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.

Looking real nice! What were your PP settings?

That's an awfully small sample size to extrapolate the market viability of Panasonic's entire pro line worldwide.

Our XF-AVC files were just for review/dailies and the offline edit, so I wanted something that looked nice right out of the camera. Plenty of time to work with LOG gammas when we circle back to the RAW files. We had about 6 128gb cards to shuffle between, averaging 4 mins of card space per shot. Did alright on that system, since we were only doing simple coverage that day; once we get into more complex blocking, emotions, and camera movement, I can see storage becoming a concern. Time will tell. I'm curious about your Neat Video comment. Are you saying the sensor itself is noisy? Or just that the CRL files don't have much baked in NR?

With all due respect, you need to stop doing this thing where you go on long diatribes based on assumef information that isn't even true. The Varicam lines have been very popular sellers, especially the LT. Not FS7 or C300 monster-sales, but for episodic, spots, and doc, they're seeing plenty of professional use. Do your research before you make sweeping statements about sales figures or market popularity.

No. The EVA has a 10-bit 4K codec, which Sony makes you step up to the FS7 to get. The FS5 only offers 10-bit 1080p and 8-bit 4k. I'd also pay more for the EVA color and dynamic range over an FS5.

Because Cinema Raw Light is actually higher quality than the 10-bit XF-AVC from the C300 II, and we didn't need the faster workflow or broadcast features of the latter.

Just did my first shoot with the C200. A few observations: -It's a small, weird little body. Taller, and maybe even fatter, than it is long. Strange ergonomic choice if you want to get it on the shoulder. Still, the dedicated buttons cover all the essential tools/controls and are easy to find...except the strangely placed operator-side record button, which is hard to find by feel. Comes into play when you're jammed in a little closet. -With Wide DR gamma and Production Camera matrix, the tones and color palette are lovely straight out of the camera. Particularly in mixed lighting, the Canon pumps out predictably pretty results. Can't speak to their accuracy, but for a sentimental narrative it was just what the doctor ordered. -The new 2K XF-AVC is a weak codec. Looks nice with no corrections or grading, but falls apart quickly if you biff your white balance or start to mess around in Resolve/Lumetri. Still, it's nice to have the extra metadata, and they make good dailies/proxies to use until we circle back and link up the RAW Lite files (which we haven't touched yet). -The viewfinder is nice and usable. Not nearly as good as the incomparable C700 EVF, but that costs about as much as the C200. 😂 For a built in, it does exactly what I need--show an accurate enough, sharp enough picture to operate and review with. The tilt was nice too, especially since I LOVE low angles. -RAW Lite chews through CFast cards like nothing. 128GB cards gave us 15mins each. Now I know how film shooters feel with their limited mag sizes. It didn't hold us back too much this time, but our future days will have longer, more complex takes, and I don't relish the idea of nervously watching our card time tick down. -It's a nice light camera, and moves around easily. In my case, I really prefer more mass to keep things uber steady. Might have to rig her up a bit more for our next go around. -I was fighting the fading sunlight in our last scene of the day (these damn, short Wisconsin days...), but I didn't seem to suffer too much penalty for bumping up to ISO 1600/2000 for our last couple shots. A little NR should take care of it. Ultimately, I think it'll actually be less noticable than the blue shift in the window light. Hopefully I can color it out convincingly. I'll end with a few stills for your perusal, but...for the price, it really is an easy, simple little camera. If the RAW punches as hard as I've heard, then the ease of use vs strength of results ratio is very impressive. I have mixed feelings on the body, but as a nice cheap rental, it delivered exactly what I needed.

You want the look of a heavier camera, you need to make the camera heavier. Period. The extra weight/mass is what makes bigger cameras look better handheld. Either you're willing to do it for the look or you're not. There's no way to "fake" inertia. Gimbals and steadicams will give you steadier footage with a light camera and eliminate micro-jitter, but it's not the same aesthetic at all. On a recent short, all it took was popping the F3 on a simple shoulder pad, and suddenly beautiful handheld was effortless. I can PM you a link if you're interested.

One of the most popular tools in Resolve, which is why it has a dedicated dial in the Blackmagic micro studio panel. Great for adding some "grit," beautifying, or any other time you need to emphasize or downplay the appearance of fine detail.

I very much subscribe to the Ridley Scott school of night scenes: light the hell out of it, then print down in post.