Danielvilliers
Veteran
I am with you on this one, it is difficult to judge why the window was not blown out with the HMI even if it is still a very nice shot.
Other: BlackMagic Cinema camera!!!! 2.5k for 3k...
- Thread starter Mickey G
- Start date
I am with you on this one, it is difficult to judge why the window was not blown out with the HMI even if it is still a very nice shot.
Grug
Veteran
Haha, that was my exact same reaction when the thought came to me. I had some great results out of the Letus Extreme and the HVX200 back in the day - perhaps we should pester Letus for a 4/3" relay lens?
philiplipetz
Veteran
Mac drives are not as limited in maximum file size. That limitation is why Canon video files are split into 2Gb subfiles that cause a lot of problems. Unix based systems are better at handling large file sizes, and Mac OSX is Unix based, so it makes sense to use it.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
That so? Even with the news that Apple & Autodesk have reached an agreement to port Smoke to the Mac in 2013?
Basically a long lost dream of mine circa 1995. Imagine Smoke on a Linux-based Mac !
Weeeeee shall seee then
Posterization, more than likely because of the grade/curve applied. I can do it with any image.
It may also appear more exaggerated to some people depending on your monitor and video card.
I know because I switched my video card off and used the intel chip, that's how I saw it.
Last edited:
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Yeah. I caught it on the crochet black top (bottom right of frame). If I didn't know better, I'd say codec artifacts + rolling shutter.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Hate t inject this into the smorgasbord but... relative costs are meaningless. Only Cost/Profit AKA Cost/Benefit ratio.
What? Rolling Shutter?...
It's a compressed vimeo file, man. Of course there's going to be banding. Rolling shutter has nothing to do with any of that.
PC equivalent would be an NTFS formatted drive which is most of PC's these days. Not sure if there is license fee for that from Microsoft. I think most of the AVCHD cams use FAT 32 since it has a low overhead use of the available memory.
Ron Evans
cheezweezl
Veteran
rolling shutter ate my baby...
philiplipetz
Veteran
SInce a Thunderbolt to HDMI adapter can cost only $15 (I am told by another post) then it would be very simple for a EVF or monitor company to include a TB input and internally change it to a feed that is compatible with their display.
Hand me a well exposed still, flat image, I'll make it look like that in five seconds.
It's just an issue with the grade.
ripupthehwy
Well-known member
I really REALLY don't understand why they wouldn't have some awesome kick ass footage from the camera on display at the NAB. I mean, some PROFESSIONAL looking footage. Instead they are letting it be judged by some run and gun demo footage on the web. Very poor marketing. But maybe they've learned that so many care about specs more than image. So what are they hiding? hmmm. I could understand if they just got the camera built last week or something. Or it was just a prototype still in development. But come on...the cameras supposed to ship in about 90 days and all we have is this crap??? I'd say they are definitely putting their best foot forward - the features - and leaving their not so good foot behind - the image it produces. Seriously though we won't know crap until someone like a Bloom or Green gets hold of one of these cams and runs it through the paces. So why anyone would pay money for it before hand is beyond me. 
Hopefully it won't disappoint and simply somebody dropped the ball on getting footage to showcase at the show.
Hopefully it won't disappoint and simply somebody dropped the ball on getting footage to showcase at the show.
Last edited:
TrueIndigo
Well-known member
Wonder how long you can shoot for a single take - until you fill up the SSD or 29 minutes because of crazy Euro tax regulation?
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
John, this looks SO good. I was excited before... now sort of panicked... Can you make the vimeo file you uploaded downloadable? Also, can you post a couple of 2.5k stills? Thanks in advance, and OH LUCKY MAN to have this thing in hand now. It seems to be all I was hoping imagewise.
Low res 5K screencaps, three minutes of adjustments.
original
bad
a little better
Hope that helps a little.
I really REALLY don't understand why they wouldn't have some awesome kick ass footage from the camera on display at the NAB. I mean, some PROFESSIONAL looking footage. Instead they are letting it be judged by some guy's run and gun demo footage on the web. Very poor marketing. But maybe they've learned that so many care about specs more than image. So what are they hiding? hmmm. I could understand if they just got the camera built last week or something. Or it was just a prototype still in development. But come on...the cameras supposed to ship in about 90 days and all we have is this crap??? I'd say they are definitely putting their best foot forward - the features - and leaving their not so good foot behind - the image it produces. Seriously though we won't know crap until someone like a Bloom or Green gets hold of one of these cams and runs it through the paces. So why anyone would pay money for it before hand is beyond me.
Here's why I out and out disagree with you:
EVERY camera looks good with thousands of dollars put behind it. Every single one. I don't want test footage from a multi million dollar set, I don't need it.
I want to see skin, lowlight, blown out highlights, the absolute WORSE conditions before I make a purchase. If this represents the worst of it, then it only gets better when there's time and money.
So, yeah, I completely disagree with you, and I'm very glad that it was John Brawley that they chose, someone who's worked with the best equipment out there on serious productions and proves that he knows his way around cinema. Just look at his blog.
I'll take him as my primary backyard footage camera tester over most ANY day.