KnightsFan

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.

Same, it was definitely one of my tops for cinematography. The camera image quality didn't do anything for me, though.

Thanks, but I sort of went on a DIY adventure and never got to the point of having a complete camera. But maybe I'll post a late "entry" in the future once it's all duct taped together.

I got too busy to enter (but just managed to view all the entries in time!), so I hope there is another.

People who says 24fps has no stutter should be condemned to a life of playing first person shooters at 24 fps.

He's probably some random dude. And if not, then who cares? The patents and lawsuits won't be decided by a majority vote on reduser. As Ed says, let's stick with facts.

I think that the price of RED's components is not at all the issue. The issues, as far as I can tell, are: - RED has a patent on compressed raw recording, which many people believe is too broad, and is either an invalid patent, or an example of the failure of the patent system. RED's patent is so broad that other camera companies cannot even develop their own compressed raw formats--hence Blackmagic's Braw is "partially debayered." It's not just filmmakers, apparently Apple is currently challenging the patent's legitimacy. - In the past, RED has threatened individuals such as Andrew with lawsuits to get them to be quiet. As written in the blog post, a private individual would be financially unable to counter the lawsuit, whether it's valid or not. Many consider this to be bullying. - In regards to the Jinni Tech controversy, Mr. Royce has provided evidence that RED's claims of custom firmware and "made in the USA" statements are false. If Royce is right, then RED has broken the law and lied to its customers. Additionally, RED claimed that Jinni Tech stole intellectual property, which Royce has also disputed. Again, if Royce is right, then that is libel. - The issue of overpriced components is really incidental to the whole story, despite being an exciting headline. The only issue with the pricing is that there may be false advertising--RED can charge whatever price they want, but only if they are honest about what they are selling. That's my summary of events thus far, hopefully fairly accurately (feel free to set me straight).

I guess I was asking specifically if you knew in this instance whether the patent was specific to the redcode format. From the jinnitech video, where he showed all(?) the patent parameters, it was much more generic.

Are you sure? Because it seems to be the case that other companies are foregoing all forms of compressed raw out of fear of patents, not the specific redcode method.

A few months ago they mentioned working on prores raw via hdmi. They are also working on import plugins for zraw in some nle's. They have repeatedly said braw and prores raw are impossible, idk if its hardware or licensing. Z raw is a "partial debayer." I suspect that they can't do a compressed full bayer because of patents. If braw and prores raw are impossible, then the only options are: A) uncompressed, which would limit frame rates because of write speeds, or B) a new format. Z cam always seems to make incremental updates and is cautious about overpromising, i bet that within a few months the situation will be better for raw output from their cams, but until then, yeah it isn't a great workflow.

That is so true. Even on paper, you have to look at combinations and not individual pieces. Leica uses a very thin filter stack on their sensor, whereas the standard MFT filter stack is very thick. So a lens designed for maximum sharpness on a Leica digital camera will not be as sharp on a MFT sensor. Canon is somewhere in the middle. (LensRentals has a lot of nice articles about it https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter/)

With each of these videos, I'm reminded why I support open source, standardization, and collaboration. @Andrew Reid, I'm glad you wrote this despite being under substantial threat. In my opinion, this Jinni Tech saga is not getting the press it deserves, and I only hope it isn't because people are too afraid to say anything. RED should be given a platform to respond, but should not be able to sue away negative press.

Don't get me wrong, i love 4k. I always shoot 4k, religiously maintain fidelity throughout my post pipeline. I'm the guy who mixes in 5.1 despite the fact that virtually no one watches my content with 5 speakers. I am just saying that, given finite money, I don't think it is worth doubling the cost to get 6k over 4k, and I don't see any other tangible advantages of the P4k at the moment.

Version 16.0 is out of beta, final release. Version 16.1 is now in public beta, with new features above and beyond what 16.0 brought (and probably bugs, since it is a beta).

I understand why higher resolutions are better, and where to see them, but here's my experience: I know 0 people who own a 4k computer screen. I own a 4k TV but never use it in 4k because I have 0 4k movies, my blu ray player only supports 1080p, my internet won't handle a 4k stream, and for gaming it maxes out at 4k30 which is too low a frame rate. 100% of the Apple desktop computers that I have seen, were at universities or studios--Mac as an operating system has <4% market share, and a lot of those are laptops. The actual number of 4K+ iMacs out there in use is miniscule. Very few of my friends actually own desktop computers, for that matter, they just use laptops and phones with HD screens. They would benefit from the bitrate increase of streaming 4K on their devices, but for vast swathes of rural America, the internet bandwidth simply doesn't support 4k. I get that a lot of pros need 4k or 6k to stay ahead of the competition. When making content, you make it high enough resolution that the top tier viewers are satisfied, even if only 10% see it in 4k. But the reality for me is, 4k is not a display format yet. My work has only ever been shown in local theaters, festivals, and bars, and none of those venues had 4K display capabilities.

@Shell64 also they sell hardware. Control consoles, keyboard, and playback cards. The consoles and keyboard are optional, but the card is required to get a 10 bit or hdr signal for monitoring, so pretty essential for a serious coloring setup.

I have heard good things, yeah. The og pocket and 2.5k were also a joy to use from an interface perspective. Blackmagic's software is really their strong point, both in camera and for post. The menus on modern cameras are absolute nightmares, with a billion options that make little effect on the image, and no effect on the story.

Wow, this thread spiraled quickly. Usually it takes at least 7 pages for the politics to hit full stride. I can't. It's still a while before 4k is truly mainstream. I know very few people with 4k screens, and I know no one who regularly watches 4k content. I know in select communities 4k is old news, but from what I see it's still a minority. You can make the argument that 6k is "future proof," but by the time I want to shoot in 6k, we'll have 3 more generations of cameras to choose from. From my perspective the P4K has no downsides, and half the cost. Unless, of course, the real world reviews and footage is vastly different from my expectations--if it turns out the P6K inherits the minimal rolling shutter from the 4.6k G2, then that's a good place to start making a case--but it seems unlikely. What I dislike about the new Pocket series in general is it does not seem very easy to rig up. The battery life seems poor, and an external battery would block the screen. And I don't like DSLR-style grips, which either get in the way of a follow focus, or make it hard to balance on a gimbal. I'm still hoping for an update to the Micro, but it is more likely that I'll have to turn to Z Cam when/if I upgrade from the trusty NX1. What I love about both P4K and P6K is that they really set the bar low for price by stripping away complex systems that I don't need for video, such as AF, IBIS, and EVF, while adding a lot of simple things that are crucial, like full size HDMI and timecode.