Leaderboard

You know that thats been said over and over again for several years now. But, you know whats funny... eventually... for as long as I've been on these forums... on an individual level (I don't know about the rest of you all)... the need to argue about tech dies down, and for me atleast the tech outpaces my initial arguments and I want to go out and shoot more often... You got to be humbled by the advancements... think about what you are coming from... I'm coming from the 7D and 5D Mark 2 era... and all I wanted was 4K/24p and 1080/120p - look where it is now. I never asked for IBIS or Video AF.... I never asked for DR over 12. <- These are just bonuses. I know people would be surprised when I say this... but I've never used IBIS and none of my cameras have IBIS (I still use a tripod, a 4ft slider and for special cases a 4ft crane - I borrow an 8 ft crane from a friend).

They say "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" and that describes exactly where I am with Virtual Production. The reason for setting off on this journey ? Curiosity in the process is one aspect - and is something I'm hoping will sustain when the expected big boulders block the route - but I also think VP is going to be a process that trickles down to lower budget projects faster than people might expect so it is something I'm keen to get involved in. What aspects of VP am I looking to learn about and get involved with ? In the first instance, it will be about simple static background replacement compositing but will move on to more "synthetic set" 3D territory both for narrative but also multi camera for virtual studio applications. There will also be a side aspect of creating 3D assets for the sets but that won't be happening until some comfort level of how to actually use them is achieved ! And the ultimate objective ? I'm not expecting to be producing The Mandalorian in my spare bedroom but I am hoping to end up in a position where a very low-fi version of the techniques used in it can be seen to be viable. I'm also hopeful that I can get a two camera virtual broadcast studio setup working for my upcoming YouTube crossover channel Shockface which is a vlog about a gangster who sells illicit thumbnails to haplessly addicted algorithm junkies. I'm fully expecting this journey to make regular stops at "Bewilderment", "Fuck Up", "Disillusionment" and "Poverty" but if you'd like to be an observer then keep an eye on this thread as it unfolds. Or more likely hurtles off the rails. Oh and from my initial research about the current state of play, there may well be a product or two that I develop along the way to use with it too...

Hallo Don, i think, i found an answer. The 2.5K mode uses almost half of the x-axis 5184 pixels of the Eos M sensor. That would equal about 10.7mm as the Eos M sensor counts 22.2mm sensor width. The og pocket counts 12.48mm width. So Magic Lantern Raw is providing a smaller sensor area than the OG Bmpcc.

For highly detailed & inexpensive virtual sets, check out DAZ 3D. I rendered these with a DAZ model by Jack Tomalin (with two different texture sets), imported to Maxon Cinema 4D. Its a great way to experiment with lighting setups: Stonemason is another great DAZ modeler for virtual interiors/exteriors: https://www.daz3d.com/the-streets-of-venice These models are generally less than $50 and are getting more detailed every year. Lately I’ve been looking at low cost motion capture systems. Anyone tried the Perception Neuron 3 system? - $2,400 https://www.neuronmocap.com/perception-neuron-3-motion-capture-system

Step 1 - The Pros And Not Pros So, to look at sort of what we want to end up with conceptually, this is the most obviously well discussed example of VP at the moment. Fundamentally, its about seamlessly blending real foreground people/objects synthetic backgrounds and its a new-ish take on the (very) old Hollywood staple of rear projection as used with varying degrees of success in the past. The difference now is that productions like The Mandalorian are using dynamically generated backgrounds created in real time to synchronise with the camera movement of the real camera that is filming the foreground content. Even just for a simple background replacement like in the driving examples from the old films, the new technique has huge advantages in terms of being able to sell the effect through changeable lighting and optical effect simulation on the background etc. Beyond that, though, the scope for the generation and re-configuring of complex background sets in real time is pretty amazing for creating series such as The Mandalorian. OK, so this is all well and good for a series that has a budget of $8.5m an episode, shot in an aircraft hangar sized building with more OLED screens than a Samsung production run and a small army of people working on it but what's in it for the rest of us ? Well, we are now at the point where it scales down and, whilst not exactly free, its becoming far more achievable at a lower budget level as we can see in this example. And it is that sort of level that I initially want to head towards and possibly spot some opportunities to add some more enhancements of my own in terms of camera integration. I'm pretty much going from a standing start with this stuff so there won't be anything exactly revolutionary in this journey as I'll largely be leaning pretty heavily on the findings of the many people who are way further down the track. In tomorrow's thrilling instalment, I'll be getting a rough kit list together and then having a long lie down after I've totted up the cost of it and have to re-calibrate my "at a budget level" definition.

Eos M has a 3x bitrate hack as well for the hardcore 8bit wizzards.:) Allowing massive S35 sensor size instead that tiny Super8 gate. What window size does Magic Lantern Raw allow on the Eos M? Super 16 would rock.

C and thanks, I hope so! 33 couples booked in with an average 2 days coverage each mostly and away 60+ nights during the Summer. So as long as there are no new super-variants, Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine or aliens invade, it should be a good creative year. That’s been the worst part for me, the near stagnation of creativity for 2 years. Yes I could go shoot other things, but the reality is I have little to no interest in shooting ‘other things’ so that would just be forced and doing something for the sake of it. No, I need to be back in my proper saddle again, have a good, (if stupidly busy) year and then next year settle back into my normal routine of max 24 jobs per annum.

Well at least it's got people talking. What are we on the 14th page of a product announced 5 days ago? A7IV thread I started early September barely got to page 3?! Snooze. Let's face it, this isn’t a very exciting time for the industry, still recovering from the on-going pandemic. Talking tech is part of doing the research, this isn’t exactly an affordable expense either.. That said, Canon is definitely the most polarising camera company when it comes to video. And rightfully so with all the shenanigans we’ve lived through the years (blocking ML, being slow to adapt to mirrorless and of course the most recent overheat-gate). But their strategy seems to be shaken up by RF mount, as they are eager to get people on-board including EF body Canon customers. The C70 with the Raw update will basically have the same exact IQ than the $11K C300 mk3. And this 5RC? cmon it packs a lot of heat (pun intended) for a price point much lower than expected: 8K60, 5.9K, 4K DCI, 2.9K. RAW Light options, XF-AVC, full cine OS with WFM, false color etc. No overheating, no recording time limits. 45MP still monster. It’s actually the highest resolution cine line product yet priced at entry-level. Crazy. Perfect though, no. No IBIS & micro-HDMI. No ND’s (then again no hybrid does). Not too many gotchas imo. YMMV.

Last year my friends and I put together a show which we filmed in virtual reality. We tried to make it as much like actual filmmaking as possible, except we were 1000 miles away. That didn't turn out to be as possible as we'd hoped, due to bugs and limited features. The engine is entirely built from scratch using Unity, so I was doing making patches every 10 minutes just to get it to work. Most of the 3D assets were made for the show, maybe 10% or so were found free on the web. Definitely one of the more difficult aspects was building a pipeline entirely remotely for scripts, storyboards, assets, recordings, and then at the very end the relatively simple task of collaborative remote editing with video and audio files. If you're interested you can watch it here (mature audiences) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLocS26VJsm_2dYcuwrN36ZgrOVtx49urd I've been toying with the idea of going solo on my own virtual production as well.

Yeah there is nothing special about medium format. Please if you happen to own a hasselblad or phase one system, put it on sale on ebay. Hurry before people notice how overpriced they are. I will happily buy your gear from you because I'm a very kind and generous idiot. I'm specially interested in outdated and primitve CCD backs like a IQ280 or a h5d60.

When I watch YouTuber Zeek I want to slit my wrists on how good he makes his videos and how good his output is. I am convinced he is the only person in the world that can do it lol. It sure isn't me. I would never discourage anyone from buying one, it is the cheapest way to learn how to grade and color raw files by Far. And if you have more desire than I have to just try 2000 times to learn it well it should work, I guess, I stress, I guess. 😬

Best quote of the year!

I went down the ML RAW path for a bit with my 700D. The files were fine but it was unreliable and a bit finicky in some ways. The 700D build was (at the time, not sure now) one of the most developed, but the RAW was still experimental at that time and I was using the 10-bit compressed variant, so multiple experimental features within an experimental build. @mercer says that the 5D build is rock solid and he never has any issues with his, which I think he shoots with on a weekly basis (or more). YouTuber Zeek has a channel which features a heap of EOS-M ML RAW material, so if you're looking for advice then his channel probably contains the stable builds and various tips for it.

I've re-read the last few pages of this thread and I'm pretty sure there's almost no actual communication happening, just people replying to something that they think the other person said (but often wasn't said and probably wasn't intended), forgetting what was said in previous posts, taking individual statements out of context, etc. I've also realised that this is the case with every thread about a new Canon camera, although it doesn't seem to be the case with cameras from almost any other brand. Something to reflect on. @Django @Emanuel @Video Hummus While I'm in a reflective mood I'll also say that I think that film-making is too complex a topic to discuss effectively, online at least, due to the sheer amount of interrelationships that happen (almost everything in film-making relates to almost everything else in some non-trivial way), and also due to the depth of technical knowledge required to understand what is going on. I've read entire exchanges on things like "can I downres 8-bit to get a 10-bit image" where every post contained a factual error. Concision is a real factor here too. Anyway, I hope that everyone is putting more effort into what they do with their equipment than they spend talking about it.

The people in the comments section have spoken and this is our nominated substitute for Chris Nickel-and-dime.

On the other hand, we have the shills, not exactly here but spread nowadays on YouTube who kill all the valuable information we are used to find on a few places like a brand agnostic voice as EOSHD still is. I believe that's why this discussion is yet possible between both sides and you're not exactly flooded with the customary paid BS. At least here. That said, I don't see anything wrong on taking ARRI ALEXA as parameter : ) Just committed with a couple of feature films shot along 1x Classic and 2x Mini for some good reason. Even though, in one of them, basically RED Dragon as preferred capture device other than the ALEXA Mini, mainly used for low light but not because the RED was not able to perform well as actualy was. Factually for narrative exigence, the circumstances were restricted to low light footage during the night time.

Tragic lantern and another special ML build will give you ALL-I H264, as well. You can get continuous, raw, ML video on the full sensor (1736x976), plus a bunch of crop modes with higher resolution.

@ZEEK posted these figures a little over a year ago: Evidently, the 2.8K mode is closest to BMPCC, and it works with Super16 lenses. However, it would be wise to watch some of the EOSM settings videos from @ZEEK , to see how much the resolution must be reduced to get continuous recording. Also, I think that reducing the resolution creates a smaller image capturing area.

That is a bit depressing. But as of late they have a lot of modes in the EOS-M. So I have been using 1080p mostly as of late. At times it can go for minutes not just seconds. It is a killer device but at my age I don't need to waste much time lol.

Not sure Panny.

I am looking forward to seeing more results from handheld tests by competent YouTube testers. The IBIS situation is the only thing that is keeping me from pre-ordering one. Canon is definitely the one with the most exciting releases at the moment (C70, R3, R5C). Panasonic seems like it is one foot from the grave, the Nikon Z9 has fantastic specs but I simply cannot even force myself to be interested in it, and Sony has never interested me. I think Sony made enough noise to finally convince Canon to put down the cripple hammer and start going all in not to mention they still have to compete against their own DSLR cameras that people like me are still holding onto.

They dismiss a lot and gloss over an insane amount, and it makes you wonder why. If they're only talking about shallow DOF as being the primary advantage of medium format, or portraying it this way - in a myth busting video - you have to dismiss 99% of the truth and focus on 1% misinformation otherwise it wouldn't work as clickbait. But I think mainly Chris and Jordan dismiss the incredible creativity behind medium format and lens selection because they don't understand it. They don't understand why you might shoot a close-up of a face at F11 on medium format, they dismiss the resolution of a larger sensor and the low light advantages as well, they also dismiss the video capabilities of something like a GFX 100, because they're your usual run of the mill Cansony shooters who take 1 or 2 seconds over a shot of a pavement or a wall, stick it in a video and call it art. In common with nearly all the "leading lights" in the clickbait industry I never see any images from these people that rise above the merely boring (some don't even qualify as eye candy!) but it would be great if for the next myth busting video Chris and Jordan could bust themselves by shooting some portraits on medium format vs full frame, and looking at the rendering of a classic medium format Hasselblad V lens vs your autofocus Sony, and maybe going even further and looking at the resolution of 100 megapixel vs whatever is the max on a Canon full frame camera (50?) Not a small difference is it!

The thing is, they don't looks the same. The testers even acknowledge that fact on the video (but they dismiss it). Furthermore, they didn't actually set the cameras to look the same -- they set the cameras mathematically, according to the DOF formula, but they disregarded any inaccuracies in the aperture markings, and they apparently didn't match the effective location of the apertures. Well, there actually seems to be general differences in the DOF from optics designed for different formats. The difference is not in the location of the front/back DOF -- the difference is in how the focus generally "falls off" within and without the DOF range. Unfortunately, like 99.99% of all such equivalency tests, we can't see how the focus falls off nor can we see the location of the front and back limits of the DOF range. Here is what we see in the videos main test : SOFT FG OBJECT >> AIR >> SHARP SUBJECT >> AIR >> SOFT INTERMEDIATE BG OBJECT >> AIR >> SOFT OPAQUE BG WALL Most such tests don't include the foreground object nor the intermediate background object, so I will give them credit for adding those items. However, to properly conduct any DOF or equivalency test there must be a continuous ruled surface (or continuous line of closely-spaced, uniform objects) that runs from the near foreground to the distant background. Such a proper set up will reveal the locations of the front/back DOF extremes and how the focus falls-off at those points and elsewhere.

It's not the case with digital where it is about how much light the sensor absorbs, not just how much light the lens is projecting. You can still have a noisy image at F1.2 It is up to the sensor to gather the light projected onto it. Some sensors like the Blackmagic Production Camera 4K with global shutter have a lot of front-side mounted circuitry that get in the way of using more of the available surface area for the diodes and microlenses. Of course in video we also need to take into account exposure times, frame rates, etc. because higher ISOs to compensate for higher frame rates, shorter exposures, result in less signal to noise ratio, thus less light in the end result. Nothing boring about the any camera let alone one as capable as the GH5 if you have good subject material to shoot and the right light. The full frame look is popular because like slow-mo it adds a special sauce to mundane scenes... that is the look of the lenses at fast apertures on a large sensor can be very beautiful. So to increase sensor size again with medium format does the same but more. Alas it still will depend on the talent behind the camera and what you're shooting, as any camera no matter how capable can be used in unappealing ways! I've seen enough puke HDR landscape shots from a GFX 100 to know that the camera's usually not to blame!!

I guess I’m just looking at it as a sum of its parts. As I see it OIS is already achieving its maximum benefits with very tiny incremental improvements (you can only move the glass around in the barrel of the lens so much). Same with IBIS. The sensor can only shift so much. Digital IS is all done in software. It can use feedback from gyro, accelerometers, OIS, and IBIS to achieve better results, limit the crop, limit the wobble, etc… I love IBIS. I’m not particularly bothered with it missing in the R5C because canon already has excellent lens OIS and I use native RF glass handheld. Digital IS helps a bit and is one button click away to disable. You can’t truly disable IBIS the way it is implemented in current cameras. There are no mechanical locks in place and a magnetic lock will still wobble with the kinds of magnets and power draw limits in cameras. So each their own.

Cheers.

Oh I don't deliver nor expect to deliver anything in 8K soon but I can certainly notice the increase in resolution of 6K/8K footage or 6K/8K oversampled 4K footage vs 1:1 4K even on a laptop screen. Of course on my 5K iMac Pro the difference becomes crystal clear. Also keep in mind R5C also shoots 5.9K which sounds like a good middle ground resolution option. Sharpness isn't the main allure of 6K/8K for me though but rather the cropping possibilities. Even on a simple talking head interview. But also on product shots where you can zoom, pan etc from a static shot. Basically the same type of tricks 4K allows when you're delivering HD but twice the crop amount and/or for 4K delivery. So I definitely could see where I take advantage of those +4K resolutions. I do hear what you mean about 8K footage looking too sharp/video but the key to alleviate that is using older/softer glass. All the R5 YT demos are using the super sharp/clinical RF glass. But pop even a EF 50 1.2L or older vintage FD lenses and you're probably in for a treat. For 8K stills, of course you might have to adapt shutter speed to avoid blur but the results can be quite nice: https://www.lauschsicht.ch/2022/01/19/canon-eos-r5c-erster-eindruck-review-und-film/ Still just on a IQ level, C70's DR & the low shadow noise and overall cinematic IQ of the C300II DGO sensor is definitely something to consider over 6K/8K resolution. The low DR on my R6 definitely limits certain types of shots, how you expose etc.

The usual with every thread about a new Canon camera. People need to argue against cameras??

All good points, I've not had much luck taking stills from video unless there's little movement in the shot - slow shutter speed always creates blur, I guess shooting in 50p and 1/100 or even 100p 1/200 and bringing back to 25p in post could work but may compromise quality. In my world I don't see 8k being asked for any time soon and by then there will likely be better and cheaper camera available. To be honest most of what I shoot still gets delivered in HD, your requirements may well be different of course. I would personally take better DR and usability over higher resolution and possible future proofing Haven't noticed softness in C70 footage but maybe subconsciously that's what I've liked about it, some of the R5 8k footage I've seen looks almost too sharp and video like. Admittedly I've only seen it on 4k screen so maybe it comes into its own viewed at native resolution. Not experienced an 8k screen yet Anyway nice to have choices I think you'd probably be happy with either, both camera produce a lovely image

What do you mean when you say "magical"? It's a bit of a strange word you can read all sorts of meanings into. Also you have to take the lenses together with what sensor size they look most interesting on. Oddly enough a lot of my full frame lenses look more interesting on a GFX camera even though they're designed for a full frame sensor. Some look better, some don't work. Likewise, put the vintage Canon Dream Lens 50mm F0.95 on Micro Four Thirds and the magical look is lost. Larger sensors have magical technical properties as well. More light gathering abilities per exposure, and usually higher dynamic range in RAW. That's not to say you can't fake it with smaller sensors by combining multiple frames like smartphones do and other advanced DR and noise reduction techniques, but the larger the sensor the cleaner the image all else being equal. GFX for me is magical, it has a different look with ALL of my lenses compared to full frame. Of course I have more lenses designed for full frame but the fun is in trying these on an even larger sensor, and capturing images with a look I've simply not been able to do before. I hope we can think in terms of matching lenses to cameras, not in basic terms of tech specs or shallow DOF. There are beautiful lenses and looks on ALL formats. Even smartphones with their computational optics and apps. Kern Switar 26mm F1.1 I would never trade in just because it only covers a relatively small Super 16mm sensor. The look is special. Canon Dream Lens I would never sell because it vignettes on medium format GFX mount. Medium format I would never give up because that's unique as well. So yes there is magic about a certain sensor size - both creative magic and technical - and in certain lenses when combined with particular sensor sizes. Please do not listen to the click weasels and their oversimplification equivalence BS.

I find sensor format discussion to be the least fruitfull discussion in the video/photo community. But I'll join it anyway with my opinion: - There isn't anything magical about any certain sensor sizes - "Full-frame" is the best choice in most situation simply because it's the most adopted format with a large selection og good lens and up-to-date image sensor and focusing technology - I enjoy shooting 6x9 and 4x5, but 4x5 is too impractical for everyday use

@stefanocps I've never used a modern GoPro, or a modern point-and-shoot either. My experience with threads like this is that either someone who has personal experience sees the thread and joins and gives useful advice, or they don't and they go no-where. People like me and @webrunner5 keep the thread alive by replying, giving you general advice to google and checking your logic, thus making it more likely someone with specific experience will see it and reply. Lots of threads on forums get zero replies and sink like a stone, especially on larger forums where something scrolls off the front page in a matter of hours. Considering no-one else has replied, I'd say you're on your own!

Haha on this last one I fully agree with you : ) Albeit not in general on the first paragraph :- ) BTW and in order to be clear, you're one of the most enthusiastic and unforgettable contributors over here, so please keep going with your legit love for the pictures expressed among us. Enjoyable. If there is one who has this merit, this guy is you : ) Love to be your reader and follow your perspective. There are other people to worth the same attention anyway, even with a different angle from yours. That's life and pretty healthy ; ) Cinema is also talking, in behalf of its improvement. Without it, no outcome to evolve or hardly serves for anything... To share is and will always be key, so thanks for sharing kye -- don't focus too much on this rhyme though ;- )

Kotaro became quite the celebrity after his sax playing exploits.

The people in the comments section always know more than the people in the video, even if they don't lol. I was just going to post a reply saying "where has this been all my life??" but I realise I watched one recently that was hilarious.... they try sparkling water! In a rare moment where every star in existence aligned, I sent that to my daughter while we were out at breakfast with a few of her friends and she played it for the whole table on her phone and everyone watched and for 5 whole minutes no-ones ADHD interrupted. I wouldn't have believed it was possible if I didn't actually witness it!

You might be able to check this for yourself by downloading raw stills of the studio comparison scene from older and newer cameras and then converting to DNG and then trying each of those workflows.

More biased hearsay. Netflix always pushes for highest resolution and hence most popular Netflix shows like Stranger Things or Zack Snyders Army of the Dead were shot on RED Monstro 8K: The Cameras Behind Popular Netflix Originals: Films and Series Of course ARRI get used but Varicam LT & Venice are probably even more popular due to form factor etc. In the end though, it's easy to base your CS reference point from your favorite show/film but again the actual camera used is only part of the equation, most of the "magic" happens in post with the pro colorist grading the footage. Here is an article about going FF on Ozark with the Venice, a very grade-heavy show. The DP states: "It’s been tough with the 4K camera equipment requirement, you’re basically looking at RED or Panasonic Varicam. The last few years have been amazing for cinematographers to have new choices.” How the Sony VENICE Evolved the Look of ‘Ozark’ And that was already 2 years ago. Today Netflix are pushing +4K capture. In short, ARRI isn't the only game in town..

LOL, I'm very familiar with 5D3 ML RAW. Shot with it for years. It had mojo sure! But so does the R series, and as a pro owner I think I'm qualified to "jump in" the discussion. I'm visibly not alone thinking R5/R5C has great CS/skintones. Actually the people claiming poor skin tones etc don't seem to be Canon shooters, including yourself. I'm just curious and challenging these comments. It's ok we don't have to agree, it's a subjective matter. But what are these views based upon? Random YT videos? Mushy old FHD 8-bit 5D3 compressed footage? I'm just trying to understand the point of reference. Again the point seems moot because R5/R5C has RAW in many flavours if 10-bit 4:2:2 log isn't good enough for your taste. Or is ARRI Alexa & 5D3 ML RAW the only worthy contenders of good skin tones in your playbook? If that's case you might be setting yourself up for eternal disappointment.

I got about 1.5 minutes into this one earlier today…and then said “nah” and flipped over to watch the latest day in the life adventure of Kotaro the otter.

They will have to make a correction video explaining why they are wrong. When people in the comment section know more than the guys writing the articles, maybe it's time to look for alternatives.

I do know a lot about it, I was one of the original people that pushed hard for people to buy one. I Never buy anything new. I have owned hundreds of cameras in my life. So I buy used so I can enjoy them or not and sell them down the road for not much of a loss. God damn there is the internet, get off your ass and watch 100 YouTube videos and make up your own mind. Everyone has different needs. I think personally you are not ever going to find what you are looking for. So just keep the damn GoPro and get off your butt and shoot. I am done suggesting anything to you, you seem like you want to be aggressive not regressive like you ought to be when you are asking for advice.

🤣 Unlikely. Not likely either. Which is sad, cause Samsung and Sony both presented papers on Triple Gain sensors (for smaller sensors, I guess), and if Panasonic wanted they could have made the most of the tech, for a M43 sensors. I thought it was established that the resolution advantage is mostly blurred after a certain point, and better noise, lenses etc mostly blur the lines. Steve Yedlin's and hundreds of other presentation on resolution go into the exaggerated claims and why after a point why it doesn't matter. Arri's discussion on it seems quite interesting. https://www.newsshooter.com/2015/08/14/arri-managing-director-franz-kraus-talks-about-resolution-hdr-and-the-arri-65/ Mist interesting of all, Sony presented its stacked CMOS image sensor technology with 2-Layer Transistor Pixel, widening Dynamic Range and Reduces Noise by approximately Doubling Saturation Signal Level (since surface area isn't being wasted, because the photo diode pixel transistor are in the same level (so only 50% area is used for the photo diode). Theoretically this should sensor at the same pixel seem much better in detail and dynamic range. The question would be, by how much. https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/news/2021/2021121601.html More than anything else I am curious why nobody feels the Blackmagic 12k Camera No Crop Resolutions is a big deal. Especially for its price point, shooting 12k at 60p 8k and 4k at 120fps, Without Cropping or Changing Your Field of View. Wonder why nobody seems to have gone that path.

Do these people even still make videos? Here's a thought...

Oh, hope they fixed the external HDMI lag also...

You're not comparing IBIS to in-camera digital image stabilisation in your video, which is what is relevant to the R5 versus R5c situation - you are comparing IBIS to post-production DIS. AFAIK modern in-camera DIS normally uses in-camera motion sensors to control it (as does sensor-shift IBIS), whereas stabilisation in post normally has to derive the motion information just from the video frame content (motion estimation/prediction). One exception to that is Sony with some A7 models that add camera motion sensor data as metadata to the video files, so their software can perform post-production DIS based on real camera movement data. I agree with you that you can't remove motion blur due to unintentional camera movement in post DIS - that needs OIS/IBIS. But I suspect that lens OIS + good in-camera DIS can get pretty close to what OIS + IBIS can achieve in a lot of situations, if it's properly integrated and implemented i.e. lens and body from same manufacturer. Personally, based on my experience with Panasonic GX80, G80 and G9, I almost always have the additional EIS enabled because (for my use cases) I think the minimal image quality degradation is outweighed by the increased stability and lower warping artefacts at wide angles.

I think there are really two paths forward, the addition of mind-bending specs or just doing a solid upgrade and rounding out the whole package. The A7S3 did the latter - it didn't up the resolution or any major features but just became a better all-around package. I'd be happy with a GH6 that was a GH5 with the weaknesses remedied. The GH5 was a workhorse with some weaknesses so I guess we'll see.

The crazy thing is that a couple years ago everybody was complaining that Canon wasn't giving its customers enough resolution. Now they give 8K and people still hate them.

@leslie You might wanna consider an additional IR cut filter when using stronger NDs. All BM cameras suffer rather strongly from IR polution. They also prefer 5600k over pure tungsten. Great idea with lego lighting.:) cheers

Yes, I'd say it's pretty significant. 12-bit Raw on the C300 just gives an added depth and richness to the image that 10-bit can't achieve. I was always amazed by the C200's raw and found it pretty stunning, but the DGO sensor adds a whole extra level of usability. This update makes the C70 probably the finest cinema camera under $9k. I also love that it's an even lighter version of raw (645mbps), which will make it way more useful in a variety of situations. Time and tests will tell, but I would think the 12-bit image should be a pretty big jump in IQ - and that's saying something coming from that sensor.

Yes, the EOS-M with ML Raw is the digital Super 8 camera - aside from the fiddly handling and ergonomics, where original Super 8 cameras were much better. The effective sensor size in 4:3 3x sensor crop is 6.62x4.96mm, which is slightly larger than Super 8's frame size of 5.79x4.01mm. When shooting 720p, the effective sensor size drops to 4.41x3.31, which almost exactly matches the older Double/Normal 8mm standard. I've used the EOS-M with real Super 8 lenses (an adapted Schneider Variogon 6-66mm/f1.8 with Leica M mount originally made for the Leicina Special camera and an Angenieux 8-64mm/f1.9 with c-mount originally made for Beaulieu cameras), with the following results: My workflow was different: - In both videos, Color Charts (X-Rite Passport Video) were shot for reference colors; - the .MLV files were converted to .DNG and imported, edited, graded and rendered in Resolve; - in the first video, no color correction/grading was done except lift/gamma/gain corrections + Neat Video on the low-light indoor shots at the end; - in the second video, a LUT based on DxO Film Pack's Kodachrome 25 emulation was used, on the final color correction node, for tweaking/styling the colors + FilmConvert's grain emulation was applied (without FilmConvert's color filters). Sound in both videos is out-of-the-camera, recorded with the internal mic. It's a nice, low-budget solution (all the more since you can nowadays pick up a used EOS-M body for about $100 - so I do even have two bodies). Quality Super 8 lenses are sharper on the small image circle than Canon's APS-C lenses (when so heavily cropped to 1:1 pixel sampling), but difficult to find on the second-hand market since only very few Super 8 cameras with interchangeable lenses existed. A note of caution: the Fujinon c-mount zoom of the Fuji ZC1000 Single 8 camera is a great lens but can't be adapted because its base is too thick to fully screw into the adapter. A d-mount adapter for adapting old Normal 8mm lenses (which are plenty available for cheap) unfortunately does not exist for EOS-M. Further drawbacks is the occasional funkiness of Magic Lantern, its incapability to memorize the movie crop setting upon startup, difficulty to precisely focus on the small display (since there's hardly any punch-in focus at 1:1 sensor sampling) and heavy file sizes due to uncompressed Raw recording. In addition, the Raw is not remotely as tweakable/pushable in post as the CinemaDNG recorded by the BM Pocket. But, of course, the Super 8 aesthetic is highly charming (and couldn't be emulated with the BM Pocket as well since you'd drop its resolution to SD in order to reach an S8 image circle on the sensor/use S8 lenses without vignetting). How were you able to set 18fps in MagicLantern? I haven't been aware of this possibility (and always shot 24fps). I'm not familiar with FCPX, but for optimal results, you should set the timeline to 18fps as well or at least a whole-number multiplier of it (such as 72fps) to avoid choppy motion.