TomTheDP

Says a lot of nothing imo. Will we see redraw in mirrorless is the question from me.

Yes I'm talking shooting in 8 bit 709. When I mentioned log I meant 10-12 bit. I was saying even though the master is 709 you can potentially make 10 bit log better looking than a baked in 709 profile. For instance the emotive color lut looks nicer than the 709 profiles out of most cameras straight off the card.

I'll answer it for you and I've used the A7s3 and FX6 but not the A7IV. Both cameras have heavily processed shadows that ruin the image. The A7s3 and FX3 are superior because you can shoot RAW externally and bypass the processing. Dynamic range isn't useful when it's being ruined by noise reduction. The fx30 has much less processing at the lower native ISOs and would be my choice over either of those cameras. Or get a Nikon Z8.

I really think Redraw is coming or at least a varient of it. I get market segmentation but Nikon already displayed its willingness to put internal RAW in their cameras with no caveats. REDraw is coming to Nikon mirrorless. I don't think this will kill sales for any of the "RED" cameras. They are made for a traditional on set workflow. No one is going to want to use a Z8 with HDMI on a large production unless its a crash cam. Plus the RED Komodo is priced the same as the Nikon Z9 to begin with. It's not like its ARRI where they don't sell any cameras lower than 50,000 usd. RED never had the capacity to put out a mirrorless body and compete with the likes of Nikon or Canon, now they don't need to. We shall see soon enough.

True latitude tests are the best indicator. With firmware 3.0 the Z9/Z8 does peform incredibly well and like you said bests the Venice 2 which is crazy. The Venice 2 captures 16 bit linear RAW which I would imagine gives you a much beefier file to work with. That said 8.2k 12 bit RAW with that kind of latitude is more than enough for any application. One of the biggest draws of the Z8/Z9 for me is the NRAW, Prores RAW, Prores, and H265 options all in camera. Pretty much can fit to any workflow in any NLE without needing to transcode. If they actually put REDraw that would be awesome for possible compression options. No Opengate square aspect ratio options for anamorphic but hey you can't get everything. I appreciate Nikon's new move of not holding back. Feels like Lumix until recently where they seem to put out the same thing over and over again.

Makes sense. I think the main differences between these Sony cameras are rolling shutter and the ability or lack of ability to record RAW if that is a feature you want to use. Dynamic range is all very similiar in latitude tests and imatest measurements. My pick for Sony is the FX30 as it is the cheapest and has a damn good image and a lot of cheap 3rd party lenses for it too.

If you expose and white balance on point most 8 bit cameras will look nice in REC709 profiles. You have a bit more range to play with if you are shooting log on a higher end sensor. However you will be compressing everything down into that colorspace and dynamic range limitation regardless(Unless you are mastering for HDR displays).

https://www.eoshd.com/news/is-n-raw-real-raw-nikon-z9-under-the-spotlight-at-eoshd/ Generelly when greatly underexposed RAW looks better than H265. You usually get weird compression artifacts and blotchy looking texture with more compressed codecs. Noise Reduction can reduce noise but nice texture is usually a sign of a better sensor with more dynamic range. That said there are other reasons to shooting RAW like color information which would be the main draw for me. The Z8/Z9 also have Prores which looks quite nice.

With FX3 you have the optinon to shoot RAW which will give you a bit more dynamic range. Testing shows the FX3 and Sony A1 have about 1 stop more of usable dynamic range which can be seen in latitude tests. Outside of that the FX3, A1, and A7IV all perform very similiar. The A1 has the best internal codec, least processing. FX3 has too much noise reduction but it can be avoided by shooting raw externally.

Not a scientific test either but maybe more informative than the first one haha. I think each camera's processing is just as important as the codec itself. That is what RAW theoretically gets around, the processing. Though with BRAW it's not really getting around that as much as it isn't a true RAW format.

That is LA for you haha. Yeah I think you are right. Too many variables in that kind of test. This might be a better comparison. Same camera and Prores 422 HQ has less compression than what the FX6 is doing. I also imagine the readout is the same in prores as it is in RAW. Can't confirm that though.

Prores 444 and 4444xq are really nice codecs to work with. The issue is compressed RAW is often actually smaller in terms of file size compared to Prores 444. I shoot 2k Prores 444 which is about 500mbps, which is a reasonable size. To me 12 bit is important but it doesn't matter if it in the RAW format, Prores 444 or semiraw like BRAW. For me I notice the difference in shadows and skintones compared with 10 bit recording. The differences can be subtle though. This video demonstrates some differences you can see in a real world scenario. FX6 10 bit vs REDRAW

Yeah it's not bad at all, but still too much when on set. If you are using a Sony FX9 it could be as quick as a lens swap because the you can get adapters that attach the same as a lens. That isn't as secure as a mount that is bolted in though. If you aren't using vintage or stills glass it doesn't matter though.

For me as someone who isn't renting high end cine glass it gives me more lens options. Most vintage lenses can be adapted to EF but very few can be adapted to PL, at least not without really expensive modifications done by pros. If I want to throw on an old FD lens or something like that I'd have to swap the mount from PL to EF, which is time consuming. Now that depends on the camera. Swapping the mounts on a mirrorless system is usually fast. On an ARRI or Blackmagic it is a pain.

True though a lot of budget "cinema" lens options have an EF mount option. Even some mid range lenses like the CP3 have an EF mount option. Often times they are swappable so you can switch to PL relatively easily. I definitely prefer RF mount (or any mirrorless mount) as it just opens up more lens options, particularly vintage ones. The form factor and output options on the C500 are much better but that may not be valuable to you.

This really isn't surprising considering camera gets all the attention. I hear constantly from sound mixers that they are never given any luxuries on set or in post.

Interesting I am not sure how successful the GH6 was but they are coming out with a G9 II, so they continue to sell M43 cameras. One of the issues with the GH6 was it simply didn't offer enough over other options. If the GH6 was global shutter and had internal RAW or something to separate it from larger sensors it could have been a different story. I agree in general M43 is less attractive then 5 years ago. I personally have no gripes with it. I personally wouldn't get an M43 camera simply because there are no options for it in the higher end bracket of cameras. Good point. I think EF is almost as good an option as PL. You can adapt EF to all mirrorless systems. All higher end cameras (RED, Sony and ARRI) have EF options as well. Something to consider though. There is always a new camera coming out and at least the C500 MK2 has been reduced in price a lot since it's release making it a better value. In general though camera's tend to lose value a lot quickly. I think the Monstro is probably a bit more stable price wise as the new replacement for it, the Raptor, has already been out for a minute.

Have you considered a C500 MK2 6k, Internal ND, Great lowlight performance, great latitude and good dynamic range, internal RAW and 10 bit capability. Pretty well designed package that works great for building up or building down, good battery life. To me IQ/usability wise it would be the C500 MK2 or the RED Monstro. In that price range they are the top performers. With the Monstro you have to deal with 8k but you have tons of compression options. You're getting better dynamic range and color depth over the C500. Only downside is no internal ND's, probably more expensive media (redmags), and power consumption is higher(though not terrible). I see some mentions of the S1H. I think it's a great bang for your buck camera. Great battery life, great sensor. They sell used now for incredibly cheap. Downsides are the HDMI out latency is terrible, slow rolling shutter, no internal 12 bit/RAW, and color isn't the greatest compared to higher end cameras. Again you can get great images out of it and for a hobby camera it would excel. If you are looking for a more high end experience I just don't think that would be it. In terms of value it is incredible though. I might also suggest an ARRI Alexa XT, but that might be too far into the too heavy spectrum. It's quite a beast.

The Pocket 4k has BRAW which means you get 1 stops more in the highlights with highlight recovery in Resolve. The Red Komodo does this internally to get its 12.5 stop rating ( a $6000 "cinema" camera). That makes around 12.6 stops for the Pocket. Also the C70 only gets 12.3 stops in RAW, because it has no NR. Again you can get an additional .5 stops or so out of the Pocket with NR. The comparison between a RODE wireless GO and the Pocket 4k makes little sense to me. Also the Pocket has held its value pretty well over its entire lifetime. Hardly a waste of money. I still see them making money all the time on different projects. M43 mount is hardly dead. The GH6 just came out with a brand new dual gain sensor, Z-cam is putting out a new global shutter M43 camera with higher dynamic range. Z-cam didn't likely design that sensor, probably made by Sony, which wouldn't be designing and making M43 sensors if there was no demand. But it doesn't really matter. If you aren't shooting for clients the camera you have is irrelevant outside of it giving you a usable image, which almost any camera on the market in the past 5 years does. Recommending a cheaper camera is not dissing someone's abilities. Award winning films have been shot on a GH2. The Pocket 4k is very capable. Anyways the Pocket 4k wouldn't be my choice in camera. Something like an S1H, FX30 would be as they are more run and gun friendly. My reason for not getting something "high end" for hobby uses is not because I don't want to spend money. It's because such tools are inconvenient and annoying for doing anything non work related. But that's me. Maybe you like to move slowly for your hobby uses an a big ass camera rig works for you. Even a DSLR for photos is annoying, would rather have the smallest APSC or M43 mirrorless option that I can at least sort of fit in my pocket.

I partly shoot on an Alexa for work simply because I can and want to. So I get you. Though if you get a bigger camera setup like a C300 or FX9 you may get annoyed with it overtime. It's just bigger and if there is any element of travel involved to what you shoot, the heavier it is the more of an annoyance it is.

They could have just used much smaller spherical lenses and done the look in post like Fincher does. At the end of the day DP's/Directors almost always sacrifice convenience and time for a certain look that the audience won't really care about.

The Pocket 4k has good dynamic range. Above 12 stops when using davinci highlight recovery. You can mount a small Sony NPF on top the camera and get good battery life pretty easily. Variable ND's are very easy, you can get a magnetic one for quick removal. Variable ND's aren't great for skin tones but he's shooting landscapes. M43 lenses are tiny and cheap, but if he wants he could just get EF mount or something to future proof. If you aren't making a lot of money off your cameras it makes little sense to spend $4000+ on it. The Pocket 6k Pro is a good compromise though. You can get them for under $2000 used. Battery life is better and the built in screen is really nice. Honestly when I am not on set I like to have the smallest camera possible. The FX30 has been great for me. I want it to feel like there is no camera at all. On narrative film productions that is when I prefer a cinema body with all the bells and whistles. Carrying anything substantial around when I am doing solo or non paid stuff is a pain in the ass. Honestly the FX30 would be a good choice. The image looks great, especially for landscapes. Lens options are cheap and tiny. Good battery life too. The weight of the camera feels like you are carrying nothing.

I think the choice for the FX3 was the second native ISO of 12,800. That is two stops more than the Sony Venice's native ISO. The RED Raptor may be pretty usable at 6400 iso but the FX3 is still a stop above that. The less light you need the quicker you get it done. I have done projects using almost all natural lighting and it is so much quicker in almost everyway.

Second image has a lot more detail each time but that certainly could be the lens. The GH5 resolves a lot more detail though as its 5k downsampled to 4K or HD, over just straight up HD. I am still a fan of HD as unless its a side by side it looks detailed enough. Though the GH5 was great with having no moire.

I have definitely found RED easiest to work with color wise. But the C300 MK3 is way more run and gun friendly. Have you considered the URSA 12K. I know BM doesn't get the hype that RED, Canon and Sony do, but the image is really good. The crop of the camera is 1.3x, between S35 and full frame. I'd download some footage from that and see what you think.