kye

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 ???

I know you were quoting numbers from elsewhere, but does this make sense to you? I would have thought that 6K 16:9 and 6K 2.4:1 would be the same number of pixels across and therefore the same overall amount of zoom, which I thought crop factor was equivalent to. Another question - do we talk about crop factor being less when an anamorphic lens is used? In that sense, after the de-squeeze the sensor is effectively wider than it is physically, giving a crop factor of 0.75 or less!

Did you watch the video I posted? Please tell us all how you can see that the reframed shot is visibly less quality. Quoting the 'rules' when they are contradicted by actual footage is a bit of a strange argument, wouldn't you think?

I shoot hand-held so weight is important to me, but if I shot using a tripod then I might still be using my 18-35, it's an absolutely gorgeous lens. I've never used the 16-35 but I would imagine it to be similar. In terms of F1.8 vs F4, I'd suggest taking whatever camera you have and whatever lenses you have and doing some aperture tests. Get an understanding about how shallow the DoF is for the typical things you shoot, remembering to take into account the distance from camera -> subject and subject -> background. Also, this is a handy tool to calculate equivalent DoF numbers for different camera/lens combinations: http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I suggest you carefully read my post again - many of your points are arguments against points I didn't make, but you obviously thought that I did. Also, I'm aware that GH5 files aren't 6K RAW, but the logic you're failing to recognise is that a 4K crop is to 6K the same that a 150% crop of 4K is to straight 4K. The argument goes that if you're outputting 4K and are going to crop in by 150% then you need 6K, but what the logic fails to recognise is that you can scale 4K by the same amount and if you add a small amount of sharpening then it's practically indistinguishable from the straight 4K file. Therefore the argument that 6K is required for reframing and keeping similar image quality doesn't really stack up. It's funny when discussing things like this - you and @thephoenix both went to the extreme and then criticised that. That is called a 'straw-man' argument, and although neither of you did it explicitly, you both reacted like I had said things I didn't actually say. Let's examine the title of this thread and break it down: "6K RAW is over-rated. Here's why..." 6K RAW I'm not really talking about compressed 6K. If you're delivering 4K it will likely be compressed. If you're shooting compressed 4K then grading it and then re-compressing it to deliver codec then that's a lot of damage to the image. If you're shooting 4K RAW then you're already miles ahead of compressed 4K. 6K RAW is miles ahead of that and yet apparently it's "argue on the internet" levels of critical, despite that 4K RAW is already miles above the compressed 4K files that the world is awash in. overrated This is a key point - I'm not saying it's useless, I'm saying that it's overrated. To break this down further, I'm saying that there's a rating of some kind (in the direction of shiny-thing mania), and that that level of rating is above what rating it should have. Not that it should be zero, just that it should be below what is has. Here's why This is where the arguments live, and I don't mean people fighting, I mean rational points designed to explore and explain thinking. In terms of context, yes, it depends on what you're shooting and what it's for, but if I was a betting man I'd bet a serious amount of money that you're not delivering anything in 6K and couldn't tell a 2.5K crop upscaled to 4K from a 4K source in a blind test.

12K ha ha... 16K HA HA HA!! The Konica's were very popular lenses and so there are heaps of them available. I think I paid under AU$100 including shipping for an AR -> MFT dumb adapter and two 40mm f1.8 lenses. I bought at the more budget end and so essentially bought a spare in case one was junk. I haven't explored the rest of their range but the 40/1.8 has a great reputation. I also have a couple of different variants of the Helios 58/2 and a Mir-1B 37mm f2.8 (which is apochromatic) and the Konica is my one of my core three lenses. I did a big comparison which is here: People are going to like the image quality from 6K because it's closer to getting 4K 444 than straight 4K is, but not many people are going to have lenses that really reveal the resolving power of such a resolution.

The magic from a given camera starts with the sensor stack and RGB filter materials, and then sensor quality, but after that it's all mathematics, which can be learned, copied, emulated, and (with enough resolution and bit-depth) even undone. We can't afford an ARRI but we can all afford Resolve, which essentially makes our own skill level the limitation on our images, rather than tech or our bank balance. That's why I have focused so much on learning to colour grade.

Indeed it is. It's an exciting time, even in terms of history of tech. 40 years ago I remember my family only having a small b&w tv, so it's like the tech has come forward by a factor of a million or something. Who knows what it will look like in another 40, but I'll be ready to take up my roll of yelling at the young people when they fly their autonomous insect transportation swarms onto my lawn...

Yeah, there are orders of magnitude and diminishing returns at play here... same with lenses

This isn't click-bait BS, let's actually talk about why 6K RAW cameras aren't really needed. I see two main reasons: Many cameras already shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output (and the GH5 even has a lower-processed 5K anamorphic 4:3 mode) so the resolution benefits of 6K debayer resolution for a 4K delivery are already being enjoyed by many people For those who are claiming you need 6K to reframe for a 4K output, it is likely you don't know what reframing actually looks like There is a third reason - that resolution has absolutely nothing to do with how good your film is, but I'll just assume that people who are desperate to get more resolution are probably not yet ready to hear this and I'll move on and pretend it somehow matters. Much analysis has been done of the 6K -> 4K downsampling cameras, so I won't replicate those conversations, but instead let's look at the reframing argument. If you're shooting 6K to reframe and get a 100% 4K crop out, you can reframe into the image up to 150% . ie, if you want to match the same re-framing with only a 4K source, you must scale up that 4K source to 150%, effectively using a 2.5k source. It sounds terrible, and despite people repeatedly saying that ARRI cameras capture at 3.2k and upscale to 4K (a 125% upscale) people still dismiss upscaling out-of-hand without actually knowing what difference this scaling makes, and being too lazy to actually test it themselves. So I did it for you.... I look forward to people arguing their point in the face of overwhelming evidence.... ??? That is, unless you're delivering in 6K and also want to re-frame heavily in post, but seriously - who would be doing that?