IronFilm

My Kinefinity is currently in China receiving a mount upgrade.
This system has a lot of potential. They're like the inverse of Black Magic. No buzz/hype about them, but they actually deliver.

Yeah I've loved the look of these guys and always wanted one. Their Golden 3K cineform on the 6K is my dream format to work on and it would allow me to use my Nikon glass on a native mount. Tempted to get a loan and buy two just to rent them out, no one is doing that in east coast USA and a ton of cinematographers I think would be interested in trying them out. Hopefully this new camera pushes the prices of the old one's down.

They need to stop going after Red and Arri and focus on bringing out something affordable enough so that people will pick one up out of curiosity. That way they can build a reputation. Especially if the new cameras are bang for the buck stars.

I am not a publicist, I'm just a netizen, and I do not speak English, I had to use Google translate, or can not communicate with you

Well Panasonic look at this, maybe there is a hint here for you (GH5).

Sad, but very true. Unfortunately. 

It unfortunately is out there almost the Biblical Truth that "Canon is best for video"!! :-o 
Exactly, for a DSLR then Nikon is currently best for video! (yes I am ignore the insanely priced 1D C, so sue me)

Not anymore, as long as you're cool with 1080p. Some of the best DR and color science on any 8-bit camera.

I think we all do that sometimes. It depends on interest. Some find researching cameras boring. Therefor they look at a video they like and buy the same. Im pretty sure people have based camera purchases based on what you own (of me to).
I do the same with other stuff. I dont know jack about sports gear. I run, ski, skate and swim. But I hate researching the gear. So I go to some friends who compete all the way up in the Olympics and just ask them. What they say, I buy.
More time for researching cameras, which I enjoy

Thats not the point im making, look at people like Casey Neistat. He uses the 70d (now 80d) and the G7x and soooo many people people have bought those cameras just because he uses them, its a big part of why Canon is still seen from the masses as the best dslr for video.

I would not take advice on anything from vloggers, much less about cameras. /rant

http://***URL removed***/news/7168986570/canon-shows-dynamism-eos-80d-breaks-new-ground-for-canon-low-iso-dr
I can't believe it. All the people are like wow it's incredible and a good news for 5D4 blabla. 
But I mean, just use the tool of DPreview and compare the 80D with D7200 or even D5500. It looks absolutely hideous in comparison, full of noise and false colours. 
Since when should we applaud a premium and very expensive company that makes an improvement compared to its own ridiculous products when they dont even meet the competition level of 2 years ago???
 
 
 

My workflow process (works with any camera. Is universal!):

1) Hand over media cards to editor.
2) Go home.

My workflow process (works with any camera. Is universal!):

1) Hand over media cards to editor.
2) Go home.

I'm going to get the BMMCC as soon as it goes on sale for half price! ;-) Same way I got my BMPCC....  :-D

My workflow process (works with any camera. Is universal!):

1) Hand over media cards to editor.
2) Go home.

right, but be careful with that trigger.. would be a bummer to ignore everyone who's said something you don't like..

"Virtual Reality" is a very new term and can be a very broad term. So some people could arguably classify 360 degree video content under "VR", but other people who are VR snobs wouldn't regard it as "proper VR".
For "proper VR" they'll say you need to not just have 360 degree vision around yourself, but also have complete freedom to move through the space you're in as you wish (just like you can do in real life). 

So how can you create that freedom of movement?  Well you'll need to create all the items in that space (& the space itself) painstakingly from scratch, just like they do with video games. This can be very difficult and expensive (this is why video games can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, just like big blockbuster movies do).

And the downside is it still won't truly look life like!! Instead it will look like you're in a video game. 
360 degree video has the downside of you lose the freedom of movement, you are instead constrained to take the same path of movement through the environment as the filmmaking took during capture. It is like you're on an amusement park ride, once you're strapped in then you're going to go through it the same way the rides are going to go, following the tracks. 

But the upside is 360 degree video has the benefit of looking waaaaay more realistic, as you're filming real life itself! Also 360 degree video has the benefit that it is relatively "easy"-ish to create content. Well...  still quite tough! Just check out my other thread where I'm discussing hardware requirements:

Then you have software needs as well! Which are themselves quickly a very complex issue, and can be very expensive to purchase. 
A slight tweak to this 2nd approach is to do 3D 360 videos, this gives you stereoscopic vision in your VR headset, rather than seeing just a "flat" looking video. A potential big improvement for sure! However.... this means double as many cameras, which means more the double the hardware complexity, and more the double the difficulty in post production.
But all of this is a walk in the park compared to trying to do "proper VR" in a truly photorealistic manner. For that you need a capture rig kinda like the bullet time rig from "The Matrix", but even more complex and comprehensive. Then a vastly more complex software step to turn each capture into a moving 3D model with the filmed texture overlayed on top. 

Another big downside of this approach is you can't do large/complex scenes at once. For instance if you wanted a VR experience of a party via this method, you couldn't just a capture a crowd of people drinking, dancing, and having fun. Nope, instead you'd need to do each person one by one, then insert them one by one into the scene you're creating in the computer. On the upside, it does make it heaps easier to edit the scene in post if you wish to move or even remove elements from the scene! Want to move that idiot with the jerky  spazzy dancing to the back of the scene instead of at the front? Done!  

Maybe the promise of "The Edit Button" will come true one day... 
 
The other downside to this approach of using videogrammetry is that currently the quality you get is usually absolute rubbish, here you can see one I took of myself last month (it is a moving 3D model, which you can fly around it as you wish, or place it anywhere within a 3D space you create in Unity):

As you can tell, the quality looks like absolute trash compared to what we're used to from our BMPCC / URSA / Sony FS7 / Samsung NX1 / etc cameras!! However, that was just a very rough and quick test capture I did (for instance I didn't bother with lighting it at all), and I could significantly improve this. But it still is at best rather bad, unless you wish to pour millions into this! And even the companies which have tens of millions of dollars of funding behind them still are not hugely better than this, and have a looooong way to go. But I expect "soon" this approach will be mainstream (it is an open question as to when "soon" is, maybe just a couple of years away? Or maybe a decade away.... ).

So each of these three approaches have their own serious pros/cons list to consider, and I wouldn't consider any one "better" VR than the other. They're just different tools to use, depending on the task at hand to complete. 
 
Looking into the future, I think that although the 3rd approach is clearly the most undeveloped of the three, as tech improves it will likely become the main choice for creating high quality VR content. But all three approaches will remain valid approaches to VR creation for years to come. 

Canon's "D500" equivalent is the 7D, and we had to wait for ages to see the 7D mk2, and that only just came out. So no, we will not see a 7D mk3 in response to the D500 any time soon (actually, it is the other way round....  in a way the D500 is Nikon's response to the Canon 7D mk2, they're now of the same generation). 

Looks pretty typical of Indian mainstream cinema, lacking nuance in color. Just saturated indiscriminately. If you enjoy bright colors, I suggest anything by the Chinese director, Zhang Yimou.
 
 
 

Your reviews are great Mattias, I followed them on Youtube before knowing you were lurking here!
JVC has a beautiful JLog. I'm still very interested in this camera but the ISO performance wasn't stellar. Still, for the price is hard to beat and I would love to see JVC winning at it. The viewfinder is not great and it's a pity they didn't get rid of it ala FS7. It's a weak point and still takes precious centimeters in the bag. Also they need to put JLOG too on the GY-HM170 and the GY-HM200 so shooters can have other camera options to match the footage in multicam shootings. 

I think what ever their surprise is? It will help put me to sleep at night. Likely the big surprise is a new name for the same camera. It will be expensive and for video compared to the competition useless, like all the camera introductions for the last 3 years. 

"Virtual Reality" is a very new term and can be a very broad term. So some people could arguably classify 360 degree video content under "VR", but other people who are VR snobs wouldn't regard it as "proper VR".
For "proper VR" they'll say you need to not just have 360 degree vision around yourself, but also have complete freedom to move through the space you're in as you wish (just like you can do in real life). 

So how can you create that freedom of movement?  Well you'll need to create all the items in that space (& the space itself) painstakingly from scratch, just like they do with video games. This can be very difficult and expensive (this is why video games can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, just like big blockbuster movies do).

And the downside is it still won't truly look life like!! Instead it will look like you're in a video game. 
360 degree video has the downside of you lose the freedom of movement, you are instead constrained to take the same path of movement through the environment as the filmmaking took during capture. It is like you're on an amusement park ride, once you're strapped in then you're going to go through it the same way the rides are going to go, following the tracks. 

But the upside is 360 degree video has the benefit of looking waaaaay more realistic, as you're filming real life itself! Also 360 degree video has the benefit that it is relatively "easy"-ish to create content. Well...  still quite tough! Just check out my other thread where I'm discussing hardware requirements:

Then you have software needs as well! Which are themselves quickly a very complex issue, and can be very expensive to purchase. 
A slight tweak to this 2nd approach is to do 3D 360 videos, this gives you stereoscopic vision in your VR headset, rather than seeing just a "flat" looking video. A potential big improvement for sure! However.... this means double as many cameras, which means more the double the hardware complexity, and more the double the difficulty in post production.
But all of this is a walk in the park compared to trying to do "proper VR" in a truly photorealistic manner. For that you need a capture rig kinda like the bullet time rig from "The Matrix", but even more complex and comprehensive. Then a vastly more complex software step to turn each capture into a moving 3D model with the filmed texture overlayed on top. 

Another big downside of this approach is you can't do large/complex scenes at once. For instance if you wanted a VR experience of a party via this method, you couldn't just a capture a crowd of people drinking, dancing, and having fun. Nope, instead you'd need to do each person one by one, then insert them one by one into the scene you're creating in the computer. On the upside, it does make it heaps easier to edit the scene in post if you wish to move or even remove elements from the scene! Want to move that idiot with the jerky  spazzy dancing to the back of the scene instead of at the front? Done!  

Maybe the promise of "The Edit Button" will come true one day... 
 
The other downside to this approach of using videogrammetry is that currently the quality you get is usually absolute rubbish, here you can see one I took of myself last month (it is a moving 3D model, which you can fly around it as you wish, or place it anywhere within a 3D space you create in Unity):

As you can tell, the quality looks like absolute trash compared to what we're used to from our BMPCC / URSA / Sony FS7 / Samsung NX1 / etc cameras!! However, that was just a very rough and quick test capture I did (for instance I didn't bother with lighting it at all), and I could significantly improve this. But it still is at best rather bad, unless you wish to pour millions into this! And even the companies which have tens of millions of dollars of funding behind them still are not hugely better than this, and have a looooong way to go. But I expect "soon" this approach will be mainstream (it is an open question as to when "soon" is, maybe just a couple of years away? Or maybe a decade away.... ).

So each of these three approaches have their own serious pros/cons list to consider, and I wouldn't consider any one "better" VR than the other. They're just different tools to use, depending on the task at hand to complete. 
 
Looking into the future, I think that although the 3rd approach is clearly the most undeveloped of the three, as tech improves it will likely become the main choice for creating high quality VR content. But all three approaches will remain valid approaches to VR creation for years to come. 

Don't forget - the FS700 cost the same as the FS7 when it was released, and the firmware upgrade was paid as well.
The FS5 is $3k cheaper than an FS700 at release + paid raw upgrade.
In addition, Sony aren't going to give you F5 quality in a $5k camera + raw/recorder. Their plan with the FS700 was to get people to buy their off-board raw unit and that didn't work out so well. 
I think that's also why the form factor is the way it is. It's a C100 competitor at its core. 4k is a bonus. Not only that, Sony has 4k TVs they want to sell, and by bolstering their entire camera range with 4k, it gives an extra incentive for people to buy 4k TVs. 
If you want proper 4k acquisition, Sony want you to buy an FS7, F5 or F55

I disagree personally. I would rather shoot ProRes if I'm doing the editing - but hey, to each their own. I'd prefer to shoot Alexa at 2k ProRes 422HQ than the RED One's Redcode @ 4k - but hey.
I'm not sure how you would leave it on when you need to change a battery..? I'm not sure what you shoot, or how you shoot, but it is annoying/takes some getting used to, to plan your battery changes, and swap out when a battery may still have up to 25%+ left to ensure you won't need to swap between takes, or just before a take. Not to mention it sucks significantly more power than say an Epic.
Also, sure you get a picture... but there's a big ugly RED logo on top of it - hardly easy to frame, expose and set focus...
Anyway
Is the F3 too big as well, or just not interested because 'Sony'?
So why not go for one of the many other options? Or still too big?
I'm not sure if this is to direct your purchase decision, or just a general discussion... I don't mind the FS700 coupled with a Shogun (though I don't like the image straight out of camera) but overall I'd probably go with the A7sII. Personally have never had an issue with Sony colours.

Not sure if you've ever used a RED One, but it is one of, if not the most, frustrating camera (that was) around :P.
Seriously - waiting up to two minutes for a camera to boot up every single time is... frustrating to say the least. On paper, it looks like a pretty viable option, but in reality....
Plus, at least the URSA can shoot to ProRes.
I don't personally think the RED One is worth it in today's camera environment. URSA's at least relatively current technology - and current model, so there's more support.
You'd be better off with a Sony F3 IMO unless you desperately need raw or 4k...