HockeyFan12

I hate to say it, but I agree. Only maybe 5% of tv and 20% of theatrical features (I'm guessing, but it's along these lines) are shot on RAW. Because it's not worth the extra expense on productions already costing $250,000/day to get that last tiny little bit of image quality. And yet it's a huge omission on a camera that costs $8000? 
You can't expect everything. Or you can, but you'll be disappointed. 

I hate to say it, but I agree. Only maybe 5% of tv and 20% of theatrical features (I'm guessing, but it's along these lines) are shot on RAW. Because it's not worth the extra expense on productions already costing $250,000/day to get that last tiny little bit of image quality. And yet it's a huge omission on a camera that costs $8000? 
You can't expect everything. Or you can, but you'll be disappointed. 

I hate to say it, but I agree. Only maybe 5% of tv and 20% of theatrical features (I'm guessing, but it's along these lines) are shot on RAW. Because it's not worth the extra expense on productions already costing $250,000/day to get that last tiny little bit of image quality. And yet it's a huge omission on a camera that costs $8000? 
You can't expect everything. Or you can, but you'll be disappointed. 

Most of the "micro jitters" and unnatural motion you get with a smaller camera body goes away when you fully rig up even a small cinema camera, so I don't see it as being as important a feature on a larger-bodied camera like this. 
Most union camera ops would laugh at the idea of using any image stabilizer because the behavior is too erratic and they'd rather just use a very balanced handheld rig or proper steadicam, but for wedding videographers and hobbyists I can see the appeal. I use OIS all the time, but I'm a hobbyist.
I still don't think IBIS is much of an omission, also for the reasons you mention.
The question is, what does the C200 lack that the C700 has and what does the EVA1 lack that the Varicam has? The answer is... not much. Even if you can only afford to rent one of these and a few light panels, you have all the tools you need to produce gorgeous content. The barrier to entry is shockingly low. I'm not sure if that's a good thing for aspiring DPs or not tbh.... Either the best or worst time to get into the market, depending on how you look at it.

Wow, pretty awesome. I prefer the Varicam's image to the F55. Cleaner, better color. 
Seriously, this and the C200 are 98% of an Alexa for $7500. There's no more excuse for bad looking footage. (Except the lighting and art department budgets lol.)
Amazing price/performance. Content to see a lack of image stabilization, though I'm sure some people would appreciate it. It's a heavy body and most pros (this looks like a professional camera) frown on IS of all types. I don't think anyone was really expecting it in a full-sized camera body, even if it was on a few wish lists. 

Believe me, I know. I'm working on a few Netflix series now and YouTube and Hulu series, too. (Well, not at this very moment but this year.) Netflix is pickiest about cameras. YouTube will accept 4k Alexa footage and most of their content is shot on 4k-upscaling Alexas. Netflix won't accept Alexa footage so I'm mostly seeing Red and F55 and I think there's some C300 Mk II mixed in, too. My preference would be Alexa but it's their choice to make.
But yes, they'll buy rights to anything even if it's in 1080p, even if they later release it as an original. 
I'm only saying that at the low end of the industry where I work, only Netflix really cares about 4k, and even they will accept 1080p content for their originals (if used sparingly or if a show or movie is produced before they acquire it).
I don't think that changes too much until you're working on tentpoles. The features I work on are all 2k DCP deliverables even if they're shot on 4k.
I guess my only point is, if you need 4k, you will know, because your clients will tell you before you roll a frame of footage. So speculating about it is a bit foolish. Whoever needs it knows they need it from the get go.

Believe me, I know. I'm working on a few Netflix series now and YouTube and Hulu series, too. (Well, not at this very moment but this year.) Netflix is pickiest about cameras. YouTube will accept 4k Alexa footage and most of their content is shot on 4k-upscaling Alexas. Netflix won't accept Alexa footage so I'm mostly seeing Red and F55 and I think there's some C300 Mk II mixed in, too. My preference would be Alexa but it's their choice to make.
But yes, they'll buy rights to anything even if it's in 1080p, even if they later release it as an original. 
I'm only saying that at the low end of the industry where I work, only Netflix really cares about 4k, and even they will accept 1080p content for their originals (if used sparingly or if a show or movie is produced before they acquire it).
I don't think that changes too much until you're working on tentpoles. The features I work on are all 2k DCP deliverables even if they're shot on 4k.
I guess my only point is, if you need 4k, you will know, because your clients will tell you before you roll a frame of footage. So speculating about it is a bit foolish. Whoever needs it knows they need it from the get go.

If I were still shooting, I would probably buy what my clients wanted me to buy. If I started getting asked for 4k, I'd buy a 4k camera. Otherwise, I wouldn't. And I'd shoot in whatever the lowest spec'd format they'd accept is.
As a hobbyist, I would just buy whatever I wanted and not care about what other people are doing with their money one way or the other. 
To this extent, I think debates about 4k are a bit absurd because our needs all vary so much. We should just be doing our own research at this point and not question what others are doing unless they specifically ask for advice.
I think the low end and high end will adopt 4k before anyone else. What separates Netflix and Youtube (and Amazon) is that their distribution is all digital, whereas many networks are still getting content delivered in HDCAMSR tape. There's so much 1080p infrastructure in television. And the cost of shifting vfx (in particular, but editorial in general) to 4k is massive, potentially millions of dollars for tentpoles. But they can afford that. 
So I see Netflix, the ultra low end (where you don't need to buy and maintain a large gigabit ethernet network for post because it's all done locally), and the very high end leading the way for 4k. I think bread and butter stuff, shooting for tv and ads and whatnot, that's gonna be 1080p for the near future. 
What is funny is seeing content shot at 4k or 6k that goes through the whole post process like that only to deliver in 2k. Your resolution is only as high as the weakest link, usually a vfx house that doesn't have the horsepower to render CG at 4k.
 

If I were still shooting, I would probably buy what my clients wanted me to buy. If I started getting asked for 4k, I'd buy a 4k camera. Otherwise, I wouldn't. And I'd shoot in whatever the lowest spec'd format they'd accept is.
As a hobbyist, I would just buy whatever I wanted and not care about what other people are doing with their money one way or the other. 
To this extent, I think debates about 4k are a bit absurd because our needs all vary so much. We should just be doing our own research at this point and not question what others are doing unless they specifically ask for advice.
I think the low end and high end will adopt 4k before anyone else. What separates Netflix and Youtube (and Amazon) is that their distribution is all digital, whereas many networks are still getting content delivered in HDCAMSR tape. There's so much 1080p infrastructure in television. And the cost of shifting vfx (in particular, but editorial in general) to 4k is massive, potentially millions of dollars for tentpoles. But they can afford that. 
So I see Netflix, the ultra low end (where you don't need to buy and maintain a large gigabit ethernet network for post because it's all done locally), and the very high end leading the way for 4k. I think bread and butter stuff, shooting for tv and ads and whatnot, that's gonna be 1080p for the near future. 
What is funny is seeing content shot at 4k or 6k that goes through the whole post process like that only to deliver in 2k. Your resolution is only as high as the weakest link, usually a vfx house that doesn't have the horsepower to render CG at 4k.
 

Believe me, I know. I'm working on a few Netflix series now and YouTube and Hulu series, too. (Well, not at this very moment but this year.) Netflix is pickiest about cameras. YouTube will accept 4k Alexa footage and most of their content is shot on 4k-upscaling Alexas. Netflix won't accept Alexa footage so I'm mostly seeing Red and F55 and I think there's some C300 Mk II mixed in, too. My preference would be Alexa but it's their choice to make.
But yes, they'll buy rights to anything even if it's in 1080p, even if they later release it as an original. 
I'm only saying that at the low end of the industry where I work, only Netflix really cares about 4k, and even they will accept 1080p content for their originals (if used sparingly or if a show or movie is produced before they acquire it).
I don't think that changes too much until you're working on tentpoles. The features I work on are all 2k DCP deliverables even if they're shot on 4k.
I guess my only point is, if you need 4k, you will know, because your clients will tell you before you roll a frame of footage. So speculating about it is a bit foolish. Whoever needs it knows they need it from the get go.

There are of course billions who have to penny-pinch to make their living. Everyone on EOSHD already lives in relative luxury, because one could as well get a basic equipment for free. I gave away an old HDV camera and an old computer to a young enthusiast, and I actually envied him, because he used both so creatively. I could as well have sold the items on Ebay (and buy a third set of headphones in return), but at that time it seemed the right thing to do. People actually are like that. They want to do the right thing. Poor people, you know how generous and unselfish many of them are. Rich people too. They usually have a very good instinct to sense if someone just tries to steal their money or help them spend it to passionately create something. 
Film always had these two aspects. It was costly, and production companies wanted it to be lucrative. On a big scale, cinema always was expensive in the making and cheap and silly in the outcome. Producers were cynics.
Short films, on the other hand, are difficult to sell but easier to finance. A lot of people will do the right thing and invest their precious time in them, with no realistic prospect of getting payed, they'll allow you to use their home as set, equipment rentals will make special prices and offer free assistance, local businesses will make reasonable contributions for being mentioned as sponsors and, if shown all the effort put into it, wealthy art lovers (so not DJT) will be happy to help with money. They know it'll be gone for good, literally.
And corruption too. See The Godfather. The Corleones are more honest, faithful and often even more unselfish than the other characters. They want to do the right thing. It's a film about power, corruption and violence. And love and hate and passion. Not about money. Strange as this may sound, money is overrated.

Yeah, the 4.6K is nice but the other black magic cameras have worse DR than the 2.5k, by quite a bit, as you've noticed. I believe the Epic MX has worse DR, too. 
If you want the same DR, then it's A7S (but I am not a fan of that camera at all) or Dragon or C300 Mk II or FS7? The 2.5k has incredible DR. I don't think you'll find anything much better for under $10k.
Is there a PL speed booster?
4.6k Ursa has got to be the cheapest thing. :/ Alexas are down to under $20k used now and the price/performance on that is unbeatable. But that's a big investment and a difficult camera to use with a crew of two. Not 4k, though, either.

Shocker, I know. I just find there to be some tacit misogyny here and disrespect to actors, too.
About ten years ago, I had a long talk with one of the directors of Mad Men. Back when he was working as a DP on the Sopranos and I think directing some episodes, too, I'm not sure. One of the lead actors on the show directed an episode and it was the first thing directed. And this guy was DPing it and was pretty frustrated at first that the actor/director didn't know much about blocking or lens choice and left a lot of those choices up to the DP. But later, he realized that the actor was getting incredible performances out of everyone, and ended up contributing a lot to the episode, just in a different way from someone with another background. 
I don't know if Robin Wright knows her stuff technically, but I won't assume she doesn't. And if she doesn't, I wouldn't assume she's a bad director for that reason alone. Being on set is the best form of film school. There are plenty of great actors turned directors.
Anyhow that's just my opinion. 

Shocker, I know. I just find there to be some tacit misogyny here and disrespect to actors, too.
About ten years ago, I had a long talk with one of the directors of Mad Men. Back when he was working as a DP on the Sopranos and I think directing some episodes, too, I'm not sure. One of the lead actors on the show directed an episode and it was the first thing directed. And this guy was DPing it and was pretty frustrated at first that the actor/director didn't know much about blocking or lens choice and left a lot of those choices up to the DP. But later, he realized that the actor was getting incredible performances out of everyone, and ended up contributing a lot to the episode, just in a different way from someone with another background. 
I don't know if Robin Wright knows her stuff technically, but I won't assume she doesn't. And if she doesn't, I wouldn't assume she's a bad director for that reason alone. Being on set is the best form of film school. There are plenty of great actors turned directors.
Anyhow that's just my opinion. 

There's capital and then there's cultural capital. People will leverage their names to get cheap labor. It might not be right, but it's their right to do so. I also strongly doubt everyone worked free. No one is being forced to donate or forced to work. It's all voluntary, even if it's frustrating. 
I hear you, though. I have worked on high profile festival projects for cheap mostly because I wanted the credit, thinking I could exchange cultural capital for actual money down the line. We'll see how it works out. It definitely really sucks but I only have myself to blame if it doesn't.
If anything, it should inspire you. If you can get better results for free than the House of Cards crew can get with $50k and tons of favors, you'll be doing so well soon enough that you needn't be jealous of them. Let it inspire you! Whenever you see something made by high end pros and think "I can do better," the only injustice is that you're not giving yourself the chance to prove you can. It's not like anyone involved in this had upsetting you in mind, they don't know who any of us are and don't care. So maybe it's not that their work is sub-par for the money, maybe it's that your work is better than you realize and you already have the skill to be in that upper echelon.
If you do, then you owe it to yourself to prove it. Or admit to yourself it's not your priority. If you have the talent and want to do something with it but don't, that's the only injustice, you being unfair to you.
(The Cannes shorts program isn't very competitive, either, but yes, nepotism plays a major major factor in the festival scene. Think of it like a social club trying to maintain an image and a guest list, with the films as the entertainment for the club. The social and branding components are more important than the quality of the content. But it makes sense, each festival represents a brand, and a brand is cultural capital.)

There's capital and then there's cultural capital. People will leverage their names to get cheap labor. It might not be right, but it's their right to do so. I also strongly doubt everyone worked free. No one is being forced to donate or forced to work. It's all voluntary, even if it's frustrating. 
I hear you, though. I have worked on high profile festival projects for cheap mostly because I wanted the credit, thinking I could exchange cultural capital for actual money down the line. We'll see how it works out. It definitely really sucks but I only have myself to blame if it doesn't.
If anything, it should inspire you. If you can get better results for free than the House of Cards crew can get with $50k and tons of favors, you'll be doing so well soon enough that you needn't be jealous of them. Let it inspire you! Whenever you see something made by high end pros and think "I can do better," the only injustice is that you're not giving yourself the chance to prove you can. It's not like anyone involved in this had upsetting you in mind, they don't know who any of us are and don't care. So maybe it's not that their work is sub-par for the money, maybe it's that your work is better than you realize and you already have the skill to be in that upper echelon.
If you do, then you owe it to yourself to prove it. Or admit to yourself it's not your priority. If you have the talent and want to do something with it but don't, that's the only injustice, you being unfair to you.
(The Cannes shorts program isn't very competitive, either, but yes, nepotism plays a major major factor in the festival scene. Think of it like a social club trying to maintain an image and a guest list, with the films as the entertainment for the club. The social and branding components are more important than the quality of the content. But it makes sense, each festival represents a brand, and a brand is cultural capital.)

I'm really curious to hear about how to monetize on streaming, particularly with bit torrent, etc. getting in the way. Can you PM me?

Even if no one is really enthusiastic about Canon Log on the 5D Mark IV (I'm not sure why, the crop factor is only 1.08 compared with an Alexa, and that's not all that much) it signals the recognition by Canon that they need to push 4k downmarket and improve on specs if they want to compete. This could be a pretty great deal, exactly what FS5 owners wanted but didn't get. :/
The silly part, of course, is that most high end productions are still 1080p/2k and only the very highest and the low end are 4k. 4k almost makes more sense on point and shoot than it does on the C300 Mk II, which sold well possibly specifically because it was so conservatively spec'd. Arri doesn't give you true 4k unless you're shooting 65mm!

Lol I saw that on craigslist I think.

God, Dinesh D'Souza and Steve Bannon, AKA Otis the Town Drunk! What a couple of useless, goofy bastards they are. Yeah I hope no one aspires to become a film maker in their image.
And what the hell is that fat ugly guy about 50ish by now, that makes movies about hating Everything a Republican likes and loves Everything Democrats like. I hate that squirrely bastard also!
There is nothing worse than an extremist on either side. I hate all of them.

Good advice.

I found the original Red (pre-MX) to be borderline broken. I think I used one of the first ones a few months after it came out and everything about it was awful, ergonomics were horrible, color was a complete joke, incredibly noisy except when rated at around 250-400 ISO which meant it clipped faster than a Canon dSLR and it did not produce an acceptable image in tungsten light color because it was too noisy under any conditions when starved of blue light, very soft OLPF that made it softer than most 1080p cameras today, and even when they fixed the color processing in redcine it still had a green tint to tungsten light. I would rate it at about the same dynamic range as a 7D and much slower, but with a good smooth image with nice tonality and absolutely zero aliasing. In full day light you can get a nice image from it but with very limited dynamic range. But look at the Informant, every tungsten-lit scene is bright orange for a reason, they had to process 3200K-lit scenes at 5600K or else the image would have been unacceptable. That said, the movie looks decent overall. With heaps of light it had a better image than you get today from dSLRS etc. But it was essentially broken out of the box, which makes it more impressive to me that the Dragon/DXL is pretty darned great now (minus some color issues that remain, but which a talented colorist can largely fix)!  The Red has a bit of a more digital look than the Alexa and I think in the long run the digital look will be more popular than film, sharper and punchier color, more familiar to YouTube audiences while still very high end and impressive. The new Red stuff has a more digital look in arguably a good way, just not my style. 
I also feel the Red One was harder than an Alexa or F55 for a one man band to operate (I think two people could effectively use an Alexa on a slower-paced set, you just need a full team to move as fast around a narrative set as possible) because it takes 90 minutes to boot up and has short battery life and crashes a lot. But with new firmware, etc. I bet it's usable now. I think you can get a slightly better image than a GH2, for instance, under similar conditions, but that it's not worth the effort. I would rather have a CX00 or any Sony cinema camera that shoots RAW or at least properly implemented 10 bit SLOG3/SGAMUT3 (because their color is broken on their cameras that don't) by far though. The F5 and F55, neither of which I particularly like, are orders of magnitude better than the original Red, and slightly beyond the MX. Their RAW is competitive with the Dragon, even. The Alexa doesn't need RAW its image processing is so advanced and refined.
The Red MX, while still clunky to operate, is still quite formidable, however. Social Network looks good. Fincher processes all his films through a very expensive post process (Lowry process) that costs up to seven figures per feature, and that's one reason those movies look so smooth and so good and clean, but he still shot them on just a regular Red MX. The image is nearly on par with the C500 but it is softer, with worse color, etc. but also a little bit less of a digital sharpening edge. 
I wouldn't want one for free lol but other people like them! The Red One MX is a pretty solid performer, however, and potential bargain for someone with the time to babysit a slower-to-operate camera, you might love it. The original I think is just too clunky.

I found the original Red (pre-MX) to be borderline broken. I think I used one of the first ones a few months after it came out and everything about it was awful, ergonomics were horrible, color was a complete joke, incredibly noisy except when rated at around 250-400 ISO which meant it clipped faster than a Canon dSLR and it did not produce an acceptable image in tungsten light color because it was too noisy under any conditions when starved of blue light, very soft OLPF that made it softer than most 1080p cameras today, and even when they fixed the color processing in redcine it still had a green tint to tungsten light. I would rate it at about the same dynamic range as a 7D and much slower, but with a good smooth image with nice tonality and absolutely zero aliasing. In full day light you can get a nice image from it but with very limited dynamic range. But look at the Informant, every tungsten-lit scene is bright orange for a reason, they had to process 3200K-lit scenes at 5600K or else the image would have been unacceptable. That said, the movie looks decent overall. With heaps of light it had a better image than you get today from dSLRS etc. But it was essentially broken out of the box, which makes it more impressive to me that the Dragon/DXL is pretty darned great now (minus some color issues that remain, but which a talented colorist can largely fix)!  The Red has a bit of a more digital look than the Alexa and I think in the long run the digital look will be more popular than film, sharper and punchier color, more familiar to YouTube audiences while still very high end and impressive. The new Red stuff has a more digital look in arguably a good way, just not my style. 
I also feel the Red One was harder than an Alexa or F55 for a one man band to operate (I think two people could effectively use an Alexa on a slower-paced set, you just need a full team to move as fast around a narrative set as possible) because it takes 90 minutes to boot up and has short battery life and crashes a lot. But with new firmware, etc. I bet it's usable now. I think you can get a slightly better image than a GH2, for instance, under similar conditions, but that it's not worth the effort. I would rather have a CX00 or any Sony cinema camera that shoots RAW or at least properly implemented 10 bit SLOG3/SGAMUT3 (because their color is broken on their cameras that don't) by far though. The F5 and F55, neither of which I particularly like, are orders of magnitude better than the original Red, and slightly beyond the MX. Their RAW is competitive with the Dragon, even. The Alexa doesn't need RAW its image processing is so advanced and refined.
The Red MX, while still clunky to operate, is still quite formidable, however. Social Network looks good. Fincher processes all his films through a very expensive post process (Lowry process) that costs up to seven figures per feature, and that's one reason those movies look so smooth and so good and clean, but he still shot them on just a regular Red MX. The image is nearly on par with the C500 but it is softer, with worse color, etc. but also a little bit less of a digital sharpening edge. 
I wouldn't want one for free lol but other people like them! The Red One MX is a pretty solid performer, however, and potential bargain for someone with the time to babysit a slower-to-operate camera, you might love it. The original I think is just too clunky.

Yeah, that controversy is pretty crazy. From what I recall the fall out of it was even weirder I forget what happened exactly.
I agree, I like the Alexa best. I work with a lot of footage from every manufacturer and it's always my favorite on set or in post (if you have the crew to use it properly). But if you need higher resolution and can't afford the Alexa 65 (who can?) the Red is a good option for 4k or 8k or whatnot I think. Netflix requires 4k and won't take Alexa footage and I think there are more 4k finishes these days (on higher end stuff than I work on). The Dragon isn't bad, it is a step up from the MX and I suspect the DXL is a step up from both. Neither is the F55's RAW bad, fwiw, it's really decent, and I think Sony might be doing some good work putting RAW into the smaller bodies now. SLOG3/SGAMUT 3 is not bad!
Used Alexas are under $20k these days. Rentals are pretty cheap, too. Given that you need a whole camera crew (at $400/day per AC, conservatively, then an operator at $800/day if we're talking union) to use one properly, it seems fairly priced. Even $60k for an Amira, which could be used by a team of two, is nothing next to the lenses and support gears you'd need to properly support it. I think it's priced about right and I'll often see companies buy an Alexa body but no lenses (for that reason). Even the Mini is a beast to operate, not for the faint of heart.
I wish it weren't so expensive, but I also wish I could get the same thing in an owner/op style body... and I can't. So I'm less concerned with not being able to afford it.

There's a write up on the DXL and it seems like there's a lot of custom work being done with the grading presets in particular, and of course the ergonomics. Panavision has a history of renting rehoused lenses, Leica lenses for instance that are simply rehoused still lenses, and the Primos are Leica-based in their own right if original designs, so it's not unlike Panavision to do this. (I have worked with both on set and they are nice lenses!) The red and green chromaticities are too close on the Red cameras and they will always have a ruddy quality I personally find quite objectionable, but the images from the DXL are much improved in this regard and as regards saturation roll off. Light Iron has done some very good work with the camera in terms of default grading profiles. (I've had a lot of stuff I've worked on graded by them recently, and they always do a good job whether with Red or Alexa-originated footage.) Panavision has never sold cameras or lenses, their model is and always will be rental-based, so it's no surprise, but I am disappointed that they use the stock sensor when it has problems with color rendering inherent in it.
I too would rather have an Alexa 65 any day. A fancy Red is still a fancy Red. But I suspect the ergonomic changes and world class support are the biggest improvement, even more than the color. Panavision has a history of doing great work but I do agree it's too bad their large format project didn't make it. :/ Also the last two times I used Panavision kits the gear was beat to hell; it was their ultimate discount stuff and it did work and get the job done, but it was a bit disappointing. The Primos are marvelous lenses, though, very Leica-like. In fact I shot with one of the first Panavised Reds so in a way this is no surprise to me to that extent, though the last feature I did with Panavision gear (4x3 Alexa C Series anamorphic then graded by Light Iron) was an Arri show all the way. I was not on set for that (I was just doing post) but believe the gear for that project (higher end was it was) was world class. I think Panavision is getting it together, or so I hope, and I wouldn't be too put off by this camera. What matters more is the support they offer their clients, and that seems to be quite good despite my few bad experiences with their cheaper gear (which was still a great bargain, to be fair).