Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 245
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    234
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by markfpv View Post
    And totally off topic - but am curious about CFP 2.0 and what's to hate?
    Ha...I brought it up.

    Let me say this. there are some really great things in CFP2. I love the sharpening, the color wheels seem more responsive and the curves produce a result that is more expected than FCP's curves. The vector control is simpler than apples tool. The highlight thing is big. I might be convinced to buy it all but for the last thing on my bitch list below...although all of them add up to a program that simply isn't ready. FWIW, I'm working on a mid spec iMac PRO, which should be able to handle anything this plug in throws at it.

    I think the "hate" started when I went to experiment with the Chart calibration feature, as I thought this was a great idea. Compare the image of a chart with some known numbers and you should be able to wrestle a cameras "color science" or lack of into something bordering on accuracy. The fact that they had added the Color Checker Video to the new version made this an interesting diversion for me. After a number of attempts at using it, under a whole variety of inputs and settings choices, I got wholly inconsistent results none of which were anywhere near as accurate as simply applying a LUT and calling it a day ( some results were just damn weird). This was on a perfectly exposed and balanced chart, not some dslr shot at 6400 in the forest. After some chit chat with the developer via email, it became clear that this tool doesn't "do" anything (he questioned why, if my LUT-ed result was good, would I need to apply this feature, and bluntly said that calibration was simply not within it's ability, that no software could correct that many colors..."uhhh...really," I said..."so that's not what X-rite's whole business is"), and went on to say that the feature was meant to match various cameras (this although the workflow is specifically "match chart" not match camera and if it can't get one camera remotely accurate, how is it going to get "two" cameras to be anything but a mess.) So this feature doesn't work in anyway like a normal person would assume.

    Next the tracking -- I tried the tracking feature on some of the early "underpass" shots of nellie. In these there were a few times when she moved across the frame at a slightly higher rate than at other times. When this happened, the mask tracked with her just fine, but for some reason the "correction tile" (my term)...that is the masked area that contains the image corrections would lag behind, leaving a rather prominent edge visible in the shot. I tried this several times with the same result. I sent the developer this note, and I didn't receive a response. (I have done a few other tracking tests that did work, but for now, I'll say that this feature doesn't work.).

    Next the "make LUT" feature. I thought as I'm probably not going to buy the program, I should save the setting I had on that grade I posted as a LUT. this is a really nice feature. Unfortunately, the LUT that written by CFP2 bore very little resemblance to the settings used to produce it. Even when applied to the same clip. So I'd say this feature doesn't work.

    If you make an adjustment in a layer, and want to reverse it, hit Command-z, it removes the plug in from the inspector, and you lose all the work you just did.

    While CFP2's all in one approach makes a lot of workflow sense, there are times when I want to remove specific settings from a grade for some reason. Final Cuts "departmentalization" of this aspect can have it's benefits.

    Lastly, and this is why I won't buy it., and will be removing it from my system....Something about CFP2 is taxing FCPX's resources, even when it's not in use, and for some reason I can no long scrub clips in the browser smoothly (as soon as I drop them into the timeline they are fine, but in the browser they are unusable for trimming, the playhead sticks and stays stuck till it's good and ready. That on top of re-rendering every time I open the program,(something FCP likes to do with 3rd party plug-ins, so not necessarily CFP2's fault,) but it really has made the workflow unbearable, so I'll be removing it later this weekend.

    Screen Shot 2020-01-21 at 9.13.07 AM.jpgScreen Shot 2020-01-21 at 5.30.02 PM.jpg


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,496
    Default
    Thanks much Barry, I really appreciate that you share all this experience.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    1,087
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry G View Post
    Lastly, and this is why I won't buy it., and will be removing it from my system....Something about CFP2 is taxing FCPX's resources, even when it's not in use, and for some reason I can no long scrub clips in the browser smoothly (as soon as I drop them into the timeline they are fine, but in the browser they are unusable for trimming, the playhead sticks and stays stuck till it's good and ready. That on top of re-rendering every time I open the program,(something FCP likes to do with 3rd party plug-ins, so not necessarily CFP2's fault,) but it really has made the workflow unbearable, so I'll be removing it later this weekend.
    Thanks for sharing Barry. From everything you describe - I would do the same. Does not sound ready for prime time yet - and my whole thing with staying inside FCPX is for the speed / simplicity.
    I'm on a near maxed out non-pro iMac - so would likely experience even worse. I will stick with 1.0 for now - and my occasional dive into Resolve for certain projects.
    If I do demo it - at a future time - will let you know how it goes. Cheers.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,295
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Clermond View Post
    thanks for the information. I didn't have 1080 in mind as 90% is requested in UHD.
    Yes, definitely depends on the clients. The majority of our work is for the studios EPK, Home Entertainment and Publicity Departments, most of who only deal with 1080.
    We have one client at Fox who likes us to shoot 4K RAW. When I roll 1080 with the Ninja Blade, I am always shooting a UHD XF-AVC as a backup and once in a while, it
    gets used. For our own content we are developing, we only shoot 4K RAW.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    234
    Default
    This is an overexposure test that was motivated by a poorly implemented test published by CVP awhile back. (we believe their test was compromised by improper application of a LUT in post processing). Unfortunately their test has been widely circulated, and appears to show the C500 II as severely hampered by even modest overexposure. I knew this couldn't be true, but figured I'd better test it for myself.

    This was shot in XF-AVC CLog2, Neutral Color Matrix, Cinema Gamut and graded using Contrast and Saturation tools in Final Cut Pro (no LUT was used). Whites clip at 5 stops over, and colors begin clipping at 5.5 stops. Skintones are not clipped at 5.5 stops. I would rate the C500II, in XFAVC as having 4-4.5 stops of highlight latitude.



    4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    2,312
    Default
    Thanks- what happens when thereís a live face in the frame at+5? (the CVP test didnít appear to clip the chip chart for skin tones).


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    234
    Default
    You'll have to rent a camera, and find that out. :-) The CVP test chart is a print chart and doesn't have a full range of skin values like the video chart. Based on every chart test like this that I've ever seen, light Caucasian skin tones clip at 1/2 to 1 stop higher exposure than chart white. You should be able to interpolate that. If you can't, or won't. I can't help you. This test isn't for you. It's for me.

    While you zero in on whether your pale toe-headed model will look good on this camera, let me remind you that awhile back you said "lets stick to the color and the highlights, Barry". So, whatever your name is... Lets stick to the color and the highlights. One of the big problems with the CVP test was that the C500 color starts fading from the get go...literally at 1/2 stop over and gets progressively worse until the image clips. This is what Liam and I cued in on when we said it was a bad test. You invented a term for it (Ghosting -- which sorry, is already used in video). You can see from my test that when the image is processed properly, the image from the C500 doesn't lose saturation until the image starts to clip. This is a very good result. Now, sit with the Fx9 test at CVP and you'll see that the FX9 colors stay more saturated to the bitter end. this is spectacular, although we need to temper that excitement, as their chart is spectacularly over saturated from the get go. I've tried to match the chart colors as closely as possible in my test, and the camera is doing a very good job at staying very accurate at 4.5 stops over...spilling into 5 stops over. That's something. I'd love to see what the Fx9 looks like with the colors rendered natural to that chart (my guess is the skin tones aren't going to look quite so colorful...but you know..you get what you pay for.)
    Last edited by Barry G; 01-30-2020 at 06:36 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    2,312
    Default
    Again, who I am and my experience doesn't matter in debate- all that matters is evidence, facts, logic, and proofs. My name is John (jcs are initials), and you can see some of my patents in imaging and video here (it appears you don't think I have any experience in this space): https://patents.justia.com/assignee/...ment-group-inc .

    Motion blur can be called ghosting and cameras that make people look like Casper are appropriately ghosting skin tones. People disappearing in conversations: ghosting. Many uses of the word when appropriate. Thanks for recognizing the coining of a new use. I think you meant tow-headed? Toe-headed sounds like something from Thumb Wars:


    As you may know, cameras know about skintones (and faces) and sometimes perform different color processing in those areas. I've also found that static photos of people don't seem to work as well as a live person for testing.

    If the C500 II can do better than CVP in overexposed skin, cool. The debate started when the FX9 was stated as having the best IQ vs. the C500 II: we still need a side by side test ideally to see if the C500 II can match or exceed the FX9 in the same conditions. I'd estimate the FX9 would still win based on sensor tech, however the only way to know is by doing the test.

    A friend may be doing a test soon, let them know my thoughts on what should be tested, not sure if I can be there during the test. Perhaps they'll share results on this forum.


    1 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    234
    Default
    Ha...if it doesn't matter, why bring it up? I never asked what you did. It's nice to know your name, John, but see ...you have a little problem acknowledging when you see evidence of something, you seem incapable of grasping the Logic you toss around like a fuzzball, at least when someone else is dishing it up. You've spent a LOT of time crapping on the quality of a camera you've never touched, with nothing but largely "anecdotal" evidence to back you up. If you're an engineer, tell me how often does "anecdotal" get tossed around when you're writing briefs for your patents?

    I've shown you that the test you relied on for much of your argument ("the CVP test shows me what I knew all along") was fatally flawed. I've shown you that the C500II has excellent color when overexposed. I've showed you how known skin tone values respond to over exposure. But you literally are incapable of saying..."hmm...yeah..you know...that looks a lot better than what I thought. I wish it was a skin tone test, but yeah...I guess you guys were talking about stuff you understood, that I somehow missed" .

    Don't worry, I don't need you to say it...so don't. I know, that in your mind it ALL started with you and what you wanted to see. But that's simply not true. Liam started the thread, and I was in it from the very beginning. We were talking about lots of issues regarding these cameras. Because no one aspect is the one that makes you buy it.

    Now if I might make a respectful request: I'd really wish you'd take this fight back to the A vs B thread. This thread is about reporting data from one camera. It might be lonely over here, but I'm just fine with that.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,306
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Coughlin View Post
    Maybe that used to be the case, but these days whenever I get a client contacting me saying they'd like a Red camera, or they shot their last project on Red, or anything to do with mentioning a Red, they're a lower budget, lower end, less informed, less knowledgeable, etc., client. Clueless music video musicians reach out and say, "We love you work, want to hire you with your Red camera." Me, "I don't own a Red cameras because they are crap. I have Arris which were used to shoot most Hollywood movies like Avengers." Them, "Never heard of Arri. I have $500 budget. Can you bring yourself and a Red out for that?" Me, "No."

    Most Red owner/ops I know are indie filmmakers making diddly squat day rates, going out for around $250 to $600 per day with their $20k Red with a cheap Rokinon lens set and Manfrotto tripod. Sometimes for a corporate project you can get $1500 as a Red owner/op, but I rarely see Red budgets beyond that, and people can easily get those rates with a cheaper C300 Mark II camera in the corporate world.

    Red has had a serious decline in the past few years, so people still asking for them thinking they're the best are really just uninformed.
    What is interesting, now that Red brand cameras are actually good, no one wants them anymore. Haha!

    But so true about the cheap lens and lens addons, and walking out the door for whatever is offered.

    Anyway, i guess all the cameras are good these days. The Canon C500ii is the first Canon C i am interested in.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •