Benjamin Hilton

I really don't get the hype about phone cameras for cinema. No matter how you slice it, they are really expensive hard to use cameras for what they do. Like Kye broke down, the iPhone 15 can do an okay image at a basically fixed focal length and depth of field in bright light. Even with that, the image looks over sharp, and just weird in many cases. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the latest phone camera tech for personal use. The ability to pull my phone out of my pocket and get great photos and videos of my kids whenever I want is really nice. For that purpose, the quality looks great. But when it comes to shooting anything more serious, I could think of half a dozen cameras that are way cheaper, and would land you with much better looking, easier to capture, and more reliable results than a phone camera would. 

With an iPhone, how do you do a heavy handheld look? What do you do when the battery dies? How about overheating? Lowlight? Shallow depth of field? ND filters? Timecode? Audio? The list goes on and on...

It's basically the wrong tool for the job. It's like the latest hatchback advertising how much lumber you can stuff in the trunk for your latest construction project. It's great if you need it every once and a while, but if you do construction seriously, any old cheap pickup truck from the 1980s will do a much much better/easier job. 

Totally an FX6 for me. I'd love for it to be an Alexa 35, but I know with the crazy amounts of content I have to produce on a daily basis it would be more of a hinderance than a help. 

I really do think there is something non-subjective to our current state of frame rates. This is coming from someone who likes to push the norms and who would have no problem filming in higher frame rates if I thought they looked good. As someone said earlier, I really think the motion blur of 24p emulates the dream state, it puts us into a state of believing the world we are immersed in as fake as it actually is. 30p is smoother and more realistic, but realistic has its downsides. If I wanted my films to look realistic there are a heck of a lot of things I would do differently other than frame rate. 

To me, content shot in 60-120p look nauseating and fake, I can't stand the look personally. I know this is somewhat subjective, but there are quite a few film goers that experience this. 

30p looks realistic, but watchable. I run a fairly successful YouTube channel with news commentary studio style and we opt to shoot 30p for most of that content. 

24p just looks magical, dream like, immersive. I shoot all of my cinematic documentaries and more dramatized emotional content this way. 

At the end of the day this isn't about conserving or progressing. The looks are different, they do different things to the viewers. People keep saying that we need to leave the old ways behind and "progress" to higher frame rates. Progression is fine, but when you want to change something that has been working for generations, the burden of proof falls on you to prove the progression is actually better. Many successful directors have tried this with the examples others have mentioned, and overall it seems like people have not appreciated the experiment. 

Still been rocking the S1 and GH5s for a lot of content this year. Finally mixed it with some Canon R7 which I'm really liking. Lower dynamic range and noisier image than the S1, but the autofocus and a lens adapter ND filter has made me reach for it more and more. Just hating in front of the lens NDs more and more these days. 

Our S1 finally just quit on us, so looking at hopefully re-doing our whole system, really been needing to for a while. Just bought a Sony a7 IV and lens, hoping to eventually pair that with another one and a FX6, along with a couple more e-mount lenses. That should set us up for a while I think. We have to work really fast, so practical considerations are starting to matter more and more these days. Hence the FX6 idea. 

Yeah, test test test. I don't have a lot of experience with the original a7s, but I'd imagine nailing your white balance and exposure will help you out a lot. Seems to go a really long way with the older mirrorless cameras. 

Yeah I had the same concern watching YT reviews before I bought an R7, I think it's mainly the users though, not the camera. 

I have both the R7 and the Lumix S1 plus som GH5s. Definitely a bit lower DR on the Canon compared to the S1, but not a big deal overall. Watching where you put your exposure and doing a good rolloff curve in post is much more important than actual numbers in my opinion when it comes to DR though. Seems pretty close to the GH5s IMO

I know the feeling...not a m4/3 fan myself, but the feeling of an era coming to an end with letting go of beloved camera systems. For me it was my FS100, I got so much out of that camera over hundreds of projects it still holds a special place of nostalgia in my heart, even though it was technically a terrible camera in many ways. 

Honesty stuff like this makes me wish Apple would take their phone processing and put it into a super 35 sensor one of these days...Can you imagine if we had modern smart phone processing in a quality Sony chip?

Yeah totally. I would venture to guess though that they put in more effort trying to shoot on an iphone for Tangerine than they would have put in with literally any camera. Plus they couldn't have replicated the look with literally any other camera and a decent colorist. It was basically about the unique idea, which is fine, just not a good reason to shoot other projects on a phone, unless you are getting paid by Apple or something to do it

Kind of like Gerber dropping commercials "proving" they can build a house with a multi tool. You probably can, but if you are going to all the trouble of building, for goodness sake go out and buy yourself a real drill and tape measure. You'll thank yourself a thousand times over. 

That's kind of the thing. Phones can look great, but overall are really tough to film anything serious with. For stuff like Kye is doing and with the right post processing, they can look great. But for more serious narrative or doc work, they are really the wrong tool for the job. Weird HDR, internal storage limitations, overheating, warpy stabilization, hard to manual focus, lens limitations, ND filter hangups, the list goes on and on. If it's all you have, use it. But I would never recommend buying a phone as a camera specifically. You can basically sink that $600-800 into any basic DSLR setup and not only get a better image, but also save yourself a world of headache with actual usability. 

On 6/12/2023 at 10:01 AM, kye said:

Great post - I just wanted to add to this from a colour grading perspective.

I did a colour grading masterclass with Walter Volpatto, a hugely respected senior colourist at Company 3, and it changed my entire concept of how colour grading should be approached.

His basic concept was this:

1. You transform the cameras footage into the right colour space so it can be viewed, and apply any colour treatments that the Director has indicated (like replicating view LUTs or PFEs etc) - this is for the whole timeline
2. You make a QC pass of the footage to make sure it's all good and perhaps even out any small irregularities (e.g if they picked up some outdoor shots and the light changed)
3. At this stage you might develop a few look ideas in preparation for the first review with the Director
4. Then you work with the Director to implement their vision

The idea was that they would have likely shot everything with the lighting ratios and levels that they wanted, so all you have to do is transform it and then you can fine-tune from there.  Contrary to the BS process of grading each shot in sequence that YouTube colourists seem to follow, this process gives you a watchable film in a day or so.  Then you work on the overall look, then perhaps apply different variations on a location/scene basis, and then fine-tune particular shots if you have time.  He was absolutely clear that the job of the colourist was to simply help the Director get one step closer to realising their vision, the last thing you want to do as a colourist is to try and get noticed.

It really introduced me to the concept that they chose the camera package and lenses based on the look they wanted, then lit each scene according to the creative intent from the Director, and so the job of a colourist is to take the creativity that is encapsulated into the files and transform them in such a way that the overall rendering is faithful to what the Director and Cinematographer were thinking would happen to their footage after it had been shot.  Walter mentioned that you can literally colour grade a whole feature in under a week if that's how the Director likes to operate.

I have taken to this process in my own work now too.  I build a node tree that transforms the footage, and applies whatever specific look elements I want from each camera I shoot with, and then it's simply a matter of performing some overall adjustments to the look, and then fine-tuning each shot to make them blend together nicely.

In this way, I think that the process of getting things right up front probably hasn't changed much for a large percentage of productions.

This is 100% spot on. I have a workflow I use for specific cameras. My standard color science is dropped onto my 5" monitor via LUT. In post I apply the same color science with minimal corrections. Sometimes I go on to do a specific grade, but 90% of the time I stick with that because it looks fantastic. This workflow is really awesome because I can really trust what I see on the monitor and fix problems in camera as I go.

IBIS is way too useful of a tool to give up. It's not a replacement for anything, all old school tools still have their place, it's just another really useful tool at times. For doc work I can't tell you how many times I would have killed to have some form of IBIS on a shot and didn't have it back in the day. I do steadicam and tripod work a lot, but I can't tell you how amazing it has been to be able to grab a shot at 200mm with the camera balanced on my knee or pressed up against a wall and it actually look rock solid with IBIS. 

I shoot and edit professional content all day long. While I would love to upgrade to a Red Komodo, or Fx6 or something, I'm still using GH5s, G85s, an S1, etc because I can't really justify the costs of upgrading. It would be fun, but I know the films I'm working on would be much better off dropping that 10k into production instead of gear. 

I just shot an entire $50k doc on an S1 and Canon R6 and am totally happy with the final look. Realistically I think if I get a new camera in the next couple of years, it will be a FS7 or something. Solid image like the S1, just beautiful ergonomics for doc work. Every time I use one it just feels like driving a luxury car... Not necessarily a good business decision, but purely for the joy of use. Not so hard of on the wallet thankfully used these days too.

While upgrading gear is really fun, I think at the end of the day sticking with the same stuff for years on end is the best thing you can do for your image quality, especially if you are working with something decent (like anything made in the last five years) 

I think one side to this whole thing is the fact that for some of us we focus on the other aspects of the business all day long: business, pitching, writing, editing etc. Sometimes having a place to discuss cameras and lights and stuff is just plain fun and relaxing, somewhat pointless, but fun nonetheless. 

I'd give up resolution, viewfinder, any type of raw, photo capabilities. In my book the perfect camera would 14+ stops of real dynamic range, solid 4k up to 120fps, good IBIS, autofocus, ND filters... The only things that hits really close to all of that is the Sony FX6, but it's a bit out of what I can afford. Thinking of picking up a used FS7 one of these days as the prices come down

Honestly something like this would probably do you fine:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/842086-REG/Magnus_VT_4000_VT_4000_Tripod_System.html

On 5/2/2023 at 10:47 AM, kye said:

I think there are three things going on.  

1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.

2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.

3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

Yeah this is really accurate. People use the term "filmic" to describe something wide in variance. Are we talking about 1950s film, 1970s, slide photography, modern 35mm stock etc etc. I'm actually not a huge fan of the crazy 16mm filmic look that's popular right now, nor the 1970s look. I don't mind most modern 35mm stocks (Kodak 8323 and such) a whole lot, but kind of prefer a more modern clean grade overall. 

Here are just a few of the projects I've created recently

On 4/12/2023 at 4:03 AM, Kisaha said:

That is my impression also, punches above its weight..

I too finding it very convenient with the EF ND adapter and usually putting a 18-135mm EF-S there. Also the 70-200mm 4f.

Thanks for confirming!

This is a no budget show we produced with mainly using the S1 with a little a7C thrown in:

On 4/10/2023 at 10:26 AM, Kisaha said:

What do you like in R7? What lenses do you use?

I bought one in the summer as well, but I have still to put it in the real world test..

Is the log footage easy to grade/edit?

Any issues with overheating?

Just a solid camera overall. Better colors IMO than the lumix cameras, good auto focus, good 4k codec etc. 

The DR is a stop or two less than the S1, but probably similar to the GH5s. A little bit worse in low light than the S1. 

For me it's kind of like a GH5 with more solid color and auto focus and no need for a speedbooster. Also been using it with a ND filter lens adapter, so been digging that too. Mainly been living with a Sigma 18-35 on it or a Canon L 70-200.

Technically I should aways go for the S1 because of the better DR and low light, but I keep finding myself go for the R7 because of the user experience 

Doing tons of work with our two GH5s and an S1 still. With our current color pipeline in post, they hold up very well. I even through in a G85 every once and a while when needed and it holds up great in certain situations. We also bought a Canon R7 this last year to do a long distance doc when we just needed another body. Honestly I would trade out all my cameras for more versions of that if I could, it's a really solid system for the price. When needed we through in some gorpo and iphone footage for specific things.  

Totally depends on your workflow. If you are shooting log and want the heavy grading workflow, in most cases 10bit is a must. If you are using a rec709 profile in camera and don't care a whole lot, then in most cases 8bit is fine. To me 10bit is simply an intermediate codec that gets us to an eventual 8bit final output, like log to rec709. 

53 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

As i understand, you changed several recording devices but the mic is always the same?

That noise seems to me like a bad electrical ground or impedance problem.

It's different lavs each time, just the stock lavs that come with the kits. Same kind of problem each time though

8 hours ago, scotchtape said:

The BP-TRXs are pretty noisy in general, what mic are you using? The one with the BP-TRX timecode kits are trash (W lav) and I get a similar noise out of them. 

When I used the mics in the full duo rx kit (w lav pro) I didn't have the same problem. I can't use my MKE-2 with them unless I make an adapter which I'm not going to bother doing.

If it's anything like the experience I had, it's the lavs that were picking up interference, try another lav that is compatible. I had the same thing with the BP-TRX where in record only mode the w lavs were ok, but turn on the transmit mode and it went to poop.  

Even the Sennheiser AVX units I have get weird popping noises (not from plosives) and those cost a fair chunk more.

Gotcha. I'm using the stock lav that came included with the packs. Yeah it's the timecode kit.