kye

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

Of course if you are an enterprising baker and want to stretch their "Need a license to sell food but not to sell shoes" rules then you could always make these.

And then it wouldn't be so bad when you accidentally put your foot in your mouth!

One quick hack to turn ANY cinema camera into a low-light MONSTER!!!!!1

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I had completely forgotten about that !

Good plot twist if it is.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/2/13/17007986/red-foxconn-potential-8k-camera-partnership

And with an MFT mount to boot!  Fantastic if you want to adapt manual lenses.

16 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I was taking using lenses with OIS as a given to be honest.  I actually thought I'd put that in but my old brain is leaking like a sieve these days!

I also think the market I'm talking about is also less sensitive to sticking to 180 degree shutter rules when you look at their output where its clear that many of them are shooting in aperture priority without ND, not to mention the abundance of slooooow mooooooo in their B roll . Where this camera scores in that latter regard is that for many, though not all I have to stress, the slow mo B roll is very often a crutch to enable them to spread the coverage they shoot a bit thinner whereas I think re-framing, particularly the dynamic type, offers more interesting alternatives to that approach.

Just to be clear and go back to what I said a few posts ago (or maybe even in the other thread !) about this camera, I think its strength lies in what I would loosely class as 'video' work rather than the even looser term 'cinematic'. 

Its very much in the vein of the shoot first frame later scenario that the 360 cameras have given us a glimpse of but just that this does it with fewer compromises that are inherent in those cameras in terms of image quality and fisheye lenses !

I think that's what will make it a very viable option for people who have seen that potential with the 360 cameras but want more control over what's going into the camera.

Of course, I'm saying this without knowing the price so if its over £3K then all bets are off !

Realistically, it should actually be half that price considering who is behind it but when Panasonic are still getting away with marginal re-hashes like the G91 for £1K then I suspect it will closer to £3K than £2K.

Ah, yes, OIS is fine

I agree about using a fisheye and reframing, and also that the 180 shutter is less of a rule than perhaps it used to be.  In fact, I have been watching the latest season of Peaky Blinders (great show BTW - fantastic in pretty much every way) but there was a scene where a ceiling fan was operating and the fan blades were appearing about every 90 degrees of their rotation with no visible motion blur, so even that level of production seems like it didn't stick to the 180 shutter, for one shot at least, which I thought was interesting

12 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

I think I heard somewhere it’s going to be like $4-5k. Could be making it up though.

Dave mentioned a price range in the Kinotika video, but it didn't sound like it was confirmed yet, and I think the Sharp guy in the Cinema5d video said they hadn't decided.

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Having seen how effective the stablisation is on an Insta360 One X when producing flat content from overcapture, I don't have any concerns really about this camera, or any 8K camera for that matter, not having IBIS.

Unless you are delivering in 8K then it gives you plenty of latitude for post capture software stabilisation. With some of the side effects I've seen from IBIS, which are then baked in to the footage of course, and the advances in software stabilisation its arguably a better approcach anyway. 

Stabilisation in post only works with very short shutter speeds, so goodbye 180 shutter!  Sure, you can stabilise slow shutter clips, but the motion-blur that occurs during the frame makes the image just have instantaneous blur turrets syndrome, which is probably more distracting than mild camera movement.  If you want to use a slower shutter then you need OIS or IBIS to stabilise during each frame being exposed and then you can stabilise in post.

That's my approach to how I shoot handheld with my GH5 and stabilising in Resolve.

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

You only need everyone to follow one guideline: "The Non-Aggression Principle"

You only have problems with conflicting "freedoms" when you mix up negative and positive rights. 

If you buy into various positive rights then yup, you can run into contradictions pretty quickly. The rights which matter to me are negative rights.

Great video - thanks!  I, too, am a fan of negative rights

5 hours ago, kaylee said:

true, kye. but also i was talking to a guy whos doing a short in premiere right now, and he has no idea what resolve is FOR in the first place — grading, power windows, etc.

l mean he knows in the abstract, but not really lol

I can understand that.  Only relatively recently was Resolve a colour grading tool you would round-trip to, which is a concept that took some getting used to, let alone knowing how to actually troubleshoot the process and get it to work properly.  Now Resolve has become something equally confusing - it does everything!  So on a journey from being difficult to understand because it was too technical, to now being something that is difficult to understand because if you're a FCPX or PP user it sounds like it's too good to be true!

5 hours ago, Mokara said:

I think he is referring to a business licence. That is required in most developed countries, even the US. You can sell stuff individually without one, but if you actually set up a physical business you need a license. It is primarily for local/state/federal authorities to track your activities when it comes to regulatory practice and tax collection. If you are supplying a service and do not have a physical place of business then you generally do not need a license.

There's an interesting thing here in Australia where there's a type of business called Sole Trader, which means you can trade as an individual.  You don't need to register a business name or anything.  It's kind of like how you can get a job, which is essentially a business deal, and reflects the fact that you as a person are a legal entity.

Back in the day the company that controlled the .com.au domain had a rule that you could only register a domain name that reflected your business name (to prevent domain squatting) and my dad applied for his name (in the format firstnamelastname.com.au) and was refused, but appealed on the basis that you can trade under that name, and ended up with the domain name on that basis.

Australia does require quite a lot of occupations to be registered and qualified, and I think the basic idea is that it protects consumers from buying services from people that don't know what they're doing.  I think it's probably a bit overdone now, as there are restrictions on occupations that don't seem to be so dangerous, and there are likely all sorts of certification rackets too, but in the sense that it protects consumers there is a good idea behind the principle.

There's a fundamental problem with 'freedom!' as a goal, because not all freedoms are compatible.  The right to live in safety requires that other people do not have the right to kill, rape, rob, or otherwise hurt my possessions or myself.  A society where people are freed from all rules is anarchy, not nirvana.

3 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Has anyone actually proven this to be useful in practice? I remember when the GH4 (or maybe NX1) first came out a bunch of people were talking about how amazing it will be to oversample the 4K into wonderful HD with a greater bit depth and color space. I expected to see all sorts of amazing footage coming from the added image quality. But, I never actually saw anyone doing it. Is this all theoretical?

This question comes up a lot.  Here's an answer I prepared earlier.....  please excuse the first paragraph (it was directed at the post I was replying to, not your post).

On 2/24/2019 at 1:16 PM, kye said:

This is a tricky subject, but you have nailed it with your comment "seems to be a lot of opinions".  Just like everything else out there, if something is engineering or science, there will be a lot of opinions, and almost be definition they will all be WRONG.  People who have OPINIONS about engineering or science are people that don't understand FACTS.  I'm all for having opinions, we can talk about who likes what colour science, lighting design preferences, lens aesthetics or if someone is a good actor, but anyone who has an opinion about how many pixels are in the UHD specification is just stupid.  This is the same thing.

There is a huge level of knowledge about how to get accuracy beyond a certain bit-depth when talking about audio, as properly recorded and processed 16-bit audio can have better signal-to-noise ratios than is mathematically possible because of a technique called dithering which works by adding a very specific type of noise to the signal.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither

Fortunately, ISO noise on high-quality 4K cameras is a relatively good version of that noise, so we can get a lot of the benefits.

Downscaling from 4K to 1080 also involves oversampling which when combined with dither can extract the extra bit depth and eliminate the noise that was added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling

There is an audio format called SACD which uses a type of digital signal called DSD, which is a 1-bit (yes, the bit depth is one bit!) at 2.8224 MHz, and because of its clever use of noise and processing, can have signal-to-noise rations of up to 120dB, which would require a 20-bit signal from a traditional codec, but because it is oversampling (in a big way) this effect can be achieved.  Getting 20-bit from 1-bit is only possible because DSD has about 64x the sampling rate compared to 44kHz audio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

If DSD gets 19 extra bits from a 64x oversampling, then it shouldn't be impossible to do a similar thing with video and get an extra bits from resolution oversampling.

However, and this is a key part of the picture, you will only get perfect 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p from 8-bit 4K footage if that 4K footage is RAW and the noise is perfect.  Any variation in de-bayering, compression or any other processing that is applied in between that data coming off the sensor and the downscale will have a damaging effect on the final result, and this is where reality differs from theory, and it the overall quality will be different depending on the camera, codec, bitrate, subject matter, and probably other things.

If none of that made sense, then here's a TLDR approximation - adding noise to 8-bit helps with banding similarly to why adding noise to your footage helps with YT colour banding.  The mechanism is very different, but the effect is broadly similar.

Anyway, let's put this to bed and go back to talking about cameras ???

In terms of people actually doing it, everyone who shoots 4K and publishes 1080 is doing it.

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Odd the fact these guys have completely been ignored by a new vague of shooters... TAKE A LOOK

Resolve is still routinely absent from conversations about video editing options.  I still see film-making you tubers making PP vs FCPX videos and not even mentioning Resolve.

I think it's a combination of commercial interests, a dated mindset, lack of awareness of what non-indy film-making is like, and new thing overload where there are so many new cameras / audio devices / lighting products / YouTube algorithm updates / social media marketing branding promotional everythings that following new editing packages just never makes their priority list.

That's ok..  when they finally catch on we can all say "we've been here for years - where have you been??"

3 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

No - Adjustment Clips 'They're kind of like adjustment layers' (how they were presented in the conference)

This is a great addition, and possibly is a nod to how FCPX/PP users might operate.  

One thing I always thought was a bit clunky was if you had two cameras/lenses which needed to be matched, and two scenes which needed to be graded differently (eg, day scene then night scene).  In a sense you can now grade the clips in the Colour page to colour match and put in Adjustment Clips for different scenes and one across the whole timeline as a final grade.

3 hours ago, thephoenix said:

the new cut page seems perfect for laptops

Absolutely.

It kind of delivers on the "editing revolution" promise, the UI improvements requests, the people wanting to work without BM hardware, etc.

I am noticing a trend within Resolve now of having the 'easy/fast' way to do something and the 'slower/powerful' way.  I first noticed it with the stabiliser when they created the one-touch version but kept the old one with the more features, but it's now there for editing too.

I suspect BM is chasing both ends of the video production market:

• Making a feature with UMP, external audio, heaps of clips with slates, large editing team with collaboration and multiple simultaneous users and industry leading grading facilities, frame.io integration, etc etc etc
• Making a fast-turn around piece with P4K, internal audio, single person post-production on a laptop in the field in the new Cut page, grade with the auto-match feature and a LUT, put in a Fusion title and end sequence and upload straight to YT

Obviously most people will be somewhere in-between, but making something that works for both ends of the spectrum is a real challenge and they seem to be doing a pretty good job at it.

8 hours ago, mb6079 said:

 

I don't think the stabilisation is tied to any node in particular but rather just to the clip itself.

Yes - that's a better way of saying it!

21 hours ago, leslie said:

two pages back the was a video shot by moonlight. i wonder if that's how it was accomplished with a 0.95 and speedbooster. I googled supermoon and they can be as much as 30% brighter and 14%  larger. So maybe a combination of all the above would make it doable perhaps.

I have a GH5 and I shoot home and travel videos in available light and I must say that having a 0.95 lens really makes a huge difference.  I just turned off all the lights so the room was only lit by the monitor and at f0.95 in HLG the 400 base ISO and 1/50th shutter is almost as bright as my vision.
I'd love an extra stop or so, but in terms of practicality being able to shoot whatever people can see is a good reference point for low-light performance.  The P4K should be a bit closer to that limit.

14 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I don't see them switching to a subscription model. I imagine they'll continue to offer the software for free, with a "full version" available for $300. I think they're much more interested in attracting more people into their ecosystem than anything, especially if it encourages people to buy their cameras and hardware. 

I agree - bringing people into their ecosystem is likely to be their long-term vision.

Amazon and Apple realised this long ago.  Lots of profit to be made from taking the Hotel California style of customer relationship, where "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"   It works for religion too, by excommunicating people who want to leave you raise the price of switching above what most people are willing to tolerate..

20 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Predictions/Hopes for Blackmagic 16:

Better stabilization options.
Prores support in Windows
Dolby Atmos support.
More options in the export menu for customization.

And #1: Ability to use external monitors without their hardware cards.

I'd be quite excited by an update to their stabilisation engine.

I shoot hand-held almost exclusively, and the combination of the GH5 IBIS and Resolve stabilisation does a great job already, but I suspect that the stabilisation engine has far more potential than the current interface allows.

I'd especially like the ability to control zoom/pan/tilt/roll independently, for example if I do a hand-held horizontal pan I want to eliminate rotation and tilt completely but smooth the pan motion only a little so it keeps a steadier pace.  Unfortunately you can't currently do this (or I haven't worked out how yet!) because you can't have stabilisation occurring in more than one node in series - at least the last time I checked each node you try and stabilise does its analysis on the unprocessed file, sort of ignoring the previous nodes that should already have been applied.

Using an external monitor without their cards would also be lovely, but considering they essentially have a captive audience I'm not sure how likely that is!

10 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I'm actually quite excited about Resolve 16, it's a great editing suite that is absolutely packed full of features.

10 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

It'll be really interesting to see how Resolve 16 changes things up. What could they possibly revolutionize at this point? That wording implies it'll be more than bug fixes and incremental upgrades to performance/compatibility.

I've been following Resolves progress as an industry standard editor since v12.5 and my impression is that if you're a professional editor it has some ways to go still before it would fully replace FCPX or PP.  I'm not a professional editor so I don't really see the shortcomings myself, but I've gathered that impression from reading articles or comments from people who are working on films with large teams and huge budgets.  

I believe the sticking points were certain editing features / modes that it's either missing or hasn't fully implemented yet.  As I said, I didn't understand what they were or why you might want them, but I got the impression they were for people who use a whole keyboards worth of keyboard shortcuts without even looking, and the other theme I noticed is that Resolve isn't as great for projects with huge amounts of footage like feature-length docs or high shooting-ratio features.

To this end, the banner saying "The revolution in editing starts..." may indicate that they've done a gap-analysis of editing features between Resolve and PP/FCPX and just implemented everything they found.  I guess the other way it might be interpreted is that instead of 'editing' meaning the edit page, they actually mean the entire post-production process (which I think is more how smaller productions and studios might use the word) in which case it could refer to them leading the charge in having a one-stop-shop that does media management, editing, VFX, sound design / mixing / mastering, and delivery.  In this sense it would be more like an Apple marketing campaign where "everything is new....  yet again, again" means something that looks identical to the last one and people talking about tiny tweaks (OMG, the notch!!).

Certainly an interesting space and it will be existing to see what they are bringing us for very early birthday/xmas present this year

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

5-axis IBIS there would be terrific indeed : ) A killer combo for the segment : -)

2 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

For me it's either the P4K or the GH5.

I think it's a very interesting comment from Andrew about a "pro" P4K having IBIS.  This is literally the opposite of what Panasonic did when they took the GH5, made it 'pro' and took IBIS out because the pros use external stabilisers and rigs.

I genuinely have no idea what BM would do, but in my head the choice between the GH5 and P4K wasn't a choice between cameras, it was a choice between fundamentally different types of cameras.  Of course, BM have a very solid cinema lineup between the P4K and UMP, especially with the UMP update, and perhaps a tiny screen-less Micro-styled version would complete that range.

Should they have done their market analysis and thought 'lets have a second line where we jump the hybrid/cine line boundary to compete with video-side of the GH5/A7III/XT3' then that would be fascinating.  It would be the same logic of Panasonic with the GH5 and GH5s and a P4K that was oriented around the hand-held single-operator segment would truly be a thing to behold, but I suspect it's unlikely as BM have started in the cine world and although they have come down in price, they haven't come anywhere near the mass-market as a GH5 competitor.

3 hours ago, Mokara said:

Not really. The rumor was that there were two A7SIII protoypes, an incremental model and an advanced model. Probably Sony originally had the idea of the incremental model being released in late 2018 with the more advanced prototype being released a year or two later once the rough edges were ironed out. With the imminent release of Canon and Nikon's full frame cameras they probably decided to drop the incremental prototype and develop the advanced one instead. Since that was going to take longer there was a delay. Because they stopped development on the incremental prototype, all of the resources would then go into the advanced prototype, meaning it would arrive soon than they had originally planned.

At least that is how I see it. There is no way they would have started from scratch once they realized the incremental prototype was not going to be advanced enough to dominate they way they want.

I suspect you're right.  

I have seen product pipelines before and was surprised at how long a lead-time they require.  IIRC one example I saw was that a company had a development time that was 4 or 5 times the length of their release cycle, so you had 4, 5 or maybe even 6 products in different stages of development simultaneously.  This approach suggests that the incremental and advanced models in development simultaneously concept is quite likely.

We're at an interesting time right now where the Sony A7S3, GH6, and others are due very soon but have no place in the lineup, because for them to provide any substantial improvement to their predecessors will mean they leap over sections of the lineup of cameras above them.  Of course, one aspect to this is that we shouldn't really compare a DSLR form-factor camera with a cinema-camera form factor as they're not really for the same purpose.  Yes they're both cameras, but they're for different end-users to use in different ways in different situations.

I'm surprised that people are surprised about 8K:

• Sharp has a prototype
• we have the sensors
• the data-rates are only double 4K60 and processor speed doubles every 1.5-2 years and it's been more than that since the GH5 was released
• P4K has the media solutions with sufficient data rates and is a third the price of a top-end camera
• the TVs are coming
• and the Japanese are pushing the whole thing as a world-wide technology PR stunt for the Olympics...

5 hours ago, Dave Del Real said:

I really like Resolve 15, looking forward to 16. I would completely switch over if I could get my exports to look like what I see in my viewer (can't afford a calibrated monitor). How do you guys work around that?

Apart from the update @BrunoCH mentioned, I recommend you overcome your lack of calibration by keeping the demo videos of the ARRI and Canon cinema cameras handy and comparing your grade to clips in those videos.  I specifically mention these two brands because both are known for their excellent colour science, but have very different approaches to skin tones and other aspects so it kind of gives you a couple of data points that you can place your grade anywhere between and it'll be fine.  Also, demo videos are their finest example of footage and will have been graded to perfection from a high-end colourist so you can be sure that the quality is there and you're safe using them as a reference.

One could theoretically download them, pull them into Resolve, find great frames and capture stills so that there is a range of reference images right inside Resolve only a few clicks away at any point, but copyright issues obviously prevent anyone from doing that

6 hours ago, thephoenix said:

to me what resolves lacks the most are presets packs and tutorials.

i also have difficulties with the node way of thinking as i am used to adobe layers but will definitevely move to resolve when it gets a more creatives ressources

Nodes is definitely a different way of thinking and takes some work to understand, but the advantage is that nodes can do things you cannot do with layers, or cannot do easily (depending on the software) so it's worth the effort to work through it to get familiar with them.

7 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Yes, but if you're going back and forth on different machines this is a pain.

I agree that the database method only suits a particular way of working, and I haven't found a way around it.  I don't know how they would change this but I can see how it would be useful - once again I think this is a hang-over from Resolve being an industry-leading tool scaled down to software-only rather than a PC tool scaled up to have industry-leading functionality.

25 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

My workflow is based on decades of Premiere (and old Final Cut) use. 

I am not that productive with Resolve yet, and when I tried 14 for the first time it wasn't a hassle free experience.

15 seems a lot better, but haven't try a project yet, but after I am finishing a couple that I have already begun on Premiere, I am going Resolve and hope its for good.

You probably already know this but there are present keyboard shortcuts for people used to the other NLEs that might be useful.

Not saying there aren't other significant differences, but every bit helps..

2 hours ago, mojo43 said:

Interesting discussion. I believe that it has peaked for people who watch and have watched travel videos since the beginning (like myself). There will of course be other styles that come out that will push it further, but essentially I feel like it is becoming more of a cliché than anything. Story is what will change the genre in the future imo. This video however was us going out and shooting for fun. We are pretty much always shooting what the client wants so it was nice to put story aside and just shoot some fun transition shots in an epic place where no one really films travel videos haha...

That all being said, most of the world has never seen a travel video with transitions like this and are still new to this genre. We were specifically targeting an Asian audience with this video so hopefully it will be new to them and Taiwanese people will see Taiwan like they have never seen it before.

Thanks for opening up an the discussion!

Have you noticed differences in style between different cultures or countries? In a sense these videos are in the universal language of visuals and audio, although the music YouTubers I follow have shown me that there are still interesting differences in music between cultures.

I'm curious to hear what differences or preferences might exist, especially because I'm not attuned enough to see them myself if I watch foreign content.

2 hours ago, gethin said:

I just quoted on a job. Required 3 trips to location, 3 lots of drone work and shooting on a roof and a little interview.

I quoted $2200 Aud (about 1500 usd) for a 2-3 min finished vid or $275 per hour  ($195usd) for the raw footage, only.  Got message back that he didn't have a lot of money to spend on the vid, and ultimately that i was too expensive, and I just wonder what folk expect when they phone about that sort of job. $500? I am seeing this more and more. Time to give up on video and become a plumber.

I have read magazines and followed people on forums across several industries and there is a point that each business-owner reaches at some point in their career which will decide if they go on to be successful or to struggle and perhaps close up shop.

That point is where they are worth more than the majority of available budgets and they either take the view that some clients aren't worth working for, or they go negative and complain about budgets but muddle through.  Those who choose the first approach take the path of charging a healthy amount for their work but also focusing on customer service and quality of work, and are respected in-turn by their clients.  These people normally make that decision blind, that is they decide not to take the under-budget work even through they have no confidence that they will be able to win enough work to stay in business, and they often reflect back saying they don't know why they were worried and that they've built a client-base of good clients who appreciate their work and the value they bring.

In a contracting or rapidly changing industry this decision becomes more important as it's the people that don't value themselves and go negative that end up going out of business.

Work hard, do your best, but value yourself.... We teach the world how to treat us by how we treat ourselves.

18 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

 

 

I've just discovered the secret to success in this industry -- be very critical of the image made by any camera other than Alexa, and you are instantly a top notch dp in the class of Roger Deakins.

Here is a list of terms to help your complaints sound more legit:

• Lacks DR (dynamic range)
• Poor highlight roll off
• Contrasty
• Not contrasty
• Bad motion cadence
• Too digital

......

You forgot Mojo!!

17 hours ago, anonim said:

@Jonesy Jones

It might be pretty applicable irony for someone, but actually somebody here post ambitious comparison between Arri and P4K asking for comments and, as it seems, seriously calling to acclamation agreement that they are extremely similar. Me, personally, unfortunately and in spite to my wish, had to admit that for me they don't look so close as I expected, at least at concrete case... judging about traits that I not invented, but found here as usually pointed and quoted as proof of close quality (and, I'm sure, used by yourself also in commenting some other topic). As I understand, most of us here will be glad to the highest degree to buy P4K immediately if we could, but I can't pretend that in given example - and from whatever reason - it really looks to me and on my laptop screen as easy-to-match given Arri side-by-side results. Alas, they don't - but probably I'm wrong and curse just to my own modest angle and capacity of view.

It seems to me that somebody has to be little bit silly not to highly esteem and praise BM achievement with P4K, but why it is so bad if some other (obviously) long time admirers and users of BM products express some kind of reservation over some results - when it is clear that indeed BM makes pretty distinctive decisions? Is it the must for of all us to - being faced with her majesty P4K - use exclusively expressions type of high-suspense emotional connection, of being-professionally-reborn, of inner-mind revolution and revelation, of heavenly adoration and consciousness of turning point in aesthetic history 

I agree.  Comparing a Corolla to a Ferrari requires some accommodation of pricing.

15 hours ago, mercer said:

Why does every new camera that is released inevitably have a “... vs Alexa” video, anyway?

I mean, if any of these cameras were as good as an Alexa, then Roger Deakins would surely buy them and use them in their Hollywood films. Weirdly enough, I have heard, somewhere, that a lot of Hollywood DPs own Fuji cameras as their personal camera...

But seriously, it’s not the end of the world if your sub-2000 dollar camera isn’t as good as an Alexa. Most people believe the best Red doesn’t look as good as an Alexa, so it’s highly unlikely that a $1300 camera will either.

Stop watching and reposting these stupid comparisons and maybe they’ll stop making them.

With that being said, the OG Pocket was often referred to as a Baby Alexa, maybe the P4K will earn that moniker as well one day, but until then, what’s the harm in mentioning a flaw or two? And a strength or two?

Cell phones are the great equalizer and how most people will watch most of your videos, so if a camera’s image looks noticeably better on a cell phone screen, I find, there’s usually something to it. YMMV.

I like the "X vs Alexa" because it serves as a good reference for the state of the art.  It also does some small good to educate people that are new to this space and think that their $3k camera setup should be the best in the world.  

I also like that it (can) spawn some interesting conversations around various cameras having strengths and weaknesses.  A cellphone is a lot more 'professional' a camera when the shot required is wide angle and in plenty of light with deep DOF, for example.  That knowledge is useful to those people who respond to the "$100k movie camera" clickbait titles.

We could definitely do with more nuanced debate around things though, sadly it seems that the world has become more polarised and succumbed to more black-or-white thinking now that globalisation is really kicking in.  

4 hours ago, leslie said:

 

i think thats just hilarious.

the whole forum is about making the best footage possible from some pricey cameras (alexia)  to not so pricey (bmp4k) and others. People are talking 4k,  6k, 8k grading like a hollywood blockbuster and now we are comparing results or watching it on a phone. Is that some irony or what ?. I really cant be bothered watching stuff on my phone. Dont get me wrong, phones are great  and i use the camera quite a bit for pictures for work and personal stuff. i also have about half my cd collection on a card in the phone to listen to. But to watch stuff online, i'll spend a whole extra minute and turn the phone into hotspot mode, fire up the laptop and watch it on that or the desktop at home. i personally dont find phone screens immersive or captivating enough (if immersive is the right word).

Watching on a phone is actually more meaningful than you might think.  

The differences between 1:1 RAW and 12:1 RAW are visible, even through YT compression which must be hundreds-to-one, which tells you something about the nature of compression and signal processing through a signal path.

It's the same with resolution, although most phones are 1080p displays now.

Besides, most camera tests are completely useless at worst, or just a reflection of how well they were graded.

Content and story loose neither dynamic range nor resolution when viewed on a phone...

On 4/4/2019 at 11:34 AM, mojo43 said:

Thank you... I wanted to get out of hand a bit on this one and just have fun. Hopefully it wasn't too much

Not too much but definitely at the upper end of that genre.

Considering it's already been raised, I wonder what your impressions are (as someone who pushing this genre) of the future of this style of film making?  Some say it's innovative and entertaining, and others say that it's using fireworks to replace story (as I would suggest many Hollywood action films are guilty of) and the associated kick-back from this style of film-making, as well as the Vlog style from Casey Neistat / Peter McKinnon where the lesser practitioners rely on B-roll over content.

Is this style still evolving?  or has it peaked?  What's next?

Nice work!!

18 hours ago, Mokara said:

The C700 is ideal for cat videos....I am surprised that no one has posted theirs yet.

I've got 7 cine-cat videos at picture-lock but i'm still perfecting the grade.  I've got about 53 nodes in Resolve across the final timeline, but I just can't get it to be cinematic enough.

6 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I'm not sure if you're kidding, but I see nothing wrong with using a C700 for cat videos.

I wonder if Roger Deakins and Janusz secretly shoot cat videos. I'd love to see them. Probably would be their most honest work.

I bet most Red owners/cat owners are shooting cat videos. They'd be crazy not to.

I thought that any camera that shoots 4K120 came with a basket of kittens?

Or maybe it was just a multi-year promotion that I saw that has now lapsed?

It's hard to keep up.

11 hours ago, Zach Goodwin2 said:

I am guessing by you all's sarcasm that what you are saying is that low light is not that important, so the key factor in getting a new camera must not be low-light.

I think the general idea is that if your production is using a cine camera (which requires a number of crew to successfully operate and is big and heavy) then your production will have enough people and sufficiently limited portability that you can use artificial lighting and not require low-light performance.  Even in scenes that are shot in 'low light' such as external street shots or whatever would get enough light because you'd build a set for it.

My impression is that large productions typically spend a very low percentage of their budget on the camera, and it's only smaller productions that have this as being a significant cost.  In this sense, a cinema camera is actually a camera for a completely different type of film, rather than it being the same but just nicer quality.

[edit: or they would just shoot day-for-night where they shoot during the day and change the shots in post to look like they're shot at night]