kye

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?

6K RAW for ..... >$5K. Ouch!

Every year is a great year for equipment now... And when that 3x crop factor comes out with DPAF and Canon CS, just watch @Andrew Reid put an Angenieux C-mount on it and drive up the price of C-mount lenses again!!

Absolutely. I used to hate doing a first cut because of all the keyboard and touchpad/mouse work required just to go to the next clip, but that all changed with the Cut page. Now it's like gradually floating down a river watching things go past and just sticking your hand out to grab the good bits as they glide by.

Resolve doesn't have any issues with the files from my XC10. The 4K 305Mbps files need a good computer to play though.

I agree. Reading my post again I realise I was a bit loose with my language, sometimes saying 'best' when I was thinking 'more popular', and anticipating the likely customers for the camera. I still think that those shooting vintage glass won't care as much about 6K, or at least shouldn't care that much. What I mean is that I understand that 6K gives you all sorts of reframing options in post, and that's great, but those reframing options still exist in 4K if you're willing to crop into the image a bit. This is where we hit the 'should' part of the situation - many people won't want to do that and will be thinking from a purist perspective and "I need to capture 4K pixels to output 4K pixels" and being kind of philosophically / religiously / fanatically opposed to up-scaling. My point is that: Upscaling is actually way more popular than camera nerds on forums understand - case in point is the ARRI 3.2K mode which is regularly up-res'd to 4K for major cinema blockbuster movies (do people really think that what is good enough from ARRI for top-end cinema isn't good enough for them? what the hell are they shooting?!?!) People who choose to shoot vintage lenses due to aesthetic (rather than budget limitations) may do so because of the softer look they give, which is also accomplished by up-res'ing slightly after cropping in and reframing 4K footage Many/most of the people talking about this have never actually compared straight vs up-res'd footage themselves to see what the hell we're actually talking about - the 'downgrade' in quality they're religiously avoiding is subtle at best There is actually a line of discussion that suggests that part of the cinematic magic that ARRI cameras create is the fact that they upscale from 3.2K and don't shoot 4K natively, putting this as a massive plus in the aesthetic rather than the liability some perceive it as.

6K RAW seems super tempting but the file sizes makes my eyes water just thinking about it!! We recently bought two TVs (one for someone else and one for us) and my wife is a super-star bargain hunter, typically finding deals like 40-70% off. Anyway, IIRC we bought a 58in and 63in and we made the decision to buy the 63in one without knowing it was 4K because it didn't mention 4K on the box or on any of the little feature stickers on the display model. When a TV with a huge discount doesn't even mention it's 4K, that's an indicator that 4K isn't new any more. I don't know how long people typically own a TV for, but if 4K isn't even mentioned anymore then pretty much everyone will be getting 4K in their next upgrade.

lol about swords existing I do take your point, but I kind of think it's just funny, and TBH if you put much credence in how things are named then you're in for a great many surprises, like when you find out what "free trade agreements" are all about, etc IIRC the P4K and BMCC were practically the same width, with the P4K being slightly less tall. I think I saw a pic somewhere comparing them.

It all depends on your perspective.... for example, if you understand that this rig is pretty minimal for a cinema camera: and that they get much bigger: People have no clue what the word 'cinema' really entails....

Have you studied the ads of competing products? and the ads that are regularly screened in the target market? One thing we can't know is what the client is used to seeing or what their environment looks like. Also, they might have an instagram full of oversaturated HDR pics and we wouldn't know.

Managing client expectations is potentially harder than actually doing the work, at least that's what I've heard from the professional colourists. It's good practice to get clients to send examples of grades they like to give you a starting point to work from. Another strategy is to do a few rough grades straight away and have the client choose which one they like for you to refine, that way it's not that you got it 'wrong' it's just options. The ideal grade for my tastes is somewhere in between the two grades, but that's taste as well. I know professional photo retouchers are constantly battling the clients about how much thinner/poutier/etc to make the models, with the client wanting to push the images completely off the deep end, and it's not uncommon to go back and forth a dozen (or more) times with the client saying 'more more more' the whole way. Remember that you're an artist, and often the client is trying to sell things. They're very different jobs with very different mindsets.

A 6K downscale to 2.8K would be a pretty lovely looking image, especially if you use a good codec like BRAW or Prores HQ, but is it a downscale or is it a crop? Prores is only offered in DCI4K, UHD, and 1080. In terms of battery life, I wonder if the target audience for a 6K camera might be the more serious shooters amongst us, who are more likely to have a rig and external power anyway. I know the EF mount makes it appealing to those with lenses, but there's a reasonable price differential too, so you'd have to want it!

I'd suggest: Setup a short section on the timeline so you can export quickly to test IQ Disabling all grading then export Check timeline resolution (IIRC output resolution doesn't override timeline resolution, but could be wrong) Create new timeline, add test clip, export that Create new project, new timeline, add test clip, export that Not sure what to do after that point... Re-installing resolve is the likely common recommendation It's called a Freemium business model. They've (mostly) written the free version already by writing the paid version, so it costs little to give away. They create a big name for themselves and it works as marketing. People go onto the free version of Resolve rather than pay for FCPX or PP, learn it, get used to it, then when it's time to upgrade and spend money their habits and workflow is all optimised around Resolve, so they've essentially 'converted' a customer before the customer has decided to buy.

I've been thinking a lot about lenses recently, and my take is that the best lenses for the P6K will be the usual FF/S35 suspects, skewing to the more modern end of that range. ie, the Sigma 18-35, Canon F2.8 zooms (especially the 16-35), and fast/modern primes. Here's why: Anyone shooting 6K will be interested in resolution and detail, so will be interested in higher-resolution glass The P4K can get similar framing with similar lenses by adding the Metabones SB, and there's even a new one now, so the older one might drop in value Anyone wanting to adapt lots of older lenses will want the shorter flange-distance of the P4K MFT mount Anyone shooting older more 'vintage looking' glass won't care about 6K and the P4K would be enough for them

I'm going to claim some points with my prediction... I guessed a higher resolution pocket camera, and lo.. 6K it is! (part marks to me!) I guessed that resolve edits for you, and lo.. v16.1 beta includes "Boring detector with timeline indicators to detect edits which are running too long"! (more part marks to me!) I'm semi joking of course, and my "guess" was a completely ridiculous extrapolation of current trends designed to get a laugh, but wow, they actually moved decently in those directions. BM just keeps on giving

It's the BM Ultra Pocket Cinema 8K Pro Plus, and the new Resolve 17 which edits the video for you!!

How long did it take for you to find a 3d rendered picture of a can of spam??? ???