Leaderboard

It goes above your budget but I just switched from the Blackmagic Micro to the Panasonic G9. In 4K the Ex Tele Crop mode gives you a 2.8x crop, very close to the 2.88x crop of the original Pocket and Micro. I got one used with Vlog already installed for $900. I'm very thrilled by this camera. You can get a 4K s16 without all the horrible moire and IR pollution. With Vlog and the Panasonic Vlog lut I'm getting great color and dynamic range. Plus with a focal reducer I have s35, and of course the native MFT sensor crop as well. And I can still use all my c-mount lenses. And I have IBIS and good battery life, and more importantly, I don't have to rig it up to make it more usable. A friend of mine still has a Micro, so I may be doing a side by side test soon.

Link is valid for 72 hours, and the file size is 700MB. Music video has a NSFW due to language.

We've certainly talked about resolution, and other Yedlin videos have been linked in this forum. I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered. Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.). One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images. Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos. By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match. Also, I am not sure that his resolution demo is valid, as he seems to be showing different resolutions on the same monitor. I noticed in one passage that he was zoomed in to see individual pixels, and, when switching between resolutions, the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image. Something is wrong with that comparison. To properly demonstrate resolution differences in regards to discernible detail, one really must show a 6K-captured image on a 6K monitor, a 4K-captured image on a 4K monitor and an HD/2K captured image on an HD/2K monitor, etc. -- and all monitors must be the same size and and same distance from the viewer. The only other demonstration that I have seen by Yedlin also had significant flaws. Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as how resolution influences color depth and how higher resolution can help transcend conversion/algorithmic losses and how higher resolution allows for cropping, etc. There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen. Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous. I would put the Panavision Genesis (and it's little brother, the Sony F35) up against an Alexa any day, and the Genesis has lower resolution and less dynamic range than the Alexa. However, the Genesis has a lush, striped, RGB, CCD with true HD -- 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups. Similarly, I recall that the Dalsa Origin demos showed a thick image (it shot 16-bit, 4K), and the Thompson Viper HD CCD camera yielded great footage. I certainly agree that there is a threshold beyond which higher resolution generally is not necessary in most cases, and I think that that such a threshold has been mentioned a few times in this forum. On the other hand, I don't think that such a threshold is absolute, as so much of imaging is subjective and a lot of SD productions are still very compelling today. I have shot a fair amount of film, but I would not say that the image quality of film is "better." It's easier (and more forgiving) to shoot film in some ways, but video is easier in many other ways and it can give a great image. Exactly.

There’s some irony here... People talk about the UMP 12K because it is new and exciting tech. If Steve only cared about image quality, he would just shoot 35 or 65 and be done with it. For better or for worse, he’s clearly a tech dork and is obsessed with perfectly the digital capture techniques. Image quality is all subjective, anyway.

Yes, as he says in the video, people are just looking at that ONE number to make easy choice as to which camera is better. Maybe this is what separates a real cinematographer from wannabes. The image is what counts, not the megapixels (after you get to the "accepted" amount of detail threshold).

The other link is trash. Best to download the file instead of playing it, as my upload bandwidth is severely limited. Let's see if you can tell where the quality takes a dump, and that is where I went from shooting from H.264 to H.265. https://www.myqnapcloud.com/smartshare/6g774717np2m262q22u220y2_6CkDTsX Password: NOLIES

I've posted them quite a few times, but it seems like people aren't interested. They don't follow the links or read the content, and after repeating myths that Steve easily demonstrates to be false, the people go back to talking about if 6K is enough resolution to film a wedding or a CEO talking about quarterly returns, or if they should get the UMP 12K. I mentioned this in another thread recently, but it's been over a decade since the Alexa was first released and we have cameras that shoot RAW in 4, 9, and 16 times the resolution of the Alexa, but the Alexa still has obviously superior image quality, so I really wonder what the hell it is that we're even talking about here....

I've been watching some resolution insights by cinematographer Steve Yeldin that I think many might find very interesting. Not sure if this has already been posted... It would be interesting to discuss.

Well then as a camera for video, it’s confused as hell. Certain crop settings offer better dynamic range? You only get phase detection at a different crop setting than that? Even adding Phase detection seems pointless then because it’s of no use for video here because it’s not going to be able to do useable continuous AF while shooting. Why would you ever shoot at 1x crop knowing you are taking a hit in IQ? They blocked the ability to shoot raw video externally with the EVF? So many weird things for a camera just aimed at video. My suggestion that it was aimed more at photographers was my attempt to throw them a bone, give them an excuse.

Well my new (used but like new) S1H arrived today. Pleasantly surprised because it is neither as big nor as heavy as I was expecting. In fact, I'd say in the hands, in terms of size, weight and ergos, it's just about perfect. I look forward to testing it this weekend ahead of next week's small commercial/marketing job.

I do. Rolling shutter is terrible, dynamic range too. For the same price you have better options. Unless your only requirement is small body size.

I'd recommend you watch the whole video. It was rather eye-opening for me. His point is to gather data without any imperfections if possible and add value to his content through a streamlined image processing pipeline, regardless the camera used to capture. I highly doubt any viewer would ever see a flaw with his strategy. I'm aware that sharpness is not detail... and he covers that in the video too. Another major point is that no manufacturer is making a new human retina; therefore, the maximum detail has already been hit (even with 1080p!). Any more efforts at showing more detail would require sitting much closer to the content at which point you'd find yourself moving your head around to see the scene, taking you pointlessly out of the story. No viewer wants that.

Not at all. The lack of mechanical shutter makes it almost unusable as a photo camera unless you just shoot landscapes. The silent shutter (ie non-mechanical) on the A7r4 is just a gimmick (because of the rolling shutter) - I have used it once (and regretted it). Of course the stacked sensor on A91/A9ii/A1 are a different story.

If you are looking at older cams and want a recommendation. Check out the Digital Bolex D16 and/or Black Magic 2.5K. You really can't beat those guys when it comes to that special look.

There was a recent reaction video that @Tito Ferradans posted, reacting to a video about anamorphic lenses that was published on another YT channel. Apart from fact-checking the other video, almost to death considering that it got a lot of information wrong about anamorphic lenses, Tito also mentioned that the other video had used shots from his video without permission, and that he went through the process to have it taken down as they used his content without his permission. So I think you're meant to get permission, regardless of the circumstances, and if you don't then you leave yourself open to take-down requests. I've heard instances where people had their own content taken-down by other people who claimed their content as their own, and the mechanisms seemed to be skewed towards taking the content down, instead of leaving it up by default. Also, considering I mentioned Tito and anamorphics, go watch his channel - it's awesome! https://www.youtube.com/user/tferradans

Was considering getting an EVA1 to compliment my S1 but I am kinda waiting on Panasonic to make its next move before I do.

its working....

Save your money and buy a Lumix 12-35 2.8 IS and a nice external battery for your pocket! You can solve the problem with stabilization by using an IS lens and the battery fix is very cheap and effective. No need. The Zhiyun Weebill is 400 and does a great job. Smaller, lighter, more portable, battery goes forever with the bmpcc. Gotta be close to 8 or 9 hours. Attached a photo of my setup. I'm working on a project with vintage C mount lenses. Not trying to win some sort of depth of field contest. The camera has beautiful texture and looks great at F8 or F11. OLPF shows up next week. Throw a 4 stop ND on there and rate it at ISO50 with a light meter.

Rolling shutter is the worst I've ever seen. Shame. Does look like it has true 24p though.