TomTheDP

Does anyone have any modern solutions for SD cards on the micro for RAW shooting. Was going to sell mine but might keep it if I can find some media for it.

1 hour ago, hyalinejim said:

Canon WideDR profile is supposed to be precisely this. You could also look into cameras that allow you to bake in LUTs.

However, something like WideDR is like a halfway house between log and a standard profile. It's probably not quite contrasty enough so you're going to end up grading anyway. And as @TomTheDP says, grading log is not difficult if you have a good LUT.

The only way you're not going to be grading is if you're shooting with an absolutely lovely profile or baked in LUT and you nail exposure and WB every time. With log you can relax a bit while you're shooting.

Some REC709 profiles have a surprising amount of latitude though you are 100% right log is giving you a lot more wiggle room. Clog3 from Canon is kind of like a light log for quicker grading I would say.

18 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Big knock for Canon seems to be 3rd party lenses - same for Panasonic?  Seems Sony a7iv/fx30 are a great go to for most prosumers?

The Panasonic has been found to work really well with adapted Canon EF lenses, which aren't super expensive compared to RF.

But yeah I would say Sony and Fuji definitely have the 3rd party options locked down. Fuji also has really nice native lens options which are often pretty well priced. Lenses is also a big factor no doubt.

On 3/28/2023 at 6:09 PM, PPNS said:

From what ive read is that the difference between 12 and 14 bit readout on that specific sensor in that specific camera is less than half a stop of dynamic range.

 

my sentiment on this issue can be boiled down by this little thought experiment:

imagine youre DPing something and you have to budget for only 1 of these choices:

- a theoretical camera with a 14 bit readout that lets you record in 12 bit log raw or 444

or

- an aputure 1200d, a little set of grip gear and a camera with a 12 bit readout that lets you record in 12 bit log raw or 444

 

which one would you pick?

I have never had to make that choice as the difference in price is minimal. If you are getting an Alexa Mini or Sony Venice that is a different story.

But yes between choosing one of the 12 bit readout cameras on the market and an older RED or Alexa I would definitely go with RED or Alexa. I always have access to basic lighting packages. Now if it were a situation where I thought we would have to film at 6400 iso or something I would have to go with something like a S1H but aside from that personally I wouldn't.

Looking at Gerald Undone's review and his dynamic range tests of that sensor, it looks significantly better than the previous Fuji sensor which I owned at one point. Almost purchased the XH2S as soon as I saw that review and his findings.

A lot of the dynamic range of that sensor is in the shadows and it does get noisy. But if the color rendition is maintained and the noise monochromatic I like that look. One of the traits of an Alexa is that underexposure results in noise. However it doesn't have color noise and maintains color rendition nicely. Of course the XH2S doesn't have the Alexa's highlight retention.

@jpfilmz
There is also something about older canon color science that is really nice.

@hyalinejim very nice work!

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

What cameras would be good to search on YT for good baked in looks with some flexibility in look without having to grade log?

I don't feel you really have to grade log. You can just put on a lut and adjust the exposure if you need/want.

But in terms of your question I would say it depends what other features you are looking for.

The Canon R8, FX30, or Panasonic S5 MK2 seem like good relatively budget options. If you can, renting or borrowing is the best way to really see if you like a camera as IQ is only one aspect.

On 3/28/2023 at 12:40 PM, SRV1981 said:

Curious about this. Prefer baked in LUT or SOOC with minor in camera. For example if you had an a7C could you adjust magenta in video in camera and get a more “canon” look ? For runs and gun and doc stuff - wondering if a7C is better than fx30 if not doing heavy grading and taking some pics 

The look difference these cameras have extends past just white balance and tint differences. Shooting in REC709 isn't bad per say. Really depends on the camera's processing. I prefer organic looking noise, REC709 profiles often use aggressive NR which gets rid of all organic looking texture. Some are worse than others. Another issue is things like color clipping and highlight roll off which are sometimes handled poorly in REC709 profiles. This is why I usually prefer to shoot log.

But for fast turn around or low paying stuff where the client doesn't care a baked in look is sometimes the way to go for sure. Also if you just shoot a lot of home video or self documentary stuff, it can be nice to save the space and shoot 8 bit.

I also agree with @PannySVHS It can really depend on the camera/codec/processing. All 8 bit isn't equal, same with 10 bit.

28 minutes ago, Evgeniy85 said:

@TomTheDP interesting.
That's a very specific niche though, general audience is still watching mainstream films for the most part. The last microbudget film that was popular and made a lot of money was One Cut of The Dead as far as I remember. 

Yes but that is the only way to make money when you don't have an obscene amount of money to market to general audiences.

18 minutes ago, mercer said:

I know a guy who has a film on Tubi and it cost him a few grand to make. I believe he has/had a distributor, so I don't know what kind of deal he has/had.

Yeah a distributor usually takes like 30% from what I remember, at least the ones in Detroit. A lot of streaming services are buying "original content" where you just sell directly to say Tubi without a distributor fee. I guess it is like anything there is a lot of variables.

@Evgeniy85
It depends on the film you make. The ones I work on get a lot of views and consequentially make a lot of money. For example with Tubi and Detroit it is all "black films". You have to know that market. I am sure there are other indie streaming markets you can hit but that is the one I work in.

2 hours ago, mercer said:

Regarding no budget features...

I've heard of projects made for less than $10,000 that will get a streaming deal but I cannot imagine there is a lot of money to be made? What does the average filmmaker/producer make for getting a steaming deal with Tubi, etc...?

I am not sure the average but the money can be very good if you have the right content. It is a matter of knowing what to make and how to make it. Most people either know one or the other.

It is a shame they can't do slight compression like 2:1 or 3:1 like the old BMPCC

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

That's nothing, this year I shot 3 music videos for a total of $500....yes you read that right, not $500/ea but $500 total and still managed to make it profitable. I used a single venue, a model who was willing to work for free, 3hrs to film all 3, and about 3hrs on the edits. Yes they look like $500 music videos but that's because they were. Even the audio tracks for each video was recorded live in a single take for each one. Two hours filming the performances and audio live, 1hr filming b-roll and it was a wrap.

I agree with you on the volume thing though, I couldn't do that every month let alone every week. They were a nice break from my normal work, but no way would I want that to be my niche.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

That is brutal. 

Just to get a basic yearly income he'll have to do two each and every week!

And that includes: marketing to find new clients, onboarding them, doing the preproduction, doing the shoot itself, doing all the postproduction himself (otherwise that eats into profits) and delivery! 

He basically shows up, shoots for like 1-2 hours, edits them in a day. Marketing kind of does itself after a while. But yeah it is definitely a hustle.

On 3/28/2023 at 6:21 PM, herein2020 said:

@IronFilm @TomTheDP and I thought music videos were bad budget wise; they have nothing on this. I certainly do my fair share of low budget work especially when it is something new or challenging where I just want to see what I can come up with from a creative standpoint; nothing like a passion project to remind yourself why you got into this industry.

Yeah definitely on the more standard industry side music videos are usually tough budget wise.

I know a guy who does music videos for like $500 a pop, that includes shooting and edit. Super basic stuff but he makes a living off that.

All this cheap gear both in terms of camera, editing software, computers is basically creating a world where anyone can make a film for relatively cheap. With all the streaming platforms now you have access to sell your stuff in a way that wasn't possible before.

I don't know if it is good or bad, probably a bit of both. It is for sure interesting.

12 hours ago, herein2020 said:

Are these full length feature films? I can't imagine how anyone makes money off of a feature film in that price range. Is the pay based on the final profits after the film is sold? I have worked on some photo shoots that had a bigger budget than that and that was just photography. Even with just my solo day rate I couldn't film a feature film for that price range let alone all of the additional expenses that goes into making something like that.

I know a videographer that worked on something in that price range but he was still waiting yrs later to get paid because he got almost nothing up front and instead was getting paid based on a percentage of the sales. 

Just trying to wrap my head around how shooting/editing/color grading/delivering that much footage could be financially profitable especially considering all of the expenses and time that I imagine goes into making a feature film.

Yeah I know what you mean. My fiance is a Production Designer and has done projects where the Art Budget is 30k and that doesn't include her personal rate.

When I DP the pay is upfront. DP is usually the highest paid person on the project. The director is usually taking money on the back end with whoever is producing. DP'ing at this level isn't great pay, though it is paying my bills at the moment. These are like 5-7 day shoots.

I am in talks with a producer to DP/Direct/Write a film in the 30k budget range (already written) and splitting the profit 50/50 on the back end. That is where the money is made. Obviously making money on the back end is a risk, but I have seen the money from previous projects and the risk for me is only my time. Making 2-3 times what you have spent is a big win in my book.

Cropping isn't the worst thing, but yeah open gate on the S1H is a better option for 2x anamorphic lenses.

1 minute ago, PPNS said:

the reason why we dont have 14 bit readout is fairly simple, its much more unstable and processor intensive, as well as some sensors not even having the option, while not adding much benefit in the first place, as you can see with that new fuji camera. i think most of you are way too busy discussing things that dont matter much in the first place. what even is mojo?

We've seen Canon intentionally gimp their own cameras, putting in inferior hardware that would cause overheating. I personally doubt it is an issue of can't. Of course we now have the XH2S, with a sony sensor(maybe?) that is doing a 14 bit readout. The shadow retention on that camera is quite impressive especially for a S35 sensor, which I assume has a lot to do with the 14 bit readout. Performance was gimped by fuji's weird Xtrans filter and bad processing.

 Most things come down to money but I also see a lot of incompetency with these camera companies, which is also probably stemming from a lack of budget in R&D. The camera market is pretty dead. In terms of marketing I don't know, I don't work for these companies. I am just making guesses.

I have used lower end cameras for a long time. Recently in 2022 and this year I have had the chance to shoot on RED and ARRI for several feature film projects. I was of the opinion that it is a waste of money and time to shoot with these cameras for the most part. I don't hold that opinion anymore. At the end of several of my projects last year I was questioning the merit of using a heavier, older cinema camera vs something much lighter and quicker to use. Once I started coloring the projects I changed my mind. The EPIC Dragon and Alexa EV are both pretty old tech as well. I am excited to possibly shoot with the RED monstro or LF soon.

Am I focusing on things that don't matter? Maybe? I am not a director, the story is not my realm. My job is the image which is achieved through the camera and lighting. Everything in my line of work is arbitrary to some degree. It is art. It's choosing between using a frost or white diffusion. Does the audience care? What is too much and what is too little? I don't know. Small things that add up. It's an obsessive job but that is part of the fun, at least to me.

Anyways I am hopeful to see something with 14 bit readout on the market soon that is in the affordable range. Rooting for Panasonic. 

4 hours ago, Chrille said:

Can you share some of the movies you have worked on in this preice region? Very interesting!

I've worked on 5 films in the last couple years that were in this budget range, non of them are out yet though. I DM'ed you some stills from the last one that I DP'ed. These are all Tubi films. Check out McGraw Ave Season 2 on Tubi, that was done by one of the production companies I've worked with, and one of my good friends DP'ed it.

7 hours ago, stephen said:

Just trying to explain in a friendly conversation why IMHO we don't see 14 bit video in hybrid cameras.
Image quality is a process and camera is just a part of this process. Even if we concentrate only on camera IMHO it would be wrong to attribute image quality of a sensor/camera to a single parameter as 14bit color. It's a complex thing.

Correct me if I am wrong but according to this page ARRI RAW is 12bit
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/pre-postproduction/file-formats-data-handling/arriraw-faq#accordion-292364

while Red RAW is 16 bit - https://www.red.com/power-of-red-redcode

Does it mean then that 16 bit Red RAW image quality or Canon 5D Mark III with it's 14 bit color are superior to Arri ? Image quality is different even among Red Cameras. Isn't it ? Red Komodo then is capable of 16bit image. For me this is price point that many can afford.

Wanted to point out also that economics play a significant role in choice of cameras and of course cameras capabilities. For me capabilities vs price when comparing 2000$ cameras with 20000$ or more cameras are hugely in favor of the lower price point cameras. You get ~ 90 or more percent of the image quality for 1/10 or less of the price. Nothing to complain about here.

Of course progress thankfully will not stop and agree that 8K was not the right direction for hybrid camera to go. It was the easiest to achieve and market. I wish to see more cameras with smaller rolling shutter, internal BRAW or ProRes RAW and integrated in camera ND filters more than anything else.

Blind tests are some sort of reality check, far from ideal or strictly scientific but still reality check. So when we give certain qualifications of better or worst we need some sort of starting point for comparison that most can agree on, otherwise it is subjective.

Thankfully we have now great cameras to work with at any price point and if you shoot something interesting and engaging with your Panasonic S1, image quality will not be the decisive factor whether people will like it or not. Nobody and I mean NOBODY will come after and say: "Nice movie but I wish colors were better". It is always good to have this perspective when we dream or wish for new cool tools  🙂 

The Alexa does a 14 bit readout. RED does 16 bit. The Alexa uses 12 bit log both in RAW and ProRes. RED uses 16 bit linear. If you look up the difference between linear and log you’ll get it. 

All RED cameras, ARRI, and Sony Venice do either 14 bit or 16 bit readout. 
 

All prosumer cameras like the S1, Sony FX cameras, Canon’s entire lineup do either a 12 bit readout or 10 bit readout. This is why these cameras 12 bit raw performs poorly compared to ARRIs 10 bit, as even when recording 422, ARRI is doing a 14 bit readout. Of course the unique ARRI sensor and color science/processing makes a big difference too. 
 

As someone who’s job it is to give the best picture possible I have shot engaging projects with the S1 and in post have been disappointed in the image. This is what I am saying. I have used a wide variety of cameras on narrative shorts and features. I avoid shooting with low end options unless it’s forced by the budget. It just makes my job harder. 
 

The Komodo is great but it is a cheap sensor being used. If you like side by side tests I’ve done them, Komodo vs Alexa. The Komodo’s lack of dynamic range is apparent and the color science/skin tones are noticeably different. This is when shooting with natural light. The Komodo simply can’t hold onto the highlights. 
 

Blind tests are great for YouTube content but they don’t offer much practical info for using a camera on production. 
 

I do think there is a practical limitation on what is good enough. ARRI is that limitation.  14 bit readout into a 12 bit log, 4k resolution, and about 14 stops of dynamic range. The Alexa 35 goes to 17 stops of dynamic range, a bit overkill but I can see how it would be helpful sometimes. They stuck with 4k resolution and a 14 bit readout. That seems to give you what you’d need in post production. Which has definitely been my practical experience. 
 

I am specifically talking narrative use on production. If one is just shooting their own content it definitely doesn’t matter much. I definitely don’t recommend everyone go pick up an ARRI or RED camera. But for people who do what I do, I usually would. This industry is very niche though and I’m in my own little small niche within it. 

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

guys, just grab an R7 and go outside and shoot already!

I do, I just like to complain about IQ, during my restless nights

9 hours ago, stephen said:

Unless somebody can prove in blind test even among relatively small circle of professionals that 14bit is better compared to 12 bit or even correctly recognized will consider it purely subjective. All tests that I've seen and even participated in indicate the opposite. A local shop did a test with Sony A7 series cameras in their early days. They've shot 10 pictures with different subjects and lighting conditions with Canon, Nikon and Sony A7 12bit compressed format. All 3 cameras were full frame. On screen and on print Canon and Nikon owners were not able to distinguish or guess which pictures were shot with their beloved cameras which they will passionately claim in forums have superior 14bit or whatever colors 🙂 It was completely random. We had some 11-12 years ago Great Zakuto shootout, this one here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZjIz8sB2vg) and so on 🙂

Blind tests aren't of much use. The zakuto blind tests says that a GH1 and 35mm film are equal. So why didn't camera development stop there? It would indicate 10 bit log, 4k, high bitrate, and anything beyond 8 stops of dynamic range, doesn't really matter. Cameras aren't developed or sold on blind tests. I don't think any professional is choosing a camera based on blind tests either. They have certainly offered no use to me.

You can argue IQ has nothing to do with making a pleasing looking image. That is definitely true in many ways. But it has nothing to do with marketing. You can say that marketing is all bullshit. I'd agree with that. 8k is useless for 99% of people yet it is a great buzzword for marketing. You are saying though that 14 bit recording is useless and blind tests somehow prove this.

If you are simply trying to say that 14 bit isn't marketable, that could be true. I am not a marketing specialist.  But camera companies don't use blind tests to market or else they would all be out of business.

In my experience when you actually use a camera on production and work with it through post, then you see a difference. There isn't really much debate there. Can a film look good that isn't shot on a cinema camera? Yes of course. But cameras like ARRI and RED are industry favored by pretty much any DP you would ask.

To me DP's are usually the last people to fall for marketing hype. These people see images constantly from production all the way to the finished product. ARRI isn't favored because of internet blind tests, they are favored because they actually make production and post workflow much easier. I'd love it if my S1 could give me the same image as an Alexa. But from my experience it just doesn't.

If you want a good test of a camera shoot 100 different scenes in all different scenarios, time restraints, lighting conditions, different sized crews, and then color correct and grade all of the shots and scenes. Do that with 5 different cameras and than compare them all. Well that couldn't be put in a little 5 minute youtube video. Stuff that is actually helpful can't be compressed into a little youtube video. Experience gotten from months of shooting and in post gives one a good idea of what matters.

Anyways 14 bit plus capture, even if it is just the readout is the way forward to better IQ imo. The Alexa shooting in 422 is still using a 14 bit readout. That is partially why it looks way better than cameras that are shooting 12 bit linear raw, which is a marketing scam.  12 bit linear raw really doesn't give you any more information to work with than a good 10 bit ALL-I. The advantage is it sometimes gets around the horrid internal processing many cameras do to their 10 bit options for some reason. But it also often reveals how shitty consumer sensors are in the shadows, bad colored noise and banding that is normally hidden by heavy noise reduction.

The Alexa has a 14 bit readout regardless of if you shoot 422 or 444 or RAW.

Anyways I am just expressing my disappointment in camera development. I would extend that disappointment to the high end cameras as well. RED is partially to blame in my opinion. They pushed the whole high resolution band wagon that consumer cameras jumped on. 10 years later and the best camera in the world the Alexa 35 only shoots 4k, while RED releases cameras for 1/2 what they did their previous line-up, with sensors that can't even match ARRI's 5 year old cameras. 13 years ago the Alexa came onto the market, the camera that replaced film essentially. 13 years later it's still the best sensor on the market, only surpassed by ARRI's own Alexa 35.

It's unfortunate resolution got put on the forefront of development instead of color depth, which also leads to increased dynamic range.

Am I saying the 5D MK3 is the pinnacle of image quality? No I am not. But it was capable of giving you a high bitrate 14 bit 1080p image. That was 11 years ago. Why can't we have 14 bit RAW 3K-4K in a small prosumer camera 11 years later. We get the same releases with a MK2 slapped onto it, with micro improvements. Very annoying.

Now you can tell me these are first world problems and I will gladly agree. I am in between projects right now and don't have any kids, so I have the time. And if this forum is not the place to vent about the BS that camera companies do than maybe I am just very confused.

 

9 hours ago, stephen said:

How do you shoot at 3.5K in 14 bit color ? 3520x1740 at 14bit gives me just few seconds, 3520x1740 at 12bit is from 15 sec to 1-2 minutes. Have to drop to 10bit in order to get closer to continuous. And this is with global draw off. With global draw on it is even worst.

Canon 5D Mark III raw video in crop mode for me is PRACTICALLY UNUSABLE:
    - there is no live view framing, you can't see on a monitor of even the tiny screen what you shoot
    - rolling shutter is more than 33 ms
    - camera is unreliable, had many freezes and you don't know if your recording is going to stop and especially when it is going to stop.
    - as your ISO increases your dynamic range and color palette decrease
    - software hack is always in development and movement, you don't know what bug your are going to hit and when

Tried many times to use it in crop mode and always ended in frustration. 1080p is the best, can have external monitor and proper framing, reliable, simple, 35mm lens has the same angle of view as on full frame. Use super scale in Resolve or Video Enhance AI to upscale to 4K and it is good enough. There you can shoot in 14 bits no problem.

Why we don't see 14bit video in hybrid cameras ? Simple answer is:
    - no demand - just look how many good video in RAW shot with Canon 5D Mark III hack are on youtube. For more than 12 years. Interest and usage are slim.
    - still some challenges to shoot and process such a massive amount of data. I know for a fact that in my (relatively small) country TV series are shot on Arri Alexa not in RAW but on Prores 4:2:2. Without compression very few people or companies are willing to deal with RAW video.  BRAW or ProRes RAW, Red RAW - yes no problem. Cinema DNG files even with lossless compression - few are willing to deal with data volume and workflow that comes with it.

I honestly doubt that anybody can see the difference between 14 and 12 bit color, especially on the monitors and screens we are using. I tested it on Canon 5D Mark III some time ago and couldn't. 14bit vs 12 bit, color science when related to RAW video and even in 10bit 4:2:2 - all this is purely subjective. All those claims of superiority falls apart when doing a blind test. Can give as example several published on internet tests.

I tried recently iPhone 14 for video after seeing several people on youtube recommending it. Shot on same location and lighting condition where some time ago shot a small personal project / clip with Canon 5d Mark III in RAW video crop mode. Yes you can't switch off sharpening, noise reduction and tone mapping for better dynamic range on iPhone but Oh boy how easy it was to get great picture quality, how good image stabilization was. Apply some grain and film emulation using dehancer and it is good enough. Efforts vs results comparable to Canon 5D Mark III are 100% on iPhone side.

I am thinking seriously to get one of those new Android smartphones with 1'' sensor like Vivo X90 Pro Plus and shoot raw video on a smartphone for personal projects. It can do 4K 60p RAW and I believe this is only in 10bit DNG. Apply some grain, film emulation  in dehancer and image look gorgeous to me. It is a lot easier than Canon 5D Mark III and it the end results will be equally impressive if not better. And this camera is with you all the time 🙂

Whole history of photography is a move toward ease of use and convenience once certain acceptable image quality has been achieved. Image quality by the way matters mostly to us, people who shoot not to the people and wide audience who will watch it. That's also a proven fact we should never forget.

I wouldn't say slim, the Magic Lantern community was pretty large. People went through the trouble of making a hack and dealing with the insecurities of using it. People still use it to this day. 10 bit and 12 bit RAW are selling points, so I am not sure why 14 bit wouldn't be.

Side by side comparisons aren't particularly useful imo. Compile hours and hours of footage from a project, being able to compare tons of different lighting scenarios and real practical limitations. Do that with an Iphone and than any of the 10 bit SLR's on the market and you'll quickly see the difference in post. Same goes jumping from a prosumer 10 bit image to any actual cinema camera.

That is my opinion obviously from my personal experience.

25 minutes ago, Kino said:

I managed to download a few brief 8K 50fps NRAW NEV samples from another forum and view them in the latest version of Resolve (18.1.4):

https://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/editors/editing-with-edius/572094-n-raw-from-z9-sample-download

They are now listed as 12 bit according to Nikon specs. There must have been a decoding problem that has been solved since Resolve 18.0. Perhaps NEV files are captured in 12 bit log and Resolve previously converted them to 14 bit linear. It is hard to know what the issue was as TicoRAW compression is new to the camera world (hence the RED lawsuit).

The same TicoRAW conversion that the Z9 utilizes when compressing for photos in the "High Efficiency" RAW mode at 14 bit readout is also utilized to create the NRAW files. In photo mode, this is limited to 20fps at full sensor readout (8256 x 5504). Although the video mode uses a crop (8256 x 4644), which produces a 38mp image, it doesn't seem possible that you could get 14 bit RAW video at frame rates higher than 24/25. The Canon R3 could do 14 bit RAW at 30fps with its 6K video, but Canon would never do such a thing! That would obliterate its current cinema line.

In any case, the rich color tonality we were seeing in the Z9 footage is still there and the files edit nicely on a 4K timeline. They are perhaps not as optimized as R3D files, but they should be easier for editing than Canon 8K RAW Light.

12 bit log has a similar amount of info as 14 bit linear raw. But yeah the image definitely looks very nice regardless.

2 minutes ago, rosco said:

You’re using the Sigma fp as a B cam anyway, I don’t think audience would care if it’s missing the 2 extra bits in raw. I think when the lighting is good and the color closely matches, non pixel peeping audiences wouldn’t really notice.  I would only use the B cam for certain angles and pick up shots, A cam would be used 90-95%.  Ymmv.

I mean I probably wouldn't shoot with a Classic if my only concern was audience perception.

3 hours ago, mercer said:

Not only can I notice the lower bit depth, I'm fairly certain there is some type of noise reduction occurring behind the scenes with the FP. The extra resolution from the FP is nice but I feel like it resembles a lot of other camera's images from compressed codecs with just more leeway in post to make some changes.

The 5D3, on the other hand, has a higher end look in my opinion and the image is more malleable especially in the highlights, but the shadow detail is much cleaner with the FP.

They also share a similar post workflow for me... bring the footage into Resolve, correct/grade, export as ProRes and import into FCPX for the final edit/grade.

At first glance, the bump in resolution may make you feel like the FP has a superior image, but once you get into the files... let's just say that if I had to choose one, I'd sell the FP and keep the 5D3.

With that said, I think people underestimate the benefits of 14bit color. In some ways, it gives a perceived bump in DR because it is capturing the minute differences in hues. I notice it in skies and in tree bark.

I'm also a fan of shooting with DSLRs... especially chunky, full frame ones. If I could afford a 1DX iii, I'm sure I would love it.

How is monitoring with the 5D MK3? Really considering it honestly.

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Makes sense!  Just trying to see if there is a downside of it. I may call to see details. 0% seems like a no brainer. Could make acquiring an fx3 a better deal than outright purchase of fx30

I honestly would go with the FX30 over the FX3. The A7S3/FX3 have too much image processing which ruin the internal 10 bit recordings. Shooting external RAW bypasses this but its an annoying workaround that doesn't offer much benefit aside from bypassing the ugly internal processing.

Used the FX30 recently on a short, which included low light scenes and it looked great. Film grain was added in post but the original recordings were pretty clean.
 

How does Panasonic have a perfect IQ processing formula and than mess it up upon every new release? lol

5 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Are you able to judge focus outdoor? 

Yeah it is plenty bright. I would say SmallHD is less reflective and more color accurate but you pay a premium for them. Atomos is the 2nd best in my opinion.