BenEricson

Yes, that was one of the problems that put people off the camera, and the lower base ISO (and therefore NR) of the standard profile guided the conversation to modifying the standard profile to get further away.
I've shot a bunch of things, but I'm not good enough at grading yet to be confident that any differences would be a result of the profiles and not me stuffing things up in post.  I'm planning on watching a bunch of tutorials on how to grade C-Log over the weekend.
My plan is to get good enough at grading C-Log so that I can duplicate the C-Log to Rec.709 preset, and also be able to duplicate various nice grades I find online.   Then I can grade my C-Log footage with confidence, then grade my modified EOS Standard profile to match, and then I can compare the profiles.

Shoot 4k. Use a fader ND. Shoot c-log. Expose to the right. I’ve found the compression is much much better wide open/nearly wide open. Maybe this is the lens, but the f11 stuff I shot came out mushy. 
It is good for what it is. If it had a 2.8 constant lens, this camera would be a beast. 
 

Shoot 4k. Use a fader ND. Shoot c-log. Expose to the right. I’ve found the compression is much much better wide open/nearly wide open. Maybe this is the lens, but the f11 stuff I shot came out mushy. 
It is good for what it is. If it had a 2.8 constant lens, this camera would be a beast. 
 

Shoot 4k. Use a fader ND. Shoot c-log. Expose to the right. I’ve found the compression is much much better wide open/nearly wide open. Maybe this is the lens, but the f11 stuff I shot came out mushy. 
It is good for what it is. If it had a 2.8 constant lens, this camera would be a beast. 
 

I literally could get better color out of the XC10 than my FS700/7Q. I'm not saying the FS700 can't do more and look better, but the Canon compression is really really nice. The main problem with the XC10 is the lens - not really the 8 bit codec. 
I would imagine if you know the limits of the 8bit/c200 codec, you can do really really nice work. You just need to stress test it like any camera.

And a Sony F3 going for half that sometimes!!! :-o Wow

Was a little shocked to see today a Sony PMW-F5 sell for US$5.7K:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Version-UP-Sony-PMW-F5-Camcorder-4K-format-OK/122925420188

Pity I didn't have the money for it :-(
 

Laugh given! :-P

 

I don't have to look under many rocks to find something: no TC on the C200
 

Its a beast no matter what imo.

C’mon, if the media is too expensive, then this camera is definitely not right for your production. But if you’re making a serious short film, with a budget, then another grand for Cfast 2 cards shouldn’t be a concern... I mean seriously... who is going to spend $7500 for a camera that shoots 4K Raw up to 60p and then complain about the cost of the media and want to shoot 8bit?!?!
But the real hilarious part of this argument is that the people complaining about the cost of media to shoot Raw 4K on the C200 are fine shelling out comparable costs for the V90 cards to shoot h.264 on the GH5.
If you want a serious camera, you have to pay serious money and if you don’t, then there are plenty of amazing options in the sub $3000 consumer category.

...and if you really want/need 10 bit prores then an external recorder is the answer (at least in 1080). 

No need imo.

Agreed... [Jim Jannard storms off into the sunset] Art Adams is a great resource. Not as in love with his work as a DP, but he somehow manages to make camera criticism useful to both readers and the manufacturers themselves.

Fake. 

I am also a fan of BluRays. Films and Docs shot on 16mm look so nice on BluRay. Film grain can look pretty garbage when streamed. 

Man, bus shelter digital displays are vertical, shopping mall digital displays are vertical -- it's not just phones dude, I've worked with plenty of rigs designed to pitch the camera 90 degrees to shoot for those kinds of displays. If I do any more I might even get a GH5 and shoot 6k so I can shoot for both horizontal and vertical formats at the same time. 

Just an FYI, the color you get from setting the camera to video out / s-log PP is much more accurate colorwise than locking the camera to S-Log out with no profile. 
The difference is very obvious in the greens. It is a lot closer to the FS7 in a bad way. A member on DVX User tipped me off to this. Clearly this is a flaw because the two profiles shouldn't be different. 
I agree, the menu situation is very annoying on the f3. 
I have owned the F3/Black Magic Recorder for a while now and have been extremely satisfied with the images. 
 
 

The 5D3 is really cheap used at this point.

Yes, I own that setup and have used it for about a year. I am working on a long form project, but have done a few random freelance jobs with the setup. I some b-roll here. The first 15 and last 15 seconds have some examples. 
There is one flaw. The bottom line of pixels flickers in 60p. You have to zoom in to 100.5 to remove it. Other than that, the 60p is not much different than the C300ii in 60p. 
 

Damn, that looks nice!

Yes, I own that setup and have used it for about a year. I am working on a long form project, but have done a few random freelance jobs with the setup. I some b-roll here. The first 15 and last 15 seconds have some examples. 
There is one flaw. The bottom line of pixels flickers in 60p. You have to zoom in to 100.5 to remove it. Other than that, the 60p is not much different than the C300ii in 60p. 
 

Black Magic Video Assist works great if you have the 444 model, 7Q will do 24/60 with dual SDI and the 2016 7Q firmware.

I couldn't take it and had to buy the camera again. So stoked to mess around with this camera again. 
I found some cool footage shot with a wide angle today. When zoomed through it looks like you can achieve shallower depth of field as well. Around 4:26 the stuff shot with the Wide Angle.
 
 

“While digital sees blue Kodak film sees shades of blue..”
 
a remarkable view..in a very competative market with Kodak giving the dp a step up
go to  Panavision in Woodland Hills where a super 16mm or 35mm camera is waiting ..it’s your destiny

Agreed about the close ups. Any smaller scale formats really shine in this setting. The extreme being Super 8 or Polaroid film. Portraits on polaroid look like they've already been airbrushed. 
On the discussion of 16mm. Stuff I have shot with the Bolex has just been the most rewarding for me. The colors, skin tone, and overall feel are very hard to replicate. 
I think someone saying they can easily copy the 16mm look with filters, is the same as saying the GH5 can look like an Alexa or a F35. I suppose there's different traits that people would to copy. To some people that would mean analog inconsistency; film burns, grain, jumping gate, etc. There is a huge difference in the film stocks alone. 
These first two frames are 1080p scans on the Shadow. This is a 10+ year old scanner. The 3rd frame is a 4k scan from a Scan Station. This is just cheap c-mount glass. I've n ever used Zeiss on a bolex, but I am sure the results would be very nice. 
I've never seen this but the trailer looks good. I'll be checking that out this week. 



 

I agree with this. The F3 is truly  a beautiful image. The FS700 has excellent features, but from a purely image standpoint, the F3 looks much better. Depends what you're shooting 4K/120p is pretty awesome. If you shoot a lot of interviews, you may regret the FS700.

I agree with this. The F3 is truly  a beautiful image. The FS700 has excellent features, but from a purely image standpoint, the F3 looks much better. Depends what you're shooting 4K/120p is pretty awesome. If you shoot a lot of interviews, you may regret the FS700.