mat33

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.
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 
 

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. 😐
 

While lighting, bit depth and resolution all play a role what about the bayer matrix and the colour filters themselves?  For example some of the 'thickest' most filmic images I have seen are from the Digital Bolex which is 12bit and 2K-I've attached a few examples (sadly not mine) from the D16.  I have seen some discussion on the D16 about this:   "Color depth and discrimination in Bayer filters is determined by the purity and saturation of the filter dyes used. The Kodak CCD in the D16 uses a patented set of highly saturated filters designed for scientific and industrial applications where accuracy and fine color discrimination are critical, like color matching in textile fabric dye runs, or in the cameras used on the Mars Rovers. Most video cameras use Bayer filters less saturated to get more sensitivity and just cover the video color gamuts. Deeply saturated primary colors can be hard to reproduce. I normally have to desaturate D16 footage 20-30% to eliminate chroma clipping on saturated colors in REC709. This still looks like a fully saturated video image to gamut limits." So could it be the characteristics of the bayer filters are a big part of the colour thickness?

That top shot is gorgeous and a perfect example of a thick image.
I've dismissed upgrading from my 5D3 ML Raw due to the color depth it provides. The FP is the first camera that has me curious about an upgrade.
I'd love to see a comparison between the 5D3 ML Raw vs Sigma FP vs D16.

While lighting, bit depth and resolution all play a role what about the bayer matrix and the colour filters themselves?  For example some of the 'thickest' most filmic images I have seen are from the Digital Bolex which is 12bit and 2K-I've attached a few examples (sadly not mine) from the D16.  I have seen some discussion on the D16 about this:   "Color depth and discrimination in Bayer filters is determined by the purity and saturation of the filter dyes used. The Kodak CCD in the D16 uses a patented set of highly saturated filters designed for scientific and industrial applications where accuracy and fine color discrimination are critical, like color matching in textile fabric dye runs, or in the cameras used on the Mars Rovers. Most video cameras use Bayer filters less saturated to get more sensitivity and just cover the video color gamuts. Deeply saturated primary colors can be hard to reproduce. I normally have to desaturate D16 footage 20-30% to eliminate chroma clipping on saturated colors in REC709. This still looks like a fully saturated video image to gamut limits." So could it be the characteristics of the bayer filters are a big part of the colour thickness?

While lighting, bit depth and resolution all play a role what about the bayer matrix and the colour filters themselves?  For example some of the 'thickest' most filmic images I have seen are from the Digital Bolex which is 12bit and 2K-I've attached a few examples (sadly not mine) from the D16.  I have seen some discussion on the D16 about this:   "Color depth and discrimination in Bayer filters is determined by the purity and saturation of the filter dyes used. The Kodak CCD in the D16 uses a patented set of highly saturated filters designed for scientific and industrial applications where accuracy and fine color discrimination are critical, like color matching in textile fabric dye runs, or in the cameras used on the Mars Rovers. Most video cameras use Bayer filters less saturated to get more sensitivity and just cover the video color gamuts. Deeply saturated primary colors can be hard to reproduce. I normally have to desaturate D16 footage 20-30% to eliminate chroma clipping on saturated colors in REC709. This still looks like a fully saturated video image to gamut limits." So could it be the characteristics of the bayer filters are a big part of the colour thickness?

Just saw this, thought I would share as awesome example of creativity during this crazy isolation the world is in and a nice change of pace from camera tech
 

Just saw this, thought I would share as awesome example of creativity during this crazy isolation the world is in and a nice change of pace from camera tech
 

Shot on EM1x, looks very very nice.  They used 17mm 1.2 and 25mm 1.2 with segments on the 12-100f4 and 300mm f4 according to the comments.  Love the handheld tracking shot using a wheelbarrow at the end.
 

Shot on EM1x, looks very very nice.  They used 17mm 1.2 and 25mm 1.2 with segments on the 12-100f4 and 300mm f4 according to the comments.  Love the handheld tracking shot using a wheelbarrow at the end.
 

Shot on EM1x, looks very very nice.  They used 17mm 1.2 and 25mm 1.2 with segments on the 12-100f4 and 300mm f4 according to the comments.  Love the handheld tracking shot using a wheelbarrow at the end.
 

This thread
Weird times we're living in. 

The Ikonoskop was way too expensive and the D16 had a polarising external appearance and the release firmware was bit flakey (especially compared to the later firmware with Bolex Log), but what a thick beautiful digital negative to work with.   It sometimes feels like we want to make Star Wars Episode V but because of all the latest technological wiz bang gadgets we end up making Star Wars Episode I where we end up spending too much time setting up and playing with everything than focusing on the creativity or art part.

I really really hope this is the spiritual successor to the digital bolex.

The XC10/15 were ok - but didn't like the lack of a dedicated viewfinder as mucking around with the loupe meant I basically never used it. Having better AF would be nice, and doing a smooth zoom in/out using the rockers would be nice - nothing says cinematic mojo like a good old zoom in/out ?
 

Yes, French Fred is highly regarded in skateboarding and is credited with inventing the "skate-by zoom-in shot", which he did on the VX1 coincidentally. I think there was a tour video where he was actually repairing a VX1 on his own.
His work obviously left a mark outside of skateboarding, since Leica choose him to do a video for the release of Leica SL:
The other such a luck guy was a former PRO skateboarder turned photographer, Arto Saari (shoots with Leica S3):
 

I'm not a skater and haven't really seen many skate films, but pretty interesting to see some of the history and the impact the VX1000 had.  One talented skate filmer/photographer I have come across who takes some great stills that appeal to non-skaters as well is Fred Mortagne 'French Fred' www.frenchfred.com

 

I'm not a skater and haven't really seen many skate films, but pretty interesting to see some of the history and the impact the VX1000 had.  One talented skate filmer/photographer I have come across who takes some great stills that appeal to non-skaters as well is Fred Mortagne 'French Fred' www.frenchfred.com

 

I'm not a skater and haven't really seen many skate films, but pretty interesting to see some of the history and the impact the VX1000 had.  One talented skate filmer/photographer I have come across who takes some great stills that appeal to non-skaters as well is Fred Mortagne 'French Fred' www.frenchfred.com