Great! Glad it helped.

No, only the Cine model offers Pro Res.

​@@roemerfilm Thank you, Also, one client I have wants the Apple ProRes format and more specifically said - "ARRIRAW 4.6K (16:9 with 2.40:1 extraction) or PRORES 4444 XQ 4.6K (16:9 with 2.40:1 extraction)". Does the Mavic Cine have these formats? thanks again

@@newhorizondronephotography No it does not. The highest quality ProRes the Mavic 3 Pro Cine has is 422 HQ. It can film in 4K (3840x2160) or in DCI 4K (4096x2160). The latter can be cropped to 2.40:1 (I think it's 4096x1716). You're only going to find ARRIRAW on certain Arri cameras. You're only going to get ProRes 4444 if you mount cameras that film in it on a drone. In either case it would be a an extremely large drone! Which would require a team of people. You could look at renting an Inspire 3 which can film in ProRes RAW if that meets your client's specs. It's still not 4444 though.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that. The cameras were at least 18" apart so the angle of view is slightly different. Additionally, when the screen of the camera with the zoom says that you are at 35mm focal length there is actually a range within the zoom when it reports as "35mm". In other words, a more accurate test of focal would be using the cameras in succession from the same point. It gets complicated though because the zoom is a much longer lens and ideally should be measured from the front element and not the film plane. I did my best to set up my test that way. The 35mm f/1.4 vs 35mm f/1.8 test shows the field of view between those lenses to be the same, if not extremely close. Given that those lenses are much closer in size I would take that as a better indication of field of view.

They weren’t then but they are now. They follow all food regulations, rules, and protocols. Video was filmed in 2012 and first published in 2013.

I don't think so. You couldn't when the M3Pro Cine first came out and when I did the test above. In fact, you couldn't film in 5.1K in any of the codecs and use ActiveTrack. I don't know if any of the recent FW updates have changed that.

@@videosuperhighway7655 Good job! Great setup.

In the menu: Recording/Media Setup > Tab 1> Sensor Mode set it into "Super 35mm (Cropped)". That way it'll match the field of view of a Super 35 lens and there will be no vignette.

Thanks - there is a bigger picture than just the test. One thing to keep in mind is how much post-production you do or don't to your files and also if you are doing this commercially as opposed to as a hobby/fun. ProRes will always hold up better to sustained work in post whereas compressed codecs will fall apart much quicker. If that's something you need or your clients need then it's advantageous to have. Similarly, the cine version of the drone will film in 10-bit 4:2:2 on all three cameras in ProRes. The non-cine version is limited to 4:2:0 in either 8-bit or 10-bit depending on the settings. There can be a noticeable difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2.

@@roemerfilm I appreciate the reply. I'm currently deciding between the Mavic 3 Cine vs Mavic 3 Pro. Some say the M3Pro has sharper video/ software since its the final iteration of the line and that the 10 bit DLog coming out of it is comparable to ProRes. Would you say that having ProRes is the ultimate advantage and future proof of the M3 Cine and that 10 bit 4:2:2 would almost always be better in appearance and workflow than 10 bit 4:2:0 if all else remains the same?

​@@_misterJ "Some say the M3Pro has sharper video/ software since it's the final iteration of the line" - not sure what that means. As in, DJI has announced they've ended the line so they decided this one model should have the sharpest video? Or it's the most recent iteration therefore it has the sharpest video, even sharper than the higher end model? Either way it doesn't make much sense to me and sounds like online hearsay. It also should be noted that if anything over the years with DJI the problem has been not been blurry video as much as over-sharpened video without the ability to turn the sharpening down or off. I'm talking about early Phantoms until now. "Would you say that having ProRes is the ultimate advantage and future proof of the M3 Cine and that 10 bit 4:2:2 would almost always be better in appearance and workflow than 10 bit 4:2:0 if all else remains the same?" Having been a photographer for almost 40 yrs but having specialized in video production for the last 15 years, hands down with any camera system 4:2:2 almost always looks better than 4:2:0 when placed side by side. That's not to say that 4:2:0 cannot look very good and DJI's implementation of 10-bit 4:2:0 does help with gradations (e.g. smoother skies or water) vs. 8-bit. But it's when 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 are compared side by side that you see the difference and see what you are missing with 4:2:0. There can be a difference in workflow as well. While ProRes files are bigger many computers can run/edit them more easily than H.265. If you have a chance to rent or a borrow a M3Cine that would be my recommendation. Run some tests and that will tell you if having 10-bit 4:2:2 is worth it for you. It is a good deal more money and as you originally said - you may not feel it's worth it.

@@roemerfilmYou bring up many valid points to consider. A gentleman by the name of Jake Sloan did the 'sharper camera comparison,' seemed odd to me as well and I thought he was using different apertures, but it could be an issue with his particular drone. If you felt like checking it out. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fmSUeaKMl65oqaM thank you

I processed in FCP - the in-camera distortion correction carries through. So, there is no need to do further corrections. In Resolve you have the option of using the in-camera corrections "Decode Quality > Full res - Canon" or not "Decode Quality > Full res - Resolve".

Thanks for watching! I hope this year's race was great. We had to leave just before it. You may get a kick out of these videos I made: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKKwfoSbrcagq7Msi=w2yxmhoN2eMpFQGV and kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaaVZ4Kqa7Snnposi=S71dlsb5rVgUw5Z2 .

Thanks! Glad it was helpful! One thing to note is that there are many more light fixture options available now than when I made this video 6 years ago. So, while the concepts will always hold true there are other ways to get to the same look/effect. I have switched from the Litepanels 1x1 style lights & fresnels to Nanlite Forza series COB lights. I use them with Chimera softboxes and other modifiers like Nanlite's fresnel attachments.

Working on it! Until then there is a bit more on my YT channel. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaaVZ4Kqa7Snnposi=C767BtBIYZkXQ2KK

Thanks

Thanks!

Thanks

👍

Thanks! There should be more to come later this summer.

The recently announced RF 35mm f1.4 looks to work just as well, too!

@@roemerfilm I'm talking about a lens that's finally parfocal. Or what did you mean with the 35mm?

I haven’t had any issues with 24-105 f2.8. The RF 35mm f1.4 is a new lens that was just announced along with the C400. It does not have IS but it has a de-clicked manually controlled aperture ring and similar to the 24-105 f2.8 it’s got little to no breathing. You can find lens tests online in YT. www.newsshooter.com/2024/06/05/canon-rf-35mm-f1-4l-vcm/

👍

Thanks for watching. I hope it was helpful!

While that’s accurate it’s less of an issue in practice because the contrast of the view often feels slightly different between A and B camera anyway due to the change in angle. You can also tweak in post to realign the look as needed. I used to use the EF Compact-Servo zooms, the 18-80 and the 70-200. They have a look, color and contrast, more in line with Canon’s cinema lenses than with its EF L glass. It doesn’t mean they can’t be used together and matched up in post. And it’s the image from those Compact-Servos and the 24-105mm f2.8 Z that is more pleasing/accurate and acts as a better baseline. Though, that’s a personal preference on my part and you may feel otherwise.

@@roemerfilm Hi Jon. I currently use a CN-E 18-80 some of the time on my C70. I have to admit I am tempted by the 24-105 f2.8 basically all because of the faster aperture, but obviously you lose the wide end on a Super35 sensor. Wondering what your take is on the 18-80 vs 24-105 2.8 if you could only have one. I don't particularly want to own both at this time as it wouldn't be required for what I'm shooting really.

@@matadormartin If I could choose only one I'd go with the 24-105 2.8. The 24-105 2.8 is going to be a bit easier overall because it does not need an adapter. The f2.8 vs T4.4 is going to come in very handy. While I haven't tested them directly against each other (I did own both the 18-80 and 70-200 Compact Servos), it stands to reason that the AF on the 24-105 is going to be better as is the IS (especially if you couple with the digital IS in the camera). So, with all that I'd live with the 24-105 f2.8 not being able to go as wide as the 18-80. It's just going to be easier to handle and a bit more responsive on the auto features like AF and IS. In terms of manual focus and the zoom ring, both lenses handle very similarly. The rings are nicely dampened and far more amenable to videography/filmmaking than the EF or the RF photo glass. I don't have the servo unit for the 24-105 f2.8 yet so I can't compare those but I do look forward to getting it and having some more options on the C70 in terms rigging/shoulder mounting and using the servo grip for record start/stop and zooming. I miss that flexibility which I had when I owned the 18-80.

@@roemerfilm Thanks for the reply. I'm also finding myself considering the RF 24-70 to get that 2.8 aperture and save on some size and weight. Do you find the image on the 24-105 considerably more sophisticated? I guess there is always a trade off. I don't mind working with the size and weight of the 18-80 I guess but there are certainly times when it feels like the 24-70 could be a lot nicer to throw in a backpack.

@@matadormartin The image on the 24-105 f2.8 is not considerably more sophisticated. It’s the other video centric features of the lens that set it apart. Beyond that, for me, it’s depends on the body and use. e.g. filming handheld on the C70 for a client the 24-70 f2.8 is works well but the 24-105 f2.8 is that much better because of its functionality. A bit longer than the RF 24-70 f2.8 (but I'm sure shorter than the 18-80 + adapter) but having internal zoom is a noticeable difference that jumps out immediately. It's so much smoother to zoom, MF if not shooting AF, and finesse the aperture if needed. Traveling, personal projects, etc I have found the 24-70 f2.8 on a R5 or R5 C very bulky. I have hiked a lot with that combo and I don’t like it. Of the trio of RF f2.8 zooms; the 15-35, 24-70, and 70-200; I like the 24-70 the least. It's fine, much better than the EF version, but the 15-35 and the 70-200 are stellar. For travel, again on an R5 sized body, I’ve found I vastly prefer the RF 35 f1.8 and the RF 50 f1.8. Non- L glass, non zooms, but super compact, light, and they don’t call attention to themselves. Relatively inexpensive, too! If I needed a zoom for travel I’d probably consider an f4. I have the RF 14-35 f4 for gimbal work and it’s a great lens.

The idea is that you use AF to acquire focus. This can be the focus cursor on the subject’s face or it can be using face tracking. And you then switch to MF to lock it in. You can do this one of two ways. Either the physical AF/MF button built into the lens or customize a button on the camera body to toggle AF on and off. I like to do the latter because then if I need to recheck focus during the interview I can do it quickly without having to reach around to the lens and potentially jostling the camera.

It'll come down to personal preference. I find the 24-70 a bit washed out, low contrast on the face, loosing some definition on the highlight side.

@@roemerfilmwell the 24-70 is softer so less work in post

Thanks - I didn't have any issues per se. You can tell there is a difference in MFD between the two lenses when you are filming yourself and reaching in to turn on or off the recording but that's it. I think the MFD of the 24-105 f2.8 is ~18" and the 24-70 f2.8 ~8". I did film an IS test but I wasn't working close enough that MFD would be a factor kzbin.info/www/bejne/in_UqWeChtx2a5Ysi=XE_TacX66A3FhBta

@@roemerfilm Thanks! You can tell from the link that the 24-105 is smoother with IS. Very useful info! Thank you!

@@Berkeley2125 Sure! Glad it's helpful.

@@roemerfilm 10mm difference ? 18 and 8?

@@creativegreatsvisuals ~10 inch difference. 18” vs 8”. I’m rounding so actual amount may be closer to 9.5”. You can find a comparison chart here www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-F2-8-L-IS-USM-Z-Lens.aspx#Focusing

Thanks - glad it was helpful!

Thanks!

25P will give you footage that is generally seen to be more cinematic in feel - the motion blur will be more in line with what you see in films. I don’t have any 25P or 50P samples as 23.98 is the US standard. R5C at 23.98: Deer Isle, Maine - Fourth of July Parade kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHrWdpKtdpx0b7M R5C on a gimbal in 60->23.98 Slow-Fast Mode for the interiors: Atlantic Federal Credit Union - Westbrook, Maine - La Macchia Group Design/Build kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKXIgnR8Z8toe7s This series on the R5C from @CanonUSA and @theC47 is great! I worked on it as the second DP filming the BTS footage. Highly recommend! kzbin.info/aero/PLp-znpQge8HwP_4IepkwRm3Q6Hp44bf5a&si=_MRl1NuRsgbx0ezh

@@roemerfilm ohh thank you i am trying to take sunset till blue hour 25p with 10sec interval

@@roemerfilm yee i got the flying jet between the sunset but the lower garden area is dimly lit dark i used auto iso set to 12800max then i brightened the ND to 1 but failed sunset is not in the horizon yesterday it was at the same spot and since it was cloudy it was not visible perfectly will wait till blue hour thinking of removing the ND now since it is almost dark now . Will plan with photopill sunrise tomorrow

@@roemerfilm can you show us how to edit this timelapse now i am using DaVinci iMovie vn adobe rush

@@roemerfilm how can i improve this i had set auto iso for evening time lapse it is grainy drive.google.com/file/d/1SXu_5rXv8nG7yE2vB6ewQ74GZ2K6QIkj/view?usp=share_link

The 24-70 f2.8 is certainly a more versatile lens and the new 24-105 f2.8 even more so - if money and weight aren’t an issue. But I use the 50 f1.2 a ton between f1.2-2.2 as my A Camera lens for interviews and there is no beating it for that creamy look. To be in the 1.2~2.0 range is the only way to get full-frame look to the bokeh. Some samples with 50 1.2 as the A Cam: kzbin.info/www/bejne/onzXf5igeLitjrssi=EBPclx34ABvct9-K kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHOclZ5moqyoiKMsi=c28Xz7jQLVOd8Mmi kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYXIfpWJg9B-l9ksi=6jsC7N2Dks5VjcHW Thanks!

@@roemerfilm I will keep my eye on that 24-105 f2.8. but the 50 1.2 looks amazing! Thanks for the links and the videos!

Not per se but I've used them a lot on client projects and for personal work. All three can now do ProRes (after FW updates since the original release) and if you want all three to be closer in terms of color/tonal range then you can go with D-Log M since the longest tele lens can only do D-Log M. The other two do D-Log or D-Log M. I find the image from the longest lens does tend to run a bit bluer than the other two lenses. I don't know if that's a fault of its chip or color science or the fact that it tends to be compressing a lot more atmosphere(?) But it is easily corrected in post. This client video uses the wide and medium lenses (the drone shots bookend the video): kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKXIgnR8Z8toe7ssi=yY0CWYFzEeYgdRBY . This video of personal work uses all three of the M3P Cine's lenses throughout: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaaVZ4Kqa7Snnposi=w876QOCIbUP1MPRL . Thanks!

@@roemerfilm thanks again! Great work! I’m considering buying the cine model as on the pro model, the 166mm lens only has ‘normal’ codec, no LOG

@@RiverVoicesfilms Thanks! I had thought the FW update last fall brought D-log M to the 166mm lens/camera on both models (Pro and Pro Cine). DJI's spec page shows that the non-Cine model should be able to do D-Log M with the 166mm lens in 10-bit 4:2:0 H.265. www.dji.com/mavic-3-pro/specs

Thanks - I was at Reach Beach in Deer Isle. That said, I didn't fly very long because groups of low flying plane in twos and threes started to come by. They seemed well under 400' so I put the drone down at that point. Here are the Lobster Boat Races from last summer - lots of fog but I flew at a few points when it lifted: kzbin.info/www/bejne/goWyamuMZ66HopIsi=fv_6FUDYgw4UVFCK .

No focus issues - that said I do not tend to leave my lens/C70 on face tracking while filming in this kind of situation. I'll use it to get focus initially and then switch to manual to lock it in. Once I'm recording I'll double check the focus from time to time during a down moment or at the start of a new clip. A lens like the RF 24-70 f/2.8L is certainly a bit better at AF for continuous face tracking and quieter if that's your goal.

In my view, no, which is what I conclude in the video. I was looking at the 28-70 like it was potentially three primes in one (28/50/70 f/2 lenses) but I really didn't feel or see the magic of it on the C70. I much prefer the 50/1.2 & 85/1.2 as an A Cam & B Cam combo or the 35/1.8 & 50/1.2 as the A Cam & B Cam. Otherwise the RF f/2.8 zooms are great and the also the fastest & quietest focussing lenses.

You mean 50 or 85 mm still on c 70

@@marekantonini5909 Yes - here's are projects with the 50/85 as A/B Cams: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWq4YWqsp9-tiNU and kzbin.info/www/bejne/m5e4dZaGfr5qoKs And here is a shoot with the 35/50 as the A/B Cams: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZPUeYCFmq2Gnq8 All on C70s.

Thanks! A lot of the notes are in the video description. The R5C was set to "video" mode and Interval Recording was used to create the time lapse in-camera. This recording mode is easily accessed via the Touch Screen. Tap the touch seeing icon on the bottom left and then the Frame/recoding icon on the upper left. Then tap Recording Mode. Set Frame Rate to "1" and I think I used a "10 Sec" time interval. Though you'll need to figure out the best time interval based on your subject, the amount of time the activity takes place, and how long you want the clip to be. Additionally, I used a 23.98 frame rate, Auto ISO with a max ISO of 12,800, f/8, and 180º shutter. You'll want to pre-set your focus and then lock it in. So, if using AF to obtain focus then set it to MF to lock it in. Hope that helps and is enough info!

Glad it was helpful!

Hard to pin down any one lens without knowing your preferences and budget. If going AF I do recommend the Canon’s RF line. For doc the RF L 15-35 f/2.8 would work well though you could go with an f/4 if you want to save on weight and budget. The in-lens IS coupled with the camera’s digital IS on the RF lenses is quite good and opens many handheld options. I’ve been able to film handheld with the 15-35 and the 24-70 L 2.8 RF zooms. If you need shallower DoF and are okay with primes - the RF 35 1.8, 50 1.8, or 50 1.2 are all great. Though the AF L zooms do AF a bit better. If you prefer MF you might want to look at the new less expensive Cooke line. All that said, you can adapt just about anything to the C70 so if you have lenses already you can save money by using them before diving into new purchases.

@@roemerfilm thanks I been leaning toward the 15-35mm 2.8 it seem like it cover mostly everything I need

It’s a great lens. Very sharp, wonderful clarity, little to no distortion on the wide end, and a nice range for the C70’s Super 35 sensor.

Yes - completely rebuilt at the Crystal Bridges Museum of Art. crystalbridges.org/architecture/frank-lloyd-wright-bachman-wilson-house/

@@roemerfilm Can you tell me what they used as an exterior finish? I'm a carpenter and am always concerned with exterior wood maintenance. Any linseed oil based finishes?

@@richardmckrell4899 I don’t know but it is a FLW Usonian house so I suspect there’s info online.

Thank you so much and thanks for watching!

Image quality aside, the lenses are so different in size, weight, and cost it’s hard for that not to factor in. If you’re happy with the 1.8 prime and its AF then there is not really a need to upgrade. If the 1.8’s AF frustrates you, a bigger lens is not an issue, and the DoF of f/2.8 is fine for your needs, then give the 24-70 a try. You can judge from the video if you feel the image quality difference is worth it.

Thanks for watching! Glad it was helpful. I sent my RF 24mm f/1.8 back because of the odd AF bounce. I also used it on a couple of jobs on the C70 where I could lock focus (interview setups) and the CA in the background of the frame was pretty bad (windows out of focus ~20 ft. away). For you scenario, wedding reception dancing, the CA may not be noticeable and the AF issue could have been my lens sample (?) I haven't used the EF 35mm f2 + .71 adapter so can't say on that. I did own the EF 35mm f/1.4 II lens and that's a great lens! I would recommend renting and testing before you buy.

Depends - if you are doing a lot of video work for clients then the option of 10-bit 4:2:2 via ProRes on all three cameras and in log or even non-log capture can be well worth it. If you are filming for yourself or primarily doing stills then it’s a feature you don’t need. The Pro non-cine version is limited to 8-bit or 10-bit 4:2:0.

Thanks!

Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching! If you see my full reply to Luke, I may have missed PU’s celebrity fox but having the very long view of 40+ years in town overall there’s definitely something more at play here. The pandemic does seem to have provided a window which allowed for the fox population’s increased growth and range.

Thanks so much!