KnightsFan

Native 6k resolution sensor would be amazing for film and most photography. If they have IBIS, i hope they include the high resolution sensor shift found in the S1 for those occasional high resplution photo needs.

Incremental improvements are not "game changing." However, a marketing department accurately representing how much better the new product is would also be game changing. I guess it's kind of a double or nothing statement.

Definitely. I just tried putting a tracking marker on my arm and removing it. It utterly failed to replace the tracking marker with skin--and instead replaced that patch of my skin with the wall behind me! Like I said, not great results, but it's pretty fun to play with.

I've never used mocha before. I have a feeling that the Resolve feature will be most useful for tiny objects in the far background that aren't super noticeable anyway, because so far I'm not getting anything really good out of it.

Has anyone else tried out the new object removal tool? I'm experimenting with it today and it's really fun so far. The results aren't great yet, so I'm trying to learn what scenarios it works for and where it fails.

Same. I would think a usb c drive would be cheaper and more flexible than most sdi or hdmi recorders out there as well?

I'm not giving a pass to Fuji, just saying what I see. It could be the lens for sure. It's definitely not as sharp as the studio image.

The rock climber picture is a little softer and has some sharpening artifacts it seems. The glitter woman looks better. With a CFA, the sensor won't resolve 100 MP though, and lenses don't have a sharp falloff in resolving power. Saying a lens resolves x lp/mm doesn't mean it won't resolve any finer details than that. It's estimating a complex curve with a single number--and that's not even taking into account the resolution being different across the area of the image. Furthermore, resolution between two components in a system isn't a Min() function, it's multiplicative. Even if the lens is the "limiting factor" based on the lp/mm number, a higher resolution sensor will still increase the overall resolution of the system. So yes, it's true that better lenses could increase the resolution with the same sensor, but it's also true that more MP will increase the image with the same lens. Edit: and to be fair to the rock climbing picture, atmospheric haze definitely softens an image in those conditions, and the climber herself is moving so there's going to be some motion blur.

That's awesome. I can't wait for 100 MP video to be streamed over fleets of 7G directly into my VR headset so I can watch movies like this from bed. True, but in real use I like the sensor to outresolve the lens, so the lens acts as an OLPF or anti aliasing filter. Optical imperfections add character, digital imperfections mess up the image. Unless you need to actually resolve 100 million individual dots in which case... wow.

Both of those films have strong characteristics of those formats. I don't think any Marvel movies would be satisfied with the look of 28 Days Later, they'd rather use cameras with more dynamic range and less noise. A lot of projects want the clean noise floor and higher dynamic range of larger sensors. I agree that 8k is pretty much useless. However, 4k is not being used to its potential. You can easily tell 1080p from 4k in a video game game from normal viewing distance on a TV. I think that with recorded video, a combination of lens softness, missed focus, CFAs, motion blur, and compression is the limiting factor that makes it so hard to tell the difference. So while 1080p is almost always "enough" resolution, I think there is still plenty of room to improve 4k. 4k isn't intrinsically overrated, but the compromised 4k video we see isn't maximizing the image size's potential.

If Panasonic goes over $5k on a Lumix camcorder, I would have to wonder if they are planning to quietly ditch the EVA line.

Nikon would be nuts to bank on outselling Sony with their 1st generation. I'm sure they are looking long term towards building an ecosystem as they gradually win over new customers as they look to upgrade their A7III's in a few years time. The Z6/7 was all about getting their name out there. And in that sense, they got their name out before the flood from Canon and Panasonic, yet they waited until they could output RAW video with their first model. No one expected floods of people to immediately jumping ship from Sony or from their DSLRs, Nikon just needed to get their name out so that anyone upgrading in the next two or three years has "Nikon" on their radar. Cheap used Z6's are probably good for Nikon long term. Whether people buy in at list price or used for peanuts, they still need lenses and future bodies.

I'm not the op. I'd also like to know what @Tomda goes for in the end, and how well it works out!

I've honestly liked the look from decent LEDs as much or better than tungstens in my uses. Yeah, it's bizarre. I did equipment checkout for a few semesters, and I had an entire shelf of totas with problems. Maybe someone before me had methodically ruined each one? That and the exploding one really put me off totas. Oh wow, that's disappointing. Another strike for totas, I guess.

...and if you are using equipment that students have touched, assume the worst and never use one without a protective screen. This is the main reasons I use LED lights: if you are working with inexperienced crew on a no budget set, LEDs won't burn anyone or explode. Or cook the room. To be fair, though, I only ever had one tota bulb explode on me. I used 2-3 different totas with electrical problems, shorting, buzzing loudly, or sparking. I never had any issues with other Lowel lights, just the totas. Like, half as bright, or like 500w equivalent? If you got any sense from what you've seen so far.

I am curious if anyone has experience with the new lowel tota led? I haven't seen many reviews. They seem to output a lot of light for relatively cheap. I have fond memories of tungsten tota lamps exploding in college.

This is a bit nitpicky, but these numbers are for are MB/s, not Mb/s. The XT3 goes up to 400 Mb/s which is equal to 50 MB/s. You should wind up with 4:4:4 actually, so even better!

Ah, I see now, I wrongly assumed 35mm to be FF since you mentioned the 5dII days. I'm jealous of your lens collection for sure! With that budget, I recommend the XT3. It's a phenomenal camera, I got to use it quite a bit earlier this year. I don't think you'll find anything else in your budget that has 10 bit. Unfortunately it doesn't have a crop mode. But as for the competition, none of the Sonys output 10 bit even over HDMI, and the GH5 and P4k both have <s35 sensors. And then maybe wait a year to pick up a used OG BMPCC for peanuts just for your 16mm lenses. There is actually also the Z Cam E2c, the $800 little brother to the E2. It can record 10 bit 4:2:0 to an SD card, or 10 bit 4:2:2 via USB C. It's M43 and I haven't heard about a 16mm crop mode, so not ideal sensor size--but it's affordable for 10 bit and ProRes. Again I haven't used it, but you can try the Z Cam E2 facebook group for info if you are interested.

I usually just use ffmpeg by itself, it's worth learning if you do a lot of unconventional media manipulations.

Here's my blind opinion. In order of preference, best to worst: G, C, D/E/F, B, H, A A. the only "bad color" to me, way too red/pink B: Maybe a touch more saturation would make it perfect, but he looks a bit too pale and dead C. Pretty good. The only reason it's behind G is it's lacking a touch of richness D. Highlights are ugly. Not bad, though. E. Could use more contrast. It might also be slightly out of focus? His lips don't stand out from the other skin enough. F. Highlights are ugly. I think it's just overexposed a little. Also kinda soft, maybe out of focus. Not enough richness, really. G. This one's good. Nice, rich color, not too much red/pink. This and C and the only ones that look really well exposed. H. Possibly overexposed, but it's just ugly. Pink lips and white skin. Overall, I think G is good, the rest are kinda ok but mainly just overexposed a teeny bit for my taste, and A is not good.

Have you looked into the Z Cam E2? It has a multi-aspect M43 sensor like the GH5s, and it has a S16 crop mode. With a speed booster, you can get full frame or S35, or you can use the crop mode for S16. And it shoots 10 bit 4:2:2 internally. It's $2k for the body, so more budget friendly than an FS7 or URSA. The downside is that it requires an external monitor, though you can use a smartphone for wireless monitoring and control via wifi. I do not have first hand experience with one yet, unfortunately. I can't think of anything else in the price range that can go up to 35mm with a speed booster, and has a dedicated 16mm crop mode, and 4:2:2 10 bit internally. I would stay away from ML for pro work. It was too finicky when I used it extensively on the 5D3. It was a phenomenal image, but I wouldn't be confident in it working 100% of the time (even due to user error, cards filling up too quickly, etc).

That's a good idea. A few versions ago, Resolve's H265 output seemed to be poor quality, so I would export DNxHD and then convert to H265 using ffmpeg.

For Vimeo, I usually export 2k H265 for projects shot in DCI 4k. That gives the most quality per MB, which is good because you get limited upload space on Vimeo. I'm not sure if you can export H265 in the free version, though. If you wanted 4k, you could export UHD. You'll get small black bars on the top and bottom, but significantly higher resolution than 2k.

You need the full version to export 4K DCI. You can go up to UHD in the free version. You will get black bars if your delivery resolution is different from your timeline resolution. What is the resolution of your vimeo delivery?

Last I heard, the S6, F6, and F8 will have H264, H265, ProRes, and a proprietary RAW format. ProRes would be pending Apple's approval (no reason it wouldnt be approved, it was for the E2 after all). Raw could be converted to Cineform raw in post using z cam's converter.