Leaderboard

You could easily say the same about VHS or Hi8 in the 90s and early 2000s...

YouTube *does* care about these things, always submit an H264/265 stream with 16-235 setting, or else the video wont look right.

The benefits of digital are, of course, undeniable - in fact this forum wouldn't exist were it not for the advent of large-sensor video and many of its enthusiast members, myself included, would never have been able to even get into a position where these discussions are possible without it. We have 2 competing sets of desires when it comes to large sensor video. On the one hand we want more resolution, greater bit depth and higher frame rates (all of which improve the ROI for professional users); while on the other, we want sensors that will satisfy our aesthetic desires which for most of us align much more with the organic nature of celluloid than they do with pristine Rec709 video. Perhaps those two desire sets will never be compatible, but unfortunately there will never be sufficient sales to enthusiast users to justify pro-sumer/consumer level equipment that abandons the megapixel/frame rate race in favour of a lower resolution with film-like DR etc. I was having this discussion (sort of) with a couple of occasional photo shooters just on Friday. they were saying that there was now no discernible difference between film and digital. I disagreed. I can certainly easily differentiate the stills I shoot on film, to those I've shot on digital - even though I generally process the latter to look as much like the former as I can. The organic, random, chemical nature of silver halide photography gives a highlight roll-off - and just as important, a roll-off to underexposure - plus a transition from in to out-of focus that simply can't be achieved in a grid matrix of photosensitive receptors. That look is at once closer to and further away from what we see with our own eyes and that is where its magic lies.

Well my .02 is I stopped using LUTS for primaries grading for the S5 and feel like my footage is now better than before. LUTS always seemed to do things to the footage that I had no way of knowing what exactly they did with no good way to get back whatever was lost. The C200 is a different story and I cannot match the Canon CLOG3 to Rec709 LUT so I still use that for primaries grading for the C200's footage. For the S5 I always shoot in VLOG 10bit and use the following workflow in Davinci Resolve as my starting point for all clips: I create 3 Nodes (Primaries, Curves, FalseColor) In the primaries node I add 90% saturation and 1.17 contrast, I then adjust the lift and gain until the image looks right to my eyes while making sure that it fits within the WFM for Rec.709 I have a false color LUT and I apply that to node 3 then disable the node. After grading the primaries node I enable node 3 to check skin exposure, if the false color LUT shows the skin is over or under exposed I adjust the lift and gain as needed to get proper skin exposure. After the project is complete I sometimes add an adjustment clip over everything and apply a creative color grading LUT to the adjustment clip to give the entire project a creative grade. Also, but very rarely I use Node 2 to adjust the curves if I'm not getting the granularity I want with the primaries wheels; but its pretty rare. Really the only time I do this is when I need more contrast in a specific area but don't want to affect the rest of the image. My whole process for each clip only takes seconds and after I grade the first clip I just copy the grade to each subsequent clip and make slight adjustments to the lift and gain as needed depending on the lighting conditions. If there are no people in the video or for that particular clip (i.e. for real estate), then I just use the WFM and make sure nothing is over or under exposed. Definitely not Hollywood quality, but I'm also not being paid Hollywood rates. For the project settings I've always just left them at their defaults (Davinci YRGB and timeline color space Rec.709).

I agree with all of your post, but I have found that film's colours are generally less true to life than contemporary digital video. Absolutely agree. I often blur photos, particularly if I add grain. Otherwise it doesn't look right.

I use a T7 as an editing drive that I have Velcro'd to the back of the screen of my M1 MacBook Pro and it has been great. Drive mounts fast and editing has had zero hiccups with supplied USB-C cable. I did briefly use another cable I had (a shorter one in an attempt to clean up the rig a bit) but I was having weird problems and dips to 200MB/s writing via BM drive speed test app. I threw the cable in the bin. So I guess, not all USB-C cables are the same. I average ~700MB/s for reading/writing with the supplied cable. I welcome USB-C everything but they gotta sort out the cabling and branding Thunderbolt 4/USB4/USB3.2 v2.2412. REV @45234 Bin 5 or whatever the hell they name this shit.

Just posted my latest Video with the EOS M & 2.8K Raw. Truly remarkable what this camera still can do. Tried to emulate the Super 16 look although I mainly used Canon L Glass. https://youtu.be/ohDS3ErANOs - - Gear Used- - *Camera - EOS M (Original w/ ML) *Lens - Canon 17-40 F/4 | Canon 24-70 f/4 | Canon 35 F/1.4 *Tripod - - Settings - - *2.8K RAW 2800x1190 [2.35:1] * 23.98 FPS, 1/48, WB 5200, ISO 100 - - Editing - - *All graded in MLV App (ALEXA LOG C Profile w/ Creative Adjustments enabled, Exported Prores 4444 * Finishing touch in FCPX 8K Timeline & Export (LOL), added little saturation and exposure adjusted, No sharpening at all.

You should try shooting a roll of 35mm still. The skin tone, color, and look are you get from film are absolutely amazing. It just looks right. I would imagine the guys on that colorist forum are likely a lot of veteran colorists that most likely value work flow over everything. I know this dude grades a ton of stuff shot on 35mm. Beautiful work. https://www.company3.com/artists/stefan-sonnenfeld/

Film being difficult to work with doesn't make it undesirable in terms of the final outcome. Of course it changes from film stock to film stock but traits of film are what good digital cameras do as well. This is of course talking about film that has been properly shot and developed. Natural and true to life colors with a pleasing skin tone. Pleasant motion cadence. A detailed image that doesn't look like its been digitally sharpened. Soft roll off into highlights and shadows. Digital is still a relatively new medium and Arri is the only company to really have it down to perfection or at least very close to it. Weird motion, jello shutter, sharpening, moire, aliasing, aberrations, poor or odd color science, digital clipping, digital noise, compression artifacts, poor color depth, line skipping, incamera noise reduction, are all things brought into being by digital cameras.

I use Leeming LUT and skintones are nice.

Panasonic's full frame offerings are very good but ultimately they'll have the same problems that M43 had if they can't meet people's expectations. What also puts me off is the weight and cost of the lenses. I paid about $1500 total for my two 12-35mm (version 1 and 2) and 35-100mm (version 1) lenses on the used market. To get their full frame L-mount equivalents would be astronomical. I'd have to get the f/4 versions to get below that, which I'm sure are nice, but that's still about $1500 for each lens. Not to mention my beloved Olympus 7-14 that would cost another $1200 or so to replace. I prefer the image I see out of the S1H and the S5 but I don't think I could justify going to their full frame offerings over Sony. Sony just seems like a safer bet, and I could piece together a lens set for my uses for a bit less. Blah. I really hate how everything has played out.

I wish I could use a card writer because I have a bunch of high speed CF cards. With that said, what's the smallest SSD you've tested with it? I noticed SmallRig or Tilta has some new handles that have a space for the SSD built into the handle and one that has SSD and a battery with a record button. It seems pretty slick. On another note, I wish Sigma had chosen a different mount. I understand about their alliance with Panny and Leica, and although Sigma is starting to release some smaller lenses, there aren't enough native lens options to get me excited. More than likely I'd adapt lenses, but then the added size of the adapter/lens dwarfs the camera. I guess m-mount lenses are good options, especially considering the 7artisans/ttartisans options that are being released... like that lovely 28mm 1.4 you have. Speaking of... I found this video on Vimeo of the FP/28mm 1.4 combo...