Leaderboard

It really does just look like every other camera out there. The content is all dross. Not a cinematic or emotional moment in any of it. Though of course that isn't the camera's fault is it? It is brash eye candy only fit for tv ads. I would expect the X-H2S's image to be very good but so is the EOS R5C, A7 IV, GH6, OM1, Fp, Fp-L, 1D C, NX1, XT-4, A7S III and so on. If it makes full use of the film simulations with ability to simulate grain styles like the Alexa 35 and has 14 stops dynamic range in 6K then I'll change my mind. Then it is progress! Otherwise it is merely another good offer in a sea of good offers, if you get what I mean.

The thing that has always amused/bemused me about RED is how they portrayed themselves as the little guy fighting the battles for all the other little guys and how much they managed to sell that idea to their followers. Nothing says little guy fighting for the little guy quite like owning your own fucking island. Talking of defending patents and remote islands where there may or may not be an underground lair, has anyone heard from Jinnitech recently ?

I thought so too at first (its not that we're mean spirited OP, but there have been similar trolls before) but a quick check in post history and it seems consistent: That said, it also showcases a pattern.. from Sony to Fuji.. To Canon.. and now back to Sony..and Fuji? All in the span of about a year?! I mean these things do happen but have to ask don't you get tired of switching systems so often? seems like endless tail chasing and money drain. I don't wanna beat a dead horse but perhaps its time indeed to actually learn a bit about shooting & colorgrading! I really don't think the problem is with your cameras. You still haven't told us what your lens situation is either by the way ?

Some examples with the Sigma FP-L

It just rips off JPEG 2000 RED wasn't doing anything radically new that nobody else could imagine happening. They were very broad with that, as broad as they felt they could get away with? There was no other basis to it I feel.

Great. Do realize that will even take time, you’ll have to work at it for a while to get good results. Just don’t expect to be able to watch a few tutorials, and then instantly be amazing at color grading. In the world of filmmaking this stuff just takes lots of time to master. YouTube is great, and helps a lot a long the way, though even with all the YT vids in the world it will still take time to get good at color grading, exposing, etc.

I am really wondering why all these films showing the fuji have these muted colours. This look was supercool when the XT4 arived but has been used extensicely by the instagram crowd. I would love to see an example of a classical high key shot such as the "classical family on the beach at full sunlight commercial look" . It's all about the skintones.

@SRV1981 Here's the video that Mercer is referring to - it was shot with the BMMCC in Prores. The colour palette on the final film is golden/magenta, but the footage was all over the place with some shots being blue/yellow and some shots being quite green. I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from). The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way). The result was that the shots looked like bad home video. It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe. The best camera in the world doesn't help you. Perhaps to try and ram this point home, here are some camera tests where they exposed properly and applied the manufactures LUT, but did no colour grading. The USD$16,000 Canon C500ii: The $1500 Sigma FP: The USD$6,500 Sony A1: The USD$6,000 Red Komodo: Notice how they basically all look the same, and how none of them look even remotely like a finished colour graded image? I cannot emphasise this enough, buying "the right" camera and expecting great looking images is like buying "the right" paints and expecting your paintings to be like Leonardo Da Vinci.

Agreed about the GH2. Special image. A YouTuber named OWLBOT, who used a c100 mark ii for a long time, has an interesting video which touches on the unique look these older cams provide. He filmed it on an AF100 to prove his point.

GH2 certainly had character. Distinctive colour science. With the GH3 they switched to a Sony sensor for first time. GH4 they modernised the image processor quite a bit for 4K. GH5 I think has really nice colour science especially in 10bit but it is way more modern and clean. GH6 is more of the same I think, whereas the OM-1 has more character. It's not just the sensor or colour profiles, or LOG and which LUT, but how the white balance is baked in as well. Sometimes a bit of weirdness is good for character. I tell myself that when looking in a mirror too!

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii. Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled... But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that. Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves. I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care. I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable. Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?

Meanwhile Canon's version is 2500 euros! Any 16mm F2.8 zoom is going to take some serious glass, so these are not easy to make. I think it shows how much is going into the pockets of shareholders at the publicly listed companies vs private though. Sigma can do this kind of lens for 1600 euros less than a corporation. And they are making less of them too. Which means the profit margins at Canon / Sony / etc. are absolutely enormous and we're being seriously ripped off.

Sigma are certainly holding up their end of the bargain for the L mount alliance in creating a great set of compact size/price lens options. At €899 it is about 65% of the price of the slightly longer reaching Panasonic's 16-35mm but at f2.8 versus f4 of the Panasonic it is also a fair bit faster.

Come on, got to stay alive for the Panasonic GH7 with RED RAW but still no phase detect autofocus. Apparently RED Motion Mount was from a small company that could have revolutionised the industry. https://tessive.com/mechanical-shutter-comparison RED gobbled them up along with the patents. Which is probably why there is not a Tessive Time Filter and variable ND for the Panasonic GH6! Really nice technology once again being locked up on Jim's island away from commoners like us. Good job he was too distracted with sun glasses when the CMOS sensor was invented otherwise we'd still be shooting film! But again I have to ask... Where the fuck was Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji etc. when Jim was all over the Tessive Time Filter? For price of a months worth of sandwiches at Sony HQ they could have bought the tech.

There’s definitely an advantage. The bodies are usually more compact. Lenses are smaller and more affordable. Also more choice. (Sigma 18-35!) Get closer to the subject for less money (crop factor). Easier to manual focus, not always crazy shallow. Probably more useable shots. Not everyone likes the “gigantic” frame / shallow depth look. Easier to achieve deep focus look. More traditional shooting format. Still the standard.

I just really don't see any advantage to APSC cameras anymore. MFT I can see for birding, sports stuff. FF cameras have gotten so cheap I see no use for the sensor size now. A Sony A7 body is just as small, and their mirrorless lenses are amazingly small and light for FF.

If you read the patents carefully they usually describe a few possible ways of doing this or that as "claims", and then explicitly say "but not limited to these". For years I used to think Red's patents are limited to in-camera Bayer compression at ratios 6:1 or higher, because this ratio is repeatedly mentioned as a "claim". Apparently, this wasn't the case as demonstrated by their actions against BM and others.

@SRV1981 You keep bringing up the X100V.. it's a neat camera but really not as small as most may think, A7S3 is actually less large (and FX3 would be as tall without the EVF): Stick a pancake lens and an FX3 would be rather similar dimensions with the benefit of IBIS & FF. Of course you'll be missing the faux-Leica look and manual controls which are part of the charm. Just saying.

Bruh this looks pretty damn good. I get and agree with your point but that film probably would have looked a lot worse on a T3i.

See in my subjective opinion, the C70 is fantastic for run&gun / travel, because it is so small and compact! But that's coming from my perspective of working on professional crews. That's why there are often no clear cut answers to anything, it all "depends". A freaking damn ALEXA LF is "compact" to one person, while another person's definition of compact won't ever be any bigger than a Sony RX100!! Same applies to lots of other measures you're judging a camera on.

This. A lot of stills glass looks ace, however most have awful MF. Build in a rock solid follow focus dial onto the camera, with options to adjust sensitivity, speed, tension, program A/B points etc. Stills lenses reborn! (wait, doesn't the Ronin 4D have this?) I quite like follow focuses with proper cine gears, but they are a bit annoying for handheld work. Can be a bit heavy when all combined. Great on the shoulder though, but i barely work from the shoulder these days. +1 for internal ND's. So fed up of screw on VND's that tint the image! I remember the RX100 having a digital ND. It worked well but there was only like 2 settings or something. Needs to be stepless like the FX6 but digital instead.

Yeah that happens a LOT of times in various forums, I'm sure you've noticed it too. People have an idea of what they want, and just want confirmation of their choice, looking for feedback which matches their own opinions they've formed. The worst are those who come and ask "what camera should I buy, should I get XXX_Camera??" when they have already purchased XXX_Camera! haha 🤣 yeah, is awfully hard to argue against a camera which is 98% as good at well under half the cost! And besides, if a person buys an FX3 today, within a couple of years time it will feel "super outdated" (bit of sarcasm there!) when the S1Hmk2 or X-T5 comes out! If a person is going to feel that so soon, why not just get the S5 now instead?

Idk, it kinda feels like you're arguing with the people you've asked for advice because you've already made up your mind? Which is fine... go buy an FX3. As everybody has already said... it's a fine camera. But if you want advice, then listen to what people are telling you and asking you... what lenses do you own? What kind of video work do you want to do... personal, travel, documentary, music video, narrative. With that, of course there's a difference between a t3i and an FX3... but if you have zero experience color grading footage, then you would probably get better results with a t3i than you would with an FX3. sLog isn't the easiest Log profile to grade. So your R6, with a modified Neutral profile (ProLost Flat) would probably look better than the FX3. Also the GH6, shot in ProRes is probably on par with, or better than, the FX3. It will definitely have better stabilization. As far as the C70... well now you're talking a different classification of camera. If you can afford one, have video experience, plan on using it for work, etc... then it could be a great choice. But then you may as well get a Red Komodo. But why stop there? For a bit more you could get a C500 Mark II... for a little more than that you can get a Red V-Raptor... a bit more you can get an Alexa... surely that's a better camera... The point is that there's always a better camera. But cameras don't have a "cool" button. Roger Deakins, and others, would make video from a t3i look better than I would with an Alexa.

I've posted the trailer & BTS here earlier, here is the official page: Short film "AION" Trailer by Giulio Meliani Shot in ProRes HQ F-Log2 with the MK 18-55mm & Fujinon 19-90mm Cabrio Cinema Zoom. A7S3/FX3 are solid all-rounders but the shooting experience still lacks. R5C has it all except IBIS with internal RAW, 8K and full video assist tools, shutter angle, LUT import etc. XH2S is interesting as for $2500 you get 6K/4K120p, ProRes, Open Gate. Great DR & minimal RS. I do wish the video mode would have proper exposure tools, shutter angle, LUT support. That's still what a lot of these hybrids are missing. Only Panasonic & R5C seem to get it.

It will be an add on to the AFX and a standalone. It already works with any camera or lens with the addition of a €100 motor and a €5 gear ring on the lens. Panasonic's external wifi control protocol is not granular enough or fast enough for the precision required for the AFX. We might consider Amazon if Bezos uses the margin he would take off us to build some toilets for his employees who currently have to piss in a bottle.

It makes a Canon EOS R5C look like a biscuit tin. The transition ARRI made from film cameras to digital has been masterful. Some of the best engineering ever in any industry ever. Must be such a huge challenge to keep the electronics cool when they are so densely packed and sealed in. And that they are made to last a decade without going obsolete, is also a huge difference between ARRI and the rest.

I'm guilty of that too! Heh, here is a film I shot for a Master's thesis: Ok, it wasn't shot on an ARRI, as the Sony FS700 was the nicest camera they'd let us have (still darn nice for its time back then!) but I had a full set of nice Zeiss primes too. But meh, the end result is more a reflection of how few years of experience I had than anything else. It isn't a fair reflection of what the camera is capable of.

Just google "student film arri alexa" then deep dive into finding videos with the least views! ha 🤣 As lots and lots of students have shot truly awful looking short films using their university's borrowed ARRI ALEXA.

Speaking of the C300... if it's good enough for a Hollywood film by Ti West...

FX3 😉

Yeah, all that older stuff is getting amazingly cheap for what it cost not that long ago. But not much stuff done on sticks or shoulder mount anymore. And by the time you add the Raw recorder on the back of it well, it is a Huge package.

Oh and this :

Saw a Sony PMW-F5 go for a dollar under $2K recently Kinda wish I'd gone for that now instead of a FS7

I think more skilled DoPs were using the GH2 back then than today with the GH5. As back then GH2 was the best on offer short of spending big big time for a RED/ARRI But now, why would a professional DoP shoot with a GH5 when they can get a FS7/C300mk2/EVA1 for cheap instead?

Nothing like naked pics of a camera to get me feeling all hot and bothered! I think the body itself is "only" $65K-ish? But yeah, the whole package easily pushes close to $100K. Already exists. That's called Kinefinity and Z Cam.

Yeah, I had one of those. For the time they were pretty damn good. Learned a lot using it.

Put an ARRI sky panel S360 in there 🙂

Real, natural grain, which trumps digital sharpening any day of the week, usually is only captured in a legit uncompressed raw codec like CDNG (probably not the “fake BRAW). It is just stupid pleasing when you are in a well lit scenario with low ISO, and the RAW codec captures all the fine, discrete noise in the image. You won’t see that in a PeterMcKinnon video lol. Glad ARRI is embracing this.

ALEXA 35 has the following grain types: K445 Default P425 Cosmetic P325 Soft Cosmetic G733 Nostalgic G522 Soft Nostalgic F567 Clarity F578 High Clarity L345 Shadow H457 Deep Shadow Default is "Go-to for most situations. Smooth skin tones, excellent clarity and detail." And the others are either a softer texture or more grain, more vintage look. Well done ARRI for recognising the importance of real film grain in a digital camera! Faking it in post isn't the same. It also works hand in hand with sharpening. For example High Clarity offers "Greater sharpness and detail compared to the Default. Good for landscapes, trees, product shots. Even more detail than Clarity." This is really nice as in mirrorless cameras you get a ton of over sharpening artefacts if you want finer noise. The only way to do it is to ramp up the digital sharpness and ISOs, which isn't a nice combo! You can tell why ARRI are still favoured by filmmakers who are actually artists rather than marketing men.

Jeez... a production could take the casing off and use that as a prop in the next Bond film. All it needs is a countdown timer.

Some interesting teardown shots in it!

I don't think Red invented anything. They just took a bit of this and that from other peoples work and patented the hell out of it. They called it REDcode, that type of compression had been around since the 70's. Hell you think Sony, Ikegami ENG cameras were just shooting pure raw back in the day. A reel of tape would not have lasted 5 minutes in an ENG camera without compression. I would have spent more time changing tapes than shooting if that was the case. And all the TV shows were taped, Sure as hell not using raw data. This is WAY before Red cameras came out. Red's patent is just pure bullshit.

It isn't harsh light on his face. It's soft and diffused. It's a bounce light, reflected fill light. It isn't direct sunlight. Whenever somebody says that a certain brand rather than a specific tool shows "nasty specular highlights on skin" that is almost certainly a red flag for bias on this forum. It doesn't, what's out there just looks like any old marketing shit so far. Could have been shot with practically any camera of the last 5 years. There is nothing that stands out as special in relation to the X-H2S and it all looks too clean and too digital. Plus it is on YouTube - where are the original files? Show me the original files from the X-H2S and then you will convince me if it is a step forward or pretty much the same as everything else.

My point was going to be how even an old old GH2 can look good, and we're four generations on now. And also how different the images can be even with the same camera. Although I suspect you googled (or already knew about the famous Upstream Color) and figured that out.

The think the other reason is that YT in 4K is far superior to YT in 1080p, but what people don't realise is that it has nothing to do with the resolution and is simply a factor of the bitrate instead. Mix 1080p footage with 4K on a 4K timeline and upload to YT in 4K and it's really quite difficult to be able to spot which clips are which resolution.

There are at least two other users here, @kye and I, who agree with you.

I've put it through the superb Deepl.com AI translator and its come up with this:

I use Premiere. And I feel outdated 🤪

Resolve makes a lot more sense for independent video producers. Unless the client requires premiere. I use resolve for everything but fear I will lose jobs because I don’t use premiere. But premiere feels outdated, and lumetri color is much worse than resolve’s color.