TomTheDP

Yeah that would be sweet, at a lower price point. Never going to happen though.

The C70 doesn't have SDI unfortunately.

 

To me winning at an Oscar is more politics than talent. Sure your film won't get nominated if it is crap but it also won't get nominated just because it is really good.

The people that care on a $5 mil budget indie like Nomadland are the producers, director, and DP. None of which want to be seen working with anything besides a camera that costs over 30k

I have been thinking about this a lot. Why can't current cameras do 14 bit 4k raw?

The 5d MK3 featured a processor capable of 14 bit RAW at 3.5k, that was 11 years ago. I guess color depth isn't marketable? Although 10 bit seemed to be and still seems to be a huge selling point.
All these years later and no cameras have this feature outside of cinema cameras which have been doing this since 2010. To me that is what is missing in the lower end cameras. I have been tempted to get an old 5d MK3 and run magic lantern on it as a B-cam to my Alexa. Obviously there is a dynamic range difference but the color information is there. The workflow and ergonomics simply aren't good enough for me to use the camera on professional projects.

 

28mm should be decent on the 6k sensor. You go super wide and you really start to lose a lot of depth, but its scene/location dependent obviously.

My suggestion would be to add as much weight as you can. If you can get the rig close to 5 pounds it will make your movement so much nicer.

An Easyrig for me doesn't really help to stabilize. Just saves your arms a bit for longer takes. If anything sometimes the easyrig makes stuff less stable, when people let the camera get away from their center of gravity.

Perhaps it mostly still comes down to cost and reliability? Mainly in regards to storage media. Cameras are only very recently able to take advantage of low(ish) cost SSDs that are fast and of large capacity. In the recent past storage media was slow, low capacity, and expensive; or slow, high capacity, and really expensive. Couple that with the variance in card speed and card compatibility with different cameras, even with the same card brand. It's difficult to ensure a quality customer experience with these issues.
Also, you're an experienced DP, you may be more willing to work with difficult equipment (like a hacked Canon) to aquire a better image. I would venture to say that the majority of these cameras end up in the hands of jackoffs like me who participate in this as a hobby and don't have the inclination to dick around with a finicky camera.
RED caught a lot of shit for charging astronomical prices for their branded SSDs but it makes sense if you are quality assuring reliability and compatibility. I'm not sure how ARRI handles this aspect of their cameras but I'm sure it's much of the same. Limit the customer to what you're sure will work even though the cost is high. In these two cases you can do that, but with a consumer camera you will probably account for the lowest common denominator and accommodate accordingly. Democracy at it's finest.

Yeah I am happier shooting Canon, Fuji or Nikon for stills. Why bother using a system you don't like unless its absolutely necessary to do so.

I think two bodies isn't a terrible idea if you can use EF lenses on the pana body with no problem. To me for stills an EOS R would do just fine. Even a Canon DSLR, 5D or 6d, have a great look out of camera, though they are lacking in lowlight against the newer options.

Looks good though I think if it was rendered as 4k it would look better on YouTube.

While I have moved on to the R5C (and either an R5 and R6 MKII as a b cam in the future!) - I still have two 5D MKIII's and don't think I'll ever part with them. Look the look, and the workflow is so much easier in the post M1 era!

Some more footage I shot with the Z6 in oversampled 1080p

I have been thinking about this a lot. Why can't current cameras do 14 bit 4k raw?

The 5d MK3 featured a processor capable of 14 bit RAW at 3.5k, that was 11 years ago. I guess color depth isn't marketable? Although 10 bit seemed to be and still seems to be a huge selling point.
All these years later and no cameras have this feature outside of cinema cameras which have been doing this since 2010. To me that is what is missing in the lower end cameras. I have been tempted to get an old 5d MK3 and run magic lantern on it as a B-cam to my Alexa. Obviously there is a dynamic range difference but the color information is there. The workflow and ergonomics simply aren't good enough for me to use the camera on professional projects.

 

Yeah I am happier shooting Canon, Fuji or Nikon for stills. Why bother using a system you don't like unless its absolutely necessary to do so.

I think two bodies isn't a terrible idea if you can use EF lenses on the pana body with no problem. To me for stills an EOS R would do just fine. Even a Canon DSLR, 5D or 6d, have a great look out of camera, though they are lacking in lowlight against the newer options.

I have been thinking about this a lot. Why can't current cameras do 14 bit 4k raw?

The 5d MK3 featured a processor capable of 14 bit RAW at 3.5k, that was 11 years ago. I guess color depth isn't marketable? Although 10 bit seemed to be and still seems to be a huge selling point.
All these years later and no cameras have this feature outside of cinema cameras which have been doing this since 2010. To me that is what is missing in the lower end cameras. I have been tempted to get an old 5d MK3 and run magic lantern on it as a B-cam to my Alexa. Obviously there is a dynamic range difference but the color information is there. The workflow and ergonomics simply aren't good enough for me to use the camera on professional projects.

 

I have been thinking about this a lot. Why can't current cameras do 14 bit 4k raw?

The 5d MK3 featured a processor capable of 14 bit RAW at 3.5k, that was 11 years ago. I guess color depth isn't marketable? Although 10 bit seemed to be and still seems to be a huge selling point.
All these years later and no cameras have this feature outside of cinema cameras which have been doing this since 2010. To me that is what is missing in the lower end cameras. I have been tempted to get an old 5d MK3 and run magic lantern on it as a B-cam to my Alexa. Obviously there is a dynamic range difference but the color information is there. The workflow and ergonomics simply aren't good enough for me to use the camera on professional projects.

 

For me shooting narrative projects a solid 20-85 cinema lens would be amazing. 20 is just wide enough to cover most wide angle needs on S35 and 85 is long enough to cover most shots on that end.

I tend to find myself on 35mm most of the time, which I consider right in the middle. I feel it gives me enough depth without too much compression giving that almost voyeuristic look. I do like super wides occasionally even for close ups, though it can be too jarring.

I don't use super long lenses that much. I think its nice to get a POV look, like a perspective shot looking at something from afar. I did that a few times with my last project on a 120mm. Another use is trying to make a character feel more isolated. I mostly shoot narrative projects though so I guess lens choice becomes a lot more intentional.

and the image quality happens to be ass as well

I guess longer lenses feel less intimate to me. As an extreme example lets say being on 16mm for a close up feels to me like you are actually right next to the person vs say being on a 85mm. Though I would agree that longer lenses generally look more pleasing. All personal preference at the end of the day of course.

I tend to find myself on 35mm most of the time, which I consider right in the middle. I feel it gives me enough depth without too much compression giving that almost voyeuristic look. I do like super wides occasionally even for close ups, though it can be too jarring.

I don't use super long lenses that much. I think its nice to get a POV look, like a perspective shot looking at something from afar. I did that a few times with my last project on a 120mm. Another use is trying to make a character feel more isolated. I mostly shoot narrative projects though so I guess lens choice becomes a lot more intentional.

I guess longer lenses feel less intimate to me. As an extreme example lets say being on 16mm for a close up feels to me like you are actually right next to the person vs say being on a 85mm. Though I would agree that longer lenses generally look more pleasing. All personal preference at the end of the day of course.

I mean at the same time a lot of these new cameras do handle natural light pretty well, especially the full frame sensors. I think the big differentiator is still the lack of 14 bit readout on most cameras. Dynamic range is pretty respectable but we are still only getting a 10-12 bit readout. I'd love to play with 5D MK3 raw footage. I imagine its lacking in dynamic range but has a certain mojo due to the 14 bit readout.

What I found with the S1 sensor is the dynamic range was good enough for most scenarios, even some pretty difficult ones. I find after using lower end cameras for many projects from production to post, and now using an Alexa from production to post, you can tell the difference. If you are just comparing single frames maybe not as much, but overall the Alexa sensor and color science is just easier to work with and looks better when pushed really hard.

If I wanted to be smart I'd get a RED Raven or Komodo for quick projects. You still get that great IQ, albeit not an Alexa, but in a much smaller and less power hungry package. That would be run and gun enough for me.

I don't know man I think it looks great. Looks very organic and the colors look vibrant. I think it is a winning combination. 

Looks really good @FHDcrew

I have not owned the Pocket 6k but have shot with the Pocket 4k and the Alexa side by side. The Pocket 6k is a great camera. I guess I have never been a huge Blackmagic fan. I like the images from their OG cameras however they are just funky to use.

 The new pocket cams just feel cheap compared to Panasonic gear. It is really just my personal bias. Blackmagic is definitely the easiest option for cinema features and codecs for a really cheap price. 

I do like the low light capabilities of the S1 line and the extra dynamic range is also nice to have. I think using color space transform to ACES is a great way to gain better control of WB without having to shoot in RAW. I am not sure how that workflow affects the color accuracy of LUTS, such as the Emotive color Alexa luts. 

The biggest benefit of shooting RAW to me is the ability to fine tune white balance. It is a critical feature when trying to match cameras. With the S1 emotive color got the contrast and roll off really nice but the WB threw off the color when shooting side by side with an actual ARRI ALEXA. An Aces workflow might be a way around that though. 

I think for now I shall stick to the Sigma. It is a great camera, it just requires transcoding for certain NLE's, which isn't the end of the world. 

 

I don't know man I think it looks great. Looks very organic and the colors look vibrant. I think it is a winning combination.