Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5d2/5d3  (Read 6744 times)
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2012, 11:56:37 PM »
ReplyReply

No they do not need to match in a scientific sense, but in a visual and storytelling sense.

They need to look like one cohesive style and that's where the trick comes in when you do establishing shots, reverses, tight shots, POV, etc.

But most of all each shot needs to be beautiful and if it is, then nobody notices, unless you constantly change color balance, or white balance or something drastic.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2012, 04:39:04 AM »
ReplyReply

That's where Raw video shines. In fact, any raw application.
But let's say that raw still remains on the "affordable", a Red exclusive, and we'll have to wait more until it democratized: it's very hard to understand that the C300 is 8 bits.

In fact, it's very hard to understand that more than 8 bits today is still the domain of high-end equipment. The only rational explaination are the protective politics.

So as the softwares. I'm not sure that the small-medium productions houses who have invested in Quantel or Nucodas etc...have now those suites running full time.
I have more the sensation that they are generally empty, you know like "Apollo mission control" nowdays, a sort of tech museum with no life.

But the same occurs than for the 8 bits saga. I really don't understand why we have to edit in one software and then export to a Da-Vinci for grading (I mean real grading). It's unbearable in 2012 and senseless but that's what is happening.
I don't see the problem for serious software makers to build a powerfull editor and when you grade, the all interface is changing to a specific design suitable for color correction, and not those ridiculous pop-up windows that look like d.i.y ads-on. But no. Rien. Keine. Nada de nada...
The only cat in the block that does that is Smoke, but smoke is expensive, it's a software built by engineers for engineers, therefore totally unintuitive and complicated to learn.

The post-prod is the black hole in big part because the tools we have are still made for a cine-budget and workflow configuration. The day affordable cameras will jump to raw or even more than 8bits and the softwares will merge into one intuitive application well design for reduced team, the post-prod will be way easier.

But for the moment we have to stand what this industry is willing to give us. No option.

What really indignates me is that I know this technology is perfectly available right now, but for oscur commercial reasons, we don't have it.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 04:51:33 AM by fredjeang » Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2012, 04:39:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Are not all the advantages of shooting with a DSLR captured in the 300C but better and easier? I'm still very ignorant of video and what is essential and what is paper spec advantages. I can't help thinking that a 300c would just be better for making movies.
 If I was determined to use a DSLR the Nikon would now get the nod. I saw a great remote head and zoom focus control on a Nikon 800 at a show yesterday, not a toy town job but a very pro setup intended for serious pro work, all hooked up to the HDMI output. They said they have major sporting gigs lined up for the setup.
I can see some will go for the 5dIII because they have the II. But if it was a medium budget movie production that wanted light cheap throw away cameras the Nikon's or 300C would be a better choice.
I bet they had issues with the 5d in making the film that took time and head scratching to work around regarding final quality. I also bet that if the Nikon solved a lot of the problems or even gave them wider parameters to work with, the next film will be shot with them.
I think wider parameters will be what I need, I will not be in control of the lighting, the contrast etc when I am shooting. I will just want to record everything as natural as possible, all the highlight and shadow detail I can get. The opportunity to hide failings behind an arty clever graded "look" will just not be there. And so it will be with most wide eyed seduced buyers of DSLR that want video. Most of us are not creating "art" we just want limited clipping, easy to edit, little artifacts, easy to handle footage and equipment. I'm not convinced any DSLR gives us that, unless the new breed has taken big strides.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2012, 03:21:00 PM »
ReplyReply

It's important to note that Shane's footage was run through Cinnafilm's Dark Energy software...

Yep.  Here's a post on Dark Energy from his blog. 

Also, a Cinnafilm sample film showing motion conversion and upres capabilities.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2012, 03:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

We have the post black holes, now this dark energy dslr footage saver...Threads like Canon strikes back, sensor's name like Mysterium X...

What do those guys is really great, but they need to democratized it to be able to low-down prices.  
Logged
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2012, 04:14:21 PM »
ReplyReply

If anything, it shows that with a dslr vs. the next step or two up quality ( e.g. Red | Canon C300 | Sony pmw-F3 | dslr + Dark Energy, etc.), it requires a bigger investment.  Doesn't matter if you are renting or buying.  It's a bigger cost to move up another rung or two or three in technical quality.

Quote
What do those guys is really great, but they need to democratized it to be able to low-down prices.

Apple or Adobe buys Cinnafilm... probably what it would take (assuming that it doesn't need a render farm to operate.)
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2012, 08:55:11 PM »
ReplyReply

How much more democracy do you want?   You can buya 4k raw motion camera from RED for a $14,000 and you wont need black hole or whatever it's called to fix the footage.

We've shot all week with the Scarlet, the R1 and Stills with our 1ds3's.

The stills work like the stills always do, other than two sets are lit with HMI's one a mixture of HMI and flash.

The Scarlet, once we've set the menus is much easier than I thought, probably as easy as the 5d2.   It shoots a cleaner file, and is in a much smaller form factor and I like the camera very much.

We've manually focused all of the footage, tried auto for one set up and auto focus does some hunting, but I'm sure it will be upgraded in RED's firmware.

I gotta admit the Scarlet is a lot easier than I thought and unlike the R1, starts easily, works fast, and has a cleaner file, though without going into grading, I still like the look of the R-1 file a little better, mainly because it has a little more grit and of course I'm much more familiar with the R1 than the Scarlet.

Anyway, just about anything other than slo-mo can be shot with the Scarlet and if you have Canon lenes, $14,500 is not that much for a raw shooting camera that is a smaller form factor.

Heck is wasn't but a few years ago, every professional was almost eager to drop 30 to 40 grand on a medium format back, so in comparison, the R1 and the Scarlet are cheap.

Take act of Valor.  It could have easily been shot on the Scarlet, though destroying 6 of them vs. 6 5d2's is a 84 grand vs. 18 grand, but with the R1 or the Scarlet 200 hours would not have taken 1000 hours of transcoding and color grading processing like the 5d2, so there is a huge tradeoff in time.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 09:36:28 PM by bcooter » Logged
ftbt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2012, 09:44:15 AM »
ReplyReply

While I customarily shoot with a 5DII (stills and video) yesterday I printed a 5K Epic frame grab on canvas (using the new REDgamma3 and REDcolor3 in RCX PRO Build 11). I had to reduce the file considerably to get it to the desired 24" x 48" dimensions that I wanted. All I can say is WOW!
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2012, 06:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I grabbed a 5d3 today..

I like the soft image (compared to the crazy rainbows of the 5d2..)

http://dslr4real.tv/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=105&Itemid=1

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2012, 06:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing.

What I saw on the video looks good.


This Canon's low-light performance and no moiré looks interesting.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 02:04:15 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2012, 12:15:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Bloom's 5D3 review
http://vimeo.com/39292404
Logged
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2012, 09:26:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I picked up two 5D Mark III bodies last week.  I have shot a few stills jobs with them and started a video project with them yesterday for a client.

At this point, at least for stills, the camera is stellar. Build quality is great, autofocus is amazing, shutter is nice and quiet.

Out of ~2500 frames I have had only a few (as in ~3) where the camera missed focus and that was with a very low contrast subject in very low light and shooting with the 70-200 + 1.4x (equiv. = f/4).

I haven't done enough video with it yet, so I'm withholding final judgement on that front, but I can say what a relief it is to setup, have the subject walk on set, get positioned, and not have to worry about moire in their clothes or aliasing in their skin or hair.  Also, not having the file size or the time limits of the first generation dslrs was very helpful while shooting interviews.

I have two blog posts, here and here, with initial thoughts, settings, etc. (a bit more stills based than motion at this point.)

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 10:11:39 AM by JonRoemer » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad