kidzrevil

If I see that I smile and take a picture. I find pure joy in diversity. I love all kinds of nerds.

Yeah, that's exactly it.
Correct. All I got to say is that you should have your opinion taken away. 
I'm all about removing rights from strangers on the internet and destroying their freedoms.  It's just a thing I like to do.
Doing that...and hijacking threads from OP's.
Life's mission:  accomplished.  I can die fulfilled.
 
 
You sure you're not phasing into an alternate dimension?  That could be scary. 

Im with you. When anyone calls someone a "hipster" I always read it as "I don't understand and that scares me so I resort to name calling". 

Someone on my facebook feed earlier called filmmakers who prefer film to digital "hipsters" and basically idiots for wanting to shoot on film. I don't see anything wrong with Soderbergh wanting to try something different. I love my digital cameras, but I've also shot Super 8, and I have some 16mm waiting to be shot. I'll probably shoot something with my iPhone at some point, because it seems like it could be fun. I guess I'm a fucking hipster for wanting to keep filmmaking fun for me. No one ever questions an artist for switching from water color to oil, when clearly they could just paint everything the same way because there's no NEED to use anything else.

I can't be bothered to get into any lengthy discussion about this, but 28 Days Later wasn't shot on those cameras because they couldn't afford to do it on 35mm. As he says, in the passages you quoted:
 

Yes, this film fits in a unique little niche where this look works in its favor. The filmmakers are smart to make that pairing. 

But for most other films it would be greatly annoying indeed!

 

Seen "Inland Empire"?
"28 Days Later"?
"Pi"?
The thing with ambitious film directors is that they go places for their stories without strictures.
Automatically assuming that a film is "less" based on IQ is unfortunate understanding of the craft, imho. 
I'm going to go out in a limb and guess that the storytelling in Soderbergh's film might have a little more emotional heft than whatever y'all did back in the day. 

Maybe one day i'll do a quick comparison between Neat Video and the built in NR of Resolve. Of course in a good way, and NR with Raw footage is even more effective.
Long time ago i tested if it's better to filter noise in ACR, but it's not, Temporal NR is much more effective then spatial

Anyone tried out the 3k/4k mode yet? Can't be arsed to go on the ML forums and browse 50 pages of nonsense and still not find anything useful

Very exited about this camera! If playing with curves keeps and supports that Fuji color magic, having good battery life, no overheating, awesome low light and exellent robust codec, this camera will raise my intention, as the XT2 with its image and especially colors had my curiousity. All for a price of the GH5, contendender, the Fuji color magic, lowlight cinemacamera. But image has to be workable/adjustable while maintaing its color magic!

THANK YOU!!!
Almost everything I have shot has been in Cine 1 or Cine 4 so I am going to go back and re-visit some footage and adjust the clip attributes. I really appreciate you pointing this out to me.
       
 

Decide yourself?
 
 
Shot with a Sony CineAlta HDW-F900, which has 3x CCD chips of 1920x1080 (one for each of RGB).
 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633399-REG/Sony_HDWF900RPAC1D_HDW_F900R_CineAlta_24P_HDCAM.html
 
Very weirdly enough, you can still buy it??? (well, the "R" version, which is very similar) 
For a sweet $80K

Or you could just buy it secondhand, right now for around $1K or $2K for the body:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=sony f900r&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

The non-R original version you might even find for sub $1K
Lots and lots of films have been shot on it (for instance "Quantum of Solace" had part of it shot on a Sony HDW-F900R, and that film came out in 2008. Or "Four Lions" which came out in 2010):

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900-camera

Some other discussions on it:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330231-Sony-hdw-f900-Today
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?7478-How-does-RED-One-compare-with-Sony-HDW-F900
https://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/2990-how-george-lucas-pioneered-the-use-of-digital-video-in-feature-films-with-the-sony-hdw-f900
 

For those curious about Fuji's abilities for more filmic work.. here are 2 shorts shot on XT2 with speedboosters & cine glass:
 

Kidzrevil:  what Voigtlander 28 is that? the Color Skopar, Ultron, or?

Thank you. 
 
PS: Because of you I have purchased a few of the different varietys of Satin, Black Satin and Pro Mist filters. I dig your stuff!

Had a go with the 3.5K:

You basically have to shoot blind, and hitting focus is up to the camera gods...
The only thing about using Resolve over ACR is there's no "remove chromatic aberration" button and you can see it would have been useful for this.

Thanks! Between this and the MLVApp, it’s almost impossible for even me to mess up this footage... lol. 
I recently processed this through the MLVApp as LogC. Even though it’s in B&W, I used a LogC to Rec709 LUT and an S-Curve before desaturating it.... I love my Nikkor 35mm 1.4...

Your statement might have been true hell even 5, 6 years ago. There were huge differences between Cine and consumer cameras. Today other than Raw on the top end stuff, and now we can do that with a 4 year old Canon DSLR, the output in 1080p, even 4k is to the average person that watches is pretty minimal. It is because the Codec's have gotten Way better on them.
Yeah I will admit 8 bit is a little week, but that is all the Canon C500, C300, 1DC shot internal.  I would call those cameras Cine cameras. Big thing is they had great Codecs. Guess what a Panny GH5 has a great Codec and 10 bit internal. So I guess it is a Cine camera for hell, 1650 bucks brand new open box. A Sony a7s in Slog 2 I would argue can look like a Cine camera. Plenty of indie stuff done with them.
I would bet good money any of these good DP's of this era could make a feature movie with a lot of these cameras out today other than what Arikhan said, "heavy keying, VFX, extreme grading etc." Yeah we aren't doing green screen with a A6300 or a Transformers movie VFX, but for a lot of it I bet it could be done and parts of it is.
You don't really think they are putting Arri Alexa's in those cars that crash, or buildings that blow up. So they are intermixing what you call shit cameras in with "Cine" cameras and you probably can't tell the difference unless you edited it. Times have changed in the "consumer" industry and damn fast. If I was making these high end cameras I would be worried as hell from them. They are Not that far off now let along 3 years from now. I realize most are made by the same company but thy are not going to be able to get 60,000 dollars from them when you can buy a Sony A7s mk V for 3,200 dollars maybe 3 years from now. IF they put Raw in these cameras, game over. Now I know they are not putting Raw in a camera as thin as a Sony a7 series, but they are allowed to make them a little bigger.

Worse DR isn't exactly true. It depends on the ISO. Again, right tool for the job. Price is relative. A photographer that can't get great shots with this camera should focus on skills, not gear.
And what the DSLR video thing is about isnt relevant. A still camera manufacturer cant take responsibility for what a few people would like to use their cameras for. 99% of their customers thinks the video is adequate for what they do. And most of them never touch it.
This is a stills camera. And therefore I cant say it sucks just because the video isn't better than an FS7.
But I've said this already. 
Ps. A dedicated video camera is smaller, not bigger.

So I must start using still cameras as video cameras and not voice my opinion or go around calling people I don't know "frauds" for not agreeing with me?
I have a third option I want to run by you. What if I use what ever I feel like and dont judge others for having other preferences? That way I can focus on what I actually know, my needs and preferences. And not waste energy arguing about others needs and preferences which I just like you know absolutely nothing about

Thank you Dave. Canon really does need to be called out for being the laziest camera company on the market. Like you, I am a long time Canon owner, and love my 1DC.  Over the years I have owned the c300, c100, xc10 and various 5D iterations. I spent huge amounts of money trying to chase Canon's differentiation strategy...this camera for stills, this one for good video, this one for compact portability, etc. When in truth all I wanted was a Sony A7r/s or GH5 with Canon color (and I have owned Sony, Samsung and Olympus as well).  
No more. I am done with Canon.   I am tired of a company that so aggressively handicaps its products...5D IV's crop and no IBIS, fixed screen,  6D Mark II's 1080p (forget 4k) which is more like 720p and lack of dynamic range,  the C200's lack of middle ground codec below RAW at that price point.  I still love my 1DC, but it is 2018 and I want good 4k with IBIS, good video focus, touch screen and a smaller form factor.  Sony, Panasonic and Olympus actually seem like they try to make good products for their customers, I just don't like their color science (I know others feel differently and they are getting better).   I have been slowly selling off my Canon gear.  If the Fuji XH1 is what it is rumored to be I am pretty sure I will finally have the camera I want: 4k, log, IBIS, good focus, touch screen, reasonable form factor and great color science.   I could wait for the rumored mirrorless option from Canon, but I think its safe to assume with metaphysical certitude that Canon will do something to handicap the camera (weak codec, no ibis, weird lens adapter for EF...something).  That is their thing, it is in the very DNA of the company at this point.   I am sure they will remain #1 in sales, but they won't be doing it with my money anymore.  I will give it to a company that is actually trying to compete and not just rest on the halo of their brand from previous eras.  I am definitely going to be tracking the XH1 announcement next week.  

Means a lot, coming from you as sort of a Canon enthusiast. Already wondered why anyone would be all about it. But it really is as simple as: does it have a front-facing screen? Yes. Does it have Canon's DualPixel C-AF? Yes. Does it take a microphone input? Yes. In vlogger county, that's all that matters. Most of their videos load up on smartphones and crappy connections request for 360p, rather than anything Hi Def. These aren't cameras for cinematographers. These are for the casual crowd that don't (want to) know any better. That have fallen for the myth of Canon skintones and such. That care more for quick uploads than footage gradability. In true Canon fashion they know everyone and their neighbour's dog shoots a Canon and will recommend shooting a Canon, so they don't feel the pressure to really innovate and push the boundaries. And if I were Canon... and had it that easy, that I wouldn't need to lift a finger either and still sell cameras... I probably would too. Though I've got the feeling, that someday in the not too distant future, that's going to come back to haunt them...

Yeah huge difference in Raw and JPEG. That is why the ML Canon 5D mk III stuff is so damn good looking. Shooting Raw video.

For me,
-photo quality in good light: huge advantage Fuji.
-video quality: tomato tomato in most scenarios.
-grip: haven't held the Fuji. Where did you try it? @etidona
-controls: Fuji wins
-connectivity: dont even care but in my experience Fuji have a better track record.
-recording time, overheating, continuous rec: GH5.
-lenses: Fuji kills it.
-extreme low light and autofocus are also segments where the Fuji might come up ahead. But none of us know yet.
That seem like a great attemp to compete. 
Time will tell.

Well here is a damn interesting Comparison. Surprisingly pretty damn even.