kye

I'm not really into Halloween (and it's less of a thing here in Australia, although it is growing in popularity each year)....  but, Alien is seriously good sci-fi cinema!  I can't imagine you haven't seen it, but if not, wow are you in for a treat!  My first experience with the series was Aliens, which I watched as a ~7? year old alone in the lounge room of someones big old scary house where my dad was visiting and the adults put it on to keep me entertained why they talked somewhere else in the house.    I had a major jump-scare when during a particularly tense moment in the film someone suddenly stuck their head into the room to ask me what I wanted for dinner!  A memorable watch!
I've often wished that I could 'forget' a movie so that I would get to watch it for the first time (again).  I purposefully don't watch my favourites for years so that I have forgotten at least some stuff and get some surprises and fun twists.
Other fun movies that come to mind:
The Forgotten 2004 with Julianne Moore (watch it without any spoilers or previews at all if you can) The Ring The Fourth Kind 2009 with Milla Jovovich (again, watch without spoilers or previews if possible) and of course, just for fun...  Shawn of the Dead 🙂 

The OG BMPCC is hugely different again, compared to the Digital Bolex and Ikonoskop. The Ikonoskop had the same Kodak sensor as the D16. I shot with both side by side (BM Pocket and Ikonoskop) in Berlin.
Whereas the D16 and Ikonoskop have a very particular low-fi look and a lot of "imperfections" in certain conditions from the CCD sensor, the original BM Pocket was far more modern and clean looking, just all round a bit more normal. Still very nice, but it was its own thing and separate to the DB.
Joe ran the sensor hot in the D16, basically overclocked it.
It also had a much more appealing look undercranked to 16fps in post than a modern CMOS sensor camera.
So if we can get even a bit closer to this look, with the help of some tricks and post production I'd be a happy bunny.
Yeah. It's very much uncompressed.
Cinema DNG is the key to the Fp. Even in 8bit.
It doesn't have the squeaky clean and processed look of BRAW and ProRes RAW.
I may try the 2K on the Fp-L and see if it's any good. The file sizes in 4K are a bit of an issue.
But so is finding, maintaining, keeping and shooting a Digital Bolex lol.
I am also curious to hear more about that.
The CMOS 'plastic' look could well have something to do with that.
I also think it handles white balance and colour temperature completely differently to CCD.
There is always an overall slight veiling especially in warmer scenes.

That's the thing, you kept referencing the silver screen and cinema standards so I just thought I'd give further context..
Its like HDR.. I feel it makes much better sense on a device used in daylight than in a dark room. Different medium, different tech and workflows make more/better sense. Context is everything.
 

lol...  I guess it's just me and my logic again, getting too big for my britches 😛 

Two very useful sentiments that I try to live by are:
If in doubt, don't buy anything If the solution isn't obvious, you don't fully understand the problem

Yes, acquisition tried to keep pace with the tech I'm sure, and this was also in the days when cameras didn't downscale in-camera which made oversampling at capture even more important.
My point was simply that if a 2K Prores HQ didn't have intolerable macro-blocking when used in a workflow that was projected in multiplex cinemas, that 4K Prores LT with a similar/superior bitrate wouldn't be worse than that.  Also, the people in this discussion are pretty unlikely to be shooting for projection on a 590" cinema screen, so a codec with 400Mbps being streamed at 15-25Mbps, LT is probably good enough....   even with our post-millennial biologically superior eyesight 😉 

What's interesting is that the Digital Bolex used a completely separate board for the Kodak CCD sensor internally. This was to avoid introducing noise which would need cleaning up and it is that step in the pipeline that hurts the nuances of a sensor according to Joe Rubinstein.
So it might be that with the modern cameras and their single circuit board, there's simply too much pre-processing going on and too much interference with the signal coming back off the sensor, which lends more digital look. It would be lovely to get the look of a Digital Bolex in a modern mirrorless camera. We'll see if we can harangue the X-H2 into looking more 'raw'.

The difference between 3.2k the resolution being used if shooting spherical and 2.8k which is what the Alexa classic sensor uses is pretty small imo. Yes the Alexa Classic is 2k, but its downsampled from 2.8k. If you look at the difference between downsampled 2k from 2.8k and 2.8k native it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference. The benefit of shooting RAW is definitely nice, ARRI raw has more texture than prores. Of course it comes at the cost of a little more grain. I am sure the little extra info in Prores 444XQ is helpful sometimes too. To me ARRI didn't get a big boost until the LF tho. You do notice the extra detail comparing the LF to any of the previous S35 Alexas. Comparing different flavors of 3k is pretty negligible though at least in terms of resolution. 

I do think 12bit 444 makes a noticeable difference over 10 bit if you push the color at all, mainly with skin tones.


just my 2 cents 

It is interesting that Joe says in the video, they wanted the absolute character of the Kodak sensor to be preserved in-camera, without any noise reduction or introduction of any circuit noise. Just the natural grain from the sensor.
So it got me thinking...
With HVEC and modern sensors we have a squeaky clean look. It has a lot of noise reduction you can't turn off, and a lot of compression.
So if we wanted the colour, character, uncompressed Cinema DNG and film grain of the Digital Bolex...
We need to find a modern camera...
Because the D16 on eBay now is $6K!!
I think the closest I own is the Sigma Fp-L in crop mode.
It has the resolution for 2x crop so works with Super 16mm lenses.
But any crop from about 1.37x onward gives a very detailed texture to the uncompressed 4K raw.... as it is a 1:1 pixel readout.
If you download the frame grab below, and look at the full 4K JPG conversion of my DNG, it is apparent at 1:1 that nothing is being lost and nothing is being added.
Especially since this is at ISO 3200 behind a strong ND filter.
At lower ISOs it looks a bit too clean to be a Digital Bolex-a-like.
However at ISO 3200 it is perfectly on note.
What other cameras could we wrangle (with a few tricks) to look like a Kodak CCD?
GH5S?
S1R 5K?
Canon RAW?
Nikon Z9?
How about our smartphones in Motion Cam?

But Kye, the human eye has evolved, you see. What was more than adequate in 2015 is no longer going to cut the mustard in 2022. Funny how things have changed.

I'm talking acquisition from a DPs perspective.
As the following video from 2014 states, 80% of films back then where shot above 3K yet indeed 99% were finished in 2K.
That doesn't mean it was ideal as far as IQ as the guy explains nobody printed Super35 to Super16 which is sort of what was being done back then. Not to mention they were already anticipating 4K streaming (or "broadband" as they called it then lol). He goes on to explain/push the benefits of shooting in ARRIRAW at 3.4K with the then new XT and details a workflow where you'd transcode to ProRes 444 2.8K for a 50% gain in file size and almost 3K resolution. That would have definitely been the forward-thinking workflow:
 

This raises an interesting question for me about what role resolution plays in the quality of Prores.  
Prores bitrates scale proportionally with resolution, so 4K is ~4x the bitrates of 1080p because there are ~4x the pixels.
I would assert that 2K Prores HQ is "sufficient" (not perfect, but sufficient) as countless feature films were shot in 2K/1080p Prores HQ (at ~180Mbps) and were projected in theatres worldwide on the largest screens available (short of IMAX), so the macro-blocking can't have been too bad.  
So then, if we're talking 4K, Prores HQ is ~700Mbps and LT is ~330, which is almost double the 2K HQ bitrate.  If you film 4K you don't project it onto a larger screen just because you have more bitrate (plus there aren't really many screens larger than real cinemas anyway), so even if the macro-blocking is larger from LT in terms of how many pixels wide the artefacts are, the fact that there's more bitrate for the whole image, surely the artefacts would be less visible than on 2K HQ?
Does anyone know how this comparison actually fares in the real world?  I've never tested this particular aspect.

I'm shooting H.265 200 Mbit on the X-T4 and used to shoot 150 Mbit H.265 on the GH5.
I fully accept the weaknesses of those codecs, but I create only content for social media or personal usage so there is absolutely no point in recording in higher bit rates or codecs. Most people are obsessed with technical image quality when in the end, anyway no one cares about their results (cat video on YT with 7 views).
The only moment where I might use a higher bit rate option is if I record something with water, because that's always a disaster in LongGOP.
I always used to transcode to ProRes and wanted a camera that can record ProRes because of my editing system, but since I switched to Apple M1 based hardware, everything is golden with H.265.

Good observations. I agree that h264/h265 can really kill footage with sharpening & NR done in-cam.
But it really depends on camera brands and models. Even within Sony, the FX3/A7S3 has tons of NR you can't adjust.
The same sensor on FX6 is a lot more adjustable and on the new FX30 the same XAVC codecs display much less NR applied in-cam so it seems Sony listened to feedback.
Canon allow you to fully turn off high ISO NR. And higher end models have internal compressed RAW.
On Fuji you can reduce NR & sharpening but not fully turn off. Now with ProRes I assume there is a less processed image but its still a baked in format so not sure of the specifics. 
All-in-all prosumer hybrid cameras are getting better with XH2/XH2S/GH6/Z9 taking the lead with internal Prores. Followed by Canon with internal RAW. Sony is really still in last position with its heavy NR induced h26x codecs. 

Yes. but I also think that having high bitrate for 10bit 422 will account for the missing information in color, comparing to 444. But all of this circles back to the use case: are you filming a talking head or in a forest with lots of trees and moving micro elements that take up the bitrate so even thou the files are large it's justified as the utilization is high. 
But just like Andrew said in the original post: "- ProRes 422 HQ in GH6 and Nikon Z9 is too big, not practical in my opinion - may as well shoot raw?" 
 
Go watch DpReview's episodes and ProAV TV. Their shows might as well be audio only except the actual image comparisons. 

If you're referring to the Alexa Classic, 2K ProRes HQ was closer to 300Mbps and it could shoot up to 430Mbps in 4444.
Second gen Alexa XT really changed the game though with ARRIRAW /Prores XQ and resolutions up to 3.4K in OpenGate.
So I'd say "sufficient" by 2010 theatrical standards but ARRI IQ took a major bump as soon as the XT came out around 2013. 
Besides I heard there were software upgrades to give the Classic 3.2K/3.4K XQ/Open Gate so those bitrates and resolutions may have been used much earlier than 2013.
Long story short I don't know if that many features were actually shot in 2K ProRes HQ..

Here is a link to all the footage.
All shot with the xf 23mm f1.4 R LM WR at F4. Iso was at the base iso for each respective flog 2 and the shutter speed was changed to get similar exposure. NR and Sharpening at -4 and no interframe NR.   Video levels for Prores and full range for HEVC. 
Files are named what they are, e.g. XH2 PRHQ is Prores HQ shot on the x-h2.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h7OQtCirDoy9fcxxZaIDBxlJOPEn-Dcx

I wouldn't worry too much about the stills capabilities of a camera (unless you're a very serious professional photographer, in which case you've likely already got firm opinions on what camera to get and not asking here), because long long ago cameras already reached the level of "good enough" for professional work for the vast majority of professional photographers. While it has taken much longer for hybrid cameras to reach that point of "good enough". (I'd say that's only just now happening, now that many are getting 10bit internal)
Thus even if you got a very video focused camera (such as a P4K / C70 / FX30 / etc) then you could just for cheap buy a stills camera to use alongside your main camera that's for video. 
As in my opinion even an old Nikon D700 (only a couple of hundred dollars secondhand!) is "good enough" for the majority of "professional photographers" out there. (unless you're more into say the sports photography niche, in which case a cheap Nikon D500 still is one of the very best you could go for)
So if you for instance decided to go with a P4K as your filming camera, you could grab a Panasonic G7 to complement it for stills. Or a cheap Sony a6000 to complement the FX30 for stills. (I disagree about sensor size when it comes to shooting though, and people should just choose the right lens for the job. But anyway... you could say get a cheap cheap Sony a7mk1 for your stills, to use alongside an FX30? Or go nuts with resolution and get a Sony a7Rmk1? There is one on eBay at the moment for US$500)

heres a fun thread!
my current playlist includes helping build haunts (!!!), shopping for trashy halloween store stuff aaaanndd
• horror movies ive never really watched like Exorcist 3 or Halloween 18, whatever 
• fav 'horror' movie of all time is the shining btw lol (sort of doesnt count?)
• maybe ill watch Alien...
• Simpsons treehouse of horror seasons 1-10+
• x files monster of the week episodes
• Anything Ghost podcast
• Garfield halloween (garfield sucks but i have a soft spot for him. not funny but kinda sweet)
• been watching Are You Afraid of the Dark? vintage nick, never seen it before
• do you know whats ACTUALLY p darn good? dahmer on netflix. check it out..... IF YOU DARE MUAHHAHAHHAAAAA
• oh, and of course GHOST TO GHOST AM with art bell

what are you watching/doing? costumes? haunts?? projection mapping the house???
give me stuff to watch

Please shoot something with lots of fine detail and varying colors at infinity focus (trees with autumn colors are the best, check my youtube video I posted in this topic), both h.265 and ProRes. When it comes to h.265, the higher bitrate the better, and ProRes should be 422. UHD or higher resolution is fine.
When comparing both cameras, please use the same scene with the same settings. F-Log and/or F-Log2 please.
I know I ask a lot, but if you have other cameras as well, Canon/Sony/Panasonic, it would be nice to see them as well. The issue might not be obvious until you start to compare it with other cameras.

I probably draw the line around 600-800 mbps, which would be 4.5 to 6GB per minute.
I prefer BRAW whenever possible - better than ProRes RAW - and of course it's internal on my BMPCC 6K Pro and BMPCC 4K. I generally shoot Q5 on both, which can average around 5-7GB/min on the 6K and about 2GB/min on the 4K. If I'm doing something that needs green screen work or anything like that, I might shoot Q1 on the 6K, which is a whopping 11-12GB/min or Q0 on the 4K which is about 8GB/min. But that's better than ProRes 422 HQ which is 7GB/min on the 4K.
I reviewed the GH6 recently and while ProRes is a great feature to have, it takes up a ton of space, especially if you shoot the open gate 5.8K. Much prefer to just shoot 200mbps H.265 LongGOP (in 5.7K DCI or 5.8K open gate), which is a lot nicer than ProRes 422 HQ which clocks in at 1522mbps (both 23.98p). For 4K DCI I would use the 400mbps All-I H.264 4.2.2 - I wish Panasonic had at least offered H.265 All-I 4.2.2 for the 5.7K DCI and 5.8K open gate, instead of just 4.2.2 All-I ProRes. Supposedly they did this since H.265 is heavy on computers, but my Mac Studio can easily handle it - even my Mac Mini M1 doesn't have a problem with it.
For me, I use BRAW whenever possible. It's the best compressed RAW codec out there outside of REDCODE RAW. Smooth as butter to edit and of course seamless integration with Resolve. CinemaDNG provides little benefit for me and produces massive files that are simply unwieldy to deal with.
ProRes is more of the a convenience thing than an actual efficient codec. It just works smoothly on a lot of computers without top of the line specs, but once you get beyond 1080 HD, it becomes simply too much storage.
I edit off a few SSDs in RAID 5 configuration, then I have some regular HDDs in a NAS for archival storage.
Hopefully more compressed RAW options open up in the near future once RED loses their patent in this Nikon suit - at least that's what I predict will happen. It will also be hilarious to me if Nikon, the company that has historically never cared about video or filmmaking, is the one to invalidate their stupid patent.
(keep in mind, everything I shoot is narrative film, so high-quality video is necessary - so I'm willing to tolerate higher bitrates, though not excessively so)

It's also worth pointing out that the IQ that you get from a camera depends on:
the codec the bitrate the performance of the camera the processing the camera does prior to compression the quality of the processing algorithm in the camera The C100 downscaled from 4K sensor to a 24Mbps file that was easily better than the 100Mbps 4K files from many cheap cameras.  Sadly, in this subject, everything matters.

In addition to my previous post above, I think the optimum amount of processing is having more NR/sharpening than RAW has, and less than the GH5 has.  If the FX30 is closer to that mid-point then that's another plus for the camera.
Despite not liking Sony all that much (both their company behaviour as well as the design of their cameras) and not wanting to move from MFT to anything but FF, the FX30 has an appeal that I can't understand.
Is there some sort of X-factor for this camera? or is it just me?

Sorry, I didn't quite word it correctly. 
The Venice, FX9 and FX30 (apparently) all have true Dual Base ISO sensors. This means that at ISO 800 and 2500 (for the FX30), there is the exact same noise and dynamic range.
The FX6 and FX3 on the other hand have 'dual sensitivities' of 800 and 12800 but 12800 has more noise and less dynamic range than ISO800. They are not exactly the same. 
Article here explaining it better. https://sonycine.com/articles/what-is-dual-base-iso-/

@FHDcrew could always grade the footage and then run the finished edit or selected shots through it.  Not sure how that fits with the workflow though.