eatstoomuchjam

You're saying it like it's a bad thing, but people really like the G9 II. Putting its guts in a pro body, enabling internal raw, and charging only $300 more for it (judging by leaks) sounds pretty great to me.

I just poked around - most of what I have with people is either for short films that I shot for others or with friends who would be upset if I shared their image to an internet forum. If it's OK for the people to be a bit out of focus (just for a skin tones test or something), I have a few from one of my own short films with people in the foreground or background.

It doesn't, but if you're not in a rush, there's an app that dumps PRR to CinemaDNG with various compression options. That or you can use something like Scratch to do some raw adjustments and then export as ProRes. Definitely more of a pain than direct input, though.

Here are a few short and uninteresting clips in f-log2. They're still uploading, should be done in about 10 minutes. I'll leave them up until I remember to delete them or need to free up space. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wXDZ0j8JvTxejzKbjjnEYq0XWv1qZJ30?usp=sharing

Sorry, I'm not actually engaging with your dumbshit distortions of what articles actually say and desire to limit their scope to apply to only a single industry instead of dozens of industries. If you actually have evidenciary proof of whatever kompromat you claim is acquired in Tokyo and Vegas, kindly provide it. If you don't, stop bombarding everybody else with your idiotic drivel.

ProRes RAW is not owned by Atomos in any way. It's Apple's codec. The biggest problem thus far is that it's raw enough that it seems to violate Red's patent. Black Magic raw, on the other hand, is apparently less raw in such a way that it skirts it (or at least, BM haven't been perceived as enough of a thread for Red to take any sort of legal action against it)

Uh oh, everybody. We have a conspiracy theorist on our hands. Are there any other ridiculous and yet unprovable claims that you'd like to present as facts? Careful, I hear that there are little gnomes who live in your keyboard and report everything you say and do back to Wayne Newton so that he knows who to target with his satellite-based impotency ray.

At least the 18-35 was almost a 2x zoom! This one is 1.6x.

And you're flying wife? Did you check in your beautiful flying house?

Agreed that FLC is going to be pretty rough for sales of FilmConvert and Dehancer. I'm just waiting for YouTubers to start coming out with their FLC "packs" for sale. But really, I was just pushing back on the general concept that the R1MX has some sort of magical image because it has some super-OLPF that exactly mimics "film," whatever that is. Of course, a bunch of the rest of the above rant was weird too - like questioning whether "David Fischer [sic]" would choose a C70, a camera designed for fast run & gun operation - when Fincher famously does 50-100 takes of each scene and barely ever moves the camera. On a DF picture, for the most part, the camera and lights get set in a place and are expected to stay there for hours while they shoot endless takes. It doesn't matter a bit how heavy the camera is or how long it takes to set it up for the next scene. The corollary to that is if you're on a small crew and have a location for only 1 day and you have 5 pages to get through and a mix of interior/exterior shots, it's generally better to choose a lighter camera which can be operated quickly. If doing that, I'd think you were crazy if you said you were shooting the r1mx, a camera that is famously inflexible (needs specific lighting), heavy (needs bigger/heavier tripod and harder to move), and prone to randomly rebooting or crashing throughout the day. It's all a matter of which compromises. That's it.

This is the problem. While you're not wrong that in general, the MTF curve for film has a downward slope near the highest end, for some film stocks, for some it is a curve which increases until a certain point and then drops off and the shape of the curve and slope of the descent varies. Kodak Gold only dropped off to around 70 where Velvia drops all the way to 30. On the other hand, for Tri-X, it's nearly flat until the higher levels where it drops down to like 20. https://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf This is where I am going. Film doesn't match the MTF of film, depending on which film you choose. It is a true statement that the MTF curve of all films (that I know of) drops off on the right, the amount of drop-off varies wildly.

Please see previous comments about how "film" doesn't look like "film." You seem to be parroting marketing claims that are completely nonsensical. Even if an OLPF could be designed to match the sharpness or softness of a given type of film, which is a strange concept, 5203 and 5294 are only so similar - and the chunky grainy look of Tri-X is even less similar, not to mention black and white.

4K is 4x the size of 2K so it makes sense that 4K ProRes would be 3x (or more) the size of 2K ProRes. 🙂

Nice! Even outside of boom use, I have an s-mic 2s that I use with my C70. Guess I know what I'll get to use with the k-x as soon as I get an xlr adapter for it!

Can't you do 4k raw from fs700 with Ninja and/or Video Assist? I thought it did 4k raw up to like 120p, though I don't remember if that was continuous or only for a few seconds.

The C70 seems less sharp, for sure, beyond being 4k vs 6k. Colors are a little punchier straight out of camera. I don't have a Xyla 21 and haven't done anything scientific, but I think the C70 has a little more dynamic range (but the difference is less than I expected). Both sensors are a bit wider than a standard APS-C sensor (26.2mm for the C70 and 27.03mm for the K-X) so with a focal reducer, the field of view/dof of the lenses is a nearly perfect match for full frame. Also, C70 has rolling shutter, but I think it's around 16ms - so it looks mostly fine when shooting moving stuff/moving the camera around. It has the advantage when overcranking to 120fps that it doesn't need to crop in at all, but the disadvantage of turning off DGO and losing dynamic range (though then the RS is even less, like 8ms or something). This weekend, maybe tomorrow, I'll do my side-by-side test and would be glad to post a couple of frame grabs (before and after using the color chart tool in Resolve). Gotta' hand it to those folks - I've done some crazy stuff to get the shot, but I'm not sure I'd be up for standing in the middle of a bunch of fighting apes.

One can only hope that they didn't lose Jerry's invitation in the mail this time. Their event just won't be the same without him sitting on a couch not shooting anything and distracting other people who are just trying to generate a quick marketing piece.

I'd say the same about the term "filmic." It's usually used by people who clearly never shot on film and seem to think that all film looked the same. But Portra (negative film, low contrast) and Velvia (positive film, high contrast) don't even remotely look alike. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that half of those people would see images shot on Velvia and damn them as being insufficiently filmic. 😉 Similarly, FP4, HP5, Delta 400, and T-Max 3200 all look very distinct from each other - including that the first two are traditional black and white films and the others are modern t-grain films. Even within the same black and white film stock, choice of developer is extremely relevant. Anyway. People use "cinematic" and "filmic" in camera discussions like people used "old-timey" in O Brother Where Art Thou. They just mean it's something they like, but for some reason, won't just say that.

Between the K-X and the C70? Do you mean to see how well they can match? For that, I'll probably just set them up next to each other on tripods with similar lenses at a similar t-stop and shoot myself holding a color chart. Then I'll use the Resolve color chart tool on both and look at them side-by-side. If I think that they're similar enough that a normal person wouldn't find it jarring, that'll be good enough for me, especially for a 48. Fair enough. There's no wrong choice there, it really just depends on one's goals. I only bought the C70 last year when it was already pretty dated (mine came from a rental house for a great price). With Canon, there's no knowing whether the new version will really improve anything that one cares about and what things that you liked will be removed for seemingly no reason. But at least a new model would be likely to push down prices even more on the used stuff. I'm watching Chimp Empire now. Looks beautiful. Wonderful example of how great the C70 and C300 are for run and gun.

My specialty. Apologies to those who hate topic drift. I missed it completely, but it sounds like something I'd like a lot! Thanks for the suggestion! I'll probably start it today. That makes total sense. It's a super easy camera to use and the majority the ergonomics are really well thought-out. It just kind of gets the job done without any fuss and gives you a really nice image. About the only things I'd change would be to add an EVF and some built-in wireless image transmission. Oh, and if I'm wishing out loud, make it 4.6k to allow some reframing in post with no quality loss when delivering 4k. Along the same lines as the above, I'm shooting a 48 hour film thing here in late June and the producer got me a first AC. Since I have no use for an actual AC, I'll just be promoting them to second shooter and handing them the C70. I just need to make sure it's straightforward to match it to the K-X which I'll be using (should be, the sensors are really similar sizes and Canon and Red both skew a bit magenta).

Please let us know how it goes for you!

This is exactly why a lot of people doing events/weddings/etc just use 2 bodies, one with a wide angle zoom and the other with a tele-zoom. Do you need the lens to be fast? If not, if I remember right, Fuji have an 18-120/4 and an 18-135/3.5-5.6 for XF mount. I'm assuming that the former is the "professional" version since it has a fixed aperture. You're not going to get ultra-shallow DOF with F/4 on APS-C, but you'd have something that's close to a 27-180 on FF. In the US, at least, one can rent cameras and lenses by mail order through a company like lensrentals.com. Their rates are, generally speaking, a lot better than my local rental houses - though you are at the mercy of shipping times so one needs to plan ahead a little bit. Is there anybody like that in France/Europe? Could mitigate the need for a local well-stocked shop.

I can't speak to the GF 45-100 or the 100-200, but the 32-64 is pretty shockingly good. I don't know your workflow and how much work you're willing to do in post - but with 100 megapixels, just about every lens is effectively a zoom lens. The GFX is about the fastest medium format I've ever seen (not counting things like the Koni-Omega Rapid series), but any Nikon or Fuji APS-C camera is going to be a whole lot faster, and the A7RV that you mentioned will still be faster. Similarly, depending on the amount of post production you're wiling to do, you could capture in raw, extract your stills, and then re-encode it to h265/prores/whatever. Seems like a big hassle to me, though.

I've certainly done stills grabs from 6k and 8k cameras to put on social media or similar. I'm not sure what I could possibly tell you about it that you don't already know, though. If doing it from 10-bit video, it'll be a lot like a jpeg from a decent mirrorless. If doing it from raw video (as a tiff or similar), in most cases, it will be a bit like a raw from a moderate/decent consumer camera (12-bit). One big difference is that when shooting still images, I usually just leave the camera in aperture priority all the time and adjust ISO up/down as computed shutter speeds suggest. In video, I'm much less likely to use an automatic mode and always manually expose (and if I did use an automatic mode, it would be shutter priority). One thing I haven't done/tried yet is to take out the K-X and use it as a motion-photo camera. The raw video files seem to be a little more flexible than what I get from most of my mirrorless stuff. There's no way it's going to compete with my GFX 100 II, but maybe it's enough for just stepping out and goofing around/street stuff. I have an EF-S 24/2.8 on the way - might give that a try with the EF-RF adapter with internal vari-ND.

Having used neither so based entirely on images and specs, I would take the UMP over the Pyxis any day. I gain a screen that makes sense, internal ND filters, redundant media (2xCF and 2xSD and USB-C), and a crapload of buttons and I lose 6K (but still have a little extra for cropping in post to 4k)? I guess the mount options for the Ursa are also less good - EF, PL, F, and B4 - so no good way to use most vintage lenses (except Leica R and Olympus OM (and of course Nikon F since it includes vintage))... but I bet I could design and 3d print something for that. That's what I did for the Z Cam flagship series before they released some useful mounts. Anyway. I still haven't used either camera so it's really just navel gazing... but for me, if you set both in front of me and said to pick one, I would hesitate for less than 1/10 second.