Tim Sewell

Puh, gender equality- something the world is far away from. So many people worldwide even get killed just because of their gender. Let´s not take this topic light hearted like a dull Hollywood shmockbuster. Thank you. The way some people here juggle with terms is breathtaking.

Here's a fun anecdote.  In 2019 I did a "4-wall" tour of a doc my wife and I made.  I'd set up screenings with theaters in the area that were willing to rent out their auditoriums.  Basically we took it on the road to a bunch of local meet-ups with groups that supported the theme of the film.  We did this in conjunction with our film fest run so we were able to bounce in and out of region where the film was accepted.  The story had a niche appeal so we were able to pull about 50-75 people, on average, into the theaters wherever we sold tickets.
As such, I made a DCP.  Not the first time I did that, but it was the first time I traveled with the DCP and watched it on multiple screens in multiple theaters.
Here's the deal.  It looked different in almost every theater I took it into.  The variable of sound quality was even more intense; usually in an unfortunate way.  With DCP visuals at least , theoretically, you should be getting a standardized visual experience -- as the projectors and media are supposedly tightly controlled.
Well, nah.  Far from it.  For every theater that had well informed skilled people working the projection, just as many were kids with the priority job of selling popcorn.  Sometimes it was a struggle to to explain the concept of aspect ratio to the projectionist.  The state of their DCP equipment was all over the map too.  
Although, there was one grand old theater in upstate New York that not only sounded amazing, but had the best color rendition, biggest screen, and the sharpest resolution of them all.  That one? They didn't have a DCP projector. I played the film from a PC laptop off a 8-bit 1080p .mp4 usuing a high-end consumer projector.  I don't know who their technician was at that theater, but they REALLY had it dialed in.  Restored my faith in the movie-going experience, that show.
Point is, you can round and round about standards and whatnot, but you can't really adjust for the chance of what's going to happen in the real world.  After all, you can't really overcome ignorance you can only hope to alleviate it a little bit here and there.  So, yeah, fight the good fight if you want, but it's a war of attrition and the other side has more troops.

Very, very rude.
It is everyone's right to write movie reviews and to have a personal opinion on a film. For some people, it is even a career!
The irony of you coming on here writing a big internet diatribe about my cultural commentary and not liking a certain movie, is not lost on me. If you can't be polite in my house, you will leave it, little piggy. Be careful the wolf doesn't blow your fucking front door down.

That's fine - but you're going to need to spend a *lot* more than 2000.

Cracking stuff Panny!

I love shooting on my Olympus OM-2N! The Zuiko 50mm1.8 is really incredibly sharp with nice character. 

The problem with film cameras is the rapidly dwindling number of people who know how to repair them and the scarcity of spare parts. I have a lovely, almost mint, Olympus OM-2 SP (for may years my dream camera). Unfortunately it has a power issue that is relatively well-known but very fiddly, more fiddly than I want to attempt, to fix. I've been looking for a year for a company that can do it for me at a reasonable price, but to no avail. I also have a Canon 1V - once their top-of-the-range pro model - that I picked up non-working for £50. It turned out that all it needed was the batter contacts cleaning and it worked perfectly. A great bargain for me, but with the knowledge that if anything else ever goes wrong with it it's unlikely I'll be able to get it repaired.

So my point, laboured as it is, is that while there might be a good supply of cameras (although for the desirable ones that comes at some eye-watering prices sometimes) they're mostly one-shot deals as the expertise that supported the market is disappearing as people retire/die.

I'm going to disagree with all the sentiments in this thread and recommend something different.
Go rent an Alexa.
For practical purposes, maybe an Alexa Mini.  Talk to your local rental houses and see if there's a timeframe you can rent one and get a big discount, often rental houses are happy to give you a discount if you're renting it when the camera wouldn't be rented by anyone else so have a chat with them.
Shoot with it a lot.  Shoot as much as you can and in as many situations as you can.  Just get one lens with it then take it out and shoot.   Shoot in the various modes it has, shoot into the sun and away from it.  Shoot indoors.  Shoot high-key and shoot low key. 
Then take the camera back and grade the footage.
I suspect you won't do this.  It's expensive and a cinema camera like an Alexa is a PITA unless you have used one before.  So I'll skip to the end with what I think you'll find.  The footage won't look great.  The footage will remind you of footage from lesser cameras.  You will wonder what happened and if you're processing the footage correctly.  
I have never shot with an Alexa, but I am told by many pros that if you don't know what you're doing, Alexa footage will look just as much like a home video as from almost any other camera.
Cinematic is a word that doesn't even really have any meaning in this context.  It really just means 'of the cinema' and there's probably been enough films shot and shown in cinemas on iPhones that now an iPhone technically qualifies as being 'cinematic'.  Yes, i'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, but the point remains that the word doesn't have any useful meaning here.  Yes, images that are shown in the cinema typically look spectacular.  Most of this is location choice, set design, hair, costume, makeup, lighting, haze, blocking, and the many other things that go into creating the light that goes through the lens and into the camera.
That doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter.  We all have tastes, looks we like and looks we don't, it's just that the word 'cinematic' is about as useful as the word 'lovely' - we all know it when we see it but we don't all agree on when that is.
By far the more useful is to work out what aspects of image quality you are looking for:
Do you like the look of film?  If so, which film stocks? What resolution?  Some people suggest that 1080p is the most cinematic, whereas some argue that film was much higher resolution than 4K or even 8K.  What about colour?  The Alexa has spectacular colour, so does RED.  But neither one will give you good colour easily, and neither will give you great colour - great colour requires great production design, great lighting, great camera colour science, and great colour grading.  By the way - Canon also has great colour, so does Nikon, and other brands too.  You don't hear photographers wishing their 5D or D800 had colour science like in the movies. What lenses do you like?  Sharp?  Softer?  High-contrast?  Low contrast?  What about chromatic aberation?  and what about the corners - do you like a bit of vignetting or softness or field curvature?  Bokeh shape?  dare I mention anamorphics? But there is an alternative - it doesn't require learning what you like and how to get it, it doesn't require the careful weighting of priorities, and it's a safer option.  Buy an ARRI Alexa LF and full set of Zeiss Master Primes.  That way you will know that you have the most cinematic camera money can buy, and no-one would argue based on their preferences.
You still wouldn't get the images you're after because the cinematic look requires an enormous team and hundreds of thousands of dollars (think about it - why would people pay for these things if they could get those images without all these people?) but there will be no doubt that you have the most cinematic camera that money can buy.
I'd suggest Panavision, but they're the best cameras that money can't buy.

As I have been dealing with a mild case of appendicitis I have checked out of this discussion. Hoping to avoid surgery. And spending 5 hours in an ER seeing exactly what this hoax virus is doing To people...my god. But it’s people exactly like Tim Pool here that give real journalists a bad name. He is a disgrace. The world needs to tune out people like him and start doing the far more important and hard thing and solve our troubles, not peddling in this click-bait sensationalist fear and hate mongering. 

Tim pool is a cynical hack who'll espouse or promote any batshit idea that he thinks will get him clicks. I used to follow him on Twitter under the heading of 'seeing what other views are' and saw his videos attempting to incite anti-immigrant feeling in Sweden, under the guise of 'news-gathering'. He's a money and attention whore and best ignored. He is in no way a credible journalist.

Tim pool is a cynical hack who'll espouse or promote any batshit idea that he thinks will get him clicks. I used to follow him on Twitter under the heading of 'seeing what other views are' and saw his videos attempting to incite anti-immigrant feeling in Sweden, under the guise of 'news-gathering'. He's a money and attention whore and best ignored. He is in no way a credible journalist.

Tim pool is a cynical hack who'll espouse or promote any batshit idea that he thinks will get him clicks. I used to follow him on Twitter under the heading of 'seeing what other views are' and saw his videos attempting to incite anti-immigrant feeling in Sweden, under the guise of 'news-gathering'. He's a money and attention whore and best ignored. He is in no way a credible journalist.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, as you say.

I think it makes sense and anyone who's worked in broadcast can instantly pick up one of these (or an FX9 or FS7), start shooting, and find most of the controls they're used to. Apart from setting the right res/codec for the project or formatting cards, you can often get through an entire days shooting without ever needing to enter the menu's with these cameras. And usually you can find the button you need without even looking.
 
You literally push one button. The video you linked shows you how to change your S&Q settings, but once that's done, it's a single push of a button to get into slow-motion mode.
 
It will be far from "less cluttered" once you have 2x xlr cables (+ adapters to full-size), headphones and HDMI cable coming out of the side with all those little rubber doors dangling around. Not everyone will need that, but it's just as easy to criticise the C70 design as the FX6 (even more so in this regard). The FX6 has the ports right where you need them on a set - on the dumb side. It even has the ports recessed enough so that you can avoid obstructions when using a battery plate.
 
Unless you need to shoot any high or low angles, or on a shoulder mount, and can't use the non-rotating handle. In that situation you have exactly 0 nice dials.  FX6/FS7/FS5 style handle is very versatile and convenient.
 
Fair point, in some cases. But if you're stripping the camera down, say to shoot on a gimbal or to mount it in a car, are you really going to want audio in-camera? All those cables/mics/receivers would just get in the way and go against what you're trying to achieve. You'd probably be recording externally anyway. A deal-breaker for some, (eg if you MUST have in-cam audio on gimbal), but for most it's a problem that is easily solved when it arises.
 
This comment shows just how out of touch you are with most people who will actually use a camera like the FX6.

The reason people will build a rig is to improve ergonomics (for their particular preferences) and reduce fatigue. It also lets them use all the tools they'll need when they work in a crew with a 1AC, soundo, director, etc. It lets them go from tripod to handheld to shoulder faster. It lets them put the shoulder mount and top handle directly in line with the COG for perfect balance. It lets them put the camera down on unbalanced surfaces without getting damaged or falling over. It lets them power everything from a single battery. It also gives the camera more mass which reduces shake and gives a more natural feel to the images (and if done right, makes it easier to balance and operate too).

The only people building rigs to impress other people are those who care more about THEIR image than THE image.
 
Again, we're all entitled to opinions. But you're also making pretty outlandish statements that show how much understanding you lack about this product and the people who will use them.

It's the equivalent about me writing an article claiming the Isuzu N series is a "monstrosity of stupid design" because it doesn't fit into the average household garage.

 

Rich man's toy.

Canon colour is one of those things that's said to be good so often, its accepted as fact...  even though those saying it are not really scrutinising the colour in the same indepth analysis as they would use,  say for example Sony colour.  
To be fair, I'm not immune to this and would judge Canon colour superior to Sony.. but maybe its because the vast majority of videos out there are not properly colour graded, and Canon therefore appeals more to those who don't have skills in that area, and which has colours that can look mostly appealing SOOC.

Nice B-roll bro'.

This could have been interesting but:
1. Too expensive. It's around the same price as the GH5S, yet has no screen, no evf, no battery and - presumably - no strap or charger. So WTF, Panasonic - should be cheaper, if anything?
2. The reason we always get for the lack of internal NDs in hybrid cameras is a lack of space. No NDs in this - why? 

Here is another tip..... at no point....  should you have an uncle come up to you and say.... "Hey, I own the same camera as you... you think you can do a better job than me?"
Do you know how to avoid that?
Gaffer tape the labels, and build the shit out of it.... put a cage, matte box, focus gear, external monitor, mic it up. Make it look like a $50,000 camera instead of a $3000 camera.... people need to physically see where the money is going.... small and deinty can be operated by small and non-professional people.
Going back to the camera jib - thats the difference... a gimbal... everyone seems to have a gimbal nowadays (even the regular joe - that ends up being an enthusiast) and its so friggin small.... its not obtrusive.... so everyone can bother with a gimbal. Nobody can bother with a jib... its too big to use on the regular.... but its in everyone's face <- people see value in that....
Whats the difference between a Toyota and a Rolls-Royce? Figure it out and show the people why you're a Rolls-Royce.

Those of you guys doing wedding videos... don’t take this the wrong way.... but you are doing something wrong. I don’t know what you’re doing, but I know it’s not right.
There are venues that are going as high as $50 or $100 per person. The average cost of a wedding as per google search is $33,900... are you telling me that couples are willing to forego the cost properly capturing those moments? 
Your telling me that people are not willing to spend at least 10% of their budget on properly capturing the event itself???
May be they don’t see value in it.... at which point skip those people.... 
But, you need to lean in on those that do see value in video and lean in hard!!! Which means.... package it properly.... and throw in a crap load of marketing behind it.
Let me be honest here... I got married in 2010.... I hired pretty much a nobody... barely had a portfolio to show... he was fresh out of film school and he was recommended by the photographer. But, from the small portfolio that he did have, I was super impressed - my now wife... I had to convince. He charged $3800 (Canadian)... my mom complained stating exactly what you guys are saying.... “videography shouldn’t cost more than photography” - He made her eat her words by the end of it. BTW, photography cost $3200....this was at the cusp of the DSLR revolution.... he was running around with a 7D and 50mm.... But at the end of the day.... this guy came full guns blazing. He filmed with us for about 12 to 14 days... (that alone is going the extra mile) and created a 20 minute short for the wedding. At the wedding itself, he came with a 12 foot crane/jib (4 extra guys); had posters of the 20 minute short (all over the place) and a 2 minute trailer of the short (full video was shown at the reception). When he finished that day alone... FYI -there were 700+ people at my wedding (I’m Hindu)... 8 people signed up and he charged $5200 per person. Thereafter he signed way more by showing people the final cinematic cut of the wedding itself. And, he even packaged the tangible products properly - from the Blu-Ray/DVD menu to the cover and housing of the disc. I got the original disc in a leather case, and regular DVDs (however many I wanted) in a custom plastic case. 
Owning a camera and knowing how to edit the footage is not enough. Ask yourself how many steps ahead are you from the regular joe (owning the same or similar camera)??? It has to be visible differences though. If you’re going to talk about DR and noise reduction.... people don’t see that.... do you know why photography is more expensive??? And people are willing to spend money on it?? There are physical - tangible products at the end of it - a physical and custom album and custom framed pictures or canvas pictures <- people see that.... it’s visible... a DVD or USB stick.... sure it’s something... but it’s not framed on the wall or anything. 
Im hoping that you guys are seeing the visible products that pretty much acted as a marketing campaign for the guy that I hired. If you don’t see it, let me list it out: Camera jib (that’s something the regular guy doesn’t own), movie posters, trailer, 20-short, 45 minute cinematic cut (final product) and leather casing.
Sure that seems like a lot of work.... and it is... but then ask yourself again how many steps ahead are you from a regular joe who owns the same or similar equipment that can do it for free?
 
 

Is amazing. I love it. Never going back to RED unless I’m forced to by a client.
Just thought I would share. The IQ is pristine, colors are great and it’s just a breeze to use. Will post a few stills here in a day or two.

That’s amazing. I Heard of someone who got a fs700 with the raw upgrade for 450$ a few months ago. I need to keep my eyes extra open lol 

I picked up a FS5 (with the raw upgrade, which wasn't even mentioned in the ad) for £1200 a few weeks ago - that's cheaper than I got the FS700 for back in 2016.

I picked up a FS5 (with the raw upgrade, which wasn't even mentioned in the ad) for £1200 a few weeks ago - that's cheaper than I got the FS700 for back in 2016.

That would work but wouldn't be a great option, in addition to not being able to review the footage the camera would not be able to verify the integrity of the file after dumping the buffer unless it also signed each file then checked the signature prior to clearing the buffer.  Any way you look at it, the encryption process would incur overhead; processing, heat, HW, development, etc. and include compromises (complexity, possible lost data, additional costs, etc) for a very small target client base. 
Also, if you really are in a scenario where the government seizes your camera; if they can't read the data and you are physically unable to provide the decryption key on the spot they will now have an excuse to search the rest of your gear or they will simply destroy the storage medium.
Once again phones have the advantage here, they already have network connectivity, they already have data at rest encryption options, they can already livestream events as they happen, etc. Trying to reverse engineer all of that and put it into a camera then trying to market and sell that camera simply isn't something any for profit camera maker would do.
 
All of the encrypted SD cards that I have seen require a full OS or some way of loading their decryption/encryption application onto the device; something that would be impossible to do with a camera. There may be one that I am unaware of (entirely possible), but I haven't seen a simple SD card you can just plug into a camera and have it encrypt everything that is written to it. I believe they all need an app, and you need to enter the proper authentication information into the app prior to using writable space on the card. I have seen USB drives that have physical PIN pad buttons which is how you enter the volume password like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Apricorn-Validated-256-bit-Encryption-ASK3-120GB/dp/B00W2EN8CE/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1601314672&refinements=p_n_feature_keywords_browse-bin%3A6813186011&s=pc&sr=1-1 but for that to work the camera has to support writing to a USB drive or SSD drive.
The FlashAir SD card looks like the best option, but it looks like it would be complicated to setup and get to work reliably. Just turning on and off the camera would require the offloading device to reliably reconnect to the wifi, the app to automatically grab the files as it detects them, then move those files to a cloud backup solution (and we are talking large JPGs here).  It's been my experience that getting that many different technologies to work together reliably and repeatedly is uncommon.

Love my Super Taks - all I'm gonna say.