cantsin

to add to the above: obsoleting grading and the use of LUTs as far as possible, since one should - in order to maintain best-possible color resolution - not grade or apply LUTs to the 8bit footage which the Sony A7 cameras record.

That OS already exists and is called Linux. (Today, practically all workstation/server variants of Unix are Linux-based, with the small exception of BSD and Sun/Oracle Solaris, the latter of which is practically dead.) Ubuntu Linux is the modern, user-friendly desktop Linux/Unix that people can easily install. The only problem is that Adobe & Co. don't release their software for it.

...but optically terrible. Even when you're just playing the video in the browser window, it looks blurry and full of extreme chromatic aberrations. This is more a CCTV than an acceptable video image. The Laowa 7.5mm/f2 will beat it in every respect. It will likely be more expensive, too, but hopefully, not that much. EDIT: Having had a better look at the pictures of the lens, it turns out that this is in fact a c-mount CCTV lens with an MFT adapter.

As said, high-speed RAW stills at >24fps are likely to come sooner or later, but implemented in such a way that they will be mainly usable for photographers (and a minority of experimental filmmakers). This will be the way camera manufacturers like Sony, Canon and Panasonic will protect their pro video cameras.

Here's a prediction: Continuous 24-30fps RAW capture will come to the next generation of higher end mirrorless/SLR cameras, but not as video capture, but as high-speed still capture. That will mean: No sound recording, drifting instead of precision fps, recording in vendor-proprietary stills raw formats (with no shot separation) instead of CinemaDNG. The length of high-speed raw sequences will likely be limited to a number of seconds. Still, this might create a new video DSLR boom for makers of low-budget music videos and travel/nature videos where sync sound and long-duration shots aren't needed.

But medium format lenses normally don't go wider than 50mm (usually with f3.5, at best with f2.8). When you adapt them with a 0.71x focal reducer, you end up getting a 35mm (f2.4/2.0) lens. This a focal length where full frame 35mm doesn't distort. You also gain no DoF advantages in comparison to a native 35mm/2.0 FF lens - in fact, you can have shallower DoF with one of the many available 35mm/1.4 FF lenses (Canon, Nikon, Samyang, Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron).

Indeed, these are two different kinds of shoes. You can a) map 14 f-stops (via a log curve) into 6 bits - but then end up with a torn histogram/banding in the color gradients; b) map 6 stops into 14 f-stops - which just means that you can encode finer gradients between each f-stop. (Since there is no rule or natural law that a doubling of light needs to be encoded with a doubling of numbers.)

If raw is log or linear, it isn't raw. Raw means that the sensor data is being stored as it has been recorded by the sensor, without debayering and without applying a curve.

Hmm, shadows are completely crushed on both videos - while this might have superficial aesthetical appeal, it could be a severe limitation of using the camera for video in practice.

Nikon is part of Mitsubishi. It won't file bankruptcy as long as Mitsubishi is in business. But I wouldn't be surprised if, sooner or later, Nikon will radically cut down its classical photo business and focus on medical imaging instead.

If you correct distortion (by stretching/squeezing) the image while staying in the same pixel resolution, you end up with pixel artefacts respectively visible resolution loss.

Look into the newly announced Blackmagic Web Presenter: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicwebpresenter The box converts the HDMI signal from a digital camera into a USB 720p web cam stream that works with any software and operating system. Should solve your issue.

Look at this example - according to its maker, it has been shot with a GH4 using the internal codec, Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8, 20mm F1.7 & 42.5mm F1.7 lenses, Tiffen Black Satin filter, three cheap Yongnuo LED lights and a Nebula 4000 gimbal:

But this point is completely moot, because you can't do what you say under realistic conditions. You are not freed of gear, but you need more gear and rigging for your phone - stabilizers, ND filter attachments, external audio recording - than you need for a cheaper camera with decent onboard audio and a stabilized lens. [Almost any cheap Panasonic mirrorless body ticks those boxes, or Sony's RX10 cameras]. But the real point is that all the demo videos listed above were shot with Filmic Pro in highest quality settings (100 Mbps). That means: 750 MB storage per recorded minute. Most iPhone user won't have enough free space on their phones to just casually shoot high-quality video with it.

No, sorry, but a $300 iphone gimbal will never give the same quality stabilization as an iPhone tacked on a RED camera body on a Movi stabilizer. This is simply a matter of physics (i.e. weight resulting in inertia). Just as panning a lightweight camera on a mid-range Manfrotto video tripod won't give you the same cinematic pans as using a RED, ARRI or Panaflex camera on a professional Vinten or Miller cinema tripod. And, again, these demos are somewhat pointless given the fact that an iPhone is more expensive than many cameras that shoot better quality video. Really, none of the videos above impress me (they roughly reach the quality level of a GH1 or GH2), but I am watching them on a calibrated 27" monitor in close viewing distance. Not being negative, just critical.

I am talking about the video you referenced. These "shot on a iPhone" videos are mostly show-off piece for either their makers or Apple (who might have sponsored them via influencer marketing). I'm not that impressed unless someone shoots a good/interesting video with a bare-bones iPhone - no rigs, no gimbals, no hacked-on ND filters, no external sound recording.

Yes, if you mount the iPhone on a $2000 gimbal...

If you watch it on a bigger screen, the oversharpened edges and lack of true image detail is still quite visible. By shooting the video under brightest sunlight in the desert, the makers avoided the low-light/noise limitations of the phone's small sensor. In addition, the phone must have been rigged for the smooth camera movements, and there must have been external audio recording (probably with lavalier mics). Likely, ND filters were used on the phone to tame keep the shutter/avoid stroboscopic motion. If you consider the rigging and gear you need to make this work, the camera becomes a minor factor. A Panasonic LX100 or G7 would have been cheaper than the iPhone, caused less hassle for the operator, and it would have produced a superior image.

Since nobody has taken issue with the above list yet, it's worth checking it against the typical cameras and shooting/production scenarios discussed here on this forum. Many issues (resolution, progressive vs. interlace, focus and depth of field control) have been resolved since the miniDV era, but the following still remain: 4:2:0 8bit vs. deep color (for most cameras discussed here, except Blackmagic and now GH5, although it remains to be seen whether the GH5 can really produce cinematic/deep color); compression artefacts, somewhat (except for cameras recording raw, or external video recorders); low dynamic range, somewhat (mostly due to limitations of Rec709; log profiles have their own drawbacks on 8bit cameras); artificial sharpening, somewhat (except for Blackmagic); in-camera noise reduction, somewhat (except for Blackmagic; if it can be switched off in other cameras, codec artefacts often result) Color depth and rendition is the only serious issue at the moment. The main factors, however, lie outside the camera: light audio staging & editing set design wardrobe/costume design makeup

The issues of "video vs. film" and "video look vs. [organic] cinema look" always get mixed up. (In the case of the vintage 8mm home movies, it's mostly color rendition, maybe highlight roll-off but mostly analog film/projection artefacts, including grain, splotches, jitter, gate weaving, that tell that something has been shot on film). If we stick to the original subject of this thread, then the difference between video and cinema look was most clear in the miniDV era, because you had: NTSC/PAL resolution vs. higher film resolution (even in 16mm) interlaced images vs. progressive images 30fps or 60fps interlaced vs. 24p small sensors with infinite DoF vs. large chips/film surfaces with shallow DoF (when desired) everything in focus/autofocus vs. focus pulls auto-exposure (with auto-iris) vs. manual exposure (with constant aperture) 4:2:0 8bit vs. deep color high compression with artefacts vs. low or no compression with no visible artefacts low dynamic range (cut-off shadows, clipping highlights) vs. high dynamic range (shadow and highlight detail, smooth highlight roll-off) artificial sharpening (through increased edge contrast) vs. no artifical sharpening aggressive in-camera noise reduction vs. no noise reduction (or slight noise reduction in post) long-range zoom lenses with low optical quality vs. (mostly) high quality prime lensing motor zooming vs. camera movement (dolly, steadycam) available light/full-frontal light setup/harsh video light vs. soft light/light that models space/complex light setups ultra-fast-paced (strobic) editing or no editing vs. planned shots/staging and narrative editing in-camera audio vs. externally recorded audio + sound design. on-location shooting (with random colors) vs. set design (with a chosen color palette) in-camera default (Rec709) color vs. graded color default clothing vs. costume design no makeup (including specular highlights from skin) vs. film makeup

Get one to avoid the brownish color cast on your footage.

Have that lens too - gives the equivalent field of view of a 35mm lens on a full frame sensor, i.e. moderate, non-distorting wide angle. This is the ideal focal length for documentary and run-and-gun. - Small remark: Your images look like they have infrared contamination. Did you use an IR cut filter on the lens?

Here's a perhaps unorthodox take on the matter: DxO scores are really useful if you use DxO Optics Pro as your RAW converter, because the DxO lab measurements provide the basis for the camera profiles of the application. I happen to be a person who buys a stills camera as a hardware frontend for DxO Optics Pro (hence, no Fuji X-Trans for me...), just as I buy video cameras as hardware frontends for Resolve. If this is your usage scenario, then DxOMark is really useful. Since the internal color science of cameras doesn't matter with DxO Optics Pro (+ FilmPack), you can indeed buy a 2nd hand NEX-5N for $150 and obtain better stills image quality than from a $1500 Canon 7D Mark II: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Sony-NEX-5N___977_737 That these results won't necessarily translate to Lightroom or other Raw converters - and don't say anything about out-of-cam JPEG quality -, isn't surprising.

Quote from the EOSHD op-ed article: "DXOMark claims to measure RAW sensor performance but actually some sensors process the RAW data in special ways." The DxO review of the RED Helium sensor does actually acknowledge this and contains a respective disclaimer: "Whatever noise reduction system RED employs creating the RAW images from the Helium sensor, its presence means that we aren’t measuring just the RED sensor, so its results aren’t directly comparable to those from camera sensors we have tested from other vendors, whose RAW results come straight from the sensor with no prior noise reduction processing." https://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Helium-8K-DxOMark-Sensor-Score-108-A-new-all-time-high-score2

It's ca. $60-$70 for 100ft 16mm, and you can't pop a Speedbooster on a c-mount, at least not without major amounts of hacking/tinkering. Home scanning requires rather expensive hardware (such as this one: http://moviestuff.tv/moviestuff_home.html), but you'll get much better results from professional telecine services, roughly for the same amount of money you spent for the film stock. Good forums: http://www.cinematography.com/ http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/