QuickHitRecord

Thanks. That worked. Funny how not all BRAW files are measured equal.

This is a great resource. Thanks for sharing. However, my version of Resolve 18.5 Studio cannot see the BRAW files. I click on the folder in Media Storage, but it appears empty in the browser. Has anyone else been able to get it to work? Or are these files just too new for the latest version of Resolve?

Initially, I was disappointed that it wasn't a box cam. But watching some of the demo footage, this might be their first sensor ever that I really like the look of. I just bought an old Red Scarlet-X and that is going to keep me busy for (hopefully) a few more years. But I am looking forward to seeing more footage from this camera. The included OLPF is a big deal and can have a major effect on the look of footage in either a good or bad way. I'm thinking that it might be a good way here.

My guess is a new modular Pocket-style box camera with built-in NDs like the 6K Pro.

How about renting a Canon C70? If the sun is out, shooting in a forest can require a lot of dynamic range, and the C70 will deliver on that end. Also, it has long battery life and with a relatively small file sizes. Since you are working alone, the built-in NDs and dual pixel autofocus will make your life a lot easier and your "keeper" rate will be higher. Of course, the C200 covers these bases too, but is either a bit soft (H264) or will require denoising (raw) in post. I made a living with two C100s for five years, including several shoots in the forest. I loved that camera, but it didn't have the dynamic range necessary to capture pools of light as well as shadow detail in the woods. Of course, it's possible to work around it: Otherwise, you might look at the FX30 or S5ii/x -- but I haven't used either of these cameras.

I ended up ordering a Leofoto BV-30M, which has the distinction of being one of the few flat-base fluid heads with an continuously adjustable counterbalance. The caveat is that there aren't many reviews (I only found one) so I'm going to be a guinea pig on this one. It looks like they have a good return policy and a 10-year warranty, so I'll see if it works for me.

Do they even exist? I think it would be great to have one for the versatility. And to be clear, I'm not talking about the giant studio heads with weight capacities of 33lb+, or Mitchell heads. My camera payload is around 10lb and I don't see that number going up. Also, before anyone suggests them, I don't consider Manfrotto or Benro to be smooth enough. The only totally flat base head I've found from a top-tier company is the new Miller ArtX line. These are basically an à la carte version of the CX heads and by default they are flat base. I could configure the lowest entry of that line, the ArtX3 with a 17.6lb capacity, with a 501PL plate receiver and a pan bar. I think that this would work for my ~10lb payload. The only problem is that it's around $1500 to get a base model configured the way I'd want it, and they do sit a little high for my liking. There are some well-regarded bowl heads that can be flat-mounted using the flat space at the bottom of the bowl: Miller DS, Compass, CX, and Air heads Sachtler Ace L and XL Libec HS, TH, NX, RS, and any of the older heads that end with a 'D'. But with these, you're basically stacking two 75mm bowls on top of each other and again, it just seems unnecessarily tall. Then there are the emerging companies: Sirui Leofoto iFootage SmallRig E-Image I have never used any of these, so I'm wondering if anyone else here has and can comment. Are there any standouts? I'd ideally like a head that can give me smooth pans, tilts, and (importantly) diagonals with little to no backlash. Counterbalance is not important to me for this head which is just as well because most of these do not have one.

Much appreciated, Kye. I had fun with this. I do my share of corporate talking heads but THIS is what I like to do. I even added a line to my website about offering a special rate for conservation and climate-related projects.

One of my favorite projects from 2022 (I just wish they used a better thumbnail):

That's exactly what I needed to know. Thank you.

I have a question for @Matt Kieley (or any other owner) about the Angenieux 8-64mm mentioned earlier in this thread. Does the filter thread on this lens rotate when focusing? Also, I see the filter thread is 46.5mm, which is a very uncommon. Pro8mm sells an adapter to 58mm but it's $50. Have you had any luck with, say, a 46mm step up ring?

Sounds like a fun project. I'd buy a cheap red tablecloth, hang it from the wall, and steam out the creases.

Great idea. I'm psyched about this latest EOS-M build but I need a little push to get moving with this camera. I think the simpler the prompt, the better. I propose calling it something like the 'No More Camera Tests Magic Lantern Challenge', make the criteria that all entries be scripted, and leave the rest open to interpretation. And then we all share at the same time, perhaps at the end of May?

I haven't tested it extensively, but I do get a fullscreen view on my little monitor when in 2.8K (that and 2.5K are really the only modes that I care about) whereas before the image was tiny and jammed up into the corner, or low res and stuttery. I was able to record for 90 seconds before I stopped recording. The buffer indicator went into yellow a couple of times, but never red. And the footage looked really nice. I didn't see any pink frames or anything. Bilal is releasing new versions of this new build every other day or so, trying to meet the community's requests. It's progressing a lot faster now than when it was a couple of unpaid devs putting in a little time in here and there.

I own two C70s, a Red One MX, and even a 5D iii that also runs ML with more stability and at higher resolutions. I keep asking myself why I even care about this cheap little camera that I have never shot an actual project with, and why I haven't sold it yet. On the surface, it's because I think that once the ML firmware gets straightened out, the EOS-M has the potential to be one of the few raw-capturing cameras that can work with 16mm lenses. But it's dawned on me that it's not so much the camera as it is the community collaboration around this camera. The "movement" (mostly happening in the FB group) is reminiscent of the early days of DSLR and mirrorless video, when people were all trying to squeeze every inch of quality out of these cameras that were never intended for cinematography. Nowadays, every camera has great IQ and a pleothera of custom-fitted accessories and perfected workflows. But 10-15 years ago, there were no dedicated cages or practical battery solutions and the cameras were full of quirks. You had to lean on the community for workarounds if you wanted to have a chance of creating anything worthwhile with these difficult cameras. Despite all of the hurdles, some people were able to do it and it always felt like a team victory. I think what's going on with the EOS-M reflects the evolving hacks for the GH1 and GH2 in lot of ways. There is no dedicated cage for this camera either. Plug it into a battery and you have to find a place to hide the unruly adapter cable. Moire and aliasing abound in the lower resolutions. Rolling shutter is horrendous in the higher ones. The ergonomics make the GH cameras look like a dream. And it just doesn't make sense to throw a lot of money at a defunct $150 camera, which really ups the ante for DIY solutions. People share their rigging experiments freely (with lots of 3D printed parts), as well as their footage since the software is constantly being tweaked and improved. That group is experimenting, tinkering, and collaborating like it's 2011. It's the fun side of camera geekery all over again.