mercer

6 hours ago, gt3rs said:

YT nonsense, the Uber old Prius example is basically saying you are at the bottom of the food chain stay there 😉 

I think it's just about ROI.

I saw this video on YouTube a few weeks ago that could be useful for some of you guys to think about...

That said...

Long live 24p... AI will have to rip it from my cold, dead hands. 

We invent tools to make a task, and therefore our lives easier, right? Well, at what point are our lives easy enough? At what point are we making ourselves obsolete?

We wouldn't invite a bear, or any other apex predator, into our house, but we'll create one that's entirely intermingled into every aspect of our lives...

The hubris of mankind...

What it will be able to do is combine visions or auteurs... what if Kubrick made John Wick or what if Spielberg made ...

What would naturally take a person with his/her own vision and craft will soon be realized by a soulless machine.

Sad.

4 hours ago, kye said:

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want.

But take this thread as an example.  It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better.  

Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned?

• The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better.  What does better even mean?  What goal are they trying to achieve?  They haven't specified.  They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is.
• You prefer 60p.  But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic.
• Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism.

If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us?

Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake.  Do you think there was any learning here?

I am under no illusions.  I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion.  I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose.

A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist.

I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.  Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Great rundown Kye, and to add, @Jedi Masterstated in an earlier reply that he watches movies for escapism, yet he wants them to look as real as possible?

I also question the motives, or rationale, of people who consistently argue in favor of HFR filmmaking/exhibition because they base their opinions on practically no films that exist since 99.9% of all films have been shot at 24fps. So maybe they just don't like movies.

4 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

It would be interesting to see Hollywood "resurrect" actors like Bogart and Brando in the form of CGI.

I kinda agree with that. And maybe if there was a public domain law for people's likeness, that could be interesting... after 50 years... or something. 

17 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

Depends on what you define as art. When I go to the movies, I'm looking for escapist entertainment, not art. If I want art, I'll go to an art gallery.

I predict AI-generated CGI movies will be here a lot sooner than 20-30 years, given the cost incentive this change will bring.

24p may look better to you, but saying there's no room for debate discounts the opinion of those of us who feel higher frame rates look better.

Even escapism is art. Hollywood is run by unions, and the unions will not let that happen for a long time. Eventually, actors will sell off their likeness', or their heirs will, but until that day, you will not have the star power to put asses in the seat of an AI generated movie.

Sorry, you're entitled to your opinion... obviously... but the evidence in favor of 24p dwarfs any anecdotal evidence against it. So as much as you want to believe the winds will change after nearly a century of tradition... sorry there is just no evidence for your claim...

The fact remains... if people wanted to see films shot at 60fps or 120fps, then films would be shot like that. The ones that attempted it failed.

@Jedi Master Sure let's take humanity out of art.

Sadly you're probably correct, but it will take another 20-30 years before it happens entirely. I'm still waiting for the flying cars and hovercrafts we were promised in the 80s.

Btw, 24p looks better. No room for debate. If other frame rates looked better, they'd be used. It's been tried and were utter failures.

But every couple years there are a few new forum members that try to argue against it... but their argument has no footing because every example they have that it looks good, has been shot down by the audiences.

Btw, what is that you shoot that makes you prefer 60p or even 120p?

10 hours ago, stefanocps said:

Why you never consider fx30?

Give him a week or two and it will be the best camera for him.

🤪

Hey guys, I don't really shoot any video, or stills, but I am really into barbecue... can you recommend a cinema/stills camera for me so I can convince my wife that spending $2500 on a barbecue grill is a good deal. 

Just get a Canon. The R7 is a great deal or Canon even makes some decent camcorders if that's something you're considering. 

Or bring a bat and when he hands you the camera to look at, hit him over the head and run away. 

7 minutes ago, JulioD said:

Exactly.  The video split alone appeals to the renter customer who are the ones who NEED to shoot 1200 rolls and then move to the next job (as described above)

Those aren’t owner operators.  

 

Last year as I was getting into film photography and shooting a little less video, I did a quick inventory of my gear and seriously considered selling a lot of it and buying a Super 16 camera. It turns out I have a few digital camera that shoot raw video when I probably only need one and a ton of lenses when I probably only need a few. I love digital, but I understand and appreciate the look and feel of film.

That said, yes you're definitely right about the video split but even the crystal synch screams higher end camera. When you compare the cost between a completely refurbed Beaulieu or a Nikon R10, the cost of the Kodak, for what you're getting, isn't irrational at all. When you add the new film stock, I could see this being a very successful camera.

And with that said, I think a $3999 final cost would have been a bit better.

Who the fuck is Jack and will he be buying a Kodak Super 8 camera?

Speaking of fingers on a hand, I think Ben has shot more on film and won awards than he has fingers, so I'd personally trust his understanding of the market.

Although I think it's a little pricey, I have no doubt that they'll have plenty of preorders. I would if I could justify it.

If I owned a rental house in Topeka, I'd buy 2 or 3 for when the shops in LA or NY run out of them.

Film is alive and well. 

On 11/29/2023 at 4:28 PM, dr4gonrot said:

Hi mercer, I am in the same boat as you. Have tried the recommended DPL ssds and the recording is inconsistent. However, others seem to be having no issue with the same combinations. This is consistent across different camera firmware versions and with custom or standard write modes.

Did you ever find out what your problem was? I am even thinking there is something wrong with the usb c port of the sigma fp...

Thanks

I never found out the specific issue but I did eventually find one that worked... a Samsung model. I also think that these drives may not like the quick shots that I take... maybe something to do with the buffering needed for raw video?  I'll take 3-5 clips in less than 30 seconds sometimes if I'm shooting B-Roll.

It's a shame Sigma couldn't release an update that shoots 12bit - 3K - 2:35 internal. I may explore the internal raw recording a little more.

But I'm probably going to sell mine soon because I just prefer the raw video from my 5D3 and ML and I really dislike having the external drive tethered to the camera. 

8 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

After reading this article:

https://www.eoshd.com/news/is-n-raw-real-raw-nikon-z9-under-the-spotlight-at-eoshd/

I’m beginning to wonder if RAW is all it’s cracked up to be. Is there a similar analysis of Canon RAW Lite? That would be interesting to read.

How about a codec that doesn’t skimp on color sampling, such as ProRes 4444 or 4444XQ? Would that be roughly the equivalent of RAW without the hassles?

I can't speak for Z9 raw as I have never used it, but I have been shooting raw video exclusively for the past 6 years... 1080p ML Raw with a 5D Mark iii and more recently 4K cDNG with a Sigma FP...

...and I can honestly say that I will never shoot with a heavily compressed codec again...

ProRes is still good, I just can't afford a camera that hasn't effed it up.

...that said, raw isn't for the faint of heart. It takes a lot of storage space, both in camera and in post, but the difference in IQ is instantly apparent. With my 5D3, you can see it on the LCD and smile, but when you get the footage into the computer... it's kinda mind blowing.

And with that said, I still prefer the look of film over digital, so your mileage may vary.

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions. I'm heavily invested in Mac... iPhone, FCPX, Logic, even GarageBand, various writing programs... so moving to PC is not even a conceivable notion for me.

As far as needs, I probably should have mentioned that I've been using an early 2014 MacBook Air with Intel, 8gb Ram and 256gb storage (I have a few external drives) for my writing, audio dramas and for transcoding 1080p ML raw and 4K FP cDNG to ProRes HQ or 4444 for light color grading and editing in FCPX. It's always been a bit of a hassle since the MacBook Air doesn't have a 180 degree viewing angle... so there's a lot of trial and error to figure out what looks right... but I had what I had, so I made it work the best I could.

That said, after 9 years, it's showing its age and I am in need of an upgrade. Filmmaking has taken a bit of a backseat over the past couple of years, but I'm still plugging away. I assume 16gb of ram and an M2 would be a luxury to what I'm used to.

Thanks again for your replies!

As the title suggests, any info about the M3 Pro chip compared to M2 Pro chip? They're both on sale but you can save a little extra going with the M2 Pro... is it worth the savings?

This is a fun story to think about... "I have that camera and a real Hollywood film was shot with it..."

Unfortunately, that's where the fun ends for their story. If they were allowed to have a 3 person crew, then they could have dropped their budget even more... or if they used Blender or Unreal instead of ILM to do their post...

At the end of the day, their budget was lopsided and the movie bombed, so saving thousands of dollars in camera costs wouldn't have made a difference.

That said... for someone else, that isn't glued to that silly system of making films, they could be inspired by this camera choice. 

On 10/2/2023 at 7:11 AM, Andrew Reid said:

I relinquished my EOS R3 due to the lenses situation. Couldn't justify the expense for RF stuff which had no discernible advantage over my EF lenses in terms of character or size / weight.

The problem is that the R3 didn't work particularly well with adapters either. The IBIS doesn't like it, and there are fewer choices of adapters compared to Sony E-mount. No Leica autofocus adapter, no C-mount. These two I use even more than my EF adapters these days. (You may wonder about C-mount Super 16mm on full frame as in why bother, but the Z9 has a 2.3x crop mode in 120fps and the  Sony a1 has 4K 2x crop mode, and Sigma Fp-L 2.5x 4K or 2x 4.8K Cinema DNG RAW whereas none of these things exist on any Canon R camera).

The Z9 was the next stop but that too fails on the native lenses front. Too big, too expensive, too charmless.

Z-mount is however more flexible than RF and it has the lovely Megadap E-mount adapter for Sony E-mount native lenses.

So the lack of third party Sigma/Tamron lenses on RF is not the only problem, it is the lack of adapters and piss poor IBIS performance with my Leica M / Canon FD / Contax Zeiss collection too.

One of the features from the R5C that appeals to me is the 2.9K S16 crop mode in Cinema Raw Light. I'd much rather see that mode in the R5 for the added benefit of IBIS, but it seems that most cameras I have had with IBIS were lacking in a lot of other areas, so I decided a while ago that it isn't a must have feature for me.

Btw, it's good to see you're still experimenting with interesting lenses on these new cameras while everyone else is worried about some new bullshit zoom lens that lacks any ounce of character. 

Nikon pretty much perfected film bodies back in the late 70s with the FM/FE, and their successors, and the F3, so to see a FF digital go back to those body styles is really exciting for me. If the Zf had a split micro prism viewfinder function, it could be the perfect shooting experience.

I was intending on being a late R5 adopter and then go all in with the RF mount, but this release from Nikon is making me second guess.

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I hope that unlike the Z9/Z8 that Nikon have got their supply act together otherwise it could be a long wait to get one even at the new price.

It looks to have the same/similar processing clout in it as the big cameras so who knows whether that might be an option further down the line.

Unless RED have got a super specific patent on "RAW video shot at above 23.89999999 fps inside a camera shell that looks quite reminiscent of classic SLR cameras from the 20th century made by a manufacturer whose name begins with N and who were founded on 25 July 1917 at roughly midday local time".

Because they might well have 😉

 

Damn... we're screwed. 

This camera isn't really designed for video users, but I think it could have been an excellent platform for them to offer their Nikon Raw at 1080p.

Nice camera. It looks like an F3 minus the red stripe. The top control layout is a dream. When/if this camera drops closer to $1200, I'm a buyer.