Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 121 to 138 of 138

Thread: ITT: we talk about television

  1. #121
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    And I love how you're so caught up on image resolution yet you don't care that all image stabilization blurs the image, and you seem to care less that at every wedding reception on earth, you will be using about 19dB of gain because that camcorder has a ****ty lens on it.

    Yeah, dude, it's a good thing it shoots in 4k. That'll make all the difference.
    >>untie shoes

  2. #122
    Won't somebody please think of the pixels?
    TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE

  3. #123
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Let me fill you in on a little secret, Gold. I was once a young moron who thought he needed an expensive prosumer camcorder, too. Let me tell you how this story goes.

    I bought it, and then I bought an external power source, an external monitor, a matte box, a good microphone, etc... because I wanted my footage to actually look good, and wanted to be able to actually productively use the camcorder for extended periods of time. After you get your ****ty Sony camcorder, you'll spend money on an extra battery, or maybe an extended battery. Then you'll dish out some money for a mic, because there is no possible way that the mic on that camcorder isn't complete garbage. Then you'll dish out some money for a monitor, because you can't even focus 1080 on a screen that small. Then you'll realize that your ****ty image stabilization is blurring the image, so you'll dish out some money for a steadicam rig. Then you'll realize that the batteries are garbage, and only last about 80 minutes, so you'll dish out some money for an external power supply (get an Anton Bauer, it's worth the money), and then you'll finally get tired of the chromatic aberration, and some ******* on the message board you post on will tell you that you need a matte box, because that will fix it (it will make it less noticeable only), so you'll get one of those too, but not before you dump a bunch of money into a rail system to mount all this **** on.

    This is how it works. You will want your **** to be better as soon as you realize that the ****ty camcorder you bought is just a ****ty camcorder. So you'll end up spending 2x what you did on your ****ty camcorder to turn it into a ****ty camcorder with a bunch of top flight gear hanging off of it, and then it will actually shoot decent looking footage.

    Or you could stop being an ******* and get a goddamn decent DSLR and a few pieces of good glass, the same external monitor and power pack, and a goddamn monopod and you'll get footage that looks better than what your pimped-out ****ty camcorder is going to deliver for half the ****ing price.
    >>untie shoes

  4. #124
    If he's been doing this for a year (he hasn't) and hasn't come to these realizations yet, he never will (ever).
    TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE

  5. #125
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Protip: Prosumer camcorders are called that for a reason. They're for consumers who have delusions about being professionals.
    >>untie shoes

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    I'm glad you set up the camera properly and your footage is exactly what you want, yet you still have to color correct on your editing timeline. It sounds like your footage is extremely consistent.
    Do you even know what shooting flat is?


    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    And I love how you're so caught up on image resolution yet you don't care that all image stabilization blurs the image, and you seem to care less that at every wedding reception on earth, you will be using about 19dB of gain because that camcorder has a ****ty lens on it.

    Yeah, dude, it's a good thing it shoots in 4k. That'll make all the difference.
    There is something called lights, they exist for a reason, and I own a set for a reason, in addition to my cold shoe mount video light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    Let me fill you in on a little secret, Gold. I was once a young moron who thought he needed an expensive prosumer camcorder, too. Let me tell you how this story goes.

    I bought it, and then I bought an external power source, an external monitor, a matte box, a good microphone, etc... because I wanted my footage to actually look good, and wanted to be able to actually productively use the camcorder for extended periods of time. After you get your ****ty Sony camcorder, you'll spend money on an extra battery, or maybe an extended battery. Then you'll dish out some money for a mic, because there is no possible way that the mic on that camcorder isn't complete garbage. Then you'll dish out some money for a monitor, because you can't even focus 1080 on a screen that small. Then you'll realize that your ****ty image stabilization is blurring the image, so you'll dish out some money for a steadicam rig. Then you'll realize that the batteries are garbage, and only last about 80 minutes, so you'll dish out some money for an external power supply (get an Anton Bauer, it's worth the money), and then you'll finally get tired of the chromatic aberration, and some ******* on the message board you post on will tell you that you need a matte box, because that will fix it (it will make it less noticeable only), so you'll get one of those too, but not before you dump a bunch of money into a rail system to mount all this **** on.

    This is how it works. You will want your **** to be better as soon as you realize that the ****ty camcorder you bought is just a ****ty camcorder. So you'll end up spending 2x what you did on your ****ty camcorder to turn it into a ****ty camcorder with a bunch of top flight gear hanging off of it, and then it will actually shoot decent looking footage.

    Or you could stop being an ******* and get a goddamn decent DSLR and a few pieces of good glass, the same external monitor and power pack, and a goddamn monopod and you'll get footage that looks better than what your pimped-out ****ty camcorder is going to deliver for half the ****ing price.
    I already own different RODE mics and a Tascam recorder, because again, DSLRS have worse audio than my cellphone records. You're exagerating on battery consumption, I see plenty of shooters make it through a day with two extended batteries, which I can get real cheap down here. On the other hand I have to carry 8. You keep saying chromatic aberration is a problem with the camcorder I'm interested in and that the lens is crap, however I've reviewed almost all the video uploaded and produced by this camera only to find that chromatic aberration is only noticeable when people engage the clear view zoom (and no professional would even need that much zoom, let alone use a consumer feature such as that one), but people using the 12x and just the digital extender (which is a middle option between optical and clear view) are pretty much in the clear. You keep saying that I need more gain to get the same amount of exposure (because its a smaller sensor and it has a relatively small max aperture), yet this camera has significantly less noise at higher db or equivalent iso than most other cameras that you can properly compare it to. Here low light tests compare it to the 5d mk iii, and obviously the 5d mk iii has less noise, but the difference is not so terrible that you can't remedy it with noise reduction in post, or using light. Also, notice how the 5d mk iii is washed out? While the pxw-x70 retains much finer details.

    Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/v/u1mwjaLtaiY

    Nothing to see here, move along.

  7. #127
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Hey gold, what lens is on that 5d for that comparison?

    It seems like this whole time I've been suggesting getting a good lens that allows actual wide apertures for low light footage instead of having to **** around with gain and absurd ISOs.

    Please explain to me what shooting flat means. I'm ready for school. Lay it on me.
    >>untie shoes

  8. #128
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Hey gold, show me a comparison where the DSLR has a lens that's open to f1.3 and the camcorder is too. Oh wait...
    >>untie shoes

  9. #129
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Also: cold shoe light.

    You are going to drive me to ****ing drink.
    >>untie shoes

  10. #130
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    And introduce me to the newlyweds who were okay with you setting up a bunch of ****ing studio lights at their ceremony and reception. I can't wait to meet them.
    >>untie shoes

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by SF_GoldG_01 View Post
    Rendering time isn't the issue, it's transcoding your video before editing because h.264 is a **** codec.
    That moment when you realize that XAVC is just a specific profile of h.264. What a ****ty codec, it's so bad that everyone uses it. What garbage! MPEG-2 should be enough for anyone.


    Because I prefer doing my color correction last? So that I can see the entire timeline of the end product and make sure that the visual style is consistent from shot to shot?
    That moment when you realize you could do this before post-production. I guess white balance doesn't exist on camcorders or something?

    Also implying that you have anything remotely close to enough experience to produce accurate, yet visually distinct colored scenes.

    I understand cinematography just fine, and I know that a"film look" to footage does not make a film. I see people use shallow DOF just because they can, instead of focusing on proper lighting and framing, and most important of all, storytelling. You're not helping a story move along by randomly shifting your subject in and out of focus during a static conversation shot.

    Look around, there are lots of professionals who are like minded on several professional video communities.
    You are not a professional, so...

    Also, if you think any major movie is just "randomly" shifting focus, you weren't paying very good attention at all.

    I can run my camera just fine, my pictures shot in full manual, using the same exposure, focus and pp as in video are exactly what I want. The problem with several canon dslrs (unsure which ones don't have the following issues) is that it doesn't derive video from a full sensor readout, but rather does it by doing line skipping, that and also include a 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, an 8 bit consumer **** codec,
    See, I enjoy when you ***** about codecs because you don't even realize what codec you're using already. You're not using an external recorder so you are literally not gaining any benefits here.
    and voila, you lost most of the fine detail your camera is capable of delivering, if only it had more processing power to actually process a full sensor readout and use a 10bit codec.
    Exactly why do you think this "fine detail" matters at all when the overall shot looks like garbage? You seem like the type of person who, instead of watching a movie, just frame-steps the bluray to find over-compressed parts so you can ***** about the bitrate. The lens alone is going to introduce higher sharpness and detail than anything your camcorder can put out, "Garbage codec" or not. Assuming you're not an idiot at focusing, that is.


    And now all of the sudden you're carrying maybe up to $10,000.00 on your shoulder, for an up to 12 hour shoot that will pay you maybe up to $200.00. If you trip and drop your rig, or get assaulted, or any other of the million things that can go wrong while filming a social event, then great, you're short of $10k and your portable film unit is shattered.
    Implying that you don't need the same equipment for a camcorder, lol.

    Dance sequences in weddings can be very long, and in the particular case I was referring to, it was over 30 minutes, where every family member danced with the bride and groom. There were over 500 people in attendance (and every 20-30 seconds someone else was called to dance with the bride or groom). I also record conferences, seminars (which are non stop talking and questions in blocks of 1 -2 hours over a total of 8 hours), the occasional interview (not really a problem there, unless the guy won't shut up, and the guy interviewing doesn't have enough sense to interrupt him).
    A. Use an external recorder.
    B. Get a second body, because lol if you lose an hour long shot because the SD card corrupts the mp4 at the end.

    These aren't DSLR problems, these are "You're gonna get screwed eventually" problems.

    I disagree, I've seen awesome results with 5 point axis stabilization. Throw a decent monopod on, and in the right hands you'll get pretty damn good results.
    Dis guy. You're not supposed to use image stabilization with any sort of stabilization rig/pod/etc. They do almost nothing, and in fact can screw up your shot, because they can wig out and think there's movement when there isn't. They even tell you this in the manual. If you read it.

    I've been at this solo for a year with moderate success (I only work saturdays, or the occasional editing project during the week). Never had a client who complained (the exception being once when an SD card failed shortly after purchasing it, and it was a sandisk extreme pro 95MBps 64gb). I've invested more money and time into this than anything I've ever done before, and no I don't do this for money, I do it because I have a long term plan to slowly climb the ladder and establish a studio some day and just make it grow as much as possible.
    Why am I not surprised you lost footage and pissed off a client?

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by SF_GoldG_01 View Post
    There is something called lights, they exist for a reason, and I own a set for a reason, in addition to my cold shoe mount video light.
    Do you always obnoxiously blind your wedding clients with lights while they're trying to dance in mood lighting, or only when they don't expect it?

    I already own different RODE mics and a Tascam recorder, because again, DSLRS have worse audio than my cellphone records. You're exagerating on battery consumption, I see plenty of shooters make it through a day with two extended batteries, which I can get real cheap down here. On the other hand I have to carry 8. You keep saying chromatic aberration is a problem with the camcorder I'm interested in and that the lens is crap, however I've reviewed almost all the video uploaded and produced by this camera only to find that chromatic aberration is only noticeable when people engage the clear view zoom (and no professional would even need that much zoom, let alone use a consumer feature such as that one), but people using the 12x and just the digital extender
    LOL at using digital zoom. That's rich.

    (which is a middle option between optical and clear view) are pretty much in the clear. You keep saying that I need more gain to get the same amount of exposure (because its a smaller sensor and it has a relatively small max aperture), yet this camera has significantly less noise at higher db or equivalent iso than most other cameras that you can properly compare it to. Here low light tests compare it to the 5d mk iii, and obviously the 5d mk iii has less noise, but the difference is not so terrible that you can't remedy it with noise reduction in post, or using light. Also, notice how the 5d mk iii is washed out? While the pxw-x70 retains much finer details.

    Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/v/u1mwjaLtaiY

    Actually, it probably is pretty bad, but since this is a ****ty youtube video, we'll never know! The compression is blurring the image so much you can't even see the noise, only blocks from the compression. Finally, having a blown out and blurry image on the 5D has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with the operator and/or a ****ty lens.

  13. #133
    Everyone's favorite alcoholic administrator!
    Posts
    8,684
    Why does it seem like every thread devolves into some kind of argument with SF_Gold_Blah? Ignore the ******* and start talking about TV!

    I want a new one. Mine is...5 years...six years old? Budget oriented, I have a small unit, I have cable & a PS4. Current one is 32". I wonder if I can make my current one as a 3rd monitor.
    Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by dalf View Post
    I want a new one. Mine is...5 years...six years old? Budget oriented, I have a small unit, I have cable & a PS4. Current one is 32". I wonder if I can make my current one as a 3rd monitor.
    Don't see why you couldn't. A friend of mine has two 50 inch screens as monitors. It's pretty damn funny, since we had to build a special shelf for them, since they wouldn't fit on his desk.

    On a kind-of related note, I need to get a new secondary monitor. Had a power outage a few days ago. Coupled with an old Dell monitor with a BenQ power supply, it just died. I could probably replace the capacitors in it, and it'd be fine... but eh...
    I can't wait for the day schools get the money they need, and the military has to hold bake sales to afford bombs.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    Hey gold, what lens is on that 5d for that comparison?

    It seems like this whole time I've been suggesting getting a good lens that allows actual wide apertures for low light footage instead of having to **** around with gain and absurd ISOs.

    Please explain to me what shooting flat means. I'm ready for school. Lay it on me.
    So shooting at f1.2 or even f0.95, if you've got a kidney to sell, is the solution to low light situations?

    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    Hey gold, show me a comparison where the DSLR has a lens that's open to f1.3 and the camcorder is too. Oh wait...
    And that is my point exactly, there is no reason why such a "superior" camera (which body alone is $3000.00) would need an additional $500.00 dollars lens just so that it can outshine a "cheap garbage crappy camcorder and lens" in low light (and technically it's not, because as you suggest, you require a larger aperture so that you can effectively use less iso to get the same exposure, while the video I sent you compares noise at same exposure levels).

    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    Also: cold shoe light.
    You are going to drive me to ****ing drink.
    What's wrong with cold shoe accessories?

    Quote Originally Posted by Antony View Post
    And introduce me to the newlyweds who were okay with you setting up a bunch of ****ing studio lights at their ceremony and reception. I can't wait to meet them.
    I'll just assume that you've never done weddings, or not enough of them.

    @CM
    Yes they are h.264, but XAVC uses the highest profile level and a higher bitrate and a superior chroma subsampling method, while Canon DSLRS like the 5D MKIII uses profile level high@4.1 (vs high@5.2) (and also 8 bit vs 10bit), so yes, I'm getting crap loads of more detail here.

    Also, color correcting is not solely about correcting white balance issues, and I hardly ever have WB issues. Because I shoot flat, with 0 contrast, so as to capture as much detail from the highlights and shadows as possible, and later in post adjust accordingly. And no, I don't prefer to color correct each shot individually, I prefer to do so at the end.

    Exactly why do you think this "fine detail" matters at all when the overall shot looks like garbage? You seem like the type of person who, instead of watching a movie, just frame-steps the bluray to find over-compressed parts so you can ***** about the bitrate. The lens alone is going to introduce higher sharpness and detail than anything your camcorder can put out, "Garbage codec" or not. Assuming you're not an idiot at focusing, that is.
    I don't mind compression artifacts as long as they aren't so damn apparent that they can be measured with a ruler.

    Why am I not surprised you lost footage and pissed off a client?
    NEWS FLASH: Products fail or are defective regardless of brand. I'd much rather lose a $100.00 - $200.00 sdxc card (and nice thing about sandisk is that you have lifetime warranty) vs a $2000.00 external recorder. The fact that I can have two sdxc cards in a mirror raid on this camcorder means I won't face another situation like that one again. It happens to everyone, it will happen to me again sometime in the future, it will happen to you or Antony eventually.

    EDIT:
    Out of curiosity, what do you think of Rokinon cine lenses (35mm and 50mm)?
    Last edited by SF_GoldG_01; 01-17-2015 at 01:28 AM.
    Nothing to see here, move along.

  16. #136
    You should never fix in post production what you can shoot properly to begin with.
    TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by SF_GoldG_01 View Post
    So shooting at f1.2 or even f0.95, if you've got a kidney to sell, is the solution to low light situations?
    f2.8 isn't exactly a fast lens. So, really, anything below that. I have an f1.8 prime on my camera that cost me, hold on to your seatbelts, a whopping $150.

    And no, it's not the solution, it's A solution. A photographer/videographer would have many ways to deal with low light, including something as simple as moving your shot.

    And that is my point exactly, there is no reason why such a "superior" camera (which body alone is $3000.00) would need an additional $500.00 dollars lens just so that it can outshine a "cheap garbage crappy camcorder and lens" in low light (and technically it's not, because as you suggest, you require a larger aperture so that you can effectively use less iso to get the same exposure, while the video I sent you compares noise at same exposure levels).
    The price of the body has almost nothing to do with its low light capability. In fact, the 6D, with a newer sensor, actually does slightly better at high ISO.

    Also, again, the video you showed us does not compare any noise at all, since it's physically impossible to see the noise with the heavy YouTube compression.

    I'll just assume that you've never done weddings, or not enough of them.
    I know multiple people who have combined shot more weddings than you would in your lifetime. Setting up studio lights for video is a joke. "Here's all this space you rented, but I need you guys to sit in this tiny area the whole reception because that's the only place my camera can capture you without looking like an out of range TV station from the 70's".

    @CM
    Yes they are h.264, but XAVC uses the highest profile level and a higher bitrate and a superior chroma subsampling method, while Canon DSLRS like the 5D MKIII uses profile level high@4.1 (vs high@5.2) (and also 8 bit vs 10bit), so yes, I'm getting crap loads of more detail here.
    "Crap loads", more like "I don't even know what these words mean". XAVC does not require a higher bitrate, and as I showed, the Canon shoots at a bitrate that's nearly 3 times as high. Bitrate will trump your ridiculous 8-bit/chroma crap every day of the week. Especially at the resolutions you're trying to record at. Bluray even uses 8-bit/4:2:0 and you think that it's still necessary? Yet ironically, even the lowest bitrate used is much higher than your camcorder can pump out. Odd how that works. But no, I'm sure you know better than several companies' worth of experience and testing.

    Let's not forget the best part: You put so much emphasis on chroma and color, that you ignore the reality of capturing at higher levels. Doing so requires higher bitrate to produce the same level of compression quality. You are effectively compressing the video less, but since you are still using a low bitrate, the encoder has to make up for it by compressing the image itself more heavily. At the bitrates you're recording at, it's likely doing more damage than it's helping.

    Also, color correcting is not solely about correcting white balance issues, and I hardly ever have WB issues. Because I shoot flat, with 0 contrast, so as to capture as much detail from the highlights and shadows as possible, and later in post adjust accordingly. And no, I don't prefer to color correct each shot individually, I prefer to do so at the end.
    You're not shooting the next Sin City, there is literally no reason for you to need this.


    I don't mind compression artifacts as long as they aren't so damn apparent that they can be measured with a ruler.
    The irony here is that 4:4:4 and 10-bit has nothing to do with those compression artifacts. Your lower bitrate does. Gee, funny how that works. Of course, the fact that you didn't even notice the heavy YouTube compression really demonstrates that you have no idea what you're looking at.

    NEWS FLASH: Products fail or are defective regardless of brand. I'd much rather lose a $100.00 - $200.00 sdxc card (and nice thing about sandisk is that you have lifetime warranty) vs a $2000.00 external recorder. The fact that I can have two sdxc cards in a mirror raid on this camcorder means I won't face another situation like that one again. It happens to everyone, it will happen to me again sometime in the future, it will happen to you or Antony eventually.
    No, see, it won't happen to professionals, and you know why? It's because they keep backups. Because they're not so ignorant as to just walk into a shoot and hope that their equipment doesn't blow up, or their battery didn't charge, or that their camera suddenly won't turn on, or that their SD card suddenly corrupts. Multiple recordings or multiple bodies.
    Last edited by Cool Matty; 01-17-2015 at 10:24 AM.

  18. #138
    (Still) On 13 week vacation
    LAWL

    Posts
    10,289
    Gotta capture all that detail in the highlights and shadows by cranking the gain up!
    >>untie shoes

Posting Permissions

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