PPNS

I think these are really good too, but i think they would look even better if you had the darker side of the face towards the camera. You’re looking for natural contrast in light which is what it’s all about, but if you put the person from still 1 in the same position as the lady from still 2 with the same background and lighting condition as you had before, that would be something i would prefer myself. The same with still 2, if you just put her in the right side of the frame, and rotate her 180 degrees.

you guys are getting a monitor pic from me since i’m not grading the last project i dp’d. i think lighting wise this looks nice, but framing wise i would set up the camera a bit higher, and then angle it down slightly to make this man look a bit better. I personally wouldnt center frame interviews, but i don’t necessarily mind it either. Ideally i also wouldn’t show anything beneath the logo of the football team to get a proper medium close up. I think most of your work looks good, and this is personal preference, i think you should consider stopping down more. I think you would benefit from having to shoot at f/5.6 on that big of a sensor and getting to see your background a bit more.

shouldn’t 50i with the right shutter speed just convert to a perfect 25p?

I’ve actually used both cameras, and how would you exactly define the fx3 to be a better video tool? I think both are completely miserable to use for video, especially compared to the fx6, which i do really like. I guess the fx3 has a slightly less dogshit menu system, but you cant really handhold it like an a7s (and you could use the evf as a third point of contact there). The screens are more or less pointless to judge anything on there, so you need an external monitor (sadly also the case for the fx6, but it’s more bearable). Since they’re both FF they both need big ass lenses which makes the ergonomics extra awkward. You could rig both of them up, but that often makes them worse or more annoying to use, but I guess this will always be a problem with smaller cameras. They are fine on a tripod, and have to potential to get really good results, if there’s somebody next to you who knows the menu system through and through.

This is also the case with the fx6 fyi. It gives you a 1:1 sensor mode so it crops more than just the top and bottom.

pocket 4k

Thank you! You can go ahead and assume that there was neg on everything except the super wide shots. I’m a bit lazy when it comes to scrimming, so no. The scene in the park was actually shot before golden hour, which is why the light on them is so hard in the wider shots, but i like the edges that you get from that. For the closeups, the sun was already behind the trees, which is why it looks so soft in comparison. We had a tube light which was intended to emulate the hard edge, but obv it wasnt powerful enough at all, but i still liked the slight extra level it gave on that side of her face.

some stills from a new short i dp’d. Still ungraded, some still need to be cropped a bit.

im unemployed, check out my reel! https://vimeo.com/797642822

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?

Mercer, if your sensor resolution is 5.7k and you're mushing 3 or 4 pixels together to create an 1.9k image, isn't that literally more extreme processing than any compressed 'raw' codec? you are losing more info, and relying more on guesswork by a machine that isn't very smart. i can kinda see the lack of detail in the images and increased moire? i think ML was a cool concept 10 years ago, but we don't need it anymore. 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?

Is it raw if youre binning?

so for the ml to be useful in any capacity you have to pixel bin anyway lol?

Mr Stevie Ray Vaughn, please just post a video you have made at some point in your life. Discussing minute technical details about different cameras gets very boring quickly. It would just be easier to recommend something if we knew what you would like to achieve yourself.

Fairly simple, if you dont like going through menu systems and having annoying settings in the way of your work, you can only choose BM cameras.

Aka the most noise reduction we’ll use in a camera that you can’t turn off

They just call that s cinetone

- i think its hard for me to believe that the software hack gives you superior image quality to anything now - its hard for me to believe that the 14 bit readout would give you any discernible difference compared to the 12 bit readout

its pixel binned since that sensor isnt natively 3.5k, so you should actually be missing quite a lot of info right?

that is probably a better way to look at it. phones are good for convenience, and they will allow you take the shot. but if you rely on them to give you actual good image quality, or whatever expectation you set for 8K or any other of their promised specs, and you'll end up terribly disappointed.

well good camcorders had 4:2:2 color sampling more than a decade ago, and often had insane versatile zoom lenses, so the sensor size argument is kind of moot. The 8k out of a phone will still probably be worse than hd out of a camcorder from 10 years ago. an original bmpcc will probably resolve more detail than video coming out of a phone with an 8k sensor. its a waste of anyone’s time.

and the image quality happens to be ass as well

the pocket 4k is probably the best video camera you can buy for the money. however, it is annoying. the pocket 6k is more expensive, with image quality that is about 3% better at most imo, but every annoying bit about the 4k is extra annoying (especially battery life) on the 6k. the 6k pro is more expensive than the 6k, but fixes many faults of the regular 6k with its quality of life upgrades. So imo its not even worth considering the regular 6k. Even though i have really liked using it due to its NDs and bright screen, you are kind of stuck with an annoying mount: canon photo lenses arent particularly pleasant to work with, and cine lens wise you're most likely gonna have to rent, because your selection is pretty small, and Sigmas or Zeiss CPs aren't particularly affordable. If you're looking for a B cam for a more serious cine camera, you could just convert the mount to PL permanently. Lens wise the 4k just rocks, Olympus photo lenses are good for manual focusing, and the MFT cine meikes are insanely good for the price. Since everyone is so convinced that MFT is dying out, this means that they are insanely cheap on the second hand market. I myself hate speedboosters, but you can find some qualitative PL and EF adapters for a bargain occasionally online as well. This means that your selection of viable lenses is basically endless. I can basically live with most of the grievances with this camera, because the footage you can get out if it is so good, and it costs nothing compared to anything else.

2 years ago, they announced the 6k pro after their atem switchers too, so i presume its a relatively small update. either way i’m interested!

i've seen so many of your posts where you're unable to decide on which camera to choose. i dont think suggestions are of much use to you tbh. Just show an example of a video you've made, and show 1 example of a video that you would like to achieve, maybe it'll be easier to help you that way.