kye

Yes, a pity it doesn't have BLE. Controlling it with the BM camera app would have been really good. Will said that you can use it with a USB-C hub to connect an SSD while also powering it via USB. Have you tried that? Maybe it is just limited to connecting to one device and the USB charging doesn't count?

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan..... in something approaching the size of an action camera. Sony, etc, have no excuses.

AI invented a time machine and you've been amongst us this whole time??

Really? I never realised that... I think M4K just has AF-S, not AF-C. Maybe I just saw how huge the P4K was and never paid much attention beyond that!

You can respectfully disagree, but maybe there's a reason that no-one has done this yet....

There is no such thing as objectively better. There was a famous blind test that included high end cameras like the ARRI Alexa and Red Epic Dragon 6K, but also much lower-end cameras like the GH4.. here's a couple of articles talking about it: https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/20/12-cameras-blind-test-bmpc-4k-bmpcc-gh4-arri-alexa-red-epicdragon-6k-sony-f55-fs700-kineraw-mini-canon-c500-5d-mark-iii-1dc/ https://www.4kshooters.net/2014/08/24/12-cameras-test-part-iii-arri-alexa-red-epic-dragon-6k-blackmagic-4k-kineraw-mini-gh4-5d-mark-iii-more/ But here's the kicker - the audience was industry professionals and some of them preferred the GH4 to the ARRI or the RED. In the end, everything is subjective.

Actually, I take back my comments that overheating testing is incomprehensible, because I found this.... (linked to timestamp) ...and in case you don't want to hit play, the BM Micro Studio Camera was used to film inside the race car of a 24 hour race in Daytona, and: it was being powered from the car it was recording 4K to a 4TB SSD in BRAW 8:1 it recorded for 24 hours straight with no overheating and no dropped frames the average temp in the car was 120F / 48C the suspension in a race car is stiff and shaking the camera too Just goes to show - all these huge cameras that overheat in air-conditioning are just flat-out design failures.

Will has just released his full review of the new M4K and it looks like the sleeper camera of the decade.... One thing of extreme interest to me was that it has AF, and although he only shows it once in the video, it looks pretty snappy. Of course, he also mentions that it's the same sensor as the P4K... sooooo, the P4K sensor has AF, but the P4K does not!

It's partly a theoretical point, but I'm not actually sure this has to be the case. It's definitely not the case if you're comparing 709 8-bit vs LOG 8-bit, as LOG 8-bit can be so fragile that you can't even make nice images if you don't need to change WB or exposure at all. The missing piece (and why I said "I'm not sure this has to be the case") is having the colour management to convert back from 709 into something where WB and Exposure adjustments will be made proportionally to the image (ie, like they were done in-camera). I've done a lot of work with the GX85, as I'm sure you've seen, and am still planning on doing more, and I got quite good results with the Gamma wheel when the image was in 709, and using the WB and Offset controls when I'd done a CST to a LOG space (in my case using DWG/DI in Resolve). The reasons that I suggest this are that: when shooting 8-bit there is far more data in the saturation, so the impacts of quantisation are much less when grading the final image to have a normal level of saturation when shooting 8-bit the image SOOC is much closer to the final image in terms of the gamma curve, so you're not stretching those bits that much further apart than they already are, whereas 8-bit LOG needs a lot of additional contrast to be added Of course, the ultimate is having 10-bit HLG, which has full 709 levels of saturation, has a gamma curve much closer to a 709-style output but still retains all the DR from the camera, and it has all the benefits of 10-bit. Once again, HLG isn't a standard so the conversion is a challenge, but I've found that interpreting it as either Rec2020 or Rec2100 works pretty well. I'm currently programming my own grading tool in DCTL for Resolve and my main aim is to incorporate the tools that I'll need to grade 709 images, considering that the GX85 is now my main focus and it's the one that is hardest to get right with the existing tools. Once I have a working prototype I'll be filming my rec709 WB/exposure tests again (with skintones this time) and will update the other thread.

I think it would backfire, because the better the modified firmware got the more that people would become critical of the manufacturer for "crippling" their cameras when they were current models. You have to remember, human beings are wired to prioritise negative information over positive information - this is why newspapers are always talking doom and gloom but never reporting on the progress of eliminating polio or working towards global literacy and numeracy, etc.

I agree with @eatstoomuchjam that either would be fine, even for the more extreme situations. My experience has been that the GH5 (9.7 stops) often wasn't enough for people-in-front-of-sunset but that the P2K (11.2 stops) was hugely better. I wouldn't say that it's all you'd need in that situation, but it made a HUGE difference in that situation for me. Going up to the A7S3 (12.3 stops) would be a huge jump up again and would likely be all you'd need in that situation. But remember, that situation is a really demanding one, and waaaay more than you need in any other lighting scenario - the P2K (11.2 stops) is enough when the sun isn't in shot. It's fun to talk about cameras and look at the specs, but asking which is "better" involves so many variables that the situation really matters. Even things like how you feel matters because you use the camera differently.

No, actually, you're right.. it's me, I'm the silly one. I'd forgotten that the threads about industry news always devolve into everyone arguing about inconsequential rubbish that has no bearing on film-making. Thanks for the reminder and best of luck y'all.

I suggest you read the thread before posting - this is the second post from you that I've seen where you have come in half way through the conversation making comments that look a bit silly..... https://www.eoshd.com/news/adobe-cancel-nikon-n-raw-support-is-redcode-raw-coming-to-a-mirrorless-camera-near-you/ Ah, so theoretical discussion completely divorced from reality it is then. Well, umm.. good luck with that.

Sort-of yes, but also sort-of no. For a start, the Z9 and A1 are both top-of-the-line cameras, so if one can't beat the other given a 4X bitrate advantage, then either the sensor is absolutely rubbish, the processing is absolutely rubbish, or the codec isn't up to much. BUT, none of that matters, because unless you want to have a purely academic and theoretical discussion, you can't get a Sony sensor with N-RAW, so the variables aren't independent. BUT, none of that matters either, because soon you won't be able to get N-RAW on any camera. BUT, none of that matters either, because let's face it... any time you spend worrying about this is time you aren't spending time on what actually matters to make a good and enjoyable film.

I'm confused... you obviously don't want one, so why are you in this thread about camcorders arguing that no-one wants them? I'm not interested in buying any cameras that exist right now, but I'm not sitting in all the threads arguing with people about them.

In Andrews tests, the N-RAW wasn't better than the h265. Soooo, are you asking if R3D files are better than h265? While I haven't done a direct comparison, I'd have to say yes... yes, I think they might just be better!!

I think you might be partly missing the point. 1) If Sony put a modern sensor in one of these things, it would have the same spec as a modern camera because it would BE a modern camera. There are a shit-ton of smartphone sensors that have excellent specs that are in the right size range. 2) When compared to a modern mirrorless camera and a superzoom lens and a gimbal, it would be positively tiny by comparison. Also, camcorders often have completely internal mechanisms (zoom and focus) potentially making them much easier to weather-seal. The benefits in terms of being less fragile in your bag etc might also be welcome. Also, also, for amateur use, a camcorder looks FAAAAAAAAR less threatening in public than a MILC and large lens... let alone when you add the gimbal. Put an A6700 with superzoom on an RS3 or Crane and you may as well have activated a homing beacon for all private security, toxic law enforcement, Karen's, etc to come out of the woodwork and hassle you. If you're holding something the shape of a camcorder, the fact that it's larger might even make you look less of a threat because buying a big camcorder might make you look a bit silly - the opposite look of a professional setup.

The Balanced Optical Steady Shot (BOSS!) is a pretty amazing technology really - it's a pity it never got much attention. I am a pretty big supporter of having stabilisation built-in because it means that motion is smoothed DURING the exposure rather than AFTERWARDS when the frame already has shaky motion blur baked into each frame. My Sony X3000 action camera has BOSS and it is very impressive in practice. I have gotten quite a number of almost gimbal-level stabilisation shots while walking, and I can tell you that I'm not that good at the ninja walk. I haven't compared it directly to the IBIS of the GH5, or even the dual IS of Panasonic IBIS plus lens OIS, but after using the GH5 for years I found myself being impressed with the X3000. Of course, the X3000 also has a very wide angle lens (maybe 15mm or so equivalent?) so that also helps. The other thing that is significant about it is that it, as you say, is basically a gimbal, which keeps the optics and sensor in alignment the whole time, so it eliminates all the corner warping that comes from OIS or IBIS. In terms of the image quality, I would suggest that with a 100Mbps 4K mode that if you add some de-sharpening (blur) and do some creative colour grading, potentially adding in some film emulation elements, that you could get a very nice image indeed. I am definitely a fan of a setup that is flexible and can just grab shots quickly and without fuss. Perhaps the best way to make your edits better through camera choice is to make your camera as fast and flexible as possible, and to get lots of shots and a great variety of shots, as this gives you more options in the edit.

I'd suggest testing this for yourself. Find the situation / situations where your existing setup doesn't have enough DR, and use a camera in stills mode to measure the brightest part of the image and the darkest part. I'd suggest using zebras. For example, if you open up your camera lens to f2.8 and set a 1/10 shutter and ISO 3200 and this sets off the zebras then you just adjust those parameters down until the highlights don't set off the zebras and then you'll have your number of stops. This might sound a bit fiddly, and it is, but it will give you a definite answer. The alternative is spending thousands of dollars based on a review / vlog from some camera bro with mediocre technical knowledge and unknown commercial interests on YT.

It's also worth pointing out that the film you posted could have been shot with almost any camera just by controlling the ratio on set with lighting. I'm not being dramatic here - you could literally shoot that with the GH1 or my GF3 (of course the resolution and bitrates would suffer..) but the contrast could be replicated.

I think comparisons like this are a journey into very tricky territory. I'm not saying that DR doesn't matter, or that the A74 doesn't have more than the FX3, but I wonder what situations this will really make a meaningful difference in. 12.9 vs 12.4 isn't that much of a difference, especially once you've got this much DR already. I like to think about this in terms of "what shots can you get with one and not the other?". I have spoken a lot about DR in my work, but that's because I tend to regularly be shooting people in front of a sunset, and I want the persons face and also not to clip the sunset behind them. I think I could get that shot with either of these cameras. Another shot is of people sitting by a fire, and wanting to show the surroundings as well as not clip the fire (white fire looks odd but you can clip little bits of it as they end up looking like fire highlights). This isn't a shot I do so I'm not sure if this needs more DR than the A73. You also need the skill to pull the shadows out in post. I don't mean just raising the shadows slider either, I mean having the skill to match a shot with (let's say) 12.9 stops of DR with the previous and next shots which are likely to have dramatically less DR. Imagine that the surrounding shots are of people sitting around the fire - they might have half the DR of the previous shot. When you have the contrast / curves / LGG wheels / etc cranked one way for one shot, then cranked the other way for the next shot, will all the colours remain similar? Will the contrast seem natural? Colour grading software is getting better but did you know that the normal colour grading controls were developed with algorithms that were simple for computers to do (to reduce processor requirements) rather than looking good? This often doesn't matter when you're only adjusting things a little bit, but large changes will ruthlessly reveal the weaknesses. Things like the Resolve HDR Palette were designed to be perceptually uniform, but are you grading in Resolve using this panel? You also have to consider the other implications of a choice between the FX3 and A74, for example. Comparing DR is great but it's an "everything else being equal" comparison, but of course, everything else isn't equal. The extra DR might come at the cost of something else that is more meaningful to what you're doing. Film-making doing anything other than shooting still-life images on a tripod inside (where everything is controlled and you have all the time in the world) is an exercise in having less time and attention than you'd want to, so you're always trying to work out what is most important and paying attention to that. I don't know about you, but I routinely look at the footage I have shot and see all kinds of things that I should have done differently - but then I have to remind myself that I was walking down a staircase holding the camera with one hand and the railing with the other and trying not be steady and use the ninja walk while keeping the right focus distance to my subject and keep the nice framing and also not hit my head etc etc etc. I didn't have mental capacity to do anything else, and if I had paid attention to that other thing then maybe I would have screwed up the shot entirely, etc. You have to look at the total situation and review what the requirements are for you in your situation and think through what implications you'll have of swapping from one camera to another and the effect on your viewers as they are watching the final edit. Everything else other than how your viewers feel is a means to an end.

This reminds me of when I did a Cisco training course and the instructor was giving us the background on who Cisco are and what they do etc. (For those unaware, Cisco make networking equipment) He went through the number of models, then the number of different variations that each one could have, and the end result was that they offered millions/billions of different "products". This is in much the same way that Ford has billions of different variations of the Transit van. Anyway, his point was that for these to all be completely stable and reliable, Cisco had to be flawlessly organised and have incredible systems for everything, and was really a software company that happened to also make its own hardware rather than a hardware company. I think you've hit the nail on the head here. If you have to pay a monthly fee to use the camera then it's not something you "already have". It's something you have licensed.. it's equipment that you rent.

In digital, highlights don't roll-off - they clip faster than a Ferrari without breaks. The roll-off is applied as part of the processing that occurs after the image is read from the sensor. In terms of DR, you have to find a source that has tested both with the same methodology. Luckily, CineD is one such source: https://www.cined.com/sony-a7-iv-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/ https://www.cined.com/sony-a7s-iii-lab-test-does-it-live-up-to-the-hype/

That's what I was asking. My point was that the math that sits underneath the many branded names is mostly the same. TicoRAW will be just another branded version of something that someone else wrote. My original post was wondering what it was...

I recently bought a new treadmill and was amazed that the high-end ones required a subscription model. I wouldn't be averse to buying a GX85 updated firmware, but to buy and re-buy the damned thing over and over again is ridiculous. Yet another reason to snap out of the specifications trance that everyone seems to be in and focus on making better videos, rather than making the same videos with better spec'd equipment.