Leaderboard

Update: Decided against the broken FP. With the X-M5 coming out for $800 and doing 12bit raw, hard to pass up.

I find that that image quality has been improving quite lot in all delivery systems; broadcast, cable, and streaming. Displays have also improved greatly. The bandwidth given to particular content can vary depending on various factors including network traffic (for streaming) and hardware used. My TV is a 48" 4K OLED Sony and it seems to render all content from different sources quite well. Although 4K looks better than FullHD which in turn looks better than SD, I don't have any problems watching network TV and enjoying it for the substance (when there is good content). I can see the differences between the different resolutions but it really doesn't bother me when the image quality, e.g., of older content is lower. To my eye, the Paris Olympics coverage seemed better technically than what I remember from previous Olympics, but it could be partly thanks to the new OLED panel. Although it was all HD, and nowadays a lot of content is available in 4K, I don't really find the HD content to be substantially worse. It's more like a higher level of aesthetic refinement is present in some of the newer content, but still the HD cable TV was quite fine and the substance was communicated well. I watched Equalizer 3 on Sony Core and that's a film made with the Arri Alexa 35 and one could really see the very fine image quality in high-contrast indoor scenes where the brightest part of the scenes (the windows) still had details. I think that's a nice touch but the contrast in the movie was used in a way which emphasized drama and didn't really feel like how things look when present in similar indoor locations: the brain really opens up those shadows and one can see a lot more than one could see in that movie. I think this is done mainly for dramatic effect, but I've felt quite a lot of content nowadays is excessively dramatized visually and TV news and similar content actually seems more realistic with natural contrast, more like "how one would see it" if viewing the scene in person than Hollywood productions which often go over the top. I don't think it is necessary for news to go 4K, HDR, or anything like that; there is enough detail even in the 1080i/25 that we get (some content is now 50 fps, and during some sports events the national TV broadcasting company also streamed 4K content of certain events like football (soccer)). I think for certain sports, higher resolution does have value, you can see the different athletes more clearly, but HD sports content already is very good. I think going for 4K would probably just necessitate greater attention to makeup and lighting, all-new equipment and wouldn't necessarily give that much added value to the viewer for news type content. I think a lot of people watch the news on smartphones which are so small that 4K is probably not that useful and it would tax the communications bandwidth unnecessarily. For carefully crafted movies and series, I do see the value in 4K, but even then I think it's the audio that is lacking rather than the image. As for 100" TV sets, how do you even move it about in a home? I used to have a 55" and now a 48" and I greatly prefer the latter. It takes less space and yet because of the higher-quality (OLED) display I enjoy it more than the regular LCD tech from 2015, even though it was slightly bigger.

Possibly the less than stellar IBIS and AF, but even back in my Fuji days ending with XT3 for stills and XH1 with adapted Canon lens, I found both to be OK. Not great, but OK and it’s come a long way since with more recent models. I could EASILY shoot a GFX stills unit plus a pair of XH2’s for video. But just as easily an all Nikon set up based around a Z8 for stills and pair of Z6iii’s for video. Or an all Canon set up of R5ii stills plus a pair of R6ii’s for video. So many great options these days. For my needs anyway, but just 2 years ago, I did struggle to suit my specific needs, but knowing it was so close…

I’ve already changed my mind so fair play.

some outdoor test

Thanks for this great interview with Kazuto Yamaki and Takuma Wakamatsu. Here in 2024, we're still waiting for a major update to the Sigma FP, so I wanted to offer my thoughts to Sigma: Sigma is the only manufacturer making a cinema-camera in an ethical region (Japan). This makes their cameras VERY desirable to ethical filmmakers. Admittedly Arri (sort-of made in Germany...) and Sony (Indonesia) are getting closer. As a cinematographer, my suggestions for an update to the Sigma FP/FP-L are: - Add Global Shutter: Even if this requires a drop in resolution. Sigma could capture the entire market for ethical-filmmakers seeking a close-to-celluloid look. Rolling-shutter is over. Even if it's fast, it adds sub-perceptual oddness that does not replicate film. - Focus on film-looks: The post-processing market is big (Dehancer / Filmbox / LUTs etc) and there is an entire generation chasing the Kodak-Eastman stock that defined the 70s/80s golden-age of movies. Why not offer a camera that has been specifically designed to properly recreate this stock in hardware? In summary: Other cinema-camera manufacturers appear to have lost all sensitivity to the 'romance' of the image they seek to capture. I'm not sure what most video camera-companies are aiming for anymore. Some kind of super-sharp; hyper-resolute; bland-scrutinization of the 'real'; or so it seems. The result is ugly without extensive post-processing. Instead: Sigma could make a cinema camera that takes Eastman Color 5247/7247 film (or similar) as its benchmark. Sigma could refer back to the time when movies had SOUL, and use that as a starting point for a new ethos in the industry. A new wave of filmmakers are tired of spec-sheet-junkie-YouTube-streamer-cams and ten-billion-pixel sensors made for instagram-yuppies. Some of us are ARTISTS and want a cinema camera with "Made in Japan" ethics, and an image that prioritizes BEAUTY and GRACE; not pixel-counts and a bizarre-preoccupation with uncanny / creepy-levels of sharpness. We were happy with Super16. I hope Kazuto Yamaki is somewhere out there, reading this. Sending you, and everyone at Sigma, courage!

I do very little cinematography work these days 😕 Working instead with lots of DPs! As a Sound Mixer, rather than being a DP myself.

I have the 10mm Zeiss c-mount. I have the mount adapter but haven't changed it out yet. Always liked the look of them from what I've seen online. Still have the Fuji c-mounts as well. Still have the FP but I don't think there's a 3x crop with it... just the S35. The FP-L may have that crop, though. Right now I'm planning on keeping the 5D3 and the FP and a small set of lenses for each. I have an idea for my c-mounts that I may dive into in a few months. I sold that to @kye about 4 or 5 years ago, so I don't remember what the monitor mount was. I didn't have a cage for that one, I don't think, so it was probably just a two sided 1/4-20... one to screw into the camera and one to screw into the monitor. The one I'm selling now is a full rig with a cage, Metabones Speedbooster (Nikon F), side handle, monitor (Focus 5) and hinge mount. It also has the NPF Bridge adapter so you can use Sony NP batteries with it instead of the Canon. I think they're near impossible to find now? The whole set up is pretty compact.