kaylee

^ That's a great post as well, excellent point on the emotional side of things.
I'd like to think I'm in the same boat, a pretty easy guy to work with. If I'm being honest, lots and lots of people have the skills I do and can produce what I do, but I always try my best to not be a pain in the ass in any way. Video is stressful for a lot of people. Being on camera is rough. 95% of the people I film are quite nervous, but I usually get good feedback on how I made the process more pleasant. That goes a long way, I think. 
 
 

Thanks - I'm not a videographer or a photographer - I'm a marketer who can shoot and edit. The three things that have kept me self employed for two decades:
Think like a marketer;
Be a partner, not a provider;
Don't be a dick. 
(That last one - many times my clients have said "you're so easy to work with, we can drive you nuts with changes and edits that are our stupid fault and you fix it fast with a smile, it's always a pleasure to have you on the team" and so on). When I worked for big retail and planned a shoot, my first criteria in booking the team was "people I really loved spending a day with". Yeah, they were great at what they did, from shooters to makeup to models to stylists and scouts - and I always made sure the day would make great shots but that it would also be a really, really enjoyable day (or days or week). I had no space for catty models or shooters who treated me like a king but dissed their assistants. I think it's massively underrated to have your emotional shit together in business. It can be what tips the scales for someone deciding on suppliers. It can be what keeps the same clients for years or decades. I once mentioned to a client that I had just gotten stiffed by a new client who went under and left me holding a huge lab and printing bill - the guy excused himself and came back with a big check and said "I know we'll do this much business this year, just give me a credit for it". I'm not a perfect human being, but man, I appreciate the people that keep me working and I treat them that way. If anyone is the kind of person that keeps losing friends and lives with all kinds of personal upheaval, loses clients (and friends) over stupid things - step back and suss that stuff out!

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

Apparently not a music video:
 

I had the Sony RX10 II and thought it was terrible as a video camera - so I can relate to your feelings of the RX10 III. A completely frustrating and soulless experience. 
XC10 - I'm curious about a 2nd version. If they just made that lens 2.8 all the way through.....

Rolling shutter is about 50% of 1DC.

This is a non-scientific but comprehensive comparison of 1DC and 1DX II video quality. The 1DX II was kindly provided by Toronto based photographer Paul O'Neil
We tested sharpness/resolution as well as dynamic range and noise performance. Two cameras were setup side by side and kept the same exposure and white balance, videos were recorded at the same time to avoid lighting variance. Lenses were both Canon 24-70 f2.8L II, at f5.6 for optimal performance.
For sharpness/resolution comparison, we used neutral profile with 0, -4, -2, 0 setting.
Please view the following images using the FULL SIZE option.
Test scene:


Results: 1DC and 1DX II have the same sharpness in HD 24/25/30p (same sensor readout). In 50/60p, 1DX II is sharper (better sensor readout) and it kept the same sharpness at 100/120p. Super 35 mode on 1DC remains the sharpest and most detailed 1080p of all modes. Two cameras have the same sharpness in 4K.
Test scenes:


Results: in neutral profile with -4 contrast, 1DC and 1DX II have about the same amount of DR, however 1DX II is nosier in the shadow (more chroma noise). 1DC in C-Log gives more detail in the highlight.
Other observation: with the same white balance setting, 1DX II colour seems slightly warmer and a tad desaturated than 1DC in neutral profile.
Conclusion: 1DX II is a camera with advanced video capabilities (HD 120p, 4K 60p, DPAF), 1DC still deserves its "C" badge for the very detailed Super 35mm HD and higher DR C-Log. Which one is more suitable totally depends on user's need.
Download original 1DX II clips: https://we.tl/4HOdgVNXhI (contains TIFF version of the comparison and HD 120p and 4K 60p clip from 1DX II)

Just bought a 1DC for an affordable price.  Pretty pumped to start shooting with something that seemed so out of reach a few years ago. 

Did a shootout with 1DX II and 1DC in a park today, had a quick look at the files when importing them. Here are the preliminary results:
1. Full frame HD video 24/30p they are the exactly the same quality in terms of sharpness and detail.
2. 1DX II 60P/120p are softer than HD 24/30p, but very slightly better than 1DC 60p.
3. 4K mode they have exactly the same quality in terms of sharpness and detail.
4. 1DX II and 1DC have about the same dynamic range when using neutral profile (0, -4, -2, 0), 1DX II has more chroma noise in the deep shadow but less pattern noise (vertical stripes). C-log on 1DC gives a lot more highlight headroom.
5. In neutral profile 1DX II is warmer and slightly desaturated than 1DC.
Original clips from the camera will be available for download.

This is why I like the UM46k so much. Set to Film mode with Rec 709 LUT, and shoot. It's nearly impossible to botch exposure or color. 

I work in a rental house and see Alexas, Amiras and Minis fly off the shelves all day long while F55s and Dragons sit in their boxes. And it's only increased as the attention has turned to the newer models and the original Alexa has come down in price. People who might've once settled for a prosumer-style digital cinema camera like the C300 or F3 can now afford to hire an Alexa, and many do without a moment's hesitation.
It's the only camera that really operates on a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get basis". The Canons come close, and the Reds and Sonys are a hideous mess of LOG profiles, LUTs and complicated menus. And one thing I can say for certain is that the Alexa is the only camera that is dead-on with its ISOs. ISO 800 on the Alexa is a true ISO 800, seven stops over and under middle-gray. The Canons and Sonys are somewhat faster. The FS7 in particular is way off. I would reckon that ISO 800 on that camera is closer to 1600.
Meanwhile, you can take the Alexa out of the box, hit LOG-C on 2K Prores, pull up the Rec.709 LUT on your monitor, light the scene using your light meter like they did in the good old days, and go home with an image that can look good without requiring any special color-correction sauce beyond gamma and color tweaks. And it holds up on a 40-foot screen, And it never breaks or fails. At my workplace, we practically never receive customer support calls regarding Alexas. They come back in perfect condition and our technicians turn 'em around in a matter of minutes. Meanwhile, these Reds are making my co-workers tear their hair out.
Simplicity, reliability and raw image quality independent of specs and numbers is where it's at. Arri gets this, which is why they keep winning despite the exorbitant cost of their products.

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

On a side note...if you are shooting handheld or you know you will want to re-time in post, it is a good idea to dial up your shutter speed to reduce or eliminate motion blur as much as possible.
That way, any optical-flow algorithm - be it Twixtor or whatever will have crisp frames to do a more accurate analysis and frame interpolation from. I do this all the time for handheld shots where i know i want to re-time to slow motion. I can then add motion blur back into the plate (if I need to add any) with RSMB - Reel Smart motion blur - plugin for AE.

i've done comparison with all the big options for optical flow/twixtor effects.
From what i could in tell this is the list i got, the things i judged was how smooth the clip got, how the background acted behind the subject and the amount of artefacts.
1. Da vinci Resolve
2. Twixtor
3. Fcpx 
4. after effects timewarp
5. Sony vegas (unusable)
One thing to add is if you like to add the effect which i use sometime were you have a clip of lets say a skateboarder jumping and you want do have a super slow motion clip of it just floating in the air for a couple of seconds and you slow the clip down to 2-3% i found that the built in FCPX optical flow worked the best, both twixtor and da vinci have a hard time making up that many frames and i found that i got some stuttering.
 
 
 

Léon A.K.A 'The Professional' is not only my favourite Action film, but probably my favourite film all round.
Young Luc Besson at his finest, drawing upon his real life admirations from an illegally young girl...add guns, Portman, Reno and a crazy ass Oldman performance all in glorious Anamorphic, you have a winner right there.

i was gonna say that but you beat me to it ?  $15k is a normal price in the US for an f1 male savannah cat. the irony

I think it is ironic that these jokes about the Nazis and MF are actually true. The famous Arriflex 35 that became a standard film industry camera after WWII originated in Nazi Germany. It was the first 35mm motion picture camera to allow for reflex focusing.
So, yes, when it comes to motion picture cameras, the Nazis perfected manual focusing.
Still, I prefer the precise control of MF for hand-held documentaries, even if it makes me a bit of a camera "Nazi."
Here is an example of the 1DC in a documentary setting that shows the value of manual focusing for stylistic effect:
 

i will never give up hope that ml hacks another canon slr... never ??????  in 2019 ill still have my fingers crossed on the 5d4 

 

i will never give up hope that ml hacks another canon slr... never ??????  in 2019 ill still have my fingers crossed on the 5d4 

 

I was posting the same "walking video" (clearly not a... music video ) a certain PTA shot for Radiohead, but I saw in this page @kaylee posted it

Why a music video should stick to rules? Come on, it is 2016, we saw some millions playback videos! If someone has a nice idea and can skip the "performance video" I can only say "bravo!"

First af all the images are in the same mood of the song (which I like very much), they go hand in hand with the music.
Then the cinematography serves perfectly this kind of story. Beautiful spontaneous images!

I really love this MUSIC VIDEO (or call it as you prefer, you could call it "geppo", "sarchiapone" or google a name for it, but it remain a great MUSIC VIDEO) and I think Jonatan really made an amazing piece of art!
p.s. @Jonatan: I have more or less the same combo (Micro Cinema, Video Assist and a magic arm), but until now I had not the confidence to shoot with this camera and I'm still shooting with my trusty GH4. Of course I like the Micro's file 1000 times more then the GH4's one, but I still have more confidence with the GH4 (I'm faster on it, when I have to change shutter angle, WB etc...).

Have you some advices to use it "run and gun"? How do you deal with histogram, peaking etc?

And, last question: how did you shot the beautiful night shots? They are really awesome to my eyes! 

Thank you!  

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"