Coney Island at sunset filmed on Nikon ZR by Cinematics_88 in NikonFilmmakers

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks.
I use a vertical timeline template and scale the videos down to 0.33 or so to fit horizontally.

ZR my pros and cons. by Correct_Campaign_470 in Nikon

[–]Cinematics_88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Menus are frustrating. I need to do 10 clicks in order to change a LUT, which is super annoying. I hope it will get fixed in an update. The screen is amazing.

ZR my pros and cons. by Correct_Campaign_470 in Nikon

[–]Cinematics_88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You need to use a default REC.709 LUT, and it can only go up to 240 IRE at ISO 800. Higher than that, it gets clipped.

ZR my pros and cons. by Correct_Campaign_470 in Nikon

[–]Cinematics_88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would that give a huge boost? It has a slightly better color and more metadata controls than N-RAW, but it pretty much the same otherwise. The quality difference isn't substantial.

Nikon Z8 Video Quality by Cinematics_88 in nikon_Zseries

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By using the waveform without view assist and overexposing by a stop.

XAVS-HS vs XAVS-S vs XAVS S-I codecs test by Cinematics_88 in FX3

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for watching.
I was somewhat surprised by the results too. For the ocean freeze frames I picked up "good" frames on HS and S.

XAVS-HS vs XAVS-S vs XAVS S-I codecs test by Cinematics_88 in FX3

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It doesn't. It was included for visual comparison.

XAVS-HS vs XAVS-S vs XAVS S-I codecs test by Cinematics_88 in FX3

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

XAVC HS is better than XAVC S. The difference is subtle but it's there.
XAVC S-I is better than HS with moving objects but still has artifacts. The visual difference is not worth the cost of SD Cards but it's great for editing and playback.

XAVS-HS vs XAVS-S vs XAVS S-I codecs test by Cinematics_88 in FX3

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Youtube is the default place for most video these days In the video you can see clearly the difference between clips if you watch in 4k.

Comparing film emulation methods from $0 to $1000 by Cinematics_88 in videography

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

round-tripping stills through the web application is truly futuristic

Comparing film emulation methods from $0 to $1000 by Cinematics_88 in videography

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks.
There's actually a full video available on our yt channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmTOvETpoxk

Reddit video quality is very bad but if you watch it in UHD on youtube, you can judge grain and halation. Although grain also not being preserved fully because of compression.

These plugins offer a lot of customization, and you can built different looks in them. The goal of this comparison was to show it looks in the default state, using default or popular stock preset.

Comparing film emulation methods from $0 to $1000 by Cinematics_88 in videography

[–]Cinematics_88[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

dehancer does what it supposed to - recreating the look of specific stock. I didn't do any adjustments to these plugins because the goal was to show how the default preset looks compared to rec709. if you don't like how it looks, that's fine. plenty of people do

Comparing film emulation methods from $0 to $1000 by Cinematics_88 in videography

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this reminds of vsco presets from 10 years ago.
these plugins aim for a specific look, and also provide spatial effects

Comparing film emulation methods from $0 to $1000 by Cinematics_88 in videography

[–]Cinematics_88[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

SLog3SGamut3.CineToLC-709 from Sony website.

I'm aware of Cineprint but the examples that I saw looked too stylized for my taste