best quality they can.

Silent movies once completely dominated the Oscar nominations (or would have).....does that mean that "professional" movie producers have no interest in sound? That is basically what you are saying.

Wow... Talk about clueless... Keep digging that hole there ;-)

The 4K Red One was released in 2007. The first feature shot on it was released in January 2009. Red has been tested and working on movie sets for longer than the Canon cinema series has existed.

The Alexa wasn't released until 2010. And doesn't do 4K. And is far more popular than Red Cameras for film and tv. You're absolutely right when you say the pro's aren't stupid. So why then haven't they been shooting everything in 4k for the last 7 years?

Seeing as the 6K Epic Dragon has been out for almost a year now how could anyone possibly not be using it (shouldn't this mean that your 4K dream camera is already obsolete)?

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS C200 & C400 at NAB? [CR1]
« on: March 29, 2014, 04:22:47 AM »
So, basically, what you guys are saying is that they can't develop a new camera since it might interfere with the sales of their old obsolete camera?

When is it ok to develop a new camera? two thousand years from now?

Surely it makes more sense to produce a new modern camera that replaces the old obsolete camera? And do it right now.

Oh right... So the non-4k C300 is obsolete. Perhaps you should tell the oscar nominated camera crews who were using it as a B cam on films nominated for best film and best cinmeatography.

And come to think of it, the Alexa isn't 4k so that must also be obsolete. Despite being the most popular camera for both film and tv.

But hey, I'm sure you make far better films and so need cutting edge gear unlike those clueless noobs.

3
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5D Mk3 Grainy footage. Any ideas?
« on: February 09, 2014, 06:40:19 PM »
To minimise noise in video using any Canon DSLR shoot with your ISO set in multiples of 160 (so 160, 320, 640, 1250 etc). This makes a surprising amount of difference.

However, in the example frame you've posted, the issue is that the shot is seriously underexposed. Ultimately you can't push a heavily compressed 8-bit video image in the same way you can a 14-bit RAW still (and you'd be pushing it with the level of underexposure in the frame you've posted even it was RAW).

4
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 01, 2014, 05:56:53 AM »
After using both I bought the Tamron.

 If you do video then the IS makes it  a more versatile lens. The Canon mk ii is sharper though. They're both noticably sharper and have less distortion than the 24-105 as well as being faster.

Does the sharpness of the mk ii justify the extra cost? Maybe, if you don't do video and like the focal range for stills. Personally I prefer the feel of a wider or longer lens for stills most of the time (16-35 and 70-200 just seem to give me more interesting images) but I find that 24-70 is my go to lens for non-fiction video so the Tamron ended up being a fairly obvious choice.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 90mm macro or Sigma 150 OS?
« on: January 21, 2014, 03:55:46 PM »
The hybrid IS is great. But not for macro stuff. You get about 1 top rather the four you get using the 100L as a portrait lens.

The Sigma is a great lens if you're happy to deal with the weight. The 100L has an MFD of 30cm, the sigma is 38cm. The extra working distance makes it more practical for dealing with easily scared subjects (bugs, butterflies, etc),  and the bokeh is fantastic. The downside is that it's a little harder to nail focus.

Both the 100L and the Sigma 150 are razor sharp. I've not used the Tamron VC so can't comment upon it.

6
Software & Accessories / Re: My Dell vs iMac
« on: December 12, 2013, 05:25:11 AM »


One final comment on everyone suggesting the Dell Ultrasharps, when you consider everything, the ultrasharp vs the Apple Thunderbolt Display get pretty close in cost.  The ATD also has decent speakers, FW800, Gigabit ethernet, and 3 USB 2.0 ports.

Apple Thunderbolt display is £899 from Apple. Dell 27 Ultrasharp is £535 from Amazon. That's a £364 difference.

You're closer to getting 2 Dells to 1 Apple (£171 difference). Or you could spend some of the difference on some decent speakers (not rubbish built into your monitor). Or a new lens. Or anything else...

Now lets look at specs... Apple display max brightness is 330cd/m2 Dell 350cd/m2 (both far brighter than you'd actually really want them to be). Apple 16.7 million colours Dell 1.07 billion colours (admittedly you need a pro graphics card to take advantage of this at present - but if you're looking at future proofing 10bit>8bit). Dell 4x USB 3.0 ports Apple 3x USB 2.0 ports. The Dell also has a 9 in one card reader. Although the Apple does have a FW800 port (which frankly aint of much use)...

And the really important bits... Adobe rgb colour space coverage - Dell 99% Apple 76%. So for colour critical work like photo editing the Dell is a far better monitor for just over half the price.

So again... With Apple you pay more and get less.

7
Software & Accessories / Re: My Dell vs iMac
« on: December 11, 2013, 05:50:31 AM »
Just for the sake of comparison

http://www.novatech.co.uk/pc/range/novatechblacknti50.html (first place I looked - i used to live in Bristol and went to the Novatech shop to but computer bits, the guys there were really friendly and helpful)

Same processor, twice the memory, only a 128mb SSD but also has a 3gb HDD, 770gtx desktop graphics card - which is faster than the 780m which is a mobile graphics card (fitting things in that small case comes at a premium) see http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html for benchmarks.

£1300 - if you look around you could probably do better.

But no monitor. But if you want to spend almost what the iMac costs you can get a 10bit ultra swanky professional NEC monitor... Or you could just spend the £550 on the extemely nice Dell 27inch Ultrasharp and have a screen that will last you for two/three times the life of any graphics card and cpu.

And so you end up with an equivalent or better system, a better screen which isn't built into the (faster aging) computer, and spend less money meaning that you can buy another lens or two, go on holiday, or just feel less broke. 

From someone who currently has about a dozen a Macs at work.

8
Software & Accessories / Re: My Dell vs iMac
« on: December 11, 2013, 02:11:28 AM »
Quote
Posted by: Botts

'The iMac is the way to go for future proofing.'

No it isn't. If you want a future proof system buy a workstation. Something where you can upgrade all the components as and when you wish. And get something with a separate monitor so that you don't have to pay for a new screen when you want to upgrade your computer (the 27 inch monitor with the iMac will easily outlast the CPU and motherboard  - we've often gone two or three generations of computers with one generation of monitors). Modularity is really valuable when you're talking about building something with an eye on the future.

Bang for buck-wise Macs are never really a good option. It used to be the case that Mac only software (FCP 7) was a good reason for a lot of people to buy Macs. That isn't really a reason anymore (unless you're using Smoke I guess).

We've just upgraded a lab's worth of computers from iMacs to HP Z820s Dual hex core E5 Xeons Dual K4000 Quadro graphics cards, loads of RAM, SSDs and Raid HDDs for extra storage (video editing machines need it). And because we're a university those machines cost us about the same amount as the top specced iMac (HP gives us a better discount than Apple so for retail machines the Z820 would cost more). If in the future we want to upgrade any part of the system we can. That flexibility is what future proofing is about.

9
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D can't be this bad can it?
« on: December 09, 2013, 03:14:07 AM »
I'd like to get a 6D until I save up and can easily afford the Mark III, and can easily replace it if the worst happens (lost/stolen/etc) but all I hear about is how bad the video is. I've watched tons of videos and I can't really judge how bad it is.

Best way is to order or rent the 6d and try for yourself, it really depends on what you shoot, try it at some potentially critical scenes and then decide if it's "good enough" - every other opinion will be as subjective as yours.

The real advantage of the 5d3 is raw video with Magic Lantern though as this is the one feature that exonerates the Canon dslrs from being outclassed by the new competition - the 6d sd slot only max 40mb/s which is only good for 720p, with the big brother you can shoot 1080p at any res and fps.

As for "it can't be as bad": Yes, it potentially can, same goes for af, Canon (mis-)designed the 6d with a clear target audience in mind and is eager to protect their more expensive lineup - €1500 unfortunately doesn't buy you an "all around good" camera from Canon.

Whilst ML offers a load of really useful monitoring aides I don't think that the RAW video is that big a deal for most people. Compared to h264 the workflow is still quite painfully slow. And unless you have an excess of time on your hands that's an issue. RAW is great for a feature (where you have a DIT and an entire postproduction team) but for most small budget productions it really is overkill. If you really need RAW buy a BMCC or a RED. And if you NEED RAW the price wont be an issue.

I'm not sure what competition you're referring to Marsu - the only affordable cameras that do RAW are the Blackmagics, and they're so far removed from a DSLR that they can't be compared. And if you think a BMCC is cheap because the body doesn't cost much you're wrong. Once you add all the extras you're looking at paying more than a C100 for a far less versatile camera (but which does provide higher resolution images with a lot more colour information).

But the C100, BMCC and other cinema cameras aren't meant to be competition for DSLRs - they're a definite step up for video. But they don't do stills. And cost more. Yes it would be lovely were Canon to offer the C500/1DC/1DX for $1500... But there's a reason why they don't.

People used to make perfectly watchable films with SD 1/3" cameras like the Sony PD150 and Canon XL1. The images you can make with a 6D will blow away what was possible for everyone outside of big budget productions five years ago.

BTW OP - insure your camera gear, then you don't need to worry about the cost of replacing it if it gets nicked... And Marsu's suggestion of renting a 6D and seeing for yourself if you like it is a really good call (this is a good idea with all camera purchases tbh)

10


WOW!!!

Hey, thank you for all the insight and help!!!
:)

I didn't know what OFX was...I'll look into that. That indeed would work VERY well for me I think.
I've been playing with the Resolve 10 betas, and just downloaded and installed the final release version of 10...but I've not fired it up to try it yet. That will most likely be my weekend project (now that I will finally have a weekend to myself with no visitors and no shoots scheduled).

I will take your suggestions and try a couple of scenarios and see what works for me. I'll try to report back to this thread my results...since others might find it useful too if using these combinations.

Again...THANK YOU very much for all your help here!!  I may have found the pieces I was looking for on how to get this workflow to work.

Do you use Premier as your NLE?  I've purchased the Adobe CS6 Production Premium suite...and was thinking of trying to learn Premier too.

Do you find roundtripping with Premier and Resolve to work fairly straightforward?  Can you give me a quick rundown of your workflow?

cayenne

No worries... I use Avid Media Composer for my own stuff (not that I ever seem to find the time to make anything these days :-( ). I've taught FCP 7 and Premiere at universities though, but never with Resolve (FCP + Colour, PP + SG).

The workflow I use depends on the project - there have been times I've been asked to grade material that's been delivered as a single prores file and the scene detect in Resolve works fine for that (and would work as a simple way to grade a finished piece). From Avid you can AAF roundtrip which is different from FCP/FCPX and their xml workflows (which is what I think PP will spit out too).

Looking for PP - Resolve brings up this:

Quote
I have had 100% success with all types of footage using this simple workflow.

1. Edit in Premiere with a Resolve friendly codec. If you are using something like AVCHD, transcode before editing or relink later. DO NOT USE NESTED SEQUENCES!!!!!
2. Bake in any effects that won't translate via XML.
3. Open the Project Manager and use it to create a condensed version of your project with only the clips you are using and give them unique file names if they don't already. You can also choose to rename the files to what they are named in Premiere. This will consolidate all your files into a new location of your choosing that is perfect for Color and Sound.
4. Open the new project file and export and XML (as well as all other timeline formats just to be safe).
5. Open Resolve and go to the project settings before importing any footage (VERY IMPORTANT!!!). Set your master timeline frame rates and select for mixed frame rates to be interpreted as Final Cut 7. Otherwise, you will get false IOs due to Resolve interpreting your 30fps timecode 23.97fps (creating a slight slow-mo effect).
6. Import your XML and make sure all the setting match your premiere timeline.
7. For any clips that don't link up, just import them into the media pool manually and they will automatically relink (no window will pop up, they will just show up in your timeline)
8. A WORD OF CAUTION: If any two clips have the same name, for example a RED clip and an MOV proxy, Resolve will associate with the first one.
9. When you are done, render out your new clips with the FCP Roundtrip preset in whatever codec you want and then export out an XML from Resolve.
10. Import the new Resolve XML into Premiere and your timeline w/ graded clips will import.

I have used this workflow on many projects with RED cameras and HACKED GH2s and it has work very well.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/277/18013

The Creative Cow forums tend to be pretty good for specific technical post-production queries that you might have, some very experienced and knowledgeable people hang out there ;-)


11

I shot in Marvels Flat cine style....can this go straight into Davinci Resolve 10? I thought I might run it through Davinci....do the color correction/grading and then export out for use by either FCPX or Premier....but not sure if the IPB workflow is that straight forward?



No offense but why would you want to grade before you edit? You're just making more work for yourself. Work out exactly what footage you're going to use and then grade it, don't waste time grading everything first and then assembling it (and then probably having another grading pass at the end once you know what your film looks like). I guess if you have no time constraints and really want to spend time using resolve this might make sense. Otherwise edit>fx work>grade

I would prefer to grade after editing of course....however, the footage I've shot...needs video noise reduction.
I'm buying the NEAT Video de-noiser, and it runs either on FCPX or Premier.

If I do normal roundtripping with Resolve for color grading...it will bring in the edits of course, BUT...the color grading will be done based on the original footage, and not the proxy footage you generate from Resolve -> NLE to edit and then send back final XML to Resolve for grading.....and I've found Resolve won't handle all the edits and effects you put in with FCPX, etc...requiring one to edit, grade and then send back at least on last time to FCPX to add those effects back in.

I've found when doing this last step with XML...the edit that comes back into FCPX has NO SOUND...

So, I was trying to balance in my head...is it easier to just grade all out of camera footage in resolve and then send that to the NLE for editing (I might try Premier this time, trying to learn that tool)....or is it worth the bother of sending roundtrip with Resolve and NLE...and having each time it goes back to NLE to add back in effects and cut and paste sound out, etc...?

I truly wished they'd work and play better with each other, as that I really prefer the controls and all on Resolve for grading much moreso than the ones in FCPX and so far of what I've seen with speedgrade on the adobe side.

I can't seem to find a workflow roundtripping smoothly so far between Resolve and FCPX.

Does it work better with Premier? I might try it and see...I dunno yet.

But I will need that NEAT Video noise step in there somewhere...I shot some stuff on fairly high ISO.

I only used FCPX very briefly and hated it, so cant really comment on its Resolve integration... Looking at this http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14203 are you using resolve 9 or 10? It seems that 10 may work, or it may be a case of having to change the audio sample rate.

Alternatively it looks like neat video is available as an OFX plugin which means that it should work inside Resolve 10 (Neat 3.5 says it has experimental Resolve 10 support) - that might help out with your workflow?

If you're still having issues, and depending on the complexity of your edit (this wouldn't work if you have a load of layered video) and the speed of your computer, it might be easier just editing everything and adding  fx (including your noise reduction) and exporting to prores 422, import to Resolve, use scene detection, grade and export your final piece from there.

It isn't going to be as smooth as FCP 7 + Color was, or like Premiere to Speedgrade is because you're using programs from different companies, but Resolve does (imo) give you more powerful and intuitive tools to work with than either of those alternatives - the nodal system is fantastic for flexibility and for going over work with clients (its very east to show them exactly what each node is doing so they can give you detailed feedback on what works for them).

Editing everything out of camera also depends to a certain extent on what you're shooting - I used to shoot documentary-style stuff where we'd have a far higher rushes to final material ration than you might get from fiction. Often we'd have 25+ times as much raw material as finished film - and had we graded everything out of camera we would have spent about 25x as long grading all the material we didn't end up using.

In fairness a lot of that stuff was just corrected within Media Composer because it was pre-Color and affordable dedicated grading tools - back then Media Composer was about £3.5K and Symphony, which had some better colour specific tools was a lot more. The tools we have for grading now are seriously amazing compared to what we were using 10 years ago... Anyway, hope some of this ramble  is vaguely useful.

12
Lenses / Re: replacement for my 17-35 till there is a 14-24
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:55:48 PM »
As a pro shooter get the 16-35 f2.8 ii. The extra stop of light and general improvement before f11 over the 17-40 f4 is well worth it, especially at corporate events and weddings where you have to work in available light which is often far from ideal.

If something far better which will suit your style of shooting comes along you can always sell, and L lenses tend to hold their value pretty well (far better than 3rd party lenses, although this does mean you're more likely to pick up a bargain 2nd hand tokina)... But the point is, as a professional you should invest in the equipment you need to do the job today, not wait for something which may do the job better in a year or two, the difference in cost between the 17-40 and 16-35 is less than one wedding/event.

As has been mentioned here the potential issue with both the tokina 16-28 and the posited 14-24 is that they feature bulbous front elements which mean that you wont be using screw on filters - so its a mattebox or nothing. No problem for landscapes, but not what you to have to be fiddling about with when running around at a wedding or corporate event... And you describe yourself as a pro who does weddings and events... The samyang/rokinon is not what you want for the type of work you describe (where versatility is key).

13

I shot in Marvels Flat cine style....can this go straight into Davinci Resolve 10? I thought I might run it through Davinci....do the color correction/grading and then export out for use by either FCPX or Premier....but not sure if the IPB workflow is that straight forward?



No offense but why would you want to grade before you edit? You're just making more work for yourself. Work out exactly what footage you're going to use and then grade it, don't waste time grading everything first and then assembling it (and then probably having another grading pass at the end once you know what your film looks like). I guess if you have no time constraints and really want to spend time using resolve this might make sense. Otherwise edit>fx work>grade

14
Software & Accessories / Re: DSLR Microphones, suggestions please :) !
« on: November 18, 2013, 05:45:06 PM »
Basically Paul's advice is pretty much spot on.

Putting a mic on your camera is like putting a flash on top of your camera (and non being able to bounce it). While it's almost certainly better than something built into the camera body but doesn't come close to realising the potential of the accessory.

There's a good reason that sound recording is generally done separately to video - and its because your audio recordist wants to be standing somewhere else,and probably holding a boom. If you absolutely have to do everything by yourself, look at getting a mic stand for your interviews so you can set the mic up just out of frame. 

I prefer the tascam DR100 to the zoom H4N because the levels aren't done with clicky buttons that make it very hard to adjust levels during recording, but thats just me. There's also the DR60 which I haven't used but is specficially designed for DSLR audio and may be worth a look - unlike the zoom/dr100 you dont need a rig to mount it too which may be a bonus.

Basically the pre-amps on DSLRs are S___. Really really shockingly bad. If you want to record anything onto camera set your camera preamps to one step above zero to minimise the horrible noise they introduce into anything. A better option is to use the camera audio to sync material using pluraleyes.

15
AF has no place on a serious video camera.

really?? Because not every type of video shooting scenario is exactly ideal for carefully set shooting with an extra focus puller. Just because you only shoot one particular type of thing doesn't mean that is the only thing everyone does. Sure the regular MF way with carefully pulling is best for lots of stuff but absolutely not for all stuff!

Most of the stuff I do these days is on the hoof.  No focus pullers.  I know that my way is not everybody elses way.  But I do know, that in the professional arena, amongst my peers, no matter where they work, or what camera they use (generally 2/3rds ENG format) none of them use a camera with AF on it, let alone, AF.

Day one of cameraman school.  You get get your fingers rapped if you use auto anything.  So you practise for 2 years before they set you free.  Yes there are muppets shooting stuff for the PA or Getty, trashy celeb type stuff, with z1's or XHA1's and use AF.  But they are muppets.  Muppets with tiny sensors.  And short careers.

Once again you still have only listed a small portion all potential types of shooting.
You entire forget about certain types of wildlife and natural world shooting to name one. Sure MF can be better for that too in many cases, but absolutely not for all.

Up until very very recently the Bbc shot it's wildlife / natural world stuff on film.  Totally manual cameras.

The excellent hebrides series was shot on a mix of panasonic p2 eng cameras and phantom.

Neither have af.

I know this because I asked John Aitchison what he used.

In the follow up documentary 'Wild Cameramen at work' it showed you how the most memorable shots from the bbcs natural earth output was captured.  Lots and lots of planning.  Lots and lots of waiting.  Lots and lots of takes.  A little bit of luck here and there.  Not any of these guys, widely considered to be the best in the business, used an af camera.

They have baftas and rts awards coming outthrir collective bottom, so I'm more inclined to follow their lead.

For sports stills and nature stills, yeah.  AF has its place.  I've always made the distinction clear.  For hobby family video guys, af has its place.  For professional video work it does not.

Basically this.

First cinematography lecture I give one of the things that is repeatedly drummed into either undergrads or postgrads is not to switch camera settings to auto. There's always at least one group a year who choose to ignore that because they think it'll be easier for them with auto on. When their rushes come back with focus hunting/exposure/white balance changes they soon learn why professionals don't use autofocus.

I'm really intrigued by what this 'natural world' and 'wildlife' stuff LTRL is on about actually is... I used to occasionally hang out with some of the BBC natural history unit guys when I lived in Bristol - you don't spend two weeks waiting to see a big cat take down its prey only to come back with unusable footage because of AF hunting (on subjects rapidly moving and changing direction). But then the people who do that are f***ing good at what they do. I would bet on them over AF in those challenging conditions every time. That may change in time - but AF would have to be a lot better than it is on top stills systems now to be usable with wildlife film - which is up there in terms of being one of the most demanding things people do skill wise.

In fairness, being a one man band is actually damn hard. Having to simultaneously sort out composition, focus, audio levels, eyeline etc whilst having an engaging interview with someone takes skill and practice. Hell just getting an engaging interview can be hard enough. And that's part of why cameras like the EX1 have been such staples for run and gun work - one less thing (focus) to worry about makes those situations that much easier.

That said I'm pretty sure cameras like the EX1 and HVX201 have autofocus. I've just never known anyone other than my failing 1st year students to actually use it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8