February 26, 2015, 05:59:37 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 - syder

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: BMD 4K, EOS C100 or 5D3
« on: July 16, 2013, 07:45:01 AM »
Good question - and a choice similar to one I'm about to be faced with... I've just started work at a new university who need to upgrade their production facilities and want me to start writing a quote for what I want them to buy in...

5Dm3 I'd only consider if you want something to do stills as well as video

C100 seems like an excellent all rounder - and quality-wise with an external recorder the results look fairly close to a C300 (which a lot of people in broadcast I know use and love). Wont over/undercrank if you think you'll need that (FS700 might be worth a look in that case).

Speaking of which - there are E to EF mount adaptors for the FS100/700. Although unless you're sold on needing the crazy cool super slow motion or the (unlikely to be cheap I dont think its out yet) 4k and RAW upgrade the C100 looks a better package to me.

BMC4k is hypothetically amazing... But then the BMC original camera was touted by many to blow anything under 10k away (especially on techy forums), And it sort of does if you're doing short fiction work under controlled lighting and can look past the quirks (one might say shortcomings) of the camera. But for event/documentary uses it's issues outweigh it's advantes imo.

Now in general I'm of the opinion that 2nd generation tech tends to iron out a lot of the issues that groundbreaking tech often comes burdened with - and by losing the 2x crop, and the resource hungry uncompressed RAW the BMC 4k looks like it's taking steps in the right direction. But losing DNxHD support  is something that makes it less attractive (they could have kept a DNxHD 1080 mode for Avid/Windows users). However, for anything outside of controlled  conditions I'd still rather have a C100 for its low light capabilities, ND filters, XLR inputs etc.

Planning for 5 years time is pretty hard - if you were writing this in 2008 what would your options have been? 5dM2 (with its almost comical firmware limitations on launch) wasn't out by then... So Z1, Ex1, Panny HVX201, Canon XF100... All of which are solid camcorders, but in terms of aesthetic possibilities, low light capabilities, lens choice etc look very limiting compared to what's around now. At least the move to modular systems means that in 3-5 years you'll still have your lens investment which will be useful.

As an aside on the topic of grading, if you've got enough RAM and GPU power to run it I'd recommend having a look at the lite version of Davinci Resolve. Its free, and extremely powerful.

Set your stills setting to C1/2 and your video setting to C2/3.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: May 31, 2013, 10:43:05 AM »
Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.

Give it a real try and you will NOT say that.

It depends what you mean by a real try... On a typical day I might shoot 150 clips. Processing each one of those using the current methods for getting raw video out the 5dm3 would be 1) a massive pain in the ass 2) so time consuming that it isn't worthwhile for anyone actually making professional work.

At the moment it's amazing for hobbyists (or other people for whom time doesn't equal money) - but unusable for anyone who makes videos for a living.
There are professionals who shoot RAW and make a living doing so. Whats the difference between the other cameras RAW and the 5d3's?

The ONE step of dragging your RAW clips to raw2dng???

One can only assume that you've never shot anything using a RAW camcorder or don't understand the ML workflow...

Nothing else requires you to 1st compile a dng sequence into a clip (as you point out) and then compile the DNG files into a sequence (using something like AEX) - a process which is massively computationally intensive (and yes i do have an unlocked and overclocked i7 workstation with 32gb of RAM and a CUDA graphics card) and enormously time consuming.

Using a BMC you can go straight to Resolve, perform a quick grade and render your footage as something edit friendly (dnxhd or similar). No processing RAW to DNG. No turning stills into a sequence. And BM are learning from their mistake with their 1st gen camera that uncompressed RAW is a massive resource hog that no-one wants to deal with.


How much time do you currently spend, on footage from you shoots in post? I'm talking total time from editing, to color correction to color grading....sound...etc?

Just curious, I mean, for most people it isnt' like they shoot, and BAM, have a finished product out the door in 1-2 hours later.

I usually take a good bit of time auditioning takes, sync'ing or dubbing sound, layering on effects, titles...hell, just figuring out the music for things takes time, etc.

As an editor the vast majority of my time is spent... Editing (shock horror). Color correction and grading are the same thing and actually take very little time (even using something like resolve to make a load of secondary corrections - which is more work than a lot of work actually needs). Titles likewise (unless you're talking about some fiendishly complex motion graphics).

When clients pay for my time as an editor they want to have stories told in a compelling way. They're happy to get some work done on grading, motion graphics etc, but that isn't where the majority of an editor's time should be spent, and adding a few days to a project to manually compile the RAW stills into the 600 clips that become a 30 minute documentary is a waste of time.

If you need RAW for your high-budget work rent a Red camera for your shoot. If you want RAW but cant cough up the cash for a Red for your indie work buy a BMC (amazingly cheap for what it does, but has some big limitations outside of fiction work imo). If you're a hobbyist with loads of free time (or just someone who doesn't shoot very much) use the ML RAW.

Phillip Bloom has quite a good post about why the vast majority of people don't need RAW or 4K at the moment http://philipbloom.net/2013/05/28/4kraw/ he's pretty much spot on.

magic lantarn seems to hae a to high contrast and altered saturation kicking the red to purple in some samples and at high iso the canon clearly winst even tho its grayer its more realistic and has less distracting noise.

the raw just doesnt seem t be raw but edited and if you edit the canon video it will look better at high iso

You cant output RAW video... Anything you see online will be graded and exported before being compressed for streaming on Vimeo/Youtube

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« on: May 30, 2013, 08:20:13 PM »
Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.

Give it a real try and you will NOT say that.

It depends what you mean by a real try... On a typical day I might shoot 150 clips. Processing each one of those using the current methods for getting raw video out the 5dm3 would be 1) a massive pain in the ass 2) so time consuming that it isn't worthwhile for anyone actually making professional work.

At the moment it's amazing for hobbyists (or other people for whom time doesn't equal money) - but unusable for anyone who makes videos for a living.

Agrees with Paul...

In most circumstances using a cut will be the easiest way to do this.

If I absolutely had to show it in one take then lighting things inside would be the easiest way to make it look good. With a ND/aperture change mid shot you're likely to draw attention to what you're doing (in terms of altering the exposure) as there's a gradual exposure shift which effectively breaks any illusion of the camera as an artificial eye (hence cathartic engagement with the content of your images). However, if you can light your interior to work alongside the colour temp and luminance of the outdoors sections you could make the shot work (if it was an elaborate dolly following someone out the building for example).

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70
« on: May 15, 2013, 07:07:43 AM »
Bought one from a bricks and mortar store (in case I wanted to exchange copies). Its a fantastic lens. Very sharp, IS works really well. Absolutely no problems so far (and a 5 year warranty if I do)...

I've also used the Canon 24-70 2.8 marks I and II, and I prefer the Tamron to both. While the Canon Mark II is a little sharper, I'm happy to trade a very small amount of sharpness for the benefits of IS (most of my paid work is video, where for anything that isn't on a piece of grip equipment IS is needed). The Canon Mark I is noticably less sharp (there's a bigger difference between the Canon mark I and the Tamron than there is between the Tamron and the Mark II).

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: High noise at low ISO
« on: April 24, 2013, 10:30:34 AM »
As jason said... the multiples of 160 is a must for reducing noise on video...

Also I'd question using Cinestyle if the framegrabs you've posted are typical of the material. Cinestyle does give you more DR than the Canon picture styles, but at the cost of making all your blacks grey and people look slightly clay-like.

You're frame grabs don't look like they have an awful lot of DR in them - so by using a picture style which compresses colour data (and with 8 bit colour we don't have much to work with anyhow) you actually have less data to work with than using other styles.

Consequently I'd recommend either using neutral, or looking at the Flaat or VisionColour picture styles which both give Cinestyle-like DR but without some of the drawbacks.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Upgrading...Canon 60D to...GH3
« on: April 24, 2013, 10:24:59 AM »
Equipment I think I need:

-ND Filter recommendations (Variable vs. Fixed? How many stops? Brand? etc.)

Variable are far more versatile for run and gun documentary style shooting where conditions change quickly and you need to be able to adapt rather than reach into a bag. The quality of them does vary enormously through, from cheap, soft and huge colour shifts to the Tiffen/Singh-Ray filters which cost a bit but wont significantly soften your image or add a noticeable colour cast. The LCW mark ii is somewhere in the middle. For working outside you do need some kind of ND filtration.

-Lenses (Canon vs. Tamron/Rokinon ... prime vs. zoom ... regular vs. cine ... vintage/nikon/etc)

Again what for? Interviews? Primes. Ensuring you get a use-able take of something which only happens once? The versatility of a good zoom wins every time. If you're going to be doing much handheld work seriously consider investing in glass with IS (Tamron 24-70 for example).

-Slider (not familiar with these..i've seen some mounted on tripod and others that are on the floor?)

You can mount these (on tripods) or have them unmounted. The konovas have a reputation for good value for money. As others have said Kessler are known for premium quality at premium prices.

-Creating a "Rig":

The Photography and Cinema rig featured on the CheesyCam website is a pretty good value rig which gives you a load of mounting points for your audio recorder, mic etc. The Korean Gini rigs are also known for good quality and good value. Some of the prices that people like Zacuto charge for rigs is comical. £2k for a rig made of about £75 worth of parts.

- A way to affix h4n and ntg2 (extra shoe mounts etc?)

One of the main reasons to get a rig... was for me anyway.

- do i need a follow/pull focus? or can it be done by hand

I don't use one. You need to have a decent eyepiece/evf/focus peaking though, unless you have time to set your shots carefully in advance (often I don't).

-Inexpensive ViewFinder (zacuto seems expensive)

The carryspeed isn't bad. The Zacuto is expensive but the optics in the new version are actually pretty good (especially compared to some of the cheap lcdvf clones out there, and indeed the original Zacutos which sucked)

-Do I need a monopod? Shoulder rig?

Again, this depends on exactly what you're going to be doing. Lots of handheld work where you wont have time to set up a tripod? Then having some kind of support is really useful.

-Can I get buy with h4n & ntg2? Do I need wireless mics? Beachtek? (i'm not that familiar with audio)

Once again... It depends. Beachtek does much the same job as the h4n, I personally wouldn't bother with both. Lavs can be very useful for interviews in noisey places. But it's dependent on exactly what you're going to be doing.

Look - the thing is, there is no off the shelf solution for the specifics of what YOU are going to be doing with your video work. Before dropping thousands on a huge range of kit that you've been recommended, or which you think you might need, you should use what you already have, work out where the shortcomings are, and use that to really understand what it is you NEED to upgrade in order to create the type of work that's going to make you money.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?
« on: April 18, 2013, 01:31:34 PM »
Yah, I just jumped ship to the BMCC. I ordered from Adorama last night, and i already got a notice that it is shipping this week. I guess they've figures out their supply issues.

I waited as long as I could for Canon to give me something with raw that was affordable. I like to grade my video like i grade my pictures, and there was no way i could do this with Canon.

Hopefully they'll come around soon.

I would seriously consider waiting on the Blackmagic Production cam, it's definitely going to ship in July and a lot more camera for less than $1k more.  I preordered it and the pocket cam, both are going to be stellar.

Although it depends on type of kit you have elsewhere... RAW video eats disk space like there's no tomorrow. And the CPU and RAM requirements for working in RAW 4k aren't to be trifled at either. Happy to kit your post facility with a load of high end workstation computers and a 20 tb raid array - go for the 4k RAW system. Want to stick with your current 2 year old iMac - don't bother.

If you're happy with the additional costs throughout your entire production workflow then the BMC4k looks like it'll be fantastic - but for a lot of people/places which aren't dedicated production companies the extra expenses across the board make it the C100 look like a better option.

As for the 5Dmiii firmware - we'll have to wait and see how much of an improvement it provides in terms of IQ. Until it's been tested we wont know for sure, but it wont turn the 5dmiii into something that will outperform a C300.

In 2008 DSLR video was ahead of the competition (in terms of sensor size/aesthetic potential vs cost - people forget how badly the 5dmii sucked in many ways for video on release). Expecting things to simply stay that way was always unrealistic - and here we are four and half years later with a range of cameras including the three BMC's, the GH3 (for those on a shoestring budget), 1DC, C100/300, FS100/700, Red Scarlet which all do video better than DSLRs.

That doesn't mean that you can't still make stunning work with a DSLR - or that they aren't still a very tempting option for people who do both stills and video: only that most high end video production companies will use the dedicated video tools that don't have a load of (to them useless) photgraphy features. For example the autofocus system on the 5diii is great for stills - and completely useless for video. Expecting devices which don't have most of their R&D budget going into features that wont be used to outcompete dedicated video devices doesn't make a lot of sense.


And a few more thoughts:

1. Haven't seen a single complaint yet about no IS.


3. What are the video implications of this lens? Surely there must be some (don't know since I don't video).

Well 1. has a huge impact on 3. No IS means that it wont be as useful for video as the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

 - in order to get a stable and sharp single frame (from a rig/handheld) you really want Focal length x crop > shutter speed... So for stills IS isn't going to be much of an issue on a fast standard zoom. For video though, you're stuck with a shutter speed of 1/50th (1/60th in NTSC countries), And for video any movement between frames is also visible - hence why for video (if you aren't on a tripod/dolly/slider/crane) having IS is extremely useful.

+1 for the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc

Better image quality than the 24-105L or the 24-70L mki

A damn sight cheaper than the mark ii and it has IS (which for video - where I make most my money -  makes it a more useful lens)

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 07, 2013, 01:02:04 PM »
Based purely on footage watched online, and not personal experience, I may have come to the conclusion that the 6D out of the box is not very usable for video.

Sigh. What exactly do you mean by not very usable? As in you literally can't use it? Perhaps your comment about out of the box alludes to a situation before you've attached a lens to the camera (in which case - yes you wouldn't get usable video)? Or as in the 6D suffers from the same issues as the 5dm2/7d/60d/600d in terms of moire and aliasing?

Because plenty of people made stunning work with all those other cameras - the video is a long way from unusable. Yes you have be careful to work around the camera's weaknesses in particular circumstances. And yes if given the choice between a camera that you have to do this with and another body where the same issues are far better managed (5dm3 or 1dx) then choosing the latter (more expensive) model might be worthwhile - especially if you're using the kit to make a living as a videographer.

But calling the 6D's video not very usable isn't very true.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: February 05, 2013, 02:41:26 PM »
Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about.

If this is directed at me, then it's a mis-fire.  I've never doubted that the 5D3 exhibits less moire, although I can't verify this through experience, however anybody who says a 5D3 exhibits no moire and never will frankly they have no idea what they are talking about.

Nice strawman. Having admitted to not having actually used a 5Dm3 you earlier came out with 'the superiority complex 5D3 users really are having a big old laugh to themselves when it comes to moire etc.'

So apparently we're having a laugh by having a camera whereby moire is not the issue is is with every other Canon DSLR. Except you now now don't doubt that it exhibits less moire (meaning that in most situations - certainly every shoot I've had with a 5dm3 - moire is not something you need to take action to address).

The difference between 5Dm2 (and 7D 60D 600D and 550D - i haven't used a 6D) and 5Dm3 is massive when it comes to moire. Not 100% and 0 but enough to make a huge difference for people who actually use the cameras, rather than those who just bitch about them on the Internet.

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS
« on: February 05, 2013, 02:30:55 PM »

my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.

A standard zoom is about as useful for video as it is for stills tbh - very. For most event work it gives you the flexibility to go from a general view/establishing shot to a medium close up. A 70-200 is a close up lens - also massively useful, especially at things like conferences where you can't necessarily get anywhere near the action.

Would a prime be better... Well it's much the same as with stills. If you have time to set things up just the way you want them then a prime will generally beat a zoom. For weddings/events/documentary style action then you don't really have that luxury, so having a zoom that will cover a bunch of useful focal lengths (24, 35, 50, 70) is pretty handy.

Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.
A lot of wedding photographers are now using fusion, mixing video with stills ... and more and more couples are asking for fusion ... it would be foolish for those photographers to invest in Canon cinema lenses as they cost a fortune. Besides, the 24-70 f/2.8 L II is there for people like you who don't want IS, since it is new, it won't go anywhere if (hypothetically speaking) canon releases an IS version in 2013 or 2014. I don't think a general purpose zoom lens with IS will be all that heavy, I am sure we will still be able to carry it all day comfortably, unless someone is extremely weak.


DSLR video is a way an awful lot of people make at least some of their money. Telling them they HAVE TO buy a £4k camera and £4k lenses just because you use your gear differently is just plain dumb.

Lenses / Re: How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS
« on: February 05, 2013, 05:30:05 AM »
.28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.

Again... For video IS is a massive +

Remember that the general rule for getting sharp images is focal length/shutter speed = <1

And that for video you are stuck at a shutter sped of 1/50th second if you want natural looking motion at 24/25 frames per second.

For the 135 that means you're very unlikely to get usable hand-held footage (unless you only need a very brief cutaway).

With a 4-stop IS system, you would be able to shoot reasonable hand-held video with a 135mm lens. Consequently for video shooters this would be a killer feature. It has nothing to do with poor technique (unless you count not having every shot locked off on a tripod/dolly/crane as poor technique I guess - but this is hardly feasible for low-budget event/documentary jobs). Much the same can be said about shooting handheld at 70mm - you might get away with it as it's closer to a 1:1 focal length to shutter speed ration - but IS will give you a steadier shot on a more consistent basis.

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8