mercer

Interesting post. I really like the GX85 shots. It's a shame that Panasonic hasn't upgraded the GX85 and G85 with 10bit.
But I think the biggest takeaway is that Canon sucks.

The GX85 is the next challenge.
For Priority 1 it needs to be kept handy and accessible.  This means either being kept in-the-hand or kept in a pocket - keeping it in a bag adds access time unless the bag is on the front of my chest.  Both of these mean that the rig has to be kept as small as possible, which essentially boils down to lens choice.
The 14mm f2.5 lens is an absolute gem in this regard.  In the 4K mode (which has a 10% crop into the sensor) it's got a 30.8mm equivalent FOV.  I edit and deliver in 1080p, like all sensible people in the real world who haven't confused their ass for their elbow do, and so I can also use the 2x digital crop feature, which gives a 61.6mm equivalent FOV.  These two FOVs are hugely handy for showing people interacting with the environment around them - environmental portraits.
It also has good low-light, good close-focus distance, and has a bit of background defocus if the subject is close.
I have the GX85 configured with back-button focus.  This means that I hold down a button on the back when I want to engage AF and hitting the shutter button doesn't engage it.  This works brilliantly in practice as it means that I can focus once for a scene and then shoot without having to wait for the camera to AF.  I also have the viewfinder set to B&W and have focus peaking enabled in red, making it easily visible.  The histogram is also really handy to know what is going on too.
For Priority 2, this setup works well - the tilt-screen is great, AF is super-fast, IBIS is impressive and very functional, and I find using it in real-world situations to be easy, fast, and very low-friction.  It still gets some attention, but it's not excessive.
I find that for most shots I want to stop down to ensure that everything is in focus.  This is because my work is about the subjects experiencing the location and the interactions that are going on.  A nice portrait with a blurred-beyond-recognition serves very little purpose as it could have been shot anywhere at any time and therefore has no relevance.  This lens can give a satisfying amount of background defocus for mid-shots if required, and especially for macro shots, which are occasionally relevant in an edit.
Here are a few grabs SOOC.  
In grading I would typically lower the shadows to the point where the contrast is consistent (assuming it makes sense for the scene - lots of these have haze which you have to treat differently) and I would even out the levels of saturation etc.  I'd also sharpen or soften images to even out the perceptual sharpness too.
Interestingly enough, most of these images have enough DR, and even have elevated shadows, despite the camera not having a log profile.










These provide a really solid foundation to grade from.

I'm still using my 5D Mark iii with ML Raw as my main camera for hobby narrative filmmaking. I recently bought a Sigma FP which I like okay enough. I also have a BMMCC all rigged out but I never use it. I think I'll sell it soon so I can hold onto the FP for a bit longer.
I'm still unsure about the FP. I like it, but it doesn't feel like an extension of my arm like my 5D does. Here's a frame from the FP with the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s lens that I took recently while working on a short film...

Otherwise, I have a few film cameras I enjoy walking around with when I'm out and about.

I'm still using my 5D Mark iii with ML Raw as my main camera for hobby narrative filmmaking. I recently bought a Sigma FP which I like okay enough. I also have a BMMCC all rigged out but I never use it. I think I'll sell it soon so I can hold onto the FP for a bit longer.
I'm still unsure about the FP. I like it, but it doesn't feel like an extension of my arm like my 5D does. Here's a frame from the FP with the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s lens that I took recently while working on a short film...

Otherwise, I have a few film cameras I enjoy walking around with when I'm out and about.

I'm still using my 5D Mark iii with ML Raw as my main camera for hobby narrative filmmaking. I recently bought a Sigma FP which I like okay enough. I also have a BMMCC all rigged out but I never use it. I think I'll sell it soon so I can hold onto the FP for a bit longer.
I'm still unsure about the FP. I like it, but it doesn't feel like an extension of my arm like my 5D does. Here's a frame from the FP with the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s lens that I took recently while working on a short film...

Otherwise, I have a few film cameras I enjoy walking around with when I'm out and about.

I'm still using my 5D Mark iii with ML Raw as my main camera for hobby narrative filmmaking. I recently bought a Sigma FP which I like okay enough. I also have a BMMCC all rigged out but I never use it. I think I'll sell it soon so I can hold onto the FP for a bit longer.
I'm still unsure about the FP. I like it, but it doesn't feel like an extension of my arm like my 5D does. Here's a frame from the FP with the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s lens that I took recently while working on a short film...

Otherwise, I have a few film cameras I enjoy walking around with when I'm out and about.

Honestly, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
I am just a hobbyist who has been using a 5D Mark III with 1080p ML Raw for the past 5-6 years as I attempt to make a few short films in my spare time. I'm hardly chasing cameras. I picked up a Sigma FP a few months ago, on a whim, and I like it. It has a nice image, I can't say for sure that it's a better image than the 5D though. I assumed the 14bit color from the 5D may be evening out the playing field, but what do I know... as I said... I'm not a professional like you guys are.
I've always been a writer first, so story is the most important thing to me, but I'm not delusional enough to think I am going to sell a screenplay or make a film that will have any impact on anything. I enjoy doing it, though and I suppose there are worse things I could spend my money on.
Next year I may buy a camcorder, making movies was a lot more fun back when camcorders were the only option for zero budget filmmakers.
I will end with this, though. Since we're all being so brutally honest... none of these cameras look that good. If you're shooting with a P4K and a Sigma zoom, or a 5D3 with ML Raw... they all look amateurish. So when you guys attack other people for their choices... remember your choices probably look questionable as well.
Then again, I've never seen any of your work, so maybe you guy's are artistic geniuses, but how could anyone know... only a few people share any of their work on this forum and when they do, the posts about the next best camera gets way more attention...
Good luck to you. 

Let’s share our work guys!  I’ll start. Here is an interview I shot and lit the other day, featuring a congresswoman from Indians!  One camera was a Nikon z6 recording into an Atomos ninja v.  With a Tamron 45mm 1.8.  The other was actually the ancient, cheap Canon 7D fitted with a Canon 85mm 1.2 shot at f/2.5!

This was one of the films I watched right before I bought my 5D3! Great look!

This was one of the films I watched right before I bought my 5D3! Great look!

Honestly, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
I am just a hobbyist who has been using a 5D Mark III with 1080p ML Raw for the past 5-6 years as I attempt to make a few short films in my spare time. I'm hardly chasing cameras. I picked up a Sigma FP a few months ago, on a whim, and I like it. It has a nice image, I can't say for sure that it's a better image than the 5D though. I assumed the 14bit color from the 5D may be evening out the playing field, but what do I know... as I said... I'm not a professional like you guys are.
I've always been a writer first, so story is the most important thing to me, but I'm not delusional enough to think I am going to sell a screenplay or make a film that will have any impact on anything. I enjoy doing it, though and I suppose there are worse things I could spend my money on.
Next year I may buy a camcorder, making movies was a lot more fun back when camcorders were the only option for zero budget filmmakers.
I will end with this, though. Since we're all being so brutally honest... none of these cameras look that good. If you're shooting with a P4K and a Sigma zoom, or a 5D3 with ML Raw... they all look amateurish. So when you guys attack other people for their choices... remember your choices probably look questionable as well.
Then again, I've never seen any of your work, so maybe you guy's are artistic geniuses, but how could anyone know... only a few people share any of their work on this forum and when they do, the posts about the next best camera gets way more attention...
Good luck to you. 

I still…even with the bmpcc4k and R5 8k raw haven’t be able to replicate this look and motion from 5D3 Raw.
 
 

At the risk of going off topic, I also remember when on video forums people would post videos that they had made!
It's the same everywhere else. On FB groups people post pics of their setup rather than something that they shot with it.
By the way I think it's worth pointing out that the original post of this topic was something along the lines of "does 14bit give noticeably better colour?". It's a perfectly valid question or talking point for discussion about one aspect of image quality, and has nothing whatsoever to do with lighting, story, frosted glass or frosted flakes or whatever somebody had for their breakfast... So to veer off into those topics is to miss the point of this thread.
Now, here's a video! This is the last project I shot on the 5D3. Hope you like slow cinema!
 

Honestly, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
I am just a hobbyist who has been using a 5D Mark III with 1080p ML Raw for the past 5-6 years as I attempt to make a few short films in my spare time. I'm hardly chasing cameras. I picked up a Sigma FP a few months ago, on a whim, and I like it. It has a nice image, I can't say for sure that it's a better image than the 5D though. I assumed the 14bit color from the 5D may be evening out the playing field, but what do I know... as I said... I'm not a professional like you guys are.
I've always been a writer first, so story is the most important thing to me, but I'm not delusional enough to think I am going to sell a screenplay or make a film that will have any impact on anything. I enjoy doing it, though and I suppose there are worse things I could spend my money on.
Next year I may buy a camcorder, making movies was a lot more fun back when camcorders were the only option for zero budget filmmakers.
I will end with this, though. Since we're all being so brutally honest... none of these cameras look that good. If you're shooting with a P4K and a Sigma zoom, or a 5D3 with ML Raw... they all look amateurish. So when you guys attack other people for their choices... remember your choices probably look questionable as well.
Then again, I've never seen any of your work, so maybe you guy's are artistic geniuses, but how could anyone know... only a few people share any of their work on this forum and when they do, the posts about the next best camera gets way more attention...
Good luck to you. 

Honestly, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
I am just a hobbyist who has been using a 5D Mark III with 1080p ML Raw for the past 5-6 years as I attempt to make a few short films in my spare time. I'm hardly chasing cameras. I picked up a Sigma FP a few months ago, on a whim, and I like it. It has a nice image, I can't say for sure that it's a better image than the 5D though. I assumed the 14bit color from the 5D may be evening out the playing field, but what do I know... as I said... I'm not a professional like you guys are.
I've always been a writer first, so story is the most important thing to me, but I'm not delusional enough to think I am going to sell a screenplay or make a film that will have any impact on anything. I enjoy doing it, though and I suppose there are worse things I could spend my money on.
Next year I may buy a camcorder, making movies was a lot more fun back when camcorders were the only option for zero budget filmmakers.
I will end with this, though. Since we're all being so brutally honest... none of these cameras look that good. If you're shooting with a P4K and a Sigma zoom, or a 5D3 with ML Raw... they all look amateurish. So when you guys attack other people for their choices... remember your choices probably look questionable as well.
Then again, I've never seen any of your work, so maybe you guy's are artistic geniuses, but how could anyone know... only a few people share any of their work on this forum and when they do, the posts about the next best camera gets way more attention...
Good luck to you. 

I realized recently that the FZ47 has a sensor that is almost the exact same width as Super 8mm film. I put a pistol grip on mine and used the tiny EVF (I did cheat and use the LCD a few times) and long zoom lens for a very Super 8-esque shooting experience. Next time I'll shoot in 640x480 instead of 1080P so that I can capture the correct aspect ratio in-camera. As a bonus, the 29.97fps looks very natural on a 15fps timeline. And of course I always love working with that global shutter.
 

1080p raw video with 12ish stops of DR is hardly an obsession in IQ.
Isn't the goal to get more DR, more bitrate, more color information? I, believe, @TomTheDP 's point in this post is that a group of part time coders were able to unlock, and write, a fairly stable firmware which opened a zeitgeist of cinema settings and 14bit raw video on a prosumer camera, so surely official firmware from one of the manufacturers could easily match their efforts from 11 years ago
12bit video can display up to 68 billion shades of color, 14bit can display up to 4 trillion. Surely, those numbers will be closer when the image goes through the pipeline to an eventual rec709 delivery, but to say it will have zero effect on the final image just isn't true.
If it doesn't matter to you... cool! It doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
That said, I agree that story is king. But as you suggested, any aspect that supports the story and the director's vision is a worthy goal.

1080p raw video with 12ish stops of DR is hardly an obsession in IQ.
Isn't the goal to get more DR, more bitrate, more color information? I, believe, @TomTheDP 's point in this post is that a group of part time coders were able to unlock, and write, a fairly stable firmware which opened a zeitgeist of cinema settings and 14bit raw video on a prosumer camera, so surely official firmware from one of the manufacturers could easily match their efforts from 11 years ago
12bit video can display up to 68 billion shades of color, 14bit can display up to 4 trillion. Surely, those numbers will be closer when the image goes through the pipeline to an eventual rec709 delivery, but to say it will have zero effect on the final image just isn't true.
If it doesn't matter to you... cool! It doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
That said, I agree that story is king. But as you suggested, any aspect that supports the story and the director's vision is a worthy goal.

1080p raw video with 12ish stops of DR is hardly an obsession in IQ.
Isn't the goal to get more DR, more bitrate, more color information? I, believe, @TomTheDP 's point in this post is that a group of part time coders were able to unlock, and write, a fairly stable firmware which opened a zeitgeist of cinema settings and 14bit raw video on a prosumer camera, so surely official firmware from one of the manufacturers could easily match their efforts from 11 years ago
12bit video can display up to 68 billion shades of color, 14bit can display up to 4 trillion. Surely, those numbers will be closer when the image goes through the pipeline to an eventual rec709 delivery, but to say it will have zero effect on the final image just isn't true.
If it doesn't matter to you... cool! It doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
That said, I agree that story is king. But as you suggested, any aspect that supports the story and the director's vision is a worthy goal.

1080p raw video with 12ish stops of DR is hardly an obsession in IQ.
Isn't the goal to get more DR, more bitrate, more color information? I, believe, @TomTheDP 's point in this post is that a group of part time coders were able to unlock, and write, a fairly stable firmware which opened a zeitgeist of cinema settings and 14bit raw video on a prosumer camera, so surely official firmware from one of the manufacturers could easily match their efforts from 11 years ago
12bit video can display up to 68 billion shades of color, 14bit can display up to 4 trillion. Surely, those numbers will be closer when the image goes through the pipeline to an eventual rec709 delivery, but to say it will have zero effect on the final image just isn't true.
If it doesn't matter to you... cool! It doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
That said, I agree that story is king. But as you suggested, any aspect that supports the story and the director's vision is a worthy goal.

Blind tests aren't of much use. The zakuto blind tests says that a GH1 and 35mm film are equal. So why didn't camera development stop there? It would indicate 10 bit log, 4k, high bitrate, and anything beyond 8 stops of dynamic range, doesn't really matter. Cameras aren't developed or sold on blind tests. I don't think any professional is choosing a camera based on blind tests either. They have certainly offered no use to me.

You can argue IQ has nothing to do with making a pleasing looking image. That is definitely true in many ways. But it has nothing to do with marketing. You can say that marketing is all bullshit. I'd agree with that. 8k is useless for 99% of people yet it is a great buzzword for marketing. You are saying though that 14 bit recording is useless and blind tests somehow prove this.

If you are simply trying to say that 14 bit isn't marketable, that could be true. I am not a marketing specialist.  But camera companies don't use blind tests to market or else they would all be out of business.

In my experience when you actually use a camera on production and work with it through post, then you see a difference. There isn't really much debate there. Can a film look good that isn't shot on a cinema camera? Yes of course. But cameras like ARRI and RED are industry favored by pretty much any DP you would ask.

To me DP's are usually the last people to fall for marketing hype. These people see images constantly from production all the way to the finished product. ARRI isn't favored because of internet blind tests, they are favored because they actually make production and post workflow much easier. I'd love it if my S1 could give me the same image as an Alexa. But from my experience it just doesn't.

If you want a good test of a camera shoot 100 different scenes in all different scenarios, time restraints, lighting conditions, different sized crews, and then color correct and grade all of the shots and scenes. Do that with 5 different cameras and than compare them all. Well that couldn't be put in a little 5 minute youtube video. Stuff that is actually helpful can't be compressed into a little youtube video. Experience gotten from months of shooting and in post gives one a good idea of what matters.

Anyways 14 bit plus capture, even if it is just the readout is the way forward to better IQ imo. The Alexa shooting in 422 is still using a 14 bit readout. That is partially why it looks way better than cameras that are shooting 12 bit linear raw, which is a marketing scam.  12 bit linear raw really doesn't give you any more information to work with than a good 10 bit ALL-I. The advantage is it sometimes gets around the horrid internal processing many cameras do to their 10 bit options for some reason. But it also often reveals how shitty consumer sensors are in the shadows, bad colored noise and banding that is normally hidden by heavy noise reduction.

The Alexa has a 14 bit readout regardless of if you shoot 422 or 444 or RAW.

Anyways I am just expressing my disappointment in camera development. I would extend that disappointment to the high end cameras as well. RED is partially to blame in my opinion. They pushed the whole high resolution band wagon that consumer cameras jumped on. 10 years later and the best camera in the world the Alexa 35 only shoots 4k, while RED releases cameras for 1/2 what they did their previous line-up, with sensors that can't even match ARRI's 5 year old cameras. 13 years ago the Alexa came onto the market, the camera that replaced film essentially. 13 years later it's still the best sensor on the market, only surpassed by ARRI's own Alexa 35.

It's unfortunate resolution got put on the forefront of development instead of color depth, which also leads to increased dynamic range.

Am I saying the 5D MK3 is the pinnacle of image quality? No I am not. But it was capable of giving you a high bitrate 14 bit 1080p image. That was 11 years ago. Why can't we have 14 bit RAW 3K-4K in a small prosumer camera 11 years later. We get the same releases with a MK2 slapped onto it, with micro improvements. Very annoying.

Now you can tell me these are first world problems and I will gladly agree. I am in between projects right now and don't have any kids, so I have the time. And if this forum is not the place to vent about the BS that camera companies do than maybe I am just very confused.

 

To be honest, probably 90-95% of the people on this forum should not shoot with the 5D3 and ML Raw. It obviously causes a strange behavior and response.
There are so many other cameras out there that are probably more practical. For most people on the forum, I would suggest a camcorder.
The experience will be much more enjoyable and the results will look beautiful on YouTube. You can even add a LUT and you'll have instant cinema. Turn the camera sideways, press record and you'll be the envy of TikTok.

The workflow is so simple now. MLV App is straightforward for correction and "CST" and you can export to ProRes so you can edit in any program you want. Or you can use MLVFs and open up the files right in Resolve as if they were any other video file from any other camera.
Btw, I loved your B&W short film. I watched it on Christmas morning and it brought a smile to my face. I've been meaning to comment on it, but now I'm so far removed, I'd like to watch it again. The mouse was a whacko, cool idea that was done so well and made me think of the old Bass and Rankin Christmas cartoons.

Yeah, the 5D Mark III. Haha.
I haven't checked the used prices, but I assume you can find one in great condition for around 1000 USD... maybe more, maybe less. I bought mine new, 5-6 years ago for around $2000.
Now if you're referring to a new camera you can buy today that will look similar...
I don't know. The Sigma FP has a nice image downscaled to 1080p and its full frame, but not 14bit. The R5 and R5C both have nice images, but I've never used them.
I guess it depends on your needs.

I found too many issues with the experimental builds as well. I know you have to shoot 2:35 to shoot the 3.5K but, as you said, there's a crop and the Live View is wonky. The compressed 14bit 1080p raw files are good and doubles your storage but I found they too will freeze once in a while. I think there have been some advances since I tried it a couple years ago, but there seems to be more interest in the eos-m now.
The stable 1080p 14bit MLV Raw files from the Nightly Builds are the camera's strong suit and all I shoot with it.
It truly has a special image.
If you can't see the difference between iPhone footage and raw video... then God bless you and roll with that iPhone. You'll be much happier. 
As far as lack of good, quality videos from the 5D3 ML Raw... I don't know... maybe you're not looking hard enough because there are a ton out there.  But yes, it is a hack, and it became really popular 10 years ago when they figured it out but it was still very buggy at the time so a lot of people that tried it didn't want to deal with the storage or any other issue that arose so you see a lot of short test videos.
The 1080p is completely stable now and works like any other camera does except for playback... which I don't really use anyway.
This camera is for low budget filmmaking and personal projects. I don't think it would/could ever replace a dedicated cinema camera or mirrorless or even phone if you don't want to put the time into it.
With all that said, a filmmaker named Pete Ohs has made a couple films using it and his recent release, Jethica, was shot on it, it premiered at SXSW and it received a theatrical release...