Guess the camera, going for film look

[kye]

11 minutes ago, QuickHitRecord said:

I was way off. A testament to modern phones, or possibly how much footage can be disguised if it's softened and grained out. I did notice the IBIS in some of your shots, which lead me towards the GX85 speculation.

Yeah, it's about having the highlight/shadow rolloffs and blur/grain.  The OIS on the iPhones really is phenomenal - I wasn't ninja-walking and don't have particularly steady hands and even the walking shots were pretty good.  I don't think I stabilised anything in post either, which would have over-stabilised things - the walking shots were already a bit too gimbal-like for my tastes.

Having a nice 10-bit codec on a phone would make such a difference - Prores would be spectacular.

[PannySVHS]

You fox, you, if that makes sense to say in English, coming from German language it means, smart as a fox:) @kye

[kye]

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

You fox, you, if that makes sense to say in English, coming from German language it means, smart as a fox:) @kye

That was part of my motivation...   to completely obscure the camera with treatments in post.

We all focus on the camera, debating the fine points of the limits of camera features, and then only take advantage of a tiny taste of what is possible in post-production.

It's like shopping all over the world for the finest ingredients, then taking them into the kitchen and boiling the crap out of everything.  Will overcooked fine ingredients taste better than overcooked cheap ingredients, probably, but it's hardly the potential that existed.

We're all running around shopping for ingredients and steadfastly refusing to learn to cook, or for those that do know their way around a kitchen, passing up the opportunity to learn to cook well.