fuzzynormal

I don't know what's going on in your world, but I can tell you it doesn't matter how you fiddle the menu on a camera that leads to good shots.
All the real work that happens with a good shot starts outside of the camera.  The camera is honestly one of the LAST things you should fret about.
I swear to God, you can be a better shooter by visiting a museum full of Romanticism Artistic movement paintings.
Study how light affects a scene, and you'll become a more sophisticated videograper that way.
If you can't train yourself to "see light" you're always gonna struggle.
I'm not being flippant here.  It's the cheat-code.  Skip all the tech BS and learn light.  Take a classic art appreciation class.  Learn composition skills.  These are the things that actually make a difference.  Train your eye to be a shooter and a person that can paint with light. 
Sure, you can be a pixel nerd, but that has a low ceiling of accomplishment and, honestly, advanced tech makes those acomplishments not a big deal to begin with.
And look, when you study art, you'll learn more about the human condition along the way, maybe even some philosophy.  Win-win.

I don't know what's going on in your world, but I can tell you it doesn't matter how you fiddle the menu on a camera that leads to good shots.
All the real work that happens with a good shot starts outside of the camera.  The camera is honestly one of the LAST things you should fret about.
I swear to God, you can be a better shooter by visiting a museum full of Romanticism Artistic movement paintings.
Study how light affects a scene, and you'll become a more sophisticated videograper that way.
If you can't train yourself to "see light" you're always gonna struggle.
I'm not being flippant here.  It's the cheat-code.  Skip all the tech BS and learn light.  Take a classic art appreciation class.  Learn composition skills.  These are the things that actually make a difference.  Train your eye to be a shooter and a person that can paint with light. 
Sure, you can be a pixel nerd, but that has a low ceiling of accomplishment and, honestly, advanced tech makes those acomplishments not a big deal to begin with.
And look, when you study art, you'll learn more about the human condition along the way, maybe even some philosophy.  Win-win.

You can make a video shot on a 1980's VHS tube camcorder look pretty if you have elegant, soft, and nice lighting.  When the light in a scene doesn't have a harsh spectrum, it'll look decent. 
Thats why exceptional shooters get up at 3am, get ready, and "chase the light".  There's a very good reason they do a lot of their work during the so called magic hour.
I could send you URL's of promo reels from camera products released 15, heck 20, years ago and it'll blow your mind.  Cameras with 6 or 7 stops of DR looking freaking awesome .  How?  Pro cinematography with good light.
I love playing with the tech side of cams, but i never accomolished great shots 'til i broke out of the teccentric mindset.
Anyway, enough soap box.  Will leave you be...

I don't know what's going on in your world, but I can tell you it doesn't matter how you fiddle the menu on a camera that leads to good shots.
All the real work that happens with a good shot starts outside of the camera.  The camera is honestly one of the LAST things you should fret about.
I swear to God, you can be a better shooter by visiting a museum full of Romanticism Artistic movement paintings.
Study how light affects a scene, and you'll become a more sophisticated videograper that way.
If you can't train yourself to "see light" you're always gonna struggle.
I'm not being flippant here.  It's the cheat-code.  Skip all the tech BS and learn light.  Take a classic art appreciation class.  Learn composition skills.  These are the things that actually make a difference.  Train your eye to be a shooter and a person that can paint with light. 
Sure, you can be a pixel nerd, but that has a low ceiling of accomplishment and, honestly, advanced tech makes those acomplishments not a big deal to begin with.
And look, when you study art, you'll learn more about the human condition along the way, maybe even some philosophy.  Win-win.

I have the 12sUltra.  256gb.  Typing this on it now. Havent tried to shoot raw with it. 
FWIW, The 24pro app on this phone pushes the hardware to the limit and drops frames. boo.
Not perfect, but one can dial in the image much better than the native app.
I'll play with the motioncam app and see how it goes.

That bit pretty much sums up about any hobby.  People that buy 20 guitars but can only play three chords.  A dude that has a 40 year old Cessna airplane.  The grandma that does scrapbooking.  Model trains. Race cars.  Dirt biking. Jet skis. Bowling. 
It's all 1st world luxury that even affords us the ability to "waste" our income. 
Beyond that, I make a living (somehow) doing this stuff for corporate so I guess I could be considered a pro at it in a way, but I still feel as if I'm a dilettante within it's sphere.  The technology and techniques always outpaces my understanding.
And the fascinating thing to me about making movies is that the people that truly excel in the business don't really chase the tech, they focus on the storytelling --and they let the technology specialists dig most of the rabbit holes.  
Wanna talk about "fundamentals" with all this motion picture stuff? Perhaps it's best to consider the notion of Art vs. Craft.  
Have any of y'all ever taken art classes during undergraduate studies?  In my experience there was that there was always a person that's a marvel at drawing incredibly realistically...but sucks at making that work interesting or engaging beyond "oh, that looks real."  Then there were people that could do one brush stroke on a canvas and somehow make it mesmerizing.  Then the exceptional creatives do both.
My issue with any kind of fundamentalist in a discipline is a narrow perspective that curbs imagination. It gets in the way to create something surprising.
Like a Robert Kincaid, y'know?

An option I've embraced that really keeps things simple is to forgo AF in video production.  
How I shoot is exactly how you say you'd like to shoot.  It keeps it simple and once you train yourself how to be adept at manually focusing you'll find their are numerous techniques that'll carry the day.
Also, there's something wonderfully organic about getting shots that float in and out of focus and then have a human hand pull it sharp.  Now, to be fair, I am extremely short sighted, so it's actually a bit of a camera-operator super power I have.  I can look at a LCD monitor 2 inches from my face and really see what's going on in perfect vision comfort.
When I'm wearing my contact lenses and have to use "readers" eye-glasses to see things close the vision gets more challenging.
Anyway.  Manual focus.  Something to consider anyway.

Yes.
Spec chasing nerds.  Half the posts here are higher number must be better. 
 
Few actual practitioners.  It’s ok if you don’t make a living from doing this but you can tell the posters that only care and the technical process and not what it’s in service of. 
 
Most successful image makers aren’t posting on forums like these.  They don’t even participate in these kinds of conversations because they’re such a small part of the end result. 
And yeah I’m posting here so what does that say about me.  

That bit pretty much sums up about any hobby.  People that buy 20 guitars but can only play three chords.  A dude that has a 40 year old Cessna airplane.  The grandma that does scrapbooking.  Model trains. Race cars.  Dirt biking. Jet skis. Bowling. 
It's all 1st world luxury that even affords us the ability to "waste" our income. 
Beyond that, I make a living (somehow) doing this stuff for corporate so I guess I could be considered a pro at it in a way, but I still feel as if I'm a dilettante within it's sphere.  The technology and techniques always outpaces my understanding.
And the fascinating thing to me about making movies is that the people that truly excel in the business don't really chase the tech, they focus on the storytelling --and they let the technology specialists dig most of the rabbit holes.  
Wanna talk about "fundamentals" with all this motion picture stuff? Perhaps it's best to consider the notion of Art vs. Craft.  
Have any of y'all ever taken art classes during undergraduate studies?  In my experience there was that there was always a person that's a marvel at drawing incredibly realistically...but sucks at making that work interesting or engaging beyond "oh, that looks real."  Then there were people that could do one brush stroke on a canvas and somehow make it mesmerizing.  Then the exceptional creatives do both.
My issue with any kind of fundamentalist in a discipline is a narrow perspective that curbs imagination. It gets in the way to create something surprising.
Like a Robert Kincaid, y'know?

That bit pretty much sums up about any hobby.  People that buy 20 guitars but can only play three chords.  A dude that has a 40 year old Cessna airplane.  The grandma that does scrapbooking.  Model trains. Race cars.  Dirt biking. Jet skis. Bowling. 
It's all 1st world luxury that even affords us the ability to "waste" our income. 
Beyond that, I make a living (somehow) doing this stuff for corporate so I guess I could be considered a pro at it in a way, but I still feel as if I'm a dilettante within it's sphere.  The technology and techniques always outpaces my understanding.
And the fascinating thing to me about making movies is that the people that truly excel in the business don't really chase the tech, they focus on the storytelling --and they let the technology specialists dig most of the rabbit holes.  
Wanna talk about "fundamentals" with all this motion picture stuff? Perhaps it's best to consider the notion of Art vs. Craft.  
Have any of y'all ever taken art classes during undergraduate studies?  In my experience there was that there was always a person that's a marvel at drawing incredibly realistically...but sucks at making that work interesting or engaging beyond "oh, that looks real."  Then there were people that could do one brush stroke on a canvas and somehow make it mesmerizing.  Then the exceptional creatives do both.
My issue with any kind of fundamentalist in a discipline is a narrow perspective that curbs imagination. It gets in the way to create something surprising.
Like a Robert Kincaid, y'know?

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.

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

Maybe they're just being polite? 🙂

Maybe they're just being polite? 🙂

24PEE

Maybe they're just being polite? 🙂

Art is conceit.
Cinema is a altered from reality by default.  Because of that, it's perfectly fine when some filmmakers decide for it to absolutely fail to be accurate in certain ways.
Flaws are beautiful.  They invoke an alternate reality.
Some filmmakers like 48 or 60fps.  So be it.  I like 24fps and a 360 degree shutter.  My preferences ain't wrong, they're simply mine.

Pffffssst.  Just A.I. uprez the GM1 to 4K.  
Not because you should, but because it will give you an excuse to keep using the GM1.  
Man, out of all the cameras I've bought and sold over the years, why'd I let that one go?  Still have it as my avatar all these years later...

Pffffssst.  Just A.I. uprez the GM1 to 4K.  
Not because you should, but because it will give you an excuse to keep using the GM1.  
Man, out of all the cameras I've bought and sold over the years, why'd I let that one go?  Still have it as my avatar all these years later...

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong.  
I concede that AI right now can do automatic editing better than some people in general, but these are typically the content creators that just want to slap some shit together.  The standards are lower.
But, seriously, how could AI ever surpass some gal or guy that has earned wisdom (plus the context of it) and knows how to use that experience artistically?
I mean, I'm in edits all the time where I'm debating the need to drop or add a single frame --or knowing when to use a flawed shot because it has more "heart" than a previous take where the camera didn't loose focus.  
Now, what happens when you're the creative and you're doing the artistic 'algebra' where you have to consider how various takes combine over multiple edits to create a scene...
Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe.  Maybe. 

Filmmaking will remain an art for more careful consideration.  AI will be for bland content.
AI will (and does) significantly help with the technical aspects of craft, but actual art is an intangible.  Even if AI eventually learns how to manipulate the various elements of filmmaking into emotional "beats" --I still think it'll feel fake.
That'll be good enough for non-discriminating people, but it'll remain in an emotional uncanny valley for others.

Ultimately, it's not a big deal.  
It's like people that are fussy about the type of wine they drink.  They can understand and appreciate the nuances and subtleties -- and get incredibly particular about the flavours and details of it all.  
Other people simply don't care, they just like the buzz.  
As a filmmaker, you pour the wine you want to drink.

Art is conceit.
Cinema is a altered from reality by default.  Because of that, it's perfectly fine when some filmmakers decide for it to absolutely fail to be accurate in certain ways.
Flaws are beautiful.  They invoke an alternate reality.
Some filmmakers like 48 or 60fps.  So be it.  I like 24fps and a 360 degree shutter.  My preferences ain't wrong, they're simply mine.

Ultimately, it's not a big deal.  
It's like people that are fussy about the type of wine they drink.  They can understand and appreciate the nuances and subtleties -- and get incredibly particular about the flavours and details of it all.  
Other people simply don't care, they just like the buzz.  
As a filmmaker, you pour the wine you want to drink.

Art is conceit.
Cinema is a altered from reality by default.  Because of that, it's perfectly fine when some filmmakers decide for it to absolutely fail to be accurate in certain ways.
Flaws are beautiful.  They invoke an alternate reality.
Some filmmakers like 48 or 60fps.  So be it.  I like 24fps and a 360 degree shutter.  My preferences ain't wrong, they're simply mine.