TomTheDP

5 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

RED stays RED, for now.

Says a lot of nothing imo.

Will we see redraw in mirrorless is the question from me.

On 3/22/2024 at 5:54 AM, kye said:

It's partly a theoretical point, but I'm not actually sure this has to be the case.  It's definitely not the case if you're comparing 709 8-bit vs LOG 8-bit, as LOG 8-bit can be so fragile that you can't even make nice images if you don't need to change WB or exposure at all.

The missing piece (and why I said "I'm not sure this has to be the case") is having the colour management to convert back from 709 into something where WB and Exposure adjustments will be made proportionally to the image (ie, like they were done in-camera).  I've done a lot of work with the GX85, as I'm sure you've seen, and am still planning on doing more, and I got quite good results with the Gamma wheel when the image was in 709, and using the WB and Offset controls when I'd done a CST to a LOG space (in my case using DWG/DI in Resolve).

The reasons that I suggest this are that:

• when shooting 8-bit there is far more data in the saturation, so the impacts of quantisation are much less when grading the final image to have a normal level of saturation
• when shooting 8-bit the image SOOC is much closer to the final image in terms of the gamma curve, so you're not stretching those bits that much further apart than they already are, whereas 8-bit LOG needs a lot of additional contrast to be added

Of course, the ultimate is having 10-bit HLG, which has full 709 levels of saturation, has a gamma curve much closer to a 709-style output but still retains all the DR from the camera, and it has all the benefits of 10-bit.  Once again, HLG isn't a standard so the conversion is a challenge, but I've found that interpreting it as either Rec2020 or Rec2100 works pretty well.

I'm currently programming my own grading tool in DCTL for Resolve and my main aim is to incorporate the tools that I'll need to grade 709 images, considering that the GX85 is now my main focus and it's the one that is hardest to get right with the existing tools.  Once I have a working prototype I'll be filming my rec709 WB/exposure tests again (with skintones this time) and will update the other thread.

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. 

8 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

The big difference is that when Nikon Nraw came out, their was no real good workflow. Their is actually a big DR difference between Nikon h265 and Nraw, because Nikon has been very conservative in the Nlog  which is quite contrasty. CINED today has a nice set of DR test of the different cameras. And as Nikon featured very low in the Synthetic DR test with Xyla chart and Imatest. It shines in the truer real life latitude test. In their the Z9 is the better than every Sony camera by at least half if not 1 stop better DR. +4 stop above and - 5 stop lower.  Even better than the Venice 2!!! Which is at least 1 stop lower. I think Sony perhaps focused on speed of the sensor, 3 ms. Because their are other Sony cameras that look better. 

The VV Red Raptor was half to a stop better and this test really show how the Alexa's are better, with at least 1,5 stop higher for the traditional Alexa and at least 3!!! for the Alexa 35. 

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. 

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

 

Keep in mind from context (quoted below) that the OP is potentially not talking about the actual fx3 and more likely is talking about the zve1 and is comparing it to the fx3/a7s3 due to similar sensor.  The zve1 doesn't shoot raw.  Also, if it's worth mention that recording raw on any of these cameras requires an external recorder which will add $300+ to the price.
Also also, that the OP doesn't currently have a video camera or experience (so raw might be questionable choice) 😃
 

 

 

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). 

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

Dunno what tests those were, but I've shot in all formats on my Z9s, and N-RAW is definitely better than H265. More latitude, less/no NR, less/no sharpening, etc. Not to mention, of course, the freedom to change WB and exposure in Resolve in post.

2 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

I agree - Sony will be doing image processing before the H.265 encoding (e.g. noise suppression, de-Bayering, sharpening etc.), whereas you might expect less of that happening with N-RAW - isn't it meant to be raw sensor data, warts and all?

H.265 is a sophisticated codec, so I'm not that surprised 4:2:2 10-bit 8k video at 500Mbps from the A1 looks really good, especially on a static image like Andrew used in the N-RAW vs H.265 vs CDNG comparison article.

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. 

10 hours ago, kye said:

Interesting video.

First things first - could that guy be any cooler?  I'm pretty sure there isn't a single element in that video that isn't an automatic 10/10 for hipster chic.  Wow.  Talk about those people whose whole life is their own art project!

Secondly, his commentary is all over the place.

I see the differences he's talking about in the footage, plus a great many more that he probably sees but didn't mention - there are hue shifts and gamma shifts and subtractive colour operations and all sorts of wonderful things that are different between the two cameras.

However, he points to differences and says "see the difference with 10-bit?" whereas I think the differences are likely to be a mix of:

1. FX6 sensor read-out bit-depth
2. FX6 image processing
3. Sony RAW-LOG profile conversion (gamma, gamut, and bit-depth)
4. FX6 compression

I built a DCTL plugin for Resolve that reduces the bit-depth of the image, and to my surprise, you can reduce the bit-depth of rec 709 footage to 6-bits (and some shots to 5bit!) before there are visible changes.  

I'm not saying that there aren't any differences between 16-bit and 10-bit, because there are (however subtle they might be) but the things he was pointing at were definitely NOT all bit-depth related, and I'd suggest that most of them were processing/compression related actually.

If you want to understand what the differences are with one parameter, you can't change dozens of them at once and then just declare that all differences are due to the one variable you want to talk about.  You could take his whole video and just replace the phrase "10-bit" with "compression" and it would make just as much sense, despite having exactly the same examples.

So yeah, it's a great video to show an FX6 LOG vs Komodo X RAW comparison, but it isn't an isolated 10-bit vs 16-bit comparison.

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. 

7 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

After reading this article:

https://www.eoshd.com/news/is-n-raw-real-raw-nikon-z9-under-the-spotlight-at-eoshd/

I’m beginning to wonder if RAW is all it’s cracked up to be. Is there a similar analysis of Canon RAW Lite? That would be interesting to read.

How about a codec that doesn’t skimp on color sampling, such as ProRes 4444 or 4444XQ? Would that be roughly the equivalent of RAW without the hassles?

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
 

46 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

My frontrunner at the moment, the C300 Mk3, is easily switchable between EF and PL. Only four screws. 

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. 

 

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But why ever use EF if you have the option for PL????

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. 

1 hour ago, Tim Sewell said:

The only bugbear with this is the lack of aperture control on the lens, meaning you always have to have an active adapter. Also MF is a real pain on virtually all (esp Canon) EF lenses.

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. 

38 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

All of the love for the C500 has me considering it now instead of the C70 for my trade-in.  Limited to EF mount is a minor bummer, but I would probably just put the 0.71x focal reducer semi-permanently on the C70 anyway...

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. 

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

This was a joke for @IronFilm as he normally never compromise on audio but tends to find the most economic options for cameras. And it make sense with his profession.

Btw the Swiss state TV, biggest view share in Switzerland, 1.7B USD yearly budget and yet they use tons of RODE GOs and not a single Pocket 4k... so for some professionals GO are good enough but this is a complete off topic.

 

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. 

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

This was a joke for @IronFilm as he normally never compromise on audio but tends to find the most economic options for cameras. And it make sense with his profession.
 

Interesting

3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

On the 4/3 the only real force is Olympus, my bet is that Panny will slowly move away and focus on L mount same for BMD, DJI did it already, Insta360, Kando they don't offer any 4/3 anymore and the others are small players. Again only time will tell who is right and who is not.
Is GH6 really having the success of previous versions? I don't think so, the S line is more compelling now so how long they will keep it both?
The safest bet imo today for Camera mount is E mount (Sony) or RF mount (Canon & RED). You get from entry level to top of the line cameras.
The safest bet in lenses is still probably EF, but with the trend of relaying more on AF, adapting EF lenses to non Canon bodies is not always a perfect match. 
Another trend is all the focus breathing compensation, digital optical correction, etc.. that needs lens metadata and compatible profiles, for some will make photo lens more attractive for other is not an important point at all like the OP for example.
One good example is the FF RF 24-105 2.8 power zoom, parfocal thorough AF motors, there is not much in the same category in cine lens and they cost 10x... is not really an apple to apple but is an interesting trend to watch: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1729470-REG/fujinon_600022978_premista_28_100mm_t2_9_pl.html
 

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. 

4 hours ago, gt3rs said:

As already suggested by a few of us the C500 II ticks many of your boxes, just keep in mind that the PL mount for C500 II is 1600$ as you plan to use PL lenses and that in a near future there will be a new model with RF mount that is more flexible as you can use adapters for various mounts. I bet it will be 8k FF but more expensive.

Another point is personally for landscape I'm not sure that entry level cinema lenses are better than top of the line photo lenses. 
 

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. 

 

9 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Lots of great discussion, which I find very helpful--thanks guys!

I thought I'd offer some clarification of a few things.

First, let's avoid too much talk about wasting money and motives. As I've said, I'm just a hobbyist and spending $10K on a new camera is not a financial burden at all.

As I originally stated, my main application is scenics. Not necessarily wildlife, except where wildlife happens to be present--we don't go out of our way to shoot birds and other wildlife, hence we have no need for long lenses.

Weight and bulk aren't too big a concern either as most of our work is done close to the car or within a mile of the car. I have a cart that I use to carry things when walking more than a hundred yards from the car. My prior still photography experience is large format, so I'm used to carrying big, bulky things.

Several have mentioned budgeting for other equipment. I already have most of this covered as I have a nice Sachtler fluid head and tripod, a Zoom sound recorder and Rode shotgun mic, filters, etc. Sure, I could upgrade some of this, particularly the microphone as some suggested, but I think I have most of the basics covered.

Regarding sound, most of what we record near the camera is unusable due to crowds of people talking, cars passing on the road, wind noise, etc. I end up replacing 95% of recorded sound with music anyway.

For lenses, I plan to start buying cine lenses in PL mount. I wish I could afford ARRI Signature Primes or Zeiss Supreme Primes, but that's not in the cards. I'm looking more along the lines of the DZO Vespids, so in other works, around $1000-1500 per lens. I'll probably get these in FF even if I end up with a Super35 camera, just to make them a little more future-proof.

One big want is reliability. I try to buy the most reliable things I can. As a private pilot, I'm especially sensitive to reliability concerns--I've never had to make an engine-out emergency landing on a golf course or highway, and I prefer it that way! I want my camera equipment to be just as reliable.

Covering some of the other points people raised:

• Slow motion. Don't need it. I think it looks too cliché in nature videos.
• DR. Yes, important.
• Sharpness. Important.
• Low-light. Somewhat less important. Twilight yes, nightline shooting, no.
• AF. Absolutely not needed.
• TC. Not important.
• Gimbal compatibility. Not important.
• Shallow DOF. Not important. I prefer lots of DOF.
• RAW. I think I'd like having RAW based on experience grading RAW footage I've downloaded.
• Rolling shutter. Not an issue as I shoot on a tripod 100% and do slow pans.
• Battery life. Not a big deal as I'll have spares close by.
• Internal ND. A real plus, but not a dealbreaker. 
• Anamorphic. Nope.

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. 

16 hours ago, gt3rs said:

You guys imo are missing the point , he has the funds and maybe is instead of buying a good drees, smoking 2 packs of cigarettes per day, buy a very expensive car, and so on he wants to buy the best camera that it is in his budget and enjoy it. 

Now if you are saying that the pocket 4k has only 1/2 stop less DR, similar low light, similar functionality and is in the ball pack of a C70 ... then I call myself out of this discussion as then we can say iPhone 15 pro is also in the same ballpark.
Checks real measurements, is more than a stop just for DR! 
Why if I HAVE the money and I could buy a C70/C300 III get  12.8 (tested stops of DR vs 11.6 of the Pocket) and get a nice 4k 120 image settle for something less? It makes no sense. You need to make dept for this the it is a completely other story. 

Again can he achieve the goal with a pocket 4k? Yes.
Can he get a better image and better functionality like onboards NR with other camera that he CAN afford? Absolutely. So why settle to something less great if you have no problem to afford it.

If funny how people judge the skills and "wasting money" for others without knowing them.
I think is fairly rude for @PPNS to tell to someone that he is wasting his money and that for him a pocket 4k is already too much, do you guys know him? Did you guys saw his work and can you guys judge his potential learnings and growth?

On the 4/3 imo is a dead train. Only time will tell who is right.
But why should you use a more expensive FF or S35 cine lens on a smaller sensor. The other option buying 4/3 lenses and then you realize you want to move up to a better camera even within BMD and guess what there are no better cameras with a 4/3 sensor (debatable if the GH6 is). So there we go, what you saved up front you will need to invest in time and effort to resale and hope to get enough back to buy other mounts lenses.
Let's see in a few years who will still produce 4/3 cameras. Actually BMD released in 2023 fantastic cameras NOT with a 4/3 sensors and a couple of entry level studio cameras refresh with 4/3.... in a couple of years I'm ready to bet no more 4/3 from BMD... DJI did not release any 4/3 camera or drone recently, and insta360, Kandao don't sell any 4/3 cameras. 

@IronFilm telling people to buy pocket 4k in 2023 is like me telling people to buy RODE wireless GO (the original one) you will scream at me 🙂 

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. 

5 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

If video was my profession, I'd agree 100% with you. But it's not my profession and I'm not spending money to make money, just to have fun with it.

My car will do 200 MPH even though the speed limit around here is 65 MPH. Overkill? Yes, but I enjoy driving it despite not being able to use it to its full potential, and because I can afford it. The same principle applies to my choice of camera--I want something I can use and enjoy even if I'll never make a cent with it.

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. 

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Why would somebody that seems to have the budget for a cinema camera + cine lenses settle for a 4/3 (imo dead mount), limited DR, poor battery life and no internal ND instead of a C70 / C300 III etc?
He wants to go with cinema lenses so the 4/3 is not the best choice for that. DR seems a factor to me for landscape and internal ND seems useful for that use case, he also wants to stay out very long so the battery is also an issue of the Pocket.

Could he get the job done with a Pocket 4k? Sure.
Is a good choice for him taking in to account that he seems to have the budget and he is passionate? I personally think a better setup would make sense. 

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. 

On 11/17/2023 at 9:15 AM, IronFilm said:

Zero need whatsoever to shoot in LF format!

This film could have been done with normal S35

19 hours ago, JulioD said:

That not your choice my guy. 
 

they wanted to shoot with 135 format anamophic lenses. 
 

It’s like saying Dark Knight could have shot S35 and didn’t need all that imax.  
 

 

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. 

20 minutes ago, kye said:

The order of each pair is the same, cam A then cam B.  Were your observations consistent?

I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't perfectly match the softness, considering the difference in lenses and resolutions.

When I was done I noticed that in some shots the greens were more blue and others were more yellow, but I also noticed that it wasn't consistent which way around it was.  I went back and checked, and it wasn't consistent, so it was just my grading.

For my purposes, I concluded that it was irrelevant, even if I was using them both on the same shoot.  If someone watches your video and their comment was "the hues of the trees didn't match" then that's a comment about your ability to tell an engaging story, not on your colour grading!!

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.