mercer

But I’m sure they’ll go with a m4/3 Mount, just throwing out possibilities.

You don’t need imagination, you just have to look at their product line. The Ursa comes in an EF Mount and ever since they’ve introduced their higher end camera, they’ve been discontinuing their lower end models. For many productions, a similar mount system would be welcomed. Plus I believe there will be more room in the camera, with an EF Mount, if this new guy has internal filters... which would be a smart move for the next gen Pocket as well.

Yeah I would assume that it’s a Micro 4/3 sensor. But I could see them doing an EF Mount instead of m4/3.

Here’s a quick screengrab from an outtake of my film. I don’t really love the shot but it shows what a fast wide angle can do on FF. It was shot on the Canon 28mm 1.8 ... pretty cool little lens.

Maybe it will have a Micro 4/3 sensor. Maybe a swappable mount. I am very excited for this but I doubt it will be in the original price bracket.

Do you have any side by sides to prove it doesn’t exist? You brought up the topic to prove that motion cadence doesn’t exist, so the burden of proof lies on you.

This sounds like a production clusterf%&k just waiting to happen. Imagine a bean counter watching the production and telling a director to get another take or to not get another take because Jim in editing said he could use one of the three previous takes.

Yeah, honestly I don’t even care why. I just notice what I like and what looks better to my eyes. How it gets there... whatevs... lol.

That is a good question I don’t have the answer to but I could tell by looking at them on my computer after using the cameras. I assume just capturing it affects the motion as recorded and anything after that wouldn’t change it?

ProRes Raw sounds awesome... now if FCPX could just import CDNG files, or optimize them at import to this ProRes Raw, I could make FCPX a one stop solution.

Yup, even the 200mbps all-i 1080p in the FZ2500 has a really nice motion cadence to it... way better than the Long GOP 4K files do.

That makes sense. Again I am in no position to buy a C200, so this is just talk on my part, but I don’t see the lack of middle codec as that big of a deal for my uses... but I still find it a mistake not to have it. I think the biggest mistake was not including a 2K or 2.5K RawLite variant.

You guys should just go out and buy an entry level Canon then. Why spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on cameras and native lenses? I mean, it’s all up to the operator, right? Obviously, I was being sarcastic there and obviously all of the points that talent and skill will make any camera look good are valid and probably the most important ingredient to a cinematic image. Now if only Hollywood Line Producers were reading this thread, then every film from this point on could be shot on a (insert consumer camera here)

That’s right, thanks. That info isn’t included in their recent graph and I forgot that bit. Yeah I’d agree it was a mistake on Canon’s part not to have a 10bit middle codec, but then you hear real life accounts from C200 users on this board that says the 8bit codec has more latitude than the GH5’s 10bit. So who knows who to believe. I can’t afford either right now, so it really doesn’t matter much to me.

In Canon’s graph for their Spring firmware release, it shows 2K Proxy as a separate format? Does it have to be used in conjunction with the RawLite or can you record in that format on its own? Is the Proxy an internal downscale of the RawLite? If so, then it must be at least 10bit, correct? If you cannot record it separately, then can the 2K Proxy recording be imported without linking the Raw files and then rendered out to ProRes?

Interesting, I really think all-i frames probably make a difference as well.

That definitely makes sense, even with 24p footage, I direct my actors to move slower and more deliberate.

Idk, if you think you’re desensitized to that, then I guess I would start with something simple like looking at two shots of the same exact footage with one shot in 24p and one shot in 30p. Use the 180 Degree rule for both to keep the other variables consistent (so 1/60th shutter for the 30p footage and 1/48 or 1/50 for the 24p footage) See what you notice. If you notice no difference whatsoever, then you are probably 25 or under and it won’t matter because you’re the future and all of this stuff will be antiquated in 10 or 20 years when you guys are running the world.

Okay, I’d buy that but there has to be a threshold, right? Do you think it would be any camera over a certain price point, or any camera with specific features? We have some very high end users that visit this forum (yourself included) that shoot with an Ursa Pro or EVA1 or C200 and Reds and I assume John Brawley shoots with the Alexa regularly. Those cameras are designed for cinema. But for the rest of us that use consumer/prosumer gear and try to emulate the cinematic look, I believe certain cameras are better suited for that than others. I don’t know if it’s dynamic range, color science or a Log Profile, rolling shutter, etc... obviously it’s a combination of everything. But either way there are definitely sub-$2000 cameras that are naturally more cinematic than other sub-$2000 cameras.

You’re well on you way. Just understanding why you would use certain grading and lenses is great info to have. The war film was Saving Private Ryan and yes Spielberg is a master for shooting those scenes that way. As far as motion cadence, I’m sure there is a tangible reason but we aren’t privy to each camera’s special sauce to discern the exact reason. But you can quickly know it when you see it and which cameras have good cadence and which don’t. I’ve noticed that exact frame rates may help... so true 24p instead of 23.976... slow motion as well... lol. You have 3 cameras, don’t you? The XC10, a 700D and a 700D with Magic Lantern? You could always run some tests and do a motion comparison by messing with settings in ML?

Yup, this is why I predict Sony or Panasonic will get out of the consumer/prosumer camera business before Canon or Nikon will.

Oh I agree. I am liking some stuff I am seeing from the GH5s. I think I was looking at @mkabi challenge as which way is each camera easier to go... so I guess in a lot of ways, it is best to be closer to 5... but I also think if a camera can come close to a modern film look, it usually can achieve a vintage film look.

@webrunner5 which Zacuto rig do you have?

Damn it I wanted to give the 5D3 a 9-9.5 but thought I’d look like a dick because that’s what I shoot with. But yes nobody should care about my opinion. The best camera is the one you own. End of story. But okay... vintage vs. modern with 1 being closer to vintage look and 10 being closer to modern look... 5D3 (ML Raw) - 5 GX85 - umm 6ish GH5 - 7 GH5s - 8 1DXii - 5 t2i - 3 GH2 - 4 X-H1 - 7 A7iii - 7

Well, @mkabi I think this is a tough question because it so subjective, not just to taste, but also to what someone is capable of doing with said camera. Or if we haven’t used said camera, do we base our scoring on the best video we saw by the best operator or by the worst video we saw by the worst operator? Look at the 1DC vs 1DXii. Both are very capable cameras with similar specs. But the 1DC has a little bit more mojo (shit I brought the word mojo into the discussion.... we need another thread to prove that doesn’t exist) but the 1DC has CLog... so is that the missing factor? Okay if I am forced to annoy a bunch of people with one person’s opinion... here it goes... 5D3 (ML Raw) - 8 GX85 - 4 GH5 - 5.5 GH5s - 6.5 1DXii - 7 X-H1 - 6.5 A7iii - 6.5 Coincedentally, the camera I own gets the highest score... LOL. But part of that scoring system is based on what I think I could do with the camera or based on an opinion from an amalgamation of videos I’ve seen shot with that camera.