kaylee

I think so also...
I don't think people outside of the industry have much say in regard to the aesthetic and nor do they/we have much say over the content other than voting with our feet and wallets in regard to the latter.
Plus our all important keyboards of course.
I just watched Dune this weekend and was blown away by the aesthetic.
Best movie ever? Well that one is debatable and in regard to the aesthetic, is it all 100% real?
Of course not, but that combination of real + manipulated, the lighting both at the time of capture and fiddled with in post, the tonality of each scene etc...
Shot on digital, transferred to film and then scanned back to digital in order (in their words) to combine the best of both for some kind of crossover look.
It appealed to my aesthetic anyway!
 

Oh shit! Did they digitally crop for an artistic intent? Amateurs!

Nikon Rumors has jumped in to the discussion with more posts coming. 
 
https://nikonrumors.com/2022/02/05/this-is-why-craig-quit-canonrumors.aspx/

Its that hypocrisy that gets me.

 

Such a good song and video clip.  The time backwards and forwards reminds me of this:
 

resolution (2001)
 

I had nearly the same reaction with the newer Canon T2i and Fuji X-T3
compared to my older Fuji S1 Pro, concerning skin tones.
 
In every other way the new cameras blow it away,
but of all the cameras I’ve used the S1 Pro still has the most amazing skin tones.
I still look at 8X10’s framed on the wall and marvel at the color in my kid’s portraits,
shot with only 3MP resolution that look perfectly sharp.
The S1 Pro always had a slight green cast to the image,
and we know that that is also common in Arri cameras.
But just adding green in the X-T3 does not match it.
Some people say it is due to the unique CCD chip that Fuji had developed. I have no idea.
I would rate the Canon and X-T3 skin tones as excellent, the S1 Pro as excellent+.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/slrs/fuji_s1/specifications
 
 

yeah my ears are burning bc of the 'clay' skin tones comment
i agreed with that 100%, like i said, and now im not doubling down, im tripling down~!
• 5d mark 2 color was amazing, less realistic, more green and magenta (im not a scientist lol dont ask me), vs...
• 5d 3 color which was amazing, warmer and prolly more accurate, but then
• 5d4 came out and their color went to shit. 'flat' skin tones? yes, it looks like the men are wearing foundation
but mind you, im ONLY TALKING ABOUT SKIN TONES, and crazy as it may sound, for my artistic purposes ~im happy to grade the heck out of everything else in the image~
neon grass/etc was common back in the day for canon, but id gladly wrangle the rest of the image for skintones which show blood and skin translucency better. its a huge way that we show emotion~! *no one actually cares what color a tree is* – you can make it teal. but if a persons face is teal they look sick (not sick cool but sick ill lol)
i will power window the entire shot around the skintones. is that a practical workflow? no, its far from ideal, its time consuming. and ofc im speaking about creative 'artistic' filmmaking, not a product shoot where you need color accuracy and immediate turnaround. clearly. i get all that
im just saying that there IS a difference in canon color from the 5d4 on, and i dont think that its an improvement. idk if its better at shooting a color chart, i respect the need, i just personally dont care...
so am i imagining all this? maybe its a dream

yeah my ears are burning bc of the 'clay' skin tones comment
i agreed with that 100%, like i said, and now im not doubling down, im tripling down~!
• 5d mark 2 color was amazing, less realistic, more green and magenta (im not a scientist lol dont ask me), vs...
• 5d 3 color which was amazing, warmer and prolly more accurate, but then
• 5d4 came out and their color went to shit. 'flat' skin tones? yes, it looks like the men are wearing foundation
but mind you, im ONLY TALKING ABOUT SKIN TONES, and crazy as it may sound, for my artistic purposes ~im happy to grade the heck out of everything else in the image~
neon grass/etc was common back in the day for canon, but id gladly wrangle the rest of the image for skintones which show blood and skin translucency better. its a huge way that we show emotion~! *no one actually cares what color a tree is* – you can make it teal. but if a persons face is teal they look sick (not sick cool but sick ill lol)
i will power window the entire shot around the skintones. is that a practical workflow? no, its far from ideal, its time consuming. and ofc im speaking about creative 'artistic' filmmaking, not a product shoot where you need color accuracy and immediate turnaround. clearly. i get all that
im just saying that there IS a difference in canon color from the 5d4 on, and i dont think that its an improvement. idk if its better at shooting a color chart, i respect the need, i just personally dont care...
so am i imagining all this? maybe its a dream

Kye just one question and please don’t take this personal. How much have you
 
1. Tried to actually create a specific ‘aesthetic’ (let’s focus on that for a second and ignore all other considerations to a production, some of which might be more important than that aesthetic) in a real world scenario by:
- Conceiving a type of look you want up front, often in coordination with clients and collaborators that may have wishes or needs that differ slightly or massively from your own taste or initial instinct, 
- going about selecting the tools that you need for achieving this. Keep in mind that you will need to test this equipment because some ideas that you had up front that seemed great or that you’ve heard about as performing X might not actually create the effect that you thought they would in practice. Sometimes locations or the camera/lenses that you preferred will not be available due to whatever reason. You will still be expected to achieve the previously agreed upon look. Quitting because you couldn’t get an Alexa will never get you another job again.
- actually creating  the look on set and MAINTAINING it across different shots that may be shot days apart. Remember that you might have less time in the schedule than you thought or that conditions changed beyond your control, you will still be expected to come close to your initial idea otherwise your look won’t match.
- gone into a grading suite with a colorist and perhaps even a client and graded a large project in a very limited amount of time. Keep in mind that you will not be able to try fifty different experiments just for giggles because you will get fired.
 
vs. 
 
2. Downloaded some clips off the internet and played around -however skillfully or elaborately- with the footage on your pc.
Because everything I’ve seen from you  around here -and I might be wrong- indicates to me that you fall squarely into the second category. There’s nothing wrong with that and I do not mean to gatekeep or to shit on the enthusiasm for the craft that you regularly display on here (which is AWESOME!), but I am a little astounded by the confidence and boldness at which you make some claims.
Please reflect upon your skill and experience and consider displaying some humility (know what you DON’T know), especially when looking at your experience (enthusiastic amateur filming their family on vacation) versus that of Django (working professional that has actually used some of the equipment that you make such confident assertions about). 

Do you even read the articles that you link to?
Messerschmidt: We shot 6K 2:1 with a 5K center extraction. This method gave us tremendous freedom in post for stabilization and re-framing when necessary. The editors work with a lot of split screens, so having the extra room to reframe and adjust in the cut is very helpful in that process.
also:
In addition to giving Fincher another crack at getting the exact composition he wants, it allows for the elimination of imperfections in the operating of the camera.
“If you are shooting an actor sitting up from a chair and the operator tilts up with him, you might do 10 takes of that and the operator might keep the headroom perfect for six of them, but if they chose for editorial a take where the operator clips the headroom it can be fixed in post,” said Messerschmidt. “Same thing for stabilization – rolling on a slightly bumpy floor or doing a crane move where the crane has a little wiggle in it or whatever, being able to take that out in post very much informs David’s aesthetic. It lets the show maintain that very ethereal, almost robotic look, letting the camera be anonymous in the storytelling process.”
I was speaking of your average Joe, not necessarily you.
Here you go again pitting one against the other. In your b&w mind one is either pro something or against the other. You cannot seem to fathom a person can value multiple aspects of IQ. Filmmaking is more complex than just resolution & color science you know. It’s not just one or the other. I shoot all types of resolutions, it depends on the project and the budget. I shoot all kinds of brands/codecs/sensor sizes etc. Whatever I feel fits the project. That how pros think and work. Enthusiasts come up with these dead-end theories and tend to clinch to one side.
You seem quite obessesed with color science, especially from ARRI. You keep claiming nothing has improved in that department in over a decade “none” “zero”. Sorry but that’s just plain incorrect, you musn’t have been following much. Canon/Sony/BM keep updating their CS. Canon offers you classic eos cinema color matrix or neutral which is ARRI inspired. Sony has had Venice’s S-Cinetone trickle down to FX/Alpha range. BM are on Gen5 of their CS.
Furthermore, the biggest improvement relative to CS in recent mirrorless tech is 10-bit Log & RAW. These types of codecs finally allow footage shot on hybrids to get proper color grading treatments, and potentially compete/match with big boy ARRI/RED footage.
If your complaining about CS in 2022 on a latest gen Canon/Sony/Nikon/Panny/BMD you perhaps should start taking a look at your grading skills.

We're all talking about aesthetics.  
We're talking about aesthetics when we talk about the "look", but we're talking about it when we talk about specifications too.  
A debate rages about what is "enough" resolution, "enough" sharpness, "nicer" bokeh... what is "cinematic"...  what is "visible"...  what is "practical".  
This thread is a reality check against the warped concepts that stills photographers and their camera-club specifications-obsessions have given us.  Because, for the most part, better objective measurements are mostly worse subjectively.  It's our imperfections that creates our humanity, and it's analog imperfection that creates emotional images.
Baseline
First, let's establish a baseline.  Here are some test images from ARRI that are designed to showcase the technology, not a creative aesthetic.


Note the super-clean image, lack of almost all lens-distortions (except wide angle distortion on the wide lens, which is actually super-wide at 12mm).  If you were there, this might be what it actually looked like.
Those were grabs from a 4K YouTube upload, but lots of trailers aren't uploaded in 4K, so here is a still from 1080p Youtube video that ARRI uploaded in 2010.

Now, without further ado....
The Aesthetic - The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina



These are obviously very distorted, and I chose frames that were especially so.  This should instantly disavow you of the idea that somehow Netflix demands "pristine" images - these are filthy as hell, but this is appropriate to the subject matter, which is about witchcraft, the occult, demons, and literally, hell.
Whenever I hear someone say "oh I can't believe how terrible that lens is - look at the edge softness" I just laugh.  The person may as well be saying "not only don't I have a clue about film-making, but my eyes also don't work either..  please ignore everything else I say from now on".  
The Aesthetic - Sex Education




A show with a deliberately vintage vibe, the look is suitably vintage, with some pretty wicked CA.  One thing that's interesting is the last shot, which was either a drone with a vintage lens on it, or it was doctored in post, because it has pretty severe CA - look at the bottom right of the frame above the Netflix logo.  Also note how nothing looks sharp - the first image should have had something in-focus, but softness of this level is deliberate because once again, the last shot is a deep-focus shot with a stopped-down aperture and should be super-sharp but isn't.
The Aesthetic - No Time To Die




Some shots are softer than others, but note the amazing barrel distortion and edge softness on the middle two shots.  In case you missed it, here's the star of this $400M movie in a pivotal scene from the movie:

Are there lenses that could have made this shot more "accurate"?  Sure - just scroll up to the ARRI shots which look pristine (and they're ZOOMS!).  This was deliberate and is consistent with the emotion and narrative.  The Aesthetic.
The Aesthetic - The Witcher




Sharp when it wants to be, oversharp too - see the second image, but with anamorphic bokeh for the look.  Ironically, a fantasy story of witchcraft and monsters, using cleaner more modern looking glass.  The complete opposite approach of Sabrina.  
Note on the second-last image the vertical anamorphic bokeh, and then look at the last image and note the "swirl" in the bokeh.  I doubt this was accidental.
The Aesthetic - You


Sharp and clean when it wants to be, and other times, really not.  Appropriate for the subject matter.
The Aesthetic - Squid Game

Clean, sharp but not too sharp, neutral colour palette, but note the vertical lines on the edges of the frame aren't straight?  Subtle, and perhaps not deliberate, but picture it in your mind if they didn't flare out..  it makes a difference, deliberate or not.
The Aesthetic - Bridgerton 



Clean, spherical, basically distortion free, but sharp?  No.  Go look at that Witcher closeup again for some contrast.
The Aesthetic - The Crown




Clean and relatively distortion free, but lots of diffusion, haze, and low-contrast when required.  The Crown is a masterpiece of the visuals matching the emotional narrative of the story, which is made extra difficult as the story is set in reality, and the emotional tone is so muted that had lesser people been involved in making it any subtleties may well have simply been bland rather than subtle but deep.
The Aesthetic - Mindhunter

Perhaps the most interesting example here.  After looking at the previous images the above might seem completely unremarkable, except that this look was created in post.  
and I mean, completely in post:

More here: https://filmmakermagazine.com/103768-dp-erik-messerschmidt-on-shooting-netflixs-mindhunter-with-a-custom-red-xenograph/#.YftoaC8RrOQ
and here: https://thefincheranalyst.com/tag/red-xenomorph/ (there's a great video outlining the lens emulations in post in this one).
That's enough for now.  Hopefully now you can appreciate that "perfectly clean" optically is actually only perfect for "perfectly clean" moments in your videos.  Sure, if you're out there doing corporate day in and day out then it might seem like "clean" is the right way, or if you're in advertising or travel where neutral reigns, but when it comes to emotion, it's about choosing the best imperfections to suit the desired aesthetic.
 

guys theyre low key marketing this $4500 thing as a vlogging camera
its a frankenstein cam but i bet the mark iii will be p good 😎
this is why i would want IBIS on a camera like this too
sorry i meant UAPs ☺️

AF I can live without, but I rely heavily on IBIS for the situations I shoot in because I use unstabilised manual primes, often vintage.
The Komodo is absolutely a better image, no doubt.  I really wish it worked for how I shoot, despite being used-car prices, I'd be super interested.  I can't say I'm that enamoured with the cropping it does for higher frame rates though.
GH5 battery life is fine.
In a sense, I'm looking for:
Colour science on the level of BM 2012 (sadly still limited to BM 2012 and pro-level cinema cameras) The IBIS, practicality and reliability of GH5 2017 An EVF with decent focus-peaking Prores downsampled from full sensor resolution I wouldn't say no to dual-gain ISO either, but I get by with fast primes so it's not a deal breaker.
Essentially it's a GH5 with the colour science and codec from BM 2012.

Komodo stripped to the bones would give you better AF, better image, better battery life than a GH5. No IBIS though. But neither does your BM camera.
They would continue to be unknown flying objects and a great campfire beer story.
This is the only competition to me that is intriguing but it would be nice to have more video focused tools for video. I'm no expert on N-Log but from initial testing from other people it looks like it may need updated to allow for more DR as it only allows maximum of 12 stops–that limits 4K footage at the moment. In 8K RAW we don't know the specifies on the bitrates yet. It would seem, based on some charts from Angelbird, that the RAW bitrates could be quite high. Hopefully they have more compressed options. 10:1 would be great.
I would love to see Nikon succeed in the video space. I honestly think they have to to stay relevant.
I'm looking to perhaps pick up an R5C as well. Will probably skip the C70 and wait for a FF, DGO, internal ND camera from Canon (or from another company!) if and when that comes. Seems like we are getting close.

what about ufos tho

kayleerumors is reporting!!!!

kayleerumors is reporting!!!!

kayleerumors is reporting!!!!

this is still a discussion on the hybrid camera with the 8 second delay right

Step 1 - The Pros And Not Pros
So, to look at sort of what we want to end up with conceptually, this is the most obviously well discussed example of VP at the moment.
Fundamentally, its about seamlessly blending real foreground people/objects synthetic backgrounds and its a new-ish take on the (very) old Hollywood staple of rear projection as used with varying degrees of success in the past.
The difference now is that productions like The Mandalorian are using dynamically generated backgrounds created in real time to synchronise with the camera movement of the real camera that is filming the foreground content.
Even just for a simple background replacement like in the driving examples from the old films, the new technique has huge advantages in terms of being able to sell the effect through changeable lighting and optical effect simulation on the background etc.
Beyond that, though, the scope for the generation and re-configuring of complex background sets in real time is pretty amazing for creating series such as The Mandalorian.
OK, so this is all well and good for a series that has a budget of $8.5m an episode, shot in an aircraft hangar sized building with more OLED screens than a Samsung production run and a small army of people working on it but what's in it for the rest of us ?
Well, we are now at the point where it scales down and, whilst not exactly free, its becoming far more achievable at a lower budget level as we can see in this example.
And it is that sort of level that I initially want to head towards and possibly spot some opportunities to add some more enhancements of my own in terms of camera integration.
I'm pretty much going from a standing start with this stuff so there won't be anything exactly revolutionary in this journey as I'll largely be leaning pretty heavily on the findings of the many people who are way further down the track.
In tomorrow's thrilling instalment, I'll be getting a rough kit list together and then having a long lie down after I've totted up the cost of it and have to re-calibrate my "at a budget level" definition.

Last year my friends and I put together a show which we filmed in virtual reality. We tried to make it as much like actual filmmaking as possible, except we were 1000 miles away. That didn't turn out to be as possible as we'd hoped, due to bugs and limited features. The engine is entirely built from scratch using Unity, so I was doing making patches every 10 minutes just to get it to work. Most of the 3D assets were made for the show, maybe 10% or so were found free on the web. Definitely one of the more difficult aspects was building a pipeline entirely remotely for scripts, storyboards, assets, recordings, and then at the very end the relatively simple task of collaborative remote editing with video and audio files.
If you're interested you can watch it here (mature audiences) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLocS26VJsm_2dYcuwrN36ZgrOVtx49urd
I've been toying with the idea of going solo on my own virtual production as well.

I have always been curious to check out the Unreal Engine.
Emulating a lens, a camera, lights, all so advanced now in game engines.
Will be interested to see what you discover, software and hardware wise.
There are a big studios in Australia now that really push the boat out and make all sorts. Dare say they can sell a lot of their virtual assets to other studios as well!
Virtual production asset marketplace anyone?

They say "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" and that describes exactly where I am with Virtual Production.
The reason for setting off on this journey ?
Curiosity in the process is one aspect - and is something I'm hoping will sustain when the expected big boulders block the route - but I also think VP is going to be a process that trickles down to lower budget projects faster than people might expect so it is something I'm keen to get involved in.
What aspects of VP am I looking to learn about and get involved with ?
In the first instance, it will be about simple static background replacement compositing but will move on to more "synthetic set" 3D territory both for narrative but also multi camera for virtual studio applications.
There will also be a side aspect of creating 3D assets for the sets but that won't be happening until some comfort level of how to actually use them is achieved !
And the ultimate objective ?
I'm not expecting to be producing The Mandalorian in my spare bedroom but I am hoping to end up in a position where a very low-fi version of the techniques used in it can be seen to be viable. I'm also hopeful that I can get a two camera virtual broadcast studio setup working for my upcoming YouTube crossover channel Shockface which is a vlog about a gangster who sells illicit thumbnails to haplessly addicted algorithm junkies.
I'm fully expecting this journey to make regular stops at "Bewilderment", "Fuck Up", "Disillusionment" and "Poverty" but if you'd like to be an observer then keep an eye on this thread as it unfolds.
Or more likely hurtles off the rails.
Oh and from my initial research about the current state of play, there may well be a product or two that I develop along the way to use with it too...

In their promo video at the cued up point here, they dedicate a whole section of it to the "hey, switch to stills....hey, lets do video...hey, back to stills".
 
They make it appear to be seamless and pretty much instant when the reality is they should have shown this between each switch.

So whether you need it or not isn't the point for me, more that there's no need for such blatantly misleading bollocks from Canon in their promo video.
Mind you, its probably fixable in firmware as we know what they are like when it comes to timers don't we ?