eatstoomuchjam

From what I've read, this is basically correct. It can apparently add about 3 stops of extra highlight retention. On most modern cameras, changing ISO doesn't change the sensor gain unless you move into the territory that is handled by the next "native" ISO. The only exception I know to this is Z Cam (which is why they suffer some WB shift when changing ISO). Otherwise, for raw codecs, you are adjusting the allocation of stops/highlights in the recording - and for non-raw codecs, you are changing how the camera post-processes the raw that it read at the base ISO. So in theory, the LOFIC should help with any ISO that is set by the user. It should also be understood that it only helps with highlights and does nothing whatsoever for shadows - meaning that ETTR is probably even more of a thing with any LOFIC system than it was with most Bayer sensor setups.

Minor nitpick: 8K will also be largely irrelevant in cinemas! At least near me, many of them still broadcast 2K on most of their screens, with maybe one or two set up for 4K projection. Only the most eagle-eyed audience members could even theoretically notice a difference in 4K and 8K projection at a viewing distance where they could see the entire screen at once - and outside of maybe a nature documentary, even among those viewers, it's hard to imagine them caring much. Not true. Aside from digital zoom without substantial quality loss, as you mentioned, a number of VFX use cases, especially those involving masking something out, are improved by having the highest-resolution source material available. That and in theory, you'll get better color information putting 6K or 8K on a 4K timeline, assuming the use of a Bayer sensor. Remember that it's necessary to guess at the values for 2 out of 3 colors for every pixel when debayering footage. From what I remember, and I might remember wrong, this means that the readout from Bayer sensors is effectively 4:2:2. Downsampling from 6K or 8K gives you something that is more effectively 4:4:4. As to whether that matters to you, maybe none of it does. In practice, modern debayering is very good and I'm not really sure that viewers are ever going to notice a difference in 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 once at 2K resolution or above. Correct. A 4.6K Arri is still preferred in many productions to an 8K camera from another vendor. The FX5 is going to sell a million bazillion units despite being released as a 5K camera in an era when all of the competitors are at 6K or higher (also assuming that some of the firmware weirdness and constant rebooting to change settings can be fixed). There are still cameras being released today using the same IMX410 that was in my Z Cam E2-F6 that I bought in 2018. The Ronin 4D was one of the best product ideas that DJI ever had (really, the Osmo Raw was, but the execution was too clunky). They were never going to compete with Arri in the space where people use Arri - so take a real pain point from a lot of productions (gimbals are irritating to use/balance and are often disconnected in operation from the attached camera) and fix that. Now you see the 4D showing up in all sorts of productions - because it's the best camera ever made and wins the spec sheet wars? No. But the quality is good and it's an elegant solution for some problems.

Almost no card ever reaches the quoted "up to" numbers that they give, especially not in a sustained transfer. A2 and V30 are generally the best specs that you'll find on a MicroSD. If the Mission 1 Pro writes faster, you might want to check on some forums to see which cards people have found work well with its highest-bitrate modes. Though that said, if you're talking 100-200mb/s (megabits/second), a V30 card should do that without breaking a sweat since the V30 refers to 30 megabytes/second which is 240 megabits/second.

Looks like I came close-ish while overall being too optimistic (my guesses didn't feel all that optimistic?) and they exceeded in at least one way ((cropped) 4kp120). Otherwise, yes, faster UHS-2 SD card (I think that's the second row of pins that I meant). No CF Express, but memory stick is indeed gone. No extra megapixels. I didn't watch anything yet to see if 4k recording is now full sensor width vs slightly cropped or whether they support open gate - guessing no on open gate, at least, since it seems to be either the same sensor or a minor update to the same sensor. I also mistyped the camera model on the USB port bit.

I have no direct experience with the rawlite filters, but people seem to like them. You might want to specify the camera since there may be variance in the quality/utility of the filter. As a cheaper option, have you considered using a pro mist/glimmer glass/etc filter? I think those can help with moire too.

Let's hope they updated it more than they updated the ZV-1 Mark II over the ZV-1 (or for that matter, the RX 100 V). From what I remember, that "upgrade" was really just giving the new model a wider-angle zoom lens closer to the focal lengths on an iPhone and reducing some other specs (like getting read of the burst video modes). My guess? At most a small incremental update over existing RX10 bodies. Any substantial upgrade would see Sony risking letting their point and shoot camera have superior specs, if even on paper, to their prosumer gear. 6K? 240fps 4K? Higher dynamic range from a newer sensor? My guess without looking at rumor sites? It'll have a somewhat updated 1" sensor and add USB-C to replace the micro usb port on the existing RX 100 IV (unless they already released an updated version with better USB?). Maximum 4K recording will go from 30 to 60fps. Full HD from 120 to 240fps. Memory stick + SD card will be replaced with CF Express A + SD Card. SD might get faster with the second row of pins that's on newer SD cards. Still images will go from about 20 megapixels to 24-26 megapixels. Video crop will go from 1.09x to 1x and open gate in either 4:3 or 3:2, whatever the sensor dimensions are, will be an option.

True - though an argument could be made that an ultrawide lens and higher resolution frees you from too much need of a screen. Just sort of point it in the general direction of the photo you want and shoot. Then lock down the frame in post. Instead of Weegee's "f/8 and be there," we could be in "16mm FOV and be there." 😉

Usually a clean plate is useful for things like subtracting objects from the scene or similar things. Once you erase the thing, you need the stuff that should have been behind it. If your goal is just to key out the smoke from one scene and add it to another, I can't think of why you'd need it. Though I'm no VFX expert so I'm fully prepared to be wrong!

He used to wear weirdly large cargo shorts and it became a running joke on this forum. He doesn't seem to do that as much anymore, but the meme lives on!

As Kye said, you could also shoot it against a back background and key on luminance instead of color. What would the purpose be of a clean plate in this case?

Another thread where I'll mention the Insta360 Go 2/3/ultra or similar as an option. The price is definitely higher than a Charmera, but in terms of size, it's maybe even a little smaller? And with much better image quality. From what I remember, the carrying/protective case in the Go 2 is about the size of an Airpods case and I've definitely kept those in my pocket before. Matt Granger has entered the chat

Yikes! I'm so sorry about your dad. 😔 I hope things improve!

It's been a while, but I think it was either that or a slightly bigger cage that wrapped the whole camera. I had the option for the bottom-mounted SSD or a side-mounted smaller one. I primarily used the side-mounted one since it was overall smaller. I didn't - I don't have a lot of interest in shooting 1080p these days. If I did, I'd be more inclined to re-buy the original BMPCC (sometimes I consider this and always turn back when I see the current prices). The EF 35/2 IS is great. I don't think I have (or have used) the EF 24/2.8 IS, but it's decent. You might also consider the 24-70/4L IS. It's definitely a little bigger than the other two lenses, but not bigger than both of them together. Not as fast, but the fp is alright in low light. I personally didn't like the PDMovie at all. The one that I had used some weird little batteries and there was no way to tell it to focus on anything but the closest thing. YMMV. If it were me nowadays, I'd give a hard look at the ZR. A used ZR costs more than a used FP, but the difference gets to be less when you end up buying a DPL cage and PDMovie to make up for the FP's shortcomings - and closer yet with the flip screen mod. With the ZR, you'll get a much nicer screen, decent autofocus, and built-in raw.

For me, it's not even an argument. Or if it is an argument, it's a silly one and I want to stay as far away from it as possible. There was a time when zooms were noticeably worse optically than primes - potentially made worse with the release of lenses like the Nikkor 43-86 (that said, I have and kind of love the 43-86, though I have yet to convince anybody to let me use it on set). But since sometime in the 80's, high quality zooms have existed. The 24-70/2.8's and 70-200/2.8's from Canon/Nikon have been fixtures in the bags of nearly every professional photographer since then. They're sharp, fast enough, and extremely convenient. I've used them on set dozens of times. When shooting by available light or when going for more extreme subject isolation, I might move to a faster prime... but when I do, I'm rarely like "wow, this is so much better." I'd even go so far as to challenge most of those people to tell the difference between the 24-70/2.8L II at 50mm stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 and the EF or even RF 50/1.2L stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. There might be a different character in the bokeh from the RF, but that's more of an ultra-modern design vs still-pretty-modern design concern vs a zooms vs primes one. I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. 😉 This goes with another of my parlor tricks when on someone else's set - pointing out things to them that will be a problem in their scene simply by looking at the lens on the camera and where it's pointed - I usually have a good idea of what their frame is without having to look at the screen. "You sure you don't have the sound engineer's pack in the frame on the right edge? With that 35mm lens, I'd think you'd see it." (pause) "Oh, yeah. Could you take a step back?" It can be useful for making a guess at the price/quality ratio of the lens (also based on the widest aperture). Finding a good quality f/2.8-f/4 lens that's a 2x or 3x is usually relatively affordable. 4x less so. At 5x, you're either going to be forking over a lot of money, getting a slower lens, or mounting a coke bottle to the camera. That said, I still check prices on the EF 35-350 sometimes in a fever dream since I'd like to see if it can be "good enough" in many cases - and the same with the more useful EF 28-300, but its used price is staying stubbornly high. Once it hits $700, I might buy one in a late-night drunken rampage or something (I barely drink these days so there are fewer opportunities than there once were). Kubrick was fully correct! As he often was!

I really wanted to like the PDMovie. I had the previous version (Air 3 Smart? Something like that) for a bit and ended up selling it after trying to use it just a few times. The weird batteries were a little annoying, but I could have lived with them if not for the complete lack of ability to choose what it focuses on. As far as I could tell, the focus would always be on "whatever is closest" With DJI focus, the hand grip has a little screen where you can at least tell it where you want the focus to be - and it'll successfully focus on that thing about... well, 85% of the time. For me, the systems that fake out PDAF are more exciting. I hope that someone comes out with one for RF mount sometime - or even better, for EF mount. Otherwise, the ones with a little motor are kind of neat - though moving the lens back and forth is not quite the same as adjusting the focus (though usually it's a relatively petty distinction).