Kurtisso

I think you achieved that look, some very beautiful stuff!
Aside from stylistically not having a problem with the alleged "crushed" shadows, I didn't see any problems compositionally/graphically with that either. Bear in mind that I only watched the concept trailer once, but I didn't come across a moment where I felt like I needed more information in the shadows to tell me more. We decide what we want to show, and what we want to conceal. To all the people that think you needed to show more "information in the shadows", would it be preferred to shoot the entire film with a fisheye to give the most information that way too? Maybe just do it in VR? Do a grid system to show multiple takes at the same time? Then we can have all the information !!!
On a serious note though, hope the concept trailer gets you and your team the feature, it looks promising!

How about a medium format to m4/3 0.4x? 
Seriously though, the GH5 has so many options depending on which glass you mainly own. If you mainly rent, just rent the different adapters along with.
If you have FF glass, get the 0.64x XL. I did that and it works great. You can punch in to 1.4x TC mode too  
If you have Aps-c glass, get the 0.71x ultra. If you have PL s35 glass and you are going from PL-EF-m4/3, make sure the lens actually fits with the metabones optics, or smashy smashy.
If you have s16/16mm glass, get the c-mount/PL/arri to m4/3 you need and punch in with that TC (either 1.4x or 2x, depending on the image circle of your particular lens). 
 

I think you achieved that look, some very beautiful stuff!
Aside from stylistically not having a problem with the alleged "crushed" shadows, I didn't see any problems compositionally/graphically with that either. Bear in mind that I only watched the concept trailer once, but I didn't come across a moment where I felt like I needed more information in the shadows to tell me more. We decide what we want to show, and what we want to conceal. To all the people that think you needed to show more "information in the shadows", would it be preferred to shoot the entire film with a fisheye to give the most information that way too? Maybe just do it in VR? Do a grid system to show multiple takes at the same time? Then we can have all the information !!!
On a serious note though, hope the concept trailer gets you and your team the feature, it looks promising!

believe me i know. I've been doing exactly that for years. i understand the advantages and disadvantages. full frame is fun and I enjoy shooting in it, but in this case, I *want* a super35 (1.5x) sensor digital cinema camera to shoot films with. I want that because that's the standard I'm used to for motion pictures. besides, I don't like using a focal reducer with my vintage lenses because they exacerbate blooming, CA, and soft corners for apertures wider than f/2.8, which negates the advantage of the metabones' extra stop, or more. fortunately, I won't need that extra stop with a native 2500 ISO (providing it's just as clean as 800 which we have yet to see from the EVA1). and last, I have the 5D3/MLRAW option for when I want the full frame look (which I'm also a fan of for the right project).
side note: I used to own a good bit of MFT lenses when I was an AF100 and then GH4 owner. always found them a little too small to operate with my big bear paws.  the contax zeiss I'm using now look f***ing amazing and suit me better.
I appreciate what your saying. just offering a different pov. 
yes, two actually. and the latest is finally getting a release date for late this year or early next. in talks now with the distributor.

Yeah, no problem! This is a 30 second teaser. We're saving the actual trailer for much closer to the release date. This film was shot on a GH4, by the way.
 

Hahaha oh my... I don't think deezid's choice on shadow levels is equivalent to "misspelled words and poor grammar". That's a bit much.

Hahaha oh my... I don't think deezid's choice on shadow levels is equivalent to "misspelled words and poor grammar". That's a bit much.

Hahaha oh my... I don't think deezid's choice on shadow levels is equivalent to "misspelled words and poor grammar". That's a bit much.

Hahaha oh my... I don't think deezid's choice on shadow levels is equivalent to "misspelled words and poor grammar". That's a bit much.

Great video deezid! This video is so good in so many ways that is surprising that the first thing that cross the mind of some ppl is that "the blacks are crushed". If thats the first thing that someone wants to say about this video its says more about "you" than the maker (or the piece). Even if i think that the blacks should be "less crushed" (wich i also do, but thats not the point) thats the last thing i think after i saw i video like this. But hey....thats me.

I think you achieved that look, some very beautiful stuff!
Aside from stylistically not having a problem with the alleged "crushed" shadows, I didn't see any problems compositionally/graphically with that either. Bear in mind that I only watched the concept trailer once, but I didn't come across a moment where I felt like I needed more information in the shadows to tell me more. We decide what we want to show, and what we want to conceal. To all the people that think you needed to show more "information in the shadows", would it be preferred to shoot the entire film with a fisheye to give the most information that way too? Maybe just do it in VR? Do a grid system to show multiple takes at the same time? Then we can have all the information !!!
On a serious note though, hope the concept trailer gets you and your team the feature, it looks promising!

The choice of "crushed" shadows (not really crushed, check waveform, but strong compression and pulled down to 0-3 IRE range) was an artistic one to achieve a very vibrant, dark and colorful look.
I honestly would love to work with a Varicam LT instead, or a GH5 with the Varicam sensor and processing, lol...
A bigger camera would limit me in many situations, but would be a great option for a way bigger budget (with assistance, another operator etc...).

3 times better wouldn't be the case, some images would profit (way better color science, better DR, better lowlight, no noisereduction nor sharpening etc...) others would be worse (this camera is just big and heavy and would therefore limit my work I guess).
I didn't have any worries about doing extreme colorgrading on the internal 10 bit GH5 footage, grades like butter without introducing any artifacts. The codec is just great and miles better than my GH4/V-Log experience tbh.

Shot on the GH5 in 3 days. A concept trailer done having a zero budget for our upcoming first feature film.
I really like what I can squeeze out of the internal 10 bit V-Log footage. DR, lowlight and colors are really good.
Everything was shot with sharpening and nr set to -5 and a Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter applied in front of the lens (12-35mm 2.8 V1, 20mm 1.7, 42.5mm 1.7) to make it smoother. Colorgrading done in Davinci Resolve. Drone shots by the DJI Mavic (the internal sharpening is hideous tbh...).
 

Shot with the Blackmagic MIcro Cinema Camera with the Angeniuex 12-120mm 16mm lens, a cameflex mount modified to micro 4/3rds.  For color, I brought into Da Vinci resolve and used Filmconvert with a Fuji Eterna film stock and softened it even more to Super16mm softness.  Added a tiny bit of grain and that gave me a great starting point to harken back to a more organic look.
 
I zoomed in digitally mostly around 20% - and it still was too sharp of an image.
Why not shoot it anamorphic instead?   Well, I am in love with documentaries of the 60s and 70s like Grey Gardens, etc. And they used this lens I think, and it has a certain feel to it that’s pretty beautiful. 
Let me know what you guys think of this.
 

This looks amazing. Really gets that super16 feel.
I've been shooting a series of docs with bmmcc and zeiss 12-120. Here's one. It comes out a bit sharper than the Angeniuex but still love the whole combo with old s16 glass
 

Since the full sensor is much bigger than say 4K... Couldn't they crop the sensor to get those last few FPS? Not saying they would be interested in that. Probably would need an ML type hack.

This exactly. Shooting RAW actually makes sense for doc approach. Throw in 3:1 compressed raw (for BM or later with slimraw) and you can manage your data pretty easily too. I've been having a bit of fun shooting a few BTS EPK projects lately and it's quite freeing not having to worry about white balance as I'm going from crazy warm lighting in the scene to the director brooding in a dim spot beside a window. I'd rather have those few crucial seconds to concentrate on getting the moment right and figuring out a way to prompt some words or action.
Hitting that highlight recovery in resolve is instant magic to start. I also think how you are monitoring while you shoot and what mode you are exposing for affects the outcome a lot too. I wouldn't protect the highlights enough if I were to monitor and expose in log. After, when I want to grade in log for the bolex I just run the corresponding input LUT (rec709 to bolex log from Eddie Barton) in Resolve and voila.

A lot of back and forth - between shooting raw vs log.
I did a bunch of tests.  
And in the end, yea, say what you want how PRO RES 4444 is just as good,  I just find RAW gives me better highlight information overall, especially on the Ursa Mini, and  it is nice to worry about color temp after shooting on a doc, not during it, as you move quickly between locations, and light changes quickly.
sharpness, all that, you can control more in post and yes, in raw,
seems to have more noise in the image and log smoothes it out
but, at this point, some noise is good - most digital images are too clinical, too sharp, too everything
any flaws are welcome to the image
so yea,
that's my take on it all.
So sorry Stu and Prolost cats - raw seems good for me.
As well as 100% of the DP-nominated films from the oscars - all shot on Arriraw - I think - or most of them.
whether its for VFX or resolution or god knows what - it just seems like all the cool kids are doing it.

My thoughts.
Camera-wise: 
Used BMMCC (Micro) + Rawlite or Mosaic IR cut and Aliasing/Moire reduction replacement OLPF. Uncompressed raw or 3:1 compressed or Prores if not comfortable with raw. 60fps is good for a touch of slow when you need it. If you don't though, a used BMPCC (Pocket) can be had for quite cheap now. Sure only 1080p but 4k for lower budget features is just not necessary IMO. Without knowing much about your technical details for your film, I will guess that the DR and colour of the BM vs GH4 4K will likely make the image look better.
 
Lens-wise:
1. I personally love s16 sized glass, and have found that really excellent cinema quality glass can be found at a good price vs. s35 and beyond. Old Cooke and Canon zooms, Zeiss superspeed primes or Cooke primes are absolutely wonderful.
2. Buuuuuuuuut, you could also go the route of the bmpcc .58x focal reducer and get your crop to almost s35 factor and pound that light in. Throw on some cheap vintage Nikkor primes, the lovely Tokina 11-16mm wide zoom, those Nikkor f2.8 zoom beasts or Sigma 18-35 etc... that others rave about. This path probably makes more sense for moving onwards towards RED and so on without center cropping.
 
Upgrade Path:
Did you mean BM 2.5k Cinema or the 4K production? I think I would skip this pit-stop and just get better with the BMMCC until the RED is feasible. Playing with raw on the BM will set you up for fun with R3D too. Really getting to know the camera, where it shines, where it breaks and all of that is probably the way to make better films and really grow. Thinking upgrade and then upgrade to the upgrade for the 1st of 3 cams that you dont have yet might be a little bit much. I guess mainly what I am saying camera-wise is that I think you can condense the GH4 + BMCC/BMPC  stages into a BMMCC or BMPCC to start before looking at things like RED or Kinefinity etc... Which btw could just be rented on a per gig basis as well. I'm a big fan of trying before buying, especially when the tech cycle moves so fast.
Hope that helps.

I'll give it a go... some people believe the image coming out of the GH4 has a video quality to it, whereas a camera from BlackMagic or other brand of "cinema" camera is more tuned to create a cinematic image. So if you believe this theory, and you're making narratives, a "proper" cinema camera could be a better choice.

I have been loving ISO 400 so much with the latest firmware, I've been picking it over ISO 200 as well. The range and the grain just feels right.
 
Hahaha yeaaaa,I can probably do without the night vision shots of Brighton Beach.

That was actually one of things Olan mentioned in his post on the user group. He decided to go for ISO 400 instead of 200 because he didn't want the clean look for this. While it is possible to get the clean look, I think a lot of people like the mojo that ISO 400-800 bring.
Now, on a D16 mkII using the KAE-02150 sensor, a clean image would be extremely easy to get, and you wouldn't be sacrificing much high end range at all.

You shouldn't feel at all crazy! There's so much to be desired in film that digital has yet to nail down. The dynamic range, color and shutter/motion that film has to offer combined with vastly improving film scan technology is a worthy enough pursuit. I've posted this before I think, but check out this gorgeous 2K scan from super 8 film:
 

Thought I would show some new footage that was recently posted in our user group by Olan Collardy. Processed in Resolve with Bolex Log.
User demand (lots) and time. And of course, no guarantees of anything until it comes from the head honchos.

MAN. No FPN on real global shutter, rich colour depth, 14.8 stops DR and ability to crank to 60fps?  Seriously Eddie, how do we make this happen?!!!!