PannySVHS

i love my stuff!
PANNYSVHS APPROVED

I think Max Yuryev is doing some great work, and certainly deserves more subscribers/views:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Maksimyuryev
 
The Royal Ocean Film Society post some great think pieces, and film criticism:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWq-qJSudqKrzquTVep9Jwg

I'm also partial to these guys, specifically the dude on the right:
 

If it still works good, and produces ok images, then most people still use them and do not want to sell for cheap.
EX1 is one of my favorite camcorders of all time, certainly my favorite Sony ever.
But,
All the markings were erased the first couple of months with limited use.
the recording media back then were extremely expensive (then you could use adapters though)
With today's standards the image falls apart very easily, not easy to mix it up with any other camera
I have a lot of issues with LEDs on performances, shows etc
It was once a great camera, 6 months ago it was the last time I used it, now it is in my video partners basement, and I am not taking it back for any reason. I now have 4 NX cameras, and when I do a multi camera live performance, all my cameras are close (we add a JVC Ls300 and GH5 if we need more, their sensors are a lot closer).

@PannySVHS nice image! Probably too nice Again, I'm just thinking if it's the appeal of that ccd camcorder image being inherently nice, like a film stock - that's so cool because it's the opposite of what all current cameras are trying to do, look "perfect". And they all fall a little short. You might as well go all in and allow low resolution, aliasing, etc. maybe even recording to tapes for the fun of the workflow
You're not falling short of perfection if THIS is your camera --
 
But I understand your interest and can stop talking on this point since it's probably not helpful

If you want shallow DOF and a vintage look on stuff out of a cheap 3ccd, you can always just pick up an old Letus35 lens adapter.  Seriously.  Man, that'll take the edge off, give you nice motion cadence, and look cool doing it.  Goofy way to go, but it works.
What you're alluding to is a real and interesting dilemma.  With even consumer cameras/lenses looking pristine and wonderful, and everyone has 'em, what does one do to differentiate --but still have something that looks nice?
Personally, I absolutely want my IQ to have flaws.  It fits the sorts of stories I like to tell.  Ramshackle and shabby a little, but still well crafted. Slight chroma aberration on the edges of frame?  A smidge of ignetting?  Check and check.  I want the viewer to sense that what they're watching is not "normal."  Thank goodness for the legacy flaws of 24fps!
Now, when I do corporate stuff, I slap on my OlyPro lenses @f4 and 60fps.  Otherwise, let's keep other stories in visual dream-land.

Love the EX1, totally agree with @PannySVHS. I think in AUS we sold one we had for years, for $1500 inc media and batteries. I would still be happy to use that on a job. Nice image and robust body, the only issue is the USB daughterboard that we had to keep replacing, it wasn't a particularly solid part. Massive zoom range though, and nice image, with SDI and all the other niceties that go with a pro body. MPEG2 encoder is a bit of a pain compared to something more modern, but nothing unworkable. If you find a bargain EX3 you might be even better off, you can get a b4 adapter so you can put whatever lenses you want on there!

@IronFilm, I dare you to post a link without your own awesome opinion about it
It's just so much more fun with you guys' opinions and comments. So much more to learn from and to enjoy. Imagine an Andrew Reid article consisting of links only.
No fun, right? But nice post and link anyway. Extrashot is becoming a favorite of mine.

Hey guys, I like the image out of the EX1, which is comparable to a GH2  when it comes to color fidelity and low light performance. That in combination with the super fun pro camcorder body with a nice zoom lens with rings for aperture, focus and zoom. It has NDs, great stabilization, great controls, stupid menu:) Very versatile, fun to use, nice image. And CCD magic, guys! That EX1 mojo with its triple CCD magic:)
Now, finding a EX1 below 1000EU is not possible.  So I started looking for alternatives, which turned out to be either cheap with not convincing image or expensive with a nice image. Speaking of Sony PDW 200, the pimped EX1 here. So I figured, if there might be some HDV camcorder in the great body of an EX1.There are some like a Sony HVR Z5, which can even be used with an additional flash recorder instead of DV Tape. But image didnt convince me enough, too much aliasing going on. So I became to open this thread.
Sony F3 is the ongoing darling of this forum and really tempting. Still not a cheap package with an external rekorder. AF100 has the image of a GH2 in a real camera body. For 500EU it would be tempting. So my question was, if it gives out a better image quality to a recorder, like intraframe 8bit 422. And if it was easy to rig up and use as a shoulder camera for longer shoots.
FS700 with a Shogun is ridicilous in the sense that it is so small and light and that it puts out such a great image, but I don´t like the ergos and price is still prosumer region:)
There was a thread about DVX100 mojo. I look for something like that with a much better image and without tapes, for an amateur auteur price:) I think the most compelling cameras I found in the 3chip category besides the legendary EX1 are Sony AX2000 and Panasonic AC90, the latter still around 1500, though. AX2000 for 500EU would be worth a look for me, it is still runnig for 800 plus. So there are no "cheap" 3CCD or 3CMOS EX1 style cameras. I wouldnt mind trying modern 1inch cams like the X70, but these guys are not cheap at all. That´s why I was looking for alternatives, that and some CCD magic. Though the AX2000 has 3 CMOS chips. But it writes to cards, has a nice and stabilized lens,  has NDs and puts out an appealing image.
Hey Liam, Sony AX2000 might have some appeal:) So far my first pick.
 
 

Why would you want a small chip camcorder??

Unless you have a specific purpose in mind, then don't both!

An example exception might be a very fast paced run and gun doco, and then going for the likes of a Sony X70 could make sense. 
 
As for a large chip camcorder, nah don't go for the AF100.  (unless you find it INSANELY cheap, we're talking sub $500 territory. At least!)

A couple of  years back I was seriously considering buying one, but glad I went for the hugely superior Sony PMW-F3 instead (which is dirt cheap today, but I probably wouldn't buy in 2017... as the FS700 has now fallen down to extremely attractive low prices). 

I have an af100, it has virutally no dynamic range and weird highlight rolloff and 8bit wrapped to 10bit output. Its fine for shooting in very controlled lighting, but honestly unless its very very cheap, I got mine for $500,  I wouldn't bother, go find a cheap gh4 and rig it up, youll have a much much better camera. Or a g85 or something with unlimited record time. The Af100 is just very dated. Havent used it with a recorder, ill give it a go for you tomorrow

I'm definitely interested in some older 3 chip camcorders, but the appeal to me might include.. dv tapes, low resolution, some noise. If you want a great, high res, clean image, it might not be the way to go. That just seems like 2 different things to me. Are there other specific features that would make these ideal to you other than charm? They ARE movie cameras as opposed to photo cameras, with a whole different feel using it, so I can respect that of course

All these examples have been great and inspired me to get a compact 40 for my newly acquired GH5.  I also noticed another film on YouTube using the Samyang 21 & 50 cine lenses. I really like the feel of these lenses anyway but combined with the anamorphot they look like another great combo.
 
 
 
What are the settings in the GH5 for the Anamorphot? Please be patient with me as I'm extremely new to this format (although I have used Moondogs on my iPhone and iPad). I realise the Anamorphic setting needs to be off but what are the key changes to set up to film with? I will be doing a lot of interviews for a future documentary on English education and so light won't be a problem.

the wild places i grew up exploring have burnt. Some of the loveliest places in american wine country are burning and people are dying. Puerto Rico has been destroyed. New Orleans is half the size it was. Climate change is entirely real. People in my country are living it and dying it. There is no debate about it. I don't need a lecture from some ancient austrian economist in a dumb suit to know that the glacier i can see from my house is shrinking. i don't need a fucking documentary liberal or conservative to tell me what i can feel when i step outside, what 99% of scientists agree upon. this doc can go twist for all i care. and so can all these "debaters" enjoy your doom, you made it.

Raw (ML Raw or anything else) in general is overkill for a doco in 97% of situations!
Say what?! You lumped Left and Libertarianism into the same thing??
 

That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to the Sony Center kino - it got too much. Yorck Kinos, while smaller, are so much better.

Saw the film last night and really really enjoyed it. The photography is stunning, continues the really good work Deakins has done with Villeneuve over the past couple of films together. Every shot is beautifully put together and it was so refreshing to watch a Hollywood blockbuster taking its time with pacing and mood setting. 

I tried to like it.  The sets, fx and cinematography are certainly first rate.  The actors are good, the direction, the editing.  I was able to sit through it.
Then the scene with the Wallace CEO, head cataract guy, that was NOT a
Okay, I was a young guy once and can understand dropping a naked women out of a pastry sack and letting her writhe on the floor a bit.  I can even understand the actor with the cataracts blathering the most inane stuff  to his replicant!  (And we thought Gossling was lonely  ) But to knife her for no apparent reason put me into full annoyance mode.  Why do we need to hate him, and if we do, why doesn't he get killed at the end like the maker in the first movie?  
In the first Blade Runner, there is a simple, strong story that keeps that morose movie together.  Harrison Ford is in a sucky job, in a sucky city, hunting down merciless replicants.  His life is meaningless.  Then he falls in love with a replicant and begins to have doubts about his life values.  Meanwhile, Rutger Hauer, knows his lot in life and wants to understand why it was made for him.  So he searches out his maker.  In the end, even though he is bred to kill, he has compassion and let's Harrison Ford live.  The original Blade Runner put story first.
What is the story of Blade Runner 2049?  There is none, there are only pieces of story, none of which connect or make much sense.  My fear that it's just a vanity project with too many cooks in the kitchen was borne out, for me.  My favorite proof that  no one with common sense had any control over the script is when the Wallace replicant kills a police forensics guy THEN the police chief and says to Harrison Ford that they're going to take him off-world where they can torture him.  I'm wondering why they can't do it on Earth?  I mean, there is no sense of society, government, police power.  Again, just a mis-mash of half-baked story ideas.   And why kill the police chief.  Makes absolutely no sense.  
I never cared about any of the characters, except Gossling's hologram.   Though I keep thinking, if Wallace industries makes her, why don't they know what he says to her?  I guess someone got their "let's put in a little bit of 'Her' in BR 2049"  You're in trouble when the only good thing about your movie is the little bit you plagiarized from another
And the music.  I don't care how good it is, it did not fit the story most of the time.  There were many scenes that would have been stronger without it.  Film-maker children with sound synthesized sound-grenades.
I heard a young person leaving the theater saying it was "much better than the first one."  
On a bright note, I just finished "Trapped", the Icelandic series.  Great film-making isn't dead.  
 

Watched it today. Have a direct comparision to the original, as I have watched it for the first time right before some friends and me went to
the cinema. The original was very enjoyable as was the recent incarnation. Both with similarities but total different beasts in other ways.
2049 is a real cinematic experience like the first one is. The longer and calmer scenes gave it its own rhythm and tension. Some of the deaths felt not necessary nor helpful
for the story and the film itself. The photography is impressive and must be seen on a big screen. The bigger the better. James Bernadellis review describes
the qualities of this film very well. Visually it´s a masterpiece, plot wise it does fine.

Watched it today. Have a direct comparision to the original, as I have watched it for the first time right before some friends and me went to
the cinema. The original was very enjoyable as was the recent incarnation. Both with similarities but total different beasts in other ways.
2049 is a real cinematic experience like the first one is. The longer and calmer scenes gave it its own rhythm and tension. Some of the deaths felt not necessary nor helpful
for the story and the film itself. The photography is impressive and must be seen on a big screen. The bigger the better. James Bernadellis review describes
the qualities of this film very well. Visually it´s a masterpiece, plot wise it does fine.

I have a geforce 1080ti. How can I help (never used resolve)?

guess I´ll have to check myself then:)
will check that out, though not so much well looking cineD footage outthere besides yours or some Italian wedding footage with the GH5 in 10bit.

In my experience slog3 bands on walls as well. And there are plenty of those in the city

C’mon you gotta at least try sLog3. I know there are reports of banding issues but I would think that may be limited comsidering you shoot in the city and get very limited open sky shots. The color and detail is insane in sLog3. Honestly, I was kinda hoping your due diligence with testing cameras’ capabilities would crack the sLog3 on the a6500 and tempt me to buy another one eventually. 

Wait... didn't I just do that? 

Or do you mean you DO want a comment with that video? Ok, here it is (as the post can't be edited now):

"What a BUMMER that Panasonic won't let more footage from the EVA1 to be shown! Instead we were just left to listen to them describe it :-/ :-( "
 
 

Same! Always amusing to watch. 

From your sample it seems, the Panny might be second for certain light situations compared to the sony though. Lookin creamy as heck!
Lookin forward to seein more.