Leaderboard

I had a play with the Nikon Zr today and quite liked it, it's a capable, good value for money Sigma-Fp style camera with very good autofocus and finally a screen with which you can see what is in focus and what isn't. Well done Japan for going large after 25 years of 3.0 inches. It's the sort of camera that would be very exciting back in the day of the DSLR video revolution to say the least... Nowadays though, I find other stuff more exciting. Also the screen tilting mechanism sucks... I'd far rather they'd drop the YouTube vlog-style swivel screens on a camera like this and have a standard tilt screen that is ON AXIS with the fucking lens, and with it being so large it really feels unbalanced stuck out at the side and blocking the ports. In a way the Zr feels like a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K but done well. But it doesn't feel very high-end, even if the image is. Also I miss the EVF and think the Z6 Mark III is even more bang for buck. So yeah, doesn't set my hair on fire but it's going to be a very decent buy for a lot of people.

In terms of colour in LOG and rec.2020 the only difference between cameras these days is how easy (or otherwise) they are to grade, for example C-LOG on the old Canon 1D C was so easy, it only needed the addition of contrast and barely any colour grading at all to look cinematic. Now there are massive differences between LUTs compared to between LOG curves and colour. So when you see all these reviews, tests and comparisons you are just seeing a LUT! It's almost comical really, nobody gets under the skin of what the camera is doing - they're just putting their grading skills and LUTs on show. And the codecs are all so good... no more 8bit banding. I compared the Sony a1 SLOG3 H265 8K to Nikon Z9 NRAW 8K and there was nothing in it really, not even in terms of noise and shadow detail. You could do just as big a grade or white balance shift on the H265 footage as you could with NRAW. Now the way I like to think of RAW as useful is as follows: - As a way to bypass poor camera image processing... Hardly needed now... In the old days, light and day difference between something like 5D Mark II compressed H.264 and uncompressed Magic Lantern Raw (in Cinema DNG), even at 1080p it was a different league of image quality. - As a way to increase image quality with drawback of huge file sizes. Now we get if we're lucky a 1-2% increase in image quality for a 1000% increase in file size (over H.265 10bit) - As a way to turn off in-camera sharpening and white balance (do it in post). However image processing has got so flexible you can turn sharpening off in LOG... look how smooth and natural Canon LOG looks on the old 1D C or EOS R6 III 10bit H.265 for example - A file format to show to clients that says you're serious 🙂 And we all know why the majority of videographers are fawning over raw delivery whereas ARRI ALEXA DPs casually go round doing it all in ProRes That is another comparison the YouTube bros refuse to do well... the ALEXA ProRes vs ARRI RAW and Canon LOG vs RAW I haven't seen a single good comparison!

I have the 35/50/75 Saturn in E mount and haven't experienced any focusing issues on the A1, and of course that's with no Desqueeze support. It does have a bit better EVF than the Panasonic cameras, but I haven't found the EVF to be a night and day difference. I own the 35 & 50 Saturn in L mount and have had great results on the S1RII. The 35 isn't quite as well corrected as the longer lenses, so it has a bit of character, especially against the light. Still, none of the Sirui lenses can rival the results I get with my favorite anamorphic adapters, but there is something to be said for simplicity and reliability. Also - I'm not sure if the S5II was included, but the recent update for the S1II/S1RII now provides 1.6x desqueeze. Still attached from the 35 Saturn on S1RII.

I think people see politics these days as a form of show-biz entertainment soap opera drama, what a surprise they are going to get when the frogmen smash their door in next.

Nikon ZR vs Arri Alexa Mini Color (R3D NE, N-Log, Log C) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgJGK3YpIx0

Here is some completely unbiased coverage of Scotland’s previous meetings with Brazil.

Vimeo is in the process of deleting ALL my videos, due to their new policy of deleting their entire library of content for ALL non-current users without an active Pro paid subscription. Also, about 90% of my Vimeo was nurfed by the copyright music shambles, where Vimeo did the 3-strikes thing and they delete your entire account. So to avoid that, back in the day, I just decided to make these videos private, and unlisted. I have not got round to putting it all on YouTube yet, but perhaps I should?

I have a colleague from Kansas that use to do second unit for Malik back in the 70’s and this anecdote is right on target. My buddy’s job was to wander around the set’s region and find shots of bugs.

Especially with so much competition, and smaller cameras.

Well in the newer cameras (S1II and S1RII) it opens up certain data heavy codecs that are not available in SD but I think with the S1R, it was more a case of having a more robust (and cheaper!) card option? I had mine set up writing to both for peace of mind insurance but beyond that, no other needs.

"You reach a level where that 5% more cannot justify the 10, 20x the price." true

A couple of years ago, I was saying on Forums that Arri would fail, and people were calling me stupid. Ohhh its image is so special, etc etc how peasants could understand this. But the problem is you can't sell a lot of 70-100 000 usd cameras, the market is what it is, even more so when you have very capable cameras coming for much less. You reach a level where that 5% more cannot justify the 10, 20x the price. Before you had the highend market where camera cost/rent is peanuts compared to the overall cost, but that secondary market, the people that used to rent those highend cameras, can now buy a camera that will do 90% of what they need, and will rent only 10% of what they used to do. Arri and most US/german companies are going to be eaten by the Chinese ones. They still live in the rental business, for camera and other gears light lighting etc. The principal of the Chinese is that they will produce affordable equipment for the many, that will help them also produce for few highend that they will sell. You will find Aperture/Godox/Nanlight models that will cost less than a hundred dollars, to 4k led light costing more than 10 000 USD. They will sell a thousands of the 300 USD 300 watt cob monolight, for perhaps every 10 000 USD 5000 watt one. But those thousands of 300 USD lights will help them for R&D for those big lights. same for camera, imagine if Arri had repackage the original Arri LF in a more affordable casing, taking out some features of frame rate and sell it for 10K. They would be selling thousands of them, perhaps at the detriment of their higher ends, but those thousands of 10k models would overall bring so much money.

To expand on it, let's take 24 frames or one second at film rate. With film you have 24 full images, motion blur is kept in each image, not smeared netween them. With ML 5D raw, Alexa Pro Res, Red Raw, Blackmagic cameras etc, you have 24 distinct images, individually compressed either losslessly or mildly lossily. Motion blur is kept within each image. With AVCHD and other Long GOP CODECs, the I-frame image is divided into pools of pixels for analysis across time. only some frames are whole, the I frames, the rest refer the different pixel pools to the I frame and usually to a frame in the middle of the group too. In order to remove data the codec only moves what it has to. Your one second may have only two complete images, the rest are created as best can be from the other frames, with huge changes causing pixellation and blocking due to so little data headroom. On top of this, the red-channel resolution is quartered, and the blue channel halved in 4:2:0, so the spatial resolution for movement is cut down, as well as the temporal resolution. In short, the plastic movement you get from many implementations of such long GOP CODECs reflects the methods use in compression. Motion blur is also smudged and blurred by chroma sub-sampling (4:2:0:) and by interframe compression.

My opinion on the buyout of Hollywood by an oligarchy mafia. https://www.eoshd.com/opinion/warner-bros-risk-talent-exodus-over-trump-ellison-deal-who-will-follow-christopher-nolan-and-jump-ship-next/

Same here. I had to leave my PRO account after 15 years. I didn't renew after what they did to the European accounts, who pay the subscription like all users worldwide. I hope they fail miserably. I moved everything on Youtube. Such a shame.

Yes my whole comment was on a "joke tone" and ironic as a mean to try to be "light" given the harsh and unbelievable reality we are all witnessing right now. I could've add "marple sirup" and "advanced Artic position related to Denmark" in the "unless they contain" list, that would have been more obvious I was being light. Sorry, not always easy to convey humor with text on sad topics (and not in your mother's tongue🫠). I need to rely more on spot-on British humor Gif like @BTM_Pix does😅

The Alexa has a really fast sensor readout, 2ms... motion cadence on that is of course fine as it is on all of ARRI's cameras, so that probably excludes fast readout as being the issue. Maybe some cameras implement the shutter timings differently to others? Say if you are in 1/50 or 1/40 or 180deg shutter the sensor might still remain in 60fps and it will just expose for longer and then the image processor converts it from 60p to 24p and then the codec maybe fudges things further with trickery like inter-frame compression and inter-frame noise reduction, whereas on a simpler camera like the Digital Bolex there is none of that shit and basically a global shutter sensor and entire image pipeline optimised for 24fps at 180 degree shutter. Maybe some of our modern mirrorless camera sensors have a true 24fps mode and others only have 60fps mode, process the 24p from that. Maybe some codecs are truly awful at motion... On the 50D it didn't have a video mode at release if I remember correctly? Magic Lantern enabled it via the raw video hack, but there's no H.264 mode is there? I could understand why some of the older H.264 low bitrate codecs hurt motion a lot, Cinema DNG and Magic Lantern were like going from digital video to film. The leap was that big. I should do some tests in Cinema DNG on my Sigma Fp-L as it is a direct sensor feed, uncompressed RAW and no pixel binning in the 1.3x crop mode. I bet that looks pretty good at 180 degree shutter in 24p.

Ah, my favorite topic (and it comes up every couple of years). Hopefully we can have this discussion without the usual accusations. I've done a lot of personal experimentation in this area because most cameras looked off to me. Where I've landed is that I don't think that global shutter or CCD sensors is a surefire recipe for pleasing motion. I spent a lot of time and money figuring that one out. My list of favorite motion capture cameras is a motley crew and includes the Red One MX (but oddly, not the DSMC1 line), the EOS-M in 1:1 crop, and believe it or not, the hacked GH1.

Agreed completely on your assessment of the image characteristics. I truly appreciate the performance of classic anamorphic adapters and am happy that they are coming down in price. I just picked up a baby Kowa Anamorphic 8 2X for cheap and it's a jewel. A few examples of what I consider ideal performance below. First three are the ZIA 1.5x with an older Leica 50 Elmar collapsible, which is a tiny and wonderful combo that just covers full frame 3:2. Second is the baby hypergonar 1.75x with a Voigtlander 75 2.5, which also covers full frame but is a bit more muted (although this adapter can be fickle against the light sometimes).

I've been thinking about global shutter for a specific project, after being unsatisfied with test shoots using my S5. There are several to choose from now, but you're totally right that it's surprisingly difficult to find quality reviews or comparisons, particularly older models like the F55 in a modern context. If I move forward with it, I'll probably end up with a Komodo--but I've struggled to find direct comparisons between the Komodo, F55, Ursa Mini 4K, and A9III, not to mention comparisons with IMX410 cameras that I'm already familiar with.

I have one and it really is a good camera when it comes to the image quality. I love the image it makes. It's brought my own filmmaking to another level. It's not a run and gun camera though. More of like using a 16mm film camera. Nothing automatic. Manual everything. The dream of an all-in-one isn't quite true with it though. You need to rig it out with an EVF. (Although I don't have and have never used the shark fin shaped viewer with the mirror so maybe that's okay.) I used to see them come up on eBay a few times a year but now they rarely do. And people are asking US$11000 with accessories. (I also notice that nobody is bidding on them at that price and the listing ends without any bids, then gets relisted.) I occasionally see them listed for about US$5000 but they don't last long at that price. They're a good camera, worth $5000 but not worth $10000. I think that it's no longer such a unique camera image-wise and you can get a close enough image with a used Alexa or Blackmagic Production camera 4K and be making your movies. (Still if one came up and you could afford it, get it.) If you're handy you could make your own using the same sensor. Check out this project: https://github.com/lafauxbolex https://www.youtube.com/@LaFauxBolexDigitalCinemaCamera/videos

Are you talking about the US or Venezuela? 🙂

By the way the collapse in price of the vintage stuff is extraordinary, you can get an Iscorama close to 500 euros now, almost back to 2010 pre-DSLR video prices

Yeah, thanks this shot is exactly what I'm talking about - the muted way it handles the sun is not what a good cinema anamorphic should look like. They don't have the big stretched ovals in the horizontal flare, the fatter flare lines and blooming. All these kids putting down pretty significant $$$$ for all this sterile stuff from China No question is it more practical though.... But better image it ain't 🙂

The modern lenses are closer to the Panasonic LA7200 in terms of look, just a lot sharper edge to edge. Whereas the Iscorama even when there's no flare still looks more cinematic and it borrows from the look of the taking lens you pair it with as well so you can play with that. There are no decent adapters as good as the Iscorama 2x. Still for £150 I am not complaining 🙂

The later Sony CineAlta F55 (CMOS) also had a global shutter and can be had for dirt cheap these days, as low as $1k Perhaps that's the key. To expose the entire sensor at once.

Motion cadence for me, is matching the target frame rate with the sensor and shutter speed-sensor interplay. It is also about rolling shutter vs global shutter as that plays into the look of motion. The less distortion or jello the better. I wish people would SHOW things again. Where are all the tests on the a9 III with global shutter showing what it's like in video mode at 24p vs the a1 II? I miss the Vimeo days of being able to compare with meaningful shots rather than the standard YouTube guff of a candle for low light, ridiculous whip pans for rolling shutter that nobody ever does in proper cinema, a model staring blankly at the camera for skin tones and a crazy underexposed shot with the shadows lifted until everything looks flat and dirty with no tonality - yeah that's a dynamic range test, sure. The best motion cadence I've ever shot was on the Digital Bolex with the CCD sensor. I think some of the faster sensor readouts are losing something important. They all look like 60p in their 24p modes. For 60p and 120p motion cadence has less meaning. Since there's no motion blur subtleties that need taking care of.

A Parrot would now be a more appropriate bird, since they are resorting to piracy... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/12/10/venezuela-oil-tanker-seizure/?itid=hp-mv-top-stories_top-table-main_p001_f001

A bit of a stretch to go from developing an Alice in Wonderland app to accusing Tim Cook of being a pedo.

The new entry-rule is doubleplusgood. Giving five-year socmedia record to Borderforce is only goodthink. Right citizens with nothing to hide welcome full truthcheck, for it keeps out crimethink, facecrime, and all ungood elements. Freedom is Strength, and more watch means more freedom. The Party merely sees what all goodthinkers already show. Only unpersons fear oversight.

I sincerely hope they correct this very fast. From my use, I would not say it is as bad as people are saying, but until now the h265 from my Nikons has been very very good.

The woman with bubbles at 1:00 or so or the sun behind the mountain at 1:50 or so are more challenging scenes than the baby and the rolloff in both looks really rough to me. The image at 0:49 also looks pretty bad to me, as do the highlights in the water at 0:40ish. It's great for a camera from 20 or so years ago, but in modern terms, I'd expect better from any mid-tier hybrid. Like with most things, in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, it can look great - but so can a Nikon ZR or a Canon R6 III. 😃

The effective resolution of properly-exposed modern 35mm film is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5K if I remember right. But as above, a lot of people aren't so likely to care about that. Unless the varicam had some sort of miracle sensor, though, 35mm negative film will have much better dynamic range and much, much more pleasing highlight rolloff. It's still seen as king of rolloff - and on a film with a 20 million dollar budget, the cost of shooting on film vs Arri vs anything else is basically an afterthought.

I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn how many movie theaters are still projecting in 2K. Movie theater projectors are expensive as hell and overall profits for theaters are down compared with 10 years ago. Exhibitors aren't going to rush out to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on anything that doesn't have a direct positive impact on their profits. Being able to count the pores in the lead actor's skin doesn't put asses in seats or sell more candy.

No, but it turns out that a lot of our guard rails are imaginary.

"The old world is dying, the new world struggles to be born, now is the time for monsters" - Antonio Gramsci, Italy 1930s

I'm talking about LOG video, it really does depend on the user more than the camera how the colours come out, especially as the modern range of gear now have a similar high level of codecs. So the Z-LOG = S-LOG = F-LOG they're all very much the same sort of thing. Whenever you see this LOG footage on YouTube, it's been graded by the user, either with a LUT or with their own grading skills in Resolve. Yet all the comments are like this... WOW the camera has great colour science, blah blah blah. And i's the same with RAW... All the sensors are now at a high level, similar dynamic range and so on. If anything they are now too good and are moving AWAY from the look of film. As for colour science... If you shoot JPEG or rec.709 video, then what the camera is doing matters far more. But in LOG they are all using a very similar wide colour gamut, and similar LOG curve, similar white balance, it is only the 8bit side that still has a big variation between Film Simulations, Photo Styles and Creative Looks. So just bear in mind next time you see footage on YouTube that the LUT is doing 99.99% of the colour you're seeing not the camera.

Speaking of name dropping AND Lubezki… I was bartending my day job years ago while in film school and came to work to set up the hotel bar and looked up to see The whole crew from “Knight of Cups” standing there silence. I proceeded to hang out and cut fruit for 3 hours while they shot some scenes with Christian Bale and Natalie Portman around the pool and walking in and out of my bar. I was giving “Chivo” and his AC’s beers at the end of the bar and chatting with them in between takes. At the end he wanted to pay and I just laughed. I told him he was a huge inspiration for me and there’s no way they were paying LOL. Have me his business card and got to meet Terrance Malik later. i don’t think any of those scenes even made it into the film but it would have been even better if i got some background work out of it LOL. Loved the way he ran his set and how quiet and professional it was. Lubezki told me Mallick wants it all naturalistic and wanted the hotel and bar open the whole time. No closed set and no yelling from the first AD. Just quietly exploring shots and vibing off of the mood and the actors. I learned a lot through observation and it was inspiring. Epic day.

I was just about to mention how good Train Dreams looks and the magical pairing of the Alexa 35 sensor matched with the Kowa Prominar Sphericals. Stunning film and very Chivo-esque. As much as we say the camera doesn’t matter now I think there are arguments for both sides. I think it’s a lot like fine wine. A lot of people are fine with a $5 bottle and can’t really taste the difference between that and a $500 bottle. I can though.

S1R is a 6 year old camera so all of the codec options are pretty standard at this point. I think CF express type B will help with photos and faster buffer rate for continuous shooting. Other than that SD cards are fine for video specs.

Cheap zoom lenses (and especially kit-zooms) are often the BEST lenses. I wrote a whole thread on it here including examples and comparisons, but the summary is: They're cheaper than almost any alternative They're flexible and very fast to use, because zooming is always faster than changing primes They improve your edits because you can get greater coverage and variety of shots in the same amount of time / setups They are in the "sweet spot" between being too sharp and looking clinical and being too vintage, but their aberrations are often actually very aligned with the qualities of vintage lenses people want, just dialled down to a modest amount They have smaller apertures so are easier to focus / less prone to focus errors and don't need as much ND in brighter situations They often have native AF and are kept updated with firmware updates They often have OIS Those with variable apertures are much closer to being constant DOF, where the more you zoom in the smaller the aperture gets, counteracting the effects of the longer focal-length, which makes your footage more consistent They don't get a lot of love online, but that's because most of the discussion online is about the things that are THE MOST of something (the sharpest, the newest, the biggest, the most expensive, etc) and being cheap and good is only really attractive to people who actually shoot in the real world and where a happy middle ground is desirable. My most used lens is a variable aperture zoom lens, despite me owning many much "better" lenses.

Such a great camera. I'd argue it's the best value out there, as far as used cameras go. Still using two myself.

I've just watched Train Dreams and it's 1,46:1 🙂

The gear doesn't matter thing is so boring, it does matter and you can't shoot much without it. The GH1 opened a door, because the aesthetic on offer was very different to the small chip digital camcorders at the time or Mini DV. It opened the door to all those interchangeable lenses, and there's a big difference in look between these lenses let alone between a GH1 and a Mini DV cam. Actually you can tell the Magellan is going for a certain look too with the GH7 - it isn't Hollywood, it's documentary style and looks quite clinical in places with a deep DOF, which they didn't have to do but the Lumix lenses are like that and it works well. So choice of gear, informs the look of what you're making and does matter greatly. The difference in image quality between a GH6 and GH7 doesn't matter quite so much... But the format of camera, and era of camera does.

Yeah the whole nature of the business is changing rapidly. It's easy to keep pace when you're working in the YouTube world, but I can't imagine how tough it must be in the Hollywood circles.

They're already closing down their pro services, and no way they invest in a zero growth business when they kill their own zero growth businesses. Canon can't do it. That would be all against their ego. They and their customer base believe Canon color science is best in the world, and thats why they have 50% market share. They're like "we ain't need nobody". Sony will have a integration nightmare if they do it. Arri systems are in conflict with the whole Sony line up. Also it would be an official admission that the electronics/AV giant couldn't get the color science right and eventually had to go shopping. Nikon acquisition of RED unintentionally made this perception that its a preferred approach in Tokyo. But it isn't. Nikon had to choose between two costly options and the acquisition was cheaper. In China, its only DJI who can gain a lot with Arri reputation in its arsenal, but I don't think Germans are comfortable with giving away this German icon to Chinese. Zeiss would be the perfect owner. A German brand with enough money, so the brand stays in the country, and they're heavily invested in high end part of the cine market.

I have the S1RII and the S1II. I also still have the old S1 and S5. The S1II is the same than the S5II about video details, even if some youtubers said the details rendering has improved, it's not true at all. Same bad rendering as the S5II. I understand some people are not bothered or can't see the difference and it's nothing wrong about that, but the difference is clear by example if you zoom inside your videos on people faces. Like the S5II, there is a sort of rough detail sharpening and in the same time a lack of very fine details. As always V-log looks better than the 709 profiles but it's still not great in my opinion. The S1RII also has the same detail rendering and I was very disappointed by the 6,4K Open Gate, it was not better than the 6K of the S5II, maybe even worse, like if this mode used a tiny bit of binning like the 5,9K 16:9. The new 7,2K is ok and looks better than the 6,4K. The 8,1K Open Gate is even better but limited to 24fps. Even if the video engine is the same between the S1II, S5II and S1RII, the later has much more resolution in 8K, hence the fine details looks finer even with the bad processing. it's only when the footage is a bit underexposed or overexposed that the S1 6K looks better. I read somewhere something interesting about Real Time Lut, using a burned in lut with a good amount of contrast helps to recover fine details. When recording V-log without Real Time Lut and grading in post, some fine details can't be recovered. I can confirm it's true. So using Real Time Lut V-log on the S1RII in 8,1K Open Gate is the best for details rendering. I'm glad Panasonic has fixed the colored pixels issue in Prores Raw on the S1RII and now the footage looks great, same details rendering than on the S1 or S5. But it's really crazy we must use Prores Raw to get the same good details rendering than on the S1 or S5 H264/265. And the crop is a shame, 1,45x ! When cameras like the Z8 or Z6III offer 6K or 8K 60fps raw video without crop ... About the S1II, Prores Raw only has a minimal crop (about 1,05/1,1x I think) and it was the main reason I bought this camera. Like on the S1RII, Prores Raw is excellent and like it has much less crop, fine details looks even sharper (in a good way). Finally we have a Panasonic camera with not only excellent IBIS but also excellent detail rendering and good AF without using external recorder (even if Prores raw is a pain for the workflow). The only issue I found is the 240fps 1080p mode, it is clearly not finalised because some horizontal lines appear randomly. I also found the photo raw files of the S1II and S1RII to be slightly less contrasty than the S5 and S1, they have less that punchy looks and I still prefer the rendering of the S5 and S1 with my best lenses like the 50mm S or 24-70mm Pro. it can be because of ACR but the JPEGs out of the cameras also looks slightly less contrasty than on the S5 and S1. Other than that, IBIS is stellar but sometimes more digital than on the G9II or GH7, color science is good but not as good as the GH6 to my eyes. The S1II also has better AF than the S1RII and I can feel the difference. Compared to Nikon, Lumix has several advantages like the IBIS and Open Gate. L-mount also has great "practical" lenses but I think they lack really great lenses with very nice rendering and more pancakes. After using most of the L-mount lenses, only a few looks really fantastic, like the 50mm S Pro (if it has not the coating issue), 24-70mm S Pro, 28-45mm Sigma and the APO Summicron SL. While absolutely great, the APO SL are really too much expensive for most people and it will be hard to attract a lot of people in the system, it is why Lumix try to attract people with smaller lenses and never released again new S Pro lenses since 2019/2020. Nikon has better AF most of the time but also more great lenses. The 50mm f1.8 is much better than the Lumix, the Nikon 35mm/50mm/85mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8 are some of the best lenses you can buy. You can also adapt Sony FE lenses and there are more interesting "cheap" lenses available from third party manufacturers like Viltrox (mainly the 35mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8).

Motion cadence is a phrase I use to make clients think I'm a pro.

I agree with you that the term cadence is somewhat confusing: In fact, I would I'd dare say that most of the "cadence" problems do not exist. They are simply a question of footage not properly shot or encoded. Many, many videos on the web use fast shutter speeds in sunlight to compensate the lack of an ND filter, causing an akward cadence. Some others use a very slow shutter speed in low light to compensate the lack of proper lighting, causing an akward cadence. Some in camera codecs record "fake" progressive framerates that are actually interlaced or the footage is interlaced-deinterlaced in the NLE to fit a certain standard, causing an akward cadence. Some other times, 23.976 footage is edited and encoded as 24p, which is not exactly the same. And finally, some other times it's the players fault (though I don't own an Apple TV) or the encoded stream, or any of the absurd TV "image enhacements" of any recent TV set. Under normal circumstances, any professional camera recording true progressive footage at a proper 180º shutter angle should yield that cinematic motion. And I can include DSLRs and midrange cameras, too. You don't see those "cadence" problems when you go to the movies, even though you see movies recorded (not filmed) with a mix of Alexas, Reds, C300s, C500s and even 5Ds. Because the footage is properly shot, conformed and handled throughout the whole workflow.