sam

That's the thing about various gear or filmmaking "blogs" out there.  
Most often it's dipshits like me spouting off on our anecdotal and biased experiences.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with that.  But when a site purports to be some sort of authority on matters when all they're doing is elevating us fellow dipshits to assert some faux academia and generate ad revenue, damn right readers are going to be skeptical about that nonsense.  "Don't bullshit a bullshitter" is the American colloquialism...or "dipshitter," if you prefer.
I mean, god bless the kids at a site like nofilmschool for pissing into the wind with their tinkle of naiveté.  I think even that sort of blog has a place, but to manufacture cut'n'paste "content" with the priority being the monetizing of it all?  No thanks.  Too smelly.
Fact is, EOSHD doesn't play that "content" game.  It's not trying to be something it's not.  It has license to be aggravated, satirical, or dismissive because it's willing to pay the price to do so.  When I was a kid we'd shorthand such an attitude by simply saying it's "punk rock."  If anything, that's the minor-key vibe that keeps me around here.    
Expecting EOSHD to be otherwise, knowing what we know of the owner of this place, is also slightly ridiculous.

old school ones   - Don't need 8k

Yeah if you study the greats in film making they use a lot of camera angles we really can't even afford to do. They are masters of isolation. Having views in films you are not accustomed to, I think, keeps you glued to the seat to see something you have never seen before in a sense. Sort of the unknown , and humans are in reality, a curious breed.
Plus lets face it, they have the best of the best on every high dollar film, using 35mm, Panavision, CinemaScope,70mm, etc from script writing, acting, acquisition, best DP, lighting equipment from hell, best focus pullers, and editing, not counting top notch audio, you name it, and a 50 piece Symphony Orchestra. Hard to go wrong with that. "We should be so lucky" as they say.
But I guess even with all that, more stuff probably bombs than makes 300 million bucks. So don't feel bad if your efforts, at times, does not come out so hot. 

The implementation of 10bit is the major benefit as compared to 8bit. 
The codec, the processing, the data rate and sensor all play a factor - 10bit is not going to work at its full potential if these other factors are left behind. 
The FS7 is a great example of well implemented 10bit. Absolutely superior to the FS5 in 10bit internal. 
That said, with most watching video on smart devices - the "final" image quality of 10bit doesn't offer a huge, life-changing leap. 
I'm caring much less about specs and focusing on improving the content in the frame.
Understanding light and composition is far more powerful in improving image quality. We're at that time now. The tools are awesome. Beyond enough. 

Really had my fingers firmly crossed for this, but I'm seeing the same cyan/magenta blocking in this video that lead me to sell my GH4. Guess, I will stick with my Blackmagics until something better comes along.



 

70mm film (actually 65mm, 70mm is marketing) provides a lot more resolution, so the projected image can be much bigger. Nothing special about the look other than marketing :P
I watched Interstellar in 70mm and it was kind of a mess (Chinese theater in Hollywood), with lots of blurry shots and overall not very sharp (+ sound was way too high and distorted). The 35mm shots were glaringly too sharp when they cut in. A while later I watched Interstellar again in 4K digital (AMC Century City) and it looked more consistent (maybe it was a new edit- they had fixed the sound problem). 70mm is a marketing term, generally telling us to expect a giant, high resolution screen (they may imply a special magical look, however that's just marketing going after your money).
The ARRI 65 is 3 ALEV III sensors rotated 90 degrees (A3X). This also provides a major boost in resolution. The ARRI look is at least partly due to the ALEV III sensor, and making one higher resolution with smaller pixels while maintaining the same look is likely challenging (though they may have solved it by NAB for a (true) 4K+ Alexa announcement).

Imo, it murdered anything digital I ever saw. Much much better quality.

And this is the point of everything. We have different tastes and put different aspects on top of the list when we say "image quality".
Some are all about mp others DR, etc.

Yeah was it 2007 or 2008 when eoshd started? Anyways, I think I've been here a decade, and jcs still hasn't convinced tupp! 

Yeah was it 2007 or 2008 when eoshd started? Anyways, I think I've been here a decade, and jcs still hasn't convinced tupp! 

Yeah was it 2007 or 2008 when eoshd started? Anyways, I think I've been here a decade, and jcs still hasn't convinced tupp! 

I too used to believe in the 'full frame look' myth: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1917-quick-test-sony-fs700-speed-booster-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii/
Once I ran across the Equivalence equations and did the tests myself, I understood the truth- there's no such thing as a 'full frame look' or any other sensor size look. It's all about the optics. I can still remember what it was like to believe in the myth and have empathy for those who still do.

Looks as if you've unleashed your own "viewing setups" thread. :-)  

Yes, I'm also more interested in scaling, motion, etc. As an example, playing the same video via my graphic card to the TV has a slight stutter, via I/O card out of DaVinci Resolve it runs fluid.
Color is kinda subjective, everyone sees it slightly different and then add different tastes on top. I'm less sensitive to that but I'm currently really concerned about the bad scaling I mentioned in my post. What's the point of shooting 2160p for a pristine 1080p master to have it then scaled to death by a QHD display?
Absolutely true. With the problem on top that you never know if the viewer's browser actually respects embedded color profiles or not. Attack of the OompaLoompa imminent.

Ahem... Earspeakers  (for those who've never listened to them, click the link, they are amazing tech!). Stax + Carver Magnetic Field Power Amplifier* + organic matter = wow.
I've got a pair of old HD 580's which are super comfy though the Audio Technica ATH-M50's are more detailed (for mixing and critical listening). Sony 7506s are great all-around, smallish, light and comfy too.
 
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver Looks like he's now retired- amazing sound engineer!

@Phil A my thoughts are that it sucks, as you demonstrated in your photos, but you gotta deal with it
and of course that phenomenon is 100% the same for still images... without involving any of the complexity of motion pictures, i have a frustrating time finding a happy medium for a jpg i want to post online across the screens of the consumer devices that i personally own – theyre wildly different 

At home: Calibrated HP Dreamcolor driven by a BM intensity interface, $4k rec709 calibrated Panasonic LCD projector with brand new OEM bulb, calibrated ST60 Panasonic Plasma (CNET's highest rated tv of all time), HD650 headphones driven through a high end tube amp and high end dual Wolfson DAC, DT1350s and a portable amp/dac, 7506s, Stax electrostatic headphones 
At work: Calibrated 27" ultra sharp, other uncalibrated dell monitors for GUIs, calibrated 5k retinas iMacs, Flanders Scientific for color correction for tv, M Audio monitors, 7506s, etc. depending on where I am working at the time. Obviously we never do any heavy duty mixing in house with such anemic sound gear
Lol I still do most of my work on my rMBP's shitty non-calibrated display though and mostly use the high end gear for playing PS4 while massively high on edibles. Surprisingly the rMBP screen is good enough to judge most work other than color correction or something. You don't need crazy high end gear. I do really enjoy watching blu rays on the big screen, though, and listening to music on the HD650s. 
 

I used to use an i1 Display calibrator on Windows and OSX, unfortunately for whatever reason the calibrations seemed to change (don't think it was normal hardware changing over time, seemed to be software related). I now use two factory calibrated 4K Dell monitors, a UP3216Q (main), and a P2715Q (secondary). When the image/video looks good on these displays it looks good on MBP Retinas, iPhones, iPads, Sony TV, Samsung TV, Apple Cinema display, etc. Still have the i1 Display calibrator- haven't needed it since upgrading monitors (probably wouldn't hurt to use it however given the fiddly stability results (could be the OSes), probably not worth the time. Maybe when people start looking like this
I'll put it back into service  ).

Sounds to me like you might be one of those that couldn't tell the difference and is a bit upset about it...

Open question to all,
If film was so bad why do many of the best film makers still use it?

And no no no, don't give me the old "they don't know better" or "they are idiots", "just nostalgic"
Anyone wanting to make such a claim must first present us with evidence to the multiple Oscar statues they have won.

I sometimes cant believe that there have been people from this very forum stating that a guy like Stephen Spielberg would have used the Samsung NX1 because of its technical superiority instead of film, but choose not to because he is a "hack" or because he doesn't know the NX1 exist...
Give me a fu..ing break!

No. People just love that little Frenchie! Also, for those who cant see the difference between 16mm film and video in his "guess the camera" comparison from a couple years ago, just know that even his dog can tell the difference, but unlike Mattias seems to prefer video. 

At least where I live shooting on film is way cheaper than a Red Weapon. And looks better as well imo.
Same with stills. I have to shoot alot of film before I reach the cost of a top end DSLR. And for street shooting with for example a Ricoh GR its only APS-C despite being larger than the smaller full frame film model.

Unity engine? I have no idea (except that many people I know getting started in the industry are jumping ship and learning Unity instead). To me, it's a completely separate medium. But Marvel movies are already full of CGI action and ads are loaded with invisible vfx. Contemporary films already feel a lot like video games, my hope is that Unity and VR (which are their own thing, and incredibly awesome) allow film to get back to what it does well, which is record an event in a more physical and emotional way. I think film feels too much like video games already, and I see the two media diverging in the future (with VR becoming the dominant medium eventually).

Don't waste time with the F35. It's old. 
I think you should check out the Panasonic DVX100. It's a game changer with progressive frames. 
 

nice, whats it called?
Hello friend sam I have an F35 Sony Cinema Camera in sale in Perfect condition but I am currently overseas performing my medical duties in Cairo. I am willing to sell it for a very low price to honorable board members such as yourself. Please PM me for details. Hakuna matata

When should I book my flight to Brooklyn?
By the way, you happen to know anyone in town who has a F35?  I wanna swap my new F65 for it and some cash.

When should I book my flight to Brooklyn?
By the way, you happen to know anyone in town who has a F35?  I wanna swap my new F65 for it and some cash.