pablogrollan

Andrew, the comments about grading weren’t intended for you specifically.  Read the post.  I was talking in generalities about recent facebook groups I’d left and a similar entitled tone here. It was not a personal attack but you chose to take it that way.
Cmon, I shoot these shots for BMD for exactly this purpose. To be downloaded and graded.  If I was truly precious about it I wouldn’t do it again and again would I ? 
You’re throwing a tantrum, publicly, because you dind’t get an invite to a BMD event that is seems like few even knew about.
Somehow you think that’s got something to do with me so you went and wrote a post about me. A really lovely piece too.
I’ve said it already a thousand times.
I don’t work for them.  
I don’t have that much to do with them day to day.  Last contact I had with anyone at BMD was weeks ago.  
It’s not my job to make sure YOU get some attention from them.  That’s on you to make that case.  
And by the way, this kind of childish unprofessional behaviour is exactly the kind of reason any company would think twice about working with you.
Instead, you launch a highly personal assasination blog post as well as numerous personal attacks because I dared to try and explain that to you in a way that you thought wasn’t deferential enough ?
You don’t do this for free.  You sell something.  I don’t but you actually do.
Having traffic come to this site means you have a greater chance of selling something.
You sell LUT’s and you sell guides and you use the traffic here to do so. So don’t pretend all this free traffic is somehow a favour to BMD and free publicity.
I didn’t even see the post you made about the BMD footage till your personal attack on me,  but I noticed when I read your BMD post you’re mixing in a bunch of references to LUT’s you’re trying to flog.
How about this...
Delete every single post of mine.  All the IP that I’ve posted and shared on this forum? All those posts where I’ve shared my knowledge and experience.  
Go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.
JB

That is not entirely true... I imagine the FS RAW out of the FS700 is very similar to the FS RAW out of the FS5 (both 12bit linear and from very similar if not the same sensor). I can tell you that both the raw to CDNG and the raw to Prores HQ 422 recorded to an Atomos Shogun Inferno are considerably better/more flexible than the original Slog 2/3 10 bit files, both from an FS5 or even an FS7. It could be that Slog files -which are not as flat as Slog 2&3- are "less strained" and can handle pushing in post better (can't know for sure because I haven't used an F3), but I doubt it.
FS RAW out of the FS5 is only SLog2, so in practical terms most of the times I end up recording a Prores HQ 422 Slog2 file that is slightly better than the clean uncompressed 10bit 422 file out of the SDI without the raw license. If I need an extra headroom, I always have Cinema DNG. Plus, am I wrong assuming the FS700 raw license also unlocks framerates and resolutions not available before such as UHD/4K 60p? I know it's still far from the 16 bit raw of an F5 or F55, but I wouldn't consider it a step down from an F3.

Personally I'd suggest leaning (*IF* you want specifically native MFT manual lenses) toward Veydra:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=25249&fct=fct_mount-type_2380|micro-four-thirds-mount%2bfct_brand_name|veydra&N=3908282151&

Or SLR Magic:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=25249&fct=fct_mount-type_2380|micro-four-thirds-mount%2bfct_brand_name|slr-magic&N=3908282151&

Ok, that mirrorless version is not really a cine version. I did buy a Samyang set back in the day in Nikon mount, since its pretty much the oldest and most adaptable mount like IronFilm said. And just as he said, the m4/3 mount versions are always a bit larger and heavier than the Nikon and Canon versions.
If you buy a lighter lens, well, you're definitely not buying the same glass! Sometimes that is a big compromise in quality, but it obviously depends on the lens -I have not tried that version-. The VDSLR II versions are sharp and generally optically very good in a so-so plastic chasis: that means they are light for their quality but have to be handled with care. In my opinion, probably the best bang for the buck when it comes to a fast and sharp lens set. For m4/3, the Veydra miniprimes are nicely built, optically OK and really smal.l

Yes the Pixapro 200D is a bit more powerful but still I would like it to be even more powerful. Even though someone said to me that it really competes against the Aputure 300D which I was suprised. I was thinking that Aputure would win easily hands down.
But what I can say about the Pixapro leds is that these lights can REALLY stand some rough conditions. I recently shot a music video in cold finnish winter weather. We were shooting outside on a frozen lake. Middle of the night, -20 degree celcius. I used all my Pixapro leds (4x 100D MK II + 1x 200D). All of them survived from that! I asked from the manufacturer before the shootings what they say about using them outside in really cold weather. They just replied to me: ”we really don’t know...”
Here is the video, just released:
 

In this case I have to disagree... Not only is Spain the fastest growing economy in the EU -after a long and hard economic downturn- but also not every field is the same in every country. Filmmaking/advertising is big and with high rates in certain "not-so-developed" countries; for example, Czech Republic is full of qualified professionals working in international productions making a lot more than the average salary. In some countries, being a small producer or cameraman is a well paid job and in others not so much...
Here -Spain- 1000€ does not get you an experienced DP with Amira, lights, etc. Here, 1200€ gets you a nice DP -not top nor novice- without any gear, and hiring such a DP "mandatorily" involves renting a high end camera, lenses, lights and at least a couple of grips... Spain is not a super booming market in terms of filmmaking such as the UK or France, but it is ahead of most European countries and so are the rates -even if the median salary is lower-.
I'd never work for free unless the project really meant advancing in my career -and when you find such a project, normally it is well budgeted and everyone gets paid-; unpaid work spoils a certain type of client -the scum of the earth- who actually believe they can get that stuff for free. Once you have a portfolio, they are not going to pay you, either; they will keep offering you to work for free and if you decline they will look for someone younger/less experienced/probably worse that will agree to do it for free. In my experience those clients do not appreciate what you do and don't take you seriously. It doesn't matter if you are 21 and inexperienced, you should get paid according to your skills and what you bring to the table; after all your video is going to help them make a profit in some way. Really, if at least they had offered a 100€ flat rate per job they would've shown respect. If you can't afford it, don't buy it; just like you don't try to buy a Red Weapon and offer 500 € you should not conceive hiring somenone for free.
The fact that there are "specialists from the 90's" competing in the same market with kids form bad private media schools -which is true- just broadens that market. Not so long ago a commercial or a corporate video was something that only medium sized or large companies could afford. It was hard to make a corporate video for less than 7000-8000 € and a commercial was minimum triple that amount. Now there are many more products accessible to more companies with faster production and adjusted to the needs of each client. That doesn't mean there's no room for the novice -quite the opposite-, and there are "salary slots" depending on the job, but "for free" should never be one. Here 500 € for a job is not much, it could be an acceptable rate for somenone starting out -keep in mind that every job requires pre-production and post-production-, especially because it is very unlikely that you work every day and you'll have to survive on a couple jobs a month in the beginning.

200 seems too low IMHO, unless you are an intern, a non-pro doing a favor or a reduced day rate based on the amount of days hired. I live and work in Madrid and 200 would be ok if you get hired several days a week every week...
Anyway, just like everywhere else, it depends on the distribution and the scale of the job -in this case, I suppose it is mainly internal or web use-, your skills/experience -although knowing how much others clients pay for your talent is only useful to you and measure the value of your time-, and the gear used. It shouldn't be like that but the rates are different if you are using proper lights and lenses on an FS7/C300 than if it's just you with a 5D and an on-camera light, regardless of your talent and the result.
If it's just you with your camera, don't go below 500€/day... and try to get something extra for an assistant.

In this case I have to disagree... Not only is Spain the fastest growing economy in the EU -after a long and hard economic downturn- but also not every field is the same in every country. Filmmaking/advertising is big and with high rates in certain "not-so-developed" countries; for example, Czech Republic is full of qualified professionals working in international productions making a lot more than the average salary. In some countries, being a small producer or cameraman is a well paid job and in others not so much...
Here -Spain- 1000€ does not get you an experienced DP with Amira, lights, etc. Here, 1200€ gets you a nice DP -not top nor novice- without any gear, and hiring such a DP "mandatorily" involves renting a high end camera, lenses, lights and at least a couple of grips... Spain is not a super booming market in terms of filmmaking such as the UK or France, but it is ahead of most European countries and so are the rates -even if the median salary is lower-.
I'd never work for free unless the project really meant advancing in my career -and when you find such a project, normally it is well budgeted and everyone gets paid-; unpaid work spoils a certain type of client -the scum of the earth- who actually believe they can get that stuff for free. Once you have a portfolio, they are not going to pay you, either; they will keep offering you to work for free and if you decline they will look for someone younger/less experienced/probably worse that will agree to do it for free. In my experience those clients do not appreciate what you do and don't take you seriously. It doesn't matter if you are 21 and inexperienced, you should get paid according to your skills and what you bring to the table; after all your video is going to help them make a profit in some way. Really, if at least they had offered a 100€ flat rate per job they would've shown respect. If you can't afford it, don't buy it; just like you don't try to buy a Red Weapon and offer 500 € you should not conceive hiring somenone for free.
The fact that there are "specialists from the 90's" competing in the same market with kids form bad private media schools -which is true- just broadens that market. Not so long ago a commercial or a corporate video was something that only medium sized or large companies could afford. It was hard to make a corporate video for less than 7000-8000 € and a commercial was minimum triple that amount. Now there are many more products accessible to more companies with faster production and adjusted to the needs of each client. That doesn't mean there's no room for the novice -quite the opposite-, and there are "salary slots" depending on the job, but "for free" should never be one. Here 500 € for a job is not much, it could be an acceptable rate for somenone starting out -keep in mind that every job requires pre-production and post-production-, especially because it is very unlikely that you work every day and you'll have to survive on a couple jobs a month in the beginning.

200 seems too low IMHO, unless you are an intern, a non-pro doing a favor or a reduced day rate based on the amount of days hired. I live and work in Madrid and 200 would be ok if you get hired several days a week every week...
Anyway, just like everywhere else, it depends on the distribution and the scale of the job -in this case, I suppose it is mainly internal or web use-, your skills/experience -although knowing how much others clients pay for your talent is only useful to you and measure the value of your time-, and the gear used. It shouldn't be like that but the rates are different if you are using proper lights and lenses on an FS7/C300 than if it's just you with a 5D and an on-camera light, regardless of your talent and the result.
If it's just you with your camera, don't go below 500€/day... and try to get something extra for an assistant.

I'm not stuck with domestic grosses, where do you get that impression? In fact, this movie was probably greenlit mostly because of foreign market revenue since the original Blade Runner was a flop in the US. It is a cult movie nowadays so it could gather a worldwide audience to make it financially viable -let's hope it does-.
The issue is that whatever international distributors spent on international marketing is irrelevant to studios. Most of the times, studios make movies, market them and exploit them in the US -where they control the whole production chain up to movie theatres-. That's why we can sort of calculate how much they spent and their break-even point. International distributors usually pay for their own marketing campaigns and simply give back 50% of the BO gross.
Well, that prediction may not be far off! giving a x4 performance through its box office is kinda optimistic, though. That would be an ideal -yet possible- scenario given the good reviews and word of mouth. Take into account that more "hyped" movies like the Twilight films only manage to double the first weekend gross during their box office life. And no, those figures do not include DVD/Blu-ray, Streaming on TV rights... those are the very last chance for the producers to get their money back. Hey, even Waterworld eventually broke even... 

If the budget was around 155M$, then 400M$ is a reasonable break-even figure. Producers/Studios generally receive an average of 50% of the gross Box Office (the other half is what distributors amd cinemas keep). It is an old rule of thumb that movies need to make between 2 to 2,5 times their budget to break even, depending on marketing expenses and distribution deals.
According to this, Blade Runner 2049's marketing expenses would have been less than 35M$ which frankly seems to make sense given the media presence and promotion has been OK but not huge... In addition nowadays there are many movies in which most of the marketing budget come from pre-opening campaigns by "affiliate brands". I remember Men In Black 2 had a crazy high marketing budget -for its time- but it was mostly paid for by Mercedes-Benz and Burger King. Minority Report also had important sponsorship and product placement deals with big brands -Nokia and Audi, I believe-. I don't know about Blade Runner 2049, but wouldn't be surprised if the marketing budget had been tied to the agreements they managed to sign.
Truth is 35$M is a poor opening, but we have no idea how long its legs will be (8.7 on ImDB) or how well it can go in international markets... we'll see!

Oh come on.

If you're really doing medium to high budget video projects, you are most certainly not rocking up on set with a mirrorless camera. Nor is it so easy to justify a switch between the two. The GH5 footage has the potential to be cleaner, sharper, punchier - for sure. But the difference between the two cameras is not night and day, and I'm sure a lot of clients won't be able to spot the difference. This doesn't even take into account glass, or lighting or crew size which have a much larger effect.

Really, you're just perpetuating this camera myth where people like to think a new camera with flashier specs will elevate their projects, and in turn make them feel like they're a better filmmaker by owning the latest piece of gear.

 

Cuda cores, raw processing power and RAM. Pascal GPUs are the standard right now, and for many good reasons (less power consumption= less heat = more durability = less money for cooling options = less noise etc).
You also need a more recent CPU that does H265 decoding internally. I would say a 6700 or a 7700(better) with a 1060 GPU (value for money right now, no need for anything less).
I do not know about AMD cpus.
For financial reasons I went for 6700 and 1060 recently (for an editing laptop). For 600€ more I would have gone for 7700 and 1070 gpu (that is the combo that I consider as best value for money/perforMande right now), but as I upgrade/renew a lot of my equipment and office space, those extra hundreds were needed elsewhere.

Since you've got two sony's and e mount glass already, I'd say FS5 or 7II. (One note before I get into this: IBC is coming very soon and depending on camera announcements, this could change.)
From the perspective of real estate vids, I think the FS5 will be plenty unless you need internal 10 bit 4K or 60p 4K.
Personally, I'd love to have an FS7II, ( I used the Mk 1 for a few weeks and it's got an amazing image), but it's $4300 more than the FS5 right now, plus the extra cost of the XQD cards and all the more expensive accessories that come with a camera that size and weight, like tripods, sliders, gimbals, cases, etc.
As a bonus, you can use the same SD cards on all 3 of your cameras if you get the FS5.
Disclaimer: I own an FS5 and A7S. But I also have a 5D3 I love, so please don't think I'm a Sony fanboy. If the EVA had a more versatile mount, I'd say it's an option, but it's $3000 more expensive anyway and it's very hard for me to recommend a camera I've never used (or even seen real footage from).

I don't... I would if the C300 MKII were a successful seller that needed to be proctected or "not cannibalised", but the sad truth for Canon is the C300 MKII cycle is over. The original C300 had a long life and was a sold and rented long after its release, but the C300 MKII failed to do so from the start -mainly due to the FS7- and it's gathering dust in the shelves of stores and rental companies. Whatever hype sales or loyal customers it had, they ran out long ago. Canon should accept that fact and move on -even if some C300 MKII owners feel a little screwed-.

Yes, you should definitely expose and WB to your subject -with a white balance card is perfect-, not the green screen.

Yes, you should definitely expose and WB to your subject -with a white balance card is perfect-, not the green screen.

Thanks for your review! If you don't mind, I'd like contribute my experience:
I'd add to the pros list:
S-Log view assist "proper audio" (I think this gets overlooked a lot when comparing to mirrorless) Easy to break down/put together (esp. compared to its big brother) Battery life Dual card slots "Clear image" zoom can be used with the zoom rockers. And I'd add to the cons list:
Can't adjust jack-shit once you turn on super slomo. And no histogram during slomo- wtf, Sony? No waveform Low res EVF (in addition to being small) Shutter speed changes seem random when going between frame rates/resolutions. It needs the ability to set angle!! Seriously, why no shutter angle option? I think this is worth two bullet points :P Controls for XLR2 get covered by the handle. (Or maybe it's XLR1-can't remember) And, to me, I don't find the footage difficult to grade (maybe because I use S-Log 3 and SGamut3.Cine instead of 2/SGamut?), and I've been exposing +1.5EV and haven't had an issue with noise even in HFR.
Curious what lenses you use. Since you were getting marginally better resolution in 4K out, my first thought was maybe you're reaching the resolving limit of the lenses, but the fact that the a6500 is getting better results (with the same lenses, presumably) counters that idea. Great video, btw!! Is that 4K/100?

No it doesn´t. Files are indexed when you first import them and that's it, unless you erase the project temp files created by Premiere.
 
No. I just opened a project I edited last month: not too long, not too short, around 500 clips including short B-roll ones and 20 minute long ones from interviews, plus subtitles, 8 songs, After Effects lower thirds etc. It took about 5 seconds to open the project and after that less than 3 seconds to load the media. No re-indexing or "conforming". As I understand it, the reason behind indexing is precisely to accelerate the process of opening a project and recalling all the media files associated with it. The footage was a mix of Sony MXF files (FS7 and FS5) and Quicktime h264 files form a Canon DSLR, and the station is not the fastest around (old-ish i7 with a GTX1070 and 32GB of RAM). 

How could you shoot 60p at 1/50th? That should be physically impossible...

Bastards.

Looking at your setup I seriously doubt a GH5 would boost your creativity... In some cases it is true that a better/more ergonomic/more versatile camera could enable you to do things you can't do with your current gear, but having an a6500 and an FS5... Come on! Both cameras are light, small and very capable -with some shortcomings, like every camera-.
I use the FS7 and the FS5 for paid work and frankly, if I don't enjoy as much as using a stripped small cam it is because I am WORKING. Even if your job is your passion, there's a tiny bit of pressure when there is a client, pressure to not screw up, to not miss any shots, to go on schedule and even pressure to "get it right" -sometimes you shoot and edit exactly what was agreed and scripted and the client doesn't like the final film and wants to re-shoot, re-edit or start from scracth-. There's also the fact that you are many times not shooting what you really want but what serves the client's purpose.
No matter what camera you use, nothing will compare to the joy of shooting with your small cam on vacation or shooting an improvised goofy short with friends. You'll always find more joy when you can experiment with lighting, camera angles, lens choices -or lack of, using just one- having the luxury to get it wrong or "not perfect". All that "dedicated video cameras kill creativity vs mirrorless open up new worlds" is the enthusiast/purist/idealistic/childish filmmaker in all of us talking. We've all felt a little bit that way some time or another, but deep down we know it's not true. It's the kind of BS that crumbles down the moment you are faced with the reality of the industry, its tight deadlines, its constant need for quick technical problem-solving, for formats that meet the detailed requirements, for footage that is easily cut with the rushes someone else has shot who knows where, for files that are platform and NLE agnostic...
Your tools are just that, and fatigue may set in no matter which tools you use. Take some time off, maybe? Try different projects? I, too run a production company and know more often than not this is not possible. If you find there's some limitation that really affects your work -what clients expect of you- such as 200p @ 8K then sure, look for a new tool that'll serve you. The FS5+RAW is a real workhorse, uncomfortable at times for sure, but it's a professional tool that gets the job done. The a6500 not so much -was never intended to- nor the GH5 nor any other camera that is not meant for that use, even if we all use them sometimes with mostly acceptable results.
I've been in your place more than once and what I learnt was to stop, leave emotions aside for a moment and objectively evaluate if the change is really going to have a meaningful positive impact in my workflow or what I offer to the client. Will it make you faster, more efficient or allow you to offer something clients might want that you can't give them now? If I were you I know I'd end up missing having proper internal ND filters, proper audio connections (even though I have a soundman recording externally) and the rest of the "little things" a dedicated video/cinema camera provides... even if the GH5 is a true accomplished camera.
Sure, like the F5, F55, FS7, FS5... if you use a prosumer stills camera with hybrid/video features, even if the specs are impressive and may deliver stunning results, do not be surprised if those things happen. I seriously doubt the casual street photographer shooting RAW stills is ever going to experience those problems.
In a shooting there are things far more "impressive" than a rigged camera: large lights, grips running around, lots of stands with flags, cables, trucks, an old DP with his light meter... The rigged GH5 might be cumbersome and uncomfortable compared to an FS5, so the advantage of "going light and free" is lost. Even in a small shooting with few people, If my livelihood is at stake I'd always choose convenience/usefulness over looking cool... I'd probably choose a C300 or C100 over the GH5 provided the requirements of the project are covered with the C100 -even if it's not the best iq available-.

Looking at your setup I seriously doubt a GH5 would boost your creativity... In some cases it is true that a better/more ergonomic/more versatile camera could enable you to do things you can't do with your current gear, but having an a6500 and an FS5... Come on! Both cameras are light, small and very capable -with some shortcomings, like every camera-.
I use the FS7 and the FS5 for paid work and frankly, if I don't enjoy as much as using a stripped small cam it is because I am WORKING. Even if your job is your passion, there's a tiny bit of pressure when there is a client, pressure to not screw up, to not miss any shots, to go on schedule and even pressure to "get it right" -sometimes you shoot and edit exactly what was agreed and scripted and the client doesn't like the final film and wants to re-shoot, re-edit or start from scracth-. There's also the fact that you are many times not shooting what you really want but what serves the client's purpose.
No matter what camera you use, nothing will compare to the joy of shooting with your small cam on vacation or shooting an improvised goofy short with friends. You'll always find more joy when you can experiment with lighting, camera angles, lens choices -or lack of, using just one- having the luxury to get it wrong or "not perfect". All that "dedicated video cameras kill creativity vs mirrorless open up new worlds" is the enthusiast/purist/idealistic/childish filmmaker in all of us talking. We've all felt a little bit that way some time or another, but deep down we know it's not true. It's the kind of BS that crumbles down the moment you are faced with the reality of the industry, its tight deadlines, its constant need for quick technical problem-solving, for formats that meet the detailed requirements, for footage that is easily cut with the rushes someone else has shot who knows where, for files that are platform and NLE agnostic...
Your tools are just that, and fatigue may set in no matter which tools you use. Take some time off, maybe? Try different projects? I, too run a production company and know more often than not this is not possible. If you find there's some limitation that really affects your work -what clients expect of you- such as 200p @ 8K then sure, look for a new tool that'll serve you. The FS5+RAW is a real workhorse, uncomfortable at times for sure, but it's a professional tool that gets the job done. The a6500 not so much -was never intended to- nor the GH5 nor any other camera that is not meant for that use, even if we all use them sometimes with mostly acceptable results.
I've been in your place more than once and what I learnt was to stop, leave emotions aside for a moment and objectively evaluate if the change is really going to have a meaningful positive impact in my workflow or what I offer to the client. Will it make you faster, more efficient or allow you to offer something clients might want that you can't give them now? If I were you I know I'd end up missing having proper internal ND filters, proper audio connections (even though I have a soundman recording externally) and the rest of the "little things" a dedicated video/cinema camera provides... even if the GH5 is a true accomplished camera.
Sure, like the F5, F55, FS7, FS5... if you use a prosumer stills camera with hybrid/video features, even if the specs are impressive and may deliver stunning results, do not be surprised if those things happen. I seriously doubt the casual street photographer shooting RAW stills is ever going to experience those problems.
In a shooting there are things far more "impressive" than a rigged camera: large lights, grips running around, lots of stands with flags, cables, trucks, an old DP with his light meter... The rigged GH5 might be cumbersome and uncomfortable compared to an FS5, so the advantage of "going light and free" is lost. Even in a small shooting with few people, If my livelihood is at stake I'd always choose convenience/usefulness over looking cool... I'd probably choose a C300 or C100 over the GH5 provided the requirements of the project are covered with the C100 -even if it's not the best iq available-.

Step back and take a breath.
Canon product development aren't stupid. Neither are they at Nikon. And Nikon is barely at the hybrid video/stills party.
So what's at play?
Pure business strategy.
You touched on it.
Camera companies could care less what Andrew Reid or I have on a wishlist.
Why bother compete with Sony/Panasonic?
We sometimes forget that Japanese manufacturing operates as a giant consortium, with players 'accommodating' each other in support of the bigger picture.

@Hans Punk Literally no one else commenting has read your first reply  Well, at least I care.