pablogrollan

In cinema lenses the housing is kept consistent across the whole setup regardless of the glass element size so that you can swithch lenses without having to reposition the follow focus and mattebox, but in photo lenses the filter thread size is pretty much the diameter of the front element plus 1 or 2 mm because the goal is to make the smallest lens possible without compromising speed or optical quality.
Usually... but the Sigma 50mm f1.4 has a 77mm filter thread and weights over 800 gr. which I'm not so sure means a huge optical improvement over my old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 with a 52mm thread. Same applies to some Zeiss/Contax designs which are very compact yet fast and optically superb... With stills lenses there isn't as direct a correlation as with cinema lenses...

In my experience -for  broadcast- the 80% safe zone is used less and less... instead the 90% frame is now considered both action safe and title safe. Most TV station bugs are now placed in the 90% safe zone, but as Hans Punk pointed in those cases you just adhere to whatever rules and guidelines each broadcaster has. As for "social media" or any direct to web content, I believe it's better to follow the same rules (including loudness normalization, not just safe colours and titles) to keep a standard, and even just because it is aesthetically more pleasing.

The guy in your video knows nothing. Here is how you interpret 30p "as" 24p (or whatever your timeline is set to), and every frame will be played back without stuttering.

SLog2 is fantastic on the A7 cameras (if you do it right!)
Slog3 is too aggressive. (Although I've seen some really nice results). 
Cine4 is nice for many situations. 
Slog3 10-bit is where it's at! 

This one is like the glidearm but a lot cheaper... (from 700$ to 300$)
https://www.came-tv.com/products/came-tv-folding-arm-slider-sl02
Still, it seems easier to use a proper head on Edelkone's wing but it is an expensive product without any assurance of how it's going to perform.

Most films are shot locked off or a professional balanced system...... GH5 has similar compressed codec..... Also where int he world do you pass your "opinion" as facts, GH5 does not have anything that anyone could technically state as "better motion".
 
One thing as a fact though is the GH5 has a smaller sensor and therefore is not as sensitive to light as the Sony......
The biggest problem with Panasonic GH Hybrid cameras has been "noise" and overly sharp natural footage, if this cans somehow be addressed in GH5 then it might be a good Hybrid camera, but working in the 2K range I would honestly save up a bit more and buy a Canon C100 Mark II.......
 

Yet I'd say that's a clear bottleneck there... Never edit off external USB3 drives, and even less if they are mechanical drives. That's an "on the field" solution, but you'll find editing with internal SSDs is much better (faster, more responsive). Also using only 2 drives is another bottleneck.
It's great to have the software running on the NVMe PCIe drive, but kind of useless; I guess the OS and Premiere load crazy fast, but once Premiere is loaded, it's loaded -and the drive becomes irrelevant-. It's crucial to have your software/OS on one drive, your source footage on another and your render/temp files on another so that you can use all of the drives at the same time and maximize the SATA bus. Keep in mind spinning discs have a slower access time (regardless of their read speed), especially when they have to access two pieces of data in faraway sectors at the "same" time. It wouldn't be so obvious with a single SSD editing drive because access time is much faster, but you'd still be able to tell the difference between a system with a single editing SSD and one with several HDDs accessed at the same time. It's better/faster to have 4 or 5 "slow" HDDs than a single SSD.
That's a Mac problem. PP uses a lot of RAM (the whole Adobe suite does) and in Windows it is much easier to control what is open and running in the background. MacOS is notorious for having tons of processes and apps running in the background. Since macs are usually overkill, the user experience is great -we've all heard people say that apps open much faster unaware that they were never really actually closed-, but when you want to push it to the limit it just doesn't deliver like a windows PC does. It's just a question of knowing the limitation and accounting for the necessary overhead. I recently upgraded the GPU in an old editing suite (GTX 1070, i7, 32GB RAM) and it edits 4K without proxies and without hiccups. It's not as fast is some processes as the new suites, but does the job without crashing/lagging or any of that.
You'll see that a single fast processor is better for Premiere. It doesn't really take advantage of dual Xeons like a 3D app does. Still, with such a beast you should consider a multiple drive configuration. You can go the HDD route (RAID) which would require many disks -but cheaper- or go all SSD which would require just 4 SSDs since there is no need for RAID configuration.

In that case, I'm afraid Sony lenses won't do... though there are focus-by-wire lenses that almost replicate mechanical behaviour, most of them are awful in that regard -the 28-135 f4 PZ is sooo horrible!!!-. I haven't tried it myself but I understand the new 18-110 f4 has a great manual focus feel, it's a pity the lens itself is big, expensive and slow making it as unattractive as it gets.
The 16mm f2.8 is ok as a gimbal lens, decent enough autofocus and minimal footprint (it's a pancake lens).
Other than that, I stick to adapted lenses for the FS7 and FS5, mostly Zeiss CP with a PL adapter -controlled shoots- and Canon zooms with metabones speedboosters.

The Crane was originally built and sold as a gimbal for camera+lens combos of 350-1200gr. Nevertheless, its motors are quite powerful and soon users realized they could get very close to 1200gr and even over that limit and the gimbal still worked. Turns out 1200 gr. is a very conservative limit. Zhiyun, acting responsibly -which is unusual nowadays-, provided a wide margin so that the product would work as advertised.
Having said that, after so many enquiries from some users and answers from other users going over the limit, Zhiyun released an "alternative" firmware that extends the payload limit to 1800 gr, though it also raises the minimum required weight. Therefore, if you are going to use a small mirrorless, bridge or compact camera the "regular" firmware is recommended but if you plan on using a larger DSLR, you can dowload and install the "alternative" firmware from the same Zhiyun page. Hope the explanation is clear!

Literally five minutes after my comment I received an email from Rose Tan followed by an email from Greg at CVP, both showing interest in solving my problem. Unfortunately, it seems I received a defective unit and will need to be replaced. Thank you jonpais and Michael for your help and insights on this gimbal!

Lucky you! I wrote to service@zhiyun-tech.com about my problem including the video and I'm still waiting to hear from them...

I would have thought that you'd need a whole production crew, and a rather large budget to create something similar to the link you provided.  

I kinda agree with DPC, that comparison is really weird. I agree that canon has great colors, but that profile with crushed blacks is pretty extreme. I mean, it's ok as a 'look' I guess, but not really something you can deliver to every client.
 
I'm also pretty curious about work or a reel, this site (especially the forum) is a great resource, but your opinions can be quite harsh and I don't see the actual knowledge and creative skills to back it up, except for a few music vids from a long time ago. This is not meant as a bash or to bully you, but I think it's too much spec talk and not enough filming.

Andrew, do you film professionally? It's just that you speak authoritatively but I don't think I've seen anything other than what you post here. To me the skin tones (especially on the train trip) look pretty awful. No client I have would ever approve that. The blacks are crushed to death and faces are red and over-saturated.

It's been pretty tough choosing what to get as my company A-cam, and after a few runs,  I've opted for the FS5. 
When it comes to image quality (and I only know the FS5 internally), the FS5 isn't near the top of my list. 
What matters to me, most of all, is making content, and telling stories.
As much as I'd want an Ursa Mini 4.6k, a RED Raven, C300 II or Terra 5k- with the FS5 versatility wins. 
Why did I get it then? 
Lightweight and modular - saves the back and can be used on my DSLR grip gear.  Use run n gun style bare bones or beast it up with an external recorder - caters for pretty much all types of work.  Slow motion - currently unmatched at this price point. No slow motion crop too! E-mount - massive range of adaptable lenses.  Variable ND - very very useful.  Going back to image quality - although the initial palette isn't quite as stunning as other models in this range - I think Sony get a hammering online as there are countless videos posted on Vimeo and Youtube where Slog has been badly exposed and graded. If you put in your research to handling Slog, the results can be spectacular. 
 

I highly recommend this tutorial for Resolve, it is excellent (and free). It doesn't export in all UHD formats so I am currently with Premiere Pro: 
 

It is, since it is 422 10 bit in HD vs 420 8bit in the Alphas. Sure the FS5 is no B cam to an Alexa, not even close, but if you want portability in a "real" camera package (no need for rigging) it is probably the best option -miles ahead of the JVC LS300 IMHO-.

I'd say bad, since it's not designed to edit video. Kind of like editing stills in Word, which you can. If you are serious about video, sooner or later you'll have to learn to use editing software -not power director nor elements-. Since you are already subscribed to Adobe CC, check how much would it be if you included Premiere CC. At first you may be lost, but that steep learning curve has to be endured and Premiere is as standard and easy as editing programs can be. The upside of this is that, since the concepts are the same, adapting to a different version o program is not that hard.
Yes it would be present. Depending on the type of noise, the resizing could improve it or not. If you de-noise first and then resize you could get good results since denoising usually softens the image and the resizing would increase the perceived sharpness.

Location, the camera movements, and camera angles doesn't make sense.  If you muted the sound, you might guess they are planning for some criminal heist.
One thing that they are clearly doing that they shouldn't be is making sure every shot is in motion.  Doesn't fit this interview at all.  I'm guessing the purpose was to add energy.  Many ways they could have done this rather than have the camera always moving on mostly still subjects.
The first half of the interview, do they explain why they are standing in a junkyard or what seems like an abandoned house?  Had they explained why they were standing there by introducing the location, maybe it would have worked better.  
A tripod, slider shots, maybe a more lively location for the first half, and cuts to live concert footage would have been much more fitting. 

The nauseating factor (warping) is not avoided with a higher shutter speed or framerate, that would just compensate for the excessive motion blur resulting from stabilizing (or slowing down) what originally was a faster movement.
If you plan to shoot a whole project handheld you should plan how to stabilize your shots beforehand (gimbal? steadicam? monopod?). Post stabilization can save a shot if necessary, but it is a botched job and should be considered a patch, not common practice.
What doesn't work for me in that interview is that:
a) The "concept" and camera work is too repetitive. It's OK if you don't want every segment to be sitting down, properly lit and with tripods, but the hand held group shot thingy gets boring after a little while, not to mention that obviously this impromptu style means some shots are horrible framed and/or horribly lit. It also limits your freedom to edit, and in an interview most of the time there's a lot empty small talk to get rid of.
b) Too much Zane Lowe. What happens with "celebrity" interviewers is that either them or the producers sometimes forget that an interview is a dialogue between the interviewee and the audience; the interviewer should be as invisible as possible.

Was this shot in Portugal or a European country? If so you should be shooting 100fps at 1/200th rather than 120fps at 1/250th. Other than that, I don't know what you can do to solve the issue.

If I was doing a music video I would definitely get anything BUT the C300. 50/ 60fps in important to me. If 25p is all you need for sure then okay but even basic slo-mo can be quite useful especially for music videos.
I would take the FS5 but if you had to go Canon then I would go for the C100 mk2.

Agreed. my wife is a film editor and much prefers working with filmmakers who go out and shoot exactly what they want, rather than gathering a bunch of material to be sorted out later. One of the first features she cut, the director asked "why didn't you use the close up here?"  my wife's answer was, "you didn't shoot one."  and the director's replied, "then punch in on the 2 shot."
now she has a scene with these reframed close-ups and every now and then the other actor's nose creeps into frame. she did the best she could but it's still awkwardly composed. I realize for Sekhar covering an event is one thing, because he has no second takes. But shooting narrative benefits from specificity. unless you *are* on the level of david fincher and all the post resources he has available to him, this approach will start to undermine the experience of the movie. similar to deciding you wanted to slow a shot down in post back when all we had available to us was "frame blending" to smooth it out. few things signaled "digital video" louder. optical flow brings us much closer, but it's still better to do it in camera. and to have the vision to know that you need it that way.

c100.. great low light, rock solid - mark 2 has the incredible dual pixel autofocus.. better video than 5d's, so can be very filmic.. great detail and colour.. low rolling shutter - better all around camera.. that said I would love an a7s to film at night with!
 

Having used both traditional steadicams with vest and arm and a few 3 axis gimbals (BeSteady, Ronin, Pilotfly) I believe there is one major point missing: the learning curve.
I kinda disagree with DPStewart that switching cameras is as inconvenient in a Steadicam as in a 3 axis gimbal. In my experience it takes considerably longer in a traditional steadicam, even if only because the gimbal has motors that allow for a slightly unbalanced or misbalanced configuration (sure, battery drains faster and it may not be as smooth, but still works perfectly) while an improperly balanced Steadicam will make your life hell...
But above all, with a 3 axis gimbal you may need a few hours until you get the hang of how to balance it quickly, and maybe an afternoon until you fly it with confidence and proficency (hardly an hour to get decent results!). A conventional Steadicam is much better in some regards but it takes a lot of practice, and I mean a lot! That's why steadicam operators have been very well paid for so many years. Not to mention that, though heavier means smoother "floating" movements, it also means overstraining your back. I've seen several steadicam operators forced to retire in their 40s because of their back problems...