@yan_berthemy_photography

Lol, I bought my camera a few days ago, I don't have any water damages... I went outside 1 time, so I don't think it's because of this XD

do you speak about colors or the small dot? I haven't taken sun pictures...
it looks like a spot to me, not sun damage
oh, the colors, it's because my room lights, not from sensor XD

I doubt it would be.  How does the image look from it now?

Ok, thanks a lot, I will keep using CINE-V and CINE-D for 4k 8bit 60fps. I'll use V-LOG 10bit for films, which looks amazing in C4K and 6k anamorphic

-5 everything except hue and contrast at 0. 

For the best straight out of camera look I'd recommend Natural. It has the nicest roll off and colors are pretty accurate. HLG is the best if you are going to edit heavy in post or want the most dynamic range. Cine-D for when you can't use HLG(8 bit recording). 

HLG doesn't require the payed update. If you are shooting in 10bit you'll have HLG as an option. 

I'd rather use a gimbal or monopod with a long lens like that. For me gimbals are better for getting wide moving shots.

As far as I know there is three types of stabilization for video capture; lens, in-camera, and electronic. Only the electronic one will crop.

No crop and it's really wonderful to use - I have used it handheld with long vintage lenses and it's worked really well.
Enjoy!

There's no crop with just sensor stabilization, even in 4K. 

Quick tip, buy a bigger ND filter. That way, if you buy lenses with a larger diameter filter thread (77mm or 82mm are common), you wont have to buy another one. You can always buy a step up filter ring for next to nothing, but going down isn't an option.

Any will work ok, but some soften the image. Cheaper ones also have color shifts so you have to manually white balance to get proper color.

Here is an article covering some of the better ones. Variable ND's are never the best option, as they can have a bad effect on skintones. However they certainly are convenient and the negatives may not be noticed by most people.

https://fstoppers.com/bestfiltertest

 

Given a choice I usually go wider. However, if you are shooting anamorphic with a 1.33 squeeze, you are better off using the 4K crop as 1.33x is made for 4K. 
4K fits the TV better... C4K fits 2:1 smartphones better. 

You get a wider shot with C4K. Otherwise they both look the same. 

If you know in advance that you are going to slow down to 24p then 180 degree will give you the "correct" amount of blur for whatever your original frame rate. The problem comes if you decide to use your footage at actual speed say 60p footage on a 30p timeline by dropping half the frames. It will look a bit choppy as your 1/120 shutter is now the equivalent of a 90 degree shutter. 
After Effects has slightly more sophisticated tools for retiming footage, if you want to ramp it up and down, and recreate "correct" motion blur in post (see Pixel Motion Blur)
In Premiere you can just send a single clip to After Effects, retime it, apply effects and still render it within your Premiere timeline.

If you are just editing in Premiere and getting creative with retiming, you will probably have to put up with some choppiness.

Just put the camera in maximum cinematic mode.

Hi there,
I would like to get a smooth slow motion with motion blur when rendering 60fps slow motion footage to 24fps. Can I shoot with the 180 shutter degree rule with 60fps ? Looks good in post production.

I am assuming you'll slow the 60 frame videos down to 24 frames, hence they will be 24 fps not 60, so it should also be rendered at 24fps. 

For slow motion 120 shutter or 200 or even higher is fine. 

@Mmmbeats @leslie
 
Thanks a lot, guys for your help and for all your very nice and fast answers, this helped me a lot in my projects, will do 24fps timeline with 24fps content. And will mix with 60fps content for slow motion.
This is more clear for me, I can see 30 to 24fps is very bad and not smooth.

its kinda old school, it relates back to analog tv and how a picture was built up on the old cathode ray  tube. there was progressive  scan and interlaced. i'm kinda feeling rather old right about now i think i'll shut up and have a nap

That's an unusual workflow, and one which I can't see any advantage to.
It's customary to edit on a timeline that matches your output file, so in your case you would use a 24p timeline.
Shooting at higher frame rates for sports action will give you either slow mo (which you seem to be achieving fine with your 60p footage) or smoother playback. But this last option only works if your output remains high frame rate.
You basically have a choice - shooting at 24p for a 24p timeline, which will give you that nice filmic quality, or shooting 30p for a 30p timeline (and output render) which will give you a smooth video-like quality that might help to portray the sports movement more accurately. The choice is an aesthetic one.
Shooting 30p then rendering 24p doesn't seem to make any sense to me. You don't get any significant slow mo, and you throw away all the frame that would have made the motion feel smoother. Unless I'm missing some technique here.

There's a kind of compression called interlace (as an alternative to the more common progressive scan).  It's highly likely that you are not using it, and it would have probably been better if I hadn't mentioned it - just passed through my head briefly.  Probably best to forget about (or research it at another time if you're curious). 
I added a vid link to my comment btw.

You're likely to get stuttering with your 30fps footage on a 24fps timeline.  In future you should shoot 24p for this.
If you are stuck with 30p and 60p footage (I'm assuming progressive scan?) then you should probably export for 30p I would have thought. 
Here's a basic vid on the topic:
 

i am not sure that downscale is the correct term technically your putting 30 fps onto a 24fps timeline which results in either 1 second of  30fps footage  playing for 1.25 seconds if my math is right which makes the duration slightly longer and probably a barely perceptible slow motion effect , the other option you constrain you footage to the 24fps timeline in which case frames have to be dropped. six frames per second, as 30 into 24 doesn't fit real well. please someone correct me if i'm wrong. downscale to me is more like taking 1080 footage and converting it to 720.
if your determined to shoot at 24 fps just shoot your interviews and the tennis at 24 fps  you can the shoot the slow motion stuff at 60 fps  and intercut it with your 24fps timeline giving you filmic look with the slow motion of 60fps
computers do a marvelous job of speeding things up and down, you may not notice  a few seconds of 30fps slowed to 24 fps but if the footage went for ten minutes i think you might. for me inter cutting 24 fps with 30 fps and 60 fps would get tedious and given enough time i'd screw it up somewhere, either at the interview stage or on the court or in post.

i'm trying to follow this conversation but i'm struggling. it seems to me that you traveling something  of a tangled path but maybe thats me
pal is 25 fps
ntsc is 29.97 fps or 30 fps depending on how technically inclined you are as i understand it
movies are 24 fps
why do you render to movies at 24fps ? unless your  going to watch this on a cinema screen ? dragging everything  to 24 fps and then speeding it up too either pal or ntsc standards  must have some small detrimental effect to either sound or video playback . depending in which country you live, wouldn't you be recording pal or ntsc  format ? maybe if you lived in aus then exported dvds to the us you would render to ntsc format to suit their market or vise versa but i think taking stuff back to 24 frames is a step you could avoid i think. if you are steaming content online or sending to youtube  there doesn't appear to be any difference when i watch you tubes from online and different countries i have never noticed any odd thing happening i guess there is some "magic" going on in the background to make it all seemless regardless of which format you record in ( thats a bit of generalization i know maybe someone more knowledgeable could chime in   )
i grabbed this off wikipedia to help illustrate my point
PAL vs. NTSC
PAL usually has 576 visible lines compared with 486 lines with NTSC, meaning that PAL has a 20% higher resolution, in fact it even has a higher resolution than Enhanced Definition standard (854x486).[citation needed] Most TV output for PAL and NTSC use interlaced frames meaning that even lines update on one field and odd lines update on the next field. Interlacing frames gives a smoother motion with half the frame rate. NTSC is used with a frame rate of 60i or 30p whereas PAL generally uses 50i or 25p; both use a high enough frame rate to give the illusion of fluid motion. This is due to the fact that NTSC is generally used in countries with a utility frequency of 60 Hz and PAL in countries with 50 Hz, although there are many exceptions. Both PAL and NTSC have a higher frame rate than film which uses 24 frames per second. PAL has a closer frame rate to that of film, so most films are sped up 4% to play on PAL systems, shortening the runtime of the film and, without adjustment, slightly raising the pitch of the audio track. Film conversions for NTSC instead use 3:2 pull down to spread the 24 frames of film across 60 interlaced fields. This maintains the runtime of the film and preserves the original audio, but may cause worse interlacing artifacts during fast motion.
hope it helps