Leaderboard

Well, Panasonic was working on something: https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/18/22289331/panasonic-farting-cat-robot

Since I have EF lenses, I am delighted it has an EF mount. All these other mounts is why I struggle to upgrade to fullframe. It means choosing between RF, L or E or any others. I prefer to avoid adaptors if I can. Having so much invested in MFT only for Panasonic to cut their MFT almost dead in favour of FF makes me reluctant to invest totally too much in 1 system. Didn't Canon have a M series of lenses too. At least with EF lenses, there is plenty of them and at good 2nd hand prices too. Even the C70 has an adaptor to use them. The future should be cameras with interchangeable mounts, so you're not limited to just one system.

It's a manufacturing supply thing. The majority of their cameras already use the EF mount. Their molds are designed for this. They sell their cameras for a lot less than their competitors, for similar, or better features, they aren't going to change now and lose the little money they make on each camera. Not to mention, they've decided to market their cameras to a larger demographic than just cinema and the majority of those other people use EF lenses, or lenses that easily adapt to the EF mount.

Panasonic should release a S5S (lol) with Sony's 12MP sensor in A7SIII but without a mechanical shutter and a internal ND solution. Throw in some kind of internal RAW of some kind and it will be attractive vs A7SIII even without Sony level AF. With a good telephoto it can take great pictures. But, I agree. Panasonic should make a future video centric camera more like a FX3 than the GH5S.

Ugh, the X-T3 and 4 have a nasty artificial and plastic looking image with strong temporal filtering on top of the excessive sharpening which gets thrown on the footage even when it's set to -4. Even the A7s3 performs better in that regard. Really no comparison to the S1H with NR set to -1.

This AF and IBIS question always pops up with BMD and is starting to feel redundant. I don't think it will ever happen in a Blackmagic Camera for the following reasons: - Blackmagic is cine-oriented towards workflows where these features are not needed - IBIS and internal NDs are largely incompatible, BMD has chosen the latter - Good AF requires a large amount of R&D, patents and/or licensing - BMD neither has the patents nor have they shown any interest to pay for licensing - this is to keep their products cheap. This is a perfect summary of the subject and it actually made laugh, because it's so simple and to the point. May I add to that. Many cameras have good autofocus. Many cameras have not. This one doesn't and won't unless there are rapid technological advances (LIDAR or similar) and BMD decides to incorporate them.

Olympus said that their 6 stop IBIS is hard to improve because of the Earth rotation...I guess that when you power up this Canon the planet will go backwards (hope that prices too).

Autofocus is not necessary for many reasons. It's also necessary for many reasons.

Exactly as you said : ) Properly spec'd, obviously :- )

Me too. I'm going witb S35 until I've made my mind up about fullframe. Pocket 6K Pro will be first non MFT since Canon 60d I owned 10 years ago. You can still transcode BRAW footage in Resolve. I did it to supply footage to clients and it took no time at all. Depends on how quick your turnaround is. You'd might have better luck simply familiarising yourself with the cut page in Resolve.

That's not my point at all. Ideally a class will provide the best equipment possible. It's just not feasible for many film programs to have enough "higher end" cameras for large classes. Having high fidelity cameras doesn't hinder an instructor from teaching or grading composition and lighting, and narrative if the class covers that. Meh, it's not that I really care since I'm not getting one of these either way, I just think that there's disproportionate dislike towards EF mounts, compared to what's actually useful. It feels like car snobs talking about how stick shifts are marginally better when most consumers just want to drive from point A to B.

God forbid unsubstantiated opinions! GU, CVP have done some rigorous testing—up to 12800 is clean and usable. Above that, the Fx6 is the way to go with the higher iso kicking in at 12800, with NR controls to avoid the heavy artifacts in the a7s3. As far as dynamic range, GU, deep in Sony's pocket at this point, nonetheless acknowledges that the c70 has better dynamic range than either a7s or fx6, which is quite remarkable because the c70 has a super35 sensor. CineD also corroborated this w/ the c300iii, using the same sensor and codec as the c70. That somewhat makes it even more exciting, because the focal reducer transforms the c70 into another camera really.

@tupp By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus. Some lenses don't work at all. Adapters between different manufacturers will always have that risk. RF to EF is much safer, since the same company could make firmware updates on both ends to fix bugs that they missed in testing. I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses. I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic. As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it. Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost. How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF? If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.

There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing. The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter. Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras. For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility). Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts. Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount. Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations? Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body -- looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance. Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench. If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside. Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount. If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount. However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary. Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users? Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts. Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:

These two pieces of software can do similar things but they really are quite different. Studio Artist is really just focussed on 2D effects like those seen in the video above, and these effects are some of the most interesting "natural looking" motion effects I have come across using affordable and quite flexible software. AE (aftereffects) has a lot more to offer alongside producing these type of effects, which makes the two difficult to compare. You are correct the range of things AE can do makes it quite complex, but that also means it can be deep and get you to places that other people can't recreate very easily if you are wanting to produce work that communicates using your own "voice". The original video you posted seems to have been made using a range of analogue and digital techniques, and the techniques used in the video are used alongside the imagery to help to communicate the artist's / filmmaker's message. I don't know your intentions with the films you want to produce. But would recommend you test out different ways of communicating the things you want to say, this will show you the direction of the tools you will need. The main reason for recommending Studio Artist was that it has a free demo which allows you to explore and see if it's useful before investing, you want to find tools that provide the flexibility to help you to tell your message. AE should also have a demo period although I think Adobe don't give you much time to see if it fits the needs of an experimental animator. I would also recommend doing some searches for "experimental" work on Vimeo / Ubuweb to find a range of work and artists you like, as these will help you find your own voice by giving you lots of techniques to try out 🙂

Not talking about color, which can be altered anyway or just by using better Rec709 conversions than the ones provided by Panasonic which quite frankly aren't great. The processing is the culprit. Even with noise reduction and sharpening both set to -4 (lowest) and interframe NR OFF the X-T4 showed more sharpening artifacts than my GH5 even with lots of ghosting and smearing on top. Also color separation and tonality on Fuji cameras using F-Log both internally and externally is quite awful. Maybe the HLG workflow @Llaasseerr mentioned helps with both issues but didn't try that myself.

It’s statements like this that have made me step away form this forum. It seems every forum post is some over dramatic hyperbole reaction or continuous anti canon pitchforks (I wonder why?). How can we have a serious conversation when people like you are saying the pocket 6k destroys the c70? It is the same camera as the pocket 6k - with a tilt screen and 6 stops of ND. That’s all it takes to “kill the C70”, which was being hailed 24 hours ago? The pocket 6k has BRAW over the c70. The c70 for the 20th time has a better sensor with more DR. The c70 has a better battery. The c70 has significantly better auto focus. The c70 records to dual SD cards. The c70 has a significantly better mount, with a speed booster that turns it into full frame. Wether any of these points mean anything to you or not, is besides the point. Even if you find the pocket 6k better for you because it has BRAW is besides the point. The point is that saying the pocket 6k “kills” the c70 is ridiculous. We live in a time where none of these cameras kill each other. A7s3, pocket 6k, c70, etc. are all amazing tools and in the right hands you’d be hard pressed to find folks that can even tell difference. I’m out.

Have exactly ZERO problems with the GH5S losing the mechanical shutter, and gaining an eND. How many people are buying the GH5S anyway for serious hard core photography usage? Ouch! I used to shoot with an a5100 (over heating SUUUUUUUUCKED! But otherwise I liked that camera), sad to hear AF hasn't got better than that standard set by the a5100 years ago.

Bang for buck with a tight tight budget, you still can't beat a Panasonic G85. You might even want to go cheaper, and check out a G7, leaves more spare dollars in the budget (which will disappear faster than you think). Just spend zero dollars on audio, and get someone else to do it instead.

The production company I work for has purchased the new 1.5x Aivascope from the Facebook page. I honestly love it. It’s certainly not perfectly, but it’s given us the flexibility we need to shoot anamorphic without totally breaking the bank. It’s quite easy to use as well. In my tests, I’ve found that the taking lens often gives the characteristics I’m looking to achieve. I feel the Aivascope is quite clinical and sharp. If I put a modern stills lens behind it, the image will be exactly that. However, if I put our Contax Zeiss set behind it, it takes on a totally new look. We shot a few spots with the Aivascope, Contax taking lens, and the S1H. I believe we used the 50mm 1.4 for most, with the 85mm 1.4 and 35-70 3.4 for some pickup shots. We shot mostly at f2.8

You are right, and you are a gentleman, because you didn't mention, that for ultimate precision your LUT is still the way to go. A matrix can get you close when you're lucky, but to transform all the color tweaks of a manufacturer, a 3D LUT is still the way to go.

What a honest and noble behavior - not just to admit similar quality, but also to further explain it. Hat down, sir.