Rhood

No, not at all! : ) Thanks for asking, wondering about the same!

Slightly off topic.
But how do the Viltrox XF lenses compare to the Sigma XF lenses and  Fuji XF lenses regarding the AF performance?
Especially asking AF performance for video. I sometimes use AF for slow motion detail shots, following/tracking shots. So not asking for talking heads, Youtube or such.

Interested in these focal lenghts
13mm f1.4 vs Fuji 16mm f1.4
23mm f1.4 (viltrox vs old Fuji)
56mm f1.4 vs Fuji 56 f1.2 old version

I just received today the CL60R. So far I was impressed by the build quality, the output, the very friendly buttons placement (and existance!), the app, the size, the weight, the price, the original design and also the silly box/case that came with.
Seems like a company that's serious about their stuff. I also read that they have an EU office and check "locally" warranty claims..
Unfortunately it didn't work with a power bank I have. It turns on, but switches after half a second with a 65w. Maybe it needs an 80w..
First impressions positive. Still have to pass the test of time.
I got it as a hair light and for the effects, in case I need them, so I wanted it extra portable.

I've found that adjusting diopters can be really tricky because if you adjust them then your eye just adjusts to compensate, so your eyes kind of don't tell you when the diopter is adjusted wrong - you just end up with eye strain after a while and you don't really know why.

Thanks for the huge amount of knowledge @kye

Sorry to re ask my question, but I don't want to wait to long to buy.
Is it bad to buy a used callibrator? Anything that can go wrong with them? A used Xrite eye one pro package going for slightly cheaper than the i1 display you suggested. Eye one pro is quite old though, better to go with more recent models?

I noticed some calibrators can be used to calibrate projector. That can be handy in the future, as we might go for a projector instead of a tv in the living room.

If anything is different to a calibrated monitor then it doesn't look "better", it looks "inaccurate".
My Dell panel was also factory calibrated, but oh boy did it change when I calibrated it.
This might lead you to question how good calibration really is, but when I calibrated my MBP display and my external display I could move an image between the two and the colours would look very similar indeed.  The main difference was that the MBP display changes quite significantly when you change the angle of the display, so getting a perfect visual match on brightness / contrast / saturation is impossible.
Think about it this way...  if I made a custom LUT and applied it to your laptop display, you'd want me to remove it wouldn't you?  Even if you were doing videos on planes/trains/automobiles.  The fact that it's not controlled lighting doesn't mean you're happy to colour your videos through my LUT.  That's what having an uncalibrated display is like - an unknown LUT applied permanently to that display.
Besides, it's actually very easy to arrange a controlled lighting environment.  The only thing you need is to have is relatively low-level temperature ambient lighting.  For that I recommend MediaLight bulbs: https://www.biaslighting.com/en-au/products/medialight-mk2-dimmable-e26-110v-a19-bulb
They fit into a standard light socket and are completely neutral in temp/tint.  Put one of these into a lamp, ensure that it's shining on a relatively neutral surface, close the blinds, and you're fine.
I agree that for rec709 most displays should be fine, if they're calibrated.
One colourist mentioned that after calibration the image on their consumer-grade GUI monitor was very close to their super-high-end reference display, so unless you're doing mission-critical work then (for rec709) you should be fine with a calibrated monitor.

An average monitor that's been calibrated will be better than the most expensive monitor available that hasn't been calibrated.
There is no such thing as an "accurate" monitor without calibration.  Buy a calibration device and then go looking for a monitor.  When you do this you can calibrate your laptop screen as well.

Yeah buy the  NEC PA301W, not going to find anything better for less than 300.

I think this is closer to a photochemical look. 

I watched the gaffer and gear review a few times.
Normally with a projection mount he says if it's any good for product and fine detail work or not.
 
There's currently a promotion running but it ends soon.

So my question, is it also good for fine detail work?
Is there a difference quality wise when paired with 60 or 150?
Other thoughts?


Has anybody had there hands on the Jinbei EF-ZF3? How does it compare to others?
 

Well, quick hit record is not exactly what you're expecting when you shoot film... LOL :- )

I have a phase one p45+. This back is CCD but very old, it has a Kodak sensor and it's not that great in terms of DR, BUT compared to CMOS, I enjoy the shadows even if they are noisy. With modern CMOS there is a lot to recover from shadows, but it looks horrible, wrong, desaturated colors, with the p45+ it goes noisy but the color still look right. I guess if you pixel peep or do some measurments the DR will be better on the CMOS, but watched from a distance, the image as a whole looks better on the CCD to me. Not to speak about colors, but I believe this is because of the bayer filter strength.
I think the reason to go for cmos was because it's cheaper and consumes less energy.

In stills cameras CCD cameras have much nicer noise. A shame they stopped developing CCD sensors.

Most pleasing grain ( / noise) on a digital camera?
Definitely the SONY F35
also
Panavision Genesis
Ikonoscop a cam dII
Arri Alexa
(If you are interested. I might be tempted to sell my F35 for the right price. It’s sitting on the shelf as most of my work now is photography based.)
 

I don't use Fuji but I've had good luck with two VNDs on my Blackmagic Micro Cinema and original Pocket Cinema cameras:
1. SLR Magic VND (1.3 to 6 stops); it looks like Formatt-Hitech may be offering a rebranded version of this one as well as the one they offer looks nearly identical. The locking mechanism is handy for dialing in a setting and locking it there. 
2. B+W XS Pro variable ND (1 to 5 stops). Less bulky than the SLR Magic; this one was recommended to me by a cinematographer in Germany who said it had the least impact on colors of any VND he'd used.
I typically use VND with stills-camera lenses with stepped aperture rings as I can get more fine-tuned and smooth control of exposure. I also use them when I need to move fast and/or light. I have plenty of good footage shot with VNDs...would it have been better if I'd used my fixed ND filters? Probably but if having the VND made the difference between getting the shot and missing it I'll accept the compromise.

All.
The.
Time.
"Hey kids, this week we are comparing Camera A with Camera B and Camera A will have a fast wide prime lens (because that's all I could get my hands on) and Camera B has a kit zoom lens (because that's all I could get my hands on). So guys, let's go out and shoot! My back wall! And my cat!"
I suppose in one way, 'real world tests' are of folks back walls and cats as that's all they seem to shoot.
Maybe there's a market for this kind of thing...
 

I disagree about them being camera related.
The whole idea of a vND is that they act as a colour-neutral filter to simply let through a proportion of light.  Any NEUTRAL density filter will attenuate all frequencies of light in equal proportion.  We know they're not perfect and this results in colour shifts, however, all cameras 'see' in the same basic RGB colours.
There can be very slight differences between which frequencies of light different manufacturers sensors are sensitive to, however these will be very very small differences and if a filter is so crazily built that it's very different for one camera than another then you'd want to avoid it at basically all costs as its colour response would be spectacularly non-neutral.
Here's the plot comparing a range of digital cameras - not much difference:

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342113086_Introducing_the_Dark_Sky_Unit_for_multi-spectral_measurement_of_the_night_sky_quality_with_commercial_digital_cameras

Good to read some common sense.
I really don't get the need for even more resolution.
Or certainly not as a priority.

Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way.
But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing.
I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats.
I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced.

The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's.
Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords.
And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good).

To keep it on topic
It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

Good to read some common sense.
I really don't get the need for even more resolution.
Or certainly not as a priority.

Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way.
But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing.
I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats.
I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced.

The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's.
Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords.
And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good).

To keep it on topic
It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

Good to read some common sense.
I really don't get the need for even more resolution.
Or certainly not as a priority.

Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way.
But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing.
I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats.
I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced.

The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's.
Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords.
And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good).

To keep it on topic
It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

I think you make excellent points but disagree with this part of your post, as I think we've been concentrating on the wrong things in camera development.
Specifically, we have way more pixels than we need, which you mentioned, but the missing link is dynamic range, which is still very immature in terms of development.
Almost everyone can compare an Alexa frame with a sub$2500 digital camera frame on a big TV and see why the Alexa costs more.  Under certain controlled situations this difference can be managed and the cheaper camera can come a lot closer, but in uncontrolled lighting and high DR situations it's quite obvious.  
This comparison still holds if you compare those images on a laptop screen, and even a phone screen in some situations.  The fact that the Alexa looks better on a 2.5K laptop display, or a 720p phone screen, means that the image quality cannot be about resolution, as the resolution advantage of the cheaper camera will be eliminated by the downscaled image.
What is left is colour science and dynamic range.  
We should be taking these 8K sensors, putting on the OLPF from a 4K sensor, and sending every fourth pixel to a different ADC pipeline with differing levels of gain, which are then digitally combined to get a very high dynamic range 4K image.  
The Alexa was released over 10 years ago, shot 2K, and had a dual-gain architecture.  Here we are over a decade later and we have cameras that have 16 times as many pixels, but still don't match the DR, and still don't look as good.  
The real "progress" that has been achieved by the manufacturers is convincing people to buy more pixels despite the fact that they really wanted better pixels.

Netflix buys non-4K stuff often, and even the stuff they commission is frequently shot on <4K cameras, including 2K Alexas.
Think about image quality not pixel quantity.
To paraphrase a quote from another industry: "If the pixels are sh*t, why would I be happy that there are 4 times more of them?".