Leaderboard

I looked at doing this partly because I liked the idea of this tiny micro camera but also just because ☝️

Pre sound there was no standard. 18FPS was kind-of the default. Most hand cranked cameras did 9 frames per crank, so two cranks per second becomes the defectors about standard. 16FPS is about the lower threshold where you start to not perceive continuous motion. 24 FPS only became the default with the introduction of sync sound in the late 30’s that required a slightly higher / faster playback. The first thirty years of cinema HAD NO STANDARD frame rate. They could have, and DID shoot a huge number of variations of frame rates. Just like we do today (for slow mo or under cranking) It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama.

My Blackmagic pocket 4k. Everything I need (in preference to my 6k). If I had an Arri or Venice then with the cr*p I produce I’d just end up looking like an entitled idiot. So perhaps, therefore, a Komodo would suit!

But if I would have only to buy one and carry with me? DJI Mini 4 Pro because flies too! LOL : ) On the ground to have with me all around? Osmo Pocket 3 or the new Ace Pro has also impressed me. Its 8K 24p looks like a winner there. A camera unfortunately or not is the one we can use. Going to a set? Ursa Mini Pro 12K, for some reason I've just purchased it :- )

Exactly. The video split alone appeals to the renter customer who are the ones who NEED to shoot 1200 rolls and then move to the next job (as described above) Those aren’t owner operators.

Sounds too good to be true. That would otherwise be ridiculous value...but it doesn't ring true just based on price. IBIS has more axis of stabilisation than lens OIS, but yes, you don't need lens stab if you have it in the body...though if both have it and they play nicely together, better still. Stabilisation is a whole topic on it's own though as in what do you want it to be? Locked off almost tripod like? Fuji is good at this. Wave it around like a gimbal? Olympus or latest Nikon very good. But back on price, you could get an OG S5 within the budget, but not a S5ii with a lens.

Re. L-mount lens choices - Don't forget the S5ii/iix is APS-C crop in 4k60p (and you can choose APS-C crop for other video modes), which means the cheap but good Pana 20-60mm 'kit' lens becomes about 90mm equivalent at the tele end. There's also a pixel-pixel crop mode, which is about 3x magnification in FHD so 180mm equivalent (at reduced video quality of course).

i have just founf a s5iix with 50 1.8 for 1699 euro. Can buy it by hand today!!

There's no currently active Sony or NEX hacks, so long dead I'm afraid. And it isn't very useful. I don't think it went very far beyond the menu language hack. There are much better areas to focus on if you're interested in camera hacks, like Magic Lantern, ML RAW and of course the GH1/GH2 with PTools. Also the Samsung NX1 with the Linux based hacks and high bitrates in H265.

Yes, I am based on similar input coming from acceptable lag on Insta360 products from their users I am also one of them, hence why I might end and actually am all enthusiastic with : ) The fact they've succeeded to launch to each most recent GoPro models seems to hint they're coming to improve their offer as far as that issue concerns. Reason why such reports like yours are priceless to go forward ; ) I can only be optimistic! :- )

It's not a bad thread though : ) I think it has ended more a promotion of 24p as preferred frame rate delivery than its opposite! LOL : ) Looking it from both perspectives and each arguments seems 24p is well alive! ; ) Not that we had the need for such discussion but they came so powerful on bright and nonsensical sides respectively I believe we are still more comfortable on the natural side of the thongs... oops, things! : D

I just know that at some point, maybe next year, maybe the year after, I am going to get some hipster stood next to granny with her iPad, shooting one of these things…

I found this video when searching for the lenses one above and just re-watched it. It talks about how David Fincher designed the colour palette of the movie Se7en to accentuate the story-telling aspects and heighten the climax. Spoilers for the movie Se7en from 1995, in case you haven't gotten around to seeing it yet lol. The underlying concept is that these choices are designed to provide psychological queues to the audience and heighten the excitement. Once again, none of this is remotely realistic, and does not aspire to realism as a goal, but does the opposite for dramatic effect. For those who like cameras and recording video and watch YT but don't really have much awareness of how cinema and high-end TV shows are created, these things might be completely new concepts and the above videos hopefully provide a glimpse behind the curtain. For those that think this stuff is purely for Hollywood and cinema, it's alive and well in the world of YT. Here's a video from Natalie Lynn, and is a great example of film-making techniques applied to personal travel videography, and is very emotive in a way that an impartial camera cannot achieve. and here's an interview and production breakdown of how it was created: Spoilers: it includes special lighting, she bought a smoke machine, spent a ridiculous amount of time in the edit, and lots of other things. It takes a lot of work to make things look effortless.

I have a few back-bone modded cameras. Usability tends to be a bit of a challenge. When they say they have the best luck with HDMI, I believe them completely. The cameras that I have are... Yi 4K+ - borderline unusable. No HDMI output, fairly high latency over wifi, minimal or no ability to punch in on internal screen. Can be OK if you can lock focus in a spot and leave it there (like for mounting on a car). C/CS mount w/ 1/2.3" sensor. Hero 7 - More usable than Yi, still really hard to use. HDMI output has insane lag. Wifi tolerable, can punch in on internal screen in photo mode (and maybe in a limited fashion in video? It's been a bit). C/CS mount w/ 1/2.3" sensor Insta360 One R 1" edition - My "gold standard" - No HDMI output available, wifi lag acceptable, double tap on internal screen to punch in makes it the easiest of the bunch to focus. Passive Micro 4/3 mount w/ 1" sensor. I wish the One R could do wired preview to an iPhone, but at least mine only seems to have an option for wired Android connection (maybe the One RS body improves that? I should double-check whether I have one). If it could do wired preview with low latency, it would be completely usable (though with poor dynamic range). Anyway, I keep an EF adapter on my One R and occasionally mount it to the back of a telephoto lens to turn it into a super telephoto (5.7k 1" sensor + EF 100-400L = 1080mm lens - add 1.4x teleconverter for 1500mm - with some ability to crop in since the source image is already 5.7k). So the best answers for "why do this?" 1) 1/2.3" sensor works with tiny C mount (and even some D mount) lenses. "That bulk and weight" is less than just about any S35 camera. 2) 1" sensor = 2.7x crop vs FF, give or take - 1/2.3" sensor = 5.6x crop factor vs FF. Want a thing that's about 1/3 the size of your other camera body and you can easily mount it to your long telephoto lens to get some extra reach? 3) It's fun. All things considered, if the RX0 has a low-latency HDMI output, it might actually be the best option (still) for a Back-Bone camera - it has a "big" sensor and one can use focus tools on the external screen.

Since we started using SSDs the RAM limitations were much less impactful, but WOW does OSX fall apart if you run out of SSD space! It becomes a struggle to even use the computer to delete some files and recover, things just unravel.. I moved from PC to Mac in 2012, and at the time the experience was night and day. Since then OSX has definitely become far less reliable. The phrase "it just works" was definitely true, but since then that's stopped being the case - I think that started with the update that broke a bunch of people's WIFI (something to do with Airdrop I think). I also understand that Windows has mostly sorted itself out as well, so that's true also. I have a background in tech and at the time I knew that Windows was fiddly because I was sick of having to fix this thing or that thing, but it wasn't until I actually switched that I really understood the difference. It was like I used to have an angry neighbour who would come and interrupt what I was doing every few days, waste my time, make me angry, and would then go away and I'd have to calm down and remember what I was meant to be doing.... and then all-of-a-sudden they moved away! At first you don't notice it directly, but then you're like "oh wait... hang on!" and things are suddenly much nicer 🙂 For the few things that I have wanted to do that weren't natively supported since switching to Mac, I can just bring up a command prompt and have the full power of a unix implementation, which is spectacular. Having DOS sitting underneath Windows is a poor substitute if you want to do something that the OS doesn't provide functionality for. It likely depends on what you want to do of course, but the combination of Apple's design simplicity (and forced workflows) and Unix underneath seems like a better experience than Windows and DOS underneath it.

Here's a video that explains the basics of lens choice: Perhaps the single biggest take-away from this video is how the cinematographer is speaking - he is talking about how he wants the audience to feel, not what is 'realistic'. In fact he introduces the video by saying "Hello. I'm Tom Single and I've been a cinematographer for the past 40 years. Today I'm going to be focusing on how film-makers achieve the desired mood as it relates to lens choices". Think about that... "the desired mood". Realism isn't the goal, and it's not even relevant to the context. It's completely besides the point for the industry that he's in. You can take almost any aspect of film-making and when you find very experienced people talking about it, it will always be discussed in the context of the mood and perceptual associations you want to create.

8K 24P Test in Low Light with the Low-light Stabilization Setting used When I Move with the Camera It appears that the low-light stabilization setting pushes up the shutter speed and ISO. You can see that in those clips (identified by whether or not I am moving with the camera) there is considerably more noise. The colors are retained and sharpness does not seem to be reduced, and the digital artifacts from low-light digital stabilization appear to be absent. Audio is good.

Distinct applications among them film production, VFX, film transfer.

1) Peter Jackson is not a DP 2) even famous DPs have to respond to market forces (and heck, their ability to accurately feel the pulse of the market forces is quite likely a contributing factor why they're a famous DoP) Earlier you gave an example of a HFR 60fps film, which was actually a 24fps film Not "no cost", but very minimal cost vs the overall production budget.

I would imagine there would be a niche larger than you might think. I think the revival of 35mm still film is a reasonable parallel - it is much easier to shoot digital and emulate it in post with one of the many excellent plugins available. But people like shooting film because it's somehow "authentic". Noam Kroll shoots a lot on film, as I am sure you're aware, shooting a number of short films on it, and shot this ad on super 8mm: https://noamkroll.com/shooting-super-8mm-red-gemini-for-banana-republic-in-joshua-tree/

Been a while since I've made something that wasn't a paid gig. I made a music video for my friends' band with the TTArtisan 25mm 1.33x Anamorphic lens and the Sony ZV-E10. My first real video shot with either (the camera was delivered literally 15 minutes before I left to shoot the video). Also the first real video I've edited with Resolve (I finally quit Adobe). A lot of firsts here haha.

Actually, the Orange and Teal look is copied from reality (but sometimes dramatically overdone). Any time the sun is shining and the sky is blue then objects that are lit directly from the sun will appear one colour and objects in the shade will be lit solely from reflected light, which a significant amount will have come from the blue sky, so shadows are more blue than things lit by the sun, and in comparison, things lit by the sun are more orange (the opposite of the colour of the sky) than the shadows. This is a subtle effect, but is observable. I did the test myself. Here's a RAW photo of my fence at sunset: If we radically juice up the saturation, then we get this: and if we shift the white-balance cooler, then we get this: So, although reality doesn't look anything like how strong this colour grade is, the orange/teal look is part of reality, not a fictional thing that's made up. Also, a great many movie colour grades don't have the orange and teal look. Here are a bunch of movie stills from Blockbusters: (you have to click and expand the image to view it large enough) Many of them are almost one hue, with almost zero colour separation: But, once again, since you missed the point I was trying to make... with all the equipment and talent these movies have at their disposal, why on earth would they look like this if they were trying to make them look realistic? You've got it all wrong - it's the other way around. People who make movies want to make things a certain way, and shooting 24p is one of the (dozens / hundreds) of ways they accomplish this. I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make? Genuinely? If it was simply that movies were in 24p but were trying to be as real as possible in every other way, then yes, you could make the argument that it was a legacy choice, but there is practically no aspect of movie-making that is trying to imitate reality. I think you're exactly right. If these movies were 'realistic' then they would look like small reality shows. The evolution of film-making started by recording theatre productions. There were no cuts, it was like you were sitting in the crowd watching a play. They didn't think they could edit because real-life doesn't suddenly jump to a new location. When they worked out that cutting was fine and the human mind didn't get disoriented if you did it, they still thought that the mind wouldn't understand if there were jumps in time, so they had continuity editing, which meant that if someone entered the room then you'd have the whole sequence of them opening the door, walking through it, closing it behind them, then walking across the room, and only then starting to speak to the person inside. Turns out we're completely fine with cutting most of that out - in dreams we experience time jumps and the theory is that we're fine with time jumps because dreams do it. The history of film-making is a journey from one-shot films that made you feel like you were at a theatre production, and have gradually evolved into Bayhem, Momento, Interstellar, etc. If anyone wanted realism then they've been walking in the wrong direction for an entire century now. Either the entire history of cinema was done by people who are completely incompetent, or, they're aiming at something different than you are.

I'd still like one 🙂

Ay caramba! It's real easy: "worse" means the technical aspect of the film makes it harder to watch bc it distracts you from the story. That's why 24fps is the standard for cinema. If you're willing to deviate from that standard you better have a very good reason to do so. The Hobbit DID NOT have a valid reason for doing this 48p stuff. None. Jackson learned this lesson the hard way.

Gaming has been here for decades. Younger audiences are used to and have seen a lot of HFR. Several very top shelf filmmakers have TRIED. Digital means there’s no cost difference to shoot HFR. It failed every time. It’s not just legacy.

I guess you're in the 1% who actually liked the horrendously artificial movement fluidity of the movie. And that's coming from a guy who has read every Tolkien book and movie ever produced (yes including the animated ones). The contraste between the CGI and the real-life characters of The Hobbit is jarring and imposible to "un-see". Progress is great except when it makes something worse, friend.

Ohhhh... what made you go for the URSA Mini 12K? What will you be using it on?

Exactly.

Why do we almost never film only with a normal field of view? Why do we purposefully distort reality by choosing these range of other focal lengths to film with? Why do we light scenes in a manner that you're highly unlikely to come across randomly in real life in a natural manner? Why is 180VR massively unpopular vs conventional films when 180VR is so much "closer to realism"?

Maybe. Or perhaps 46fps would have flopped eventually, and it was naturally to drift to 24fps (or similar, such as 23fps or 25fps) as the framerate of choice

The same way TV didn't kill radio, the screen didn't extinguish the stage ; ) Or vice versa?? : D Does it matter what comes next? Really? ;- ) LOL

sometimes people are talented on something. you cannot tell. in 2008, when i predicted that 5d2 was going to kill ex1/ex3 and 2/3 pro eng cams, someone raised the same question, what credential do you have to make sure this prediction is right. It just came out correct 10 years later, and he never admitted his previous stance and suspicion and arrogance later when i see him.

I guess absolute freedom of speech... : ) I think Marty aka @PannySVHS is more focused towards credentials on this one 'cause a certain level of democracy typifies to weigh variables for making it fair and balanced. Ignorance cannot equal its opposite. It's all about that IMHO (EAG :- )

IF TRUE. This rumor is weird. Its like a wishlist by someone who saw A9III commercials, and at the same time its like the source knows the limitations of the Z9 sensor. Its like the guy is half troll half legit.

Maybe you should lead with that instead of making troll-baiting posts with a title of “24p is outdated”. You can’t even tell when watching the difference between 24P and HFR. It’s an objectively wrong statement. End of story.

You, perhaps deliberately, miss the point. Just because something is “outdated” doesn’t diminish its desirability. Just because there are a lot of arguments in favour of 60 fps doesn’t diminish the fact that a lot of people prefer 24. There is no objectively correct fps!

OK You just screwed your own argument. Titanic was photographed at good old 24 FPS. You can’t even tell. Maybe just turn the fluid motion feature on your TV on and be happy. Avatar is a 3D cartoon. Perfect for hyper realism. Great use of HFR for that specific story telling example. Hobbit was a disaster. So much that they CHANGED the approach back for subsequent films. You’re alone in this opinion.

I just got home from the Porsche garage without the 911 I ordered. Someone on the bus there told me that petrol engines were outdated…

r1mx hfr 120p 2k is not good. r1mx is not for hfr. r1mx 24p 4.5k ws redcode 42 is the best it can have.

Ah, you mean the faddish "orange and teal" look? I find that weird. To me, it adds nothing to a movie. I hope that trend goes away soon, and it takes shaky hand-held footage, and artificial grain with it to the rubbish heap of history. Movies, IMO, are about plot, dialog, and, secondarily, action (when appropriate). I couldn't care less about what some production designer thinks is high art. Asteroid City was an extreme example. I guess I'm just different than most people on this forum. While others prefer movies to be art above all, even if it deviates from reality, I prefer technical accuracy.

I agree, 24fps is more abstract, less in-the-face, and this means it is a tool to deploy with a logic behind using it. At this sweet spot frame rate it lets the audience's mind wonder, they will have more capacity for the emotional impact of the story rather than sitting there like hypnotised chickens or a droog in A Clockwork Orange with matchsticks in his eyes. It is more melecony, more wistful and poetic, can you imagine converting a Tarkovsky film and all that visual poetry and symbolism to an in-your-face documentary/reality style at 60fps, it just wouldn't suit it. A quiet scene of dialogue and suspense is not supposed to be a visceral hypnotic rollercoaster either, and the camera is there simply to observe and not supposed to snap you out of the story, cinema is supposed to immerse you in it and 24p does that very well. On the other hand if I want to feel like I am watching reality through a window, then 8K 60p would do the job perfectly but the higher the resolution, visual fidelity and frame rate, the more the emphasis in your brain changes towards the visual stimuli and your mind has less capacity remaining for everything else, such as feeling emotional impact of the story and so on. This is why the Hobbit was such a bad fit for 3D 48p, it became hypnotic as if you were standing on a film set looking at props, rather than escaping into a fairytale fantasy. Nobody laughed, nobody engaged emotionally in the screenings I went to of it. Although that was partly the fault of it being a bit rubbish, the format didn't help at all.

I found with my own YouTube stuff that 24p and vintage lenses don't suit the content! It is better to film it as reality, with a clear view on the studio and myself. So this is why blanket statements don't work... It all depends on what you're filming.

Right. But realism is not absence of representation. The problem here is people come to discuss things they don't have clue about : ) With the due respect, it's not because someone is a skilled film professional in one or another technical aspect of this craft, I will discuss film aesthetics from some other departments of this same craft with. To each their own. And opinion doesn't convert a fact either. There is who understands it and who doesn't and never will. - EAG :- )

A VERY strong contender for me and could have been an outright winner for me, except for one thing, and that is I am taking the MarkusPix 'one and done' approach and including a lens. There isn't a single lens in the L Mount line up that swings it for me. If I had to pick just one, it would be the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 to pair it with, but then at 24mp, too short for my needs. But purely as a camera body, for stills and video, I'd choose it over anything and everything else.

Only if a new and much better camera module for the Pi comes out

When I made the move from Windows to Mac, the primary reason I did that was I wanted to use a computer, but not have a part time job as a systems administrator, which is what Windows forces you to do in order to just use the computer. I was stunned at the time how much time I used to have to spend on the computer not doing the things I wanted to do, but doing technical things to enable those things to be done. TBH I'm over that, so while I'm perfectly capable of managing the IT of a medium sized business, I'd rather just use the computer for what I want to use it for, and not have to troubleshoot an array of file and network management infrastructure.

It's hipster heaven. Will look great sitting next to my wooden headphones!

Honestly I’m holding out a bit longer, until 2045. Surely there will be better options then.

I have a suspect that this panasonic kit is stolen...the seller act as a someone who do these kind of business

i guess on a clothing forum, the question will be "how many thongs do you have?" "no thongs, no freedom of speech." lol.