Liam

I don't know if it's a small sensor necessarily, looks fairly wide. I'd also guess Sony though. could've been captured in 4k, but I'm thinking still 1080p. the edges of the lens might be a little soft, so that also makes me think interchangeable lens perhaps.. maybe a5100? no clue though I guess

do you need either if you don't need 4k? the A7s gives great 1080p in crop mode, stabilization is probably the only different (maybe colors, but they're still achievable)

edit: other than 4k, rolling shutter is worse on the rii in crop mode, and no slog3 on the rii, might want to consider those

yeah, don't think I could handle 4k on my computer.. it struggles with my current footage /: and like.. $300 or less is maybe what I was thinking. gm1, another t3i, lx100 sure, sounds cool, buuut, idk I kind of like the 2/3" sensor look when everything is in focus. I was looking at the f23 for a while (super expensive, not a chance I'd get it ha) but it's interesting. nx500 too, even cropping into the small crop factor 4k is interesting to me for the depth of field you get, etc. but I was also looking for something super cheap, and thought those might have overlapped at some point pretty well. like didn't know if a powershot once had matched the t3i image quality, with manual controls, but just no one hesitated to jump to the larger sensor. probably not

was thinking about b-cameras recently. Sort of think a small sensor (1" or smaller even) camera would be helpful sometimes. wasn't sure if there was something decent that most people just wouldn't have paid attention to because it's not technically a proper camera. my needs are pretty few.

not oversharpened

fairly gradable

decent zoom range

manual controls (or at least "lock" option)

720-180p resolution

no huge aliasing problems etc.

maybe decent auto controls

maybe decent iso performance

my A-camera is a t3i, so.. clearly not TOO picky. rx100 would probably get the most love? wasn't sure if something more in the range of like a canon powershot secretly had all this, and might match better to a canon dslr? I'm in no hurry, still researching, and might not even buy if I find it, but curious. any input would be appreciated

Think he'd still have one f35

I know this is a place that will give me no sympathy.. but I'm pretty upset Mad Max is up for best.. anything -_-

F65 is a great camera. If you're looking at professional digital s35, I might choose the f65 over arri or red just for the mechanical shutter.

Sort of.. but in the case of Tarantino, it seems like if he wasn't making a huge deal out of 65mm film for Hateful Eight, he may not have been nominated at all (since he wasn't up for any other big ones really) - just like with 12 Years a Slave getting a nomination for best picture.. and hardly anything else. The Oscars have weird patterns and internal things all the time.. seems like few people in the academy respected Hateful Eight/12 Years a Slave, but felt obligated to vote for them in certain categories. Like people were actually voting for "65mm film" in that category. - Not that those weren't great films (granted I've never seen 12 Years a Slave.. just like a lot of the academy members who voted for it)

It was VERY pretty. So. Take that.

Spoilers..

No, I really liked it. Some dream sequences were repetetive and useless. Didn't need him to look at the camera at the end. Also I don't really like how that "decent" redheaded actor is suddenly in everything.. but I thought it was a really great story really uniquedly filmed. 

So now I've seen it in 70mm and digital. Was surprised I'd think the projection method actually changed anything, but the detail and texture, maybe dynamic range and motion, and sound all seemed lacking in digital projection. I don't want to totally just trick myself into thinking it made all the difference, and maybe the screen was just too dim for some reason and the sound was too low (also, it was only 1080p projection I'm sure)

does film in projection have more dynamic range than digital? Don't know if a pro could spread some knowledge. Film can have like twelve stops, while digital screens have like eight? So at the least you'd need to grade properly to have a film image optimized for digital right? Which tarantino wouldn't have done I'm guessing, hence clipped shadows.

I know nothing about sound, but tarantino and paul thomas anderson were saying 70mm sound is magnificent, and after seeing both, I'd have to agree.

So again, maybe I'm building it up in my head, but this might have ruined most movie going experiences from now on.. long live film

I wasn't a hipster before it was cool to not be a hipster, so... wait, damn.

Yeah I just saw it, great as a film, probably better than Django Unchained. Was a great experience with the film projection, full edit as opposed to later releases, playbills, intermission. He's said in interviews it was kind of a joke to do it in 70mm since it's a simple film really, small scale, and vulgar. It'll be different from every time I see it from now on.. which was the point I guess, making the theatre experience important and justifying film. But a bummer since I can't buy the 70mm reels and projector etc. Anyway, I'd say homerun

really? I know the Alexa was used for at least some of the night driving scenes. interesting though, definitely a beautiful film

lots of great cinematography. I like the story and practical effects. pace was a bit more modern crowd-pleasing film style.. punchlines everywhere, tons of throwbacks, fight scenes right out the gate, never a rest really - but it worked.

Sherlock has a ton of shallow depth of field. Don't know if it has really annoyed me, but it's noticeable. while the show was still decent I didn't mind it  . the shallow depth of field and constant camera movement in Scandal is just hilarious. Always weird to see what works and what doesn't. Some of my favorite shows have "terrible" image quality (Peep Show, The League, It's Always Sunny). Fincher's Gone Girl looks pretty standard and nice, nothing to write home about for cinematography, but I like the grade, even though.. it's pretty much all green and underexposed. I enjoy a bit of undersaturation and deeper depth of field.

Wouldn't happen to like the ring bokeh from a mirror lens, would you? That would be very budget. Don't know if you can find any under 800mm though

Edit: sorry,that's not really the same

Think if you just make it fit the frame, that's the same as downscaling. Might look cropped initially, but just fit to frame of drag the corners in. May be smoother to edit if you transcode first though

You wouldn't really spend time transcoding, right? Just enter it in a 1080p timeline should work okay. More resolution and framing options with the g7 of ourse and might be more gradeable than the d5500, but might look more digital with the sharpness you can't really lower. D5500 could be more organic and nicer colors. Tough call. Probably can't go wrong either way

I can basically guarantee they didn't do that, without having to ask.. Tarantino would shit himself.

and yeah it's going to look great digitally, in some ways better than any high end digital, but I have no doubt projecting in film will add something. 

wish we could all live in Tarantino's dream world of film film film film, and that he didn't kind of scoff at the little guy using digital. He is extreme, but mostly not crazy. Excited to watch the film when it's out on DVD  

if you were actually still looking to be convinced... true that not many pros shoot with it though, and in my search for footage there's a lot of heavily LUTted and improperly exposed footage with jello, but these are probably my favorites so far from the camera and hard to argue that they aren't fantastic. 

https://vimeo.com/brainstem/review/136679800/daa914d0aa

Andrew answered on the "Is Samsung Shutting Down their Camera Business" thread a little bit ago:

"Still valid. The guide was done on V1.3.

V1.4 didn't change the picture profile settings much."

Andrew's log LUT looked promising. Maybe not the best choice for dynamic range, but emulating C-log, in theory it should be nice to work with and easy to expose properly in camera with a contrasy look. Wish there were more tests with it to say wether it's entirely reliable.

a camera <maybe> "failing" in this market (which there's a thread here devoted to being pissed about it) means that it was a bad product? better cameras have been discontinued.

You can get a classic 5d for like $300 easily, less with some searching almost definitely. Not sure how well it holds up. No video, but then have left over money for a cheap full frame video option by way of speedboosting.. a little goofy, but

wouldn't like speedboosting an nex camera probably be the cheapest option and have decent video? maybe not much cheaper if you have a good speedbooster on it, plus no match for 5D raw or any sort of autofocus or ergonomics, but just a thought

what isos? did you add any grain? did look noisy, but I thought it kinda worked. very stylistic grade of course, but nice

GM1