Leaderboard

It's a "no excuses" filmmaking world now. Obviously the new tools basically mean that creative folks can make studio level cinema. For instance, there are super-talented colleagues in my town that have made feature films on their own with pretty much zero crew. Their latest is a wild and lovely silly movie, but it's better than most things out there and looks just as good. Literally made on 1% of a studio budget. https://www.heavenofhorror.com/reviews/the-island-of-lost-girls-2022-fantasia/

My experience shooting 8K RAW with the Nikon Z8 is similar - the 8K videos look stunning even viewed in 8K on 4K monitors. Of course, extracting stills from video slips runs up against shooting at low frame rates and shutter speeds. I shoot at 8K 60p because I am into "you are there" video, not filmic video. And shooting at 1/125th is sufficient for most stills-from-video to avoid blur. An 8K video, and extracted 8K stills: You can only watch this in 8K using the Chrome browser - neither Edge nor safari will display in 8k no matter what (actually I got to select 8K just clicking on the video here and I am using Edge!?). Some extracted stills:

Also just realized how cool this camera will be with the Techart PRO TZM-02 leica M autofocus adapter.

I have been using the gx85 for awhile hooked up through an aver media live gamer 2 plus for video and a shotgun mic through a scarlet audio interface. I had the scarlet audio interface and acquired the live gamer during covid. It's a nice set up, but if I were buying today I'd get something like the roland UVC-02 to have both audio and video through one interface. I'm using the audio technica at-875r for audio and it's way overkill, but sounds great and is tiny. the gx85 has been way overkill too, but looks great I mainly have the 20mm 1.7 parked on there to get a bit more separation.

Have a look at Aida. I use two (the cheap £330-ish basic model HD100A) in a home studio environment (with a basic BM Atem and Teams). Superb. https://aidaimaging.com

In response to the rise in video conferencing during COVID both Panasonic and Sony release bridge applications to allow a lot of their cameras to show up as webcams. The Panasonic one will work with your GH5 but if you are buying something dedicated then it also works with their earwig exit aperture compliant G100 MFT camera which is a good value nowadays. https://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/soft/download/lumix_webcam.html Sony’s version is a bit more broad as it also includes the compact fixed lens cameras as well as a lot of earlier cameras that you can now pick up used at a good price including some FF options. https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/app/webcam/en/download/

People focus in some other directions. So-called professionals because that's for a living : ) This doesn't mean someone outside is not able to show up with more knowledge about ; ) A bit like film critics or a few so-called movie industry experts, the best ones are far to be the most famous ones : ) The same for cell phone cameras, they're the best sellers but this says too little and definitely not prone to offer the best outcome ;- ) Like blockbusters when arthouse is handicraft and is needless to say much more complex to be made as art form, free from formulas in the bag.

Sony ZV-E10 or Canon R50 with USB (computer will recognize it as webcam, no software needed) or if u want to use those 4k hdmi usb adapter (elgato camlink 4k) then any used cam with clean hdmi out will do.

Another test, this time from our good friend Matti..

OK but... @kyebeats the most part of professionals I've met... Fact. :- )

Samesies. I may go for the gusto and adopt an iPhone 15 system and try it out and see how it goes instead of dropping $ for a mirrorless. Could be interesting

Enthusiast.

Yeah, in fact : ) But I mean those from people's background with this iPhone thing... It's a whole new world experience, I guess or no?

Learn how to grade it in post to look like a normal camera. I recommend a small radius blur. .....and if you've kept reading after "blur" then congratulations, the camera nerds are gone and it's just us creative people left. Here's the best advice that I saved for a select audience - tell a good story. That is all.

Great post and well made points. I'd suggest that MFT is more suitable for any form of film-making that is focused on story/plot/emotion/meaning because it protects you from moronic ideas like shooting with a 50mm lens at maximum TONEH, which beyond shooting a scene where someone is on serious drugs, is creatively inappropriate.

I'm reminded of the comments from @John Brawley talking about how he used a super-minimal setup based on the BMMCC when shooting The Resident. Obviously these are all completely controlled sets with lighting etc all dialled in, so external shots out in the world would need a bit more rig perhaps. John spoke about how the size of the rig allowed him to get much closer to the actors like you see with him holding it out in front literally between the actors, which would have been a different equation had it been bigger / heavier.

Canon R5 is the true game charger and I m glade I got it, since after firmware update there is no overheating warming for me, and I have actually shoot 8K footage to be used on LED wall for a commercial project with it. But most of the time is still 4k for me.

Also a no for me. Micro pancake lenses on a 1 inch sensor simply can't rival with S35/FF + nice glass. The DoF on an iPhone makes it look like everything was shot at f11. Don't even get me started on "cinematic mode". Then you have the handling/ergonomics. Dials, buttons, aperture rings etc are essential to me. I don't even know how you'd go about putting things like ND's on an iPhone or quality audio. Now for social media or vertical B-roll sure it sounds nice. My biggest gripe I guess is that you have to buy an iPhone 15 Pro to have log. You know they could give you log in other models including older models. If anything pros would prefer to disable all the image processing.

But how much would you be willing to pay extra for the larger sensor and lenses that cover it? After all, many lenses have masks that minimize flare but also limit the image coverage to a rectangle. Let's say lenses for a square 36 mm times 36 mm sonsor would have 1/2 stop smaller apertures and 50% higher price as a result, and camera body would also be 50% more expensive. Flash sync speed would be 1/125 s and sensor read time 50% longer. Would you still want it, and would you expect that everyone would be fine with it so that mass production would be realistic and square sensors would replace rectangular ones all over the market?

Let look at their minimum setup I see fx3 with atomos ninja v and npf battery, this setup will be around 1.25kg Vs Fx6 with battery will be 1.34kg already, add the same ninja v setup will be 1.9kg So that is 50% more weight already.

I don't think anyone is questioning the future of Panasonic though ? It is where they are at and/or heading within this specific format that is under discussion as they are in rude health within the FF market. Again, the camera (which as I've said umpteen times looks very good) and the form/format are very different things. The idea of a compact system that offers the "optimal balance of high image quality, compactness and lightweight in cameras with interchangeable lenses" to quote the actual MFT organisation itself is surely challenged when it becomes the same size as a full frame system from the same manufacturer. We need to examine the word 'dead' in the context of what it actually means to a camera system. It isn't 'dead' as in the absolute discontinuation of all MFT products. Which means it isn't yet 'dead' in terms of the stated ethos of it as a format by the MFT organisation as, if nothing else, BMD have just released a camera that actually fits within those aims. We also don't know whether Panasonic might also have a camera up their sleeves (or in their pocket) that will more closely align with that ethos. I'd say that a more appropriate word, as it currently stands, would more likely be 'moribund'. In a hippier time, it might be described as the 'scene' being 'dead' (man). Indicating that what it was is not currently what it is. But what it is might well work for many people so thats all fine too. I was using it to provide some light relief to this thread 🙂 And to show my own innate hypocrisy and how you can't really rely on the meanderings of a random old fella on the internet. I emphatically agree with both of you that the notion of all MFT cameras having to be small is both a nonsense and ludicrous. Which is why I haven't actually stated that. Equally, the notion that all MFT cameras having to be the same size as a FF camera is also both a nonsense and ludicrous. There is room for both. Its just that Panasonic haven't released one for three years which was the ill fated (but actually not without its merits) G100. With the 12-32m kit lens it was around £600 before it was discontinued and it really did fit with the ethos of MFT as we originally understood it and how the MFT organisation still describe it. It showed that when motivated by hatred (Sony's dominance of the vlogging market) that Panasonic could still do it despite the intervening four years prior to that (the G80 launch) they had been making ever bigger bodies. Time marches on, of course, and things change so if the price that has to be paid now (physically and literally) to move the story along from the G80 (which unlike the G100 had IBIS) in terms of video spec then so be it. Of course, Panasonic are not the only MFT player in town so maybe Olympus will offer that alternative. Yes, the extra reach of the 100-400 on MFT would need the Sigma 150-600 to equal on FF L mount which results in a significant size disadvantage. This is an example where it makes sense both as a format in general anyway but also as a camera itself, if the price to pay for that performance has to be that form factor. Thus far, it appears that it must because there is no alternative with that spec. Maybe I will pre-order one after all 😂

It's not just about the extra buttons for speedier usage, it is also about the tonnes of extra features that makes life easier: TC Built in ND filters Multiple (independent!) outputs SDI output(s) etc etc etc etc Eh, I've been working since last week on a fairly "uncontrolled set" (man, I wish I had more control over the racket being made! Too much noise) and this camera is "rigged up" that we're using (if anything, this is a more minimalistic setup for itself currently, as it is stripped down for the ever suffering Steadicam Op): It's only 250gm difference between a FX6 and FX3 body, so the difference would often be not even close to as much as 25% between the two rigs.

Yeah when the first rumours of this project being shot on an FX3 came out that was my initial reaction, that this was more of a marketing promo angle. But after reading that article it seems like the directors ethos for this was to see how far down he could go "leaning on a new wave of affordable, lightweight filmmaking technology — Edwards stripped everything down to its essentials to inject more spontaneity and creative freedom into a process that felt needlessly rigid." Doesn't seem like it was so much a budget choice but more likely compact lightweight oriented. and while the FX6/FX9 aren't huge, once they get rigged up with V-mount, follow-focus, monitor, cine lens, matte box, wireless transmitters etc.. they aren't really super handheld anymore. I mean here is the FX3 fully rigged up and its not exactly compact at that point:

I think the Hollywood machine will largely remain the same. However, this will inspire many, many indie or lower budget productions. I really hope Edwards/Fraser detail how using such small camera package impacted the overall production. I imagine the time savings were immense. And, I imagine the FX3's low light abilities affected how they lit the picture.

I don't think much will change. The studios are basically large corporations, and corporations are essentially assembly Iines for whatever they're doing, and they resist anyone trying to change the process. He said as much in the article. I also don't think many people are going to come along and challenge them the way he is. It sounds like he's capable of thinking about making movies in different ways because he's done lots of the parts himself and knows how things all fit together. This is rare. Most people only know how to do step 17 or step 89 of the process, and will resist trying to do it any other way because they are threatened because they think they'll lose their job, or threatened because they might be forced to learn something new.