Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 178
  1. Collapse Details
    #71
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,382
    Default
    Personally, I wish Fuji would make a digital cinema camera that is small, light, designed to work with their MKX lenses, with all of the imaging goodness of the XT-3/4, add in some 4:2:2, XLRs, TC i/o. I'd buy that over a Kinefinity or ZCam in a heartbeat.
    Shoot straight to CFExpress or SSDs. Put in all of the film sims for fun but come out with an even better Log (F-Log 2?). I know they could do it. Make it inexpensive to compete with the ZCams and newly down priced Kinefinity line.

    I am beginning to wonder if a new $5k camera needs RAW? People will piss, moan and whine if it doesn't, but if the color science and latitude are great, who needs RAW? To me, RAW is just a way to squeeze a bit more DR and detail out of a camera. But how many Arri
    owners shoot ARRIRAW? You don't need to. So why not make low end cameras like that, great color science and latitude and get rid of LUTs and RAW? Maybe Fuji could do that? I like shooting RAW with the C200, but the storage and media management are a pain for long form.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


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

  2. Collapse Details
    #72
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,465
    Default
    Canifujikony should have you help design a camera.


    I would buy that camera.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,604
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Personally, I wish Fuji would make a digital cinema camera that is small, light, designed to work with their MKX lenses, with all of the imaging goodness of the XT-3/4, add in some 4:2:2, XLRs, TC i/o. I'd buy that over a Kinefinity or ZCam in a heartbeat.
    Shoot straight to CFExpress or SSDs. Put in all of the film sims for fun but come out with an even better Log (F-Log 2?). I know they could do it. Make it inexpensive to compete with the ZCams and newly down priced Kinefinity line.

    I am beginning to wonder if a new $5k camera needs RAW? People will piss, moan and whine if it doesn't, but if the color science and latitude are great, who needs RAW? To me, RAW is just a way to squeeze a bit more DR and detail out of a camera. But how many Arri
    owners shoot ARRIRAW? You don't need to. So why not make low end cameras like that, great color science and latitude and get rid of LUTs and RAW? Maybe Fuji could do that? I like shooting RAW with the C200, but the storage and media management are a pain for long form.
    As an owner of an Alexa Classic, the only reason I chose to occasionally shoot RAW is for the resolution/sharpness bump, but otherwise Prores 444 is more than adequate and not terrible differently looking than a RAW file. However, I recently shot a short fashion film with both the Alexa and the X-T3 fed out to a Ninja V with Prores 422HQ (FLOG) and I was surprised to find a better seperation of tones on the Fuji than the Alexa. I was using the MKX lenses against my Cooke 20-100 and the Fuji definitely won in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. However, where it fell down was the rendering of certain colors and of course the DR in the highlights (but the Fuji still had highlight detail, just not as much). The reds on the Alexa were excellent. Perfect. The fuji reds were a bit orange and needed a secondary correction and this is where the value of 444 was really missed.


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

  4. Collapse Details
    #74
    Senior Member Grug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,815
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by brettsherman View Post
    Unless I'm doing green screen I've never figured out why I need 4:2:2. It's not as if cones in our eyes are neatly arranged subway tile shapes. I mean I guess it's slightly more color resolution - chips instead of squares. But aren't you forcing your compression algorithm to deal with more color and therefore not doing quite as a good of job with luminance? I'd rather have more bits for luminance. Maybe I'm missing something.
    It’s all dependent on the requirements of your grading. If you don’t need secondary colour corrections and aren’t pulling mattes from colour tones within the frame. The extra compression of 4:2:0 won’t matter much. If you do, it does.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #75
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    8,005
    Default
    Maybe a good 10-bit codec would be good enough, but for me the jump from a good 8-bit codec (sony a7 and a6xxx lines) to compressed RAW (p4k) felt absolutely huge, and I don't think it was the bit depth, I think it was the compression scheme. The main difference I'm finding is that colors in dark areas are well preserved: on the p4k I can raise them and push them and they still look good, whereas on the Sonys I could raise them but then any push would bring up blocky noise. I don't think 10-bit with the same compression scheme would solve this: you'd probably need both 10-bit AND a better compression scheme. Or I can just keep on shooting RAW on my p4k, since that's definitely an option.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    nottingham, uk
    Posts
    1,061
    Default
    IMG_3229.JPG.0e33ce0d871ab13bac63ea57d47f51ad.jpg

    Looks like the XT3 may still be getting some love


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #77
    Default
    Interesting update if true, specifically the enhanced AF.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,604
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ade4all View Post
    IMG_3229.JPG.0e33ce0d871ab13bac63ea57d47f51ad.jpg

    Looks like the XT3 may still be getting some love

    Wow. Good stuff.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #79
    Senior Member brettsherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mount Rainier, MD
    Posts
    303
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    Maybe a good 10-bit codec would be good enough, but for me the jump from a good 8-bit codec (sony a7 and a6xxx lines) to compressed RAW (p4k) felt absolutely huge, and I don't think it was the bit depth, I think it was the compression scheme.
    I think the combo of 10-bit with a better compression scheme is the key. I don't think RAW is the only way to get there though. This year I'm shooting everything with my XT-3. Now, I'm not the super picky type, as I was mostly happy with C200 150mbps, but didn't feel I could push it as much as I wanted. And the Sony's were certainly very bit-starved at 100mbps. On the XT-3 shooting H.265 10-bit at 400kbps is all I feel I need. And it's still considerably less than C200 RAW light. Plus, I can switch to 200mbps for interviews where I tend to use very little on-screen, but eats up tons of space. Not everyone has the storage space concerns I do though.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #80
    Senior Member brettsherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mount Rainier, MD
    Posts
    303
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    I agree with Dan and Brett in that mirrorless cameras can be a big advantage. But the size of an FP, XT3, or A7 seems to prevent proper cooling. The S1H is very close. In a professional environment, the size difference between a 1DX and an XT3 is usually not important, unless rigging, hiding, or trying to be very inconspicuous. But as far as A Cam goes, it is nice to be able to hold something and have comfortable button layouts and adequate i/o connectivity.

    And the S2H juuuust may end up being a perfect camera.

    Does feel like we are seeing improved design choices in the mid to high end.
    Unfortunately, this industry sort of chases fads. Right now it's all about full-frame. Does anyone NEED full-frame? Not really, do all movies made before the last couple years suck? No.

    The form is obvious. APS-C size sensor to reduce heat and needed space in body. Increase body size, make it more cube shaped to allow for proper cooling, necessary ports and audio hardware, and bigger battery. If the body gets too big it doesn't work because then you start pushing the limits of what you can handhold and you might as well go shoulder mount at that point. I don't think you can get there with full-frame, but that's all it seems anybody wants to do now.

    I've thought about sketching out my ideal camera, but then I think what's the point.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... 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
  •