TheRenaissanceMan

They were rentals, and very reasonable ones considering our producer worked at the rental house. Besides, the Canons are actually very affordable in comparison to other cinema glass. Also, it was anything but a big shoot. 2 days in a friend's cabin with 9 crew and 4 actors. $2500 budget that largely paid for food, actors, and rentals. Our goal on the technical side was to get maximum production value for minimum money and give ourselves as much post-production flexibility as possible, because at the end of the day, no one watching the film cares what the gear costs; they just want to like what they see.

Very much enjoyed the look of the Canon CN-Es (same glass as the Ls with better QC, coatings, and housings) on Helium for a recent short I gaffed. Attempted a more raw, naturalistic feeling look than I generally do, and I'm pretty happy with the results. Grabs are from ungraded Rec.709 proxies.

C5D also doesn't understand how to use a Xyla chart properly. You expose so the brightest chip is just BARELY clipping, then count down from there. Every C5D test I've ever seen clips more than one chip, and I can never figure out why.

You don't think Fuji will make royalties from this jointly developed technology? Sony makes more money selling their sensor tech than they do from their actual cameras. The same logic applies.

As some people here have already covered, any camera with a good enough codec and dynamic range can deliver good HDR results. Here's the best article on the internet detailing everything a shooter needs to know about HDR. https://www.provideocoalition.com/a-guide-to-shooting-hdr-day-1-what-is-hdr/ But as a quick reality check, HDR delivery is still fairly rare. Especially if you work in TV, low budget narrative, web series, commercials, music videos, or anything but huge budget features, you are not likely to deliver in HDR for years yet. Hold on to your masters just in case, but let's not for a second pretend that lack of HLG or Rec 2020 support in-camera is really going to hold you back.

Is this a s35 sensor, or 2/3 broadcast sensor? Exciting to think what future cameras this could potentially wind up in, but I definitely want to see footage and explore the pros and cons of the tech before we go slapping it in everything.

Eh, not anymore. Ain't nothing separating hobbyists with passion/money from professionals except career shit and the sheer gumption to say "I'm out here, I'm doing it, I'm worthy of using the best I can get." I definitely know DPs who prefer to pull focus by hand (as opposed to a follow focus), so that may be closer to the real reason. Comfort matters too--just because something is "professional" doesn't mean it's the best fit for your particular style/workflow.

Wtf? Do people on this forum even work in production? EVERYTHING with a budget I work on is Alexa with fast lenses close to wide open, big soft LED sources, and practicals that play as real scene lighting. Low light levels are the current flavor, not only for speed (HUGE on paid work where producers are trying to save pennies anywhere they can), but because at those intensities, lighting looks about the same to the eye as it will to camera, as opposed to high levels where you'll often have no idea of your ratios until you pull out a meter or a monitor. This also means controlling your sources, blocking light, and choosing visually conducive locations becomes more important than ever, as your keys aren't nearly bright enough to knock errant light down. Maybe we need to make a topic detailing current industry visual and sound techniques, just so we're all on the same page with how things are done now and what matters.

Zoom F1? Just a nice self-contained lavalier mic/recorder?

People definitely look at a product and think "this looks like a movie" or "this looks like something cheap my nephew put together." Just because average viewers don't have the same visual acumen and vocabulary doesn't mean they don't recognize good aesthetics.

They did offer the UMP discount pricing to Ursa owners, though.

Thinner dies in the OLPF I'm guessing. Better s/n, less precise color discrimination. The A7III also does a lot of NR, so look at detail rendering between the two as well.

You could split the difference and adapt Voigtlander EF/F primes. A nice modern cinema aesthetic, but much safer and more flexible as in investment.

At least where I am, it's generally an owner-operator camera, or owned by agencies/production houses. Those entities sometimes rent it out, like for a couple Garmin/Harley shoots I've done. Anything with product shots loves the Varicam for accurate color. Even in Milwaukee, a rather small market, we have as many Varicams as Alexas (though more REDs than either). Chicago, you'll definitely see more FS7s (they have a virtual monopoly on doco/reality), but Varicams are out there working all the time, like on the Lifetime movie I worked on a few weeks ago or the Kohler commercial the month before. Here's what I'm saying, man. Your experience in the professional sphere is limited, and in a small market, and your observations are purely anecdotal. So unless you have an article with hard sales numbers that back up your claim, then with all due respect I'm going to disregard your (in my eyes) baseless assertion. Let's try not to derail this thread any further. If we want to talk Varicam popularly, let's make a separate topic.

Very cool! Considering your limited resources, those results are all the more impressive. I've done network reality shows that don't look as good. The one thing I'll point out is that there's some weirdness on the subject's nose in your second screen grab. Looks like it could be red channel clipping? Thanks for the notes on ProColor. I may have to try that if I don't trade out for a Pocket 4K or Fuji. If you ever have an interest in shooting LOG, Google the Resolve Color Managed workflow. It's more time and labor intensive if you're editing in premiere/FCPX, but in challenging DR scenes it may really help you out.