User

This camera is such a colossal failure, even if the issues get miraculously fixed somehow, I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. Not even for personal projects. There are way too many good options out there to justify spending $4K on a glorified hand warmer.
I honestly think that one of the reasons for this debacle is the entire marketing culture than has sprung up that demands flashy specs over rock-solid reliability. I also think that the race to miniaturize cameras has created new challenges for engineers, and this in turn creates conflicts. One of the reason why the Panasonic S1H is so good as a professional tool is the sheer size and heft of the thing. It doesn't feel like a toy that can be slipped into a pocket. Professional tools should be built like hammers. A little bit of weight is not a big deal. It's still a far cry from a 16mm film camera or a Betacam. Get a bigger gimbal and a beefier tripod.

I begrudgingly tip my hat to Canon if, to try and hide their crippling, they created fake overheating issues. Like, bravo guys! 🤡
Lots of ups and downs with this camera, huh? 

It is indeed.
But for Canon to fix this they might have to admit they lied to their customers, which isn't a great look to be honest
https://www.eoshd.com/news/chinese-user-modifies-canon-eos-r5-to-improve-heat-management-but-finds-artificial-firmware-time-limit/

I've heard that BM just released a camera with a pro body and decent resolution, maybe that would do it for you?  It probably has semi-decent 1080p capture...
But seriously folks.
I guess the other options would involve swapping ecosystems, to Sony, etc...

So, with all this talk about 8k RAW, it's got me thinking, and I'm contemplating going back to 1080p.
I've been thinking about all these cameras with high resolutions and ferocious data rates, and why they don't implement higher bitrates and bit-depths on the lower resolution modes.  
Noam Kroll just shot a low budget feature in 2K Prores HQ on his Alexa Classic.  In 4:3 no less!  https://noamkroll.com/playing-against-filmmaking-trends-on-our-feature-with-arri-alexa-classic-2k-prores-hq-43-aspect-ratio/
His pipeline was RAW -> Prores HQ -> storage.  Prores HQ in 1080 is around 176Mbps, is All-I, and is 10-bit.  It sounds lovely.  Uncompressed 1080 10-bit is a whopping 1490Mbps, so the 176Mbps of HQ is quite a saving of data rates.  
But what do I actually want?
So I made a list:
I want more bit-depth than 10-bit
10-bit is fine if you're on a controlled set or have time to get your WB broadly right in camera, but for some of the horrendous situations I find myself in, having more bit-depth would help (remember how with RAW you can WB in post - well, bit depth is what enables that) I want high bit-rates for a good quality image
A good quality image means that every portion of the screen gets a decent amount of data, so this is about bit-rate.  It's not about resolution, because a 100Mbps 4K file will still have half the data available for each square cm of the screen than a 200Mbps 1080 file I want files that are easy to edit in post
It doesn't matter if my 8K smartphone files are only 100Mbps, the computer still has to decode, process, display, and encode 16 times as many pixels as 1080 So, do I want 1080p RAW?
Yes, and no.  RAW has great bit-depth, much larger bit-rates than I care for, but also isn't the best that 1080 can get because it is lower resolution after debayering.  Do I want 2.5K RAW?  Maybe.  Problem is that RAW and IBIS are very rarely found together.  What I really want is some kind of compressed, but not too compressed, intermediary file.  
What I really want is 1080 Prores 4444 (which is 264Mbps) or Prores 4444 XQ (which is 396Mbps), because these are 12-bit.  12-bit would do me very nicely.
So, what do we get from the manufacturers?  We get ridiculous bitrates on the higher resolutions, and paltry token efforts on the lower ones.  My XC10 is a classic case - 305Mbps 4K but 35Mbps 1080p.  The 4K has 2.5 times the amount of data per pixel than the 1080p, and 10 times the amount of data per square cm of screen.
But I have a GH5, which is one of the exceptions, as Panasonic went for the jugular on the lower resolution modes as well as the higher ones, and so I'm down to the three "best" modes that will work on a UHS-I SD card:
5K 4:3 200Mbps Long-GOP h265 4K 16:9 150Mbps Long-GOP h264 1080p 16:9 200Mbps All-I h264 So I shot a test.  That test showed me that the 5K mode is far superior, even on a 1080p timeline, but uploaded to YT is a different story.  Considering I have partnered with YT for distribution share my videos on YT, that's what my friends and family end up seeing.
This lead me to the question about what is actually visible after it's been minced by YT?
Luckily I had done a previous test where I took an 8K RAW file, and rendered out various resolution Prores HQ intermediaries, then exported each of them from a 4K timeline.  That video is here:
So, I downloaded the above video in 4K, 2K, and 1080p resolutions, took screen grabs, and put them side-by-side for comparison.  Here they are - you're welcome.



So, what can I see in these images?
The 4K download is better than the 2K, which is better than the 1080p.  This is hardly news, each of these is more than double the bit-rate of the next one and they're all using the same compression algorithm, that's how mathematics works. Watching in 4K each lower resolution is subtly worse than the previous, except for 1.2k (720p) which is way worse.  That's to be expected, 2k - 1.2k is a bigger percentage drop than the other resolutions.  However, things don't get "bad" until in the 2.5k - 1.2k range, depending on your tolerance for IQ. Moving to the other extreme, watching in 1080 they are all very similar, except for the 1.2k version, which is interesting. Some of these grabs also have a lower resolution one looking better than the higher one next to it.  That's not an accident on my part (I checked), it really is like that.  As the original video has the resolutions all in sequence in the one video, I suspect that the frame I chose was differing distances from the previous keyframe in the stream, so that will introduce some variation. So, what does this mean?
Well, firstly, no point shooting in 8K RAW if your viewers are watching in 1080p on YT.  I doubt that's news to anyone, but maybe it is to some R5 pre-orders lol.
More importantly, if your audience is watching in 1080 then they're not going to notice if you used 2K intermediaries or 3.2k ones.
How can we apply this to our situations?
This is more complex.  In this pipeline we had 8K RAW -> X Prores -> timeline.  This meant that the Prores was by far the weakest link, and Prores HQ is pretty high-bitrate compared to most consumer formats.  1080 Prores HQ is 176Mbps, but UHD Prores HQ is 707Mbps.  I don't know of any cameras that shoot h264 in anything even approaching those data rates for those resolutions, so good luck with that.  
If you're shooting 4K 100Mbps h264 then that's the same bitrate per square pixel of screen as 1.4K Prores HQ, which is pretty darn close to that 1.2k that looks awful in all the above.  
Obviously if your viewers are watching in 4K then it's worth shooting in the highest bit-rate you can find.
What does this mean for me?  Not sure yet, I need to do more tests on the GH5 modes, and I need to think more about things like tracking and stabilisation which can use extra resolution in the edit.
But I won't rule out going back to 1080p.

Every now and then I stumble upon something that it useful from a film / cinema / video / technique education perspective.  Maybe you do too.
Let's share them here.
To start, here's a course I've just started watching, it's an MIT film and cinema history course, which (so far) appears to be the videotaped lectures.  The presenter is very passionate and lectures seem to be quite engaging.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/literature/21l-011-the-film-experience-fall-2013/index.htm

Ok, so I did some digging in my canon resources.
First I need to correct the IRE values I gave you earlier. Here is the exposure for 18% grey recommended by Canon, these values are indicated in this great paper for the C300mk2 but I saw similar values for the C200:
C-log 1 = 34% IRE
C-log 2 = 39% IRE
C-log 3 = 34% IRE
I think C-log 2 is only available by default when shooting Canon raw with the C200 but there is no C-log 2 for 8 bits recording on the C200 which makes sense considering how "aggressive" c-log 2 is. Personally, I have no shame to revert to non log curve on some cameras because shooting with aggressive log curve on many 8 bits cameras is a non-sense (eg. S-log 3 on sony, D-log on earlier 60mpbs 4k DJI drone, etc.). I see too many people selecting C-log no matter what because it's "Pro" or "better"... This is plain stupidity if you can't nail the exposure (eg. uncontrolled environment outside) or don't have advanced grading skills.
Don't forget that you can apply LUT directly to the LCD screen if you prefer to expose "visually" as judging exposure on the screen in Log can be tricky and it might be the reason why you underexposed in the first place. Indeed, on the screen, Log footage looks brighter which is why you should stick to a reference (grey card and IRE value, X value for certain type of skin-tone, or ballpark estimate on the EV indicator).
Also, as far as the colors and look goes, check the "Color Matrix" in the Custom picture/HDR menu (where you set the gamma). Here you must understand how it works with the C200. There are basically 2 options to select the gamma curve:
#1. Select one of the presets (Off, BT.709 (WDR), C-log, C-log 3), here the gamma curve and associated color matrix are grey out and they are locked inside the preset with these settings (screenshots from the C200 user manual)

#2. Leave preset OFF, then the gamma and color matrix are not grey out and you can choose the combination you want. Notice from the table above how C-log 3 uses the neutral color matrix whereas C-log 1 uses the "Cinema EOS Original"  which is a color profile designed to match colors across the EOS camera board (eg. C100, C300, etc.). You may want to play with that if you are not satisfied with the color and overall rendering.
Finally, you can also tune the colors in the "other settings" option in the CP/HDR menu.
Cheers

 

I'm talking about the C200 here and I'm not sure about the C100mk1. Just check the user manual and official canon resources. The recommended "native" ISO values are there. Get the info from the source, not just a bunch of nobodies on forums (including me!).
In one of the Canon papers they also show the distribution of DR in highlights and shadows based on the ISO. Basically, my understanding is that lower than native ISO will give you less noise but also less DR.

More than the difference between ISO 800 and 400 in log 2, I don't shoot in log low light. I stick to WDR for that (which again, is not a log curve). Log 1 is also acceptable as it was designed for 8 bits capture. Usually, low light situation doesn't come with the need for great DR capture. Just my 2 cents.
 

C100 and C200 are pretty different in my experience. 
Not sure what to make of it, but the C100 has +5.3 stops of highlight dynamic range at base (850 ISO). C200 has +6.3 at base (800 ISO). So for the C200 maybe the best way to get an image closer to the C100 is shooting 400 ISO where the highlights will be similar.
How are you metering? Since most of us are just metering by eye the ISO setting feels kind of irrelevant relative to how we expose, or at least can only be discussed in that context.
I found the cameras to be completely different. Totally different looks, totally different ergonomics, totally different workflows.

Not sure about the C100mk2 but lower ISO should give you less noise in general (at the expense of DR).
Also, optimal ISO for C-log 1 is 400.
So:
ISO 400 for C-log 1 and WDR
ISO 800 for C-log 3
I'm not sure about the ISO for C-log 2 but I would say it's 800 (to be confirmed)
 

I'm gonna leave tentacle p0rn to my Japanese friends lol

I recently watched this film, and thought it was fantastic. Story really is everything.
It's the writer/director's debut, he saved up $700k from doing commercial work to self-fund it. Filmed in just 4 weeks with only 5 characters. The cinematography is excellent and I've never seen some of the techniques before. I'm usually a 'show don't tell' kind of guy, but with this, I was so happy it's more like a story in realtime. The characters are interesting and engaging and it takes you far beyond the 1950s small town backdrop. 
Interview with DOP:
https://variety.com/2020/artisans/news/vast-of-night-amazon-prime-tracking-shot-1234620232/

I'm more of the Bowfinger school of film economics  
 

I am having problems with the jog wheel on my 1D X Mark III popping every full 360 degree rotation, so there is a mechanical problem there and my body will be returned for a refund and so this is only a short review.
This review also marks a milestone for EOSHD! After 10 years of blog posts, I am going to be doing YouTube now as well! Looking forward to doing MANY a video and growing the channel in a big way. If you'd like to be interviewed, or featured on the channel, do let me know.
So the 1D X Mark III then...
https://www.eoshd.com/review/canon-1d-x-mark-iii-review-filmmaking-video-and-cinema-camera-get-the-fuji-x-t4-instead/

I doesn’t work this way. We are talking about 5.000 gigabytes of footage that have to be uploaded and pass the curation process. And you are wondering why this would take months?
I can see your point of view. But these are the same words that they are using to justify their actions. The truth is that the stock footage industry saw a significant growth during the pandemic and while other stock footage agencies like Dreamstime decided to help the community by increasing their royalties with 10%, Shutterstock saw a chance to make more money and attract new investors.
Of course this is their service and they make their own rules. This is true for all companies after all. But If we where all so cynical to accept this as a justification for any injustice against working people then i guess we would have more serious issues to deal with.

Yes, how to remain unscathed after it is released is the challenge, and Banksy did come to mind when I was reading your post.
I guess there's a few options:
Use your real name, go under the radar while filming then risk the fallout after it is released Use a production company / name and don't put your real name in the credits - they might still find out who you are but you can always deny it while people you know and film circles can "all know it's you" Use a production company / name and take measures to ensure that no-one can trace it to you, knowing that ultimately the fame and glory associated with that name will not get added to your own Obviously I don't know Banksy, but my completely uneducated guess would be that he/she/they would suggest that you create the alter-ego with as close to zero links to yourself as possible, and use that anonymity to pursue as honest and uninhibited an agenda as you can, and take payment from the work in terms of reward for authenticity and contribution to humanity.
Of course, Banksy is also very likely a hugely successful individual independently of their Banksy persona, so they don't need the money or fame, whereas I'm sure you probably could do with a bit more of that (unless you're secretly a famous rich person hanging out here talking about consumer cameras for some reason!).
Of course, there's always bitcoin....

Perhaps it may sound like a distant reality to some, here in Chile (South America) a documentary filmmaker who made a documentary film about the Mapuche people (indigenous people), was sent to jail for 100 days, for doing that work. The state staged an imprisonment assembly, which was fortunately underrated, but the objective was to intimidate journalists to report on the problems of indigenous peoples.
After these events, the people who audiovisual recorded these events, think about the possibility of using other names, to publish these events.
For more information on the case, you can consult:
http://www.icei.uchile.cl/noticias/elena-varela-documentalista-y-presa-politica.html
 

An average portfolio of a full time stock footage provider consists of 5.000 to 10.000 clips on average. As @JurijTurnsek said, uploading all these clips and moving metadata on another agency will take months. And even then it will take longer than a year for these clips to start selling again.
Adobe Stock and Pond5 are more contributor friendly regarding their paying schemes but Shutterstock is leading this market for the last 10 years through aggressive marketing.
As i said i am not directly affected by this as i have a tiny collection but i always considered this market as a great side job for content creators especially now that the market has taken a big hit and almost every summer shooting session is cancelled.
This is one of those changes that are taking place in total silence (i guess major news portals won’t even report this as Shutterstock sponsors all of them) even though millions of people are affected. They even delete commends on Twitter and Facebook as content creators are furious and their only chance to be heard is through social media.

That's tough. While I understand your wish for privacy and security, what made you choose to make that doc? We all don't have a name until some of us do. Do you plan on working on other docs? Maybe use your name under initials ou just first name and the first letter of your last name? That's a difficult decision and managing another identity must also be challenging. I guess you must decide how much of that security risk is enough to make you keep your identity a secret. Because that could be a decision for the long run. 

I've had way too many projects I've certainly wanted to "Alen Smithee," but they were just corporate videos, no production credits involved.

"Mike Russell" 😉
Or "Justin Frame"
 

One of the things that I have read time and again is that creative people need to form a "personal brand" and then stick to that brand.  I've read this in the context of photography, film-making, music, art, and others.  I get why that's the advice that's given (people go to mcdonalds to get something familiar and reliable, not the best food or the most experimental new ideas) as that's how people want to get sold to, but from a creative perspective it's ridiculous.
The reason I mention this is that, naturally, many successful creative people get around this by having lots of pseudonyms which all have different brands.
To certain extent what you're talking about is having a duplicate brand, which comes with all the overheads of maintaining that brand.  Also, you're talking about being distanced from that as a person (in terms of blacklisting etc) which I guess can range from obfuscation to deliberately hiding your identity.  I have no idea how you would film a doco and hide your real name to the point that a government couldn't find out who you are, but I guess if you want something badly enough then sure.
To me I guess the question is if the costs are worth it, and only you can really weigh up that equation.

I understand the situation that you pose, I live in a country where human rights are trampled by the state, despite the visits of the UN, Amnesty International HRW, it is increasingly difficult to register these violations, the state and its police, you They chase, destroy your equipment and harass you. I am currently working on a project to denounce these acts and I am evaluating the same alternative, beyond the use of a pseudonym, it is about avoiding pressures, jail or harassment of your family. I personally believe that documentary cinema has a commitment to historical memory and is a small act of cultural resistance.

To spare the expense of buying one, I think you could use a single GH2 if you wanted a video challenge with it.
Start with someone who doesn't mind being parted with it for a while, they make a film over two days with it and then they post it on to the next person who does the same over two days and then sends it on etc until it gets back to the original owner.
Even for people who don't own any MFT lenses there are plenty of adapters on eBay for under £10 so its not going to break the bank to take part.
As forum members are spread out all over the world, it would be quite an interesting project even if the subject was just "one day where I live".
If no one fancies parting with their own GH2, it wouldn't exactly be difficult to throw £10 each into the PayPal account of someone trusted to group buy one off eBay.
I know of a cheap one for sale in Cairo.