webrunner5

I agree I don't think there is a DR gain either. Lack of noise which Could equate to being more DR is in actuality being able to see into the shadows and well even highlights would "Look" like more DR, but it really is just what was there to start with, only cleaner.

Seems like we used most of the switchers, faders, etc, from a company called Grassly??? We used Sony monitors and all that goes with that, Sony recording, playback decks etc. God they cost a ton and weighed a ton! What cost crazy money then was these hydraulic pedestal studio tripods!! Man they were HUGE. Sort of like this one. And the one for sale there on ebay is a bargain I think. Looks like brand new. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Matthews-H-6-Studio-Pedestal-Tripod-Dolly-hydraulic-Pneumatic-with-Head/401459961139?hash=item5d78e0dd33:g:HbgAAOSwax5Y0byS

Have you seen this news? Maybe a answer for a lot of people and start ups..

I loved my Sony A7r but to be honest I was afraid to sneeze next to it for as flimsy the side door covers were on it for moisture resistance.

This post sounds like some test question I had in College 50 years ago! Is there going to be a test?? About the only thing lately they are good at is releasing part 3 of some 10 year old comic book movie.

Well not to sound snide it pretty much depends how big of a computer monitor you have. I use a 30" 2k HP IPS screen. That is close to a 32" TV that a lot of people still watch TV with. But yes if you are 12' away from it even a 42" it would be less sharp than right up in front of it. My son uses a 42' Plasma TV as his "gamer" monitor. He is less than 6 feet from it, so just about anything looks good that close LoL. ML 1080p is sharper than normal Canon 1080p output. That would not be hard to do. Canon has never been known for razor sharp 1080p. But i doubt any 1080p is ever going to look as sharp as 4k no matter how good it is. I mean we are talking 4x the resolution which on paper should be twice as sharp. But some Blackmagic and Canon Raw 1080p stuff I have seen is pretty damn good. I know a lot of people say from that far away you can't tell the distance but I was in Best Buy to buy some GoPro accessories a few days ago and they had a Samsung 55" 4k OLED HDR TV there that was breath taking 50 foot away. I walked all the way over to look at it and it stood out like a sore thumb next to the rest of the 4k TV's around it. So that is 4k next to 4k and it was a Big difference. 1080p would have, well not been so hot I would guess.

Cake at a Pizza joint, Wow am not too sure I would cake after eating a Pizza! Now Sweet Potato pie after Pizza, ehh maybe.

Wow that thing is crazy good at high ISO's! Camera lust. Super small footprint also. Well done.

I did a lot of crazy things back them. I was the first person in Ohio to ever own a IBM XT computer around 1982. It had a 4mb, yeah mb hard drive in it and 64k, yeah k of memory. I paid over 7,000 bucks for it. I was maybe the first person in the world two have to video monitors hooked up at the same time to a PC computer, maybe any type of computer. I was trying to teach my daughter Digital Turtle Graphics and I wanted a Monochrome monitor for text, and a RGB color monitor for the graphics, running at the same time, to made it easier for her to learn. I had a degree in Computer Science at the time. I called Digital Computers and they thought I was crazy, not going to happen, not possible. And then I called IBM and they said We Never ever thought about doing that. About 3 months later they wrote me a one off machine language program to make it happen. I had my picture and computer setup in their corporate newsletter, they gave me 500 dollars and a 600 dollar "six pack" I/O board for coming up with the idea. A few months later anyone could do it if they wanted to. I also had a business called The Data Bank Company going at the same time. I was on the Web before there was a thing called the web. It was out of Phoenix, Arizona. Cost 250 dollars a month. It was mostly just for Colleges. I was one of the few in the world that was on it as a regular person. I can't remember the name any more. I did research for court cases for lawyers. I would download the data all night, I had a 300 baud modem with a 256k modem buffer on it. And it print out using 3 Epson printers going 10 hours a day, I would wear out all 3 of them nearly each month! used a 20# box of printer paper a day. Charged 60 bucks an hour back them. A ton of money in the early 80's. Worked out of my home part time. I was a BUSY bastard in those days. On the foreskin of technology as they say Lol.

"Well bigger pixels with same count would be bigger sensor". ahh, you can only put so many pixels on a sensor. If you have a "bigger sensor" those same sized pixels would not fill up a larger sensor. So you would have smaller "wells" to capture light with. Pixels Have to cover the entire sensor. The more you have the Smaller they have to be. Hell maybe we are saying the same thing, but there is no way in heck you can have unbelievable low light using a sensor with say 50mb on a FF sensor.. Unless it is a MF sensor with HUGE sensors. And that is why MF cameras are so good. Large pixels per sq inch to gather more light.. One of the best older low light Cine cameras is a Sony F3. It only had like a 3.4 mp sensor in it. It is so the pixels, pixel pitch, can be huge to gather more light. And 2mp is all you need for 1080p anyways. Hell when I got in Broadcast TV the top of the line Sony 3 Tube Cine 2/3 cameras had less than 1mp total because they were only 480i. And they weighed over 20 pounds. And before we could use them the techs had to turn them on at least an hour before we could even shoot them to "Warm" them up to be stable. And after that they had techs that checked them for correct color balance before we could go out and shoot them in the field. They only did like 550 lines of resolution. Just Sony Beta. They cost about $100,000.00 a camera with deck.. When the first 2/3 CCD Sony Cine Cameras we had came in they did 720p @24fps and they had 1mp total. Anything above 24p was interlaced video, not true intra p footage. They weighed around 18 pounds or a bit less. They would do like 750 lines of resolution. That was Sony Beta SP. They cost about 75 to $80,000.00 a camera with deck.. Man how things have changed specs wise, but I bet the cost are damn near as much in real dollars as then. It was CRAZY ASS money to have a TV station back them. Millions and Millions of dollars, and that was insane crazy money back in the late 70's. I remember the President of the company coming in once, , nearly pulling his hair out LoL, asking did we Really need another new switcher that cost nearly 1 million dollars to replace our old one!! I remember also the pedestal tripod for the main news camera on the floor cost 65,000 bucks alone. With the camera , box lens, and tripod it was close to $250,000.00. And we has 3 of those, 2 of them when I worked there were older though. Crazy stuff. I can't imagine what it cost TV stations to switch to Digital from Analog TV!!!! You just can't go into it a little at a time, it had to be all or nothing! Old memories from a old guy LoL. My one daughter in California still has 2 Sony 2/3 3 CCD cameras and recording decks, tripods, chargers, etc at her house I had in the 80"s I bought. She majored in Creative Writing at the time to help with the dialog. I was one of first people I knew in Ohio that was doing freelance broadcast video Ads for local people back them. Crazy times. I had more business than I could do part time at the time. I had very good credit at the time LoL. You know even now is a good time to do local business Ads for people to help pay off your gear and hone your skills. Same opportunity now as then. It will never go away. People have to advertise. And they think you are God until you hand them the bill Lol. I have seen grown men nearly faint, Heh. The more takes the more money is a good thing to stress LoL.

Well it is not the pixel count, it is the pixel size!

I like pie.

Wow that is cheap. Like 168 bucks here nearly half price. They are a good lens.

I don't know, but as much as any of those Canon bodies are you could buy a Canon C100 for the video part of it.. And you can take great pictures with just about any camera made in the last five years. My Favorite would be the Canon 1DC, but it is a data hog in 4k for a lot of what you want. The mkIV has just too much of a crop in 4k for me to swallow. The mkIII is great for the Magic Lateran hack, but a little soft in 1080p. Some might think the Canons are a "downgrade" to the NX1 LoL. Hmm interesting.. Killer video, 28mp stills, great body layout, great lenses..... Yeah, get a C100 with the DPAF and be done with it. Now if you want stealth well maybe not, but I would argue none of the above Canon DSLR's are very stealthy either. Buy a Sony RX100 mk V if you want stealth.

This is starting to sound like DPR now..

He explains it better than I can. I agree, think I would go with the inter. https://wolfcrow.com/blog/intra-frame-vs-inter-frame-compression/

Anyone seen or used this brand of ND filter? The No X Effect part is the most interesting to me. http://en.nisifilters.com/circular-nd-filters#VND

I really liked it. I think the coloring fit the movie quite well. Cuts were done on the most part cleanly. I think you did a great overall job. I see little I would change. Good story to boot.

This article, towards the bottom, shows some DR ratings between Film and Digital cameras. https://wolfcrow.com/blog/where-cameras-stand-in-dynamic-range-film-vs-digital/

Not sure if this has been posted.

Jack of all trades. Really well thought out. But I bet it isn't cheap for all of it. I have a lot of Zacuto stuff and it is made about as well as you can make stuff. http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/12/04/zacuto-gh5-no-cage-cage-hands-review/

Pretty good articles about Post Production Audio. https://www.provideocoalition.com/tag/mixingmondays/

Check how low this price is for a F3 and they have 2 of them!! https://www.adorama.com/us 866269.html

Well this short is being considered for a award for something. More than me and I bet a lot of people on here are! Better than I have up on the web. But yeah I guess we all need to learn "To Dance" LoL. Hell it might actually help. But I need to be a bit younger to do what they did in the end. Pretty crazy video overall.

I think what is lost a lot in this thread is Content!! I watched this short and still have no clue what it was shot on and don't really care. The "Storytelling" was so good, at least to me, that I never really looked at the film in a "hell what camera was used,", I was immersed in the script, the output, not the what is was shot on. It could have been shot on a Barbie Cam I don't care. It is the old saying Content is king, and in this case to me it was. Write a good story and it works, plain and simple no matter the tool you use.. So yeah a old 3 ccd ENG camera can work just as well as a new Arri If you have a good story.