Leaderboard

Panasonic is easily my favorite consumer video brand. They have my favorite image, favorite tools, and the best approach for video-creators, in my opinion. The EVA-1 had a beautiful image and I did own it for some time. I agree that it really needed an MFT mount. The FS7 was so successful not just because of its specs, but because almost EVERYONE loved being able to use a speedbooster and their EF lenses on it. Same with the FS5. I knew a lot of owners of these cameras and only recently have people really started using native glass on them. With an MFT mount and the same sensor, users could have done the exact same thing on the EVA-1, while also having the option of using a 1.5x (give or take) MFT crop to use their MFT lenses and keep it small and light. And it did have a 5.7k sensor, so that would have been plenty for pixel-to-pixel 4k with an MFT lens. -- At this point, I think Panasonic should really avoid going after the C300s and FS7/FX9s of the world and give us something completely different with the EVA-2 (don't even call it that). If they put out an EVA-2 with the normal "new" specs (120fps in 4k, HDMI raw, maaybe 8k in h265), then I don't think they'll pull many FX6/C300/C70 owners away. Instead, give us a full-frame BGH-2 with all of those great specs, internal NDs, XLRs, and shake it up a bit. Z-Cam and the Komodo has shown that people really like this form factor.

I know it's an impossible thing to really quantify to other people, especially pros, but it's been true in my experience as well. I've just ended up preferring using Oly cams for some reason. Ergonomics I think. And it doesn't make sense because Oly's menu system is a bit of a jumble, but I guess once I learned it, it's been productive. I don't do a lot of high end stuff, and what I do (still) do is almost always hand-held run-n-gun. I get by easily with 8-bit. My cheap EM10iii with a variable ND does the job. Here's a recent thing I was hired for; half day shoot and half day editing with a script they recorded. Basic basic basic, but got the product delivered to the client as they requested. I'm not sure if I even used a high end camera for a gig like this it would've turned out much different. So, you know, for me, the rather simple tool is appropriate.

Maybe not most underrated but the Panasonic S1 is definately underrated outside of this forum. It's giving an FX9 quality image for peanuts. I would say it could compete with the C500 MK2 and C300 MK3 as well. The C500 can see into the shadows better by 2 stops or so, but it doesn't have dual native ISO. The Panasonic S1 can do 4000 iso with 4 stops of headroom in the highlights and a couple in the shadows. That punches the C500 dynamic range in the gut at the same ISO.

Cant say enough good things about the Siii as well. While not perfect it is an incredible tool. I also have fell in love with the smaller file size and look of the photos. I really try to stay with 640 or 12800 as well. Frame grab for a short I am working on. Crazy bright day on the boat.

Thanks so much for this thread! Just ordered my 300. First shoot next week! -Dave

I agree. It doesn't need to be as small as the BGH1 but I agree no need to make it bigger than it needs to be. I think full frame is a must, its definitely the preferred sensor size for the market the EVA1 falls into. A raw module made for the camera to capture prores RAW would be nice. I wouldn't mind if they went with an easily mountable V mount battery module too. Right now there is a spot to fill for a $6,000 full frame 6k camera. The FX6 takes the 4k spot, the RED Komodo is 6k but S35 and no ND's, the C70 is 4k and S35. The Z-cam F6 is 6k but its not as run and gun friendly as an EVA2 could be. The EVA1 just feels overpriced now considering you can get a full frame S1 or S5 for under 2k. I hope they don't go the 8k route, I just don't see the point outside of hype.

I was an EVA1 owner for 2 years. The problem with the camera was that it felt unfinished. It wasn't the most reliable and took irritatingly long to change frame rates. It would crash often. The EF mount also made the small and compact body a bit heavy, because of the EF lenses. For handheld use, it would get quite straining after 5-10 minutes. The 120fps + modes were disappointing. Just too soft. The spec was too late and should have been a bit more blockbuster, but the ageing FS7 was still spec'd better in a few departments. An EVA2 would have a huge task now in beating the FX6. It has a lovely image though and is certainly better than the FS7 for that. I enjoyed using it and made some work with it that I'm very proud of. Overall, it was a solid effort but they should have gave it another year of development, under cut the FS7 and knocked it out the park!

I have a fair bit of experience creating patterns and slashes on backgrounds, and unless the desired pattern is complex, you might be better off just cutting what you need out of foamcor and just casting a shadow. Slashes are easy to make with zero spill using bardoors and/or blackwrap. With foamcor patterns the spill is not that big of a problem, if you are careful with your doors/snoot and if you leave a big border around the pattern. If you really need to go with a projection fixture, consider a used Source 4 ellipsoidal. They have a nice punch and go for as low as US$175 on Ebay (sometimes with the pattern holder included). In addition, they take standard theatrical patterns -- there are zillions of them. If you anticipate working mostly in close quarters, get the 36-degree lens (or the 50-degree lens).

I should also say that I shot a few outings (walk on the beach / visit to a park / etc) in Prores LT and even Prores Proxy and what was interesting was that although you can see the compression artefacts, the 'feel' of the footage didn't change, it still felt malleable and cooperative. I'd be tempted to say that the linear response and overall cooperative colours isn't matched by other cameras because they do something in their colour science to tint or otherwise process the shadows differently to the mids and highlights, which is why when you underexpose or overexpose and then adjust levels in post you don't get the same kind of image as if you shot it with the right exposure. However, I'm not sure if it's true. In theory if you process all colours the same, regardless of their luma value then you should be able to pull up underexposed shots or pull down overexposed shots and still keep the same colours. But it's more complicated than that to get a "neutral feeling image", because it doesn't work like that with magenta/green shifts in WB, like I obviously have in the above. If you have a WB control that essentially moves the whole vector scope around then you have to process all hues the same otherwise you'll bend the colour response. For example, imagine a scene where there is a white wall lit by three lights, one is neutral, one has a CTO gel and is mostly on one side and the other has a CTB gel and is on the other side. If you WB the camera properly, you should get a straight line on the vector scope going from orange to cyan through the middle of the scope. Now imagine we introduce a magenta shift in the WB of the camera. We'll get a straight line on the vector scope, but it won't go through the middle of the scope, it will pass on the magenta side of the curve. Here's the kicker - the BMMCC rotates and desaturates hues on the magenta and green sides of the vector scope, which will bend that line. If we then adjust that line in post we won't have to pull it towards green as far because the magenta got desaturated (quite a lot actually) and that will mean we still have magenta in the warm and cooler parts of the image - the middle of the wall will look neutral but the sides will look magenta. If we adjust further towards green the sides of the wall will be warm/cool but not magenta or green, but now the middle of the wall will be green. I haven't done this test, but I do know that the camera desaturates the magenta and green parts of the vector scope. It's actually quite a long way from neutral, you'd be amazed at how something so distorted could look so nice. I don't have the BMMCC one handy, but this what the Kodak 2382 film emulation LUTs in Resolve does, which the BMMCC and Alexa would be doing similar things to. Unprocessed vs processed: Note that hues are rotated, saturation is compressed, blues and green are desaturated and yellows are quite saturated. Having said all that, I don't know what the BMMCC is doing because if you shoot something and then adjust the green/magenta WB it doesn't feel like it's falling apart or that colours are going off in that way. Maybe they are but I just haven't noticed, or maybe there is some 'buffer' built into the skin tone areas so that if you get the WB wrong the skin tones will behave predictably when you try and recover them in post. Who knows.

Well I've done a tonne of research and I think I've actually come back full circle to the projection lens. I was previously leaning towards getting some barn-doors and using cookies/flags, but that still seemed like a lot of extra gear (and space) dedicated to reducing spill. I think I've figured out what that I need: Godox SA-P Projection Attachment (which comes with an 85mm lens) Godox SA-17 Adapter (which makes it fit on to a standard bowens mount) Selection of Godox Gobos This seems like it will do what I need, based on what reviews I could find, although I do wish it was available somewhere as a full kit rather than having to buy all the components individually - I just hope I'm not missing something.

Very Interesting.

I think of all the video-capable cameras I've owned, the Pana G6 (which Andrew dubbed the 'GH2 Redux' when he reviewed it) was almost perfect for me - small, light, fits nicely in the hand, mic input, FHD 50p/60p to MP4 files, a lever to control power zoom lenses (the last G series camera to have that), 'creative video' mode etc. and a simple uncluttered control layout. For stills (not video), it also had variable telephoto sensor crop controlled by the zoom lever. It's successors gained 4k video and then IBIS, but I think they lost some of the 'only what you really need' control simplicity along the way.

Used it on a shoot for the first time today. I was slightly worried about the fan noise beforehand but didn't even notice it on set. Certainly not enough to make me want to perform surgery on it and if there is any hum in the recordings, it should be nothing that a bit of noise reduction can't fix. I had a setup that was pretty much worst case scenario - a moderately wide shot looking out a window in to midday sun on a very bright day. It maxed out the FS300 but I was able to get a decent amount of wrap and fill on the subject. Lost the sky due to shooting in Rec709 (client request) but managed to keep most of the detail in the trees. I feel like if it had been log I could've saved the sky... maybe. It's a lot of light output for the price!

Yeah, the client wrote it, recorded it. I edited to her script. This video work is indicative, I think, of my "90% rule." Meaning, I score shots from 1 (shit) to 100 (perfection), and often try to hit a sweet spot of 90. Yes, you could do a bunch of other crafting to squeak out the final 10% to make the shots technically perfect, but the last 10% requires an ridiculously exponential amount of expense and effort. So, one tries to find a balance. I'd give myself an 80-85 on this stuff. It's all relative to what the client demands, what you demand of yourself, and what the budget allows. That all being said, the era of dudes like me delivering "90" is going away. Clients are okay with 30 these days. On the high end clients will expect 100. Seems like people in my range of stuff are not in demand so much anymore. p.s. I add a lot of grain in post. My ISO never went over 800 on this gig.