deezid

If the FX3 has the same image processing, autofocus and eND as any of the other FX cameras it'll be a no-brainer I think especially given its price tag. If it comes with the Sony Alpha processing (strong sharpening and noise reduction) they can keep it. 😉

If the FX3 has the same image processing, autofocus and eND as any of the other FX cameras it'll be a no-brainer I think especially given its price tag. If it comes with the Sony Alpha processing (strong sharpening and noise reduction) they can keep it. 😉

Awesome thanks! 
And totally agree that Alpha cameras (A7iii, A7sii, etc) are pretty awful from a video image quality standpoint. But Venice and FX9 have always been way better so if the FX6 is close to that, that's pretty great. 
On that topic, I think that will be a big differentiator between the A7sIII and the FX3. Does the FX3 look more like the FX9, FX6, Venice? Or more like the A7sIII, which, in my opinion, still has that pretty awful zombie-skintones that have plagued all of the Alpha cameras and the FS5. It looks better, but not that great compared to stuff I've seen from FX9/6.
 

It's hard to say it's gone wrong. It's so-called creative destruction. There's simply no need for a mass consumer camera market any more. Every home used to have a camera, be it a compact, a SLR, a Polaroid or whatever. No-one needs those any more because everybody (even the children) has a phone that will take better snaps with fewer skills, in a format that allows instant sharing.

I am testing the FX6 soon to see if its color and IQ are closer to C300/C70 than FS5II/A7sII before making any decisions (because if it still feels like old Sony image, I'm out).
But this camera still excites me as the ideal B-Cam to something like the FX6 or FX9. Every other cinema camera lacks a true, compact, mirrorless-like b-camera (same mount, some color, same codecs, same sensor size, same lenses, etc). I would get WAY more excited if it has: timecode, a 3.5mm input on the body, S-Cinetone, and touchscreen AF.
Those features plus all of the new Sigma lenses, the move to full-frame cinema, Zeiss Loxia line (which I loved), all make the E-Mount a very exciting possibility. BUT, all the specs, bells, and whistles don't mean much if I'll be wishing I had my old Canon image a year later.

The Sony fx3 will definitely justify its existence if it offers:
noise reduction control  Pro monitoring tools including false color, which would help avoid needing an external monitor. That would save you the money, preserve the small form factor, and of course, audio on the top handle leaves no room for external monitor. eNDs v. IBIS...I'm guessing IBIS would be more important to counter the jitters on a small body If it has better AF features like touchscreen tracking and an audio input, that would certainly be an advantage over the fx6  
 

You should try shooting a roll of 35mm still. The skin tone, color, and look are you get from film are absolutely amazing. It just looks right.
I would imagine the guys on that colorist forum are likely a lot of veteran colorists that most likely value work flow over everything. 
I know this dude grades a ton of stuff shot on 35mm. Beautiful work. 
https://www.company3.com/artists/stefan-sonnenfeld/

Film being difficult to work with doesn't make it undesirable in terms of the final outcome. Of course it changes from film stock to film stock but traits of film are what good digital cameras do as well. This is of course talking about film that has been properly shot and developed.

Natural and true to life colors with a pleasing skin tone. Pleasant motion cadence. A detailed image that doesn't look like its been digitally sharpened. Soft roll off into highlights and shadows. Digital is still a relatively new medium and Arri is the only company to really have it down to perfection or at least very close to it.

Weird motion, jello shutter, sharpening, moire, aliasing, aberrations, poor or odd color science, digital clipping, digital noise, compression artifacts, poor color depth, line skipping, incamera noise reduction, are all things brought into being by digital cameras.

 

Shooting S16 is a pain in the ass 😅

I am so spoiled I'd rather just use my S1 with the internal stabilization as gimbals and tripods are too tedious to have to carry and I don't want to have to rig anything up besides putting in a battery and SD card LOL

That was my conclusion after filming a short on a C300 rigged up. My take away was I think I could have been quicker and actually got a better image off the S1 without any rigging. 

Depends in what degree you are talking about of course. Overexposed film and overexposed digital look very different. Overexposed film looks pretty IMHO. Of course with digital as long as you stay within the latitude of the camera you are fine. Ease of use obviously goes to digital but I don’t think that is what we are talking about. 
 
I meant film convert relies on you to expose properly for the color transforms to work. Even then it’s not going to  account for every lighting situation especially mixed lighting.                    For a commercial look properly exposed footage will always be best. Over and under exposed film vs digital are two different animals though. Over or under exposed film has a really unique and cool looking aesthetic imo 

The 1DC is nice but I wouldn't say its on par with film. The color science is nice but its not mimicking any certain film stock. It also won't respond like film does to under or over exposure. Over exposing the 1DC will result in a digital clippy mess. 

Intelligent ways to tonemap highdynamic range.

This was a good question five years ago.

S5 with Voitglander 35mm 1.2 @ 1.2 and DJI Focus
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zfdaF9VfxQ5PPJ0PXOFygTKcnzbUHqjq/view?fbclid=IwAR18VZmAs2U24wxr0-3UnFtwKCxlr0mnmzgp3imrbngTKoN7CcwKqrM97zc
 

Yeah I'm using the S1H and Nucleus Nano, the stills are amazing and the high-res photo mode is exceptional for still subjects, Vlog images are beautiful, and though Ninja V RAW is of limited use TBH it's still nice to have 

I think the issue is... how many of us are there? For me this is the best image available outside of Red and Arri, but are there enough of us who want it to keep them making these cameras?

Like Nikon, I don’t think any time soon.
Based on nothing but pure speculation/opinion.
 

By "HW" updates are you meaning new, physically different cameras with new hardware? I'm not sure how many people market-wise are buying into the new L-cameras (anecdotally, several work buddies and colleagues just purchased the S5) but I am thrilled about my S1, especially with the recently announced firmware update coming sometime in Q1 of 2021, which means I'll get internal 6k, anamorphic modes and pro res raw via the ninja v. I literally won't need a new camera for years to come. Amazing dynamic range, really good ibis for handheld work, big, bright EVF, very reliable low-light dual-ISO, gorgeous stills, great battery life, and built like a tank. 

A lot of people care about autofocus, but I love my vintage contax zeiss lenses and they're what I prefer to use anyway so it doesn't matter to me. Plus if I really need it I can just pick up a nucleus nano and the fancy new ToF sensor from @BTM_Pix and voila, AF problems solved. 

From today's shooting with the Panasonic S1H (V-Log, NR -1)
Rokinon 50mm T1.5 at T1.5
Black Satin 2 Filter
55M Organic Lut (part of Advanced Deluxe Set)
Looks thick enough to me. 🙂
Key is having a camera without nasty processing - especially sharpening and strong NR but having great tonality, at least 10 bit and also good color science instead

From today's shooting with the Panasonic S1H (V-Log, NR -1)
Rokinon 50mm T1.5 at T1.5
Black Satin 2 Filter
55M Organic Lut (part of Advanced Deluxe Set)
Looks thick enough to me. 🙂
Key is having a camera without nasty processing - especially sharpening and strong NR but having great tonality, at least 10 bit and also good color science instead

I think the light and amount of contrast of the scene makes a huge difference to the image thickness.  When you have a good amount of contrast in your scene with areas of shadow and bright highlights, and your object is well exposed then you can bring the blacks down were they belong and help with the perceived thickness (and also reduce the perceived grain/noise).  Were I notice the main difference with cameras that produce thicker images like the digital Bolex is with skin tones and also foliage/leaves/trees etc.  Whether it's the tonality/colour gamut/saturation/shadow saturation or all of these when combined with good light they just look more alive. Here is a screen shot from the D16 (not mine) which while compressed to heck look 'thick' and alive to me.
 
 
 
 

In the same vein, this might be a useful resource for you.
https://film-grab.com

@kyeI don't think those images quite nail it. I gathered a couple pictures that fit thickness in my mind, and in addition to the rich shadows, they all have a real sense of 3D depth due to the lighting and lenses, so I think that is a factor. In the pictures you posted, there are essentially 2 layers, subject and background. Not sure what camera was used, but most digital cameras will struggle in actual low light to make strong colors, or if the camera is designed for low light (e.g., A7s2) then it has weak color filters which makes getting rich saturation essentially impossible.
 
Here's a frame from The Grandmaster which I think hits peak thickness. Dark, rich colors, a couple highlights, real depth with several layers and a nice falloff of focus that makes things a little more dreamy rather than out of focus.

And the scopes which clearly show the softness of the tones and how mostly everything falls into shadows.

 
 
For comparison, here's the scopes from the picture of the man with the orange shirt in the boat which shows definite, harsh transitions everywhere.

 
 
Perhaps, do you have some examples? For example that bright daylight Kodak test posted earlier here
Has this scope (mostly shadow though a little brighter than the Grandmaster show, but fairly smooth transitions). And to be honest, I think the extreme color saturation particularly on bright objects makes it look less thick.

These are thick looking images!
No noise reduction or other processing weirdness.
Super highly saturated shadow areas which many cameras nowadays desaturate to cover chroma noise
Overall huge tonal variation.
And what I guess - proper looking motion.
Something the A7sIII especially is bad with since it's optimized for low light - CFA prioritizing sensitivity over tonality + tons of temporal noise reduction and sharpening. All ending in a sterile and thin looking image.
Worst thing, doing ETTR to avoid smearing and ghosting at middle gray and below hues start shifting around. 😐
 

These are thick looking images!
No noise reduction or other processing weirdness.
Super highly saturated shadow areas which many cameras nowadays desaturate to cover chroma noise
Overall huge tonal variation.
And what I guess - proper looking motion.
Something the A7sIII especially is bad with since it's optimized for low light - CFA prioritizing sensitivity over tonality + tons of temporal noise reduction and sharpening. All ending in a sterile and thin looking image.
Worst thing, doing ETTR to avoid smearing and ghosting at middle gray and below hues start shifting around. 😐
 

Also...
For me a 'chunky' file is measured in the difference between, and the range, in just a single hue.
Mashed colours with poor tonality scream 'thin' digital file to me.