kye

8 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

No, I haven't. I do it just for fun, and my two favorite parts are going out in the field filming and editing. Showing the result is my least favorite part. I have no illusions that I'm creating meaningful cinema of any kind. Using expensive, shiny gadgets doesn't make my work any better, it's just more fun using that stuff, just like driving a fast sports car won't make grocery shopping any easier, but certainly more fun.

The projector and other stuff in my home theater is used 99% of the time to watch movies and 1% to watch what I film, so it's optimized for the former. 

I enjoy shooting far more than editing, but that's because I don't feel like I know what I'm doing in post yet.  The more I learn the more I enjoy the process though, which is encouraging.

One thing that people often forget is that film-making is a creative pursuit and that humans are emotional creatures.  One of the critical ways this manifests in film-making is that if your equipment is frustrating to use then you will be frustrated and will not make as good creative decisions (e.g. compositions) as you might have if you were in a better mood.  If you are around people, and especially if you are interacting with the people you are filming, then your mood will alter the behaviour of those people, directly influencing the people in the frame.

Personally, I have used cameras in the past that made me feel like I was fighting them the whole time, and I am sure the shots suffered because of it.  When I shoot now, not only do I use cameras that feel like they're helping me, but I also know that the images I get in post will be aesthetically pleasing and working with them in post will be straight-forwards, and these things make me enjoy shooting much more, making the experience nicer (which is important considering I do this for fun) but also meaning that the influence I am having on the creative aspects will be more creative as well.

Good idea to reflect on the year!

My highlights of the year:

• Bought a Thunderbolt hub and radically changed my home setup
  I use my MBP laptop for everything, and now have the following setup.  When I dock it at home I plug in a USB-C hub which connects it to power, my speaker system, the Resolve dongle, and a few peripherals.  When I want to use it "normally" I plug in a Thunderbolt-to-mini-DisplayPort cable that goes to my UHD panel, and the MBP switches to using the UHD panel as the main UI.  I can run Resolve in this mode, but it's not the best setup.  If I want to run Resolve properly I remove the cable for the display and plug in my new Thunderbolt hub.  The TB hub then connects a second 1080p panel I have on my right as the UI and connects the BM UltraStudio Monitor 3G, which is connected to the HDMI input of my UHD panel.  When I run Resolve in this setup the UI is to my left, and the UHD panel will be a pure monitor feed set to the correct resolution and frame rate (up to 1080p, which is my timeline resolution).
   
• My big purchase was that I did a course on using alternative colour spaces in Resolve with Hector Berrebi
  It was pretty niche, but really solidified a bunch of concepts that I'd seen in passing or had some familiarity with.
  There's another course from him coming up in Feb to do with skintones and beauty grading and retouching that I'm really curious about.
   
• I bought zero cameras and zero lenses
   
• I did two post-pandemic trips, one to Melbourne and the other to South Korea
  The best investment in my film-making is putting interesting things in front of the camera, and this was definitely that.
   
• Discovered how to grade iPhone and GX85 footage to match with GH5
  In preparation for the Melbourne trip I did a comparison between the iPhone, GX85 and GH5.  It was mostly to rule out the iPhone as a serious camera option.  I proved myself wrong and discovered the iPhone is actually incredibly good and useful in post.  I worked out a power grade to convert it to Davinci Intermediate and was able to colour grade it just as easily as LOG or RAW.
  I also discovered that the GX85 is practically as malleable as the GH5 when it comes to small adjustments.  
   
• Really nailed down my understanding of Colour Management in Resolve
  This is what enabled me to grade the iPhone and GX85 so well.  If you're not using Colour Management then you're basically fumbling around in the dark with boxing gloves on, you've got no hope of doing anything except accidentally discovering a few tricks that seem to work.  
   
• Discovered I prefer the GX85 over the GH5
  The GX85 suits my shooting more than the GH5 because it's smaller, the tilt screen is so much faster/easier to use in busy public places than the flippy screen, and now that I can grade the files just as easily the image is just as good unless I hit the limits of the image (e.g. DR)
   
• Switched from MF primes to an AF zoom
  This was a revolution.  I used to shoot with fast manual primes, but in Korea I discovered that the 14mm F2.5 was fast enough for having a natural amount of DoF and had good low-light, and the speed of the AF-S was a real upgrade to my shooting.  I have since switched to the 12-35/2.8 and will see how that goes on future trips.
   
• Learned a bunch of things about editing
  I have a huge backlog of previous trips that I haven't edited yet.  In fact, the small percentage that have a "final" video edit, I am still quite unhappy with.  Overall I have felt like I didn't know what I was doing in the editing, or the colour grade.  This feeling isn't completely gone, but I have had a number of realisations about various editing challenges and I feel like I'm almost knowledgeable enough to edit something in a passable way.

If I had to sum up, I feel like I'm almost good enough at editing and colour grading to understand what I'm doing in post, and I almost understand enough about post to know what equipment I need in prod.

29 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

HA! No, I'm a dog person. (although, no dogs here either) 

Still, I'm quite happy with how this year panned out. 

I think this year was by far the least I've spent in any year (or at least, it is the least since I was the "film school level" of filmmaking) 

Hope to try and make 2024 be a similar year. 

I'll still spend money on random little cables / adapters / batteries / consumables / etc that I need. (these can easily get into the low thousands of dollars! As all these little things can easily add up. But I'll try to keep it down more in the hundreds of dollars range) 

 

Just thinking back on 2023 and I think it was a pretty low cost year for me, with the one of the main expenses being a colour grading training course.  

Skills > equipment....

13 hours ago, philipd said:

Just got the G9ii, an upgrade for a GH5.  The autofocus for video is much better from my limited time trying it out so far, it was pretty poor for video on the GH5.

The G9ii looks like a good upgrade to the GH5.  If I used my GH5 as my main camera and wanted an upgrade I'd be tempted.

13 hours ago, philipd said:

Other observations, odd that 4.2.2 codecs use AVC when they have more data to compress, and 4.2.0 use HEVC (GH5 was mostly all AVC), I gather this is because Panasonic believe no one can edit smoothly using HEVC with 4.2.2, but then who edits smoothly using 4.2.0 at 10bit with HEVC! I know I don't as I use proxy files.  Wish they would give us an option to choose which compression we use.

The list of modes in these cameras is definitely getting to be huge, I noticed that Panasonic implemented the ability to favourite some modes so you can shorten the list, so they're aware that it's getting cumbersome too.

It would be great for them to implement a BM style solution were you choose things individually, but of course if there is a complex set of combinations that can't be done then this style of menu would really make that obvious to people, so it might not be in their best interests.  Sadly, perception matters a lot to people and this stuff can make or break products and even companies, so while it's frustrating it is a relevant consideration.

13 hours ago, philipd said:

Bug bare, no separate charger and Panasonic want around £106 to buy an official one, which lets face it is a rip off price.  No one can make me believe that their Chinese supplier doesn't make these for more than a few dollars each, it's not hi-tech creating a charger.  Given Panasonic were able to include a throwaway mains adapter for charging the battery in-camera (they included a charger with a UK pin arrangement and a second charger with EU pins), I'm sure they could afford to include a charger.  Guess that is the way things are going these days, sort of shrinkflation.  I'm trying a £10 third party one, I will check the circuitry and charging voltages just to make sure its charging correctly.

I think this is just how capitalism works.  Products across all industries adopt this pattern of trying to make the main item as cheap as possible and then making as much profit on the accessories as possible.  This is because people price compare on the main item, but don't even look at the prices of the accessories until they're in the retail shop or have already ordered the main item.

13 hours ago, philipd said:

Just need some better weather to get out and about and try it out some more.

What sort of things are you planning to use it on?

I'm an introvert and going out and filming is not my natural compulsion, but whenever I do I am always glad that I did.

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

I tried to make this year be a year of "not spending money". 

Yet somehow in the final months I got:

Lectrosonics SR dual receiver 

Lectrosonics UCR411 receiver 

Lectrosonics PF25 filters (two of them!)

Lectrosonics IFB T1 transmitter (this was a mistake... I thought it could do other modes than other just IFB, such as Digital Hybrid and Modes 6 & 3, but nope, I was wrong. Oops!)

7artisans 12mm F2.8 lens 

2x Sony ECM-77BC Lavs

And various other little random cables / adapters / consumables. 

Do you have a cat?  They walk on the keyboard and can accidentally buy things.  My wife tells me that is quite common.

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Girl Math. 
(also "filmmaker math")

I've tried film-maker math, but I discovered my bank wasn't film-maker compatible and the translation was corrupted, with none of the savings arriving in my bank account.

38 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

And we still don't know why they removed those videos! (I don't buy the argument that it is because they're part of a MCN, and if that is true... that's outrageous a MCN could do that to you!!)

MCN?

My impression about them getting deleted is that it's some sort of unrelated thing, like business decisions or people-related stuff.  I got that impression from when Kai spoke to the bloody producer and they seemed to talk about why it happened but then Kai didn't say publicly, so that says to me its a reason that he was able to understand (either because he was told and understood it, or wasn't told but was given an explanation that made sense like it was a personal thing etc).

13 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I will be using the Sony VPL-GTZ380 in the presentation when pleading my case to the wife regarding the €2100 LG Cinebeam that I've got my eye on.

"Listen, it could be a lot worse love".

I'd suggest for the presentation that you mention the price of the Sony first.  In each conversation you only get to set the "anchor" once and it's remarkably persistent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect

In the recent trend of cinematographers asking their partners how much they think each bit of their kit costs, the pattern that I saw was that they tended to overestimate the value of smaller items because they were so used to discussing the huge prices of cinema camera bodies and cine lenses.

5 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I work in an industry were the top guys are very well-paid, particularly in stock options. One of my co-workers is into sailboat racing and paid $400,000 for his boat. Another is into flying, and paid $700,000 for a plane. My hobbies are more modest in comparison, especially in recurring costs (it costs a lot to moor a boat or hanger and maintain a plane). 

Yes, it's all relative.  Every now and then when I think about how much money I have spent on cameras and lenses I remember that it's common for people to buy a V8 car, or motorcycle, or spent $100 a week on alcohol or cigarettes, so the fact I spend less than that on a hobby that is family friendly and doesn't risk my health puts things into perspective.

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Serious question, do you think you've been able to parlay your financial liberty into making meaningful cinema, even as a hobbyist?  

I ask because I think, even now, that creating motion pictures is a sandbox in which the affluent are more likely to be able to truly play.

My impression was that it's more about who you know rather than how much money you have.  With all the crap that's being pumped out of Hollywood it's not like there's no funding available, and even if you can self-fund a film your money won't give you a distribution deal etc.

Maybe these days if you can make something and then put it on streaming and promote it then maybe you can get people to watch it, but you're less likely to make money or get lots of views than if you knew people and someone else paid for promotion, and if you just wanted lots of eyeballs then you'd be better off just making lots of content and gradually building an audience surely?

I've now decided to reinstate the modified SJ4000 action camera with 20-80mm FOV zoom lens into active duty, and managed to put together a rig for it and everything.

I found an old video where I compared it to the GF3 and it seems the SJ4000 potentially has a slightly more detailed image, although I suspect that the DR is a lot less and that the colours aren't as nice.

Here's the modified rig mounted on the handlebars of my electric scooter.  It's very easy to remove them and the clamp becomes a surprisingly ergonomic handle.

12 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

This also happened to me on here by the way.

Someone was asking about the Contax Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4 and I was lamenting the fact that I'd gone for the wrong option short zoom and should have bought that one and saying that I didn't think anyone on here had one.

.

Meanwhile over in the lens thread a good 15 months earlier, there I am posting samples from my, erm, Contax Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4. 

Its a disease.

 

I had a similar pattern of handling strange issues in Resolve.  I'd encounter some strange issue, spend an hour playing with it and reading the manual etc, then find a workable solution / workaround, then go to the forums to see if anyone else was having that problem, find the thread, and then find the post I'd made previously sharing the solution that I'd just found.

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

As I'm quite interested in getting a 4K laser projector, that Sony VPL-GTZ380 mentioned earlier piqued my interest so I might have a look into that as it could.....hang on...let me google it.....christ on a fucking bike.

I mean, seriously, genuinely well played for being able to afford to buy that but christ on a fucking bike.

 

Sony, modestly priced, as usual.

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

That could be the motto of this forum.

I don't know which would be worse..   remembering a camera you'd forgotten about, or not remembering!!

On 12/27/2023 at 12:38 PM, kye said:

To change the subject slightly (and with apologies to @John Matthews) after shooting with my GF3 and 15mm F8 pancake lens I've been thinking about tiny cameras further, and am wondering what the best option would be for the smallest and fastest 4K camera setup without a super-wide lens.

To be specific, I want it to turn it on, aim it, and hit record and be capturing 4K / 100Mbps video in the lowest possible number of seconds.  To this end, auto-everything is preferable, except auto-focus, which has to either be fixed focus or fast enough so I never have to wait for it.  Essentially, I want an action camera, but I don't want the super-wide FOV.

I've re-read the thread, and here are the options I think are on the table:

• Zcam E1 with 15mm F8 body cap lens
• GX850 with 15mm F8 body cap lens
• Sony RX0 (mk1 or 2)
• iPhone

Things that don't make the cut:

• Cameras that are too big: GX85, Olympus E-P7, Osmo Pocket series
• Too wide FOV: action cameras
• Modifying an action camera with third-party lens

Things I'm not sure about:

• LX10 (is the AF instant and reliable?)

Are there other options I missed?  Other thoughts?

Thanks all for your comments, I haven't posted because I've been stuck in analysis paralysis about this, due to the lack of a clear winner.

My current thoughts:

• iPhone
  I already own it, so that's a massive advantage, and it'll get upgraded "for free" over time because I'll do that anyway.  It's not small, but it's so common now that it doesn't stand out.  I'm wondering if filming vertically might attract less attention and I can just crop in, which is fine considering the vintage aesthetic I'm thinking of.
   
• GF3
  I already own it and I have this completely baffling soft spot for it.  I have so many other options but keep coming back to it, and if I got something else then why would I expect it to have an effect no other camera has had before it?
   
• Panasonic ZS20
  I just remembered I own this camera, and while it's not in the 4K club, it's still got lots of the cool features of the other fixed lens cameras mentioned (e.g. zoom resume) so it might be worth pursuing.  The OIS was crazy good from memory too.
   
• SJ4000 (modified with zoom lens)
  I already own this and while it's only got mediocre 1080p, it is radically smaller than the GF3 and quite flexible to shoot with now that it has the ~20-80mm FOV zoom lens on it.  The zoom does stick out the front and is almost as large as the camera itself, and in some ways I regret replacing the previous tiny fixed lens I had for it which was about a 50-60mm FOV equivalent.  The lens ergonomics are awful and it's as far from parfocal as you could imagine and with a tiny focus throw the MF experience on the tiny screen is something that has to be experienced to be believed.
  Maybe I should buy another one and install that previous lens?
  For those curious, there's a thread about this camera: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/35801-the-d-mount-project/?do=findComment&comment=415574
   
• Sony X3000
  I already own it and its tiny, plus the 4K and DR are impressive so I could crop into it in post significantly.  It doesn't motivate me in any way though.  It's strange, but I feel zero impulse to pull it out of the drawer and pick it up.
   
• Zcam E1
  Not easily available and sounds like it might not be that great a filming experience, despite it being so small and having a comparatively good image for the size.
   
• GX850
  Great camera, but very similar to my GX85, so I don't think would bring a lot extra to the table.
   
• Fixed lens models - LX10 / ZV-1 / RX100 / etc
  Look like great options but make me question why I would spend this much on something that overlaps with my existing cameras so much and doesn't really nail the vision I had for this specific role.
   
• RX0
  Size is killer and lens / image seems almost perfect, but there are flaws and questions aplenty, the price being one of them.  

So, TLDR; I have so many options already that are sort-of suitable that none of the options hit the nail on the head enough to make me feel like buying anything.  I might have too many nearby options that perhaps no camera would be able to get me to buy something, and even if there was one, It would probably be so niche that no manufacturer would ever even think of making it.

On 12/19/2023 at 6:00 PM, ac6000cw said:

Here are a few old 2160p25 and 1080p50 SOC clips from my GX800 (which I no longer have) - https://drive.google.com/open?id=13vWtrMzGKQ5qR1l2zCr_NBVjIowFuy4V&usp=drive_fs .  All hand-held, probably using the 12-32mm or 14-42mm kit lenses, standard picture profile, shutter priority (using the 'flicker reduction' setting). The train going over the road crossing (P1000474.MP4) shows the rolling shutter nicely.

Thanks again for these!

Impressive images considering the price-bracket and form-factor.  The 4K is definitely superior and would be a great image to colour grade and perform other image manipulations on.

6 hours ago, DanielVranic said:

Hi Yall! Hope everyone's various holidays went well! 

So I have been working on a short form doc about the work I do in astronomy and astrophotography since September, fully shot on the Fujifulm X-T4. This camera has been my personal vacation/family/road trip camera since it came out and for stills it's been such a king. I absolutely love the image that comes off this camera. 

In a past life, Ive worked as a content creator for a few venues in town making commercials and social videos, as well as filming the artists and bands in local studios. We used lots of BMD, Sony, Canon and even Arri one time. The Good old days that have forever cursed me with expensive taste and high standards for IQ.

To the point: Using the XT4 for a documentary shoot so far has been 50/50. 50% of me loves the IQ and the files are robust enough for a good amount of mangling in Resolve. I know it's 10Bit-420 but it does hold up for most things I do nowadays unless I underexposed, which is a me problem and not the camera's fault.

The other 50% is how horrid the AF has performed to date. Seems that with native, 3rd party, and 3rd party adapted lenses I get the same unpredictable AF response with a very large amount of focus hunting and un-usable Face-Eye AF. Really bummed me out for run and gun work, as swapping to manual lenses means a monitor and another item to carry around and power. Im not a pro anymore, so a low-profile setup is really what I am chasing and this XT4 has doubled in volume and mass since filming began, just to accommodate the monitor! 

The final nail was during Christmas I decided I wanted to make a quick little home movie with my family that showed what we did over the holiday weekend. AF struggled in brightly lit rooms, at all focal lengths and lenses. That was it for me. I set the camera down in my office and decided that 2024 was new camera year. Let me be clear- No one watches what I make, it's purely for me but its gotta perform how I expect. Even my old a6000 and a6300 would have done laps around this.

I haven't shopped for a camera body in years (Got the XT4 through a trade) and frankly do not have any idea where to start, but I usually trust tribal knowledge over a retailer so here I am. I see Fuji's new XH2s has gotten a billion "hybrid of the year" awards, but so did my XT4 and I just can't trust Fuji's AF right now. Ive seen a few of Sony's latest offerings, but a bit lost on the differences on a couple models. Canon seems to be behind, purely based on what I read here and on MirrorlessRumors. Panasonic is neat (just became a dealer for Panasonic and can order bodies at dealer cost for myself, so this is VERY neat) but hearing iffy reactions to the AF performance and Andrew's battery issue as well.

So for someone who has a mid-budget (3K including 24-70 zoom lens is hopeful) mid-talent (havent shot pro in 5 years) and is mid-serious (I want my vacation videos looking good, dammit!) I am a bit lost on what the hell to look for!

I seek the tribal knowledge of this forum!

TL:DR Havent camera shopped in 10 years, current camera doesn't cut the mustard for what I now do and don't know where to start for my budget.

Welcome back to the world of camera buying - nothing has changed...  it's still a minefield of pros, cons, gotchas, cripple-hammers, etc!

A couple of follow-up questions that I think would help recommendations:

• It sounds like AF is a major focus - do you need continuous AF?  Face detect?  Eye detect?  How shallow a DoF will you be shooting?  What sort of motion are you expecting the AF to be able to follow?  No AF is perfect but some might be better for your needs than others.
• What lenses do you have and what focal lengths do you need / use?  and how fast do they need to be?  Re-using lenses could mean more budget for body and might help get a more premium performance setup.
• What low-light requirements do you have?
• How sensitive will you be to overheating?  Long takes?  Hot conditions?  Cool-down times between shots?
• Budget for whole rig?

8 hours ago, philipd said:

60p looks awful?  Everyone who's seen my videos at 60fps have said they look stunning, no one has said "Doesn't look a film the frame rate is too high". 

No-one who's seen my videos at 24p have said "Doesn't look like a TV soap opera the frame rate is too low".

7 hours ago, philipd said:

If you find 24fps visually appealing then that is fine by me, each to their own.

If that's true then why are you posting to a thread on the internet arguing that 60p is better?

Hoping to get Deakins to finally upgrade to a proper framerate?

Congrats on getting the camera, from the reviews it looks like a winner if you don't mind the size.

You might be interested in this thread:

2 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I've seen great footage from the LX15, this included. Today, I went on a walk to get some berries and took a few shots with the GX800 and the kit lens:

 

Great images...  High resolution but not too sharp.

Looks like you've had some rain!

2 hours ago, philipd said:

The 24fps argument about the cinematic looks is fundamentally flawed.

1) A projection system has black frame insertion, you see the frame, then black, then another frame.  All electronic displays we use now are sample and hold, there is no black frame insertion.  This means you can not get a cinematic look using 24fps on modern displays, it is only possible using projection systems *

2) Due to the slow frame rate of 24fps, projection systems show each frame twice, so you get frame 1, black frame inserted, frame 1 again, black frame inserted, frame 2 and so on projected on to the screen.  With persistence of human vision during the black frame gives us something approximating to 48fps, this helps avoid the illusion of motion from breaking down and stops us perceiving blurring when our eyes track motion.  Our electronic displays are sample and hold, frame 1 is shown continuously until frame 2 replaces it and so, this causes blurring when we follow anything moving across the screen.  Imagine a slow shutter speed at 1/24th of a second, any panning of the camera causes blurring, this is what happens with our eyes as we track motion on sample and hold displays, as our eyes are really moving across a series of static images.  (Incidentally Plasma TVs, due to the way they had to work, had black frame insertion, hence they were always seen superior for watching films as they worked very much like projection systems).  This means it is impossible to replicate the film aesthetic on modern displays *

3)  Distribution of 24fps footage and viewing of the same seldom results in 24fps.  Modern TVs interpolate frames, up to 60, 120 or 240fps will be shown and not 24fps, they do this to overcome the blurring on motion inherent with sample and hold displays, so that each frame is only shown for a fraction of the time it would otherwise be before being replaced by an approximated frame.  This means the majority of viewers are not seeing 24 frames per second, but a lot more, however as going from 24fps up to 60 or higher needs a lot of interpolated frames, they will potentially see artefacts when there is motion.  This means many people will not be watching 24fps as 24fps anyway but will be viewing 60fps or more with added artefacts.

4) Computer monitors, laptops and many mobile devices are locked to 60fps.  They usually do not interpolate frames so will just show the 24 frames per second as is, but will need to repeat frames to get 60 fps, this is known as 3:2 pulldown (used in NTSC countries for decades to show films on TV), it means there is some judder added due to the unevenness of this process. Those growing up in NTSC countries often don't notice this extra judder, but those watching 24fps on 60Hz monitors in PAL areas will notice it more as this was never a thing on PAL TV systems, as they just speeded up 24fps to 25fps.  Remembering that projection systems trick our visual system in to seeing something more approximate to 48fps, on computer displays we will be seeing only 24fps, so motion can break down easily and the viewer starts seeing strobing images rather than smooth motion.  This means computers can't show 24fps without extra added judder and it can look very strobing, with odd motion judders, and the sample and hold issues of these displays without interpolation means many will see a resolution drop when they following objects moving.

* Some TVs do offer black frame insertion, this can be called a number of things depending on the manufacturer, and will work by strobing the backlight of LCD displays or turning of OLED panels in between frames.  As this causes a reduction in light output and TVs are all about HDR these days, this option if present will never be enabled by default and typically will be buried away in the menu somewhere.

So its a complete fallacy that a cinematic effect can be had using 24fps outside of a cinemas and a projection system.  The best frame rate for YouTube and any content only to be shown outside of cinemas is 60fps.

What typically makes films cinematic are the tricks and considerations made due to having to use a slow frame rate.

Also younger generations are all about higher frame rates, no one is gaming at 24fps!  Also why go to the trouble of larger colour spaces, HDR, 4K resolutions just to degrade the visual output by using a frame rate that only came about because that was the absolute minimum they could get away with to keep film production and duplication costs as low as possible?

Your arguments are all technically correct, however they fail to understand one critical thing: how it actually appears to humans.  

There are exceptions of course, but a casual glance through the thread will tell you one thing overwhelmingly clearly - 60p looks awful.

Considering that the entire purpose of cinema and TV is to be viewed by humans, this is game over.

To change the subject slightly (and with apologies to @John Matthews) after shooting with my GF3 and 15mm F8 pancake lens I've been thinking about tiny cameras further, and am wondering what the best option would be for the smallest and fastest 4K camera setup without a super-wide lens.

To be specific, I want it to turn it on, aim it, and hit record and be capturing 4K / 100Mbps video in the lowest possible number of seconds.  To this end, auto-everything is preferable, except auto-focus, which has to either be fixed focus or fast enough so I never have to wait for it.  Essentially, I want an action camera, but I don't want the super-wide FOV.

I've re-read the thread, and here are the options I think are on the table:

• Zcam E1 with 15mm F8 body cap lens
• GX850 with 15mm F8 body cap lens
• Sony RX0 (mk1 or 2)
• iPhone

Things that don't make the cut:

• Cameras that are too big: GX85, Olympus E-P7, Osmo Pocket series
• Too wide FOV: action cameras
• Modifying an action camera with third-party lens

Things I'm not sure about:

• LX10 (is the AF instant and reliable?)

Are there other options I missed?  Other thoughts?

25 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

@PannySVHS yet... As soon as I will have other Android devices in hands I will test the app with, for sure ; )

Those LG (the V50 model for example) you've mentioned look to fulfill the cup on budget though, as for instance in this sample:

 

Interesting example.  Images look really good, handled mixed lighting really well, low light very well too, and some shots would be indistinguishable from a Sony flagship camera if the DoF was shallower.  Pity it was uploaded only at 1080p and not 4K - the extra bitrate from YT would have shown the image much better.

5 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

I didn’t say the content on Netflix was originally shot in 60p. The devices most people use to watch Netflix at home (Apple TV, Amazon FireTV, Roku, Nvidia Shield) will convert the stream from Netflix to the native frame rate of the device attached via HDMI, which is usually 50p or 60p. Some of these devices have the ability to be set to match the content frame rate, but this isn’t the default, and the vast majority of people using these devices take them out of the box, plug them in, and don’t change any of the default settings, therefore they’re watching movies shot at 24 fps upconverted to 50p or 60p and that generates artifacts like judder.

I was wondering if the conversation would get to discussing this.

I was curious some time ago and did some testing and some math.  

In testing I can see the difference between 24p and 30p easily, on both a 60p display or a display that is set to the native frame rate.  The difference is obvious and the look of 30p is quite distasteful to me, regardless of the display frame rate / refresh rate.
24p on a 60p display does indeed introduce jitter in the timing of the frames (where the frames displayed are "nearest" and not synthesised from multiple frames in the source material).  When you go to higher frame rates the jitter becomes less, with 120p being an even multiple of 24p, so the jitter of 24p will be eliminated or drastically reduced with higher display frame rates.

In the math I did, I was surprised to see that capture frame rates are remarkably preserved even if put through different frame-rate timelines / displays etc.  

Assuming I didn't screw up the logic, here's what you see when watching 24p source material on 30p display.  Timing is all over the place, but for whatever reason both 24p on a 24p display as well as the below are still preferable to 30p for me.

What becomes interesting is when we shoot 30p, put it on a 24p timeline, and then display it on a 30p display:

Apart from a doubled-up frame every so often (because there are only 24 frames per second to choose from), the 30p is completely resurrected!

I have wondered if Netflix etc apps on smart TVs actually change the frame rate based on the source material or if they just run the TV at some fps and pick the nearest frame to display.  I have been meaning to test my TV with my phone (recording the screen with 240fps slow motion and then reviewing the footage and counting the frames is pretty straight-forwards).

TLDR;

• 24p is far superior to 30p/60p regardless of display refresh rate (for me anyway)
• When displays move to faster refresh rates the jitter from 24p sources will be reduced / eliminated
• Frame rate conversions can involve interesting time-aliasing effects where the time-resolution of some frame rates can pass through almost completely in-tact

2 hours ago, PPNS said:

getting things right in camera is one of those things im not sure how to interpret. Ive posted this still before on here, to put it in context, it was shot around blue hour, but it wasnt quite as blue as it was here. I maxed out the white balance, to get it this blue. is that getting it right in camera or am i being a hack? 

In the real world (as always) things are more complicated.

Getting things right in camera is normally considered good advice because it's assumed that the results will be higher quality than not getting it right in camera and then adjusting afterwards.  It can also be good advice from the perspective that depending on the situation it can take significant time / effort to process in post, and there's a risk that the desired results can't be obtained, and by then a re-shoot might be very difficult.

On the other hand, some situations will be made better by getting in wrong in camera, but in some way that provides an advantage.  ETTR is getting it wrong in camera, and can improve the image once adjusted in post.  There are other situations where this might be the case, depending on the situation.

Your shot might have benefited from being exposed normally and then be pulled down in post, assuming nothing was clipped.  Your shot might also have benefitted from being shot at a normal WB, and then having the red and green channels pulled down to make the image blue (ETTR but only of those channels).

Good old fashioned "movie magic" involves trickery from time to time, sometimes by a huge margin (e.g. shooting day-for-night) and sometimes getting it wrong in camera can be advantageous to aid in the illusions.  

The issue at hand is "getting things right in camera".

Should I expose for the highlights, the shadows, or for the skintones?  The answer depends on what "getting things right" actually means.  The only "correct" way to use a camera is to understand the objectives of the project first, then use the camera to "get things right" in that context.

Here's a recent interview with ARRI, taken in their technical testing facility in Canada.  The place is literally a location for testing equipment.  How do ARRI think about the tech?  "It starts with the story".

Interesting review, not sponsored so contains criticisms and nitpicks, but in general it's a very positive review.

Today we had an early xmas lunch (to avoid the conflicting invitations on the 25th) and I shot it with the GX85 and 12-35mm F2.8.  Shooting was really fast and not under ideal conditions (massive window which is often backlighting people) but it did a great job.

Here are a few random stills, SOOC - zero editing.  

Standard colour profile, with -5 Contrast / Sharpening / NR and 0 Saturation.  People often lower saturation in-camera but I  push my grades to have lots of saturation so I prefer to have the camera do the 8-bit conversion and compression on stronger saturated colours so that I'm not boosting up a weak colour signal in-post.

When I grade it I'll be softening it up, fine-tuning the colours and adding some colour grading secret-sauce but for a someone shooting a family gathering with an 8-bit camera while also being part of the festivities, the images really speak for themselves.