TomTheDP

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.

On 11/12/2023 at 6:36 PM, kye said:

I am reviewing my lineup and decided to compare the OG BMPCC to the GH5, and ended up filming shot-by-shot duplicates and matching them in post.  The results were surprising.  I noticed that lots of shots had differences because the vNDs on the two setups were in different orientations and polarised the scene differently, but unless you were doing a direct comparison then that wouldn't be noticeable.

GH5 was with 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens, shooting wide-open in 150Mbps UHD / HLG.  P2K was with 12-35mm F2.8, shooting wide-open RAW.  1080p timeline as always.

I graded each P2K shot and then graded the GH5 to match.

Biggest difference is the one looks softer, would assume it's the Pocket. The color of the foliage also looks different but it's not as noticeable. 

31 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

The one I’m looking at is the Dragon sensor in a DSMC2 body.

It's a great sensor. The DSMC2 System is light weight and the powerdraw isn't bad about 50wh. The C300 and FX9 powerdraw are probably half of what the Dragon is though. 

R3D and the red color science are really nice and the Dragon has pretty outstanding dynamic range. The dragon also is a bit of a baby. For optimal results you want to bring it up to temp and then blackshade it, which takes around 10 minutes. 

You probably won't want to venture much past 400 iso though, where as you can shoot at 4000 iso with the FX9 and 1600 on the C300 MKII with pretty clean results. 

14 hours ago, Kino said:

The Venice 6K is a certified Hollywood A-cam and I don't think it should be compared with the Burano, as the latter only offers X-OCN LT. That is a significant downgrade from the RAW and X-OCN options on the Venice cameras. My hope is that if they do bring out a Burano 6K, it will have X-OCN XT and ST because of the lower resolution and the fact that the Venice 6K is a much older design. In scenes with a lot of movement or change, X-OCN will scale resolution, especially when it comes to the LT compression. That is how Sony's X-OCN avoids artifacts. This means that Burano's 8K X-OCN LT will not be a true 8K image in all scenarios.

Didn't realize it only shoots X-OCN LT. Though if the end delivery is 4k, that is still probably plenty for most productions. 

I'll do one with a grey card next time. 

27 minutes ago, kye said:

I recommend doing a proper WB.

I've seen a bunch of side-by-side tests where they set both cameras to the same Kelvin WB and then nothing matched.  I have no idea why the cameras wouldn't all match the WB, but it looks like they never do.

I'd suggest trying a custom WB on a grey card and then trying the comparison again?

what looks glaringly off to you in the above comparison? 

It's gonna be a personal preference thing in the end.

You'll get cleaner high ISO performance on the Sony. The Canon has internal RAW vs you need with an Atomos or the unit to do it with the Sony. 

The Sony can't do full sensor 4k 60p. You have more lens options with E-mount. The canon is easier to mount on a gimbal. 

If your only gripe with the FX6 is the mount then you can get a locking EF mount that has bottom support, making it bullet proof. Of course that isn't an option with emount. Although I feel emount lenses don't really need a locking mount as they are pretty light. You'll love Sony E-NDs. 

The FX6 is pretty amazing for fast paced stuff. It barely weighs anything yet the body is big enough where it isn't awkward to rig up. E-ND's are out of this world nice to have. 

@kye

I used your hue adjustment technique as a starting point. I think that improved it a lot, no more pink/magenta from the Sony. Might have went too far though. I still have hope for the FX3 as an A cam. 😅

@PannySVHS

Here is the Sony with the Alexa. I just adjusted the Hue on the sony and applied the Emotive Color ARRI Daylight lut. 

Now this is a really bad lighting situation. Sunlight, combined with Tungsten, and also bright green walls in the room lol. 

here is the raw video from both cameras as well as PNG stills of the LOG image if anyone wants to play with them. 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fYuQyBHEq9zvrIB_pQ-GBMXWOKxIhP8W?usp=sharing

Venice 3?

9 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

What are your takes on these? cheers

You have to go further then simply exposing the cameras the same and having them set to the same WB. For example having say the Alexa set to 5600k and the FX30 the same in a daytime situation will yield very different results. 

16 hours ago, kye said:

Actually, the XH2S and P4K are great options when combined with the LUTs/powergrades from Juan Melara:

https://juanmelara.com.au/products/bmpcc-4k-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts
https://juanmelara.com.au/products/x-h2sfuji-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts

Juan is a working DP and colourist, and is one of the most knowledgeable colourists online, especially when it comes to matching complex transformations.  I've bought from him before and had good experiences.  The A/B results speak for themselves too.

Here's the Fuji A/B shots, and the P4K ones match even better.

Yeah I purchased his luts, as well as emotive color(probably more precise), and the trendy Phantom luts.

8 hours ago, MrSMW said:

If digital didn’t exist or ceased to exist overnight, there would be just a fraction of the people in my industry that there are.

Man I could do it but it would be tough. I mean moreso than my ability, all my jobs would be gone as none of the productions I am on can afford to shoot motion picture film LOL.