Leaderboard

I no longer shoot 4k or higher video for people, unless the whole point of the shot is detail in the skin and eyes. Sure, I could add a blur mask or something, but I'm quite happy with the 1080p resolution. For anything not people or wide shots, 4k makes more sense IMO.

Good article about the shooting process here https://www.leitz-cine.com/interview/lukasz-zal-psc As with 'Belgravia' it was shot on a Venice. Although, going the Shane Meadows route, they had ten of them rolling simultaneously.

One of the best uses of a clinical sharp image recently has been Zone of Interest. It's truly chilling. The clinical, clean, 'psychopathic' deep depth of field extenuates the banality of evil, and there is something very Nazi-ish about hyper crisp detail that really suits the mood. But then I never expect anything less than genius from Jonathan Glazer. Oscar was well deserved. Just proves that even anti-cinematic cinematography has a place... Sometimes.

I am going to release on the blog a little EOSHD LOG C3 profile for Panasonic's full frame cameras and perhaps the GH6. Happy to give it out for free to any of you folk who'd like to try it out in return for a bit of feedback and some test shots. It will make your camera compatible with the ARRI look library and ALEXA LUTS. It should also be a bit easier to grade than V-LOG. It also brings ARRI LOG C wide colour gamut to the Panasonic cams. No need to wait for GH7 and pay $200 for the privilege! Happy to answer any questions relating to it and what cameras it'll work best on...

As the 4032 x 2268 RAW video is listed as [FX] (full-frame) in the tables, I think it probably is down-sampled - a couple of pages from the Z6 iii manual:

Imperfections, flaws are not necessarily unaesthetic but the opposite when they can be creatively worked into the aesthetic object and serve the subject included. - EAG

Is the 4K raw downsampled from 6K, thus not really raw?

Too clinical to me. Not something I expect from a narrative feature.

This is the normal bitrate, they have a higher bitrate one, it at least give you the capability to shoot raw at what used to be normal h264/265 bitrate.

I've just had a skip through a couple of episodes and the only really jarring shots to me are when they've gone with very wide aperture on longer lenses in bright interiors. Because of the sharpness - particularly when characters are sat on furniture with detailed fabrics - it lacks the smoothness of the other shots, particularly the lower light ones, as the focus just falls off a cliff. A lot of the exteriors suffer from it too to a certain extent with shorter lenses with narrower apertures. I say "suffer from" but the whole thing still looks pretty damn good.

And you are fairly right! : ) No vote still applies ; ) I've just added it, as said in Europa/Zentropa (1991) 'cause the truth resides with those who take sides, so I can't help myself and I am actually sick of some fallacy the geek inside us hints our inner side to believe : D

I cannot vote this, because I think both have their applications. for example, at the beginning of the story, typically there are some shots on whole view of the scene, I think it is better to be sharp. but for close up shots of actresses, dreamy look is much more forgiving and pleasant. ideally, the former ones will use red helium 8k with Zeiss master prime, the latter ones use Alexa with cooke or Leica c lenses.

LOL : ) Thanks! I told you perception is half way... I think it's high time already to add my vote then. Done ;- )

lens plays a critical role in the sharpness of the final image. I just checked my previous footage using em5 and shg 7-14. it looks punchy and colorful. I edited it in the lightsight free version, so the output is just 720p, but looks sharper than my c300 og 1080p c log footage. shg 7-14 plays a critical role here. em5's video modes are not good at all according to current criteria. definitely not as high res as c300 og. interesting findings. never thought about this.

If all you need is 4k24p raw, the bitrate is only 340mbs

I am wondering if sharpness might have something to do with it for me. As a reference, what do you think about this?

The whole pipeline counts. Production design, lighting, lens, filters, sensor, codec, post contribute to that. I've had awesome results with walimex lenses and gruesome ones. The reason for that were production design and lighting. I screwed up skintones with a golden reflector before and I messed up atmosphere with shooting at 3200K at tungsten, shot with a Cinecam. A sterile lens didn't help neither. Perfect point, because David Lynch can paint with any brush, I guess. Best option to just hire him for our projects.:) All problems solved. And Dune becomes actually something fun and engaging to watch!😊

Judging by "show results," everybody has chosen not to vote so far. 🙂 You'll get no objection from me that there's a happy medium between "coke bottle" and "counting the atoms in bricks 100 meters away." With this poll, the problem is at least partly that the example photos are a weird angle and of an uninteresting subject. Whatever lens was used, I don't care much for them.

I’m in.

I just watched Inland Empire. Now what?

Modern "cinematic" videos cut my eyeballs, but actual cinema doesn't. Please don't cut my eyeballs.

IBIS comparison with S9

Wow. The price of these is going to plummet on the grey market

Speaking of Tokyo, MapCamera have opened up reservations for the Z6iii this morning. The base price of ¥356,400 equates to a “don’t stop at that counter at the airport” price of £1815.00 The “stop at the counter price” would therefore be £2170.00 Depending on your preference for that counter at the airport, that is either a £984(35%) or £629(22.5%) saving on the UK price of £2799.

I don't think many people starting out are considering DSLRs over mirrorless. The stuff I see, even a bargain like a $1k D850 just seems to sit on the store shelves. The Z6 III isn't for people starting out anyway, it is aimed at existing Nikon DSLR users and owners of the Z6, and Z6 II... Plus they are hopeful a bunch of people might switch from other manufacturers, but it would be a brave beginner who drops $2.5k on their first camera body and a further $3k on lenses. So the $1500-2000 market and beginner market are two very different things. I am talking about the $1500-2000 range of enthusiasts who aren't beginners. The Z6 III is priced about $1000 too high for them especially in the UK. They have a massive range of mirrorless cameras to choose from on the used camera market. X-H2, X-H2S, GH6, A7 IV, A7S II, A7R II, A7R III, A7C, Z6 II, there's loads... Over at WEX they even have a special Z6 II Ukraine War Edition: ... It's sponsored by Leica, with pretty Sony crayon mode dial colours. Saw a GFX 50S for £1200 the other day, so if we take video out of the equation for these people... And realise they can go medium format 50 megapixel for that price... the Z6 III doesn't even come into their thinking at all. Why pay double the price for half the image quality?

I'm sure on the 15th time @BTM_Pixyou'll finally get it done right.

The key to this approach is to maximise the savings to offset the cost of the trip to Japan so you get together a massive and definitive list of everything camera and lens wise that you will ever, ever, ever need and buy it in one go. It has to be all the stuff you'll ever need though so you won't ever have to buy anything else ever again in your photographic career. I've done that on fourteen different occasions now.