kye

If I owned a RED then I would be very tempted to look down on the rest of the world with comical interest in what the 'little people' who 'are playing at film-making' and aren't serious because they didn't sell their house/car/wife to afford a 'real camera' and I would assume that because the P6K didn't impact the lofty place that I exhibit that it doesn't have any real impact on anyone else except the other cameras that play in the shallow end. Of course, I don't own a RED and I don't view the world in that way, so I would beg to differ. I think there's loads of people who shoot Canon and have invested in EF mount lenses, and who would love to record RAW but can't afford a C200, and this would be hugely interesting to them. But in reality, I have a camera with fantastic IBIS and so I look down from the lofty place of cinematic hand-held film-making watching all these suckers slug around their tripods and huge camera rigs wishing deeply that they could leave the house without a boot full of equipment and not produce a video that has so much hand shake it looks like an 8mm home video. Ah, but seriously folks... I'll be here all week! ???

I know what you're saying @leslie and your questions are valid. The way I see it is that it's about how many bits are allocated per stop across the full dynamic range of the camera, and how much of the dynamic range of the camera is captured and how much of it is clipped. Mostly this isn't discussed because in most cameras the non-log formats the full dynamic range of the sensor isn't output, so you clip highlights (and maybe crush shadows). People generally care about getting the most DR so shoot the profile with the most DR, which used to always be the log profile. There's an interesting thing with the Canon XC10 though - it shoots 8-bit and has various profiles including C-Log / WideDR / etc. The interesting thing about the XC10 is that it keeps the full DR of the camera even in the 'normal' profile. What is different is the distribution of bits across each stop of DR. In the normal mode the number of bits in the highlights and the shadows is a lot less than the bits dedicated to the mid-tones, which are typically where we put sensitive things like skin-tones. This makes it interesting because you're not expanding out the mids in things like skin tones as much as you would if you have a log profile, and considering that both log and normal modes were restricted to 8-bit that makes a difference. One of the reasons people generally avoid 8-bit log profiles is that by the time you expand out the mid-tones of the image (by adding contrast) you are exposing weaknesses of the codec in the most sensitive parts of the image (skin-tones). To my mind the goal is to get enough DR and to get enough bits in each stop of DR so that your image is robust and can be graded easily to give a desirable result. I really noticed this moving from the 8-bit C-Log on the XC10 to the 10-bit HLG on the GH5, the 10-bit files are so much more robust in post. In terms of what matters for you, I'd say that you'd have to just try out the modes and compare them. Cameras are all different and the proof is in the pudding, so they say.

I must say that this was fun and has renewed my enthusiasm for the 3-hour 1-minute challenge. One aspect of this that I really like was that there is a budget limit, so instead of not entering because of worrying you'll get judged because you don't own the nicest cameras/lenses it kind of gives everyone an excuse to not create the best video anyone has ever seen. I like the idea of a film challenge where there is a restriction on equipment to get people over the perfectionist tendencies to not release because it's not good enough. Edit: Maybe a "shoot with the worst camera you own" competition might work? For under $200?? That'll be the day! It probably costs more than $200 in cables just to get a functioning rig!!

Just ordered the Peak Design Capture as recommended by @pryde so we'll see how that goes. Likely put it on the front strap of my day-pack and have the Sony X3000 action camera mounted on it. During travel legs I'll have quick access to the X3000 and when I'm at location I can easily swap between X3000 and GH5 as required. My trip is approaching, so starting to get excited ???

Cool thread and nice write-up. We have to remember that some of us are artists, and imperfection and restrictions and limitations are often fuel for that creativity, and that 'better' is a word that should be taken in context of what we are trying to achieve. Best of luck to those who are making magic with old tech and aren't seduced by numbers.

Voted. I must say that the ones I voted for really were well done and the one I picked for best image quality was also on my shortlist for best cinematography. As cheesy as it sounds, well done to everyone - finishing a project and then sharing it publicly takes some effort and a bit of bravery, so well done to all who entered.

I recall seeing a series of videos on modifying the Helios lenses to fake anamorphics with the oval aperture and fishing line tricks. I think there was talk about colouring the fishing line too. Maybe searching for Helios (or the other Russian lens brands?) plus fake anamorphic will yield results?

Well, I wasn't thinking that, but since you're offering! ???

Price looks similar to Samyang 85/1.4 - any idea how they compare?

Have we seen test images and overall IQ?

Err, yes, you are right. Good points. Not sure what I was thinking.. Nothing to see here, move along!

What's the difference between a TV and a monitor? When you connect the monitor to a computer, both of them have a screen, a computer that runs an operating system off an internal storage device, run apps, have external connections for USB storage devices and internet, and can display video streams from a range of local and online sources. I suppose you could argue that one is modular and the other has the computer built-in, but so does the iMac. One has a keyboard and touchpad/mouse and the other has a remote control. I get it that one can run MS Word and the other probably can't, but in terms of how we consume our media, I see very little difference in reality. If I connected my computer to a TV, would that make it a monitor? I think once you stop watching free-to-air content, it's all just computers...

oh! I see.. I was looking for a post from me and there wasn't one so I couldn't work it out! I was amused by the combination of being really isolated but with wifi. I totally get that feeling, but it's definitely a contradiction

If you're going for the hand-holding look then yeah, hand holding the phone is probably a good idea. I'd suggest the camera person trying not to get too much camera shake in it though - if you cut together normal phone footage that the average person shot it would make most people vomit in a few minutes, so I'd suggest trying to tone it down a little. If it doesn't look amateur / genuine enough then you can crunch it up in Resolve to compensate, but doing stabilisation to take away some movement has limits and looks processed, and not in a good way!

Which post? I'm confused..

Trying to get it to be digital but subtle may be a factor of just processing it subtly many times over. Apply a LUT at 5%, then apply another one, then another one, and if you save each time then the files will be being compressed and re-compressed over and over again. It will probably fall apart relatively quickly, but you can probably just put it over the top of a clean grade and adjust the opacity of the crunched one then that might allow you to dial in how much crunch you want? It's probably a case of just trying stuff and seeing what happens. Making higher quality digital look worse isn't hard, it's processing digital and NOT making it look worse that is the hard thing!!

Interesting concept, the proof will be in the pudding though. I can understand why they went with an EF mount (and I think it's a smart business decision for them) but it rules out adapting a bunch of lenses due to the flange distance of EF being considerable. Although it means that a bunch of vintage lenses are safe from P6K related price inflation

I've always looked at 4K and thought it was too little... lol. Good to see 8K TVs in the wild, it makes sense since I just upgraded to a 4K TV for the first time! and now we have a 4K TV (that's bigger than our previous one) we now hire movies in HD instead of SD. I haven't done an export of one of my 4K films and played it on the new TV yet, so that will be interesting to see.

Someone call 911? Why? You can do it... with your camera!! Seriously though, get a good app like Filmic Pro or MoviePro which will give you manual controls, higher bitrates, focus peaking and all kinds of extra stuff. Get a rig of some kind, even just a tripod, or mount it on a shoulder-rig - the worst thing is camera shake (unless it's deliberate and artistically appropriate). If you're going with a 180 shutter then you will need to get an ND filter of some kind and the rig will need to hold that securely too. I'd suggest using USB power banks so that you've always got enough battery life. Get good sound the same way you would on any other camera. Basically it's a fixed camera/lens but the same as any other camera/lens combo you might shoot with, so you'll want to do everything else the same. ...and make sure to put the phone on airplane mode before hitting record so you don't get a text/call and ruin a shot

Yeah, that's why I tend to quote FF equivalents so that when someone says 28mm I know it's a standard wide and not a medium or super-wide. I'm guessing that with things missing like no 4K Braw it will be a bit patchy with the features it offers lining up with what some people want and not at all with others. It's not tempting to me at all as what it offers and what I want don't really overlap that much.

Ok, I need advice about MF 135mm lenses. I've done a bunch of tests and own quite a few (link to that thread below) but basically I'm after the nicest 135mm lens I can afford, that isn't too heavy, and that has the MF dial the right way (the Canon direction, not the Nikon/Pentax direction). The tests I did revealed that the Minolta 135mm f2.8 was the one I preferred out of the ones I had. So, here are my questions: Is the Minolta 135mm/2.8 up there in IQ? or are there much better specimens around? After playing with my Canon FD 70-210 f4 or the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 I'm particularly interested in how good an FD or Konica 135mm lens would be Is my Minolta 135mm lens representative of the quality, or is it likely been beaten up too much? It's seriously worn, has paint chips missing, the dials are really loose, so I think it's had a hard life and maybe optically it's not so good anymore? Now I've worked out what focal lengths I really use I'm trying to optimise which lenses I actually have, and the 135mm is probably the last one I haven't really explored. My current Minolta is 370g so I wouldn't want it to be too much heavier than that, and I'm not really a fan of 'bubble bokeh' either.

I used to think that was a great film, but now I realise that it's unwatchable because it wasn't shot in 6K... ??? It's absolute magic and filmed like a love letter from a madman.

I give up. Do the tests yourself and prove me wrong.

You're totally right, that is the issue. No-one can understand my argument without understanding mathematical equivalency. Or, you know, logic

If it's downscaled from 6K it should look lovely. Queue the people saying they'll upgrade to 6K, and 8K, and 12K just to deliver 2K ???