kidzrevil

I don't think it will be long now.
Huge market for whoever gets it right and pitches it properly to consumers.
 

Here is another unique use of ML
https://petapixel.com/2018/04/10/this-short-film-was-shot-at-2520mm/
 

Nokton for fun today at my place, stills grab from clip 1 hour after midnight - f0.95, iso 1600 (or rather 3200), for my eye everything around was completely in the dark, but not for the eye of mr Nokton

Haha, Jon... seriously I didn't read your comment before I commented. It may not be CineLikeD. It could definitely be standard. I have always been a fan of the way Marty colors his videos. He gets some deep shades. 
Honestly I am sorry I even brought up CineLikeD settings and exposure. I prefer to underexpose by a 1/3 a stop. Your stuff looks good ETTRd so in the end it doesn't matter. I don't even own a Panasonic camera anymore... so who cares what I think. 

Out of likes. I could not have said it better. It is almost always some small ass company that comes in and Kills the big boys asleep at the wheel.

Its going to be damn hard to sell a Sony A7s mk III for over 3000 bucks, it just is I don't care what it has in it. They were probably happy as hell to see Panny, Oly and Fuji push up the price to 2000 bucks and more, but now, shit.
I mean people that have a lot of Sony FE lenses, well they will buy it, they are in it for the long haul. And they can probably afford to buy the BMPCC 4k to boot. But it has to hurt sales on it.
It just proves to me how cheap you can really make a damn good camera in this day and age. If I paid 3 grand or more now I would feel like I am getting raped with this BM announcement.

I recently watched an interview with a DoP talking about equipment and he basically said that his preference is that the equipment not impart anything on the 'look' of the film, and therefore he chooses equipment that will accurately capture what is put in front of it.  Therefore it was about operating the camera like a technician, choosing lenses that are sharp with minimal distortion, and faithfully executing the direction of the others on set who are artistic, like director etc.  His view was that the look of a film is created by the stuff in front of the camera and what is done in post.
I've just spent about 20 minutes trying to find the link and FML I can't find it..  I consume too much from too many sources!
He did mention that some people like using vintage lenses and creative filters etc, and didn't criticise that approach.  I must admit that I personally find this perspective to make sense, and I've looked at things like the Tiffen Mist filters and decided that I can do a 'good enough' emulation of them in post (which lead me to include the Glow OFX plugin into my workflow) but with the added benefit that the effect isn't baked-into the footage and therefore I can tweak it in post to get it how I like rather than being stuck with what the filter gives me.

Happy New Year all!!!
I know, I know... every year can technically be the year of the hybrid DSLRs or VDSLRs.... Given how these companies are spitting them out. But, hear me out...
There is obviously the eminent GH5S announcement in early January, speculated to be a low-light, more video centered camera.
The inevitable follow up to the a7sii, given that the a7riii was announced a couple of months ago. We all know that the A7S lineup is the more video oriented one...
Apperently, the Canon 7D Mark 3 and 90D is also expected with 4K... but I also expect heavy crops on them. The Canon 7D has been a staple in affordable VDSLRs, before the t2i came out... And, the XXD line from the 70D onward is Vlogging heaven sent for some. Other rumours coming out about Canon include ILC version of XC10/15, 6K C900 and possibly a c100 mark 3.
Red's hydrogen one - I just want to see the hologram technology - speaking of which has anyone seen "7D holograms" in action? Like in person? I didn't even know about this till last evening... Google/Youtube search that and you will know what I mean... Anyway, back to the hydrogen one... I also want to see it in different camera configurations and sensor sizes...
Blackmagic... Boy oh boy... Can't wait to see what's up their sleeves. It's going to be one hell of an ace of spades.... 
This the year son... This the year!

@Deadcode each bit you add doubles the number of possible values. Adding two bits means there are 4 TIMES as many shades. 10 bit has 1/16 the shades vs 14 bit.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with a post I've read on this forum more than I disagree with this one. The features you mention are about as closely associated with the specific look of their respective formats (as well as the style they adopt from production circumstances surrounding the use of those formats) as any in recent history. Sure, 16mm has no more resolution or dynamic range than most mirrorless cameras today, but it has an inimitable physicality to its look (film grain, halation, gate weave, etc.) and even a physicality to the approach one is forced to take. And that offers a distinct (and in my opinion frequently gorgeous) look and disciplined style I've yet to see anyone get close to approximating for the duration of a feature shot digitally. No one at that level is shooting 16mm because it's the best format technically or because it's cheaper than 35mm; they're shooting with it because they prefer the process and the look. Sure, you can compare 16mm and today's video cameras on a technical basis and they're surprisingly comparable. But that's like saying dinner at the French Laundry and a bottle of Soylent are comparable on the basis of nutrition and ending the comparison at that. (They might or might not be, but you get what I mean.)
I've seen Chungking Express projected from a good 35mm print at a high end screening facility and the texture and color of it are beyond anything I've seen shot on any digital camera, technically superior cameras such as the Alexa 65 (which can look just as good, only in a different way) included. Not in a way I can easily quantify, but in a way that resonates emotionally. I remember the look of that movie more closely than the story. If you think that film would look as good shot on a GH4, you need to question your own eyes, not Chris Doyle's, and definitely toss aside the resolution chart. There might be less grain on the GH4. It might be sharper. But the dreamlike quality of certain sequences derives specifically from the texture of film. Features shot on 16mm embrace the grain even more.
I mean, Van Gogh's paintings don't measure well on a resolution chart. Should he have used a GH4 instead of a paintbrush? 
Yes, Festen was shot on cheap video. And its success proves a great point that a good story and good performances are more important than "look" for that kind of movie–I agree with you there. But the specific look of the cheap video (no lighting, miniDV) was still made with philosophical (Dogme 95, of course) and aesthetic (it looks like a home video and shares the aesthetic intimacy of one, crucial to the subject matter) intent. It had a large budget. They could choose their camera on the basis of cost. They chose miniDV for another reason. Even if the GH4 were around then, it would still have been shot on home video. It's the filmmakers emulating that look, and not emulating the bad amateur online filmmaker look typically associated with mirrorless cameras and dSLRS (it's not all bad, but I'm just talking about the audience's association with a look), that makes that story work. Another story might look great shot on a 70D. Maybe a story about a vlogger could be amazing on that format. But that would be an entirely different movie!
I would try to be less disrespectful of the choices made by DPs and directors who can afford to make choices on bases other than cost or assume their only criteria are technical!
I'm not trying to say I know what these filmmakers think, and maybe they would have shot on a wireless camera today if they had the opportunity... I doubt it, but I don't know. I'm just saying that you don't know, either.
Furthermore, I think your response is a little ironic with respect to the original topic. Netflix is the company that most specifically chooses cameras based on technical specs; even Amazon and YouTube Red will allow the Alexa's upscaled 4k for original content, while Netflix won't because it's upscaled. And because of that, you have a lot of shows shot on the F55 or C300 Mk II that would look better in every respect (except resolution and again, imo) if they were shot on another camera (or even at 2.35:1 maybe, which they also won't allow). But resolution measures better on those cameras and it's in keeping with Netflix's brand and promise of technical quality, so that's what Netflix uses. I get it–part of their brand is 4k HDR original content. Maybe there are even legal reasons for the choice to stick with "true 4k" cameras, too. And it's fine. Those cameras are close to the Alexa anyway and the crews are super talented and most of the content on there is serialized tv type stuff that doesn't need the look of Chungking Express anyway. But if anyone is drinking Soylent over the good stuff on the basis of numbers, it's Netflix. 
I do agree with the larger point, made many times on this forum, that amateurs like you and like myself, and those who don't have or don't want to spend the money to rent their format of choice, would do best to embrace what's available to them. Just because Chris Doyle probably wouldn't choose a GH4 if he were to shoot Chungking Express today (then again, who knows, he might) doesn't mean he couldn't shoot an awesome entirely different feature on digital. And I agree that a good story, such as Festen's, would work on almost any format, but I reject the notion that miniDV was used thoughtlessly or arbitrarily...

I'm well aware of Tangerine's $100K budget and that they've made $700K in the box office.
And, I'm sure you know about the $60K budget of the Blair Witch Project, and how much did they make? Which camera(s) did they use?
Content is King, no matter the camera.
As for the budget.... how much did some of us put towards a college/university degree? or down payment on a house? 
Its all an investment that we hope make a return on.... its all a friggin gamble in the end anyway.... unless you are buying the camera so you that you can run tests on them.
If you have an idea, and you truly believe in it.... get a bank loan, home equity line of credit and get going....

I agree with Jonpais.
If you are not a DP/Director, nor are you an aspiring DP/Director.... who are you to judge others of not being DP/Director, and/or aspiring DP/Director?
Don't put me and you in the same boat, just because you and I have the same camera doesn't mean that I have the same thoughts and/or dreams like you.
Now, nobody here was born in a Hollywood studio, at least I'm not... and even though, I can afford some of the cameras on that list.... I prefer to film with whatever I have....
I would assume most established DP/Directors started off somewhere as well.... and didn't have Panavision or whatever at their disposal from the get-go of their respective careers...
Now, if you are an established DP/Director making some serious money, and you are filming with an iPhone.... then that's a different story.... but still, who am I to judge?
Speaking of iphone, everyone always forgets about Tangerine - https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7925023/sundance-film-festival-2015-tangerine-iphone-5s
Now that.... if anything, should be an inspiring story for those of us who are still aspiring to be a DP/Director....

Premiere has issues with missing metadata. It doesn't care if the values are stretched. What happens is that it can infer missing metadata correctly when the values are shifted and zero padded to 16 bits. Also, there is 14-bit CinemaDNG, but Premiere has trouble with 14-bit uncompressed (not with compressed though!). Now that all ML dng is compressed, it should work fine with Premiere at 14 bits.

FYI, there is no reason to ever use any of the "maximized" variants in raw2cdng. 
10-bit raw can be all you need, if it isn't linear. ML raw is linear though, and 10-bit is noticeably worse than 12- and 14-bit  even though it is better than, for example, 10-bit raw from DJI cameras. 12-bit is actually quite good.

It is a very good visualisation of how much data difference in total there is, but if I understand it correctly, ML is just cutting out the darkest blacks which contain mostly noise and does not re-distribute shades in higher stops of light. 
If you can use noise bits to your advantage, of course, use 14 bits. 

I did a bit of reading before my previous reply and I didn't get a straight answer on LUTs vs floating point algorithms.  The logic on LUTs was that they have two main problems: a lack of data points, and potential issues in-between the data points.  
The thread that I read included people saying that even a LUTs with thousands of data points are still the equivalent of a curve with only ten control points on it, so in terms of matching to the foibles of a sensor put through a cameras internal profile transforms, it is potentially going to have a bit of error.  
The second issue about what happens in-between the points isn't that interpolation isn't possible (with all the variations of linear / quadratic / polynomial / etc functions available) it's that there's no consistency between standards and so although your program might do a good job of interpolation, who knows what the software that the LUT was designed on was doing or if they match.  This would become much more important the lower the number of data points in the LUT becomes.
What I took from that was that RCM and ACES are ok and LUTs are a question-mark.  In the end the proof is in the pudding (as the common saying goes) so it's just if you prefer the final result or not.  When I think about this stuff I get enthusiastic about taking some time to try and reverse-engineer what a particular LUT or transform is doing so I can learn from it, but then life happens and my energy fades..  one day I might get around to it.
I haven't forgotten my homework.

Here’s a quick screengrab from an outtake of my film. I don’t really love the shot but it shows what a fast wide angle can do on FF. 
It was shot on the Canon 28mm 1.8 ... pretty cool little lens. 

Flanders Scientific / Sony / Panasonic / etc are some of the common ones I see on sets with budgets. 

On low / no budgets then I can see almost "anything" used! Quite commonly, just a TV or PC monitor:
 
 
 
This btw is the trailer of the film which was shot during the previous vlog from just before:
 


It was just shot on a lowly Canon Rebel DSLR, seriously. A BTS shot of the director (it was her first ever film) and the camera (oh, and you can see my blimp too in the shot! ha): 



An indoors pic (you can tell from the HDMI cord running out the director is sitting somewhere there to the right of the pic, monitoring the shot):



Me again, this was back when I was still using my Tascam DR680:

First publishable ML RAW test.  700D, ML RAW, Sigma 18-35.  
Not a great example of any aspect of film-making, but might still be of interest as an example of lesser film-makers with lesser equipment
One thing I found surprising was that the ISO noise from the 700D (not the quietest camera of all time, especially at 800-3200 in this video) was quite organic and natural looking.  As the noise changed a lot between shots I had a go at the technique that @kidzrevil has mastered of NR+Grain to make the video more consistent.
Enjoy

Taking a look at the Yedlin footage what seems interesting is how little dynamic range is in the 'final output' when compared to how much dynamic range is in the scene.

Note the limited DR in the histogram.
The footage is also very desaturated. (The camera angle and limited color gamut also seems cinematic.)
Take a vaguely similar shot with a digital camera. Straight out of camera it looks something like this... (A7r3)
Note that this has bags more dynamic range - it fills the entire histogram and the colors are much more saturated. And that it looks 'digital'
However, if you make a tonal adjustment (see below) which compresses the dynamic range - see histogram and tone curve (by raising the blacks and lowering the whites). And reduce the saturation (see below), the photo appears more cinematic...

So my feeling is having quite a low dynamic range in your final output is quite key to a cinematic look. Of course you can achieve that with a high dynamic range scene given enough processing leeway (either in camera or post.) Or alternatively, you could achieve it with an iphone given enough additional lighting equipment I would imagine.

Well there was recently a major motion picture shot on an iPhone... this is only going to become more common. There are definite advantages to small size and low weight. Red is working on their new Hydrogen smartphone, so who knows. I think this work was pretty good, not because of any technical reason, it was just shot and edited with some thought. Granted, if you want to nitpick you will have many technical things to pick at. It was after all shot on an iPhone... but I think it’s pretty good nonetheless. And for the record, the better, smaller and cheaper cameras become, the cheaper and faster we will all be able to produce material. Who’s not for that. I’m packing for NAB, and trying to decide what has to stay behind. Will take the GH5/S for testing with some new lenses. But wouldn’t it be nice if your smartphone could do it all? DOF, Anamorphic, low-light, DR, build in NDs... We can dream.
 

Yes, I think this is really becoming the case. Framing, Lighting, Lenses and Filters. These are all important for getting the look. The first two have no quick and easy fix... You have to learn them and experiment... or bring in someone that knows them already. Of all of this something unmentioned is the actual on camera talent. It’s them that sell the story. A compelling enough performance and story will soon make viewer forget what lens or camera was used. They will be too busy watching. I think this is preferable. I know I don’t want viewers being absorbed with technical questions about lenses and cameras when I am trying to portray a story.

There's definitely a camera element involved. I'm just saying we've hit it. Back in 2009 one could argue we need to come a way in tech to be affordable + cinematic. That has plateu'd in my opinion though.

Speaking of B&W, I know people will have a heart attack, sorry, I think the Fuji X-T2 and the new X-H1 ought to be a damn good camera to get a good film look in B&W Video. Now that is one area I will agree that, other than Leica, they are sort of king in that, Fuji has always in their cameras had B&W figured out, even their real B&W film was great.

I largely think we've managed to get things arse backwards when it comes to emulating a film look.
Because everyone now has the ability to change everything about an image in post there is barely any emphasis on getting it right - or at least consistent - in camera first.
If a camera manufacturer said :
"OK, we are putting all our eggs in one basket here but we have absolutely perfected an in camera look that is identical to Kodak Vision 250D (for example). Our entire sensor and processing design is based on purely just replicating that but we guarantee that if you shoot with this it will be indivisible from if you'd used that stock. Oh and you'll only be able to use it to shoot up to ISO800 though".
Would you buy it?
I think I would.
Personally speaking, taking away all those variables that offer endless rabbit holes to explore but often just disappear down and making something work within a constant framework would be challenging but ultimately more creative and productive. 
This is a really interesting piece about preparation in camera to match film and the follow up piece is here :
http://yedlin.net/OnColorScience/
 
Its quite timely that this has come up because I've been interested in tweaking combinations of base colour profiles and constrast/saturation/sharpness etc parameters in Panasonic cameras for a while with a view to mining some in camera combinations that may not be obvious ones but actually work well visually.
The timely part is I've just finished an app today that does automated stepping through all combinations (from selectable ranges) whilst either capturing a still per combo or as one continuous video with the changes embedded.
I'll give it its own thread tomorrow if anyone is interested.