austinchimp

My advice for few minutes watching is to completely turn down sound and just look at Tony's hand and dancing  fingers. He sometimes does very interesting pantomime movements, sometimes even like an conductor. Combine it with innocent sugar-like mouth mimic, and you get pretty quality, live lesson "how to be suggestive speaker".

I would say that straight out of the camera the Fuji colour looks very nice, but not necessarily like film. You probably wouldn't mistake it for film, that's for sure.
The BMPCC4k, from what I've seen, looks a little more filmic with vintage lenses, but both of these cameras are going to require some work in production and post production if you're trying to lose the video look entirely.
I think there's also a bias in the kind of footage we've seen from both cameras. The Pocket seems to have been bought by more indie filmmaker types, while the Fuji seems to be in the hands of more photographers from what I can tell by going on YT and Vimeo. So I think the Pocket footage is appealing if you match that profile. A lot of the Fuji footage is badly shot, exposed and graded.
The Fujifilm can also shoot stills, so it kind of depends if you need a hybrid or not. It also has good autofocus.
Do a search for H1 footage, and you'll see more Fuji footage with a filmic treatment.
 
 
https://vimeo.com/265565687

A decent toy, this Osmo Pocket - a YouTube example (1080, 60fps).
 

All the ones I've tested do, yes.

With ridiculous amount of crop there is a difference in texture detail. "B" is ProRes (left) and "A" is h265. (right)
Thanks for the test!
 

I am mainly a lurker here - mainly - but I'll decloak and will say "yes, please" for that one. It'd be much more interesting, and useful, than the gear debates. 

But I also know that those topics cost a lot of time, and might go up in flames easily - so I'd be thankful, but also understanding if it doesn't happen :).

I just bought the fringer ef-fx adapter and it works well with IS lenses and the autofocus works well on recent canon lenses. My Tamron is old I guess so it doesn’t autofocus as fluidly.

Wtf? Do people on this forum even work in production? EVERYTHING with a budget I work on is Alexa with fast lenses close to wide open, big soft LED sources, and practicals that play as real scene lighting. Low light levels are the current flavor, not only for speed (HUGE on paid work where producers are trying to save pennies anywhere they can), but because at those intensities, lighting looks about the same to the eye as it will to camera, as opposed to high levels where you'll often have no idea of your ratios until you pull out a meter or a monitor. This also means controlling your sources, blocking light, and choosing visually conducive locations becomes more important than ever, as your keys aren't nearly bright enough to knock errant light down. 
Maybe we need to make a topic detailing current industry visual and sound techniques, just so we're all on the same page with how things are done now and what matters.

I usually never record or register my productions layout but if I find some time I'll try to write something about it.
If you have any specific question you wanna know, write me a private massage and I'll try to put it on a different thread so we don't go off topic.

There are awesome resources for colour grading and Resolve techniques out there, but they're scattered around the place, and are hard to find.  Please post anything awesome you find.
(Note: for those that are new to Resolve or colour grading, there are lots of YT "colourists" who have very little actual knowledge.  These people provide a steady stream of bad habits, misleading and flat-out wrong information.  There are exceptions, but on the whole you should be very suspicious of people selling LUTs and pumping out video after video - most of these people are professional LUT salespeople and/or YouTubers and not professional colourists!)
Juan Melara is excellent.  If you watch all the below you'll get a sense of how he uses Resolve, especially the Colour Space Transform plugin and which tools in Resolve are designed to work in which colour spaces.
 

I have 4 teenage nieces, they all prefer their phones since the Osmo can’t make calls, text, Instagram, FaceTime and so on. And they don’t edit anything or even use a computer, with the Osmo you have to offload through  another device.
Travel and vloggers seem to be the target, but beyond stabilization it doesn’t really deliver for either since you need accessories.
Kudos for bringing something different, but the Hero7 with a simple handle still looks better to me, and it’ll likely be a lot more rugged  
Chris

I would say that straight out of the camera the Fuji colour looks very nice, but not necessarily like film. You probably wouldn't mistake it for film, that's for sure.
The BMPCC4k, from what I've seen, looks a little more filmic with vintage lenses, but both of these cameras are going to require some work in production and post production if you're trying to lose the video look entirely.
I think there's also a bias in the kind of footage we've seen from both cameras. The Pocket seems to have been bought by more indie filmmaker types, while the Fuji seems to be in the hands of more photographers from what I can tell by going on YT and Vimeo. So I think the Pocket footage is appealing if you match that profile. A lot of the Fuji footage is badly shot, exposed and graded.
The Fujifilm can also shoot stills, so it kind of depends if you need a hybrid or not. It also has good autofocus.
Do a search for H1 footage, and you'll see more Fuji footage with a filmic treatment.
 
 
https://vimeo.com/265565687

I would say that straight out of the camera the Fuji colour looks very nice, but not necessarily like film. You probably wouldn't mistake it for film, that's for sure.
The BMPCC4k, from what I've seen, looks a little more filmic with vintage lenses, but both of these cameras are going to require some work in production and post production if you're trying to lose the video look entirely.
I think there's also a bias in the kind of footage we've seen from both cameras. The Pocket seems to have been bought by more indie filmmaker types, while the Fuji seems to be in the hands of more photographers from what I can tell by going on YT and Vimeo. So I think the Pocket footage is appealing if you match that profile. A lot of the Fuji footage is badly shot, exposed and graded.
The Fujifilm can also shoot stills, so it kind of depends if you need a hybrid or not. It also has good autofocus.
Do a search for H1 footage, and you'll see more Fuji footage with a filmic treatment.
 
 
https://vimeo.com/265565687

I would say that straight out of the camera the Fuji colour looks very nice, but not necessarily like film. You probably wouldn't mistake it for film, that's for sure.
The BMPCC4k, from what I've seen, looks a little more filmic with vintage lenses, but both of these cameras are going to require some work in production and post production if you're trying to lose the video look entirely.
I think there's also a bias in the kind of footage we've seen from both cameras. The Pocket seems to have been bought by more indie filmmaker types, while the Fuji seems to be in the hands of more photographers from what I can tell by going on YT and Vimeo. So I think the Pocket footage is appealing if you match that profile. A lot of the Fuji footage is badly shot, exposed and graded.
The Fujifilm can also shoot stills, so it kind of depends if you need a hybrid or not. It also has good autofocus.
Do a search for H1 footage, and you'll see more Fuji footage with a filmic treatment.
 
 
https://vimeo.com/265565687

And 2.8f, and no IS.
Not the modern workhorse lens that everyone else has.

This is why I returned the Viltrox and bought the Fringer too. So far the Fringer has worked great, with very good lens compatibility.

..

I am trying not to waste time on internet personas, rather exchange experience and knowledge on forums such this.
We gave too much importance (and time = money = they get all the money!) to mediocre wedding photographers and videographers, while the real filmakers just do their job, somewhere out there, without insta posts and tweets (or whatever the new trend on social media is).
Some people here know, it is a very hard work, you can work for days straight, needs physical and mental - and social - strengthness, and the last thing you care about  is to inform your followers how fantastic and amazing is to work in the film and video industry with the new (insert paid advertisement here) and use the (another one here), while looking gorgeous, fresh and well slept!
It is great for them (the youtube personas), glad ain't them!

Well those cameras line up with the mavo, not the lf. I said large format. (Equivalent of 35mm or larger). So all those cameras you mentioned failed to meet that criteria. if you want to buy a great super35 camera there are many excellent options. But if you want to venture into the large format realm, the mavo lf is much more obtainable than competitors large format cameras.
You seem to have missed my reason for bringing the cost into play. The Mavo/Mavo lf will likely have quirks, but the at the price there is nothing that can match it spec wise (Lf) with the same size sensor. 
 
I personally find the colours from this Mavo Lf footage to be much more pleasing than the venice footage you posted. 
 
 

Wired is ultimately better, but the convenience of wireless trumps it if you are shooting and recording yourself.  Mic up the talent, stick the transmitter in his/her pocket, and get on with the million and one other things you have to take care of.  Just do everybody a favour and take off the headphones if they pop to the loo!!!
Can see the merits of wired too though.  It's a close call.

It is a music video :-P 

 
 

There are times when wired lavs make sense (for instance I run an Aputure A.Lav straight into my G6 for my vlogs, because a) it is just for with me b) I'm lazy c) it is compact/cheap), but for most people/situations wireless makes more sense unless utterly broke. 

Put the camera on a large gorillapod and use it as a chest/shoulder mount

I find that one of the main differentiators in feel between small mirrorless or DSLRs and larger cameras like the Alexa is the movement of the camera itself when it's handheld.
Small cameras have that horrible jittery shaky distracting motion while larger cameras can feel 'cinematic' even while they're being carried while running for example, and using unstabilised lenses. Like in this clip at 1'35.
The obvious factor is rolling shutter, but assuming that my camera has low rolling shutter, how best to replicate this look and feel with - say - a X-T3?
Two things I want to avoid are shoulder mounting, and making a big rig. I've thought about actually weighing the camera down somehow, or perhaps using a handle mounted on the top to avoid the usual mirrorless shooting position of holding it out in front of you.
Any ideas??
 

That may be true now, but the way I understand it is that it's a shrinking market and that kind of split may not be the recipe for sustainability.  Who knows of course, those with crystal balls  (or steel balls) will be putting all their savings on the winning horse.
Every successful YouTuber is clickbait royalty - that's just the reality of getting new subs and keeping ahead of the others - look at the UK tabloids (and sensationalist media the world over) and tell me that it isn't a successful strategy.
What I like about Tony is that he isn't afraid to say things, isn't afraid to predict things, but in addition to those traits (that are shared with nearly all YouTubers) he's also level-headed, admits when he's wrong, and explains his thinking so that you can understand why he came to the conclusions he did.  Even if he gets things wrong he definitely adds to the conversation rather than just taking up your time and contributing nothing.