kye

Can you share any examples? Either by yourself or things you've found? It would be great to see something, anything, other than that video in a thread about the 'cinematic' look!

This is a thread about an Apple device, and the video posted was an example of that product, so that's where I'm focussing my comments. You're absolutely right that cinematic is much more than just the image out of the camera, but the video was very VIDEO in almost every other way as well, perhaps besides composition. The movement wasn't on a slider or large rig, so bobbed around, there was no lighting beyond just whatever was happening while the person happened to be there, I didn't get much sense of story, of drama, of journey, and the music was just a nice song from a music library. I would know, I make exactly these videos all the time when I'm travelling - they're not that interesting unless you know the people in them. In terms of this video making the new iPhone look cinematic, older phones look more cinematic than this video as they had lower resolution, more flare when pointed into the sun, and people making "cinematic" videos put them on sliders, heavy rigs, used lighting, filters, and didn't sharpen the living daylights out of them. I'm not saying you can't like the image in that video, taste is personal, but don't confuse it with something that looks like what gets shown on the big screen.

In a sense, yes, and we acclimatise over time. At one point colour film wouldn't have been "cinematic" because none of its predecessors were, and the same with movies with sound. But the transition from film to digital is 20 years in, and high-budget productions destined for the cinema (as opposed to high-end corporate work) still go to great lengths to emulate film. I heard one professional colourist make a comment that a huge amount (IIRC it was half or more) of films are graded with a Print Film Emulation LUT, and the Alexa image processing that occurs in-camera is known to be very film-like. So yes, your point has merit, but 20 years on, digitally shot productions destined the the cinema are most likely using one or more of the below: Shot on a camera with proprietary image processing to emulate film Graded with a Print Film Emulation LUT, or employing many many techniques that mimic film Distributed in 2K to theatres, despite being shot on cameras up to 12K Plus, people still shoot features on film, despite digital being better in practically every way except the authenticity of the film look, which is still almost impossible for colourists to match. The below links might be of interest: http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/ http://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/ReplyToRecipeRequests.html I suspect that even in 40 years time, the only people making images that look like the iPhone video posted earlier will be doing so to emulate footage taken by a phone. If you're still not sure, I suggest you find a movie (or the trailer) of a movie shot on film, one shot on digital where the cinematography won more than one award, and then watch the above iPhone video again, and play a game of "one of these things is not like the other...."

BMMCC is small until you mount a monitor on it, then it's the size of a FF DSLR. I know, I've tried. The OG BMPCC was my next attempt and discovered that the screen is polarised so it's not compatible with polarised sunglasses. *sigh* The FP would be a great candidate for Prores XQ which is 12-bit 4:4:4 and 396Mbps FHD / 1591Mbps UHD, compared to the FP RAW 12-bit 610Mbps FHD / 2400Mbps UHD. The FP can do 1670Mbps internally (UHD 8-bit 25fps) so XQ would mean it could get UHD 12-bit 4:4:4 internal recording. It could also open up the possibility of recording in a LOG format, giving 12-bit LOG which (if downscaling in-camera) could be superior to 12-bit Linear. You'd have to learn how to grade the FP images, but with that much data getting any look you want is a matter of skill in post, not opportunity from the equipment.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, but I can't imagine a universe where "cinematic" means anything like "it looks like someone filmed this with a phone". If, one day, someone makes a phone that does look cinematic, then it will be described as "it looks like the images from larger, better, nicer cameras". I think people have forgotten what cinematic images actually look like.

Yes, the FP is one of the closest contenders, along with the OG BMPCC, and GH5. How I wish I could pick and choose aspects from each into a single perfect package!

Marvel looks nothing like an iPhone test video on YT. Unless you're saying something different?

The word has no specific meaning that people can agree on, except that "cinematic" is a look created by talented people with large budgets for cinema or high-end TV, and "video" looks like it was taken with a handycam by someone with no particular experience or training. The video itself was fine, composition, movement, etc. The quality of the image, however, was as video as I can imagine, which is a pretty big statement coming from me, who literally only hours earlier was editing videos I took on holiday with a video camera. Any image that isn't 60p but looks like it is has managed to do something amazing. Not great, as the people who saw The Hobbit in 60p concluded, but amazing nonetheless. The "better" cameras get according to keyboard cinematographers, the worse the images coming from them seem to look. I'd suggest that it's a very useful point of reference - take every spec where that camera is "advanced" and eliminate them from the list of specs that matter to getting a gorgeous image. If ever there was a post that proves why the original Alexa models are still relevant and continue to be highly regarded, that video is it.

WOW - that was one of the least cinematic videos I have seen for quite some time, and I shoot videos almost weekly on my GF3, which is a MFT camera from 2011 that shoots 1080p at 17Mbps. I actually stopped the video to check it wasn't 60p (it wasn't) or that I hadn't set some other setting incorrectly. Whatever they did, they've managed to make it scream VIDEO from every frame at the very top of its lungs. I didn't realise a video could be that VIDEO. If a famous cinematographer had directed that to make it as VIDEO as possible, I would sit back and think "no wonder that person is famous".

Yeah, I've made that point a number of times, except relating to camera size, and it's frustrating as hell. As soon as you want something smaller, it instantly comes with less. Less bitrate, less bit-depth, less DR, less IQ, just... less. It's like the logic seems to go: Me: I'd like to have high image quality in a small and simple rig The world: Then use a large camera Me: You didn't hear me - I want a small simple rig The world: Then use a 35Mbps 8-bit 8-stop point-and-shoot Me: You didn't hear me - I want high image quality AND a small simple rig The world: Here's an FS5, cine prime, 7" monitor, matte box filter set on an easy-rig Me: No, I need something that is almost pocketable The world: Why do you need something so small? Me: In order to be able to take it where I want to film, which is places where "professional" filming isn't allowed The world: If size matters then why do you need high image quality Me: I shoot in uncontrolled conditions with no lighting or control and need lots of latitude in post The world: Well, if you want both then.. um.. err.. well.. you shouldn't. You should want what is available. Me: Why don't you make something with high image quality in a small and simple rig? The world: No-one wants it! Me: *facepalm*

There's a concept that no-one talks about, and that I think is one of the most important things that exists with equipment, which is how using it makes you feel. We all know the trope about content being more important than image quality, but no-one here talks about the factors that make the content good, and I think that a key factor in that is how we feel while we are filming. If we are fighting with the tech then we will be frustrated, less efficient, and generally in a bad mood. Like when anyone is in a bad mood, this will radiate out to the people you are working with, the people who are around you, and perhaps the people in the frame. The opposite picture is also true. If we are using equipment we love, then we will be upbeat, calm, and will have a positive impact on those around us. Film-making is art, and art is about creative expression, which comes from a place of emotion. Obviously, if a camera is fiddly to use and the ergonomics are crap then that's a challenge, but I find that the biggest barrier to feeling good while filming, at least for me, is knowing what kind of images I am creating, and this is all about colour for me, and it sounds like it might be the same for you as well. Going back to Sony vs Canon, considering that you're using FCP and don't want to learn colour grading, I'd suggest going with the camera with the best colour science that you can justify (ie, it has to work practically with those "other factors" you mentioned). Definitely wait for the A74, as Sony colour science is getting significantly better with each generation, but make sure you're looking at footage that is SOOC rather than had a colourist put lots of work into it. Best of luck, and don't forget that the equipment are just tools to get the outcome you want, and a great experience captured with a lower quality camera will make a much nicer video than a lacklustre experience taken with the best camera in the world, and while filming you're influencing the situation.

It must block pop-ups... I was instantly greeted by a kind invitation to join their mailing list (a manufacturer I'd never heard of.. not sure how that makes sense) and other pop-ups from the manufacturer themselves. Maybe it'd be interesting to turn off your ad blocker for a few minutes and find out how terrible most of the web has become. I rarely use commercial websites anymore, partly because they have ads for themselves or others on the top, the bottom, both sides, pop-ups for videos from their YT channel, and just when there was any danger of you consuming any actual content, they pop-up something on top to "Never miss an update from us ever again!!!". I instantly close about 80% of the commercial websites that I open in a tab. Luckily there's not that many of them, as I tend to not require information that is of interest to whatever type of human isn't instantly repelled by a website yelling over itself to try and get you to skip down their sales pipeline.

Clicked on the link and immediately had to work out how to close about 4 pop-ups. Why any manufacturer would think that annoying me before I'd even read their PR BS about their product is beyond me. If any manufacturer reads this, let me share this one thought - I find the easiest way to close pop-ups is to simply close the tab. Seriously - FFS.

What NLE are you using for colour grading? +1 for getting WB bang-on, and -1 for confidence in auto-WB doing a perfect job in difficult situations. To be able to correct WB in post requires more powerful tools and more sophisticated methods, but these require greater skill in colour grading and more time and skill required to get them right.

Why settle? https://ymcinema.com/2020/06/08/reds-baby-dragon-komodo-an-action-cinema-camera/

I find this conversation to be quite amusing. Maybe we should rename it "videographers discover cinema cameras aren't designed for them" 🙂

Is it to maintain consistency across different models of camera? IIRC C-Log is like this, with clipping of their lower-DR cameras reflecting their lower clipping point compared to the higher-DR cameras, which allows the same settings on different models to generate the same exposure in the files and therefore allow compatibility in post.

First the iPhone, now a drone.... funny how this "backwards" codec is having a resurgence. Maybe people are finally understanding that high-resolution / compressed-beyond-belief footage doesn't look very good.

Curious to hear people's thoughts.

As an addendum to the above, this article has a number of very interesting points: https://ymcinema.com/2020/06/08/reds-baby-dragon-komodo-an-action-cinema-camera/ Of particular note is the fact that GoPro footage is noticed by audiences after only 20 frames. Combine this with the fact that GoPros shoot at 4K at up to 100Mbps, but cinemas are often still in 2K. The article talks about rolling shutter and DR of the GoPro being limiting factors, but when I look at GoPro footage (even the latest v10) it looks awful even in low-DR situations without much movement. Of course, noticing the difference between a GoPro and cinema camera in low-DR low-movement situations will take more than 20 frames, if we're talking about it as a main camera, the differences are obvious. But let's think about this further. A GoPro will still be visibly inferior under the following situations: Low-DR situations If the GoPro is still inferior in low-DR situations then it's not the DR driving the difference High-motion Once again, GoPro still has it's poor look in low-motion scenes Deep DOF situations Most action scenes in movies will have deep DOF used by the cinema cameras to show the relationships of all the moving objects, so this isn't a differentiating factor FOV This is potentially a factor, with the GoPro look being very wide-angle, however I have modified an action camera (not a GoPro but the similarities are there) with longer focal lenses (multiple) and they do stop looking like action cameras but don't stop looking like cheap/nasty cameras. A pocket camera with long zoom also doesn't get 'nicer' by zooming. Also, I have attached wide lenses (GoPro wide equivalent) to my GH5 and it doesn't suddenly look like GoPro footage. Resolution In theory, downscaling an image increases its quality, so having a 4K image put onto a 2K timeline should give it the advantage over a 2K cinema camera, but no, no it doesn't. So what is left? Colour science remains, image processing remains, codec remains, bitrate remains, bit-depth remains. Colour science is potentially a thing, but that "GoPros are noticed after 20 frames" was in the final movie that has been graded by a world-class colourist who will be pulling out every trick they know to hide this particular shot. Colourists can't work miracles but they sure can work magic, so I'm going to suggest colour science isn't a main thing. Now bitrate, bit depth, and codec. The A7S2 (with its 4K 8-bit 100Mbps h264) is a parallel here, with wedding film-makers generating higher quality footage than GoPro can, but I suspect that an A7S2 doesn't cut well with cinema cameras, and the A7S3 made large improvements in this department, for precisely this reason. That leaves image processing. I suspect any professional camera is likely to process the image with much higher quality than a GoPro, and with this I include the quality of the compression itself, which we know is a highly variable thing. It is probably a mixture of all these things, but I'd suggest it's likely image processing first, quality of compression second, bitrate third, codec fourth, colour science fifth, bit-depth sixth. However, anyone offering Prores will automatically deliver much improved processing, bitrate, and bit-depth, and I suspect that encoding Prores is also much less computationally demanding so can also be done at a higher level of quality too.

Actually, I'm a few steps ahead. By saying "I'll do a blind test of codecs with the R5" what you're really saying is that you don't think that there's much difference between the codecs (no-one is suggesting blind tests between GoPros and Alexas). The followup implication is that if there is little difference between them on your R5 then either: there is little difference between codecs and my perception is flawed somehow there is a difference between them on cheaper cameras but not on expensive cameras Either way, both are an argument against the idea of adding an external recorder to the existing equipment I have. In terms of the codec, you're right that it's one element of the 'look' but what you might not know is that I've been doing testing offline over the last two years and have exampled many variables. I simply stopped posting them here because of the increasingly ridiculous and trolling responses from various users. I own several cameras of note: Canon 700D with ML installed (which can do 14-bit RAW up to about 1700px wide and has Canon colour science) BMPCC and BMMCC (which can do 1080p RAW and Prores in various flavours and has excellent colour science) GH5 (which downsamples from ~5.2K, does very high-quality h264, and has lacklustre colour science) Various MFT, pocket, and action cameras (which shoot low-quality h264) I've extrapolated quite a lot from comparing and contrasting various things from these cameras. Over literally dozens of tests conducted in meticulous controlled conditions, often using identical lenses and other equivalencies, I've started noticing patterns. I also watch a lot of streaming content, which is often shot on high-end cameras (RED, ARRI, Sony Cine cameras), but is heavily compressed / sharpened as part of distribution. A few things that have gradually emerged from all this is: DR DR matters as not only do things clipping look awful, but DR is literally measured by setting a threshold for the noise floor - so more DR = lower noise floor, and that means cleaner shadows Colour Science RED and ARRI footage is immediately noticeable for looking delightful even at 480p setting on YouTube, which has poor resolution and poor bitrate, I suspect colour science (and DR) are what shines through in this situation, where resolution, sharpness, etc will be obscured Codec and processing at capture If I review a bunch of footage captured by me at 200Mbps h264 and compare it to footage shot at 1000Mbps+ but streamed at 17Mbps (YT4K) the YT looks nicer. If I compare footage I shot on a cheaper camera (for example my Panasonic GF3) at 17Mbps 1080p and compare it to ARRI footage streamed at 2.5Mbps (YT1080p) then the YT looks better and less artefacts I've spent literally hundreds of hours on this stuff, and the more I look the more that I narrow things down and the codec is a big one. You're right that h264 probably isn't much of a problem, but when it comes with very low bitrates and lots of sharpening and NR (which compound the artefacts of the h264 compression algorithm) that's where the issues start, because it's a package deal.

Not really sure why so much hate towards smaller sensors.... Also very amused by the respect for Prores in this thread and the complete lack of it in my external recorder thread. Bizarre.

Well done for pulling the off the shoot with various challenges along the way! I have no idea what the camera is, but the results looked pretty good. I must say though, when the guy at the bar takes a sip of the product it looks like he's already had a bottle or two already! Of course, it's fitting for the style of the piece 🙂

Unless they say 10-bit in the marketing, you're not getting it. I suspect they're aiming at a different market, and sadly, there are people out there who need to be protected from getting out of their depth. ie, I think that if GoPro released a camera with a "Pro" mode that was 10-bit, log, and unsharpened, then a large proportion of people who buy it would set it to that mode without knowing what it was, would use it, get flat soft-looking footage out of it, and would trash-talk GoPro themselves, to the extent that vast sections of their market would think that GoPro themselves had made faulty cameras. It is a pity though, as once a company is making their own custom chips they could design them to include any combination of processing / codec / bitrates etc so devices like the GoPro, iPhone, etc could be built to offer very interesting modes.

Anyway, it seems pretty obvious that @KnightsFan and @Video Hummus don't shoot for an organic look, and so in answer to the original question of "is anyone interested in a small external recorder" basically could have answered "no". I do find it odd that people often reply to questions by criticising the preferences of the OP, or invalidate the original scenario posed. In this case I stated that I wanted Prores codecs in a small camera, and the responses were "you don't actually want Prores, you don't actually see what you see when you look at footage" and "you're wrong for wanting a small camera - buy a large camera without Prores instead". Very odd.