cantsin

Anything with the M31 LUT slapped on it disqualifies for any serious or accurate comparison, IMHO . All the more, when the filmmaker neither properly focuses, nor uses IR cut filters on the BM Pocket.

What you describe, only works under Mac OS X (and is unnecessarily complex for that operating system). Under Windows, there is no encoding support for ProRes in Premiere. ProRes also does not turn up in the Preview File Format options for Quicktime that you mention in your Step 5:

I think you guys are mixing up Megabits and Megabytes. Codecs are normally specified in Megabits - so the 400Mbit/s of the GH5 codec are actually only 50 MB/s. SDcard speeds are specified in Megabytes per second. So a 300MB/s card (=2400 Mbit/s) is complete overkill for the GH5. A run-of-the-mill 95MB/s Sandisk Extreme Pro will be more than sufficient for the camera. (Even the Sandisk Extreme with a read speed of 80MB/s and nominal write speed of 60MB/s should theoretically work, but should be tested first.)

Use an X-Rite color chart and color-match both camera's footage in Resolve using the chart-based automatic color matching function. Optionally export both corrections as LUTs to use in other programs. Easy as pie, works like a charm.

The Veydra are optically better and, above all, more consistent in look and handling, but generally have smaller maximum apertures. (SLR Magic lenses are rehoused industrial lenses.)

I was doubting the issue for a long time, too, but got convinced by net neutrality when I saw this - a telco ad from Portugal, a country where net neutrality no longer exists: ...which, in a country like the U.S., would translate to this: Here's the background info: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-plan

The problem is not just linearity, but the fact that focus-by-wire lenses do not have any hard stops at minimum and maximum focus distance. That makes them unusable for follow focus operation (since the physical position of the focus ring is no indication of the current focus point - with the camera resetting the focus point whenever it is being switched off and on again) and any other kind of planned/structured focus pulling.

The Panasonic 20mm/1.7's focal length too narrow on the BM Pocket to be usable as an allrounder lens for handheld shooting. A focal length of 12-17mm (equivalent to 35-50mm full frame on the Pocket) is advisable. I'd recommend the Samyang 12mm/f2 as such an allrounder lens. It's small, light, affordable, has manual focus & manual diaphragm and good optical quality.

Where traditionalists complain, innovators seize the opportunity: https://verticalfilmfestival.com.au http://sonicacts.com/portal/vertical-cinema-1/overview

I only paid $50 for the lens, but it's everything but handy - ca. 3kg heavy and with a filter diameter of 105mm (so I couldn't use my IR cut filter and wouldn't be able to use my NDs), needing a slim c-mount adapter ring + lens support. - No, she's not recording off the amp but playing the field recording from her mobile on the amp.

Now onto a lo-fi lens - this video was shot with a Tarcus/Navitar 16-160mm/f1.6 c-mount zoom on a Blackmagic Pocket - almost completely at wide open aperture because of the low light: The lens is a heavy beast that needs a lens support. Since it was made for 1" sensors, it fully covers the sensor of the Pocket.

That's my perspective as someone who uses an A7s as his main photography camera. Others have mentioned those issues here before, but to just quickly summarize them: focus point selection, logic of the menu system, inability to map important camera functions (such as silent shutter vs. mechanical shutter) to function buttons, robustness/proofing of the camera housing, battery life, out-of-the-camera colors and JPEG quality. Given the fact that high-end mirrorless cameras such as the G9, Olympus OM-D and Fuji XT-2 barely have size advantages over APS-C DSLRs, the whole idea of mirrorless cameras as modern-day rangefinders seems to have taken a backseat. Especially for professional full-frame mirrorless cameras, people will not really care whether their cameras could be more compact. CanNikon could just stick to their current lens system and do something creative with the space left by the abandoned mirror box - for example, build ND filters into the camera body. Alternatively, they could introduce new mirrorless mounts that are electronically compatible to their existing DSLR mounts (just as MFT is electronically compatible to Four Thirds and e-mount is electronically compatible to A-mount) and offer 'official' adapters, just like Sony, Panasonic and Olympus do.

Back to the topic: For mirrorless photography, we're currently dealing with the issues that... the most fully developed system (MFT) is partly limited by its sensor size (for high-end studio photography, high-resolution landscape photography and low-light photography, for example); the most fully developed APS C-System (Fuji X) is limited where APS-C is used professionally, i.e. high-speed sports photography (D500 and 7D territory); this also applies to the other existing APS-C mirrorless systems (Sony and Canon) which, on top of that, suffer from a lack of native lenses; the only existing full frame system (Sony) has major ergonomic issues and flaws in practical use; the most high-end system (Fuji GFX) is too expensive, even for professional photographers. This leaves a big window of opportunity for CaNikon to 'nail it' with new mirrorless full frame systems that carry over all the benefits of their DSLRs (ergonomics, robustness, good JPEG color), even if they're late in the game.

Again, this cannot work as well as people think. When you shoot video, then normally at 1/50 shutter speed (unless it's a GoPro or cell phone camera in auto mode shooting in bright daylight - but then you end up with stroboscopic motion rendering). If you shoot handheld, camera shake will not only cause a jumpy image framing, but high degrees of motion blur - typically, completely blurred-out frames with jerky movement, or strongly blurred frames with typical unstabilized movement. No software stabilization, no SteadXP, can remove these damages to the image. You need proper hardware stabilization - through a steadycam, gimbal or good in-camera optical stabilization - to avoid this.

Since we're discussing Voigtlanders, here's a video shot with the 25mm/0.95 and the 2.5K Blackmagic Cinema Camera (some wideangle shots taken with the Samyang 12mm/2.0): https://vimeo.com/213446141

It can never work as well as a steadycam or gimbal because no software stabilization can eliminate the motion blur created by camera shake.

Commissioned music video for the Dutch-British band IG Witzelsucht: Shot no-budget in 6 hours with a 1 1/2 man crew on a BMCC 2.5K (with Sigma 18-35mm, Samyang 85mm, Samyang 8mm fisheye) + EOS-M with MagicLantern raw (with Schneider 6-66mm) for some zoom and macro shots, edited and graded in Resolve (with two shots stabilized/animated in After Effects).

Back to box office "bomb" calculations: Blade Runner 2049 has been running in theaters for 3 weeks with a U.S. domestic box office of $77 million. The original Blade Runner movie had a domestic gross of $19 million three weeks after its release in 1982. Using an inflation calculator, this is equivalent to $48.6 million in 2017. ...and these figures do not even include the much-increased international box office. (In 1982, Hollywood films were much less globally marketed than today.) This is a textbook example of how movie earning expectations have gone nuts. A film like the 1982 Blade Runner could never be made in today's Hollywood. The industry is completely addicted to megaselling pop corn movies. No wonder that you can barely make a major movie any longer if your characters don't wear capes.

This video clearly shows the difference:

The industry is turning HDR (an actually needed, good, desirable technology for better pixels instead of just more pixels) into a sad joke, first with companies like Benq selling 8bit, 500nits "HDR" monitors, now with Sony selling a pseudo-HDR 8bit camera. What a cl*sterf*ck.

Yes, it's underperforming in the U.S. but doing much better internationally: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/box-office-blade-runner-2049-never-say-die-1202590468/

Back on topic of this thread: In the meantime, Blade Runner has grossed $194 million worldwide and is yet to have its debut in Japan and China. The production budget was $155 million according to Forbes, so the film did not bomb at box office. In fact, since this is a typical long-tail film (to run on tv, be bought by collectors on DVD/BluRay, watched via streaming services etc.), it probably will be quite profitable.

1:41 min = 101 seconds, 10MB = 80 Mbit. That means that your bit rate it actually 0.8 Mbit/s, not 0.5. This is reasonable enough for encoding SD or 720p quality video (equivalent to encoding a 100 minutes feature film into a 600 MB file). Actual visual quality will much depend on the content. For animations, close-ups etc., this should be good enough.

Yes, in my case - the original 2.5K Blackmagic Cinema Camera and the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I do not need more image quality than what they offer.

You might be confused by the expression "Leica glass". In the world of cinematographers, "glass" is metaphorical-colloquial jargon for lenses.