3dit0r

Interesting rumour. However, given that this will likely be pretty much a video only device in real terms, and more expensive than the already quite dear GH5, I do wonder what Panasonic are going to pull out of the bag here. I think it would have to do RAW video of some kind to really tempt me personally to pay any more than GH5 for a m4/3 video-only cam, and also must have a serious answer to Canon DPAF. At present, the killer thing for me would be the C200, with RAW, DPAF and great colour science. If this is video only, and doesn’t have a couple of absolutely killer features, I’d rather have a nice camera for stills (maybe a 5dmkiv) and then use the lenses on a hired C200. All the sensitivity and resolution in the world mean squat if the subject isn’t in focus and the colour sucks.

Andrew, Thanks for the review. When you mention overheating after 30mins/45mins, are you talking about continuous shooting? If I were to use this camera it would be in a single camera drama setting where each take would usually only last a minute or so, on average, if that - would you experience the same overheating issues if the camera were only used for short takes like that with breaks in between? Also, does gradual overheating cause any sensor noise issues? Thanks.

[quote author=Axel link=topic=570.msg3947#msg3947 date=1334383472] [quote author=AndrewP link=topic=570.msg3945#msg3945 date=1334374811]The short films that I've seen done with the FS100 just don't seem convincing in a "cinematic" way... I don't necessarily mean "filmic" or any of the other annoyingly ambiguous terms that constantly get thrown around. It evokes a very grounded in reality, behind the scenes-esque , News Style, Travel Channel HD Expose, Top Chef / Cooking Show, Reality TV / Fear Factor vibe.[/quote] In german, with it's many anglicisms, you say "Filmlook". This refers only to the image itself, not to the motion-emotion-part of "filmic" and "cinematic". A kind of Filmlookology developed, and the rules and characteristics are concrete and available: 1. Filmlook can only be applied to video, not film. In the german pendant to the magazine [i]The Cinematographer[/i] (Der Kameramann, # 4/2012) there was an article about how modern digital cameras are used in a way to make their videos look like analogue film. In other words: Filmlook is desired where Videolook becomes apparent and annoying. Audiences hated the look of Michael Manns [i]Public Enemies[/i] (filmed in 30i). Since [i]Cloverfield[/i] was supposed to look like video, it was okay there. So it's not just limited to amateur movies. 2. Because video cameras traditionally had small sensors, you'd use shallow DoF. Needless to say. 3. Because video cameras traditionally had interlaced video, you'd use progressive video. Also obvious. The artifacts of "i", though perceptible, are a minor issue. What is more important is the [i]temporal resolution[/i]. 24 fps have become a viewing habit to us, they tell us subliminally that the time of the film is [i]narrated[/i] time and not real-time. 25i/30i, but also 48p/50p/60p signal real-time, which is good for docs, news, porn and our baby. Watch Laforets [i]Reverie[/i] again, with it's 30p (5D before the first FW-update): The 6 frames more are enough to make it look less, uhm, [i]cinematic[/i]. Time in a film is too important to allow it to look real. I think nobody disagrees. 4. Films we watch in a cinema use style to be instantly distinguishable from reality. To postpone our disbelief, to draw us into the movie, a lot of techniques are used to create a suggestible mood. Trance-invoking techniques. Ironically these have not to do with more details (not [i]at all[/i]) and high-fidelity-colors (not [i]at all[/i]). Nobody even cares for those attributes. The Videolook of the FS100 comes from people who approached it like a classic video camcorder, resulting in a clean and neutral look. "No style" is seen as realistic style, as the recording of real events, meaningless, uninteresting. A style that fits the emotion you want to express by the image is seen as fictional, meaningful, interesting. You get the feeling that this might lead to something. To let these FS100 users understand all ambiguous terms connected to what is exciting about DSLR filmmaking, they should read EOSHDs articles. Let Andrew ("R") test some adapted lenses on the FS100, and the magic will come. With the native Panasonic MFT-lenses the GH2 videos also don't look particularly sexy. EDIT: What you described for the FS100 is also true for every video with higher framerates. Okay, higher framerates are one factor that can cause Videolook, but just because it has always been like this, it doesn't have to be true for all times. One can easily imagine an action sequence that looks shockingly hyperrealistic with 48p or more. What we see instead are stills, nearly motionless. 4k has the same effect. It adds nothing to the image but cleanness, and so cleanness becomes the content of the demo. Incredibly boring. [/quote] This is the most sensible post on the subject that I've ever read, I completely agree. Andrew, thanks for this brief review, I've had my eye on this camera for a while as a possible step-up from my 5Dii, and had only been put off by some hysteria surrounding highlight rolloff (or lack of). I await your further tests with interest!

If the specs are indeed accurate, and this is still a super-35mm sensor of equal or better quality than the FS-100, I just got real happy I followed my gut and didn't go for a 5Dmkiii straight away. We'll see what the camera holds, but I could see me keeping my 5Dmkii for stills and getting one of these. 4K could be revolutionary at this price point for indie film-makers such as myself, shooting first features, trying for a theatrical release or even theatrical festival showings. IMO Canon dropped the ball big time with the 5Dmkiii and 1Dx video-wise- over the basic ISO improvements, most of the other incremental changes can be achieved, or bettered, on the 5Dmkii with ML and a cheap Mosaic Engineering AA filter. If the NEX-FS700 is great, it fully deserves to put the new Canons to bed in the video market. As others have posted, 4K is revolutionary at this price (built-in ND filters are really welcome) but I'd be more concerned with better dynamic range, some kind of S-Log, or similar PP, and highlights which don't blow out horribly like the FS-100, broadcast quality 10 bit 4:2:2 internally would be wonderful. What an amazing time to be a film-maker!