HockeyFan12

Right, but that's not to do with the vfx. It's to do with the dp's choice for the format and the camera. The extra resolving power gives him more dynamic range in the shadows due to less noise, for example, compared to a single ALEV III sensor. Also it's to do with the joys of shooting a digital version of a 65mm film back and using 65mm lenses.
I just came off a very high profile vfx heavy film shot on the 65 and the pulls were 3.5k. So that extra res is typically not making it to the vfx vendors by the time they start. But the extra IQ is baked in on the downres. And the vendors would have reduced them down further before they start work because the delivery required for DI is below 3.5k. So they will shrink resolution wherever they can in order to get the job done on time.

I'm not sure how the whole idea of "higher resolution is good/required for vfx" started, but it's a myth. Practically everything I've worked on has been Alexa plates at 2-3.5k. Particularly for a cg-heavy film like this, it's common to do it at 2k or a bit above, just because it gets way too slow and expensive. I think ironically 4k happens more at the low budget end, and then  of course there's Netflix originals (lol).
It makes a lot more sense if this was primarily shot on Alexa 65, but I do think the FX3/FX6 sensor is very good. It has the same highlight range as the Venice/Venice 2, which is to say it doesn't hold a candle to an Alexa 65 but for the money it's very good. Where the Venice has it beat is that it's cleaner in the shadows, but that's not accounting for the ISO 12800 option with the FX3/6 if you don't mind half a stop less in the highlights. 

Ha ha! Even 6 is enough for most uses. During lockdown, to give myself a project I bought a few 300Ds and 400Ds on eBay and sent them around the country, asking people to take self portraits which I then edited.

some stills from a new short i dp’d. Still ungraded, some still need to be cropped a bit.

 

BM Pocket. Either the 4k or 6k - I’d let your lens preference decide. But only if you’re looking for the best image quality at the price - if convenience is a priority then I guess any of the affordable mirrorless cameras on the market (Sony, Sigma, Panasonic, Canon etc) will do a superb job in capable hands.
if the camera is fixed and you know the preferred focal length then the 6k plus a Zeiss EF would be a good combination. Or a used (and cheaper) Nikon alternative with F-EF adapter. 

The choice isn’t really “what camera?”, it’s how do you want/need/like to work? AF or MF etc.

Are these full length feature films? I can't imagine how anyone makes money off of a feature film in that price range. Is the pay based on the final profits after the film is sold? I have worked on some photo shoots that had a bigger budget than that and that was just photography. Even with just my solo day rate I couldn't film a feature film for that price range let alone all of the additional expenses that goes into making something like that.
I know a videographer that worked on something in that price range but he was still waiting yrs later to get paid because he got almost nothing up front and instead was getting paid based on a percentage of the sales. 
Just trying to wrap my head around how shooting/editing/color grading/delivering that much footage could be financially profitable especially considering all of the expenses and time that I imagine goes into making a feature film.

Fair point about the price. I paid $20 or something for mine. That said, I adore it and prefer it over any shoulder rig I've seen for smaller cameras. (Nothing against a weighted shoulder rig, but building something that large out seems to defeat the purpose of a small camera to me.) But YMMV.
Lenses with IS and/or a loupe are good options too.

I guess longer lenses feel less intimate to me. As an extreme example lets say being on 16mm for a close up feels to me like you are actually right next to the person vs say being on a 85mm. Though I would agree that longer lenses generally look more pleasing. All personal preference at the end of the day of course.

Yes, softer image = more filmic somehow.
 

I have not owned the Pocket 6k but have shot with the Pocket 4k and the Alexa side by side. The Pocket 6k is a great camera. I guess I have never been a huge Blackmagic fan. I like the images from their OG cameras however they are just funky to use.

 The new pocket cams just feel cheap compared to Panasonic gear. It is really just my personal bias. Blackmagic is definitely the easiest option for cinema features and codecs for a really cheap price. 

I do like the low light capabilities of the S1 line and the extra dynamic range is also nice to have. I think using color space transform to ACES is a great way to gain better control of WB without having to shoot in RAW. I am not sure how that workflow affects the color accuracy of LUTS, such as the Emotive color Alexa luts. 

The biggest benefit of shooting RAW to me is the ability to fine tune white balance. It is a critical feature when trying to match cameras. With the S1 emotive color got the contrast and roll off really nice but the WB threw off the color when shooting side by side with an actual ARRI ALEXA. An Aces workflow might be a way around that though. 

I think for now I shall stick to the Sigma. It is a great camera, it just requires transcoding for certain NLE's, which isn't the end of the world. 

 

I'm more thinking about color rendering. The Venice has enough dynamic range for me as-is. A7S3 is so close but the color is just not quite right and it's annoying. P6K has great color to my eye and internal raw but lacks other things.

I'm more thinking about color rendering. The Venice has enough dynamic range for me as-is. A7S3 is so close but the color is just not quite right and it's annoying. P6K has great color to my eye and internal raw but lacks other things.

That's why the Mini is so extremely popular, but their secondhand prices are still a long way yet from being "affordable".

The HEVC codec is pretty good. Take a look at ProRes raw footage from the S5/S1(H) and compare it with HEVC. It's got less texture (less noise), but it's not really a world apart. 
But then compare with clips from the P4K and P6K. Black Magic has color in a better starting place. Maybe it's because Black Magic has the luxury of making Resolve. Maybe it is the codec after all. But the P6K is the first camera where I can take a braw clip, bring it into Nuke, run it through ACES, render and not know if it was shot on an Alexa or P6K.
(And with highlight recovery, the dynamic range is even pretty comparable.)
ProRes should be a big step up on the S5IIX. But I don't need it. HEVC is pretty good. The bigger problem I have is I'm just not in love with the S1's color.
I also don't HATE the S1's color. And I don't LOVE the A7SIII's color (too much red in the skin) or even Canon's (too much magenta in the skin). Of course everyone is biased toward what they're used to. But the Alexa, Venice, and P6K look great. (And have greener skin tones.)
The A9II looks great to me too? Starting to get the impression that sensors have an inherent look. The Varicam35 had great color, too. So did the C300 Mk1 for that matter. 😕 

You can download a camera original here in HEVC I think. Adobe has had issues with HEVC and macro blocking in the past; OSX had different issues with gamma shifting. This is old firmware, too, so color might have changed:
The S1's color does not match the Varicam or EVA1 very well. Then again, the A7S3 does not quite match the Venice either as skin tones are quite red. Imo the HEVC codec is actually pretty good.
Panasonic has always had impressive internal processing. First to 4K I think with the GH series, first to 6K downscaled to 4K in a prosumer camera that actually looked good with the EVA1. And the S1 doing 6K is impressive to me too. 
It's an amazing camera. BUT it's also the only camera I've ever worked with where a white surface can look magenta on one side and cyan in the other? There is just this "thin" quality to the color and high contrast look to the mid tones at times. The color and tonality tend to feel a little thin, and it's hard to describe, and probably possible to fix in post.
 
 

Here's the lite version again:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvq3mw4lnek50ps/5DtoRGB Lite.app.zip?dl=0

Here's the lite version again:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvq3mw4lnek50ps/5DtoRGB Lite.app.zip?dl=0

Here's the lite version again:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bvq3mw4lnek50ps/5DtoRGB Lite.app.zip?dl=0

I'll take a look, I should have it backed up somewhere. 

Makes you want to sell all your stuff and buy a camcorder. Hmm. 😬

Thanks, it's no problem getting the lens off the adapter. The adapter just won't mount on the body. I noticed the set screws on the mount seem to be a bit stripped. Starting to think someone returned it because they had the same problem I have. 😕 
This was probably kind of a misguided plan in the first place probably when there are f0.95 lenses available for rent that actually do cover full frame.... but I saw this for 40% off and had to try it.

I would add that from my experience of using a manual focus 58mm Rokkor 1.2 on a 5D3 for photography I found that if I used the optical viewfinder to judge focus, forget it, it was out of focus. I missed it nearly every time.
However, I got an almost 100% success rate by using an LCD viewfinder (remember those?). So you're magnifying the large, high resolution image on the rear LCD screen. It's actually possible to nail focus this way.
 

Speed booster from the link doesn't have electronic contacts, S1 won't crop the picture. Camera won't know what kind of lens is attached. S1/S5 do the crop with ASP lenses when they have electronic contacts and are recognized by the camera.
However I don't think it's a good idea to use FF with speed booster on a FF body. At least you need to try it first.
Recently bought a relatively good and cheap Chinese lens with positive reviews:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-syoptic-50mm-1-1/
Never had such a fast lens and wanted to try one for photography. For video such a shallow DOF is totally unusable. For photography it was a disappointment too. It's a specialized tool only for portraits but at f1.1 it is soft and very difficult to manually focus. Almost any good 50mm f1.4 performs better than this one at f1.4.  Other f/1.1 or f/0.95 don't differ much.
If you are after ultra/super shallow DOF type of lenses try LAOWA 35mm f0.95 or 45mm f0.95 or Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm f0.95. I know people who similar to me bought some of those lenses used them for some time for portraits then sold them. It is really a special tool, you definitely has to like this type of look.

My favorite from the bunch: Panasonic EVA1. Followed by the Canons... :- )

For some reason, I seem to get the most excited about using the worst cameras I have.  I know I'm not alone......  @dreamplayhouse @PannySVHS @QuickHitRecord @mercer
I have some spectacular cameras..  the GH5, BMMCC and OG BMPCC.  The GX85, XC10, X3000, iPhone don't have 10-bit or RAW so aren't in my top tier, but definitely are no slouches....   and yet, it's the GF3 and SJ4000 action cameras that make me the most excited.  My eyes somehow skip over the nicest lenses and camera bodies but yet linger on those cameras and cause "what if" thoughts.  I have similar thoughts about some of my worst lenses too.
It's like there's a satisfaction from getting results that are better than they should be.  A thrill about 'cheating' perhaps?  It's not about image quality, otherwise it'd be the GH5 or BM cameras every time, but it's not.
I think there's something in here about limited dynamic range.  I've noticed that many people seem to be afraid of contrast these days too - maybe it's from staring too long at LOG footage and forgetting that film created rich contrasty images?  Sure, these lower-DR 8-bit 709 cameras clip pretty hard, but according to imaging-resource the GF3 has about 10 stops of dynamic range.  According to ARRI, colour negative film has 5.5 stops of DR between 2% and 90%.  Who knows what film they were talking about but it's a real measurement from a reliable source so it's in the ballpark and worth consideration.  According to Sony rec709 has about 5.2 stops - pretty similar to film.
This means that we can take the 10-stops from the GF3 and add contrast so that we compress a couple of stops into a highlight rolloff and a couple more into the shadow rolloff and we'll be in the right range of contrast.  This equates to 'stretching' the dynamic range of the middle stops.  Assuming that the in-camera profile hasn't compressed any highlights/shadows then we only have to stretch the middle stops by a factor of two, which is do-able - just, but in combination with poor quality compression it benefits from a little blurring to smooth over any jagged transitions.
I also think it might be the level of detail and sharpness.  Steve Yedlin showed that a developed 35mm film has about 2-3K resolving power and high levels of noise (Resolution Demo pt 2 ~19:00).  The sharpness is interesting too - film is resolution limited by how soft it is, whereas digital isn't.  However, on moderate bitrate cameras the codec tends to obscure fine detail (but not creating artefacts so bad they have overly sharp edges), so this is a comparable aspect too.  It's one reason I shoot 1080p on the GH5 - to control the fine detail to a more organic amount.
BUT, regardless of the above..  I just know that I get more excited by these 'lesser' cameras than the better ones.  I'm looking forward to getting better at grading with higher contrast looks, film emulation looks, and other nicer and stronger and more nostalgic image processing.