Messages

We're all right, and wrong at the same time. Turns out it depends on which zoom you are talking about (duh!) Prime does beat crappy zoom's, like the 24 - 70mm. But no difference between a prime and a great, modern zoom, like the 24-105 "L" , which is what I have. After a quick net search, turns out even the pro photographers are dumping their primes for the 24-105 "L", and they are shooting full rez photo's. Only difference is the primes are faster.  And honestly, I do not shoot at 1.8 anymore because the talent drifts out of focus to often when the focal range is a couple inches.   

I did a very controld shootout between the 24-105 L , a new Canon 50mm, and an older zeiss. Absolutely no difference at 1080p rez.

I've heard that RAW only records in the native ISO levels, 160, 320, 640, 1250, or 2500

But canon h.264 will record in the inbetween non-native ISO levels by applying gain. So if you have an 1000 ISO, you are recroding at a native 640 ISO with gain added. And this added gain is shown in the liveview, making the LCD look brighter then the native ISO.

This means in RAW recording,  unless you are using a native ISO,  the liveview is actually .5 to 1 stops hotter then the RAW footage, or, your recording is going to be darker then the liveview? 

Wow! Thank you so much!

I'm sorry, but this article is totally useless for 99.5% of all production. It was a two week, studio, FX video shoot requiring seamless transitions. Very unusual, has nothing in common with almost all production.

Note that all his complaints are even more applicable to film acquisition, so I guess film is not a professional medium???

He himself admits to hard re-sets and then forgetting to check his settings on re-start? On a paid, 2 week, controlled studio shoot???

MLraw exposure sometimes not right? This issue, and solution, has been known for months.  Did not know about MLrawviewer, which has been out for months?

So apparently he went into a paid 2 week shoot on an unfamiliar camera without doing basic research and prep, and also not doing a single test?

Not surprising he had problems.

The 5dm3 can give you an image very close to the arri at a 1100% lower price point. But the 5dm3 is not a point-and-shoot camera like the arri. To get that quality, you have to put in the work, jump through the hoops, and maintain basic discipline.

Is it correct that all video to be played on a HDTV should be encoded into the Rec 709 or Rec 709 (16-235) color space, otherwise the blacks and whites get clipped, and the colors weird?  And for general public we should use Rec 709 (16-235) because of all the 8 bit consumer HDTV's out there???

So when do we start working in Rec 709 or Rec 709 (16-235)?

I've seen some advocate going RAW to Prores 444XQ and later down-convert to Rec 709???  Yet others (broadcast?) seem to start in REC 709 and stay there. Which is better?

In grading, is there trick or something for encoding into Rec 709 or Rec 709 (16-235)?

Thanks in advance

thank you.

Final cut X will be dead within the year. The secrete agreement: Apple gets the consumer app's, adobe gets the pro app's. Adobe has killed off all their consumer apps. Apple has killed off soundtrack, motion, color, and now Aperture. FCX is next. This is why Resolve is trying to become the editor Final Cut should have been.

Not using ETTR. MLraw files are not exposed right, they are under-exposed, and do not have the same dymanic range as raw. This is not ACR meta-data whatever. Maxing the shadows in ACR reveals that MLraw dymanic rane is permanently under-exposed. MLraw shadows detail cannot be lifted to Raw levels. I have to over-expose by 1.5 stops to capture the same dymanic range as raw or canon native.

Okay, but are you guys talking at the  "tiny" 1080p video frame size, or the 3X larger still photography frame sizes of 5700 X 3800?  If you can see a difference at 1/3 full size, would not the difference be humongous and hideous at full size?

Canon 5dm3, multiple builds and converters. This has been and is happening with me. First noticed it 3 months ago when doing tests to decide to change from RAW to MLraw. Real noticeable with exteriors.

Anyone notice  any difference between using a good zoom vs. a prime at 1080p, a very small frame size? I've done some tests between a new canon zoom and an older ziess prime, and I cannot see any difference (other then slight color variations.) I know the still photography pro's all use primes, but they are using exponentially larger frame sizes then 1080p.

Thanks for the advice. The weird thing is that I've been editing films since the '90's including alot of broadcast work. HDTV and monitors have always had a difference, but this is nutz.

Raw footage looks great on monitor. But when I encode it (both compressor and adobe media encoder) and play it on a streamer (WD Live) to a HDTV LED, it looks terrible. Garish, over-saturated. Weird thing is that I have downloaded commerical film, and my edit looks the same as they do on the monitor, yet they play back right, while mine is horrible?

Canon 5dm3. I think I'm doing something wrong? With both raw and MLraw, the film look pre-sets in Magic bullet looks, mojo, film convert, etc.,  look horrible, like some type of surrealistic joke film. I turn them down 75% and they look okay. But, is this normal? Or am I doing something way wrong here?

5DM3 - shooting RAW since 2013 June, I have never had a problem with the footage. Check your card speed. There are scum on ebay and Amazon selling fake Komputerbay cards. I have heard unconfirmed rumors some KomputerBay 64gigs being defectively slow.

Pro use. Just my opinon, but if you are talking about pro use as in a budget (paid talent, crew, locations) you'd be nuts not to simultaneously use a external HDMI recorder. You cannot review your takes in RAW, and the external HDMI gives you usable backup if there is some type of problem. Same with  locations or events you cannot re-shoot quickly and for free. For casual, non-budgeted shoots, I usually leave the Ninja at home, but I would never, ever, not use it on something that would cost me money or time for a re-shoot.

You are limited to 24FPS shooting 1080p RAW. You can go 48 FPS at 720p Raw. If you really need the effect, I'd shoot h.264, not raw, at 60 FPS - 720p, and blow up in post.

In Adobe CC, ACR is different in photoshop or after effects. There is flicker and artifacts in Photoshop ACR because it is treating each image as a separate image and changing  from frame to frame. There is no flicker or artifacts in After Effects ACR because it is treating it as video,  and applying the same changes to every frame - like a video editing app should do. 

5Dm3, canon 1.2.3, hooked up to HDMI external. Zebras not displayed on either the camera's liveview or the external monitor. Have tried both canon menu mirroring or no mirroring. Have tried both Zebras: luma and Raw. Getting weird white and red noise that looks sorta like zebras, but are just random. Zebras appear when HDMI cable is removed from camera.  Am I missing something here? What is the work=around? Thanks in advance.

Fixed with current  ADOBE after effects CC (mac)

If you import DNG's into photoshop CC, the ACR 7.0 opens up as the "photoshop shelled" of ACR,  and you still get the flicker.

BUT if you open After Effects CC, and import the DNG's as a image sequence, a very slightly DIFFERENT version of ACR 7.0 pops up. You can make your changes in this "After Effects shelled" ACR, and it does not flicker.

I assume that the Photoshop version of ACR works as a still editor adapting to each single frame, while the after effects version of ACR works as a video editor and "locks" the effect across all frames.

Confirming this, the exact same ACR control setting produces  different results (in frames other then the "master,") in the photoshop or after effects exported movie.

I'm sorry, spent hours running in circles. So what is the easy simple way to turn MLraw with audio into a file DaVinci Resolve 11 lite can handle? Thank you in advnace

The "how to record" sticky is made back in may '13 and is totally obsolete. 

No way to tell if this real old advice is now bad advice. What about MLV, MLV with sound, or the new Canon 1.2.3 settings? The latest nightly builds have many of new user selectable settings, and we no clue what to do with them. CF Buffers? Heh?

Could someone please just make a simple sticky "how to record RAW or MLV"  for dumb people like me, and just tell me the basic settings I should use to not skip frames?

Thanks in advance, thanks for all this incredible work you guys have been doing.

5DM3. Canon 1.2.3.

Shooting RAW ML with sound. Not sure what settings to use for;  "Buffer fill Method", and "CF-only buffers?"

Thanks in advance

With ML RAW and audio, is the HDMI out clean for clients and crew watching and/or recording editable HDMI with a ninja for backup? 

It would be very helpful if you had a sticky listing the most recent stable, problem free, nightly build. You can't trust the most recent build for serious work, and it is difficult to gather info on specific older nightly builds because issues and problems are reported in many different areas.

I apologize if I appeared to be claiming to be "smarter." I'm not, just 25 years of a successful film career, the last decade as a successful producer. I was trying to share some real world advice. I've personally sold films by shooting super-16 but claiming 35mm.

The gate-keepers (mostly very young interns) at the distributors review the movie on an iMac. If your film is pre-catgorized as "low budget" and inferior," they give it to the kid everyone hates and does not listen to. The idea is to get in the door.

28 Days later - they lied. They revealed their trick after the USA opening weekend. I was shooting film spots when the news hit (American Cinematographer, Variety, and the other trades.) I and most of my friends immediately went out and bought Canon XL1's and started inter-cutting it with film. Which actually worked with SD.