KnightsFan

Last I checked, Magic Lantern doesn't compress beyond the magic ratio of 6:1, so RED's patent wouldn't apply.

I agree. I read that C5D article when it came out and noticed that sentence as well, but since it was not mentioned in the video interview, and there wasn't a paragraph dedicated to it as a generational breakthrough in FF video specs--in a tiny camera body, made by a lens company--I assumed it was poor phrasing. It's always a good idea to include sources when talking about specs that seem too good to be true, we don't want anyone to happen on this thread from a casual google search and think that we are sure it has 4k60 or 120 because we read a poorly worded sentence somewhere.

I think that is not correct. I think it means it has 4k and hd, and up to 120 fps in hd. If it did 4k120 that would be headlining everything. back when we had a video of the menu system, 4k only went up to 30.

I must have missed that. Where did they confirm 4k60?

It's a nitpick, but it's not exactly worse rolling shutter. It's that two shutter speeds are measured simultaneously, so the motion blur isn't natural. It's just like overlaying a shot with 1/48 shutter with a 1/200 shutter; the motion blur is like a "half frame" compared to the rest of the image, because you only get a blur from the 1/48 version. There is also a Low Noise mode, which uses a longer readout time to get more precision and thus improve noise at the cost of rolling shutter, which doesn't have the motion blur artifact, but does have increased rolling shutter. I was just going to ask how the F6 related to Zaxcom's patents. I wonder if Zoom and/or Sound Devices plans to challenge the patent, like some other companies we talk about a lot here.

I think the z cam WDR mode uses two shutter speeds, instead of two gains. Thats why you get strange motion artifacts. It also has dual native ISOs in additionb but no simultaneous dual gain.

It depends on the project. You can't create universal rules, because as soon as you do, it's open season for everyone to try to break that rule. Like if you try to define film genres, someone will make a crossover. The only real rule is that you need to be able to watch your own work and evaluate what feeling a tool creates in the specific case of your project. But anyway, here are some examples off the top of my head: - In Children of Men, there are amazing long takes that show the real-time unfolding of events. Slow motion would be inappropriate as it would eliminate the realism. - Thor Raganarok uses extreme slow motion at a few key moments to show look like a slightly moving 2D image, like a comic page brought to life. It's a montage use, where we've got Led Zeppelin, popcorn, and are ready to groove with the movie. - In Leone westerns, like Once Upon a Time in the West, I don't believe any slow motion is used. Instead, the actors move slowly as they feel out each other's defenses in these drawn out duels. And then it's over in the blink of an eye. Slow motion would take away from the blink-and-you-miss-it tension, and would sacrifice that overwhelming tension for visual spectacle - Hacksaw Ridge used a lot of slow motion in battle scenes. I thought it was a bad choice, as it turned this terrible, violent war into a Hollywood action spectacle. The story is about a pacifist medic, and instead it's like "whoa! look at that explosion! that dude is flying! Yeah, action movie!" It looked cool, but was at odds with the movie's theme. - Action movies almost always use slow motion for really cool set pieces so we can better see the effects or action. Terminator 2, when the frozen terminator explodes, is a good example. It's entirely about pacing: A single slow motion shot to wrap up an intense action scene, a moment that tells you to breath after you've been holding your breath.

I don't know that slo mo is ever cheating when used in a project. If it looks good and creates the feeling that you want, then use it. If it is repetitive and boring, don't use it. Like with any effect, it can spice up a shot, or get boring with over use. It is only really "cheating" when over used in camera tests. If i shoot 90% at 24fps, a review that is shot 90% in 60fps doesnt accurately review that camera for me.

Yes, if you're into that kind of thing.

Its talking about the phone's screen. It's an 8 bit screen with FRC to simulate 10 bit. I dont see anything about 4:2:2, but since most screens are RGB, 4:2:2 would be a downgrade from the average screen.

Wow, that is incredibly cheap. It is only a 1.33x though. Nice for a Fuji XT3, but not so great for any of the 4:3 cameras out there. Wow, that is incredibly cheap. It is only a 1.33x though. Nice for a Fuji XT3, but not so great for any of the 4:3 cameras out there.

Windows

If i remember correctly there is an email address for bugs, but i am not sure. But yeah, blackmagic forum will almost certainly be better than here, there are likely other users with the same issue.

Same thing happened to me. It loaded once and then stopped. I had to load a backup from the previous stable version of resolve. You could submit it as a bug to blackmagic and see what they say.

@thephoenix That happened to me for the first few beta versions of 16. I just waited it out for the next beta and I didn't have any more issues. Did you backup your project databse or project before opening in 16.2?

I love the CK93. The only other mic from the list that I have used is the KM 185, which I did not like as much. I have heard that the AKG shotgun capsule is not good, though I haven't used it. In some very limited tests, the omni and cardioid capsules sounded fine. I found my CK93 for like $240 on ebay. I wouldn't pay full price unless you really want it brand new.

I am beyond skeptical that the Z6 will get internal raw. I think the Sandisk video just wanted to advertise that they could support 4k raw write speeds, and they happened to use a Z6 in their video as the easiest camera they could get their hands on that accepts CFExpress cards.

If you are shooting faces, you should compare to movies that you like. Spot meter an evenly lit face to be at 0, and then compare on your computer monitor against a movie clip. Adjust from 0 as necessary to match how your favorite movie was exposed. You'll probably find that cinematic (i.e. "intended to be seen in a darkened cinema") images tend to expose lower than soap operas, which have to be visible in daylight on a family TV. "Proper" exposure depends on where it will be seen, so comparing to actual movies from the medium you are creating for is very useful. But also get a gray card, they are very cheap, and I use mine on literally every shoot. That and a 5-in-1 reflector have incredible value for the money.

We agree more than you think. This is basically what I was saying. Either pixelation or lens aberrations will be the limiting factor. Personally, I find analog flaws to be more acceptable than digital flaws. I'd rather have CA than be able to see individual pixels. Similarly, I'd rather hear analog noise from a 60's mic than hear MP3 compression. And ultimately, if you are sitting far enough away from a 65" 4k TV that you can no longer distinguish individual pixels, then you will not be able to see optical problems any better with a 65" 8K TV at the same distance. I disagree. Stop down on any decent modern lens and you can easily outresolve 6k on most of the frame. And if you are using a lens for character, then higher resolution will more accurately capture that character. However, I fully agree that higher resolution is not financially worth yet for many people, including myself.

If it serves a purpose in the story, it can be a wonderful effect. In The Grand Budapest Hotel, it's used to show different time periods, and it fit with the overly-produced style of the movie--sort of like the obvious miniatures. In the 2nd Hunger Games, the aspect ratio slowly changes as Katniss moves into the arena. The screen literally opened up as she rode the elevator to the surface. Both of those worked for me. In The Dark Knight, the changing ratio didn't help the movie, but I didn't mind it particularly, since it was generally grouped together. E.g. an entire scene would be shot in IMAX, and then another entire scene in 35mm. It didn't cut between them too much. In Dunkirk, however, there was one scene where it cut between the boat and the plane in different ratios, and I thought that was distracting. (The color between the two film stocks didn't match at all either, not that has anything to do with aspect ratios.) I found the videos in the OP to be super distracting.

I prefer false color over anything else, but you may need an external monitor for that. If I don't have false color, I often use spot metering to check specific locations in the frame. Histogram is okay, but doesn't give enough information about what a specific part of the frame is doing, and is mainly helpful for protecting highlights. An evenly spread histogram doesn't tell you much other than whether you've blown something out. I very rarely use zebras, but I would probably use them more if I did any run'n'gunning. Whatever method you pick, do a lot of tests before a shoot so you know how your specific camera model and color profile behave. Some cameras do better slightly underexposed, some slightly over. Many cameras have color shifts across the exposure range, so you definitely want to find the range of sweet spots within which you can expose a face (for example) without having color shifts. You never want to be on set wondering whether pulling a face down 2 stops will turn it into a pasty mess. Don't be so afraid of blown highlights that you sacrifice the subject to protect something in the background. If I have a window that's blown out by 3 stops, I might drop my exposure by 1 stop, and then when I bring up the exposure in post I have that 1 stop to make a smoother rolloff.

I think you are missing the point about what digital resolution is. Increasing digital resolution isn't to resolve the world, it's to resolve the lens projection. Whether the lens is projecting sharp lines on a test chart, CA, flares, or bokeh, it is an infinite resolution analog image. The more samples, the more accurately we reproduce the lens' image. The softer the lens, the more samples it takes to accurately describe its image. If a lens produces a sharp line between black and white, it only takes 2 samples to describe that difference. A soft gradation, on the other hand, takes more samples to describe. That gradation is meaningless if your sampling frequency is not high enough to show it. Would you rather see chromatic aberration, or pixelation? 6k won't make you see more CA unless you were already close enough to see pixelation in 4k. It's more like making a a high quality recording of a distorted electric guitar. Disclaimer... there's obviously a cost to higher resolution sensors, both financial and other image compromises. I'm not saying 6k is worth it over 4k. I'm just saying that a higher sampling frequency describes a lens' image better than lower sampling frequency

Conspiracies, cost cutting, delusions... it's all the same to me. There's only so much value to be had in speculation about the whys and hows. The bottom line is: I'm not buying any camera that doesn't shoot 24p.

The small hole is actually to reduce the amount of material required, thus saving 0.23 cents/unit on manufacturing costs. It's the compromise they made in order to afford the 24p license.

Probably the fan blows air from the vents across an external heatsink, not directly over the electronics themselves. The heatsink is likely "external" to the electronics, despite being inside the body of the camera.