cantsin

No, I once did that myself and described it on the German-language Slashcam forum. But it's very straightforward: 1) From the project browser, consecutively open every project, saving each of them with "Export Project" (Ctrl-E) 2) Deinstall PostgreSQL. Davinci installed this as a separate package from Resolve, so this is easy and straightforward. In Windows, just deinstall it using the system dialog for installed apps. 3) Resolve will now start in single-user mode with an empty project browser. 4) Open a new/empty project, consecutively import all saved projects via "Import Project". The projects will NOT open in Resolve, but turn up in the project browser. 5) Go back to the project browser to see and open your reimported projects. 6) From now on, all projects will automatically be saved as project files, not into a database. Saving can take more time with complex projects - the price you pay for the convenience.

You can easily switch Resolve from database storage to file system storage - no problem even in version 12. All you need to do is uncheck the PostgreSQL install option. Even when running Resolve in database mode, you can optionally save into a conventional project file. This allows you, too, to convert your existing databases into project files, deinstall PostgreSQL and save into files by default. I tested this, and it works.

My prediction: There won't be an A7s III in the near future, but we will get an A9s and an A9R as a second, more expensive camera line on top of the A7 line (which will remain on the market). The A9s will become a serious video machine, likely with 10bit and even 24fps RAW, but it will cost at least as much as an FS5 and therefore not cannibalize Sony's video camera business.

You'll need a camera with proper weather sealing (engineered right into the body, not a housing which can create additional problems such as overheating). It will mean more weight, but there's no way around it.

No, you can't do the latter. If you color in DaVinci, you also need to render in DaVinci.

You can't export CinemaDNG, but you can export your edit/timeline as an XML file and import than in Resolve. Resolve will then use the original Cinema DNG files.

This tutorial is just amazing - and much more than its title suggests: It gives all the important information, technical and creative tricks for low-budget filmmaking in the first 18 minutes, in an incredible dense yet concise and entertaining way. It then continues with a $15 budget short film produced only with an old Canon 60D, the kit zoom, a mic directly plugged into the camera and a smartphone for recording foley/ADR. This short film is really well done and convincing despite its minimal technical means. The last 8 minutes are a technical making-of which again purveys important information and tricks. This is highly entertaining to watch, highly informative and practical regarding every aspect of filmmaking, and it should obsolete thousands of forum discussions...

April fools...

It will surely not mean that it will be a camera to compete with the FS5 (as mentioned by @Phil A) or similar cameras, but a camera competing with the Nikon D500 and Canon 7D, aimed at photo journalists.

Again, the camera which is mentioned in the original post is not a video camera, but a pro photo body.

Avoid using an external monitor on the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. The camera's HDMI port is soldered directly to its motherboard and breaks easily, which will destroy the camera. It's widely known as the biggest construction flaw of the BMPCC. Cages with HDMI cable lockers/clamps still don't safely resolve this issue. If you absolutely need external monitoring, better use a Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera instead of the Pocket.

No, this won't be a video camera, but a pro APS-C body (competing with the Nikon D500 and Canon 7D) aimed at photo journalists and with improved video capabilities.

Unless you think that 4K will resolve the blur better...

How difficult is this to get? Blur = loss of resolution, no matter whether it's motion blur, lens blur or sensor blur (from dust on the sensor). It's simple logic. Now the math: Let's say that a particular motion causes 0.05% motion blur/loss of resolution in the recorded image: With SD video (720x480), this would smear 0.3 pixels and thus remain invisible/have no impact on resolution. With 1080p video, this would smear 1 pixel and thus still remain mostly invisible/unnoticed. With 4K, this would smear 2 pixels and thus reduce the effective resolution of the image to 2K. It boils down to the fact that if you shoot a film (or TV) show hand-held with a lot of camera motion, you will never end up getting a true 4K image and can just as well shoot in 2K (or lower).

Really? It's very simple - camera movement induces motion blur, blur reduces the resolution. The higher the resolution of a camera, the more pixels get blurred. With 4K video, it's practically impossible to shoot handheld or with a lot of motion and still maintain full resolution. You'd need high-end tripod and dolly setups for this, with very slow panning speeds.

Nikon 43-86, the classic for this:

Since we have the great privilege of having Brian Caldwell, the designer of the Metabones Speed Booster, here on this forum - can we rest the discussion with his above statement?

Back to the original question: The question of equivalence can IMHO best answered if we leave digital aside for a moment and instead compare film. Then the question is: Can you shoot a Super16 film that looks like Super35mm (or a Super35mm film that looks like 70mm)? The answer is: Yes you can, but only within known limitations and by eliminating certain factors that give away the smaller format. To make s16mm look like s35, you need to use precision cameras with minimal mechanical tolerances in film transport. (I.e. an Arri or Aaton s16mm camera instead of a Bolex or Pathé.) You need top-class, fast primes (such as the Zeiss Superspeeds, instead of Kern or SOM Berthiot lenses). You need to shoot on low-sensitivity, fine-grain stock like Kodak Vision 50d, with the necessary amount of extra light, to roughly match the look of a 35mm film shot on Vision 200d. For subject isolation/background blur, you'll need to shoot at f2 (and half the focal length) where you would shoot at f4 in 35mm. Use slow, well-planned camera movements that are typical for heavy camera setups. A good example for such cinematography is Ulrich Seidl's Paradise trilogy (which was shot on s16mm but looks like well-shot s35mm). - In digital, things are roughly comparable, but not fully since most films are mastered at 2K, a resolution at which smaller sensor formats (1"/s16 and MFT, which is in between s16 and s35) don't reach their limits, and where base ISOs for fine-grained/low-noise images are generally higher than with film. But generally, the same rules apply as in the example above.

You did, if you ever saw a 70mm or IMAX film.

@Mattias Look, it's true that a camera with a bigger sensor/film plane lets in more light, and that for DoF and exposure equivalence you'll need to stop down the camera with the bigger sensor - in theory. In practice, this difference is annihilated through the ISO calibration of the camera. (An APS-C camera will usually have half the base ISO of a full frame camera, respectively twice as much noise at the same ISO.)

No. You probably mean Jaron Lanier. (It always seemed to me that Jason was cashing in on this easy-to-be-made confusion.)

No need to speculate, since BM's announcement gives it all away. Their picture shows the body of the old, big URSA, so expect the long-overdue 4.6K sensor update for that camera.

Hmm, something is weird... The Mamiya pics have noticeably more depth of field/overall more sharpness.

Hmm, I wonder how well the Videomic X performs against the (superb yet less expensive) binaural Ohrwurm microphone: www.ohrwurmaudio.eu/ohrwurm-x.html Subjectively, I find the concert audio recording lacking in the lower frequencies. (But that might as well have been an issue of the PA.)

Today, anamorphic is mostly used as an optical effect. (If you need Cinemascope aspect ratio, you can simply crop.) It's all about the anamorphic image distortions and flares, mostly as a recreation of the classical Cinemascope look.