Django

I just discovered this "van life" scene the other day looking for FX30 videos. I was kind of shocked this one "influencer" got a whole Sony pelican case of gear yet at the time of release, she only had 25 subscribers ?! What's at play here, Sony marketing trend speculating? HOW TO VLOG - with the new Sony FX30 Cinema Camera!

Gerald started shilling around A7S3 release. He's not the only one: Matti, Armando, Potato Jet.. all formerly Canon apologists suddenly switched sides overnight. I know some will claim Sony > Canon but I suspect something else is at play. Too many sales at play through influencers. Remember all those luxury first-hand trips to exotic locations pre-COVID? all that budget gotta be thrown elsewhere. Don't wanna sound like a camera conspiracist and I'm sure Sony aren't alone in this but they really seem to have a strong grapple on the YouTube scene.

when there is a will there's a way! I had to buy an extra suitcase last time I was in Tokyo, camera gear wasn't even on the main shopping list..

Lol.. call me pessimistic but I just feel Nikon aren't going to be around for so long. Their financial problems are no secret and they could barely get this Z9 out the door and its already on V3! You can adapt glass on just about all these mirrorless mounts so that's not even the issue.. I left Nikon after my D750 took 5 months to get the parts in (for a mass series failure that really shouldn't have been there in the first place). The European customer service was a living nightmare too. Stuff like this matters when you're on the field and need your daily gear up and running.

Yeah I'm noticing restocks are under way here in France as well although probably not for long. PS5 style. I also want one.. just because I love Nikon and this seems like the ultimate one, but I can't help but feel I'll be trapped in a dying ecosystem and too many unknowns as far as video for me to go blindly into such an expense. Hopefully you or someone else here with pull the trigger and put it through its paces so we can have a clearer picture of real world video capabilities!

Yeah major supply problem with Z9. Places like Fnac here in France do get them in, like a couple units each month and they’re gone within the hour. It’s basically a PlayStation 5 situation. Helps if you know someone that knows someone 😉 If money were no object I’d probably go for R3 over Z9 but I’m just biased towards Canon. On paper Z9 seems like the ultimate FF hybrid.

Yeah big yawn. This camera is about 2 years too late. Canon R5 already did the high MP, 8K $4K FF hybrid camera in 2020. And with no weird crop factors, binning or horrible rolling shutter like the A7RV displays.

$3900 / 4500€ The 'R' series was always a snoozer for me personally and this is no exception. The video specs are weird AF: 1.2x crop on 8K & 4K60. 4K24/30 uncropped but binned. No 4K120p. S35 mode oversampled but 30p tops. Props on the new tilt screen mechanism though, finally a best of both worlds solution.

That's the thing, you kept referencing the silver screen and cinema standards so I just thought I'd give further context.. Its like HDR.. I feel it makes much better sense on a device used in daylight than in a dark room. Different medium, different tech and workflows make more/better sense. Context is everything.

Cinema screen is actually not a great example as 85% of theatres in the world are still using 2K projectors (that number was probably even bigger a decade ago). Cable TV in the US aren't even all 1080i with some networks still broadcasting at 720p. That is the main reason why ARRI have been so slow to develop true S35 4K cameras and why DI/editing/finishing have been done on 2K timelines. We often like to put cinema on a pedestal for various valid reasons but truth is that concerning resolution, that whole industry has been lagging behind home entertainment and streaming productions for a minute. The 2014 video I linked already assesses that back then. We simply can't ignore what's been happening on streaming platforms and social media like it or not that's most peoples daily reality and benchmark. So yeah depending on what industry you're in, what you shoot, what your end viewer is displaying on, your storage capacity and bandwidth, what your post tech skills & min/max requirements are: different workflows, different resolutions, different codecs may be used in the pipeline. That is the reason why there are so many options. Heck for some, 8-bit rec709 may still be better than 10-bit log or even 12-bit RAW. So within this diversity of context I don't think we can really blanket one codec or one resolution format as being ok across all scenarios. That said, sure 4K ProRes LT is a pro standard codec, fairly chunky and superior to low bitrate h26x. Its no XQ 444 though. ProRes in consumer hybrids is a great leap forward. Much more practical than RAW in editing sense. On a similar tangent, I also think open-gate has never been so useful. Traditionally for anamorphic shoot but today also serves the purpose of multi-aspect ratio deliveries which is becoming pretty common. Oh I'll believe you that the IQ difference is marginal in between 3.2K & 2.8K and 2.8K & 2K downsampled. However for anamorphic shooting, difference in between the XT's Open Gate 3.4K in ARRIRAW vs 4:3 2K ProRes of the Classic was substantial as the video details. Even though technically they're both the same ALEV sensor with identical characteristics. The LF has a larger than FF sensor shooting up to 4448 x 3096 so yeah that's a major boost in IQ as far as detail but also noise levels which was the biggest con of the OG Alexa S35 sensors imo.

I'm talking acquisition from a DPs perspective. As the following video from 2014 states, 80% of films back then where shot above 3K yet indeed 99% were finished in 2K. That doesn't mean it was ideal as far as IQ as the guy explains nobody printed Super35 to Super16 which is sort of what was being done back then. Not to mention they were already anticipating 4K streaming (or "broadband" as they called it then lol). He goes on to explain/push the benefits of shooting in ARRIRAW at 3.4K with the then new XT and details a workflow where you'd transcode to ProRes 444 2.8K for a 50% gain in file size and almost 3K resolution. That would have definitely been the forward-thinking workflow:

Good observations. I agree that h264/h265 can really kill footage with sharpening & NR done in-cam. But it really depends on camera brands and models. Even within Sony, the FX3/A7S3 has tons of NR you can't adjust. The same sensor on FX6 is a lot more adjustable and on the new FX30 the same XAVC codecs display much less NR applied in-cam so it seems Sony listened to feedback. Canon allow you to fully turn off high ISO NR. And higher end models have internal compressed RAW. On Fuji you can reduce NR & sharpening but not fully turn off. Now with ProRes I assume there is a less processed image but its still a baked in format so not sure of the specifics. All-in-all prosumer hybrid cameras are getting better with XH2/XH2S/GH6/Z9 taking the lead with internal Prores. Followed by Canon with internal RAW. Sony is really still in last position with its heavy NR induced h26x codecs.

If you're referring to the Alexa Classic, 2K ProRes HQ was closer to 300Mbps and it could shoot up to 430Mbps in 4444. Second gen Alexa XT really changed the game though with ARRIRAW /Prores XQ and resolutions up to 3.4K in OpenGate. So I'd say "sufficient" by 2010 theatrical standards but ARRI IQ took a major bump as soon as the XT came out around 2013. Besides I heard there were software upgrades to give the Classic 3.2K/3.4K XQ/Open Gate so those bitrates and resolutions may have been used much earlier than 2013. Long story short I don't know if that many features were actually shot in 2K ProRes HQ..

I get where you’re getting at with your suggestion as I use a variety of different cameras for stills ranging from expensive Leica M rangefinder to Yashica 35mm film point & shoot to older DSLRs and of course mirrorless. That said I can understand someone with perhaps less experience and funds simply wants one camera body and one lens system. That’s a good place to start too. The EOS R is actually a very decent hybrid despite all the hate it garnished at its release due to the massive 4K crop. It sounds like you enjoy Canon ergonomics, color science, value their AF system and your invested in their lenses. This begs the question, why go through the hassle of changing systems? And why even consider Panasonic if AF is important to you? FYI, I was also an EOS R user with just the 35mm RF and EF lenses and I chose to upgrade to R6 two years ago. Its a massive upgrade as you gain IBIS, oversampled 4K with no crop, 10-bit codec, Clog3 & DPAF2 with eye tracking. It’s a bit of a no brainer if you’re looking to upgrade from an EOS R in that $2K budget. Although the overheating may make that a big no-go in that tropical Brazilian heat. in that case maybe smart to wait for R6 mk2 that appears to be right around the corner. or switch to Sony or Nikon if you can’t wait and wanna stay FF and have great AF. I’d only consider Panasonic if your planning on shooting video with manual lenses..

..if you need AF though Panasonic is probably the worst system of the bunch and a huge downgrade from Canon. Image quality means nothing if you can't hold focus. Best bang for buck is probably XH2 right now. 45MP stills. 8K, 10-bit, ProRes. Phase-detect AF with eye detect. Film simulations. FX30 also super solid for run & gun. Oversampled 4K. AF on par with Canon. 4K120p. 10-bit. LUT support. Top handle with XLRs. But yeah, switching systems is expensive so if you own a lot of lenses probably better to wait for suitable model than switch. APS-C / Super35 seems to be where it's at right now as far as bang for buck in the $2K bracket.

.. an older sensor perhaps but not a 6 year old sensor, that's ridiculous. even canon are smarter than that. as for the R6, I've been shooting with it for some time now, and its a very good all-rounder (basically a 1DX3 in RF mirrorless form). It shoots 5.5K oversampled footage, has DPAF2, can do up to 4K60p no crop in 10-bit 422 which the A7IV can't even do. CLog/Clog3. The only downside is RS & overheating. If the new sensor/processor fixes those I'd upgrade in a heartbeat. Would be nice to see a couple extra things like 4K120p or RAW but that would probably steal too much from R3/R5.

An R replacement using the same 2018 R sensor (that used the 2016 5DIV sensor) makes zero sense. That sensor had horrible rolling shutter and had to crop x1.7 for 4K. Also what do you mean by: The current R6 is already RF full frame?

Lets not forget XH2S & FX30. A7IV has similar cons to R6: poor rolling shutter & overheating issues. not great for run & gun.

Is there any tangible proof concerning this? I've only really noticed the footage is a little choppy when the camera is moving a lot handheld but that's kind of to be expected with no mechanical stab. Have you tried Canon Raw on the C70? From the test footage I came across the motion felt really nice, well on the normal side of things. Getting back to codecs, I still think the C300 mk2's 12-bit 444 2K option is the nicest option. Real shame no other Canon cam seems to have that particular one.

Not stacked but BSI. It is the best sensor from Canon and makes sense since the R6 uses 1DX3 sensor. The specs however appear to be pretty much the same as current R6, I don't see any improvements which is rather disappointing. So the best improvement is perhaps just the sensor, which is already a very good thing. Should mean much better DR & much less RS. I'm also hoping/assuming there will be little to no overheat. That is by far the biggest con of the current R6 and why I wouldn't recommend it for run & gun work. Unless you're just shooting short clips with reasonable intervals for cool off time. I'm selling mine as soon as I find the right FF substitute (which could be R6 mk2).

Yeah that doesn't sound right. Never heard of a camera having same noise levels at higher base ISO either.

I agree and if I get an XH2S I would be probably be shooting 422 LT most of the time. It's my preferred codec when doing exports. The problem with bigger file sizes is for me not just archiving but mainly file sharing. I travel a lot and I'm constantly sending files to editors, production house, clients etc. Finding a good internet connection is harder than one may think (at least here in France) so working with RAW or even ProRes HQ is a total nightmare in transfer times. I can't shoot lower than 4K (production house won't accept it) and I refuse going back to 8-bit so its a bit of a conundrum but yeah its nice to have options in-camera. RED still probably has the best IQ/ratio with its patent, one of the reasons I was considering a Komodo.

I think what you're saying was historically true in the 70s/80s but doesn't hold anymore due to the extensive use of DIs and green screen: Limited use of 65 mm film was revived in the late 1970s for some of the visual effects sequences in films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, mainly because the larger negative did a better job than 35 mm negative of minimizing visible film grain during optical compositing. 65 mm was the primary film format used at VFX pioneer Douglas Trumbull's facility EEG (Entertainment Effects Group), which later became Boss Film Studios, run by former Industrial Light & Magic alum Richard Edlund. Since the 1990s, a handful of films (such as Spider-Man 2) have used 65mm for this purpose, but the usage of digital intermediate for compositing has largely negated these issues. Digital intermediate offers other benefits such as lower cost and a greater range of available lenses and accessories to ensure a consistent look to the footage. That being said, IMAX 65mm (70mm is the projection format btw) is relatively unparalleled as far as IQ with a true equivalency of about 18K in resolution. The frames are 69.6mm x 48.5mm which even beats Alexa 65's 54mmx25mm. The particular DoF & aspect ratio also gives a special look & immersive feel. So really there is no digital equivalent. Today there are only a handful of directors in the world that shoot 65mm film. And only a handful of IMAX cameras even available for rental (at one point there were only 4). It is so expensive and complicated that still only short sequences are usually shot with them. Christopher Nolan is the only director in recent times that shoots exclusively in 65mm AFAIK. He's credited even by Tarantino to having brought back that particular format to use in blockbuster productions. But for Nolan, Tarantino & Johnson.. they've always said that they shoot film because they love the look (no matter if its 35mm or 65mm). So I really don't think its a "specialist tool" thing for VFX units but really an aesthetic choice. For the last Star Wars films the visual template was the original trilogy so that kind of explains the use of film and hiring a known film shooting combo such as Johnson/Yedlin. The use of CGI/VFX was actually quite restraint on shots involving camera work compared to the previous Lucas prequel trilogy. A lot of animatronics were used, virtual production and basically just real props, real explosions etc. Nolan & Tarantino also advocate such real old-school FX. I mean its kind of silly to go through all the hassle of shooting in film only to integrate massive digital CGI/FX. Sub-35 film perhaps but 35mm & 65mm remain cost prohibitive. Also speaking of Yedlin he's kind of put his money where his mouth is and actually convinced Rian Johnson to shoot his last feature 100% digitally stating: “I have just been a big film guy my entire life. It was Steve Yedlin, my cinematographer’s idea…he’s shot all of my movies, which we’ve always done on film. And he’s also a very technically-adept color science guy. Steve basically has a philosophy, it’s based in facts. From Steve’s perspective, right now with imaging technology, there’s no reason that what you capture your image on needs to define the look of what you’re doing. What he told me over and over again is it’s harder for him to make film look like film, than make digital look like film. Johnson then went on to describe that, following being captured, the content is sent through the same digitization process, and that the application of grain isn’t something that’s difficult to do. ” So in this case it looks like DIs & film emulation actually killed the use of film. But as Noam Kroll states in the comments of the link you provided: "I agree with you, that it is possible to very closely replicate the film look digitally, but it’s quite difficult to get right and is never identical. I’m astonished by the work of Steve Yeldin in this area, but for the average filmmaker (right now), it’s much simpler to just shoot on film if you want a film look. That may very well change in the future as technology continues to evolve, but right now, I think both formats each still have distinct advantages." According to his math it adds up to $14,492 for 90mn at 5:1 ratio. And that's if you get a reduced price of the film stock. Still that is relatively affordable for 90mn feature. It's actually dead cheap if you're shooting a 30 second commercial, 4mn music video or 8mn short film. And that's why S16 is currently very popular in those segments. I know several local DPs that currently specialise in it, like 100%. I also know 20 year old film students that shoot S16 as well (ok they have rich parents so not your typical 'poor' student but still). In the end its my opinion that its really all part of a trend, like anamorphic, 4:3 aspect ratio or even full-frame. I love the cynical yet so true commentary of this guy about "selling cool" in the commercial world via such trends..

Yedlin shot Last Jedi and the majority was shot on film. Only 10-15% was shot digitally according to Rian Johnson.

Last SW Trilogy was shot on a mix of 35mm/70mm film, Alexa XTs, Alexa 65s & even 5D mk3 for stop motion.