sam james

sam james

Lives in Australia nsw, Australia
Works as a video artist
Joined on Jan 31, 2006

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II article (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

Sdaniella, I agree with you.. ignore these fools! If they want to shoot with ugly over sharpened 4K let them. Canon has the most beautiful image quality apart from Alexa and RED. Canon's cine cameras offer the best setup and quality for a single operator cinematographer.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 03:40 UTC
On Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II article (274 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roman22: Wow so much hate for this camera and for Canon it's quite pathetic. I wonder how many here have actually used a Canon C100? This upgrade addresses the main concerns users were having with the camera IMO - poor EVF, lack of slow mo. Do i wish it had more? Ofcourse I do but realistically Canon is not going to cannibalise their higher end cameras by giving us 4K, Raw blah blah. The fact is this camera will be a joy to use, produce a clean 1080p image without too much post work or taking up hard drive space and no need to mess with adaptors. I can also see the AF being really useful for run and gun and steadicam/gimbal work. I'm gonna wait until i can see some images from this camera and the FS7. However the FS7 will be almost £3k more expensive in the UK so not exactly comparable.

Yes I totally agree with Roman22. No more haters, you have to try it. The c100 has been the best documentary camera I have ever used, better than Sony FS etc. The main difficulty was needing to attach the Zacuto EVF making it less run-and-gun, so now, thank you Canon we have this. A highly portable cinema camera. This is not a DSLR, (not Sony A7, not Canon 5D3) but something far superior in image quality. You have to use one to see for yourself...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2014 at 03:25 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

sam james: I am a professional video person and what I am noticing is at ISO 3200 the compression artefacts seem quite visible, comparable to the older 5D Mk2. The 5D Mk3 was about 1 stop faster so this kind of noise would only be visible at about ISO6400. Then what we see in this video is that once the brightness is lifted at around 25,000 ISO the noise issues are less obvious because noise is always more visible on darker areas. I definitely agree that this seems to be shot to underexpose at ISO1600 to amplify the difference at 400,000 ISO. My guess would be that we could actually see quite a lot at the Sony's 1600ISO with not too much noise and the ISO above about 12800 would not really be necessary.
Anyway, it looks good, not dissing this camera! Though my Canon c100 has less noise than this at all of the ISO levels up to 52,000 though so I'm not totally amazed!

Yes I'm comparing the usual compression artefacts of a C100 full HD video to h.264 at the highest bitrate then uploaded to youtube to this which I assume is the same process - so I was comparing the artefacts (produced by noise) between both after compression. As most delivery is on the web this is the comparison I'm making.
I guess generally I'm agreeing that the man seems to be able to see perfectly well in what appears to be pitch black in the ISO1600 shot but normally from this kind of light I would expect more dynamic range and visible image at 1600/f2.8. Maybe I'm used to the Canon 5D3..

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2014 at 00:08 UTC
On Sony Alpha 7S in low-light: See video at ISO 409,600 article (246 comments in total)

I am a professional video person and what I am noticing is at ISO 3200 the compression artefacts seem quite visible, comparable to the older 5D Mk2. The 5D Mk3 was about 1 stop faster so this kind of noise would only be visible at about ISO6400. Then what we see in this video is that once the brightness is lifted at around 25,000 ISO the noise issues are less obvious because noise is always more visible on darker areas. I definitely agree that this seems to be shot to underexpose at ISO1600 to amplify the difference at 400,000 ISO. My guess would be that we could actually see quite a lot at the Sony's 1600ISO with not too much noise and the ISO above about 12800 would not really be necessary.
Anyway, it looks good, not dissing this camera! Though my Canon c100 has less noise than this at all of the ISO levels up to 52,000 though so I'm not totally amazed!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2014 at 01:19 UTC as 24th comment | 6 replies
On CP+ 2014: Canon stand report article (55 comments in total)

wow, its seriously ugly though, pity.. looks like Frankenstein. If they're trying to angle for M4/3 market with this, that's a pretty 'style' oriented market and this is really quite awful to look at.
Hey, look at my new Canon G1X2 - ewwww

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2014 at 08:05 UTC as 16th comment
On With that glass of red wine challenge (4 comments in total)

I see these challenges are a judgement of technical proficiency, not subjectivity or mood. Often the number 1 shot is a great, jump out of the page image, but many more interesting shots are relegated to low ranks in this type of forum. Too much about photography and not enough about art.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2012 at 01:09 UTC as 1st comment
On First full-res Fujifilm X-Pro1 images appear on the web article (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul_B Midlands UK: Blimey those are dreary images for a wonderful landscape that Australia has to offer. I'd be pressing the DEL button after taking phots like that.

I find these images quite worthy in terms of judging the aesthetics and potential of the camera. I liked the before and after landscape shots to guage the neutrality of Fuji's sensor and the potential for grading afterwards. Compared to the X10 for example this seems to have great dynamic range, thanks for these samples.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 00:50 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7