Recent content by Les Hillis

I wasn't putting the C400 down for being more of an all-rounder either, or saying you were. I was saying I'd like to see Canon also making an equally cinema-quality-capable camera that didn't have all those extra all-rounder features, which are traditionally more video and less cine-camera...

Sorry, I should have been more clear, yes, no more colour grades at all.

Thanks Brian. Moving on.

Okay Rand, just for you, I promise I'll never post another shitty grade here on Reduser again. Have fun.

The camera companies themselves are using the 'cinema camera' label as part of their marketing, which is what I was reacting to in my previous post, while also pointing out some of the differences between cameras that you yourself have referred to by calling the C400 an 'all-rounder' camera.

Yes, easily.

Here's another take on it, with more attention paid to dealing with the sharpness - After looking at the C400 footage in Resolve, it's a lot better than I was expecting. Which is disappointing in a way, because I wouldn't call the C400 a cinema camera, more like cinema-capable, with it's...

Thanks for the tip. I did see that in the RAW settings and turned it down to zero, but still found the image too sharp. Had a quick fiddle with the Midtone detail as well, but decided not to bother with it. Harder to see the sharpness in motion, but when I was making some extra adjustments...

Hi Rand, thanks for finding some C400 footage. It's a pity there weren't some identical shots with a chart for each camera, to see how hard it actually is to match them without getting too far into it. But just looking at what's there, I'd have to say I prefer the Canon colours over the Sony...

I agree and think it's at the pixel level that the real action happens. The decisions made there inform the basic characteristics of the overall sensor and the fundamental image-quality of the camera. At some point saying I want 'this' sized sensor or format or resolution is like saying I want...

Yes, the larger (taller) '12,288 x 8040 12K 3:2 open gate' aspect-ratio adds up to approx 100 megapixels - 12288x8040 = 98,795,520 While the smaller (shorter) 12,288x6480 12K 1.9:1/17:9 (12K DCI) adds up to approx. 80 megapixels - 12288x6480 = 79,626,240 Also, not sure why, but in that list...

I think they could sell a DSMC4 camera with a 10K sensor based on the 5-micron pixel size, if it had enough other improvements over the 8K DSMC3 version, beyond the re-framing and downscaling to 8K it would enable by default. But yeah 12K or 16K might make more sense. Even while there are a lot...

I agree, increase the capability without sacrificing the quality. I think there's a good chance we are going to see that with the future RED and Nikon cameras.

I think it's a good example of some of the technical challenges that need to be to overcome when pushing the limits like that. Reading between the lines, it seems RED passed on making the camera. If so it would be understandable given the timing of it and the scale of the project, but I wonder...

I imagine they'd already have a list like this somewhere, along with other possible sensors based on different pixel sizes. Is there something there in particular that you'd like to see in an actual camera?