mercer

Hmm, I think the image of the Lumix may be misleading... http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3478912/william-friedkins-exorcism-doc-devil-father-amorth-gets-release-date/ In this article, the writer references a Variety article where Friedkin states, “I had to shoot it alone, obviously. The conditions were that I come along with no crew and no lights. So I used a Sony still camera that shot high-definition video. I had only that camera running and I was about two feet away from them, probably even closer.” So either Friedkin forgot which camera they used, or for that shot, he just held a different camera, while someone else shot him with the production camera, for effect? This grab from the trailer shows the camera in use... It’s still hard to tell, so I cropped in... It certainly kinda looks like a Panasonic, but I suppose it could also be a Sony RX10. Either way, he seems comfortable recording audio, in camera, with that little Sennheiser microphone... without even monitoring it. I suppose they may have used multiple cameras on the film but what I find most telling about the whole idea... Last May, while we were arguing which 4K camera is the best and most suitable for creating a cinematic image, William Friedkin grabbed a camera, plugged in a mic and shot a film. Pretty damn cool!!!

Which Lumix camera was used? And I want to save my judgement until I see the Devil’s skin tone.

I actually like the look of the RawLite footage very much, although it is a little too saturated for my tastes. I think the biggest “issue” with this test is the randomness of it. It seems you are really trying to work out the kinks of using a new cinema camera. So, I’m unsure if using an event like this is the best time and place to sort it out? If I were you, I’d find the most peaceful, beautiful place in your town. When the light is perfect, go there, with your tripod and shoot no more than 3-5 minutes of footage... edit that down to a 1-2 minute video and correct and grade the footage. I also think that just using Lumetri for your tests may yield better results. Keep the correction/grade as simple as possible. Also, are you shooting cLog? Because a simple cLog to Rec709 LUT should give you a great starting point and then just a light contrast and saturation adjustment will get you the rest of the way there. And... doesn’t the C200 have built in ND filters?

I’m unsure why people are so adamantly opposed to ML Raw around here? The process is rather painless now and the hacked firmware is as stable as Canon’s original firmware... in the year I have been shooting ML Raw, I have had zero issues with reliability. The post processing time is a hair more time consuming but with MLVFS, it is pretty quick... once you copy the MLV files to a hard drive, the footage runs in Resolve as if it were any other footage. Sure if you’re an event videographer and need to collect a lot of footage, then it may not be the right choice... even though there are wedding videographers that use the 5D3 and ML Raw to much success. So the only issue is storage. For the most part, storage isn’t that expensive. Personally, the “storage restraints” have forced me to become more thoughtful about what I shoot. I am working only on narratives, so in a lot of ways, ML Raw has been a godsend. I no longer have hours upon hours worth of footage to comb through. I pre-visualize my scenes, make a shot list and get the shots. I don’t do a bunch of takes for the sake of it.

I read an article about a month or so ago that stated Canon was looking to be creative with lens options in upcoming mirrorless cameras. So I think this is probably one of their “creative” options. I believe Canon files dozens to hundreds of patents a year, so who knows if this is for future tech or for a specific product in production. I think we may be seeing a culmination of various possibilities for a couple different mirrorless camera models within this one patent.

On another note, probably irrelevant to this patent... I read a few months ago that Canon has some patents for M4/3 lenses.

Maybe it will take FD lenses as well... ha... now wouldn’t that be pretty damn cool!

Yeah, the C100 has a special quality to it. The IQ and form factor has me really interested. As much as I want a Pocket II, I have a feeling a C100 may be my next camera by the end of summer.

Nice... Everybody says that lens is a dog, but you’ve proven that theory wrong. I have the f/4 and the barrel is the same way... I don’t even think you can use an ND filter with it. Great lens though. What camera did you shoot this with?

I think other controllers will use a toggle switch, to switch between functions and the maybe the trigger to change the parameters of the function. So with that type of configuration, you would need two for left, center and right.

They make a Lanc Trigger pistol grip for the Pocket, that could probably be refitted to work with the sbus. https://m.ebay.com/itm/JJC-HR-DV-Remote-Handle-Pistol-Grip-for-Blackmagic-design-pocket-cinema-camera-/221603818145

There are some companies that make them, but they cost almost the same price as the camera. I cannot stress how small the camera actually is... about the size of a rubicks cube, but once it’s kitted out, in the most basic of way, it becomes pretty monstrous. With that being said, and how Matt has demonstrated, it’s a gorgeous image. If the new Pocket just had all of the specs as the Micro with a screen, it would have been a winner in my opinion.

I’m looking at something like this for the P2. It should fit comfortably right next to my beer...

You just need the right sized pocket...

I don’t see how his budget isn’t realistic? He laid it out pretty specifically. A used 5D2, and a few lenses for 1100 euros... that sounds doable. I doubt he really needs a monitor when he stated he’s looking to get into DSLR video. Hell, this guy shoots ML Raw with a 5D2 and some old non ai Nikkor lenses. You’re right nobody was being rude, but these posts come up often and rarely do people actually listen to the OP’s requests.

It’s funny, I was so much happier and maybe even a better filmmaker when I tested lenses instead of cameras. Obviously, finished work is the overall goal but most of us don’t come here for that. Now that I have finally decided on the camera I will use to shoot the short films that float through my head and ink the page, I am much happier testing lenses for those projects rather than cameras. Luckily I already own a buttload of vintage glass. But I am still searching for those forgotten chunks of glass that add a little more dimension and character to my image.

I feel like I just had a class in Hollywood optics... glass like master primes or Cooke or even compact primes are so out of my budget that I’ve never done much research. Thanks for the tip of the iceberg... it gives me something to read about as I pine over stuff I can’t afford... lol. I tend to veer discussions off topic but I don’t know about this one... how can we have a discussion about cinema cameras and not discuss lenses? Because let’s be honest here... any one of these cameras can be used for great work, but the lenses used can really help differentiate the films’ aesthetic. There’s a reason why a lot of the GH5 footage looks the same on YouTube... there’s only so much the 12-60mm lens can do. But pop a S16 Arri Super Speed on that bitch and a whole new world opens up.

Fair enough, but he also shoots with an Alexa. In my opinion, all of the cameras we discuss aren’t in the same category or on the same planet as they’re using in Hollywood. Putting a master prime on a GH4 isn’t going to make GH4 footage look like The Revenant. What I think these cameras can do, is mimic older film pretty damn good. So I’ve always looked at it as this... there is no way in hell with my resources that I am going to get an image that even minutely competes with an Alexa... even if I was insanely talented. But I may be able to get an image that looks like a 70s or 80s film. And for me, the mere thought that it’s possible with a $2000, or less camera, is pretty astounding. Your mileage may vary.

Ugh... why do all of the posts from people asking for opinions on specific cameras turn into discussions why the OP should buy an entirely different camera instead? I get why someone might say, have you thought about a D750 or a7s but to say just get a small sensor mirrorless and a speedbooster... sorry but that is not the same thing as a FF camera. And it’s nowhere near the same thing as shooting FF Raw on a Canon 5D.

Although the foggy haze definitely helped him with that video, so did that Fujian lens and this is one of my favorite GH5 videos... so... thanks for finding it!!! I love crappy lenses. Be it cheap new lenses, or cheap vintage lenses. One of my most watched lens tests, on Vimeo, was from a Sony 3n and one of those aps-c c-mount 25mm lenses. Everybody has different needs and opinions. Some people want the cleanest, and sharpest image. For me, I just want something interesting... sometimes you can get there faster with a clean, sterile image, other times a funky lens will do the job. Hell, sometimes an iPhone and a Moondog Anamorphic may do the trick. Traditionally, I have chosen lenses based on practical reasons... money. And honestly that’s as good a reason as any. Recently, I have found myself in a rough financial patch, so I am revisiting a lot of my old lenses and man there are some unknown gems that cost next to nothing. Will they give you a perfectly sharp image across the frame, no... but they will lend a little character that these modern sensors sometimes need to quell the inherent sterility of 4K sensors. In some ways the P2 is too good, I really hope the final version has some of the funk and edge of the original Pocket and BMCC. If it is too good, maybe it will be popular enough for me to snag a cheap GH5 on the used market. I already own a camera that shoots Raw, so if I’m going to buy a second camera... something with IBIS, or one of the dozens of other things the GH5 does well, could be equally as appealing as a P2.

So cool. Did you shoot with the regular build for your 60p? And which shot was RX10ii... I couldn’t pick it out at first glance on my phone.

The funny thing is, other than the constant 2.8... I didn’t think the 12-35mm was any better of a lens in build or optical quality... but that constant 2.8 was nice... the question is... is it $500 more nice?

For starters, could you quote me entirely? In my opinion, they could get rid of the dual iso and the 4K Raw and for the price it still should be the best camera under $3000. It doesn’t much matter to me anyway, right now. I’m not buying one for at least a year. I expect a lot of hiccups along the way, including the Sept 3rd shipping date to be moved back. I also expect some sort of issues that will be addressed either by firmware updates or through returns. For those reasons alone, I don’t want to be an early adopter. But I also believe a good 25% of the early adopters will end up selling their camera when they realize it’s not as easy as shooting with IBIS or the lowlight isn’t as good as their a7sii or GH5s... so I’ll swoop in then for some Open Box or used deals.

Yes, BM has had a few issues in the past but even if they give us 75% that they promised, this camera should be the best camera on the market under $3000.

I remember seeing that picnic video, it was one of the reasons I started exploring ML Raw. Sorry to hear about your 1DC sale... eBay buyers suck. But I think that’s a sign from God... keep it!