jbCinC_12

Hello,
Yes, I would like to see your ungraded tiffs.  They're all excellent

Hi Guys,
Here are some screens from a short I recently wrote/directed. Originally planned to use the Varicam LT but availability was scarce at the time of our shooting days. All in all using the C200 was pretty cool to use. Our colorist said that there was some slight noise issues in the shadows but the color cleaned up well. I can post ungraded raw tiffs in here if anyone wants to see any.
peace

Nah, I tried external video recorders for awhile, but hated carrying around the extra hardware. That was one of the reasons I purchased the C200... internal raw. 
And yes, I know that some are recording external to 2k raw, and I understand it looks pretty good, it’s just not a path I’ve embraced.
Re-reading my last post, perhaps it was ambiguous... I meant audio records.
The P4k is potentially an interesting camera, but I would not consider it a substitute for a dedicated cinema camera like the Canon C-series. But that’s not to say it does not have it’s use. 
Really, until we see footage it hard to gauge how serious to take it. There’s even a review on BH claiming it’s output falls short of the GH5S. Though I’m not sure how much weight we can give that review. I remain to be convinced on the P4K, only real footage will suffice to cement my opinion.

@DBounce do you have an external recorder that accepts SDI input? It is my understanding that the C200 downscales and exports a 10bit DCI 2K feed of the Raw video through SDI, I’d be curious to know how well that works. I believe it will also internally record Raw at the same time. It could be a great way to get some beautiful ProRes footage with less data rates.  

I simply do not understand the nostalgia here. I shot my senior thesis project on an FS100 and while I got some decent images out of it thanks to the skill of my DP, it always looked very videoish to me. The highlights burned horribly, the colors were oversaturated, and even if you shot it flat, you could never quite bring it back to the way you want it in post. Also, the form factor and ergonomics were some of the worst I have ever seen, the placement of the LCD screen on top was ludicrous, and the lack of NDs (thankfully rectified in the FS700) made screw-ons or matteboxes a necessity, which is difficult on a zero-budget. It was Sony's first go at making a prosumer large-sensor camera (after the F3 which came out at the same time), and their lack of common sense and feel for camera design just wasn't there, despite their long history in making video equipment.
My C100 mk. I(same era, same price-range) eats it for lunch in every possible way. Image quality, roll-off, NDs, hand-holdable ergonomics, etc.

My condolences

I've been trying to shy away from controversial opinions, and this isn't going to help. Apologies in advance–everyone's opinion is there own.
But what do people make of this test:
(Forgive me if it's already been posted.)
Am I the only one who prefers the C100's colors? (And thinks the +5 sharpening on the C200 looks terrible (like video)?)
C200 still looks great. Fwiw, I also prefer the C500's skin rendering to the Alexa's (see Shane Hurlbut's tests to get an idea what I mean). And the C200 looks like it's trying to be an Alexa-style camera in terms of look (just like the FS7), so no surprise. The C300 had darker skin tones, it exposed that color less brightly and more warm yellow less magenta.
Just wondering if I'm crazy. What do others think? I might have a bias. But the C100 color looks so much better to me at 3:30 and the sharpness is not night and day.
Deciding between these two for a shoot... well, maybe or maybe not. Just thinking about it now. I'm normally a 4k naysayer (I like soft, for me JFK and War of the Worlds–very soft looking images are my favorite, but I know that's passé, but I did think Black Panther was sharp enough despite the 2k DCP) but now I'm thinking why don't I try something new.

Where is the footage? 

I had a deep loss today... a dear uncle of mine 89-years old and a half (eight months and twenty one days of his last year of life to be more precise), one of the best friends a fortunate man -- his nephew had, passed away this July 27th.
I got the idea I didn't spend enough time with him in these last years of his light in my personal experience, inner circle and course of life.
Don't lose any chance with your closest ones... (just a thought, just my sad two cents)
- E.

I am sort of embarrassed to be seen with my Sony A7s on my Tripod and Manfrotto 502 fluid head combo. It looks like a peanut on it. Kind of overkill.
I guess I will have to take @mercer advice and buy a C100 to sit on it!

Yeah... I just spent an hour watching short films on Vimeo shot with the C100 Mark I and II... I actually preferred the image from the Mark I... and there was absolutely nothing about the image I didn’t like or caused concern with either camera... and I specifically watched narratives only.
For the price of these cameras, and the set of features, I’d have no problem choosing it for a Micro/No budget feature film.
Like most cameras discussed on this forum, there’s absolutely no reason one can’t create great images with a C100. As always, content is king and the C100 is just a tool that has proven to work. 

I am not saying it does not have a great look OOC, It does. It is just too damn big. And you will put a mike on it, a recorder on it, a cheese plate on it, a bigger monitor on it, on and on and it will be big as Hell. Been there done that with my AF100A.  All that stuff you actually need at times. You just stand out too damn much with a camera like that. It is a pain in the ass to set up, you need bigger everything, on and on again.
Now if you want to impress people sure, but in the town I live in that is not a very good option anymore. This is a small College town, and most people in it are highly educated, and can afford a Lawyer LoL.

Gulp!    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1317914-REG/sandisk_sdcfsp_256g_a46d_extremepro_cfast_256gb_525r.html?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgZf_rtSw3AIV3rjACh1wyAH3EAQYAiABEgJbivD_BwE&smp=y

Who am I to tell anybody how to spend their money, but seriously... the P4K is like the last camera you should buy. To shoot in 4K, you are going to need expensive CFast2 cards. You are going to need about a dozen batteries or an external power supply to last you the day. You'll need a cage. You may need an external monitor. If you're getting a speedbooster, you may need rails and a follow focus. You'll need an IR filter and a good Variable ND or ND filters. If you go native, you'll need a couple fast M43 primes. You're looking at a price point that is closer to 2500 bucks when all is said and done... maybe more. At that price point, you may as well go with the GH5s, you can find them now for around $2000. For the type of casual shooting you do, go for the bells and whistles... even if it costs you about the same... you'll be plenty happier at the end of the day.
That is exactly what happened to me... I just never got much better. LOL. But at my level, I can't afford, nor really want someone else to shoot my stuff. There is something organic about being behind the lens... even as a director, that you just don't get sitting on the sidelines while someone else shoots your material. If an actor misses their mark, or ignores it, I can adjust how I would want it adjusted. The devil is in the details with me. 

Yeah but if you buy one with the DPAF in it, which I think is a no brainer, it is still not cheap. To me if you want a good look go back and re buy the BMPCC. Heck I have seen them for 450 bucks as of late. Now that is a image. And No I said I would not take a GH5, a GH5s yes. But I can't afford a GH5s and a Speedbooster that you sort of need to make it great. I will be doing good to buy the PK4. I have given thought to selling all my Sony stuff, lenses and all.  But I do like the FF look it gives. For what I do I think the P4K might work out well.
The C100 would just draw to damn much attention in this day and age for me. The Panny AF100 I had taught me that. I look like a dirty old man, well I guess I am, so I am tired of people thinking I am shooting their kids, etc.. It is damn hard to shoot video in this day and age as a old man by themselves in a public place. Damn near impossible now for me. I now have a Pony Tail damn near to my ass. So I look like either a Biker, or a Pedophile LoL Take your pick.  Hell both at the same time, how about that! ☹️

Ah I will probably just stay with my Sony stuff, or heck might try the Canon 5D mk III my son has. I don't want to start over to be honest. And your point is well taken about all the cost in reality the PK4 would really cost. I guess I am just bummed out about the harassment crap from parents. It is just not fun anymore. So why even bother.
 

I don't blame you at all!!  We are not sick of hearing from you. Me, and I bet a lot of people are sick of hearing from 2 people that we all know have shitted up this thread! All these Kinefinity fanatic's on here must have a case of the dumb shits. I am sick and tired of hearing it also. It Holds a F ing Sony E Mount lens, can you use the god damn thing, F No.
It is just like the useless BMCC with the E mount. What they hell you do with a lens you can't control shit with it. You sell it on ebay that is what you do. Fly by wire lenses are as useless as Tits on a Boar Hog on a dumb adapter. Get over it. Now if you own a E mount Cine set of 50 grand lenses well hell you are set.
Unless you live in China the Kinefinity is also as useless as those Tits on that Boar Hog. If you can't buy one or get it repaired close to where you live you are as crazy as your posts have been on here. And you are not even going to buy one anyhow. There are 12 dealers, other than in China, in the whole F ing world. Yeah I want one of those.
I am sure with a few bugs worked out of it it will be a damn good contender. But it is not the second coming of Christ, and it can have 70 mounts, but if you can only pretty much hang a Native lens on it, and look at it, well so what.
Take your Kinefinity bullshit on a Kinefinity thread. That way I don't have to read a God Damn thing about it as I will never open that thread! Quit doing it in a 4K BMPCC thread! Go the F away! Your just running off one of the smartest people on here that actually does this stuff for a living, You are just like Jon was doing.
You cheap ass bastards are never going to buy one anyways. What makes a shit what it does.

It's expensive to make a PL mount with electronic connections with precision. The fact that even the after market units are still hundreds of dollars says this.
Making even a universal mount camera means adapters that would cost a similar amount. I bet your FZ mount adaptors have no electronics ?
The RED one costs a similar amount too
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc-canon-lens-mount
 
I've never said that it's wrong to adapt lenses. It's not always what I'd do, but it's great to be able to do it.
I think you're not understanding what my issues is here.
It's not wrong of you to use a Nikon D series DSLR at all, but would you feel the same if the only NATIVE mount lenses the Nikon D850 could accept were DX (not FX) lenses? Everything else had to be adapted.
Would you feel the same if your Pentax 645D could only accept NATIVE K mount lenses ?
Would you feel the same if the only NATIVE mount lenses the 5D MK3 could accept were EF-S lenses ?  
That's what you're asking for when you ask for a much larger than MFT sensor in a MFT native mount body.
If you think any of the above scenarios are perfectly acceptable for a camera manufacturer to build then I'll let this one go. At the moment JVC seem to be the only one to have done this ever.
 
You can do that already with MFT. It's the reason I love MFT.  I'm not against that at all.
JB
 

Thanks for the notes.
A great deal of The Resident is shot handheld with an Ursa Mini Pro and APO Hyperprimes from SLR Magic. We rig it in what I call “football” mode.  Body, wooden camera cheese plates, Dbox, MDR, battery, lens and side handle.  
I try to keep it as small as possible. Attcahed are a couple of shots I was operating on a pilot in Chicago a few months ago.
A lot is also shot with a minimally rigged micro camera, WC cage, self pulling with a 10mm SLR Magic lens and a 5” VA for monitoriing on an arm.  Idea being to keep it all very small.  There’s a picture here showing the way I work that rig here mid-take.  It allows me to get the camera inside the surgical feild and very intimate.
We work really hard on making the medical stuff as real as possible. It’s a real prop in that case.  Most of the extras in surgery scenes are realy life OR nurses and surgeons.  We have surgeons as consultants and we make a lot of prosthetics to be story specific.  
We have to take some liberties though, usually for time.  I mean it’s a 47 min TV show
I recall with the scene you’re talking about that graft would normally take about an hour to install and sew.  Mina gets it done in a few seocnds ?. The whole procedure would take a few hours.  
So we try to get the spirit right and we try to be very explicit and accurate with the medical depictions. We still get. alot of medical people flaming the show for not being “right” but usually they’re more upset with the way we depict the shortcomings and failings of the US medical system ?
We shoot, edit and master in 1920.  Fox does the downconvert.  You can get 1920 versions from other stremaing services though.
JB

If you're using it like a traditional cinema camera then its appearance doesn't really matter (everything looks like a cyborg when it's rigged up lol), but if you're not using it that way then sometimes a cameras appearance can matter.
I shoot home videos in places people are ok with you shooting home videos but not 'pro' videos, and if the camera looks 'pro' then you run the risk of getting hassled.
Basically, other people make judgements about what your intentions are and where the footage might go from what type of shooter you are, which they judge from the equipment.  
If you're shooting in dangerous places then a pro looking camera might get you robbed, but a pocket one might not (people deliberately make their cameras look beat up or old when shooting in high-crime poverty-stricken areas for this purpose), if you're shooting an event and your equipment looks pro maybe people will be uncooperative with being filmed in the hope you will pay them, which they wouldn't do if it was an iPhone or P&S, if you're shooting your kid in the park and the camera looks pro the security guards and council workers who aren't cops but wish they were and act like it can assume you're shooting a commercial project with actors instead of shooting your family and hassle you for permits and make you leave.  Even if you're shooting a low-budget piece in public the larger your rig the more people in the background are going to stare at the camera as they walk past, but wouldn't as much if you looked like a parent or a tourist.
When I visited the Vatican they had high security and wouldn't let any tripods in, and didn't seem to care about my pocket-sized mirrorless camera, but if I had a VENICE or maybe even C200 I bet they would have hassled me for filming permits, and saying "I'm just a hobbyist" wouldn't get around that kind of situation.  Of course, a Venice or C200 would be overkill for a hobbyist, but people see a 5D as a "pro camera" because for photography it is, so there's a risk of someone seeing your tiny little video camera and thinking it's a pro looking stills camera.
If you're shooting for a professional purpose then having a professional looking camera isn't a problem, it's when it doesn't match your purpose that problems can come in.  
Lots of people shot hand-held travel films with the Pocket 1, so there is a segment of people that like IQ but want to use it incognito on unofficial shoots.

I am run and gun; sticking with the MFT Sigma 16mm F1.4 and 30mm F1.4.  I don't need better focusing. Will probably just keep the Sigma 60mm f2.8 with me too for occasional use, or it's forthcoming successor. I think there is some in-camera correction though with these lenses, so maybe the 16mm will just have to be tested before settling on it for sure.

"sub optima" IS the reason I will use them. ? I don't want sharp as hell lenses like I said. And clumsy AF, hell the 4K BMPCC doesn't even Have AF in a sense. I am glad they don't resolve 4K LoL. I really doubt I will ever output in 4K. Maybe down sample at times to 1080p but I doubt even that often.
You are stating the complete Opposite of what I want in a lens. If I wanted sharp I would buy a Sony A7r mk III. I think the magic of a BMPCC is that they are not razor sharp. Not like ML 5D mk III. I don't want to really have to knock down sharpness on every shot I take. But sure nice if you want that option thought Like I guess you want. Now if you want a smooth look, which I like, I think those lenses can do that, buttery smooth, I doubt we can get that other than using real film with Cooke lenses, we will never be able to afford. Cut your face, well no either. But I don't like cut your face stuff. Seems you do. I like to get a lot of the look I like in camera, not spending 6 hours on a NLE doing it. So I think cheap lenses on it will do fine for me. Plenty of old Nikon, Canon MF stuff around for peanuts for my needs. Plus I am a cheap slate, eh poor, and don't have all that money to spend on 1000 + dollars lenses, when I can buy what I want on Amazon for 60 bucks each and get my result. But that is the beauty of video, photography, we all get to make it look like we want it to look like if we have the skill.
But yeah if you are going to try to make a living with the BM sure you will Need the lenses you are talking about and more of them. I am just in this as a hobby. At 71 I am too old to worry about deadlines, spending money left and right I don't have, on and on.
 
You guys are funny as hell.  I doubt ANYBODY has even made anything worth a shit with a 14.-140mm or the kit lens. Oh the vanity to throw tons of peoples stuff under the bus  LoL. I did BIF stuff for years photography wise and video wise, and gee, they seemed to work fairly well doing it. Super duper ideal, no, but crap lenses nah.

Yeah it really is. And this was shot in ProRes... stunning. To be honest, I am a little bummed out by the Pocket II. It seems too mainstream to me. Like it’s neither here nor there. I much rather would have had them build on the original Pocket/Micro but with a 2.5K image. Until we see footage, it’s all conjecture, but I could see myself scooping up another Micro for cheap and be happy with FF Raw from my 5D3 and  S16 ProRes from a BMMCC.
With that being said, BM does have to be commended for the price point/features of the Pocket II.

That's my Niece for you. She laughed and got on with it!
You can install the picture profile with or without ML installed (ML was installed on mine).
Those grades were pretty testing too -- I personally didn't see any noticeable reduction to image quality. Test away, man
Nikon F Mount Carl Zeiss 25mm 
-- B
 

She popped right up like a trooper and didn’t miss a beat though... good on her!
So, I assume I have to load the picture profile before I change the firmware to ML, right? I used ML on the EOS-M years ago to test Raw, but wasn’t a fan of it on that camera. The bitrate hike may be perfect though. I think the EOS-M already had a slightly higher bitrate than the other Canon cameras of its time, anyway.
Yeah, I’m really just looking for a little more wiggle room. The grades on your website show you can do a lot with it... more than enough. Cinestyle is a bit much, but I always liked Marvels. Definitely looking forward to testing them yours and Marvels... if my stupid job would slow down for a few minutes.
Was that the C-Mount Tevidon 25mm or the M42 25mm? Either way, wicked look.