fuzzynormal

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc.  As you get older you just look at thing different.  Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect.  You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

Honestly, that's like trying to multiply with zero.
If video ever works well in a fuji camera I'm convinced it will be by accident.

Honestly, that's like trying to multiply with zero.
If video ever works well in a fuji camera I'm convinced it will be by accident.

You can always make the edit with a comp track and share it around to online forums for people that do VO.  If your cut is impressive enough, maybe you can work out a swap wherein a pro agrees to help you out in order to have a cool new video on their demo reel.

“NX-1, GH4 or 5DMkII?”
The answer is yes.  Any of those cams will allow you to capture fine images and to an accomplished 1080p edit.  The quality on all will be fine.  The difference in how they render their image is a nuance that you'll have to decide on your own, preferably by doing tests.
In a way, it's like choosing a preferred film stock.
As we all know, any "drop dead gorgeous" images created on modern gear typically depends on the skill of the shooter and lighting, not the camera.
You're right to be more concerned about the post process and, depending if your a beginner or a skilled pro, figuring out the best workflow for your abilities.  And man, when I shoot a doc and end up with hundreds of hours of footage, I want postproduction firmly planted in the KISS realm.
If you know how the BMCC behaves and are pleased at what it delivers, why not stick with that?  ProResHQ and Raw, use either depending on need.

Can anyone point me to a trusted source/online how-to for doing the post RAW process on an 5DII?  Not looking for anything generic, something you've used that you've relied on and has served you well; made things relatively easy during the post.
Never really had a desire to give it a go, but as cards and computers have changed, might as well see what's up.

Emulation can be a good thing when one is learning.  I've created this color cast many times.
But I'm willing to wager that this era in Hollywood film making is going to be chastised as the time when colorists hooked onto this teal/orange nonsense --and it is going to look ridiculous and very dated to "future" eyeballs.  You know how when you watch an 80's movie and you pick up the visual cues that let you know it's an 80's movie?  The 'aughts and 21st century teens are going to have a very obvious aesthetic too.    
If you want something you create to be more timeless, I'd suggest looking at films of the 70's as a guidance; much more basic back then.
Essentially, I'm saying don't think you gotta do this just because it's what you're seeing most of the time.

Honestly, I think film cameras are easier to shoot with than with the RED.  
I've never been particularly enamored when using one, as it's a fussy thing.  That slow boot up is so frustrating.
But, at that price, I'd buy it if I was going to make a certain type of short narrative film or a feature.
Because the thing demands light, it does force one to be more considerate.  I mean, you really have a narrow range of ISO.  That can be a plus, depending on what you're trying to do. 

Refund!  Aside from that, when I went the projector ran fine.  And it was fun to hear the film spooling, see the scratches, watch the image registration drift through the gate.  The narrative didn't work though.  Not an exceptional film regardless how it was shot.  Appealing to my inner-tech-geek, (hey!  They used the same lens as Ben Hur!) but otherwise nothing too remarkable as a movie...not on the a-list level anyway.  The director is too indulgent with his style and it was more weary than vibrant on this go 'round.
Liked watching Russell do his "Jack Burton meets John Wayne" character though.

Honestly, I think film cameras are easier to shoot with than with the RED.  
I've never been particularly enamored when using one, as it's a fussy thing.  That slow boot up is so frustrating.
But, at that price, I'd buy it if I was going to make a certain type of short narrative film or a feature.
Because the thing demands light, it does force one to be more considerate.  I mean, you really have a narrow range of ISO.  That can be a plus, depending on what you're trying to do. 

You can go back read my posts on the camera if you wish; it'll give you insight to my context.  You can see some videos I've done with it too.  Bottom line: I like it just fine.  
If I was shooting ultra wide, not sure what the stabilizing would be practically offering me though?  Ultra wide shooting doesn't really need stabilization.
AS for the EMII, I have two $100-ish speed boosters for it plus a bunch of basic dumb adapters.  It all works good and the old Canon FD and EOS glass looks good.  Nice thing about speedsboosters and dumb adapters, it'll give you 2 focal lengths with one lens.
I'm a firm believer in shooting motion picture with manual focus.  The peaking and EVF is strong enough to allow focusing by eye.  That's really great. 
Anyway, even though I have 4 M4/3 prime lenses, about a dozen other misc primes, and the Oly 12-40 proZoom, I shoot most video stuff with an old 55mm FD lens and the speedbooster.  I like the focal length AND the extra heft that old glass provides.
I do recommend the shooting ergonomics with the extra battery grip, in my opinion.
Shortcomings: with modern glass the image does moire.  Meh.  Not a deal breaker for me.  The older adapted glass reduces the moire, FWIW.

Nice looking images; confirms my experiences with the EM5II.  Out of the box you're not going to get the ideal motion picture images from it, but a little manipulation in cam and in post you can make it look very respectable.
I dunno.  I've found it more than capable.  Others not so much.  
As for the film...I want to know what's in the case.  It's Marsellus Wallace's soul, right? ;-)

Leonardo Dalessandri's work is just a good example of craft.  I know it wouldn't matter what camera you put in my hand, he'd still be able to make a better travel video with a GH3 than I would with an Alexa.  
So, I use that sort of stuff as my personal benchmark.  If I can increase my skill level to exceed the IQ of what he can do, then I'll consider getting a better piece of gear.  'Til then, I'll roll with simple consumer gear too for my own projects.  Hey, if it's good enough for him, right?
I've been lucky enough to travel around the world on assignment over the past decade.  I can watch that video and reflect that my own library has about 80% of the same type of footage.  Is it shot as well?  No.  Is it edited as well?  Oh, god no.
That's my perspective.  Gotta learn technique and craft; get solid there, I'm still lacking.  I ask myself, "You got a paint brush?"  "Yes.  Well, then paint."  Worry about the bristles only when your skill demands it.  I'm not gonna gripe about refinements that I can't even begin to take real advantage of.
...So hard to do when all I want is to acquire and play with a A7s!
More on point to Andrews charting of cameras, ergonomics, etc, I gotta say, the EM5II, after some getting used to, now really agrees with me for some reason.  I just like shooting with it, taking it out of the bag and getting footage.  
Like many machines, some just jibe, others don't.  Don't know how to explain it.  It's like a car or a motorcycle...

Leonardo Dalessandri's work is just a good example of craft.  I know it wouldn't matter what camera you put in my hand, he'd still be able to make a better travel video with a GH3 than I would with an Alexa.  
So, I use that sort of stuff as my personal benchmark.  If I can increase my skill level to exceed the IQ of what he can do, then I'll consider getting a better piece of gear.  'Til then, I'll roll with simple consumer gear too for my own projects.  Hey, if it's good enough for him, right?
I've been lucky enough to travel around the world on assignment over the past decade.  I can watch that video and reflect that my own library has about 80% of the same type of footage.  Is it shot as well?  No.  Is it edited as well?  Oh, god no.
That's my perspective.  Gotta learn technique and craft; get solid there, I'm still lacking.  I ask myself, "You got a paint brush?"  "Yes.  Well, then paint."  Worry about the bristles only when your skill demands it.  I'm not gonna gripe about refinements that I can't even begin to take real advantage of.
...So hard to do when all I want is to acquire and play with a A7s!
More on point to Andrews charting of cameras, ergonomics, etc, I gotta say, the EM5II, after some getting used to, now really agrees with me for some reason.  I just like shooting with it, taking it out of the bag and getting footage.  
Like many machines, some just jibe, others don't.  Don't know how to explain it.  It's like a car or a motorcycle...

Leonardo Dalessandri's work is just a good example of craft.  I know it wouldn't matter what camera you put in my hand, he'd still be able to make a better travel video with a GH3 than I would with an Alexa.  
So, I use that sort of stuff as my personal benchmark.  If I can increase my skill level to exceed the IQ of what he can do, then I'll consider getting a better piece of gear.  'Til then, I'll roll with simple consumer gear too for my own projects.  Hey, if it's good enough for him, right?
I've been lucky enough to travel around the world on assignment over the past decade.  I can watch that video and reflect that my own library has about 80% of the same type of footage.  Is it shot as well?  No.  Is it edited as well?  Oh, god no.
That's my perspective.  Gotta learn technique and craft; get solid there, I'm still lacking.  I ask myself, "You got a paint brush?"  "Yes.  Well, then paint."  Worry about the bristles only when your skill demands it.  I'm not gonna gripe about refinements that I can't even begin to take real advantage of.
...So hard to do when all I want is to acquire and play with a A7s!
More on point to Andrews charting of cameras, ergonomics, etc, I gotta say, the EM5II, after some getting used to, now really agrees with me for some reason.  I just like shooting with it, taking it out of the bag and getting footage.  
Like many machines, some just jibe, others don't.  Don't know how to explain it.  It's like a car or a motorcycle...

Yes.  Why people are chasing this aesthetic is kind of strange.  f5.6/s35mm is what typically works for most films, so to go shallow, I don't get it.  I can see using it for certain scenes if that's the way you want to effect your image to fit a particular narrative, but for overall?  eh...

Yes.  Why people are chasing this aesthetic is kind of strange.  f5.6/s35mm is what typically works for most films, so to go shallow, I don't get it.  I can see using it for certain scenes if that's the way you want to effect your image to fit a particular narrative, but for overall?  eh...

Imagine going into a huge multiplex and seeing all their monitors in the lobby with the "enhanced" frame rate turned on. 
So, big budget cinema in a big cinematic complex on big cinematic screen...looking non-cinematic. 
Good job AMC.  Even the purveyors of cinema are unable to escape their ignorance and will ruin cinematic IQ    
The slow frame rate is NOT a liability. The altered rate of motion pictures that don't match our vision's reality is what heightens the suspension of disbelief.  That's kind of important when your watching a narrative like, I dunno, James Bond, for example.  
Its not because it "looks better" than 60p, it's because it takes the edge off our perception of realism.
Movies are an escape from reality, it's a manufactured narrative. The illusion is diminished by too much visual accuracy.
All that said, the Japanese love high frame rates, and would rationalize FOR it.  
I just can't.  I like the magic of slow.
 
that's a pretty big misunderstanding of how it works. 

Imagine going into a huge multiplex and seeing all their monitors in the lobby with the "enhanced" frame rate turned on. 
So, big budget cinema in a big cinematic complex on big cinematic screen...looking non-cinematic. 
Good job AMC.  Even the purveyors of cinema are unable to escape their ignorance and will ruin cinematic IQ    
The slow frame rate is NOT a liability. The altered rate of motion pictures that don't match our vision's reality is what heightens the suspension of disbelief.  That's kind of important when your watching a narrative like, I dunno, James Bond, for example.  
Its not because it "looks better" than 60p, it's because it takes the edge off our perception of realism.
Movies are an escape from reality, it's a manufactured narrative. The illusion is diminished by too much visual accuracy.
All that said, the Japanese love high frame rates, and would rationalize FOR it.  
I just can't.  I like the magic of slow.
 
that's a pretty big misunderstanding of how it works. 

Nice looking images; confirms my experiences with the EM5II.  Out of the box you're not going to get the ideal motion picture images from it, but a little manipulation in cam and in post you can make it look very respectable.
I dunno.  I've found it more than capable.  Others not so much.  
As for the film...I want to know what's in the case.  It's Marsellus Wallace's soul, right? ;-)

I enjoy this website because I'm a gear oriented guy.  Even better because I'm a CHEAP gear oriented guy.  I like consumer stuff.  But gear is only one aspect of making films.  The slant of user conversations on this site might imply to a neophyte reader that camera gear is the primary consideration of the film making process.  That's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is. 
I certainly think gear should only be a secondary consideration.  I'd even argue that these days it could almost be an afterthought, depending on what one is trying to accomplish.  As in, "Well, we have a t3i already, let's just use that."
But, really, those creatives that are going to be successful at this motion picture stuff will be able to figure that out for themselves.  Those that don't, well, there's a lot of us around to write words on the internet.

It's an embarrassment of riches. And it's great. 
Even now I contend that even average consumer IQ is so advanced that it'll allow a filmmaker to create great looking cinema. 
5-10 years from now?  Whoa.  Its fun to watch it get better and cheaper  
If you can't manage to effectively create with this stuff, then you're not doing it right and/or paying attention to the wrong details. 

It's an embarrassment of riches. And it's great. 
Even now I contend that even average consumer IQ is so advanced that it'll allow a filmmaker to create great looking cinema. 
5-10 years from now?  Whoa.  Its fun to watch it get better and cheaper  
If you can't manage to effectively create with this stuff, then you're not doing it right and/or paying attention to the wrong details. 

It's an embarrassment of riches. And it's great. 
Even now I contend that even average consumer IQ is so advanced that it'll allow a filmmaker to create great looking cinema. 
5-10 years from now?  Whoa.  Its fun to watch it get better and cheaper  
If you can't manage to effectively create with this stuff, then you're not doing it right and/or paying attention to the wrong details. 

I think Nikon and Canon have nailed the raw color science in their stills.
I don't know why a video image is different, but it is.  
I looked at some stuff I shot on the sony ex1 with a lens adapter and a backed-in look and the skin colors were perfect.  
I still think it's the early days of log-shooting by everyone.  RAW has been going around since maybe 2003 or so and tons of people have used it.
Color correction for the masses in video is a relatively new thing I think - ushered by Resolve being made free.  Will take some time to figure out.