solovetski

Man, I can't tell if you are just trolling with your comments on this forum or if you are serious? 
Here's why... Spending $2,000 - $6,500 on a camera and not knowing that the features you thought you were getting are compromised or different than advertised because they are buried in the fine print somewhere. That you are able to shoot in 4k/60p but only with terrible rolling shutter and artifacts and a 2x crop into the sensor. Because you bought a full frame camera because you read online that it was worth it for various features but now when you go to use in in the real world it crops into APS-C mode and behaves like the other camera you were looking at for $1,000 less and all your lenses have a different field of view. You don't own any fast wide angle lenses and now you need to rethink things because you bought the camera to use your full frame fast wide angle lenses. 
Sony's most extreme image stabilization on some cameras crops in like 40% on the sensor. That means you are shooting with an area almost Micro 4/3 sensor sized. Try to find that information easily on a Sony website or YouTube video.
I know why they don't disclose things right up front and it's pretty obvious it's because they want to list the features to sell the camera and kind of bury the details about how or why it works. The headline is the 8k or 240p and the brand new shiny thing, meanwhile you have to wait for some honest YouTube reviewer to actually go through things and tell you what's ACTUALLY useable and not just a gimmick. 
The Sony Burano as an example. The HD 120p feature on a lot of new cameras... Just garbage image quality but looks great on paper. 

A cajun band here in town (Montréal) asked me to shoot some video of them at an unplugged street concert last Sunday. The weather was dodgy, with thunderstorms in the forecast, and they just made it through their first set when the first drops of rain began to fall. But I managed to get some footage; they asked me to do a 1-minute compilation and a 3-minute video (which I'm still working on). Here's the 1-minute version, shot on BMMCC with Angénieux 17.5-70mm zoom.
 

I don’t think that for 99% of us, 99% of the time, we would know what anything has been shot on without being told.
And 99.9% could not care less.
The movie and TV industry has been built on big cameras, initially because they just had to be a certain size.
Today, they do not and are arguably the least important part of the entire puzzle.
And that image of big camera = professional camera filters all the way down to us lowly wedding hacks.
Well, the lower down the food chain, the less important a ‘Big Camera’ is, but it wasn’t until the last decade really that even at weddings, videographers did not have bigger shoulder mounted cameras.
In the movie industry though, unless you are a Greig Fraser and can ‘get away’ with using FX3’s, the issue is mainly how you would be perceived. OK, he wasn’t using $250 kit lenses but you know what I mean.
But it’s changing isn’t it and even larger studios using smaller more ‘regular’ cameras is becoming more common.
I think there is still a ton of snobbery though of cameras.
But back to the S1H specifically, mine is now on borrowed time…
Despite it having better image quality than my S5ii’s, I turned it from it’s static role of the last year or so, back into my primary run & gun unit for the first part of a 2 day job, yesterday.
This morning, first thing I did was put it back into the static role and reset one of my S5ii’s into the run & gun role.
Why? It’s just too slow compared with the S5ii and ultimate image quality aside, some things are more important and the top of that list is getting the shot.
If I was shooting a movie though, S1H hands down.
 

You're still thinking about the GH8...?
I'm wondering if the GH9 will have 12k120 in 10-bit 4:2:2.  I have given up on it being internal raw in that mode, but my cat videos won't be cinematic if it's only 4:2:0 and doesn't have at least 17 stops of DR.
As an astute poster recently commented, if ARRI can do 17 stops with the Alexa 35 then why not Panny?
I don't think I'm asking for too much when I expect the cameras specs to compensate for my complete lack of skill.

That's pure awesomeness! I will sit there with scrambled eggs and coffee and read and read and reread your article! I have been thinking about the 10bit Panny HPX 250 once every couple months. For me it is coming closest to the mysterious DVX100 Andromeda, with its 720p uncompressed hack. The DVX100 has an older 4 to 3 cousine, the Panny DX1, which has lotta mojo too. Love the body and the huge eye cup and the 3CCD magic, not the interlacing and tape workflow though. Here is a video I did with some friends. I had 70min material of sun flooded autumn leaves, benches, a compelling actress and  four friends running into eachothers shots. I still enjoy how the edit turned out. Happy times. Oh, Canon XL1, Panny DX1, G6 and Canon 700D in the mix:)
 

I am currently writing a guide to all the classic digicams from Y2k.
And it has made me realise that I am getting a bit bored of full frame at F1.2.
I think a similar thing has happened with anamorphic. The look has been held hostage by the ad world and cheapened, overused.
So in a way it is quite refreshing to spend time with a Canon G2 from 2002 with (decent for the time) 2/3" sensor, or if you want a modern 2/3" sensor, the Fuji X-30. Also fun are the tiny Canon IXUS models with CHDK for raw, and some of the older smartphones like the iPhone 4S.
It has made me think that if the light isn't right and the subject isn't interesting no amount of shallow DOF can make it worthwhile so why bother?
And if the light IS right and the subject IS fantastic then a deep DOF can sometimes make it look even better, sometimes not - but it's definitely a valid creative choice.
I also think the modern cameras are just getting too good... too clean, too clinical, too sharp, especially the modern lenses (be it anamorphic or otherwise). And we have had this discussion for about 15 years now and not a single manufacturer has listened.
There is nobody in the modern camera industry fulfilling the niche of analogue / film compact replacement camera other than the y2k CCD digicams. And don't get me started on the desire for a Digital Bolex sequel!

I must admit, this thread really makes me laugh.
No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it.
I've been spending my time more and more elsewhere and I can tell you, there are places where people discuss aesthetics, creativity, productivity, and try and help each other out and encourage each other.

This is original 8mm film transferred to digital nowadays in this decade:
The native acquisition resolution then is not the most crucial premise with the tools we have today.

Am I the only one seeing a ninja in the cold shoe of the S9? I wonder if they meant that? I can't unsee it now.

As I have written about before, the best film-making advice I ever got was to try to the most contrast and saturation into my images.  Once you can push really far then it's easy to not push as far, so it's like doing altitude training, and you don't know the limits until you hit them.
As such, here's a very heavy grade of some night footage from the GX85 and 12-35mm F2.8 zoom.
This shows just how far 8-bit 709 footage can be taken.  It's not free from artefacts, but then again, I see grading issues semi-regularly on Netflix, so...
SOOC:

Grade:

In terms of how far this is pushed, lots of films get into this territory..




I concentrated a lot on matching tones across shots and it was pretty fiddly at times, but I was pushing things.  Realistically I think there's a bit more in the footage and the limitation is my grading.
It's worth pointing out that this was done in Resolve 18, so no Film Look Creator, and no third-party plugins so no FilmConvert, no Dehancer, etc, so some of the things I did might not be the best tools.  When Resolve 19 goes out of beta I'll be rocking the Film Look Creator and Colour Slicer etc, which I think will make this stuff so much easier.

4k/UHD video = 8MP stills which I think is perfectly fine even on a large screen at normal viewing distance.
One of my favourite photos (which other people have also liked) is only a 2MP JPEG, taken in 2015 with a Pana G6 while simultaneously recording FHD video. It's the light, shade and the sweep of the glinting rails that makes it work, not the resolution:

 

Gerald just put out an incredible video talking about YT camera reviews, reviewers, manufacturers, and how the whole thing works.
He talked about brands specifically and how they have treated him, including Panasonic punishing him for a YT title, Canon, Fuji, Sony, etc.  The good, the bad, and absolutely the ugly.
He also gave a pretty comprehensive and level-headed-sounding overview of how it works.  If all you want to do is complain about everything (which is most people online sadly) then you can skip the nuanced parts of his video and just get to the gossip about each brand (that's what it is after all...) but the whole thing seems well thought-out.  
 

Sorry, but if you shrink the body to be “portable” and don’t have small lenses to compliment it - waste of time. F8? It’s laughable. 
 
lack of audio monitoring features even for short clips? Get outta here. 
 
For this style of creation a pair of a pocket 3 and Ricoh GR 3x makes a tone more sense and despite being two devices is more usable and portable. 
 
software is the win here. Other brands need to jump on board with RD into onboarding LUT features for jpg and video. The x100 crowd would eat it up. 
 
if Panasonic had pancake lenses that hit 2.8-4 and an updated audio solution they’d have a killer combo. The image for video is better than Fuji or Sony at this compact level with Lut features.  No need for “velvia” if you’ve got out options. Fully frame and no need for a gimbal? Yea I’d buy one in a heartbeat. 

And I'd be remiss if I didn't post this video from a British filmmaker named Paul Cook. It was the video that made me buy my 5D3 and install ML Raw on it and never look back. After 7 years, I'm still chasing what he was able to capture in an afternoon...
 

Improbable predictions:
BMD will announce that they have been acquired by Ricoh/Pentax Resolve will be fully dropping support for BRAW and adopting ProRes RAW New DaVinci Resolve Nano Panel with only a single trackball and no sliders/knobs/buttons New DaVinci Resolve Pico Panel with just a single small button that can only order pizza from Dominos.  What flavor of pizza?  It'll be a surprise every time. Black Magic Cloud is merging with frame.io so that customers will only have to pay one subscription fee to share with people on either system Based on strong sales of the UM12K, there will now be a UM36K which uses a beam splitter and 3 copies of the UM12K sensor for each of the R, G, and B channels similar to 3-chip camcorders of the past New AI assist camera module that detects if you aren't recording in BM raw - and if not, a small robot version of Grant Petty jumps out and punches the user in the groin until the camera settings are updated

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

There’s talk in the camera industry of introducing a subscription model for firmware updates, with Sony being one of the companies believed to be considering this as an option for larger updates in the future. Currently, Sony is planning an A7S III update in the coming weeks with DCI 4K and content authenticity ID, but major updates have been few and far between for a camera released nearly 4 years ago.
https://www.eoshd.com/news/firmware-updates-could-become-subscription-model-under-new-plans/

Patents expire after 20 years.
The basic "internal compressed RAW" patent expires in april 2028. Or the end of the same year, I'm not sure.
In any case "the patent" only has four years to go.
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?msg=RED.com RAW patents expire&p0=840&ud=2&year=2028&month=4&day=11&hour=0&min=0&sec=0&fromtheme=party

I’m not sure as a hardcore fan of any sport how you could be lukewarm about systematic cheating as, well, it doesn’t seem very, erm, “sporting”.
From my personal point of view as a pro sports photographer covering Tour de France in that era though I’m far from lukewarm about having sat in press conferences being lied to  by him and watching him ridicule and soil the reputation of David Walsh and Paul Kimmage.
Or Emma O’Reilly.
I’m also sore that in Armstrong’s case, unlike all the other ones I’ve covered, that I get zero residuals from my “winner of stage x” or “winner of TdF x”  images 🙂
I might be being old fashioned here but I’d give it to the highest placed cyclist that wasn’t using PEDs.
I have some sympathy with the “well they were all at it” aspect so, fine, let everyone do it and have a special event.
Just don’t call it sport when it’s only being used by some of the field.

FYI, I've started a GitHub project to create a repository for sensor readout speeds of all cameras, for both stills and video, using a standardized measurement method that involves a $17 USD Arduino board.
The project's homepage is:
https://github.com/horshack-dpreview/RollingShutter
The project has a link to the current database, a primer about rolling shutter artifacts, source code, and collection details for those who would like to contribute their camera's images to be measured and added to the database.
Direct link to current results:
https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/
 

The final line up for the 2024 season. 
From left to right…
S1H with battery grip, 70-200 f4 (not shown, Rode WG2) permanently on tripod shooting static full length ceremony & speeches, manual focus, 4k 25p.
Z6ii + adapted Tamron 70-180 f2.8 (not shown battery grip arriving tomorrow) with option Tamron 20-40 f2.8, stills only but can do video in an emergency. Sling on shoulder.
S5ii + cage + Sigma 28-70 f2.8 + Rode Micro as my all day run & gun, gimbal ready, 4k 50p unit (so 42-105mm equivalent). Right hip.
Zf + 40mm f2 candid stills but can also do video in an emergency. Left hip.
Single backpack with all lighting, all other audio, all spare batts, cards, power bank, chargers, gimbal etc, but actually lives in my cart along with the 2 big light stands, 40m extension reel and 500W portable power bank.

We hope it happens on page 24.

Not this again...
You were the one that made the case against 24p, so you provide the proof that it's inferior.
We understand, from your posts, that you are most likely a teenager or young adult, and maybe nobody has ever told you how the real world works but your claims, statements and wishes aren't proof that 24p is inferior...

Just created a new thread showing that the rec709 profiles in these cameras are more flexible in post than most people think:
Posting this here for easy reference, and because these small cameras likely only have 8-bit rec709, but I think this isn't nearly the barrier to getting good images than most people believe it is.
It's also why I shoot in auto-exposure and auto-WB..  making small changes to every shot is a very simple operation and a much better outcome than me setting this stuff manually and then forgetting to adjust it later and getting some shots horribly wrong!
For those who think that adjusting exposure and WB in post is a sign of bad film-making, every colourist I've seen allows for making small exposure and WB changes as a first step in their grade and I've heard several say that it's something they apply routinely, even on professionally shot productions.  Same as NR, which is routinely applied, completely contrary to YT wisdom which suggests that visible noise means the camera is defective.
I hope this test will encourage people to look beyond the forum/YT "wisdom" and be free to get the most from their equipment.

2/3" crop/sensor estate is not too shabby at 2.8. If you watch Harisson Krafts videos you might possibly not feel so sure about the RX100 3 to V being the winner in the image quality department. @John Matthews The lens looks magical at this aperature on the LX15 throughout all focal lengths. It sports the same sensor as the RX10 1,2,3 afaik. Crop in 4K mode did not hinder me to film some of my best personal footage ever with it. The cake is in the pudding of the lens. Processing in 4K is just as good as on the GX85.
I still need to experiment with profile settings a bit more, but I would leave saturation untouched, noise reduction and sharpness all the way down though. I have started to treat it like a S16 F4 camera. I got two of them but only with one battery for around 120 Euro from a youtuber. Heck of a two camera deal. 🙂 At 200 Euro used price I would still consider it a good purchase for image tinkerers. One needs to massage the image in Davinci a bit and save some presets and secret sauce for best effect. But that´s half the fun of it.