BenEricson

​These look nice, but the model, amount of make-up, and the lighting make a huge difference… The amazing thing about the Canon 5d, etc, is the how the skin seems to always look, in just about any setting. Locking a nice WB and exposure obviously helps tremendously. jcs, do you own the pocket camera? That colors that camera is capable of producing with proper grading is just amazing.

Get the new micro camera… 30p global shutter, 60p rolling. 60p Pro Res files are going to be just awesome.​

I would just comment on the shirt, looks either clipped or very near. Maybe lower the gain and raise the gamma. Honestly, I would shoot an interview with a 5D/proper white balance, low contrast and color, and try to match that. If you did a side by side, I feel like that would be a great reference. If you're anywhere close to that, then you know you're doing it right.

​It seems like these work well in the right setting, but people should really try to create their own looks as well. Half of the bmpcc pocket footage stuff looks terrible because of the LUTs applied. The captain hook LUTs are free and actually provide a really nice base. Just to clear it up, all of these LUTs still look like digital that is trying to look like film. I guess that creates a sub category.

​This comment gets thrown around so much. The black magic pocket when graded correctly, looks much better than any of that GH4 stuff… The 60p RAW out of the pocket will be lovely.

200 bucks for something like this... The camera is so small, there's a million ways to rig this.

​Grant said it will do 1080/60p, which is awesome for people who own the A7S and want that clean 1080p/60.

​Grant Petty confirmed that it will convert down to 1080p in the monitor. This is in one of the No Film School converge pieces, regarding the Black Magic Micro Cinema Camera. Mentioned in the video below.

​No, probably still not thread worthy. Isn't there a 5 page thread already dedicated to your video?

I'm sorry someone didn't like your video, but this doesn't seem thread worthy.

"The fact is when Shane Hurlbut recently tested a modern Kodak film stock he found digital more emotionally pleasing in every way. The fact is that the modern film stocks are more clinical than the older, discontinued ones. Yet most people don’t see it that way." First time posting here. This site is wonderful resource. I agree with a lot of you have to say, but I can't agree with this one. The film example looks like boyhood the C300 looks like a commercial spot. The film literally makes the talent look better. How could you or Shane find this to be a better image. I think you're fumbling here, because you focus on the specs on everything. You zoom in on 4k images and dissect every aspect of a camera. If you're on the pro level, and you can get 95 percent of the quality with digital, you will probably still choose to shoot film. What are your opinions on the different guages? 16mm and 8mm certainly capture a very unique look. This doc shot on 16mm looks beautiful in every way. It just seems more believable to me. I watch so much commercial stuff shot on the 5D, this is such a nice break. If you have the money it seems like the way to go. Obviously different tools for different jobs. https://vimeo.com/49445992 I still feel that video with a film effect, still looks like, video with a film effect...