Jay60p

For highly detailed & inexpensive virtual sets, check out DAZ 3D.
I rendered these with a DAZ model by Jack Tomalin (with two different texture sets),
imported to Maxon Cinema 4D. Its a great way to experiment with lighting setups:


Stonemason is another great DAZ modeler for virtual interiors/exteriors:
https://www.daz3d.com/the-streets-of-venice
These models are generally less than $50 and are getting more detailed every year.

Lately I’ve been looking at low cost motion capture systems.
Anyone tried the Perception Neuron 3 system? - $2,400
https://www.neuronmocap.com/perception-neuron-3-motion-capture-system
 

For highly detailed & inexpensive virtual sets, check out DAZ 3D.
I rendered these with a DAZ model by Jack Tomalin (with two different texture sets),
imported to Maxon Cinema 4D. Its a great way to experiment with lighting setups:


Stonemason is another great DAZ modeler for virtual interiors/exteriors:
https://www.daz3d.com/the-streets-of-venice
These models are generally less than $50 and are getting more detailed every year.

Lately I’ve been looking at low cost motion capture systems.
Anyone tried the Perception Neuron 3 system? - $2,400
https://www.neuronmocap.com/perception-neuron-3-motion-capture-system
 

So, turns out that hitting Command-Return instead of Shift-Return submits the post.  Who knew?
anyway, Part Two.
They have smaller apertures.
This might seem to be a disadvantage, but maybe not as much as you'd imagine.  Firstly, smaller apertures are easy to focus, so less shots with missed focus.  BOOM.  You're welcome.  Tell Panasonic (or whoever) I just upgraded their AF.
See if you can tell the difference in DoF between these?


No?  Well, F2.8 to F3.5 isn't much difference.
OK, let's get less fair.. What about these?


Sure, it's a small difference, but that's a two whole stops.  It's also many many hundreds of dollars.
Low light is definitely a difference here, that's true, so the kit zoom isn't really a low-light monster, but these lenses are practically free so you can't have everything!

Everyone seems to want high-speed high-resolution high-performance glass...  is it sharp wide open?  what does DXO say?  how good is the bokeh?  these questions are all over the net.
OR..
Everyone seems to want vintage glass with their lovely coatings and swirly bokeh and corner softness...  how does it roll-off the highlights?  how is the edge softness?  what is the colour rendering?  how does it render skin?  
I recently tested a bunch of my lenses and I'm wondering if maybe they're wrong.  Maybe cheap, modern, variable aperture, zoom lenses - the kit lens perhaps - is the best lens available.
Why might I say such a thing?  Here are some thoughts.
They're cheap.
Obvious, but true.  In fact, if your camera was cheap enough, then you probably own one already - or if you own multiple cameras maybe more than one!
If you don't already have one, but you know people who are into cameras, then you can probably get one off them for free.
Best, in the real world (which is where I do all my shooting), often means most value.
They're flexible and fast to use.
They can zoom, which makes them flexible.  I don't care how fast you are at changing lenses, I can turn a zoom ring faster than you can change primes.  In fast situations, it can mean the difference between getting the shot and missing it.  ENG cameras all had zooms, not a bag / case of primes.
They can improve your edits.
In slower shooting situations that flexibility can mean you get shots that you wouldn't otherwise get.  Maybe it's not worth changing lenses to grab that shot, so you just don't, or maybe the composition isn't quite right because it falls between two prime focal lengths, or maybe the primes are just too heavy to carry all that way.  Cheap zooms are lightweight plastic - built for speed.
This means that when you get back to the editing room your kit zoom will give you more options.  You'll have taken risks in shooting and some will pay off.  The saying "spray and pray" is a deep insult which encourages people to only shoot what they know will work, but the phrase "happy accidents" betrays that sometimes we don't know what we'll want until we see it, in which case why not deliberately seek out what is new and unknown?  They tell you that shooting with a prime will make you slow down and think about your compositions - maybe we should speed up and think less?  Operate on instinct.  If big-name directors are operating on instinct then why must the rest of us slow down and think more?  
The zoom will unlock the creativity that primes are actively blocking us from achieving.
They can be optically poor.  (Just like vintage lenses)
Here's a little joke..  "What do you call a vintage lens with high optical performance?" "A modern lens"
Vintage lenses are often quite crap.  I'm meant to say "have lots of character", but in reality that character is just optical defects that we happen to like.
Here are four images from my recent GX85 lens test.  These are SOOC and not shot in controlled conditions, but the principle remains.




So what are we looking at here?  
Well, there are two lenses where the colours are vibrant, they make the 100Mbps 4K (on a 1080p timeline here) look very sharp, and they are the Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 zoom and the Voigtlander 42.5mm F0.95 prime.  These are by far the most expensive lenses.
The 58mm is the Helios 44M, a close relative of the 44-2 (the images are practically identical) and it's got that vintage look we all love.  In fact, the diffusion from the vintage coatings improve the dynamic range of the camera by lifting the highlights.  Despite being very sharp, its diffusion (coatings at work again!) takes the edge off the edges, giving a slightly organic look - it looks high-resolution but not high-sharpness.  This is in the direction of how resolution from RAW-shooting cameras looks - there but understated.
Here's the problem with the Helios though, it flares uncontrollably in direct sunlight.  It's so prone to off-axis lighting that it's difficult to work quickly with.  Plus, it's a prime and subject to all the above issues.
Then, the mighty 14-42 kit lens.  It has some of that vintage look going on.  It's kind of like somewhere between the Helios and the other two.  It raises the shadows a bit, but isn't uncontrollable in direct sun, and the edges are a little softer.  A happy medium perhaps?  It's also a zoom, has OIS, and if you break it you can just go get another one from a friend or on eBay or for $5 at a market somewhere with a GF2 with a dead battery.
End of part 1....

Thanks for this! I looked on eBay and couldn't find any, but I found a seller that spools film and compares the film to Technical Pan. The price is cheap enough that I may give it a try.

If you can find one or two cartridges of discontinued 35mm B&W Kodak Technical Pan online, you may want to try it before its gone forever.
This was one of the few films I used to process myself, and was the most amazingly sharp & fine grained 35mm I ever used. It’s image quality looked more like a 2 1/4 neg than 35mm.
Your half frame negs would look as sharp as full frame.
Really disappointed to see it was discontinued by 2005. See a discussion about that here:
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/tech-pan-to-be-discontinued.126092/

It's not possible to get the GoPro7 frame-locked like the earlier GoPro. With 60fps i didn't really have any problems with time difference between the cameras, but I have mostly used it for next to static shots.

I use this. It's M42, adapted to EF and then just use any digital camera to scan it.
https://images.app.goo.gl/6NrDgntAbgbHg8dE8
as for snaps, here's a couple. Getting the stereo effect is easiest with some hardware, but you can do it with just your eyes if you practice a little. Plenty of how tos on YouTube.

As you can see. My camera has a light leak on the right frame. But it does ant take away from the stereo effect.

I went the other way, and started shooting stereo photos a couple years ago. So a 36 roll gets 18 stereo sets. I quickly learned I need to ask the developer not to cut the negatives, because they camera rolls the film at an odd length between shots. Unfortunately, they cut a few frames in half... but luckily, I had the other angle, so now those ones are just nice, stand-alone pictures.
I then process the negative at home, with a slide scanner, a touch of colour adjustments and then pairing and aligning the correct images. Quite a bit of work, but it's also simple and becomes something of a routine after 2 or 3.
I use a trusty use a Stereo Realist, it's a rangefinder camera, and surprisingly quick to use once you get used to it. It's also reasonably small, so when I first got it, I took it with me for many shoots for some lovely stereo behind the scenes snaps. Happy to share a couple, but you might need some equipment to get the stereo effect. either a stereo viewer, (those VR headsets you can put your phone in work very well) or try the ol' cross your eyes and stare through the frame - which can get a little exhausting after a while.
 
EDIT: It's a shame stereo-photography never really took off with digital. There's only a handful of models that do it well enough to be worth the time, and they're few and far between on the second hand market. Recently I've been looking at beam splitters, but even those are hard to come by. They are available for phones, but I don't think there's enough usable resolution (on mine at least) to have a good image once you've cut it in half.

I dug up my two dozen issues from the 1980’s, and they are a real blast from the past for me.
I’ve signed on and have been downloading full pdf editions from the past 60 years with
articles and photos I’ve never seen before.

Another magazine I liked in the 80’s is CINEFEX.
Sadly, they have just put out their final issue, about The Mandalorian.
My few 1980’s issues had about 80 pages with no advertisements, and
great behind the scenes color photos of shot set-ups. That mag was also too expensive
for me to keep up a subscription at the time.
If they had the same offer as American Cinematographer, I’d grab that even faster.
 

Wow.
Kubrick often shot with the 200ft magazine, that lasts 2.2 minutes.
My Arri 400 foot magazine lasts 4.4 minutes.
So 1 year = 90ft/min x 60min x 24hours x 365 days = a 47 million, 304 thousand foot magazine.
That’s a magazine weight of about 266,000 pounds.
Is that camera on Ebay?
 

That’s the deal breaker right there for me.
I could compromise on the rest, but I might have gone on holiday at that time and if it stopped recording while I was away for those 2 weeks...
Actually, now I think of it, that is ridiculous. Holidays and especially international travel are a thing of the past so not an issue.
How does it compare with the Panasonic G100? I’m mostly interested in vlogging.

As you say, 60fps, shutter speed of 60.

No offence taken!  
I've played with shutter angle and waving my hand on front of my face and I've gotten a sense of how 24p is different to reality.  The subjective experience for me is that 24p has a 'look' which is made to look the least un-natural by having a shutter angle somewhere in the 120-240 degree range, depending on your mood and if it's dark etc.  
But the thing is that 60p doesn't look more neutral to me, it looks like it has about the same amount of a 'look' in comparison to reality that 24p does, but the aesthetic of that look is very different.  
24p seems to have a kind of 'heightened sense' aesthetic, like realty can have in moments of strong emotion.  Kind of like the visual component of "time slowed down" and in a sense it's an effect that kind of increases the romance and emotion and depth and pain and very texture of experiencing the world as an emotional animal.  
60p has an aesthetic that makes reality seem like every atom has been lubricated and everything is kind of slipping all over itself, kind of like everything is falling in slow-motion except that it's doing it at the speed of reality, and perhaps a little bit too fast for comfort.  It has an aesthetic like the love child of slipping over in the bath, being scammed by a con artist that was so good the only warning that you got was that everything was happening slightly too easily, and what I imagine it would be like taking pills that make you smarter and give you superhero reflexes.
In my mind, 24p has a more relatable aesthetic, it fits with things that I occasionally experience in my sober real-life, but it's also familiar from watching movies and TV, so that's an advantage too.  60p has an aesthetic that I have never experienced in sober real-life.  24p disappears but 60p never seems to fade-away into the background, it's like I've had my brain downloaded into a robot body and somehow they got the code wrong.
My answer to your question about what to film for a simulation ride was 60p, but not because it mimics reality, but for two reasons - the first is that in motion-simulations it's been shown that lower frame rates make people nauseous and that it doesn't look like reality or like 24p.  So people would come out of the ride having kept their lunch and having had an experience that they'd say "wow, it really was an experience" rather than say "I watched a movie and the seat moved".
Talking about frame rate and shutter angle to mimic reality is like talking about drawing with crayons to mimic a moving sculpture - there's enough similarity to make it seem reasonable to ask the question but only good enough to choose between fundamental challenges that cannot all be met.

Yes.

But the shipping will bankrupt you.

Wow.
Kubrick often shot with the 200ft magazine, that lasts 2.2 minutes.
My Arri 400 foot magazine lasts 4.4 minutes.
So 1 year = 90ft/min x 60min x 24hours x 365 days = a 47 million, 304 thousand foot magazine.
That’s a magazine weight of about 266,000 pounds.
Is that camera on Ebay?
 

Yes, the waving the hand before your face test! I’ve done that with the X-T3 at 60p to see
what shutter speed mimics reality the best.
And the 180 degree “rule” fails completely here, the motion is too stroboscopic at 1/120th.
60p at 1/60th shutter works for me. It looks most like my real hand waving before my eyes as far as
motion blur is concerned. There are no small increments of time left out at that setting.
Just like seeing with the naked eye. Thats how I shoot at home.
But that’s not what we want for narrative story telling.
We want to be immersed in an alternate reality, and for us right now 24p works best for that.
And 16fps still works fine for Buster Keaton.
I find these frame speed opinions fascinating, its all about how the mind/brain works,
and our cultural training & history. If Hollywood had developed a 48fps standard, who would
want to shoot 24p? It wouldn’t look like Cinema!
Maybe we are all brainwashed by the mechanical & financial limitations of a small group
Of engineers over a hundred years ago.
 

You can read this, on this page
https://www.doc-diy.net/photo/remote_pinout/
Fuji (Fujifilm)
Fuji has currently three types of wired shutter release connectors.
2.5mm Jack Plug
Some of the Fujis have the standard 2.5mm jack socket to connect the microphone. This socket also serves as a shutter release socket. The wiring is compatible with Canon and Pentax (see above) and cheap remotes designed for these brands can be used. 
So the fuji remote control works like the RS60-E3 cannon remote control.
And you can read this on this page
http://www.camerahacker.com/RS60-E3_pin-out/pin-out.php
When the button on the remote control is pushed half way, contact section 1 and 2 are shorted together, causing the camera to focus. When the button on the remote control is pushed all the way, all three contact sections are shorted together, causing the camera shutter to be released. Pin 1 is actually the ground connector. Therefore, it's pin 1 and pin 3 that causes the camera to trigger.
1 - ground
2 - focus
3 - shutter
When you build your own camera interface, you can split the auto-focus and shutter release function by using two switches or use two independent circuits.
 
Now I think I have everything I need. I will try to build my trigger button this weekend. I will use wire 1 and 3 on the momentary button and hide and protect wire 2. 

Wow.
Kubrick often shot with the 200ft magazine, that lasts 2.2 minutes.
My Arri 400 foot magazine lasts 4.4 minutes.
So 1 year = 90ft/min x 60min x 24hours x 365 days = a 47 million, 304 thousand foot magazine.
That’s a magazine weight of about 266,000 pounds.
Is that camera on Ebay?
 

Yes, I like that. I hope it works safely that way, that makes things a lot easier.
 

24 frames a second, that was the faster speed for us back in high school, when I started with my Minolta Super 8 camera.
Me and my friends were happily shooting 18 frames per second (silent) silly comedies and we loved it.
If I was doing narrative now, I'd have a hard time deciding between 24 or 30. 
For family and nature these days, 60p looks best to me.

Thanks Jay60p for the answer, but I think the diagram is more like the one I corrected. Just thinking about how the stereo audio is connected. I think I'll try to connect only 1 and 3 on the momentary button and I won't use 2. Just to trigger the rec. but I'll continue to do some internet research first.  

That looks like a single pole, single throw, momentary closed switch.
Possibly what he did, in that video, was connect the 1 & 2 contact wires in the
Vello harness to one switch terminal on the push button, and the contact 3 wire to the second switch terminal.
Using the push button in this way would be the equivalent to holding the camera's button down half way
during switching it on, then full press for recording (and back to half press), full press for stop recording (and
back to half press), then turning off the camera (while holding half press). In other words, the camera will
always be in half press mode. I tried this and it works on my X-T3, you should try it on X-T4.
I would investigate this further online, maybe talk to Fuji support.
 

The trouble with that wiring is you need intermittant use of half press for AF-S focusing. It also stops focus check (hi magnification) from working in manual focus mode. And probably interferes with a bunch of other things, like no playback!
It may be that he just directly connected 2 and 3 contacts to the switch , but I won't try that unless it's been shown to be safe by a reliable source online.
 

Here is a diagram I worked out for the X-T3:

This is what I found inside my Vello remote for X-T3.
I attached external wiring to 2 & 3 for remotely firing off frames when digitizing my Arri II 35mm timelapse footage, a frame at a time run by a geared down motor. The X-T3 results are excellent. My major project at the moment.