Leaderboard

I agree on the focus on the influencer kids. In terms of if Nikon should let RED die, that's a tough call. They could retain the R&D benefits of the RED team (which is likely to have a very very different internal culture to the rest of Nikon and would be best kept separated) but without the RED guys talking directly to folks in Hollywood their ability to do R&D would be drastically reduced. RED definitely are a minor player, but they're not without any contacts.

What a bunch of non sense from people like you. Nikon has their own tech, the Z9 is superior to the Sony Burano 30k camera!!! They could build a Burano killer tomorrow with the z9 internals, they don't absolutely need RED tech if they wanted to go into the video camera world. But can you show me any of Canon, Panasonic or Fuji with even a tenth of that resumé https://www.red.com/shot-on-red. Please show us, I am sure Canon has be used on the likes of blockbusters like Dr strange, Spiderman, Aquaman, Guardian of the Galaxy, The Suicide SQUAD, The flash and some of the biggest TV shows like the Witcher etc etc. I will wait, to think their are some people who think a company will throw away such a legacy is just dumb. If you don't even know the basic of branding, why Honda who sells Civics, invested billions on an F1 engine, or Renaud doing the same while they sell Clio's. The people from Nikon have said not to expect anything Tomorrow, not because imbecile are going to say they will kill RED, but because it takes time. RED just released a 8k 120fps global shutter camera, vista vision camera. What do you think, they are selling Canon rebel 50, you think release cameras every six months.

...with a lot of makeup, lighting, and color correction. Definitely true, which is why I also said that I don't believe any mainstream brand is objectively better than others. Most of the people posting here have said that in one way or another.

You asked "what brands are you usually happy with color wise?" Good colour in an image is basically skin-tones - get them right and the image is good and get them wrong and nothing else matters. The way to get good skin tones is to film someone with the best skin tones you can find, use makeup to improve the skin-tones in your images, and to colour grade the skin-tones in post. Great skin-tones (and great coloured images) aren't created by cameras - they're created on-set and in post. Trying to choose the right camera to get good colour is like trying to choose the right paint and paint brushes that will make your paintings into masterpieces. You're looking in the wrong place.

Vistek just dropped a pretty comprehensive video about how to test lenses, but it includes a bunch of really interesting stuff, ranging from what the various aberrations are, how to test for them, how to see them in the test images, and a range of other factors. He drew heavily from the incredible book The Cine Lens Manual: The Definitive Filmmaker's Guide to Cinema Lenses which is basically the new reference for lenses and has a whopping 836 pages and seems to have come down in price to only $175 or so (it was a lot more previously!)

I think it would be a much easier task to develop into this market rather than try and tackle head on the established ‘Hollywood’ industry. Pretentions of serious filmmaking? Then have someone use your new Nikon NX3’s on the sequel to ‘The Creator’, but otherwise, gifting 100 units to 100 Kool Kids for their YouTubes is extremely cost effective marketing.

This is true. However, people are also trying to share their experience with you. For example, if you said that you were hammering in nails with your camera and it was really damaging the camera and you asked how to make the camera tougher, people would reply telling you to buy a hammer. Is this answering the question? No. Are people trying to help you? Absolutely. You have asked a series of questions over the last month or so about technical aspects of cameras that don't have any relevance to real-world shooting except in very very specific scenarios, and when people reply you haven't given any information suggesting that you actually face these scenarios in your own work, you just seem to want to discuss things like these real-world considerations don't actually exist. For example - do you know what the best ways are to get great skin tones? Shoot someone with great skin tones Shoot someone with good skin tones and good makeup Shoot someone with not terrible skin tones and really good makeup Shoot someone with great makeup Shoot someone with good skin tones and ok makeup and do digital retouching in post Shoot someone with not terrible skin tones and good makeup and do good digital retouching in post Shoot someone with ok makeup and do really great digital retouching in post Notice that the camera didn't factor into that equation? I'm sure that you understand that make-up is a pretty big deal on a movie set, but you might not be aware of how much work goes into skin tones and retouching in post. They say that getting the skin tones right is about half of all colour grading effort. Here's a video showing the state-of-the-art tools that are dedicated to this - these tools wouldn't exist if there wasn't demand for it...... this is the tools in Baselight which is the main Resolve competitor.

More than $1k if you buy used. I saw one for <2k and almost got it, but that was when I was still waiting to see what BM would announce. I actually prefer the non-pro even for the same price because NP batteries are better for me. I use the app for monitoring so I don't want the monitor and don't need SDI. BNC timecode and more F buttons would be nice, though. IIRC F6 low jello is a crop mode, right? On the M4 it was a separate full sensor readout with considerably more noise. I rarely used it because it hurt the image too much--that MFT sensor definitely had no DR or noise to spare.

I agree - especially the last point. SRV1981 - 'Content is King'. Without decent, interesting content your audience is not going to care about image quality differences because they've stopped watching the movie. If the content is good, they won't be noticing the quality differences because they're engrossed in the story instead. As an example, I recently posted a video on my (niche, railfan orientated) YT channel using content I recorded 20-25 years ago on 720x576, 50i DV tape-based camcorders. The picture quality is terrible by today's standards (it's noisy, low resolution, has bad colour bleed, poor DR etc.). But the historical content, getting the most out of the ambient sound and keeping the editing reasonably fast-paced seems to have been popular and it's had over 500 views in 4 weeks. Which is pretty good for my channel. I've got other videos on the channel that I thought looked pretty good and were shot in 4k but have only had 60 views in a year... Below is a still from the editor timeline - note the burnt-out sky, the purple fringing along edge of the canopy, the over-saturated orange patch turning into red, the jaggies on the diagonals and the lack of resolution (and typical western Ireland wet weather!). No pixel-peeping needed to spot the technical defects 🙂

The answer is either putting in the time to learn colour grading, or putting in the time to earn money to buy multiples of the same camera so the image is identical.

I believe it only offers a S35 crop. Due to the compression methods from the 6K sensor, some say that the S35 crop is superior... but I didn't buy a FF camera to shoot in S35. And the difference is probably minimal and I don't care about minimal. But as usual, I'm probably the weirdo here, because I still prefer good 1080p over run of the mill 4K. For instance, I mentioned earlier that I think some lenses shine with certain cameras. After thorough testing, most lenses look pretty good in 4K. By that I mean, most vintage lenses have a certain level of sharpness that is good enough due to the 4K. In fact, I think vintage lenses help to tame the sharpness... resolution of 4K. Now with my 5D3/ML Raw, some of those same lenses just don't work. But with a more modern lens, the image looks really good, in my opinion better than the FP. Here's a shot from the 5D3 with the older non-Art Sigma 50mm 1.4... And here are a couple shots of the Takumar on the 5D3... Obviously, they're different shots so in some ways they're incomparable... And here's a B&W shot with the Tak on the 5D3 that's a lot more interesting... So what's my point... I have way more options than I need and B&W makes everything look cooler. That is all.