Leaderboard

Does anyone else seem to remember that this question has popped up on here previously at some point? As far as I recall, the general consensus was that you need to go into the Settings menu of the camera and make sure "Motion Cadence Colour Science Mojo" is set to ON. Have a go with the Search option just to make sure I've remembered correctly though.

Sometimes the cheap plasticy build quality of the LS300 is a blessing

They used Sony camcorders on the Shuttle and you can buy a mission flown one here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SPACE-SHUTTLE-STS-112-FLOWN-CAMERA-NASA-With-COA-HISTORICAL-RARE/153362548148?hash=item23b51ec5b4:g:Gv8AAOSwdIFX1xwI I wonder what people who like to moan about gimbal shots being too floaty think about shots taken in actual zero gravity? "I find the shots they're getting from it to be a bit too gimbally for my tastes".

Idk, I think someone posted a link in a Canon thread that showed all of the Acadamy Award Doc nominations were shot on Canon cameras and a bunch of people came here to dispute the sense of shooting on a Canon. The reality of the situation is this... NOBODY CARES WHAT CAMERA YOU USE!!!!!!!!!! They only care about the STORY you tell with that camera. Case in point, I recently watched The Florida Project and I really enjoyed it. While watching the credits I learned it was shot on film and then i also saw the Filmic Pro logo. Immediately I looked online and learned that the last scene/sequence was shot on an iPhone and you know what... while I watched the film... I didn’t even notice. And after learning the iPhone was used... I didn’t even bother to go back and see if I could tell the difference because I enjoyed the story.

Yeah the Panasonic has a few features making it really nice for pro work. The XT3 can certainly be rigged up for pro work as well and it definitely is a bit ahead in terms of image quality.

..or all that effort goes to "waste". Imagine if the rumors back in 2015 were right and Nikon and Samsung were co-making a Nikon NX1 camera. 2019 would have happened 3 years earlier. Still NX1 has the best ergonomics in business and just lost its title as the best pro APS-C camera just recently. 73min continuous recording years before the GH5, DIS+OIS years before the Canon similar system, super Amoled screens and - still in my opinion - best in business touch interface, first H265 implementation, still most megapixels in business, unique lenses ("unicorn" 16-50mm 2-2.8f OIS, very cheap and good pancakes, stelar native and tiny fisheye!), better 1080p than all crop Sony's (almost film like) and better 120f e.t.c JVC was very close to deliver an MKii for 3.5-4.000$€£, a workhorse camera not available right now and we missed that opportunity! I do not want/and I can not afford to give 9000€ for a C200, nor 8 for an EVA, I do not believe they deserve that kind of money in this economy and this era. P4K and EZ are in the right direction though.

If you want a bit of an insight into how relatively rare this camera still is in the wild, I doubled the amount of Pocket 4K cameras that were being used at the BVE Expo in London today when I got mine out of my bag. I plonked it down on a table that Zeiss had left brochures on but abandoned to setup my app and immediately drew a crowd who thought I was an exhibitor. Of course I did not disabuse any of them of this belief and promptly started demoing the living daylights out of my app.

f0 or it's trash mate.

Hello! I have new stills from a recent shot I was DPing. It's another theme, Kinda of game of thrones thing ?. I think this is a good point of reference to see how color look in this type of forest/swamp with those costumes and production design. Here i used some old vintage Takumar lenses because of the organic look they have, i think they help to sell the fantasy theme. I use the same procedure I always do, and my style of grade using GHa Daylight to LogC. And diffusion LOT of diffusion!

The golden age of cinema was truly something to be admired. Here are the TOP SECRET insider settings that will MAGICALLY turn your camera into a CINEMA BEAST. PROFESSIONAL CINEMATOGRAPHERS DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS We all know that you can't get cinematic video straight out of a camera, so most of these are in post. Camera: Shoot in NATURAL or the default style (LOG profiles are a trick to fool the try-hards) Set your aperture to F8 (that's why the most famous photographers say "f8 and be there") Film had a wonderfully organic resolution, so It's important to get the highest resolution camera you can - shoot 8K RAW if you can, 10-bit is barely a minimum, but 12-bit or 14-bit is better Depending on the aesthetic you want you can film at 23.976 fps, or less. Ideally you would film at a rate that varies to simulate the camera operator turning a handle, but even the most expensive cinema cameras still lack this feature, even in 2019, it's madness but it's reality Post-production: Set your Saturation to zero Lower your contrast until the whites aren't white, and the blacks aren't black, you want that soft look Highlight all your audio tracks and delete them, if you want you can add a single track back in and put in a single piano soundtrack, but silent is the most 'pure' Whatever frame rate you recorded at, you must play it back at 23.976 fps - this will give that classic "people walking as fast as ants" look Add noise, film grain plugins that have real digitised film grain are best - DO NOT GO CHEAP ON THIS When you output your footage it's important to get the settings right - the most important is to output in 1080 as a MAX (4K is totally out) Yes, I'm taking the piss, but actually if you want to replicate the silent film era then these are good instructions. My point is that there is no 'cinematic' look, so the only place that you can be sure of that won't help you is anyone using the word "cinematic". Seriously, cinema looks so great because it's a combination of every department doing their job really well. We've been making movies for long enough to work out what matters and what doesn't, and anything that doesn't matter has been cut from the budget of film-making since before any of us were born. What you really want is to make great looking films, which is really a personal thing that only you can find out what it means to you, and the only way to do that is to learn every job in every department of a film production and do them all really well. Film-making is art that uses enormous amounts of technology - that's why is SO DIFFICULT IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. Welcome to our pain, and our pleasure.

I've just shot part one of this lens comparison which is the ~70-80mm equivalent lenses for MFT. https://app.sugarsync.com/iris/wf/D8480669_08693060_6019565 Notes: It's a mixture of cheap/expensive and vintage/modern lenses, and my goal was to see how these lenses compared aesthetically and to choose which to keep All shots were taken with my GH5 which has a 2x crop compared to FF, so your FOV may vary, and remember that the edges distort more than the centre part which is what we're looking at This isn't designed to tell you how good each lens is, but more how good they are compared to each other - google has many great examples from each of these lenses All shots taken in RAW and converted to JPG but with no other processing so this is almost SOOC I tried to match FOV for lenses with different focal lengths, but it's an imperfect test I started with each lens wide open and then stopped-down, some lenses have more photos because they have half-stop clicks, some have full-stops, some are click-less (in which case I did full-stops) but they're not exact so some exposure differences are in there, I also noticed that exposures were often off so I'm not confident that all the clicks were accurate on all the lenses (some are vintage after all) The electronic shutter only goes up to 1s exposures, so some of the lenses didn't get tested at their smallest apertures, but diffraction just kicks in so I don't feel like we're missing much Apart from adjusting aperture (and shutter speed to compensate) everything else was manual, ISO 100, and identical WB and lighting, so colour differences are the lenses I focused each lens on the marks on the little white card in the centre and normally stopped the lens down a stop or so to help with manual focus, I've heard some lenses change focus as you adjust the aperture but I didn't allow for that so the focus might shift a little perhaps Unless noted the lenses were used without a speed booster, and the SB I used with the two Helios lenses was a cheap Chinese one from ebay. I also shot the Helios lenses without a SB so you can compare and see if the SB is good or not. My next step is to test the 135-200mm lenses (270-400mm equivalents) which I can't test with the current setup because my room isn't long enough. I'll add these to this same thread when they're ready. After that I'll narrow the field down a bit and go shoot some real-world video to see how they go. Happy to hear impressions about what you see, what you like and what you don't.

Yes, I use it as my main video camera at work. It's perfect for it. Have shown it in huge projections intercut with the FS7. Only visible difference is the Sony colors. I haven't shot any casual video like the NX1 stuff but probably will shoot something for the speedbooster review I'm working on. I can PM you some video examples I've done tomorrow. So far the DPAF has worked with all my EF glass including those two. I've only used AF on one project so far, just for fun. But I might have a project with gimbal shots in the pipe.

Good point @webrunner5 ... I actually posted an earlier version by mistake... here’s the fixed one... I don’t know if I love the font that much either but it’s meant to look like handwriting on a post card that is part of the mystery of the story.

Not too sure I am liking how the word "the" looks on that graphic Glenn. The t looks like an E. Other than that I really like it.

The C100 still produces great looking images, both in it's own merits as well as compared to newer gear. Very tempted by the used prices these days. What keeps me away is that my R also has a really nice C-log image but FF with stabilization and soon built in variable ND. Would love to have the XPRs though.

Here’s a mock-up poster for my film. It was shot with the Canon 28mm 1.8...

I think there are industry standards. People shoot on a camera mainly because its the camera to shoot on. People have no clue if something is shot on Film vs an Alexa. They would have no clue if something was shot on an Alexa vs a Sony or a Canon or whatever it is you shoot on. I wouldn't either. Professional films almost always have great lighting, which is most of the battle and of course talented colorists. I remember one of the DOP's or maybe it was the director for one of the latest James Bond movies was commenting on how they went digital and it was much more convenient etc.. Later for the next movie they switched back to film and he commented on how he thought the digital skintones were just off(this is an Alexa we are talking about). I am sure the guy knows what he is talking about but I would have no clue which of those films were shot on digital or film. All the James Bond films looked amazing to me.

No it's totally about the story. Nobody cares if one image has slightly nicer colour than another if the story isn't compelling. I haven't seen any of them but I bet all those nominated documentaries have good stories. That's what makes them successful

It makes more difference if you have a lot of motion and/or a lot of detail in the footage. I never want to see a compression artifact if I can help it. That said, I’ve had really good results with 200 Mb/s, too. For me, though, the revolution has really been the 10-bit color.

That is a pretty Ghetto looking resolution chart LoL. ?

I think for Hobby use the X-T3 is probably better, but for serious stuff the GH5 wins. It also has that XLR thingy you put on the hot shoe. It is just a more Pro originated camera than the X-T3, but if I was traveling around the country just having a good time I would like the Fuji better I think.

Not in my experience... I use the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 with the Fringer Pro adapter on my XT3 and the face & eye autofocus is pretty zippy and accurate...and that's before the firmware update in I think April that makes it even more sprightly. I don't use it for stills only video and think it's a great combo. Used it most of last year with an XH1 which was OK, but the XT3 has better AF.

Yeah I try to keep my gimbal as light as possible. Just the bare bones XT3 with 18-55 or a the 23mm f2 or 50 f2. I don't even use a monitor, though in some cases you'd need one. Everything gets so heavy when you do manual lenses plus follow focus and all that. Necessary for some work though.

for what i have read 18 55 is a kit lens and it is really good, perhaps one of the best kit kens ever. it has ois and could be very useful for most situation. Then i know lens adpter can be used, surely for vintage ones, perhpas for m43 ones too, but not sure

It should also be noted that many of these documentaries took 2-3 years to produce, shoot, edit, and release - and then another year or so to be nominated for an Oscar. So, this is not a reflection on what cameras documentaries are shot on in 2019, but rather what people wanted to shoot on in 2014 to 2016. That doesn't mean that three years from now, all docs will be shot on Sonys, but just a point that it's not really about what is released now. With that said, even in 2019, Canon has the nicest looking image and the most reliable products in the doc-budget space. I wouldn't be surprised if the next few years many doc films are still shot on Canon cameras. However, they need to be careful because many people in the doc space want to shoot on Netflix-approved cameras just in case Netflix wants their film - low budget or not. So crippling cameras to not have 10-bit 422 could cost them in a few years in the awards space. On my last 3-4 shoots, the client requested 422 10-bit 4K - which I use an EVA-1 for. All Canon has is the C300II and it's an amazingly lovely image, but the design is terrible and the general specifications are starting to get a bit old. Canon just needs to understand that the C300II should die, release a souped-up C300 III and charge as much as they want for it, while also simultaneously releasing a compact C100 III with the 4K 10-bit 24-30fps that documentaries want and sometimes are required to have - anywhere under $7k. I WANT to use Canon but have been using the EVA-1 and FS7 more on shoots because it's required. As a filmmaker/DP, it is frustrating to like a specific image (like Canon) and not be able to use it because it doesn't have the required specs. -- Canon's Lineup Should Be: C300 Mark III (THE BEAST) - 8K upgradeable sensor, 60-96fps in 4K, internal raw, 10-12 bit at all resolutions - $15,000 For: Anyone who wants the highest quality Canon image. C200 (THE RAW CAMERA) - An affordable internal raw camera. Great B-Cam to C300 productions that need a camera on gimbal at all times - $7500 For: short docs, music videos, commercial producers. C100 Mark III (THE DOC/BROADCAST CAMERA) - 4K 10-bit 422 in HD and 4K. 120fps 10-bit in HD. 30-60fps in 4K. - $5499 For: One-man band crews, documentary filmmakers, owner-operators. -- Seems fairly obvious to me. Yes, the C300II will die, but if they don't let it die than I think they're going to lose out once Panasonic, Black Magic, and Sony release their next generation EVA, Ursa Mini, FS5, and FS7. ANY cinema/video camera released without 10-bit 4K from this point forward is a complete oversight.

There is an newly established representative seller based in Slovakia responsible for EU market and also with department in UK, but I don't know their price. https://www.seesense.eu/z-cam/4592949160

Thanks Kye

Maybe he meant to just saw Prores. I personally think you only need the DJI Osmo pocket for cinematic footage.

Pretty amazing how small the E2 is.

This guy begs to disagree..

I wouldn't say the c300 II is perfect for run n gun - like all the cXXX cameras (I have the c100) they only work well handheld if you use it completely barebones, just lens and either use the viewfinder or cradle it. They are horrible cameras ergonomically to set up for shoulder use, they are too high and unwieldly, the c300 II being the worst of the bunch especially with where the audio ports are. The c200 is a little better but still. I wish they would (and this goes for all the other manufacturers too) create a camera with a lower centre of gravity like some of the old 16mm film cameras that would work better for on the shoulder work. It would also eradicate such a reliance on lenses with IS. Actually the c700 is better in that regard but is obviously aimed at a different market

4 out of 5 of those docus were shot on C300 II (Minding the Gap was filmed over a 12 year period starting on a 5D and ending on the C300). While the 5D4/6D2 & EOS R/RP may have disappointed many in the video specs field, it is worth noting the C line is still going strong inside the industry. And it's not a "snob" thing.. That would be more ARRI/RED territory.. For under $10K the C300 II is the perfect run'n'gun camera: Built like a tank, Long battery life, Dual Pixel AF (game changer for single operators), WideDR profile.. .. and it can shoot 12-bit 444 2K & 10-bit DCI 4K internally. Meaning its broadcast & cine friendly. Those are all facts, not subjective fanboyism. Meaning that's before even considering Canon's colour science, lens selection, ergonomics, UI..etc. Another important factor is reliability.. and Canon has some of the best pro customer service, especially right there near Hollywood with their Burbank repair facility. So while internet trolls & spec sheet observers are quick to attack Canon on their lower-end offerings and "behind technology", many others are just busy making money & winning academy awards using their "outdated" professional gear.. Go figure!

2. I use the Zhi Yun Chrane v2 — I recently switched from Canon DSLRs and used rigs that were right at the limit of what was possible with that one, so the X-T3 feels like a skinny legend on it by comparison. Though the X-T3 maybe a little nose heavy by comparison with the 18-55. 1. I don’t have the 16-55, so I can’t speak to the auto-focus question, but... A few unsolicited observations on video... For video I think you want the OIS unless you build the camera into a bigger rig with some handles good. I use a Small Rig cage to beef up the handle, and even with the OIS, it’s all I can do to keep things steady. I once shot with the same setup without OIS by mistake, forgetting to turn it back on after going off tripod. It was not useable due to the shake. My next lens is going to be the 10-24 f4 OIS, and that will be it for video lenses for X-mount. I used to be very annoyed about the non-constant f stop lenses in the Fujinon range — having used Canon L zoom lenses. I’ve mellowed on that stance. My old go-to was Canon’s 24-105 f4.0 IS L. For documentary, f4 gives some bokeh, but also forgives when the auto-focus doesn’t keep up. So, on the X-T3, I often find myself locking the aperture at 4.0 just to keep my highlights under control in bright indoor scenes (rather than putting on an ND filter), thus taking the whole variable aperture over the zoom range out of the equation, in a sense. Here’s a camera test I just did*. The negatives I noticed was that the auto WB misbehaved in a couple of spots — I should have remembered to lock that down. Also, the autofocus was completely off the reservation sometimes (which is different than the slow focusing, which I had dialed in on purpose). I’m super curious whether the coming firmware upgrade will give a useful bump in AF performance. * It was the 18-55 OIS lens, hand-held. Aperture locked at f4 with auto ISO and auto WB. The focus speed was set to -5. (I wanted it to feel a bit sloppy and sloshy) 4K 25fbs F-LOG @ 400 Mb/s h.265

Wow, so the the guys who are nominated to the Oscars are just snobs who doesn`t know anything about the right equipment to make their productions to shine over the crow?, then, where are the EXPERTS who are using sony, panasonic, etc....? , why their productions are not nominated to the Oscars?, is it a Canon conspiration?, I have hear non senses before, but this one really SHINE OVER THE CROW!!!!

200€ difference for a bunch of cables?!! The original price is crazy expensive. Got mine for 550€ during the Xmas sale. Sturdy device, ultra heavy, but I guess just right for the P4K. I have some balancing issues with all the Ronin's and camera's combination I have tried though. Crane 2 seemed like an easier gimbal to balance, and it is possible to ride the P4K with it, jusy not a perfect match.

This is a nonsensical argument. Too much low hanging fruit to pick off here. If this is honestly your view, what can I say... good luck with that!

I thought I addressed that with my theory that the RGB slider operates on a linear image before the gamma curve is applied, which explains why it clips almost immediately in Gamma DR but not in Gamma Normal or C. But I expect that the RGB slider multiplies shadows as well, so not sure how much usable DR you would gain as it basically just lowers exposure overall. Certainly something to test if you want to follow the rabbit hole! I think the only way we could meaningfully get a DR increase is if we could apply the RGB multiplier to the top half of values, but not the bottom. Most of what I've seen so far, both with my tests and yours, is really minimal, if at all present. As far as I can tell, MP doesn't really add DR with a positive value, it just raises the blacks up a bit. At most you gain back a little bit of noise. With negative values yeah, it seems to lose shadow detail. So I usually leave it at 0. Haha yeah, I just spent a good part of my day on this, and the funny part is I doubt I'll ever even use my NX1 for a project again! For my next project we're using the director's XT3. I did shoot a big project on my NX1 using RGB boost last year, which I might detail here once it's released. For me it was all about finding a general setting that worked for everything, since I wasn't going to fiddle with settings on set even if I knew wanted. So I used RGB values near 1.99 in Gamma DR, built some LUTs that worked with those settings, and left it that way. Worked pretty well in hindsight.

Wow thanks man!

For a minute I thought you where serious.

You might be right, but we haven't really had a major sub $20k video camera announcement since C200/EVA-1, so it's definitely been awhile. It seems like so much progress has been made in codecs (BM Raw, ProRes Raw, H265) and mirrorless tech (X-T3, S1) that it would be prime time to release some great sub $10k video cameras.

I hate it when hu-mans stop when they are ready for their breakthrough. Samsung stopped when they delivered their first and only professional camera, when it was obviously quite ahead of its time, and JVC stopped in their first attempt for an interchangeable Camcorder/cinecamera. What a pitty.. Thanks @BTM_Pix.

This is one of the reasons why the GH5 is so great. You can set it to 10 fps and it will also remove the audio automatically so that you don't have to do it in post. Truly cinematic results

yes, camera is not the big deal. You have no need for an expensive camera anymore today. You need production values and skills.

Well you get internal NDs. You also get 4k RAW 120fps and HD 240 fps. Nothing touches this in the price range. The Zcam does 120 4k but not even in prores and it's a smaller sensor. That said it doesn't sound like the OP needs something as powerful as the FS700. I personally would want something more compact for doc work.

Just a lurker. I don't think the delay with this Blackmagic release is worse than Red was. With a difference. For a fraction of the price. When Panasonic will deliver RAW then we're talking.

Just buy the original BMPCC and most footage out of it will probably look Cinematic. Easy as that.

Thanks to everyone who has replied. Really appreciate all the input and tips. Here is the latest video I did over the weekend. I think overall the colors are a bit better, as I am becoming a bit more proficient with the qualifier tool. There are still some color casts, but I think that they are a bit better controlled (for the interiors, at least). As for the backyard shots, it appears to me that some of the brightest clouds have a pinkish / magenta tinge to them. Is anyone else seeing that? Mostly in the bright part of the clouds along the horizon, starting at the 1:19 mark. Did I just grade those exterior shots too warm???

Amazing camera, I’ve owned two of them and a Micro. Get yourself an IR Cut Filter and always shoot at 800 ISO. But he warned... once you start shooting Raw, it will be difficult to go back to compressed codecs. And if you really like the Pocket, wait until you try FF Raw with the 5D3. Have fun and good luck with it.