Leaderboard

Disclaimer: I'm an old. Also, this rant is completely contextual to two concurrent projects I'm doing. I'm gonna blow some steam here. So, been making a no-budget passion project documentary with my wife and have found myself grabbing my (2017) EM10iii more than half the time to capture our 24p footage. We have a FUJI XT5 --as well as our (also long in the tooth) GH5 that specs wise does a lot better, but here we are running around with a device that is technically inferior. The issue is that it's not technically inferior by much when you get right down to it. For what we're doing, the divide between 8bit video and 10bit video isn't such a big deal. We're on manual lenses, and, honestly, the image from the EM10iii+our lenses is dang good. Paid $300 for this camera. Seems hard to imagine a cheap cam would be what's used over more advanced gear, but we are certainly doing so. Funny thing is, I can't rely on the XT5 (and it's admittedly gorgeous colors) because it overheats(!), and while I like the GH5 results, I don't like using the camera as much as I like handling the Oly. Perhaps it's a mix of things. Size, ergos, what we DON'T need from the feature set, knowing what'll ultimately work for our particular production, and a weird little feature of the Oly has (2x punch in) that the GH5 does not. Anyone else holding onto (and often using) old inferior gear because it's good enough and not really chasing new tech anymore? I'll testify without irony that we've achieved better footage with this little camera than another million dollar + doc film I'm working on which used an ARRI. Why? Because subjects in a doc don't really give a shit when it's a single unassuming shmo running around with a small modest camera like the EM10. People DO give a shit when they're in front of a giant rigged out ARRI and a crew of 9 self-important shmos flitting around with their serious demeanors and a gaggle of mobile video-village gear in tow. And people in a doc behave correspondingly: Not naturally. They're performative. I'm left editing a bunch of dry useless footage from the ARRI shoot. Additionally not much actual quantity of footage because they were so damn immobile. Lame. That's a hill I'll die on regarding doc film making. When filmmakers put their gear fetish above good content acquisition. Sometimes that requires big sophisticated gear, sometimes not. Gotta be honest with yourself about that. Anyway... Finally, the doc we're working on will be mastered in 1080. If anyone can successfully convince me that's not good enough for a doc screener, I'll entertain the argument, but 1080 24p is fine to my eyes. /rant.

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment. I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

One of the things I find hilarious about YouTube is that a lot of the big camera influencers talk about leveling up channels and increasing production value, etc. A lot of the bigger names have between 50-200k subscribers and a lot of them had the advantage of being early to starting camera channels. Newer, theoretically popular people like Cam Mackey have like 65k. Meanwhile, a friend of mine decided to do something with his YouTube channel a couple of years ago after the news did a story about his having purchased the monorail for $1/car from our local zoo when they stopped running it and turning it into a private campsite on some land in Wisconsin. He mostly repurposes junk that he finds at garage sales and thrift stores into things like push-pull carts on railroad tracks and satellite dishes coated in aluminum foil. The cameras he uses are mostly potatoes - like 25-year old camcorders and Hero 3-type stuff. He has a pretty decent natural grasp of editing and story, though, and he's a funny guy. He also would freely admit that he neither knows a lot about cameras nor cares to know any more. Last I checked, he was at about 187k subscribers (including me - I like watching his stuff). So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit. Making half of your video be slow motion slideshow garbage so that you can put "cinematic" in the title doesn't really get views if the rest of the content is garbage. I buy too much gear for my own mediocre talent, but that's partly just because I want it and after a lot of years, I can almost always find something to trade in to make stuff more affordable. I have no illusions that buying a Komodo-X will substantially improve anything I do, but I might do it anyway. If I get it, I'll probably like it a lot for a while and then after a couple of years, I'll probably trade it in toward something else. Anyway, another thing to remember with these YouTubers that are in the business of making day 1 review commercials for various channels - when they're showing "what this camera can do," go watch their older stuff with a camera from last year. Most of the time, it looks almost exactly like whatever they're doing with the new camera because they're really not that different. One of the most laughable things that people say on various camera forums or YT comments is "I can't wait for (creator name here) to get it so we can see what that camera can really do." Wanna know what that camera will look at when your favorite creator gets it? Go watch the review they did of the camera before it. It'll look pretty much like that.

After posting the previous post I went back and compared the looks a few times and realised I was a bit harsh on the ARRI LUT, considering that it was very flattering on my battered skin tone but basically didn't screw up the strong colours too much, whereas the film look is much stronger without being that much more flattering. Inspired by the ARRI LUT, I created this custom grade from scratch. SOOC (for reference): New Custom Look: ARRI LUT (for reference): I'm actually really happy with that look - I went a bit further in evening out the skin tones and brightening them up a bit and it didn't seem to come at the expense of anything else. I think I could easily build a look around this, and will experiment further.

Hollywood shoots ProRes for the most part, except for VFX plates.

CP16. Cinema Products brand…who were also making this new gadget called a Steadicam that’s about to be 50 years old. It was a common news film camera. They also had mag film where the sound was recorded directly onto a mag stripe on the film itself. It wasn’t as good as the open reel recorder of course. I used one on my first short movie. It feels very cheap and lightweight but it was a staple.

It's worth pointing out that the thermals might be the dominant factor here, considering that laptops will throttle down on their performance in order to manage overheating, so a few extra fans in the laptop can make more difference than which model of CPU / GPU you buy!

PicoMic is still smaller and lighter, and the newer Pro version can use a lav mic. The receiver is bigger, but it's also the storage/charging dock for the transmitters, which is handy when you're going from mic'd to not mic'd, changing speakers often, etc. They just need internal recording and they'd be perfect IMO.

Maybe the forum has been taken over by AI and it's become sentient and agreed with your comments so much it wanted everyone to read them several times!!

The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest... Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine. I tried to be as fair as possible when I wrote it, but thought the product had some usability/compatibility issues that needing fixing. The version of the review printed in the magazine had some of my criticism watered-down, I assume partly because advertising revenue related to the product was important to the finances of the magazine. I only did a couple of reviews for the magazine in the end, mostly because the amount they paid for them wasn't much in relation the work involved in testing a product properly (and I wasn't interested in doing quicker, more superficial reviews).

Sorry. UK idiom. 'Old' in that context doesn't mean old. My bad.

Bigger, heavier duty fixtures are probably outside the budget you're willing to spend, but I'll just offer the devil's advocate view to the other posters here, that you can never, ever have too bright of a light. I generally use a Nanlux evoke 1200 as my keylight, usually shooting through a 4x4 frame of magic cloth, and I am frequently at 100% power and needing more output, sometimes ganging it with an additional 1200B, 600D, Prolycht 675, whatever I have available. Granted, I am usually trying to hold some exposure through windows and the like, and I prefer to light with big, soft, beautiful keys, but still. You'll never regret having more power at your disposal. That will just allow you to bounce more, diffuse more, shoot through more material... always an advantage! Also worth mentioning, but bigger fixtures are more portable than you might think; until I recently upgraded to a full-size production van, for the past several years I've been able to easily carry a 1200d, Prolycht 675, 4' pavo tubes, in addition to a Nanlite forza 500, aputure 300d, spotlight attachment, 4 or 5 turtle-base c-stands, 4x4 frames and diffusion, various softboxes, not to mention all the accompanying bits and bobs of grip, power, dolly and of course, cameras, lenses, etc.... all within the confines of my beloved '09 Honda Civic. Now that I am finally in a bigger vehicle, I've got the Nanlux 2400b on my soon-to-purchase list as well. And I'm sure I'll very frequently still want more power.

Well I'm no pro, but I do want to get pro results. The tiles were, happily, a fairly neutral dark grey, but the room itself was tiny. You literally could not swing a cat in there. I lit it quite easily - 1 x 5800K Lupo into a bounce on the wall opposite the talent, a 3200K Lupo offside and behind, a 3200K tube on the floor at his feet and then the M20 at 6300K behind him lighting the sloping roof at around 40% to give a bit of separation. It certainly looked nice enough in the monitor! Today's shots (which only took just over an hour - the advantage of the tiny location was that you can only do so many CUs and mids of a guy sitting on a stool playing a guitar and staring at a laptop!)n will be used as B-roll to run as interview cutaways and also to create a monitor LUT for all the other studio work we'll be doing over the next couple of months.

Have you checked out the Shotdeck channel? There aren' a huge number of videos there yet, but those that are seem very good. Basically hour-long Lawrence Sher interviews with directors/DPs etc about their movies, using the images from the site as jumping off points.

Of course this is true; but the main business in photography, as far as the consumer market (and businesses that target it) is concerned, is selling gear and not the art or teaching techniques for making that art. The attitude in online forum discussions is that everything should be easy and automatic, and people are willing to pay significant money towards that end, but many people are not willing to accept that there is a skill component to photography. If skill is required to get results, the camera is considered flawed. People spend more time online complaining about (perceived) camera flaws and performance comparisons than learning the skills that they would need to do meaningful work. And the youtubers who talk about gear target this population who has been mislead to believe that if they shop for the next great thing, then they will become great artists. They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

I like Luc, but it does seem that since he started really pushing his paid courses the channel seems to have shifted emphasis from practical stuff to more talking head stuff.

I'm doing a b-roll shoot over lunch today for one of the documentaries I'm making this year (first shoot on this one, so looking forward to it!). I haven't been able to scout the room, which is a recording/rehearsal studio, but I do know that it's very small and that the walls are lined with those acoustic tile thingies. So I'm taking: 1 x tiny Ulanzi 40W bi-colour 2 x RGB wands 2 x Lupo 20W bi-colour Smartpanels 1 x Zhiyun M20 bi-colour 1 x FalconEyes RGB panel Also a bunch of pipe clamps, spring clamps, 1/4 20 magnet plates etc, plus 2 5-in-1 reflectors, one of them folded out to black. All battery powered. I probably won't use all of these, but I wanted to give myself some adaptability given that I'm going in near-blind. The look I'll be gunning for is classic split tone so I'll be setting up a daylight wash with the 40W light and using some of the other lights for warm accents. Camera set to 4300K. All of this fits in a single standard aluminium photographer's case from which I've stripped the foam, which is good because the camera weighs about 40 tonnes!

Saying "even the a6700 can look good" is sort-of like saying "even the cheapest Ferrari can go fast".. the a6700 is a very modern camera and high-spec camera. I can understand why you would say something like this though - you've been watching too much "camera YT" and have fallen prey to the two biggest hidden problems: Older cameras are invisible on YT, despite being the majority of what is used People that talk about cameras, or even mention them in the video or description so they're searchable, are using the most recent cameras, or relatively recent cameras. The reason for this is simple - if you shot a video with the Sony a4000 then you're obviously not into the "tech" so it's not something you're thinking about , and putting that in the description isn't going to benefit you because no-one is searching for a4000 anymore. However, the people making videos about anything else other than cameras might be using the a4000, the a3000 or their phone from 5 years ago. I recently discovered a woodworking / renovation channel I like shoots with a C100, which records 24Mbps 1080p but his YT uploads are in 4K and the image is basically flawless. It's over a decade old and you can get entire setups with lenses batteries etc for $500 or so if you snag a deal. The camera body is the most discussed film-making item, but is the least important Go watch almost any video that talks about camera equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera body is less important than the lenses or tripods etc. Watch and video about film-making equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera rig is less important than lighting or cinematography etc. Watch and video about technical film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that equipment is less important than location choice, production design, hair & makeup, etc.. Watch and video about creative film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the technical stuff is important to get right, but is far less important than writing, casting, acting and directing, etc. So... the camera body is the least important item in the least important sub-category of the least important sub-category of film-making.

Yeah, I assume that too. I've always been conscious of this too. The only potentially impartial reviews are when the person buys it anonymously like any member of the public would, gets it the same time it ships to everyone else, then they put it through their paces. The other issue with "reviews" that aren't long-term reviews is that the person hasn't had the product for long enough to really test it. People like Gerald might know what shortcomings to look for and actively go looking for them, but no-one can test reliability in less than a week. I find the same issues with product reviews on Amazon etc - they are essentially first-impression reviews.

I've seen quite a few 1200 and 2400 fixtures in use on various DP YT channels, but really only when the spaces that need to be lit are on the bigger side. And they're pretty big old units, needing heavier duty stands etc and in a lot of cases no longer having Bowens mounts. You're really getting into van territory so I'd expect these bigger LEDs to be much more of a hire item than something you'd carry around in your daily kit as an owner-op.

It's possible to synthesize all sorts of microphone types/polar patterns, including things like perfectly co-incident stereo pair mics (which are impossible to physically build), from a B-format Ambisonics stream/recording - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Virtual_microphones - and also produce a binaural stream - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics#Decoding I think that post-processing flexibility is the real strength of using a Soundfield microphone for ambient sound recording.

I'm still lost down this rabbit hole, but these are an interesting reference. This is what happens if you put the GX85 through a "look". I put the GX85 test image through a bunch of output LUTs to see which (if any) I liked the flavour of. In order to compare them equally, I adjusted after the LUT to match the black and white points, exposure, and contrast. This way we're not just comparing the different contrast curves, but the other aspects of the LUTs like colour rendering etc. The node structure was this: slightly lower gain to bring GX85 image into range (it records super-whites) CST from 709/2.4 to Davinci Intermediate (my preferred working colour space) (my grade would go here, but for this test no adjustments were made) CST to whatever colour space the LUT expects The LUT (these all convert to 709/2.4) A curve to adjust the overall levels from the LUT to roughly approximate the GX85 image The round-trip from 709/2.4 to DWG to 709/2.4 is almost transparent, if you compensate for the gamut and saturation compression in the conversion at the end, so I didn't bother to grab it. Results: The famous ARRI K1S1 LUT (the ARRI factory LUT): One of the 5000 BMD LUTs that come with Resolve, which I tried just for fun: The Kodak 2383 PFE (Print Film Emulation) LUT. The D55 one seemed the closest match to the WB of the image for some reason, but everyone always uses the D65 ones, so I've included both here for comparison. The D65 one: The Kodak 2393 PFE. It doesn't come with Resolve but it's free online from a bunch of places. I like it because it doesn't tint the shadows as blue, so the image isn't as muddy / drab. The FujiFilm 3513 PFE: I find the ARRI LUT a bit weak - it helps but not as much as I'd like. The comparison above is flattering to the LUT because it has a bit more contrast compared to the SOOC so looks a bit better. The skintones are a little more flattering on it though, which might be enough if you want a more neutral look. All the PFE looks are very strong, and aren't really meant to be used on their own. The film manufacturers designed the colour science to look good when used with a negative film like Kodak 250D or 500T stocks, so it's "wrong" to use it unless you're grading a film scan, I think people use it like this anyway 🙂 Some time ago I purchased a power-grade that emulated both the 250D and 2393 PFE from Juan Melara, which looks like this: To me it looks much more normal than just the 2393 PFE on its own, but it's definitely a stronger look. The powergrade is split into nodes that emulate the 250D separately to the 2393, and the 2393 nodes are almost indistinguishable from the LUT, so I'd imagine this is probably a good emulation. Anyway, lots of flexibility in these 8-bit files!

I did a first impressions thing here when I got my H3-VR. It has examples of the auto down mixed binaural output for general city ambience and you can download the original ambisonic files to see the extent of the steering that you can do with them in post if you every wanted to. I think it obviously punches above its weight and even in binaural mode it does add more pickup width outside of the visible frame as well as a certain degree of rear and height cues so for 180 video I think it might do the trick for what you are after without having to do anything in post. The step up would be the Rode Soundfield mic paired with something like the Zoom F6 or even the new H6 Essential but, obviously, you will then need a more elaborate rig versus the diminutive H3VR and, of course, with no down mix you'd have to do that in post.

I think I found the lens! It's the Angenieux Zoom 15x10B 10-150mm f/2-2.8 lens. This lens has "TYPE 15 x 10B" written on it and a red pinstripe around it.

Ha! Look at Tiffen putting all their info on there for a lens shade!! Talk about padding your part. How funny! Could the lens be a 15-150mm T3.1?

I had X2, 1 inch 360 and still have One R 360. I did play a bit more with the X4 The good: - 8k is a very visible bump in quality compared to X3 and 1 inch. Still once reframed is not yet at single lens action cam level but is getting closer. Of course, it really depends on how much you zoom in while reframing. It is more detailed and less compression artifacts. Also, in 360 vr the quality bump is very evident. - operations and UI are snappier than previous models (other than stopping the recording that takes a lot, not sure why) - 5.7k at 60 it allows some slow-motion with X3 quality, in previous models the slowmo was just unusable. - one button operation is customizable so you can set the video mode, frame rate, etc... - battery seems to last a lot, even in 8k 30 - App and Studio are great and work as expected. Connecting the camera to the phone is super easy and always works. Why can't Canon copy them? The ok: - lens guards work ok, great way of mounting them, but is not a free lunch, they need to be super clean, and they still create wired flares. I will probably use mine only on really risky situation. But it is good that they are included. - audio seems a tad better - I don't see a big difference in lowlight compared to the 360 1 inch. They are both quite bad but the X4 is not worst imo that is surprising. - single lens mode allows you 4k 60fps but to be honest the quality gain compared to 8k reframed is not big enough, useful if you need 60fps or you don't want to post process. For example, for chest mount I prefer the reframed angle than single lens. - seems to tend to overexpose but you can set the EV so not a big issue. The bad: - no 10bit log - as for all previous models these type of camera scream for sunny bright days. I mostly using them while moving ski, mtb, horses, cars.... and as soon the light is not great stabilization and video quality suffers a lot. So it is a brilliant camera for sunny days only. - is heavier and bigger than the X3 or the One R + 360 module. - the form factor is perfect for selfie stick but not great for helmet mount. - has only a tripod hole, no gopro mount, it should have both. For action, mounting through the tripod hole will make the camera break in case of any impact where normally the gopro mount would give a bit saving the camera. You can use an adapter, but it makes it even taller. - apparently, every time you turn on the camera you need to re-pair the bluetooth mic. Btw why why and why DJI is disabling internal Mic 2 transmitter recording while connected via bluetooth?!? It would be such a clean solution record scratch over bluetooth (no receiver needed) and have the 32bit float on the transmitter. - external audio through receiver + cold shoe mount + usb adapter is a frankenmoster that is really not usable in action environment. All the YT reviver showing this setup as amazing it makes me cry.... Overall is the best 360 camera on the market by far, coming close to single lens action cam quality, below 2k usd. Finally, after years of stagnation, a tangible bump in quality. With the revival of AR/VR they should do a 180 3D model out this.

It's definitely an Angenieux lens. Here are more shots and there's a Tiffen lens shade with writing on it. Only Angenieux has zooms machined like that. I found some better shots: I'm fairly sure it's a "version" of the Angenieux 12-120mm, but I cannot guarantee it.

I think that if you can possibly manage it, it's best to provide the simplification yourself rather than through external means. This gives you flexibility in the odd example you need it, and doesn't lock you in over time. The basic principle I recommend is to separate R&D activities from production. Specifically, would recommend doing a test on the various ways you can do something, or tackle some problem, and the options for your workflow, evaluate the experience and results, then pick one and then treat it like that's your limitation. I'm about to do one of those cycles again, where I've had a bunch of new information and now need to consolidate it into a workflow that I can just use and get on with it. Similarly, I also recommend doing that with the shooting modes, as has happened here: I find that simple answers come when you understand a topic fully. If your answers to simple questions aren't simple answers then you don't understand things well enough. I call it "the simplicity on the other side of complexity" because you have to work through the complexity to get to the simplicity. In terms of my shooting modes I shoot 8-bit 4K IPB 709 because that's the best mode the GX85 has, and camera size is more important to me than the codec or colour space. If I could choose any mode I wanted I'd be shooting 10-bit (or 12-bit!) 3K ALL-I HLG 200Mbps h264, this is because: 10-bit or 12-bit gives lots of room in post for stretching things around etc and it just "feels nice" 3K because I only edit on a 1080p timeline but having 3K would downscale some of the compression artefacts in post rather than have all the downscaling happening in-camera (and if I zoom in post it gives a bit more extension - mind you you can zoom to about 150% invisibly if you add appropriate levels of sharpening) ALL-I because I want the editing experience to be like butter HLG because I want a LOG profile that is (mostly) supported be colour management so I can easily change exposure and WB in post photometrically without strange tints appearing, and not just a straight LOG profile because I want the shadows and saturation to be stronger in the SOOC files so there is a stronger signal to compression noise ratio 200Mbps h264 because ALL-I files need about double the bitrate compared to IPB, and also I'd prefer h264 because it's easier on the hardware at the moment but h265 would be fine too (remembering that 3K has about half the total pixels at 4K) The philosophy here is basically that capturing the best content comes first, and the best editing experience comes next, then followed by the easiest colour grading experience, then the best image quality after that. This is because the quality of the final edit is impacted by these factors in that order of importance.

Actually, what am I blathering about?! The only time I need the EIS is for tracking the couple, outdoors, once, maybe twice. Doh. Absolute none issue. I'll simply put it on a function button! I'd normally be tracking at '42mm' and it will be '58mm'. I'll just increase the distance between myself and the subject by a couple of feet et voila. Move on, nothing to see here 🤪

My impression was that people like the Alexa image for everything. The DR only matters if you're filming something that is high DR, and even then if you're watching it on a 709 display then the Alexa images have the same DR as every other camera. I also find that Alexas look green in camera tests, but probably the main reason for loving the Alexa look is that when used on big productions or by people that know how to use it, the images look great. However, the Alexa is just a very high quality RAW camera - the files that come out of it are as neutral as you can imagine. It's the paradox of modern camera discussions. The best looking images come from the most expensive cameras because the people who know that production design and colour grading is what makes great looking images are going to all that trouble anyway and so may as well rent an Alexa (or RED). Would the production have looked as good if they shot it on a P4K or S1H? I'd say maybe 95% as good - maybe 100%. But, because the people using the P4K or S1H aren't using them in situations where they've put as much effort into production design or colour grading, those images don't look as good. Not really my tastes. Riza does a lot of work to light herself really well, but the diffusion and colour grading aren't to my tastes. The image is too diffused and too cream and pastel green/brown for me. Most of that is in her production design, considering that the blue and yellow in this shot looks relatively normal: It's the "aesthetic" look that is trendy right now on YT, but Riza takes it to a whole new level. In a way it's similar to this palette: But compare the two shots above and notice that the bottom one is a lot crisper - Riza uses a huge amount of diffusion so everything looks hazy. Maybe it's just my associations.. when I grew up the interiors that were the right age to be old and shitty were the Mission Brown ones, and compared to the colour schemes of the time it just looked drab and dull, which combined with the fact it was old and falling apart, really didn't enamour it to me! I suspect that for the cultural references of the people making this content right now, this probably balances out the previous aesthetic choices in a way that makes them feel better about themselves and about life etc. In times of change people get pretty stressed and going for a soft brown and green palette it's probably unconsciously evoking nature and naturalness in some way - which makes sense if you think about the existential threats of climate change and AI that we are currently facing. People of this age are having climate anxiety in a big way, so it's a real thing in their world.

A 'walking about in a forest' comparison from Robert May of the S5iix stabilisation modes at 14mm (very wide angle) using the 14-28mm f4-5.6 lens(which doesn't have OIS): Pretty impressive stabilisation performance with minimal warping artefacts.

Self-indulgence? 😉 Entertainment is probably an overly-broad category, but that's splitting hairs.

If you just want footage with no commentary, markr041 who is a user here has a YouTube channel and he tends to try a pretty decent number of the cameras that come out. They're usually decently shot and I don't think I've ever even seen one where he talked about the camera (or even showed his face). 😃

I really don't envy you pros who have to go into who-knows-what situations and have to deliver professional results! Do you at least know what colour the acoustic tiles are? Heaven forbid that you go in there and they're all purple or green or something horrific..

Your Luc Forsyth video is a perfect complement to this!

Agreed, great share. Now this video is just a single training session and not a narrative but only shot on the a6700 and 18-105 f4. Looks aesthetically pretty good.

I saw that one in my feed but haven't watched it yet. I highly recommend watching the YT film-makers that actually do real work. They have a balanced perspective and speak from experience. Like Luc Forsyth, who has shot major network TV shows: Finding good people on YT is quite challenging now, because they tend to just use their own names and the good people aren't talking about brands etc all the time so finding them can be a challenge.

There's a lot more to the question than just which lights to use. If you're indoors and feel like you're fighting the sun and if the windows will be mostly out of focus in the background, you can just put ND gel over them - it's fairly cheap and fast. If they'll be in focus, IMO ND gels look a little bit like shit so that might not be your best option. If you're outdoors and fighting the sun, especially for close-ups, a collapsible reflector or two (or three if you have one which can give some negative fill) is often a lot better than trying to compete with the sun with your light. You can get a pretty big reflector for about $30 from almost any photo store in the world. Otherwise, short of going with really big lights, if you're trying to blast a light through a window and have it compete with the sun, it's going to have to be a pretty big light. In those cases, I'd probably try to find a way to shoot the scene differently. 😄 These days my main kit consists of 1xAputure 600X, 1xAputure P300C, 1xAmaran 300C, 2xAmaran 150C - as well as the B7C lunchbox, MC4 mini-lunchbox, and a few scattered MX's. It's more than enough for almost anything that I shoot. I'll probably continue adding some stuff here and there when Aputure have huge sales (their Black Friday sale is legit - I got a huge discount on the 600X plus a couple of bonus things). If I need to go bigger than that, I'm more likely to rent it or to just hire a gaffer to roll up with a box truck full of stuff. For shooting on the go, I just also put together a kit with 3xStellaPro's with their Bowen mount - they're tiny and run off of USB-C so I can plug 'em into a V mount plate or even a battery bank. Only disadvantage? Above 30% or so, the fan runs constantly. I'm excited to actually do a shoot with 'em. I also picked up a Molus X100 for the cases where I want somebody to hand hold a light. It's alright, but the reflector in the Bowens mount seems to do some funky things with my softboxes.

My big light is the Smallrig 450D. I love it. It's well-built and super bright when I need it. That said, most of the time the brightest lights I need are 300w.

Saw this film last night and I was wondering if anyone knew the make of the camera and lens used. They actually showed quite a lot about the workings of a film crew in the broadcast industry. I'm not quite sure it was realistic, but it seemed believable to me, except for the use of lights in some of the shots.

Sigma have announced that they are releasing a range of RF mount lenses, indicating that Canon have softened their “no 3rd party lenses” stance. I say softened rather than abandoned as, whilst these lenses are fully licensed by them, they do not include any full frame lenses. At least for now. The initial offerings are the two f2.8 zooms and four f1.4 primes from Sigma’s Contemporary range that have been available in other mounts for a few years now. The 18-50mm is the first one that will be available but it is not until July and the others will follow in the Autumn. No word on prices but they are usually similar in different mounts so you can take that as a rough guide, although maybe there will be an additional cost on top for the official licensing from Canon. Good news for owners of crop RF cameras to have different options and also for people using the KOMODO (or maybe we should call it the NIKOMODO now). Full details here https://www.sigma-global.com/en/contents/sigma_rfmount_lenses/

I did a similar 1080p to 4k comparison with 10-bit 50p HEVC files from my OM-1 very recently (as a check after I'd updated the FW to the latest 1.6 version). 1080p is nominally 40Mbps and 4k is 150Mbps. With the 1080p upscaled to 4k (using the FFMPEG zscale 'spline36' filter), at normal viewing distance on a 55" native 4k OLED TV I could tell them apart (as I know what to look for) but it's not easy. A normal viewer wouldn't notice. I've done the same comparisons in the past with files from my G9 with the same result. As a consequence of this, most often I record in 1080p 10-bit and save 75% of the storage space, unless there is a reason to want maximum resolution/quality e.g. it's an 'unrepeatable' major trip or event, to allow for re-framing or extraction of 4k stills. For the last one (which is handy for wildlife), I often record at 4k 24/25/30p 10-bit as that is sharper on the OM-1 than 4k 50/60p, but use 1/100 shutter speed to reduce motion blur while being reasonably usable as video footage as well.

The internet says CP-16 - maybe Auricon.

Well if that is the case, it’s maybe a little too extreme even for me…but maybe not… My 28-70 will become a 58- (classic focal length!) 145mm (a focal length that has probably never existed, but who cares). Outdoors, no problem. Indoors, hmm… The 18-50 crop lens is going to become more like a 37-104mm which might be better. Or there’s always 6k 30p open gate with just the EIS crop but max 80% slow mo which might work… I’ll have to play…

AFAIK, the GPU in the 'Ice Lake' CPUs has hardware decoding for up to 10-bit 4:2:0 HEVC i.e. 'Main 10' profile, assuming you have a Retina MacBook Air - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air_(Intel-based)#Retina_(2018–2020) Any higher HEVC profile e.g. 10-bit 4:2:2 has to use software decoding on those machines. Not surprised. I often upload stuff to YouTube as 4k 50p using HEVC at 15-30 Mbps (using 'constant quality factor' encoding). I used to use higher bitrates, but decided it wasn't worth the extra storage space/upload time. HEVC is generally a very efficient (quality versus bitrate) compression codec.

I have mine set up really simply using C1, C2, C3...but then I am a simple guy 😜 C1 = 4k 50p, Log, WB 5500, auto ISO (+ 2-5 or 6-9 VND inc. 1/8th mist) IBIS + EIS (my 'outdoor daytime setting) C2 = 4k 50p, Log, WB 4500, auto ISO (+ 2-5 VND inc. 1/8th mist) IBIS + EIS (my 'indoor daytime setting) C3 = 4k 50p, Flat, WB 3500, auto ISO (+ 1/8th mist) IBIS + EIS (my 'near to or after dark setting) For the couple of occasions I briefly stick my S5ii on a tripod which is a couple of times at every job, I do not bother switching off the stabilisation as I'd probably only forget to turn it on again. The above just works for my run & gun workflow with this unit (Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 glued to it and in S35 mode, equiv to 42-105mm which is a perfect focal length to me) as I do not move in an out of these scenarios, but typically transition from one to another. The only thing I am not sure of is if enabling the EIS adds a further crop to the 4k 50p 1.5x? If it does, I might switch to the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 for my 'C3' setting as the '42mm'+ of the bigger (but still compact) zoom might be a but tight for some of my needs. Unless anyone knows, I guess I will have to download the firmware and find out for myself...

In case you haven't seen it, Riza did a video on how she shoots. TLDR; she has the most basic standard equipment, but creates the look in production design and in post.

This is a fundamental split in the camera communities - those who like the look of cinema and those that like the look of video. Yes, the video that @mercer posted was low-contrast / desaturated / greenish. That's the look. It's also the look of a great many feature films and high budget TV shows. Notice the similar colour palette? This one even includes it 🙂 Some consider it THE look of cinema. You might be thinking that you're interested in a neutral look because you aren't making action / thriller / horror movies, and that's fair, so where is the look with the natural skin tones? To that, I ask, which look with natural skin tones are you talking about? But, you meant a neutral look! Sorry. You must mean an image that has only been technically converted to a correct image... like these. But these don't look the same either ...and yet they are shot with neutral lighting by professionals and even have test charts in them to ensure that the image is correctly exposed and balanced etc - these are literally test images! If these images don't look the same then how the hell can any image be correct? This is what I'm saying. There is no neutral image. The lighting angle changes the look. The lighting ratio impacts the look. Time of day impacts the look. High key vs low key. Just kidding! Lenses impact the look. Filters etc etc. This is why I emphasise working in post. Take the above image for example. A little work in post, and voila - now you have a "more accurate" match! Or what if you over exposed your camera drastically? No problem if you know what to do in post.. (Source: https://cinematography.net/alexa-over/alexa-skin-over.html) This is why trying to get the look you want by only looking at the camera and ignoring the other aspects, when they can completely override the differences between cameras is misguided. Hell, with a simple transform you can turn one capable camera into another anyway: (credit: Miguel Santana ILM) I truly do understand the temptation of the camera body. It has the most buttons, it's the thing that everything connects to, it's the complicated thing that everyone talks about, it costs lots of money etc. They're also super cool, absolutely. But they're not the defining object when creating the look, even if you literally buy one with a lens attached and only shoot in a 709 profile, then you're still shooting things that look different based on the lighting and composition and how you expose etc etc. But what if you just want to shoot what is there and have it look nice. Absolutely. This is literally what I do. I shoot travel with my GX85 and mostly a single lens, and it only shoots in rec709 profiles. However, because of all the above factors, the footage will vary from shot to shot. So in order to make it more uniform in the edit I learned to colour grade. Let alone the absolutely horrific lighting that is around... Take this image I've shared previously: Look at the sleeve of the jumper - it is a single colour - the lights are just very low-cost LEDs and although they looked white in person they are very different hues to the cameras eye. Notice how that yellow is bleeding into his hand near his wrist and also into the lower part of the ladies face? If you want good skin-tones - oh boy you better hope that you get good lighting! Otherwise, colour grading is there to fix what your camera did, rather than ruin it. Getting a neutral 709 video-style look with lighting like this would require a huge amount of work in post. That's why these "which camera to buy to get good skin tones" always have a silent assumption before the question that say "assuming the world doesn't exist or if it did exist then assume it's perfect", which obviously isn't a very useful assumption.

Your questions have already been answered here. You're simply just trolling at this point, and not very well at that. Not sure what exactly is is you ARE looking for..

Below is an approximate comparison of transfer curve for various Log and Sony's three versions of HLG. From the Bolex PDF above: The three versions of HLG that Sony cameras support (from https://xtremestuff.net/sony-and-hybrid-log-gamma-hlg/ ) - HLG3 (upper curve) is the closest to the Rec. 2100 standard : A chart of various Log formats from https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64243940 (note the 3 EV spread in the high EV limit between the various curves). The highest DR curves look to be C-Log2, S-Log3 and V-Log - but of course they do that by being flatter in the important mid-range area i.e. fewer levels per EV, increasing the chance of banding if pushed too far in post. Note this chart is -10 to +10 EV vs. IRE 0 to 110%, the other two are -8 to +8 EV vs. 10-bit digital code values.