TheRenaissanceMan

Ah, I see what you mean now. The reason I misunderstood you is because 2% to 90% = 5.5 stops is a measure of light reflectance. It's a property of the scene and not of the recording medium. It's true no matter what camera you're using.
Ha ha! Yes, seven stops is pushing it a bit even for Portra 400. However, the image is still usable, if not optimal:

Now please don't say "I should have said eight" as I've run out of images in this series 😂

Now, @kye I'm a big fan of your posts, steeped in research and a relentless pursuit of the truth, with a generous doses of suspicion of received wisdom and contempt for misapprehension and hearsay. But in this case you might be a little bit guilty of some of the things that you so rightly rail against!
I haven't read the link as I'm drinking wine on holidays in Tuscany, but surely the point being made in that document is that the difference between 2% and 90% reflectance of linear light is 5.5 stops (it's straightforward multiplication), and not that negative film has a dynamic range of 5.5 stops (slide film might, depending on the film).
No, it's not similar to film, unless you're talking about Velvia slide film, for example, which does have a very limited dynamic range because it's so contrasty. Negative film can record a lot more. Around 10 stops is probably the lowest I've seen (Ektar 100). That's the recording medium. The display medium traditionally was paper (about 7 stops) for print photography, depending on the paper, and I don't know how many stops a projector could reproduce but I'd guess that for movies the dynamic range of the negative was compressed to fit the dynamic range of the print film.
Sony's point about Rec709's dynamic range being around 5.2 stops has a lot to do with the dynamic range of a traditional CRT display. And historically this was all that was needed. Black paper and white paper in flat lighting conditions, ie: TV studio lighting. If you watch old BBC shows like Fawlty Towers and Mr. Bean you'll notice that the interior scenes, where lighting could be controlled, were shot on video, and exterior scenes (where it couldn't) were shot on film. It was all compressed for shitty old TVs. But you can still spot the difference.
Any Vision 3 film or still film based on Vision 3 technology should be ok at 5 stops over for skintones. The highlights will be a bit compressed for sure, but the skin itself when properly colour balanced should look fine. Here's Portra 400 at 5 stops over:

Anyway, these are just small points and your thesis still stands: that there's a lot to be gained from shooting with "lesser" digital video cameras.
To that I would add for you specifically Kye or anyone else reading this thread who is interested in image quality - which I define as (in order of importance) colour interpretation, stops of light reproduced and resolution - get yourself a 1990s/2000s autofocus film SLR that will accept one or more of your existing lenses and shoot some film OR any film camera. If you like pretty pictures, it leaves digital in the dust.
But yes, we are shooting on digital devices that record 10+ stops and have been for quite some time now. The average scene brightness range is 7.5 stops and if you're grading for a Rec709 display, traditionally that meant quite a bit of contrast. So if your camera A does 12 stops a camera B does 10 those 2 extra stops are in the very bright highlights and the very dark shadows. However, with an insipid Netflix drama grade where everything just looks like they shot in log but forgot to apply a lut you would definitely notice a difference. I don't think film ever looked much like that (although it could, if we had wanted it to). And we'll look back on the log look in ten years' time with the same rueful sense of aesthetic horror as we view any decade's transgressions of taste, until in another decade or two they become cool again and everyone scrambles to recreate it.
So don't throw out your first gen Sony S-Log thingy, just as I've kept my MiniDV Canon XM2 that I expect to be asked to make a music video on any day now.

Stills from F3 ProRes 422. Happy caturday!

Film doesn't underexpose well so you get crushed blacks rather quickly hence the contrasty look but it obliterates digital in highlight DR latitude. Kodak Vision has been championing their motion film stock and I remember reading it gives DR readings anywhere from 12 to 20 stops depending on scan techniques and recovery methods. You can check some of the charts yourself:
https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION-200T-Sellsheet_US_4PG-EN.pdf
The wider exposure latitude in KODAK VISION3 Films differentiate film capture from the limited dynamic range of digital capture. Digital "dodging and burning," a very powerful tool in the colorists' toolkit, is now even more powerful—up to two stops more image information can be extracted from scene highlights in VISION3 Films.
If traditional 10-bit scanner data encoding schemes are used to digitize films having this extended density range, highlight information captured on these film could be lost. Kodak has recommendations for extracting the full density range stored on high dynamic range films in a technical document titled Scanning Recommendations for Extended Dynamic Range Camera Films
Also recommend some of the great accompanying videos :
 
notice at 1:40 how the DP states he overexposed the highlights by 6-7 stops and again at 2:00 the field is 4 stops over and the sky 7 stops over before recovering the highlights. have fun achieving that kind of highlight latitude in digital!
..again at 7:37 overexposing the grassy area by 3-4 stops and perfect recovery.
Just some extra food for thought when comparing film to digital.

I have an EOS R so it will come eventually. I'm also saving up for an R5C and then I can do something for C-Log3 as well.
 
Yes the packs are tailored for specific cameras, I take about 10k color samples from each camera and from these measurements I create LUTs using my own engine. It's quite a long process.

Let me rephrase:
C-Log2 requires learning to colour grade in order to get a good grade in terms of highlight rolloff and dynamic range as well as the final output S-Log2 requires learning to colour grade in order to get a good grade in terms of highlight rolloff and dynamic range as well as the final output S-Log3 requires learning to colour grade in order to get a good grade in terms of highlight rolloff and dynamic range as well as the final output The reason that I say this is that if you know even the basics of how to colour grade then they are essentially interchangeable, in terms of getting "a good grade in terms of highlight rolloff and dynamic range as well as the final output", and if you don't know how to colour grade then you won't be able to get "a good grade in terms of highlight rolloff and dynamic range as well as the final output".
Remember how I said in the "please tell me what camera to buy so I won't have to learn how to colour grade" thread that you keep asking the same question over and over but just using different words?  Well, this is another example of that.

Ah I see. To create Fujifilm Film Simulation LUTs I need to have the camera for 1-2 weeks, and I don't know a single person in my area who owns it. The other thing is that it takes quite a lot of time for me to create these packs so I mainly go for cameras with large user base. In this regard I'm not sure about the F3.

Stills from F3 ProRes 422. Happy caturday!

This is great! Any chance of an SLOG1/SGamut version for us F3 users?

I was talking about the Fujifilm Emulation LUTs, for which you listed several other formats. 

Stills from F3 ProRes 422. Happy caturday!

Stills from F3 ProRes 422. Happy caturday!

Stills from F3 ProRes 422. Happy caturday!

Hello,
This is the official topic for all Colorizer products.
My main focus is bringing high-precision Fujifilm Film Simulation LUTs to multiple cameras.
The following formats are supported at the moment, click the links for videos and details:
Fujifilm X-T3/X-T4 F-Log
Sony S-Log2/S-Gamut3.cine
Panasonic V-Log L & HLG
I also sell ACES IDTs for cameras that are not natively supported by Davinci Resolve:
- Fujifilm F-Log/F-Gamut
- Nikon N-Log/BT.2020
- Sony S-Log2/S-Gamut3.cine
- Z Cam ZLog2
- GoPro Protune
These packs include a lot of 3D LUTs simulating the ACES Rec.709 look, so it can be valuable for Premiere users as well.
I also have Technical fixes for common color shift issues caused by bad interpretation of certain clips in Premiere. I strongly suggest you check this out if you're a Fujifilm user.
As a bonus I created a bunch of free online tools for creating and modifying 3D LUTs, so if you're into this kind of stuff, visit http://colorizer.net.
Thank you for your attention,
Attila

I saw that tweet back when Andrew posted it, bravo on entering into a whole new world! 
Not sure if it is a path I'd personally take though (but then again, I don't know how much of a steal he got it for?? And a certain point you just can't say no!). 
As I keep an eye on RED prices now and then. 
 
RED ONEs have for a while now been ultra affordable, but they're such extremely heavy beasts! (and suck up power & media) That's why all those years ago I went with a Sony PMW-F3 instead, as my personal experiences with RED ONE meant I didn't want one myself. 
RED Scarlet MX have finally got to the point they're ultra cheap too, but they're a bit too crippled vs an Epic. Plus the MX sensor is so old. (who wants to go back to always shooting at 800 ISO? And never going higher. Not me. And arguably you should even still shoot 320 ISO, if you want a cleaner image, say if you doing green screen)
Thus I feel you have to look at the bare minimum of an DSMC1 Epic Dragon (or newer)
But you could buy a brand new Sony FX6 / Canon C70 for that price! Or an URSA Mini 12K.
Or if looking at secondhand, a Sony F55 or original ALEXA. Or a Panasonic Varicam LT / Canon C300 mk3 is also in the same ballpark. 
And if you start looking at the more recent REDs than that (DSMC2 bodies), you're then reaching into ballpark price territory for an AMIRA, or Sony FX9, or Canon C500mk2.
Is a personal preference thing, but I'd happily take any of those other alternatives instead. 

That’s IP666

Personally I think it would be best to take a step back, and just organizize the whole thing. If you haven't shot a movie, why do it yourself if there are plenty of people better at it who will do it for you? Same thing goes for writing, cinematography, directing,editing, promotion,etc...
It's much more fun to get people who know the thing together than drowning in a ego trip.
You just show up with the gfx 100,the speedbooster and the old hasselblad lineup.

Some screenshots from Pandemic time in 2020. Just ProRes HQ files and sigma 18-35. 

The F5 is the obvious natural "upgrade" from the F3. 
However, kinda bizarrely I think the FS7 is worth mildly more out in the free market when it comes to getting work as "a man with a camera". (just because the FS7 has been the "de facto standard"
 
But this here is the biggest reason of all as to why you shouldn't buy a F5 (or FS7). 
 

You can find that adjustment in the picture profiles. Select a picture profile ( you can find profiles on Ablecine website and how to load them) you can then go into the matrix on that page and select the white balance temp.
 
Broatch

Stumbled across this YT comment which is a nice little summary of the Sony PMW-F3 history, thus I thought I'd include it here into this F3 megathread: 
 

I 2nd the 2 above - Wandering DP and Epic Light Media. The Aputure youtube channel have a lot of good tutorials and "Gaffer and Gear" has some fantastic info on lighting too.

Also - probably even more importantly if you're trying to make a living out of it - research SEO (particularly local SEO). Having an effective website that actually generates leads is far more important for making a living than knowing how to shoot like Daniel Schiffer, or how many Skypanels were used on the latest Audi commercial.


 

The main reason why your blog has become more and more obsolete is in my mind that the revolution with affordable cameras to shoot “cinematic” pictures with is over. It doesn’t really matter which one you buy these days, and that’s why the reviewers have changed to influencers pushing products. They’re all more than good enough to shoot films that can easily be accepted on to film festivals and streaming platforms. I usually shoot on Alexa mini LF, I’m familiar with the camera, it’s rock solid, easy to navigate, works with my ac’s WCU-4 follow focus, all that stuff. But that’s on commercials and the latest studio feature I’ve been fortunate enough to DP. I bought the pocket 6 pro this spring to use for personal projects and apart from less dynamic range in the highlights I’ve been able to match with my colorist to the Alexa 95%. That’s a 2500 $ camera. I’ve shot a no budget feature over the last 2 months on that camera. 25 shooting days, in all conditions, using only available light sources. It’s looking amazing. Can people outside of the industry tell a difference? Absolutely not. So - we’re in a situation where the gear doesn’t really matter anymore. Reliability, durability and support is still much better on the 60k+ camera systems, but the gear is not the obstacle anymore. 
 
Now - the advertising jobs still has clients and agencies that needs to feel like they’re money is well spent and love to see a big camera and wireless monitors on set. Big lights and stands and 12x12 frames and lots of assistants working. “We make real movie” attitudes. 
Depending on the client I sometimes ask the gaffer to put up extra lights and just turn them away so it looks more “professional”.
But all that unnecessary performance doesn’t bother me. I get to try out new lenses, new support systems, new lamps, and I never went to film school so I use any and every opportunity to learn and develop new skills.
And when someone pays me 2500$ a day I’ll put on a smile and try to make them as happy as possible.
Which leeds to my final point. I can understand bitterness, it runs in my fathers family so I’m prone to it. But working with bitter people only makes me avoid any future relations. It’s destroying creative energy and closing doors to potential collaborators.
Eoshd felt like it came from the heart, from true joy. Hasn’t felt like that for years. Whatever you need to sell, close down, pass on to move to a new place with joy and passion - go for it.
 
Life’s too short bro. 

low/no budget referred to the production value of the review itself, not to the type of productions it would be used on. As in - this review has been shot with a very low budget. They obviously don't use a big crew or have a gaffer with them, or even a proper DP. It's a run and gun review. With that knowledge, I don't expect too much. I just want to see simple demonstrations to illustrate what they're talking about.
Maybe your expectations are different, which is fine. Maybe if you post some examples of your work we can see what kind of level you're expecting? Not trying to provoke, only to understand where you're coming from.

Now I haven't watched the review itself, but aren't we being a bit harsh here?
I find this a useful - if basic - demonstration of the DR and a quick and dirty grade. It's an ugly shot, sure. It's not a Hollywood level production, but if I'm being honest this is the kind of shot I end up with in my edits frequently, and the kind of shot you want to know you can salvage something 'usable'. Not spectacular or perfect, but usable, and in that case this is a good demonstration.
If you're expecting world-class images from both a technical and artistic standpoint then go see Dune in the cinema or watch any number of big-budget movies. This is a low/no budget camera review.
As a content maker myself I can see what he was trying to do, and it was adequate in my view. I don't like this attitude of piling on on somebody for one shot that you personally might have done different.
Or perhaps all of our work is beyond reproach with every shot a masterpiece?