Waggish

​That's my feeling as well. I'm really anxious to upgrade. I want to invest in a nice camera that handles 4k properly. I felt like this first generation of the 4k wave -- NX1, GH4, A7s -- was like every new techology, where the first generation is just trial balloons for the real upgrade in Round 2. As tempting as it is to think that the A7Rii is finally what we've all been waiting for, I'm a bit suspicious of the specs. I'm blown away, but I have a nagging sense that this is just the pre-game for me being totally blown away by some announcement just around the corner by a film-oriented camera. But I'm pretty anxious to find out when that's going to be. Sony will probably hold out on announcements in order to try and not cannibalize their products more than they already are (that is, already a lot). But god -- I just want this 4k revolution to hurry up so I can put my time and effort into mastering a camera and working on creative elements -- not worrying about the new industry/consumer camera standards that will destroy all the value of a significant camera investment. $3.2k is a reasonable price for a camera that will remain high-end for several years. It's an unfathomable waste when a better camera will be released six months later....

"It is different." -- It? Are you referring to 'internal' 4k against the 1080p of the A7s? If so, I'm just going to have to disagree and push back a little, and who knows maybe you'll educate me. I feel like a lot of the specs people get hung up on at sites like this are not really what the image is about at all. The early Alexa was 1080p and Deakins cropped it even further when he first used it on In Time to get the 2.40 aspect ratio, but it's still a much nicer camera than the consumer-grade 4k being thrown out there now. Likewise, I think the full sensor readout of the A7s in 1080p looks nicer than downrezing 4k from the GH4. If I'm missing something here will you explain what I'm missing more specifically? Re: Bolex, my point wasn't that a D16 is a good idea. Let's say he has a story that he wants to tell. For that story, he thinks black and white is the best way to go. When going to do black and white he wants to go with the D16M and vintage lenses to get better tonality, avoid debayering, get the appropriate feel for his work compared to all that digital color-graded stuff out there. If it's an incredibly good film with good performances I don't think the lack of 4k would affect his ability to get it into a top-end festival. I really don't. But my point is that it's only a limited case with a specific choice made for a specific reason. Re: "it's 4k only" ...yeah, that's what I was saying. We know where the market is heading. That's the nice thing, actually. The expectations will be topped out at 4k for the next five years at least, so you can safely invest in 4k gear now. If you're going to make a movie, do it in 4k to future-proof it, because that'll be the safe option for the foreseeable future.

So here's what I don't get about this discussion -- and please, somebody explain to me if I'm missing something! It would be one thing to think of this as some sort of (strict) 'requirement' if 4k was a significant imposition. As far as I can tell, it's not. You can go right now and buy, let alone rent, a 4k camera for $1,300 at B&H or wherever [NX1]. (Sort of an aside, but it's on top of that more like a 6k sensor.) After that you've got tons of options; the obvious dslrs, Black Magic, you can get a RedOne on ebay for $6,000, etc. -- all in the few-thousand dollar range. What's really most important is what Ed David is driving home: how's your camera system compressing footage, and so forth. I find this really funny with the GH4/A7s debate, for instance. Sure, GH4 has internal 4K, but if you're downresing it to 1080p in editing, it's no different than the A7s which gives you straight-1080p based off of a full sensor readout. If you're going for cinema quality (4:2:2) then you'll need an Atmos Shogun in either case; so why all this talk about GH4 having 4k being any sort of advantage? Whatever, I digress. I assume you're posting this topic because you want to make a film, or have one already made you want to distribute. If you already have made something, then I think, since Zak Forsman has generously taken the time to share his experiences, it's not a big deal. If you haven't shot anything yet, then I'd say get a 4k camera. Your time on a film is so much better spent thinking about story, character, etc., than what seems to me a pretty solvable problem. If you have a specific non-4k camera you want to use for some very specific story/mood-driven reason (like Bolex monochrome or something) then I say your filmmaker's instinct should be: damn the consequences I want to make the best movie possible and this is my camera. In which case, again, it's a non-issue. Damn the consequences.