IronFilm

Just got a phone call about a self funded short film I'll be doing sound for a few days next month, this is a clue on the budget I gleaned:
NZ$100/day for each person (that is only around US$67/day, so in other words... nearly nothing) in the cast and crew. (which is the same for me, but getting another $200/day for my gear rental)
However they're getting a set of Cooke anamorphic primes for free from a production house and an Arri Alexa Mini for free from another different rental house. 
For many on forums who live outside this industry  this might seem surprising, however to me this doesn't seem strange at all to get calls like this. (although the whole we're "paying everyone the same X amount" does annoy me, as I don't feel that say a 1st AC / Gaffer / SFX MUA / Sound Mixer / etc should get the same amount per day as perhaps a LX Assist / Runner / 3rd AC / PA / etc might get. Not even on "no budget" shoots. *Especially* if someone such as the Gaffer or Sound Mixer is bringing along tens of thousands of dollars worth of their own gear, or like the SFX MUA HoD are using up hundreds of dollars worth of products as expendables per day. And very often I've been on such shoots which "everyone is paid the same", yet you discover that is not the case and it just is the spin the director or producer uses)

But I'm sure these people did back in the day at film school do many "no budget" shoot with a Canon T3i or whatever, it can take a few years or working up and building your network to get people you can call upon to borrow their Cooke anamorphics or Arri from people who you know. (and who'd be ok with that, because they know you have and/or will be giving them a lot of work in the future from full rate commercial productions)

I am so hyped for this camera. Even just D850 video specs with IBIS would probably be enough to win me over.
I don't need all the picture customization of sony's. Dare i say i wouldn't even need log profile.
Nikon color science (and flat profile) is that nice:
I guess i'm already sold, but of course if Nikon nail video AF and get it close to dual pixel goodness, it might even be game over for Canon.
 

That's the thing... A joke is not a statement. It's not even real.
It's not an actionable intent.
It's an act. Said it time again. Learn to tell the difference between fiction and reality.
Or you'll be stoning comedians on stage at this rate.

Disney empowering fascists.

Actually,, I have a different reason for thinking that it 'wont' take Nikon years to catch up 'Sony' with lenses.
The key point with mirrorless lenses is that they need different af motors to pure 'pdaf' lenses (of DSLRs) to take advantage of the 'pdaf' plus 'cdaf' fine tuning of mirrorless lenses. 
The Nikon 1 had excellent on sensor pdaf because the sensors were built by Aptina which had on sensor pdaf tech. Aptina agreed a cross licensing patent deal with Sony (and was subsequently taken over by On Semi who no longer makes image sensors for dedicated ILCs). Sony took that tech and used it in their second generation A7x series. Nikon will presumably license the same tech from Aptina/Sony for their mirrorless. This is a long winded way of saying that Nikon's mirrorless af will likely be very similar to Sony's.
So I dont really see any particular reason why 3rd party manufacturers of Sony FE mount lenses shouldnt be able to fairly quickly come up with Nikon Z mount versions. So Sigma (well sort of), Tamron, Samyang and Zeiss Batis (?). Now that is 20 lenses that could be introduced in less than a year.

It is no different from if someone tells me they went on a weekend camping trip and it "cost them nothing", then someone complains "but you drove to the bush in a $40K car, then used a $1K tent, and used $50 of petrol, and and and etc..."

It is nitpicking, and I feel is an attitude which is also disconnected from reality. 

It is good for people to realize that you can make "low budget" films with nice gear (such as REDs or whatever), but it takes networking and effort/compromise.  And you can't do it by going at it alone, and sticking to online forums. 

Although of course there are also people in the film industry who take this too far, and basically exploit people and their good will. 

But there is a happy middle ground there in which both parties feel they benefit from the experience in a production. 
 
That is because making a feature film is very very expensive. 

It is no more unreasonable than calling a $200,000 house a "low budget house", or calling a $10,000 house a "no budget house"!

 

It is no different from if someone tells me they went on a weekend camping trip and it "cost them nothing", then someone complains "but you drove to the bush in a $40K car, then used a $1K tent, and used $50 of petrol, and and and etc..."

It is nitpicking, and I feel is an attitude which is also disconnected from reality. 

It is good for people to realize that you can make "low budget" films with nice gear (such as REDs or whatever), but it takes networking and effort/compromise.  And you can't do it by going at it alone, and sticking to online forums. 

Although of course there are also people in the film industry who take this too far, and basically exploit people and their good will. 

But there is a happy middle ground there in which both parties feel they benefit from the experience in a production. 
 
That is because making a feature film is very very expensive. 

It is no more unreasonable than calling a $200,000 house a "low budget house", or calling a $10,000 house a "no budget house"!

 

I very much named it tongue in cheek!

And yes, it will be nice to not see black bars on for instance old 4:3 footage

I've enhanced the image using the latest Hollywood VFX and I can conclude it's so large because it has to fit in all the video modes..
I can clearly make out 1080 RAW 12bit, 1080 RAW 14bit, 4K RAW 14bit, 4K RAW 16bit, 4K Prores 444 HQ, 5K RAW, 5K Prores 444 HQ, 6K Prores 444 HQ, 8K Prores 444 HQ, but the last two are too blurry - I'm assuming they're 10K to downsample for 8K.

I think all this has been intentional link. There are just too much of them coming out and she apparently is a famous actor in china.

Putting my Sonys on eBay as we speak

Do we really and truely honestly all believe that the exact same sensor is being used in these cameras ? The X7, E2, GHx, P4k...
It’s a rhetorical question.  Which means I know the answer I’m just asking it here publicly...
And why does it even matter.  Even if they ARE the exact same sensor. Every camera manufacturer will get different results and we learn NOTHING from these kinds of theoretical sensor discussions. Look at the previously mentioned CIon / BMD 4K / Aperture images.  Are they the same ?  Look at digital Bolex, who used the KAF / KODAK senors.  Are they the same images as the Ikonoscope / Leica / Olympus E series cameras that also used the same sensor family ? 
Just because they share the same sensor or sensor linage or it comes form the same factory, it’s almost meaningless because the company making the images form that sensor have to do so much customising, calibrating and processing of the image, it becomes irrelevant other than the specs we already know...
Let’s just look at the pictures instead of obsessing over the specs....
JB 
 
 
 

I feel you're 150% missing the point, as it wouldn't even matter if the C100 had pre amps "twice as good" as my sound recorder, as it simply is an impractical workflow to not use an audio recorder/mixer and instead record straight to camera for scripted narrative filmmaking of a certain level of complexity. To do so would undoubtedly lead to worse audio. 

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.

You're implying that you can buy a generic sensor, put it in a camera and you get a picture.
It's not that simple though.
Let's look at a camera that uses an off the shelf sensor in the sense you're describing.  The Apertus project.
Started conceptually in 2012.... https://www.apertus.org/
Still not really a production ready useable camera and they've been working on that for YEARS, even with the magic lantern help and the open source community.
In the time since they've started, the same sensor that has been developed into use for the AJA Cion, several BMD 4K cameras and other machine vision cameras.
If it really was off the shelf, then Apertus would have a camera that doesn't still have issues Apertus have.  They would have delivered by now with the significant effort going into it.
Why haven't they ?  Why haven't they just been able to plug the same off the shelf sensor used in other cameras into a body, program up some boards and get it working ?
Because there's no such thing as an off the shelf sensor.  Even the off the shelf sensors still need a huge amount of development to make them into a functional product that can ship.
It's certainly not the exception rather the rule at all.
JB
 
 

He should get both. C100 to look like a pro in front of clients. Just keep it turned off and use GH5 to do the actual shooting

Ultimately I think Oliver should consider versatility; he'd cover pretty much every base with the EVA1, GH5S, and GH5, with auto focus being the only thing he can't really make up for. His options are pretty much limitless when his 'b' and 'c' cams would have features that aren't too far off from his 'a' cam and could easily be swapped in and used for a lot of the work he is going to be doing. 

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.

All this talk of a bazillion stops of DR, I'm reminded of the minor miracle that these manufacturers have managed to accomplish..
10 stops of dynamic range means that in comparison to the smallest amount of light they can distinguish, the brightest light it can distinguish is 1024x.  That doesn't sound like much, but 12 stops is 4096x, 14 stops is 16384x, and 16 stops would be 65535x!!!!
Even the claimed 13 stops for the Pocket 4K is 8192x..  that's huge!
We really are spoiled ???

I won't judge you for your taste in porn

I won't judge you for your taste in porn

Only C300mk2 and RED Raven

Apologizes! 

My full focus isn't on the forum.... is a friday night here :-)

I found it interesting that Geoff Boyle managed to get not one but two Kinefinity cameras for his shoot out comparison!
 
Yeah I've been trying to explain to a friend that although the UMP is very very nice, he'd get more work if he  owned the very popular FS7 or a F5, as that would make more financial sense in that you'd get hired more. 
 
 

I won't judge you for your taste in porn

I won't judge you for your taste in porn