Ed_David

We had a similar discussion about this last year with some examples posted: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/6657-camera-cadencemotion/
Other than a camera being free of distracting artifacts/moire, motion cadence is the most important characteristic of a camera for me as well. What is frustrating is that not everyone can see it (kind of like watching footage from certain digital projectors has been known to make a select few people feel nauseous; I am one of these people), and this seems to turn most discussions on the topic into a "believers" versus "non-believers" debate, with a lot of people making claims that "it's because of THIS", "no, it's because of THIS", "no, you're wrong"... etc.
I've heard many possible explanations for pleasing motion, and I am not sold on any of them as THE answer just yet. I'm happy to call it "magic" for now and I'm more interested in discovering new contenders that deliver excellent motion cadence. What affordable cameras do pleasing motion cadence? Perhaps there is something already on the market that we have overlooked.
Anyway, in the sub-$10K category, the D16 looks the best to me. Digital Bolex have picked up on what people are saying about the superb cadence of their camera, and they have been using it as a selling point:

​I went to Arri CSC recently. They had an Arri D21 for sale for 6 grand, 10 grand with an S.Two recorder. It's got a 4:3 sensor based on Arri's laser film scanner technology, so it's designed to emulate film's exposure curve as closely as possible. Ready to go for anamorphic. Spinning mirror viewfinder from a 435. Not saying I wasn't tempted, but especially with the S.Two hung off the back (an EOL piece of gear), it's a heavy beast, but hey, you won't find Arriraw available for less.

I'm just looking forward to the day when Alexas hit the four-figure price point as well. We're just now seeing first-gen Alexa EVs touch 30K. It's got all the mojo you could ever want, but it's a bit more practical than the first generation of digital cinema cameras (F35, D21, Origin, Genesis, Viper). One thing Arri learned from the D21 program is that users wanted internal recording. Thus the SxS module on Alexa (and now the Codex inside the Alexa XT). And of course the F35 also requires a solution, somethings besides that giant SRW-1 that usually comes with it.

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor.
This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates?
That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

Another interesting article
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/facebooks-worst-nightmare-what-if-social
A marketer I listen to once analogized social to a vast, vast ocean, one foot deep.

I think now a days we can all shoot log - and we get lost in that log - we get used to that flat look - but rewatching monsters - it has a deeper s curve and dark black and nice raised midtones - it’s bolder - it’s more natural I think - more like the cinema that I grew up on.
It's hard to throw out dynamic range when you have it, but sometimes you have to - and you'll love it.  below I took out window detail to gain a pop that I enjoyed - maybe if I graded better I can do a power window and have it all!

I think now a days we can all shoot log - and we get lost in that log - we get used to that flat look - but rewatching monsters - it has a deeper s curve and dark black and nice raised midtones - it’s bolder - it’s more natural I think - more like the cinema that I grew up on.
It's hard to throw out dynamic range when you have it, but sometimes you have to - and you'll love it.  below I took out window detail to gain a pop that I enjoyed - maybe if I graded better I can do a power window and have it all!

Some very interesting ideas about discovery fatigue and content shock. I find that internet in 90s seemed to be of better quality...what I mean by that is that the actual technical barrier to content publishing kind of ensured that only the most dedicated, motivated, competent people got through and that resulted in content that was very good and engaging...now we are in the era of casual publishing...where the barrier of entry is so low that people are literally live-streaming their breakfasts and lunches...that is a problem...I don't know how it can be solved really...only corporations can really cut through the noise now, it seems.

​there are tons of streaming indie film sites - my favorite is https://mubi.com/ - $5 a month
film school in a box for $5

​MTF charts published by lens producers are already greatly reduced in complexity, in that in general they only show contrast for two spatial frequencies (usually 10 and 40 lp/mm) and two aperture values (usually wide open and f/8) and two image plane orientations (sagital and tangential). The "full" MTF is a four dimensional quantity which is difficult to represent in 2 dimensions. I put "full" in quotes because it also depends on focal length for a zoom lens, and, to an extent, on the focus distance thus it can be a six-dimensional object.
I hope you can appreciate why it's impossible to boil a six-dimensional function down to a single number. You could simplify it further and measure the MTF at a few distances from the image centre (centre, top/bottom edge, left/right edge and extreme corner), but it's been heavily simplified already and that would cut a lot out.
You could try averaging the figures but the range you average over would be fairly arbitrary and subject to differences between manufacturers. And the idea that manufacturers attach a resolution figure to the lens in order to sell them would just open the flood gates to clever ways to inflate the score by carefully choosing what to include/exclude.

I agree with both sides - none of us wants to have a "preset" look define us - but they are good starting points - 
I am very guilty of using filmconvert and impulz luts for all my work - I have made a few custom luts - but it's good to have a jumping off point - in the end it's all the same - if you do it yourself or you use someone else's starting point. 
Whatever gets you to a look that feels right for that story, for that film, commercial, doc, etc.
There is no magic bullet.
And speaking of magic bullet - back when the magic bullet app was the only game in town for color grading done easily, man did some people do some really terrible "preset" looks and call it a day.
I think resolve is helping all of us discover more and more about color.
And yes it takes years and years to understand it all - hence why some colorists are paid I think over 10k a day.

great job guys - these all look really nice!  yes James loves to lift the blacks!  I enjoy the looks he gets on his footage very much.  tweak tweak tweak.  I like the digital bolex stuff you got a lot - great job!

great job guys - these all look really nice!  yes James loves to lift the blacks!  I enjoy the looks he gets on his footage very much.  tweak tweak tweak.  I like the digital bolex stuff you got a lot - great job!

Thanks for the tests!
Most of the filters feel kinda Instagram-like. Including the names Mostly because of the lifted black point I think. Might like it more with proper blacks...

Bought his LUT pack since I always liked his looks. And this is a quick run through of some of them. Cant wait for the new color panel in Premiere so it gets a bit more intuitive and streamlined when using them.
 

Before I got more serious into filmmaking, I created a custom tool to allow mapping any color to any other color. It used a 3D LUT, with trilinear or tricubic interpolation. The UI was in 3D, and 3D glasses were worn to edit the 3D cube lattice (editing was in stereo 3D). The UI provided 2D rendered slices through the 3D cube to help visualize the transform being created. The tool wasn't a retail product, but rather a tool used to figure out a solution to a specific problem. It was clear that while a 3D LUT is very powerful, the distortions created in the mapping can lead to 'color collapse', meaning many colors get mapped to the same value (banding, solarization, poor skin tones), and because the final values must be mapped back to a [0,0,0] -> [1,1,1] space, clipping or other techniques must be used, which can further create unwanted artifacts.
3D LUTs work best when the input is exposed in a way the LUT table 'expects' (per the design). Changing exposure before the LUT can radically change the output (or if shot too low/high). I purchased Film Convert and Impulz Ultimate, and while both are useful tools, I don't use them very often. I might use them more if they supported my (by far) favorite film stock: Eastman Kodak 100T 5248/7248.
A 3D LUT cube can be converted to a 2D bitmap (and back to a 3D LUT): I used this method for an iOS app which needed fast real-time 3D LUTs.
Here's a 3D LUT creator that works similarly to the custom tool I created (but with a 2D UI and 2D bitmap display): http://3dlutcreator.com/
When I watch movies on Netflix, when a scene has amazing color, I stop the movie and look it up on shotonwhat.com. I did this when watching Braveheart recently, on this scene:
Shot with iPhone 5S on Sony XBR5 HDTV:

The blue/magenta halo is not visible on the TV- iPhone 5S artifact. Screen shot on MacBook Pro in Safari (Netflix makes screenshots a challenge- most come out black; stopping on a good sharp frame is tricky as well. Here's a close sharp frame). Note the reduced brightness and contrast: HDTV image looks much better in real life!:

Reading the Kodak paper on 5248 film: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/H-1-5248t.pdf , something interesting is apparent: sharpness varies with RGB (B is sharpest, followed by G, then R). Blurring the G and R color channels may help recreate the 5248 look (not possible with a 3D LUT alone). I stopped Men in Black II on a similar shot, with Will Smith in front and blue sky in back. Something magical about blues, skintones (pinkish) and 5248 film. The Last Samurai, The Fifth Element, Armageddon, Fight Club, American Beauty, Star Trek First Contact, The Shawshank Redemption, Baraka, and many more favorites- all shot on 5248.

So now it's been about 2 years since I started messing with Resolve and time after time, I find that Visioncolor Impulz luts are the best tools to get any footage - from DSLR to Alexa to look like film and in my eyes to look the best.
Their webpage has an incredible manifesto about why using a LUT is good - is cool - is acceptable - and I couldn't agree more:
http://www.vision-color.com/impulz/
The other luts I tried aren't - and I've tried them all - well the big ones and the new one but I don't want to mention their names because I don't want to say anything negative but the popular one has too much magneta in the highlights and has weird film pattern that looks artificial and the other one that just came out just has like 10 luts - not customized per each camera's view of what is acceptable for a film stock.

Exactly. I feel like Impulz is more of a starting point than a full look. I'll usually throw Impulz on an adjustment layer, on top. Then use Colorista to tweak each shot underneath.

me too. 

I've been using these for a while as well, and love them.

So now it's been about 2 years since I started messing with Resolve and time after time, I find that Visioncolor Impulz luts are the best tools to get any footage - from DSLR to Alexa to look like film and in my eyes to look the best.
Their webpage has an incredible manifesto about why using a LUT is good - is cool - is acceptable - and I couldn't agree more:
http://www.vision-color.com/impulz/
The other luts I tried aren't - and I've tried them all - well the big ones and the new one but I don't want to mention their names because I don't want to say anything negative but the popular one has too much magneta in the highlights and has weird film pattern that looks artificial and the other one that just came out just has like 10 luts - not customized per each camera's view of what is acceptable for a film stock.

To be sure a lot of imaging is needed where creative artistic storytelling isn't required, just getting the shot in a pragmatic way. "ENG" style if you will.  So I do think there will always be a market for improving IQ cameras that handle extreme situation with impressive resolution and low-light capabilities.  Plus, the upper echelon of the motion picture industry will continue to be cutting edge, and I'll always be curious about that gear.
For my career arc, such as it is, chasing ownership of that stuff just isn't going to yield me much reward and, if one is not on a specialized industry track, I don't really see how it's going to benefit most future imaging careerists either.
Everything is gear-related is getting highly democratized.  I know for a fact that I have 5 consumer cameras on my shelf right now that far exceeds the image quality technology Kurosawa had.  I also know for a fact that I'll never do anything remotely as impressive in motion pictures that he did.  The best I can hope for is to be derivative in a creative way.  
So ultimately, yes, one camera or lens package will be better for a particular shoot, but is it "better-enough," if you knowatimean?
My personal "ah-ha" moment really hit home recently as I slogged through my documentary film edit.  Shot on a GM1 and a GX7 with Olympus primes, the IQ just kept exceeding my expectations and was beyond good enough for that project.  Keep in mind it's just 8 bit h.264.  Even so, I feel like I can push and pull it enough in the grade to keep me happy and maintain a nice high IQ standard.    

I think we have reached saturation point, for sure.
I have always maintained that after all the searching for "what makes something cinematic" .... The penny will drop that light, sound and camera movement are and have always been the all important factors.
Doesn't hurt to have 4K, 15 stops DR, 12800ISO etc though! But If I were offered a choice of an Alexa with natural light and handheld only, or a GH2 with lights, gimbal/stedicam etc.... I'd always choose the latter. (For narrative, that is).

​Agreed, this is one thread that didn't need to be made other than to have a last word and to keep provoking the same conversation... the same conversation... which is basically this:
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."
"I think we should stand up on domestic violence! PS I'm a great guy, and I believe the women!"
"No one said I aint against domestic violence. You know nothing. No evidence that Phil did it. You crazy sanctimonious shit."

 

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I think this is really pretty - you cpatured a really gentle mood. I love mist in the morning.
Keep it up - glad you had the courage to share!