mercer

🤷‍♂️ It looks great to me. I'm not looking for an image that looks exactly like reality. It's definitely desaturated, but I don't agree that it's low contrast. No offense to the photographer of that shot, but that looks like it could have been shot with any standard profile from a camcorder in auto mode. As far as... how can I judge the image... look at the skin tones... the weight of the image. It looks and feels like a real movie.

Both of those cameras are great, you should get one. What are you shooting with now?

I'm sure I posted it back then too. ML Raw is easy on the 5D3 due to dual card slots and its stability. I'm sure the FX3 and R5C could get close... minus the 14bit color... but they're $3500 cameras and I already own the 5D3.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't post this video from a British filmmaker named Paul Cook. It was the video that made me buy my 5D3 and install ML Raw on it and never look back. After 7 years, I'm still chasing what he was able to capture in an afternoon...

Agreed. I know you were never too much of a Canon guy, but I swear that the ProLost Flat settings always gave me a nice look with minimal effort in post. It wasn't until I "understood" more about color grading and LUTs did I start getting looks I didn't like. As you probably remember, I have owned a lot of cameras in my day... 4K, 1080p, 6K... but other than my 5D3 (and the FP... kinda) my two favorite cameras were my old eos-m, even with the original firmware and the Nikon D5500... it was as small as a mirrorless and the Nikon Flat profile was sooo nice to work with... all it needed was a little contrast and some selective saturation.

Good points. I guess it depends on what you're planning on shooting, or do shoot? I am only interested in narrative filmmaking, so I have a specific look I like. It's definitely a filmic look. I've always said that most cameras from 10 years ago could "essentially" and convincingly achieve a 70s film look. But the look of modern cinema isn't really close to a film look. It looks nice but it doesn't seem like they're trying to emulate that like the original Alexa attempted. Even on this forum, you'll get dozens of opinions about it. Many want the most resolution they can get. I'm still happy with the 1080p magic lantern raw from my 5D3. But I'm probably a weirdo, I'm seriously considering buying an old camcorder to get a specific "cinema" color filter that Canon had on their older models. Back in the day, Canon was known to have the "best" color. The original Panasonic mirrorless cameras also had very nice color. Sony was considered the worst. Now with the different log profiles and color space transforms, any camera can be made to look good. But if you can find a camera with a good rec709 profile, that you like, why not? Log and CSTs and LUTs are great and some will help to eek out an extra stop or two of dynamic range, but in a lot of cases, you can get by with the 8-10 stops that rec709 offers. Here's another film that I was highly impressed by shot on the OG BMPCC by a British brother team called Cosmos. What's interesting about this is that they were able to make a Hollywood looking film that was released in theaters. They also decided to shoot in ProRes LT to save storage space using only one lens for 90% of the film. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you try. It's not the tool, but the craftsman using it.

Whenever I start thinking about the beginning of the DSLR revolution or the Digital Revolution, I take my own advice and go back to look at some old videos that I love from those forgotten cameras. This first round of films, from Kendy Ty and his t2i, I have linked to countless times, years ago, but I think they could be helpful or relevant to the OP's topic... If I remember correctly, he used the t2i and the old Sigma 30mm 1.4. I believe he even created his own picture profile, in camera, for his earlier films. Like so many others, he eventually moved onto a Sony 4K camera, but many people commented they preferred the look from his trusty, old t2i. If there's a lesson here, it's simple... sometimes less is more. Sometimes the tool that gets the job done and is simple to work with, is better than wading through the minutiae of features and tech finding the best camera.

Making a film is one of the hardest things I've ever attempted... especially in a DIY, low/no budget space... but it's also one of the most exhilarating experiences I've ever had... even if ai haven't been successful with finishing the film... Yet.

Didn't know that was in B&W. Thanks for the heads up. I adore B&W, so much so that I've been testing my FP in 4K 8bit mode for the sole purpose of having a smaller set up for a B&W film.

To be fair, I vaguely remember the OP stating at some point that he/she likes to have discussions about gear. And let's be honest, this forum is primarily a gear forum. Perhaps the OP should mention that this discussion isn't necessarily about a decision he's currently planning on making and instead it's about learning and gathering information. With that said, @kye has a fair point. These cameras are only tools for creative endeavors. These cameras will not make the film or color grade your film or make your film good. At the end of the day, story is king. I would suggest to the OP that they take some time and go back and look what people were creating when the DSLR revolution began. Look at t2i and GH2 videos to see what was possible with limited resolution, DR and resources.

I want one!

I agree the lawsuit and the patent for Redcode was probably the driving force, but they didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy Red solely for the patent. They could have licensed it for 2 decades and developed their own cine line of cameras and lenses for less than that. Other than the RedCode patent... what other tech does Red have? They have an established brand in the high end cinema space and a lower tiered customer base that will pay top dollar to be a part of that brand. Don't get me wrong, I love photographic history and I am a huge fan of Nikon. I own a small set of ai-s lenses and a small set of scalloped ringed non-ai lenses with the "C" coating. They're obviously one of the greatest photographic companies in history with an amazing lineage... in the photographic world. Until very recently, their video capabilities were lacking. It will take a while for them to gel with a lot of cinematographers... they'll just use Arri cameras instead. Then again... I reserve the right to be completely wrong.

Doubtful. Antiquated cultural practices aside, Nikon didn't need Red to create a lower tiered cinema camera. They bought a patent and a brand. A brand with a VERY loyal following in the lower tier and a loyal user base in the higher tier, Hollywood, cinematography world. If they aren't, at all, interested in the brand, then they spent hundred of millions of dollars for a patent. Red doesn't make lower tiered cameras, but they can help each other. If Nikon eventually dismantles the Red brand, it won't be in 2 years. Maybe in a decade after they gain the trust and reputation with the Red loyal user base and the Hollywood cinematography community. I do think the Komodo could bridge the gap between Red and Nikon, though... with the OG Komodo being more Nikon with a new composite, user friendly design and the Komodo X staying truer to the Red brand. But I think Nikon will use a "powered by Red" moniker, or something like that, in their higher tiered MILCs.

It would be utterly ridiculous for Nikon to absorb or abolish the Red brand, especially since they aren't natural competitors. They purchased Red for the Redcode patent so they didn't have to license compressed raw from Red or ticoRaw. It's really that simple. If they use the Red branding in any future Nikon release, who knows. If they decide to venture into the low tier cinema camera market, it will involve the Komodo and they won't change the name of it other than add Nikon to it somewhere. Maybe... Nikon CineRed Komodo. They won't take the Red name away, they'll just add Nikon.

I believe it only offers a S35 crop. Due to the compression methods from the 6K sensor, some say that the S35 crop is superior... but I didn't buy a FF camera to shoot in S35. And the difference is probably minimal and I don't care about minimal. But as usual, I'm probably the weirdo here, because I still prefer good 1080p over run of the mill 4K. For instance, I mentioned earlier that I think some lenses shine with certain cameras. After thorough testing, most lenses look pretty good in 4K. By that I mean, most vintage lenses have a certain level of sharpness that is good enough due to the 4K. In fact, I think vintage lenses help to tame the sharpness... resolution of 4K. Now with my 5D3/ML Raw, some of those same lenses just don't work. But with a more modern lens, the image looks really good, in my opinion better than the FP. Here's a shot from the 5D3 with the older non-Art Sigma 50mm 1.4... And here are a couple shots of the Takumar on the 5D3... Obviously, they're different shots so in some ways they're incomparable... And here's a B&W shot with the Tak on the 5D3 that's a lot more interesting... So what's my point... I have way more options than I need and B&W makes everything look cooler. That is all.

Thanks, I think I should clarify my earlier statement about the battery life... when I said it's not much better, I was probably exaggerating... it's no GH series camera regarding battery and considerably less than my 5D3, but it's not nearly as bad as my experience with the P2K. And even with its flaws, which there are many, I still think the FP is probably the best camera for your money on the market today... if you're interested in narrative filmmaking... or even casual video if you don't mind taking your time and using a bunch of storage. Even the internal 8bit 4K cDNG raw is quite usable if you want a smaller set up. One of the reasons I tested the camera with the Tak was to see how the internal 4K 8bit raw was for a B&W delivery... knowing the yellowing from the Thorium could help with the final B&W image.

Here's another shot from the Tak/FP combo. I don't know about anybody else, but I have been noticing some major disparities between the image in my computer and what the image looks like posted to different sites/devices, so this is also a test of that for me. Either way, I really like this lens with the FP. I've been saying for years that some lenses just work better with certain cameras. I was about to sell this lens, now I'm going to dig through my closet and find my 35/3.5 Tak.

I'll have to take a look one of these days because I would like to mess with it... plus I have all these c-mounts lying around and I'd like to have a camera to use them on. Thanks, I feel like I am flying blind some times with color work because my screen sucks so bad. The idea I am outlining right now is kind of a coming of age horror film about adult characters.. kinda like Stand by Me if the dead body was looking for them.

In other news, I finally had a chance to get out and shoot some stuff yesterday with the FP. For this outing I brought along an oldie, but a goodie... the Super Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4. Here are a couple shots that didn't turn out terrible... I'm still using my old MB Air from 2014, so I can't always say the image posted looks exactly like my graded image. I hope to upgrade my computer soon enough. That said, I'm in the middle of a test for a short film I am hoping to make this summer. But to stay on topic, I forgot how amazing the Tak 50mm is and I really like it with the FP.

Haha, I haven't used mine in so long that I can't say if it suffers from the same afflictions. I'd love to mess around with ML on the eos-m, but it seems my camera is broke and won't turn on any more. It could be that all of my batteries went bad... I used to buy really cheap ones.

I think by moving the zoom and focus ring at the same time is creating a hyperfocal thing. I just checked the zoom lens I used to use with the eos-m years ago with magic lantern and it's a Cosmicar 12.5-75mm f/1.8... But with that S8 crop, it's hardly a wide angle. I remember it being okay enough optically though. I believe there are a few 8-48mm c-mount lenses floating around too. If you weren't looking for a zoom, I'd recommend the Kowa 6mm 1.8 lens that seems to be a great little lens and can still be bought new... although a little pricey.

Didn't you ask this same question 2 other times in the past 3 months?

I still suspect it will be a novelty, though. For years, all we've heard are rants about internal, compressed raw and those fuckers at Red but I think when everybody has the opportunity to shoot with it, they'll move onto needing 8K 120p and internal compressed raw will become a lot less important. But it's highly unlikely that Nikon won't enforce their new patent. I assume they'll probably license it like Red did, but look how long it took these companies to pay licensing fees for ProRes.

BRaw had it and it wasn't enough to keep people interested. Even internal ProRes Raw in the Z8 didn't force people to switch systems to get an internal compressed raw format. But with the price of storage coming down and if it opens up into more cameras of choice, then perhaps you're right. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Another example was the C200... that was released in 2017... I think? I had just started shooting ML Raw on a 5D Mark iii and I was blown away that Canon was releasing an official raw format in their base cinema camera. But most people were extremely pissed off due to the huge file sizes, expensive CFast cards and lack of codec options.