Emanuel

I'm not really one to say... I still shoot ML Raw on a Canon 5D3...
I will say that the FZ2500 is hefty. It's kinda like a brick, but it's a solid camera. The all-i 1080p out of it is really nice.
I stopped looking at the newer RX10s once they moved away from the constant aperture lens and the built in nd filters. I've only had version ii and I liked it a lot. They also seem to hold their value. The last one i bought used back in 2017, I paid the same amount that i see them listed for now.
Here are a couple frames from it...

Let’s see how long this post stays up.
I have started a countdown…

This is the fine example of a juicy thread ; ) Pity we cannot express all the feelings we have towards what we read. A special mention though to a couple among my favs now @QuickHitRecord@kye despite to never undersestimate the contribution of everyone of you... : ) I think it's one of the flaws here when people tend to neglect any of the voices heard. Every simgle one of you always have something to bring for our lives, so take care of each one of you. Your milestones, presence, daily life, even your beloved ones and part of your being, expressed in your stories posted in these lines, reach some other people here. Maybe not everyone but the ones to count.
I believe a bit more of love and compassion for the other one is never enough either.
To read this or that had this or that misfortune is something we should meditate about and feel sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings of others, as well share their achievements and joy with zero envy. As much as possible. Even though how human this flaw is, unfortunately.
- EAG

Wow, that's a misleading use of a test chart!

Is there that big of a market for people that are hired by Netflix to make content and want to shoot on $2k cameras as the a cam?  Their approved list is only for content they produce in-house.  If you want to sell a film to Netflix, you can shoot it on anything you want - and you can shoot some percentage of footage on non-approved cameras as well.

This is the fine example of a juicy thread ; ) Pity we cannot express all the feelings we have towards what we read. A special mention though to a couple among my favs now @QuickHitRecord@kye despite to never undersestimate the contribution of everyone of you... : ) I think it's one of the flaws here when people tend to neglect any of the voices heard. Every simgle one of you always have something to bring for our lives, so take care of each one of you. Your milestones, presence, daily life, even your beloved ones and part of your being, expressed in your stories posted in these lines, reach some other people here. Maybe not everyone but the ones to count.
I believe a bit more of love and compassion for the other one is never enough either.
To read this or that had this or that misfortune is something we should meditate about and feel sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings of others, as well share their achievements and joy with zero envy. As much as possible. Even though how human this flaw is, unfortunately.
- EAG

Remote focus control doesn’t mean it needs to be auto focus.
They are not the same thing.
It is precisely because BM cameras don’t have continuous autofocus (well mine do actually) that a remote follow focus is required.
Claiming that people don’t use current BM cameras on gimbals because they don’t have continuous autofocus is a complete nonsense.
The box nature of this new one makes it even more applicable as it is easier to balance.

Limitations can help to balance it more with raising the creative side of our own very often ; )
- EAG

Great thread and what a fun final edit!  Don't fall into the cacti!!
I think for me, one of the most enticing aspects of shooting with "bad" quality cameras is that the "get a technically great image" part of my brain shuts off and I can relax and feel free to be silly and engage with the situation etc.  The fact these low-quality cameras are often small also contributes to this freedom.  This has an enormous effect on the footage, obviously.
I take a slightly different strategy to you by shooting the highest resolution from whatever camera I'm using but then deliberately degrading it in post.  The connection between the methods is that I'm choosing the camera based on how it is to shoot with, and not immediately ruling it out because it doesn't hit some spec or other.
I've mentioned before in other threads that a new project I'm just starting is to shoot fun / whimsical / vintage style videos in order to learn that style and integrate it into my other personal work, but within that I'm also going to try and replicate an 8mm film image as a sort of minor goal.
Posted before, but I shot in SD for the last cheap camera challenge with the mighty Fujifilm J20, a point and shoot from 2009.  

Final video:
 
The fact these often shoot only in 30p gives the "opportunity" for a slight slow-motion effect, which is just enough to make the footage a bit more surreal, which I think lends itself to the already slightly-surreal aesthetic that comes from the footage being so low resolution.
I find these images to be emotional in some way that I can't explain.  The nay-sayers put forward the argument that it's just nostalgia for the past and that if the past was in 12K then we'd be nostalgic for that instead, but I don't think that's the full picture.  TBH, I don't think highly of the past and I'm not nostalgic for it - on the contrary actually - I tend to think of the past as sort of uncomfortable and dirty, like when you visit old people and they haven't cleaned their houses properly and everything is dusty and gross.  My life has also gotten a lot better over the decades and the thought of going back is not a desirable one either, so my associations for the past are not positive, which rules out nostalgia as the single explanation for these aesthetic associations.  I wonder if dreams might be a factor - they are often vague and surreal but are sometimes highly emotional and definitely the language of connection to our semi-conscious and unconscious minds.

In the race to 8K, 12K, and beyond, how much resolution do we really need to tell a story? I brought my trusty FZ47 on a little New Year's trip to Arizona, and I think that 640x480 might just be enough:
Technical: I scaled up to 1920x1440 (no "smart" or AI rescaling). I did not add any sharpening or softening to the image, and I resisted the urge to clean up the digital artifacts and just embraced them instead. I did however do a little color work.
I was actually shocked by how good this footage looks, probably because it's progressive and not interlaced. I think I'd put this footage up against the DVX100, XL1/2, or comparable camera. And as we've seen in the 8-bit grading tests that @kye shared with us, it's kind of shocking how much you can push the image around in post (especially if you are either okay with some macro-blocking, or willing to soften/hide it). I think that's part of what makes this camera so much fun.
Is there a unique aesthetic afforded by this low resolution? I'm not sure. I've degraded 1080P footage to have a similar level of detail in the past. The compression artifacts are definitely smaller and easier to hide. But in full motion, I feel like they add a nice texture.

Thanks all ...  I've ordered a T9 2Tb.
Rationale:
Tried and tested brand and series I was concerned that the odd shape of the T9 would be a problem (the T5 and T7 can fit into a slot for camera mounts) but I figured that it's so common that people will make some kind of mount for it T9 wasn't much more expensive than older generations but will be more future-proofed In case anyone is curious about the business case and stakeholder management aspects, I explained it to the wife using this argument:
I tried editing the honeymoon trip from the HDDs I have, but they can't keep up I have an SSD, but it's not big enough to hold the whole trip The SSD I have is still a great performer, even though I bought it many many years ago, so they last Apple charges $600 per TB for their internal SSDs, external ones are a fraction of that and transfer from one computer to the next I just got paid, so......

LOL LMAO What else? : D
NOBODY here realizes what you meant with such cheap crappy marketing in anything other than as trying to make us uneducated for this purpose. To say the least. Really. Need to not underestimate your audience over these pages, I'd tend to be glad to say not only this community but special this one ; )
The point is simple: sounds pathetic, mark it wherever you like.
Pure nonsense.

You bet! : P
Take a look on the minute 00:43-00:45 LOL ; )
REVIEWER
(yadda yadda mode directly from YT official channel)
The surprise is here!
 
 
 
 
 

8-bit rec709 profiles are much more flexible in post than you might think.  I'm not saying they're as good as an Alexa or whatever, but they're a million miles better than people give them credit for.
Here's a latitude and WB torture test of the GX85, in the standard profile (8-bit rec709) customised to have reduced contrast but normal saturation.  
For each of the below, the left image is the properly exposed reference image, the middle one is the graded image, and the one on the right is the image SOOC.
Exposure latitude test - +3 stops:

Exposure latitude test - +2 stops:

Exposure latitude test - +1 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -1 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -2 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -3 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -4 stops:

Exposure latitude test - warm:

Exposure latitude test - cool:

Exposure latitude test - magenta:

Exposure latitude test - green (as far as it would go!):

Notes on the testing method:
GX85 shot in manual mode on cloudy day Exposure varied by changing lens aperture WB varied by changing colour temp and tint Tools used in Resolve were mostly Lift/Gamma/Gain, saturation, and some had a bit of Shadows/Mids/Highlights Notes on the results:
If it's clipped then it's clipped, there's no getting around that If you've shot a whole sequence in the wrong WB then shoot a test chart replicating the error, spend some time on the correction, then apply to all the shots... a bit of work but worth it to rescue a days shooting If you've shot on auto-exposure / auto-WB and want to correct the small errors then this is easily possible - it won't have gotten it nearly as wrong as what I have shown above Most cameras shooting in rec709 will do funky stuff to colours depending on their luma value as part of the look of the profile, so when you over/under expose and then pull things back the hues and saturation levels will have shifted around in odd ways compared to a normal exposure, but if it's a real shoot then you most likely won't have many dominant hues in the image and you only have to correct the ones that are in the frame and distracting, so the above is far more work than normal shooting would be  The days of needing RAW or even LOG to change exposure or WB in post are gone, and although the rec709 profiles often have lower DR than log profiles, they're much better than you think.
If anyone wants me to post full-sized versions with titles so you can flick back and forth then just let me know.
Happy shooting!

I dunno... I've just invested on a couple of NX500 units bought for US $200 each, my most recent camera purchase ;- )

Who resists to these small ones? LOL ;- )

To back up another engineering sample of same camera, type of capture device, brand and model already at my own collection arsenal... Impossible to resist :- )

I dunno... I've just invested on a couple of NX500 units bought for US $200 each, my most recent camera purchase ;- )

@herein2020 @FHDcrew well done ; ) congrats guys!
 
- EAG :- )
 
PS: Mine is a work in progress... : ) Started earlier than 2023, will end later on... (listed on IMDb).
 
Happy New Year to you all!
 

As a child of the 1970's would it surprise any of you to know that I grew up MOSTLY viewing motion picture images that were 60fps?
And yet I still prefer 24fps.  
There's a little perspective from a person that's seen both during his entire life and is now an official old fart.  So, just to say, that it's not as if younger generations are going to have a dissimilar experience when it comes to 60fps.
My guess is that the legacy of 24fps is going to be a thing throughout the 21st century, and most likely will never actually go away; the reasons mentioned in this thread cover why.

Modern televisions with 100/120 hertz technology are no longer bound to 50 or 60 Hertz. 24p images are displayed at 48, 72 or 120 frames per second. Neither a 3:2 pulldown for NTSC nor acceleration for Pal is needed.
A film recorded at 48fps and displayed at 48Hz looks videoish and a film recorded at 24p displayed at 48Hz does not. 24p  is still the main standard for feature films all around the world. In Germany and other PAL countries 25p used for narrative TV production, 50p for soccer. Both can be displayed at 50Hz.
 

I think the LX10 is a brilliant little camera and it is a smart move to use one in its 24 or 25p 4K mode. 🙂

Your arguments are all technically correct, however they fail to understand one critical thing: how it actually appears to humans.  
There are exceptions of course, but a casual glance through the thread will tell you one thing overwhelmingly clearly - 60p looks awful.
Considering that the entire purpose of cinema and TV is to be viewed by humans, this is game over.

Dang.  Now that I read it on the internet it must be true.

Maybe they're just being polite? 🙂