Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony EX3 vs Pano AF101 vs Canon AF305 vs...?  (Read 5224 times)
stewarthemley
Guest
« on: September 19, 2011, 04:12:49 AM »
ReplyReply

For our video stuff we’re considering the Sony EX3 and FS100, Panasonic AF101, and possibly the Canon XF305.  Our requirements are for quality files and ease of use, neither of which we feel we get from our 5D2s.

Of course, we’ll do a hands-on with each of them but I wonder if anyone can offer first hand experience of these cameras in everyday life? I know that BC Cooter and Morgan Moore have used the FS100 and found it seriously challenged by highlights, and don’t rate its “video look”, which would turn us off too, so that’s something we’ll be trying to tame, though if BC can’t sort it, I doubt we can.

They’re all “BBC approved”, which is a useful guide to the quality of the files, if used with a nanoflash, etc, though the Canon doesn’t need that for broadcast approval. Not that we envisage much need for broadcast quality as most work these days seems to be for the web, but we do need “post workability”. And we need smooth zooms, the ability to track focus reliably, etc, which DSLRs don’t exactly make easy, even with all the bits stuck on. And then you’re getting close to the cost of a decent camcorder.

At the moment, we’re biased towards the EX3, even though it’s been out a while but the AF101 looks great on paper.

Any thoughts would be welcome.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2218


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2011, 09:19:40 AM »
ReplyReply

In short I dont know the canon305

I got the FS100 in the belief that the highlights are better on that than the AF100

I own an EX1 which is similar to the EX3 - the highlights are crap on that too

It would appear that the EX3 and Canon305 are small chip cams

With a different look and feel to the FS100 and Af100 that 'work' with still lenses

The 5d has amazing highlight handling .. and a pile of other issues

I think you need to choose..

either small chip - Ex3/Canon305

or

larger chip AF/FS100

That is your first choice then you can home in on the model that is most suited for your need

----

As I am using the Fs100 more it is becoming apparent that it ETTL "Expose to the left" is the way forward, which is counterintuitive to me after years of ETTR









Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1908



« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2011, 10:04:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I shoot with both Sony EX1s and the Panny AF100. Both are excellent cameras. No experience with Canon.

I use the Sonys when I am shooting multi-cameras and want fast convenient quality; the Panny when I want lens interchangeability with the GH2 (which I use for run&gun). The Panny hardly ever comes off the tripod and I remove both handles.

I shoot with the AF100 when I am shooting single camera and on location. The usability and UI of the Panny feels a little rough-around-the-edges compared with Sony, but the IQ is higher. If I had to choose between the two cameras, it would be the AF100 simply because of the IQ.

Blown highlights are a serious problem with any video. Both cameras give good gamma curve control but the AF100 has proper videoscope displays that make exposure evaluation easier.

If you need a fully featured video camera with operable zoom, go Sony. If you are prepared to work the camera and in-shot zoom is unimportant, go Panasonic.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2011, 11:37:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Sam and Chris for the rapid responses.

Sam, bummer that the highlights are crap on the EX3. I guess exposing to the left( ETTL ?) is one answer but then what happens to the already challenged blacks? I think I can guess. Crushed or noise.

Chris, you mentioned the Panny AF100 but the model I am considering is the new AF101. I need to check what the differences are because you seem happy with it, and I am used to, and need high image quality after working with MFDB's for a few years, so that might be an option. The videoscope sounds good too. I'll be working mostly on a tripod so shoulderability (?!) is not paramount.

I think I need interchangable lenses though, as well as in camera zoom. I'm keen to try my Canon TSE's (17, 24) on video.

As usual, it comes down to horses for courses, and balancing features.

I'll be testing the cameras this week so will offer my verdict in case it helps anyone else decide.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2218


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2011, 11:54:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Not that I would elevate my work near to that of BC we both have a style that enjoys a smooth bleed to white

It is important to see our comments in that light

I think the FS is the toy of the moment, with a bigger chip than the Af100 and therefor cleaner 'lefts'

They are all very competent cameras even the Ex3 but stills people are used to huge latitiude and smooth tones compared to any video that is not Red or Alexa F3 etc

You understand that the EX3 has a tiny chip so a 17mm will be a telephoto?

If you want to enjoy your canon glass you understand that there is not a proper aperture solution for any of the cameras yet ?

S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2011, 12:38:02 PM »
ReplyReply

There isn't much of the difference in the highlights between a Sony FS100, & Pansonic AF100. Both require careful exposure, & if they blow can look ugly, but are somewhat fixable. Too much has been made of this issue, & over the past eight months I've only rarely had a problem.

The AF100 has served us well shooting documentaries, music videos, commercials, & narratives, in every weather condition, & environment. We've shot from moving cars, & helicopters, in the surf, rain, snow, rain forest, desert, etc, etc., while traveling over four continents to innumerous locations, without a single major glitch.

Mine lives in a ThinkTank Airport International carryon rolling case, & there's enough room left over for multiple lenses, chargers, batteries, grads, hard drives, plus an EVF, shoulder rig, & backup GH2, so I don't worry about mis-routed luggage not arriving for a gig. And when it's time to roll the AF100 can get all dressed up, & recording in a minute.

We've cut it together with footage from the Alexa, RED MX, & SS35 film, but so far no client has noted a difference. We've pulled chroma keys, luma keys, & applied effects, all with the native CODEC, & will soon bolt on an external recorder to capture less compressed footage with 422 color.

Our gigs are usually fast faced with smaller crews, often with impatient celebrity talent, & I couldn't imagine working like we do without built-in NDs, waveform monitor, HD-SDI, dual card slots, & quick access to multiple ISOs, color temperatures, & frame rates.

There are certainly better cameras for particular tasks, but I haven't used one that's better for our overall needs. In short the AF100 is a workhorse.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 11:38:33 AM by Bern Caughey » Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2011, 12:56:20 PM »
ReplyReply

you mentioned the Panny AF100 but the model I am considering is the new AF101.

Same camera with a different name.
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2011, 01:39:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Sam, Thanks again. I also value a smooth transition from detail to white, it's one of the current nasties about video, and I know I'll have some of that whatever we get but the more we can control it, the better. The EX3 seems to have plenty of options there, as does the AF101 so I'm hopeful we can live with that. And yes, it's a bummer but the smaller the chip the less use my TSE's will be.

Bern, good info, thanks. Sounds like your shooting resembles ours quite closely. It's good to hear that you've poked your files about and they hold up well. That's a must for us. We'll also stick a nanoflash, or similar on to get the 4.2.2. It's also interesting to see that the 101 is basically the same as the 100, which Chris rated higher in image quality than the EX1/3. I read a review that reversed that but I know you have to judge for yourself.

The comment about clients not noticing the difference... matches my experience with stills pretty closely, and that of most other people. The big thing with your example though is that the footage is directly related. In other words, cutting from say the Red, to the Panny and back, without being spotted is great.

Thanks guys.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2218


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2011, 05:05:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The FS100 has 'profiles' too like the EX3

Ive knocked the FS100 compared to the highlight roll in the DSLRs but I still think it is the lead contender in this market sector

Biggest chip, smallest form, best use of existing glass, bigger pixels, better low light, good af, reach and and steadyshot with the kit lens

The AF100/1 has a boon with the onboard ND and also the SDi connector but IMO the imager is worse

As for onboard waveform, I dunno, im a histo man myself coming from still digicams

The EX3 is another class of camera small chip, power zoom etc

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2011, 05:18:48 AM »
ReplyReply

There isn't much of the difference in the highlights between a Sony FS100, & Pansonic AF100. Both require careful exposure, & if they blow can look ugly, but are fixable. Too much has been made of this issue, & over the past eight months I've only rarely had a problem.

The AF100 has served us well shooting documentaries, music videos, commercials, & narratives, in every weather condition, & environment. We've shot from moving cars, & helicopters, in the surf, rain, snow, rain forest, desert, etc, etc., while traveling over four continents to innumerous locations, without a single major glitch.


There is no perfect camera, still or motion and I do like the fs100.  I still stand by I'm not that wild about the file.  It's great in medium balanced light and we can usually hold the highlights with correct fill. 

The thing is the way it rolls off from high medium tone to highlight is a very quick fall off, much faster than a 5d2.

Actually, for a precooked file, given my wish I would go with an FS100, more e-mount lenses (that are faster) with the look and characteristics of the 5d2.

Given that we use our RED's as much as possible, I don't think the FS100 would be our A camera, but I know if it had the above it would be used a whole lot more.

IMO

BC
Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2011, 10:47:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The comment about clients not noticing the difference... matches my experience with stills pretty closely, and that of most other people. The big thing with your example though is that the footage is directly related. In other words, cutting from say the Red, to the Panny and back, without being spotted is great.

Anyone who's seen the SCCE on the big screen knows that once graded the RED, Alexa, & F35, produce a very similar look that contains much better dynamic range, color, & highlight rolloff, then the F3, or AF100. While the client may not notice a difference in the final product, the photographers, & editors, often will.

An F3 with the S-Log upgrade closes the gap somewhat, but I haven't tested this option yet, & am unsure how to send an normal looking image to video village in realtime. Plus a fully kitted F3's price starts to creep towards MX's.

A stock F3 has a more dynamic range, & a slightly sharper image, then an AF100, but I've never seen a comprehensive test between an AF100, & the FS100. The F3 is a much more sophisticated camera than the FS100, & though they share the same chip, the stock F3's base ISO is higher, plus it captures much more dynamic range, & color, so I'd like to see proof the FS100 handles rolloff in a clearly superior manor to the AF100's.

But there's more to filmmaking then sharpness, dynamic range, or roll-off, otherwise RED would own the market. When choosing a camera practicality, & usability, must be factored, so I doubt I could be swayed to purchase the FS100 due to the form factor, & lack of built-in NDs, waveform (@ Sam, you don't know what your missing), & especially HD-SDI. Even if I didn't regularly feed video village I still want HD-SDI to connect to an external recorder for beefier files, superior motion rendering, & larger color space. And while there are HDMI recorders I've had too many disconnects with my HDMI EVF, & would never want to rely on this consumer connection for capturing serious work.

No doubt the FS100 is a fine camera, but I need to travel light, & work fast, so carrying a matte box, set of IR NDs, complete shoulder rig, & HDMI>SDI convertor with external battery, would be a burden, putting me in the position of relying on airline's baggage routing, & likely requiring additional camera crew.

But my particular needs are most likely different then other's.

Unfortunately it's very hard to comprehensively test cameras, & I doubt Stewart will get a full feel for these models without using them for more than a week each.

Best,
Bern
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 08:37:00 AM by Bern Caughey » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2218


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2011, 01:43:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I've never seen a comprehensive test between an AF100, & the FS100.

Mr Bloom did one (non scientific)

IMO a quick hunt round the web and you will see both cams, blocking the highlights, the AF worse than the FS

Our OP should of course take careful note of your comments about the undeniable practicality gains, particularly the onboard ND of the AF100, over the FS100

For me I was swung to the FS because I thought the S35 chip 'quite small enough' and could see a situation with the AF where I owned it and (as with my EX1) only begrudingly used it when I was worried about moiree or sound

S

Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2011, 03:25:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Really interesting and useful replies. Thanks guys.

“Unfortunately it's very hard to comprehensively test cameras, & I doubt Stewart will get a full feel for these models without using them for more than a week each.”

Spot on, Bern. At least a week. And also agree when you say:

“But in the end it doesn't really matter, & in the words of the Ernst Haas, "Leica, schmeica. The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."

I’m stuck with how well, or not, I see so I think the following criteria are relevant when deciding on which camera. File quality (color, DR, highlights, sensitivity, noise, etc); features (ND, waves/histos, in/outputs, etc), cost effectiveness and, last but not least, usability (I know I take better pics with my DSLR than my MFDB’s). So, not much to think about then…

Features can be read about and balanced, though it’s difficult. Files can be obtained (maybe next week) and quality judged. But usability? Liveability? Can I live with this thing? As BC said, and we all know to our cost, there’s no perfect camera for everyone and every situation. But forums like these really can help. Thanks again guys.

And a last minute/pre-purchase thought: what are Canon about to release? New camcorder line to compete with Sony/Panny? New 5d3 that will be a genuine camcorder challenger? Methinks I better wait till November
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2011, 05:00:38 AM »
ReplyReply

snip_____________
“Unfortunately it's very hard to comprehensively test cameras, & I doubt Stewart will get a full feel for these models without using them for more than a week each.”

Snip____________



I'll say it again and keep in mind I own one.

The FS 100 is the camera that could, the F3 is the camera that should, but in regards to the FS 100 it's just not there.

To start with somebody other than RED and Arri needs to come out with a raw file.  After, many, many terabytes of data I can attest that shooting a raw file does not slow down post production in almost any situation, including studio.

I guess it depends on how you work, but if on set time is at a minimum, setting up a RED for raw file, vs fine tuning a Sony, or Panasonic, can take time and time is money, especially on set, especially if you run multiple cameras.

With a raw file you don't really have to care about exactly fine tuning tone, or color on set because you can always change it in processing, save the settings and apply them to all the images from the session with some minor tweeks.

Working with the RED rocket, processing out is very, very fast on almost any machine.

Not to go off topic, but if your shooting anything and want to add interest, go to multiple cameras on the same session.  When you get to the editorial portion of post having multiple angles is much more interesting than just one.

Obviously with just one camera, you can change position, have the talent go through the same sequence, but it's never exactly the same.

Anyway, back to the FS100.

I bought it, I use it a fair amount, especially if I need quick autofocus, but for a work a day camera, the difference between 10 bit, 4:2:2 vs. a raw 12 bit 4:4:4 is huge and no matter how much budget you have in post, if the data isn't there, isn't not there.

I've always found Sony the most perplexing company in the world.  I know they have the ability to make almost anything, but they seem to not really embrace the new digital cinema cameras, at least not with the seriousness of RED and Arri.

Sony is fine if your shooting the CBS evening news, or working with huge engs in the field, but for the new cinema, film look cameras they just don't really get it.  With the FS100 they're trying, but I'd love for one of their engineers to come into our studio after a shoot, strip the wrapper off of hundreds of files and then try to find a way to color match footage while transcoding to pro rez.  

Once again I'm brand agnostic and not a cheerleader for any camera company.  RED has some policies that would make the average dmv worker pull their hair out and can make the Russian FSB seem chatty, but RED has one thing going for it, the file under almost any circumstance is very pretty and moveable. Since RED started with a clean sheet, why they didn't embrace autofocus on all of their cameras from the get go is a tip of the hat to focus pullers world wide.

And speaking of stills from motion, you can make a still from any motion camera, but the RED still is useable.  Maybe not 1ds3 in quality, but surely good enough to print, more than good enough for a 27" lcd.


In fact we've had clients run 30 something still images from the RED and we've run 5 or 6 in self promotion.

For the world of new media where stills, video, graphics are all mixed to produce something different and compelling, I don't think anyone makes the camera we exactly need.   Maybe they never will, but like most, I'm interested in seeing what Canon has up their sleeves.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 05:11:36 AM by bcooter » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2011, 12:40:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Great shot, James. Interesting comments too.
Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2011, 03:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Not to go off topic, but if your shooting anything and want to add interest, go to multiple cameras on the same session.  When you get to the editorial portion of post having multiple angles is much more interesting than just one.

BC is dead on as usual.

Over the past few year I've mostly shot two, & three, camera setups. Not usually ideal for lighting, but does make the edit much more dynamic, & saves time on set.

I also agree about RAW, & would happily dump my current setup when there's a large chip option that's practical for my needs. Perhaps it will be an F3, but there's things about it I don't like, & hope Canon drops the other shoe on November 3rd. It's about time.

Best,
Bern
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 03:56:38 PM by Bern Caughey » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2011, 03:01:28 AM »
ReplyReply

It would be sweet if Canon added to the mix. Strikes me we have a little more direct competition in video than in stills. With MFDBs it's basically Hass vs Phase if you want to buy new. But with vid we have Sony, Panny, JVC and hopefully Canon and possibly Red going head to head in around the same feature/price range.

Also agree about multi-cam shooting. Did a bit in the old days on some music promos and the options increase massively so we might get a cheaper B cam. Right now, if we're realistic, we can't justify the F3 for mostly web stuff and anyway, I'm not that impressed with it considering the extra outlay.

We've decided to use the 5D's until November, and see what Canon and Red might be offering. The clients are happy enough, trouble is, we're not!

EDIT: If Canon or Red do come up trumps in November there's going to be one almighty order back log...
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:58:01 AM by stewarthemley » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2011, 05:19:16 AM »
ReplyReply

snip___________

Strikes me we have a little more direct competition in video than in stills. With MFDBs it's basically Hass vs Phase if you want to buy new. But with vid we have Sony, Panny, JVC and hopefully Canon and possibly Red going head to head in around the same feature/price range.

snip___________




Actually, I find the opposite.

Just about every mid level to high high end still digital camera shoots raw, from a 5d to the latest Phase back.  All have some form of autofocus and all have raw files that will pretty much process in most 3rd party software suites.

I'm not trying to start the dslr vs media format conversation, but I don't have a client that mentions the difference between a well crafted 5d2 still file or a medium format file.

Also as print or still imagery becomes more marginalized in commerce, the need for huge megapixels, vs. medium size megapixel cameras is not really on the client menu anymore, at least not like it was 4 years ago.

On the other hand, when we mount the RED's every client I work with, agency or direct knows something about the RED.  They might not know the specifics, but they know the name and in their mind that's top of the line.

From a client standpoint, the buzz is on multimedia and equipment that can shoot stills and motion, virtually at the same time.  For the artist/photographer/director/production company, what is need for todays world is a camera that shoots  4k video and 20 megapixel stills parallel or close to parallel.

A camera with xlr inputs, multiple sound tracks, levels, articulated lcds, hdmi output without blanking out the camera screen and at least 4:2:2 compression preferably 4:4:4.

The camera needs lens mounts from PL's to brand specific autofocus lenses that are fast and most important the camera must shoot raw and work in a simple software that mimics light-room, something like RED cine x.

Video or motion or whatever you want to call it is a slippery slope and one that does parallel the change from film to digital.  Sure you can get into video for a few grand, or at the higher end like RED or Arri, you can get to $100,000 very quickly.

The RED is better priced than the Arri, and if you buy right almost half, but by the time you add higher end computers, graphic cards, processing cards, software suites for coloring, editing and effects, calibrated broadcast monitors, speakers, not to mention huge volumes of safe storage, continuous lights, multiple forms of camera supports, you can drop a quarter of a million without breathing hard.

I think this will eventually settle down and like digital stills there will be more democracy in motion capture, cameras, lenses, sound, software and lights but today everything to do with motion capture is specialized and expensive and most dramatically changing by the month.

IMO

BC


Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2011, 10:40:31 AM »
ReplyReply

In a global economy unable to regulate itself and ruled by unlimited greedness and fast speculative profits, we should expect really serious problems in the coming years. Be preapred for it.

What is happening, IMO, is similar to the end of the dinausors. A meteor and all is gone in a question of minutes. The today's meteor's is capitalism that escaped to our control like the myth of the machine that escapes to its creator. It doesn't take a minute but years. A time is gone and we are in between both past and future, with its cortege of mess. What is sure is that something global at a huge scale is changing.

The past, in our sector, is the star photographers, cineasts, productors etc...

The future is somewhere drawing very short carreers system. People will have to reinvent themselves constantly, included softwares and cameras and workflow. Will work with Asian or south American clients with much smaller structures. I'm not even sure Hollywood will survive the coming changes. Too big and trade-unioned.

It's very interesting. Who are the emerging figures today? People know more about networkers that test cameras than about any serious filmaker trying to play the hard way his-her movies in little cinema clubs. I don't have anything against networking, but let's be honest, they basically do networking with gear testings. And they manage to get fame with it...brilliant! Chapeau!

The rock star photographer is dead, welcome to the tester videophotographer. A little bit of slowmo here, some comparaisons testings there, more DR measurements over here and many many little TV shows like "the DP review channel" style and here we go. You need to have a website full of 2min video testings with preferably a mess of sponsors (looks more serious) and a few trips in Hawai to test a camera behind the palm trees for the dream factor.

Zacuto understood that very very well. They don't spend all that money in testing cameras in vain. There is a demand. Not a demand...an anxiety. Their testings act as a call.



Before, any serious photographer-filmaker would have worked with any gear, learned to deal with its downsides and overcome problems. Now no! we are looking for the grail. The ultimate camera that does it all, included having a date with the dreamed girl, (brands can be sexy, Ferrari, Red One) and if the camera blows (pun intended), they aren't happy. Of course this camera does not and will never exists, but the important factor it's that it keeps the mind-expansion buzz.

So what we buy lasts 2 years before another improvement is putting all the investment to stone age and new workflow learnings will constantly shows-up. Today FCPx is supposed to sweep all the traditional workflow dust. At this rythm, we'll spend more time in constant obsolete learning curves than in proper shooting and as they manipulate collective mind with social networking, people are actually asking for more! Industrials are really clever.

Honestly, We often sound all like little spoiled childs (I include myself of course) that are playing with expensive toys and never get satisfied about them, and when something goes "wrong" we cry and complain to the toymaker (I did it many times).

Think about it. Great artists of this (or other serious) forum could do any top video campaigns, the best imagery you could dream of, great brands etc...people will retain in the end the testings over anything else (content). A Bloom is more famous today than Peter Lindberg!

If you want to be a good artist look at James Russell website for ex. If you want to be famous all over the world without any remarkable talent, go to any of those "testers" website. It gives a glimpse of what is happening.

And see how fast the movie section in Lu-La that was quiet not a long time ago is strangely starting to smells (I haven't wrote yet stinks like an old camembert) more and more like the MF section of this forum? It was already written.
So now we are in Raw or not to Raw. (knowing perfectly that Raw video will be the norm), Who blows highlights and keep dr and there is no bloody doubt in my mind that this will become excatly the same non-sense that what we often saw in the still sections.

Just a question of a few months and will be there again.

Oh yeah, and bloody hell...we also have live beta testing of FCPx step by step and we will kmow excatly the day, hour, minute and second it will become a pro software. Apple as well knows its time!  

But wait...very soon
-Adobe, that will not stay quiet will come with a FCPx style for Premiere Ultimate Suite (it could be called like that) that will put FCPx to stone age,
-then Avid will respond,
-Autodesk will lauch Smoke lite for 600 euros
-and the Foundry has already planed to put "proper" timeline in Nuke wich is a bomb  

etc...more beta testings in the ww forums in the coming months just for the post-prod. More mess, obsolete workflows. It's gona be fun.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 06:55:30 AM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2011, 02:04:25 PM »
ReplyReply

The only issue I have with all of these tests, seminars, web shows is a large number of the people producing them, do not currently work in production for commerce and if they did, they did it a dozen camera generations ago, so at best they're behind the curve in real world work, though since they have a "relationship" with a few makers, they present themselves as ahead of the curve.

Not that some of their information is not valid, but shooting a project without time, budget, and a creative brief for a comparison is much different than working with clients on set and in the post production atmosphere, where changes and costs come flying at you by the minute.

We saw this when digital replaced film in stills and now the same thing is happening in motion imagery.   

There is a plethora of information and imagery that is just so so, with a lot of technical explanation why the presenter believes the _____________ is the way to go. 

(You can fill in the blanks here with software, lenses, cameras, lights, etc. etc. etc.).

The next issue I have is some of these people's qualifications are self appointed, or worse come with an agenda where the "expert" is compensated by the equipment maker.

I've gone that sponsor route and I can promise you it's impossible to be completely objective.  Especially when money changes hands.

I am always amazed to see a post or a blog by someone that talks about a camera system with great authority and invests huge money in top of the line equipment  (or it's loaned to them), then shows imagery of a donkey drinking water, a blown out shot of a lake,  or a slightly plump b minus model jumping in the air.

It reminds me of reality television in the fact as long as you get your face or information on the screen . . . any screen,  your instantly credible. 

Kind of like saying the Kardashians rate with Glen Close. 

The only thing they have in common is both have somehow been compensated to have their face on camera.

Past that, it's just a clutter of non useful information.

You especially see it with the brand techies.

RED (or any camera company that runs a blog) announces something new is coming, with no real information and there are 25 trillion posts of people screaming, "way to go",  "yahoo", "you show em", without knowing anything about the product.

Fascinating.

If you make images for money the only equipment you care about is what you can buy today, is reliable and acceptable to your own levels and your client base. 

In the world of digital future doesn't mean it's coming, it just means it might be coming someday.

IMO

BC
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad