mat33

I think the light and amount of contrast of the scene makes a huge difference to the image thickness. When you have a good amount of contrast in your scene with areas of shadow and bright highlights, and your object is well exposed then you can bring the blacks down were they belong and help with the perceived thickness (and also reduce the perceived grain/noise). Were I notice the main difference with cameras that produce thicker images like the digital Bolex is with skin tones and also foliage/leaves/trees etc. Whether it's the tonality/colour gamut/saturation/shadow saturation or all of these when combined with good light they just look more alive. Here is a screen shot from the D16 (not mine) which while compressed to heck look 'thick' and alive to me.

While lighting, bit depth and resolution all play a role what about the bayer matrix and the colour filters themselves? For example some of the 'thickest' most filmic images I have seen are from the Digital Bolex which is 12bit and 2K-I've attached a few examples (sadly not mine) from the D16. I have seen some discussion on the D16 about this: "Color depth and discrimination in Bayer filters is determined by the purity and saturation of the filter dyes used. The Kodak CCD in the D16 uses a patented set of highly saturated filters designed for scientific and industrial applications where accuracy and fine color discrimination are critical, like color matching in textile fabric dye runs, or in the cameras used on the Mars Rovers. Most video cameras use Bayer filters less saturated to get more sensitivity and just cover the video color gamuts. Deeply saturated primary colors can be hard to reproduce. I normally have to desaturate D16 footage 20-30% to eliminate chroma clipping on saturated colors in REC709. This still looks like a fully saturated video image to gamut limits." So could it be the characteristics of the bayer filters are a big part of the colour thickness?

Just saw this, thought I would share as awesome example of creativity during this crazy isolation the world is in and a nice change of pace from camera tech

I think it’s pretty similar codecs but EM5iii has no 120p, lesser IBIS, no OM-D log profile, noisier pre-amps, maybe slower AF, no time code. There is also better weather sealing etc on the EM1iii.

Shot on EM1x, looks very very nice. They used 17mm 1.2 and 25mm 1.2 with segments on the 12-100f4 and 300mm f4 according to the comments. Love the handheld tracking shot using a wheelbarrow at the end.

The Ikonoskop was way too expensive and the D16 had a polarising external appearance and the release firmware was bit flakey (especially compared to the later firmware with Bolex Log), but what a thick beautiful digital negative to work with. It sometimes feels like we want to make Star Wars Episode V but because of all the latest technological wiz bang gadgets we end up making Star Wars Episode I where we end up spending too much time setting up and playing with everything than focusing on the creativity or art part.

2011 -Ikonoskop DII 12 bit RAW cDNG 2012 -Digital Bolex D16 12 bit RAW cDNG built by a team with no prior camera manufacturing experience 2013 - Magic Lantern uncovers 14 bit RAW video possible on the 2008 Canon 5D Mark II 2013 -BMPCC 12 bit RAW cDNG I appreciate that there have been plenty of higher end RAW capable cameras released and uncompressed RAW is a storage hog but why the frak has it taken this long for someone to release a small form factor RAW capable camera with a decent built in screen....All I want is Ikonoskop DII or Digital Bolex IQ with no baked in NR in a small form factor.

I really really hope this is the spiritual successor to the digital bolex.

Freaking awesome, hand cranked, 90 minute film and they shot 4 & 1/2 hours footage - such a nice counter balance in this 4/6k era

The XC10/15 were ok - but didn't like the lack of a dedicated viewfinder as mucking around with the loupe meant I basically never used it. Having better AF would be nice, and doing a smooth zoom in/out using the rockers would be nice - nothing says cinematic mojo like a good old zoom in/out ?

Anyone interested in one of these? -like a XC15 with better form factor and DPAF but worse codecs. I'm quite tempted, would be nice to go back to a camcorder form factor.

I think its a bit to early to be rushing to conclusions. It seems entirely plausible that the L-mount communication specification has been updated, possibly to allow for DFD autofocus speeds, IBIS + OIS or even to improve Sigmas AF performance but still allowing backward compatibility to existing L-mount (Leica) lenses . The Leica SL is nearly 4 years old, so its possible it may not physically be able to handle the new communication protocols or may need a firmware update at the very least. I can imagine allocating resources to a firmware update to allow a 4 year old camera to use other manufacturers lenses is a low priority for any camera maker, let alone Leica, so not sure if you can be too critical. Sure Sigma could probably release an adapter that works for the SL/TL etc but maybe that has absolutely crappy performance like the Novoflex adapter which isn't going to make anyone happy or help establish L-mount. Now if the Leica SL2 comes out with no compatibility to other L mount lenses then sure complain all you like. Anyway interesting to see the underlying vibe people have towards Leica.

I'm not a skater and haven't really seen many skate films, but pretty interesting to see some of the history and the impact the VX1000 had. One talented skate filmer/photographer I have come across who takes some great stills that appeal to non-skaters as well is Fred Mortagne 'French Fred' www.frenchfred.com

So I saw that Wooden Camera have released a microphone modelled after the Sony VX1000 ccd mini-DV camcorder from the 1990s, which brings back good memories of my first video camera the Panasonic GS400. Turns out its still pretty popular for skating videos despite being 20+ years old: http://www.jenkemmag.com/home/2018/07/13/tracing-history-skateboardings-most-famous-camera/

Well I will say this thread is pretty awesome: a budget full frame camera, undertakers, professional sport photography, cinematic mojo, academy award winners and even astronauts. The only thing that beats a good old canon back and forth is a Leica one.

It makes perfect sense for NASA to use Canon cameras because astronauts are winners and we all know that winners use Canon cameras ?

Plenty of people complained that the BMPCC4k looked more videoish than the original BMPCC, which really comes down to the original having more noise giving some texture and having less resolution. Canon is kind of the same with its 1:1 sampling. Really all the cameras are bloody good, and can be made to look bloody good with the right glass, lighting, grading etc etc. I've seen some beautiful stuff from the Sony A7 range despite generally disliking Sonys colour science, and also seen some horrible stuff shot on an alexa. At the end of the day, we all have different tastes and like what we like, its just pretty hard to articulate that and so we end up using terms like filmic and mojo etc. Heck a lot of films shot on actual 35mm use a lot of extra diffusion with nets etc, are they more organic than other films shot on film without diffusion?

I don't know about any of that ADC stuff but it seems to be getting 12.2 stops in HLG, so hopefully full v-log will add some extra DR and its a pretty big mirrorless form factor for heat management...

Its just strange they made a stills focused full frame G9, when they are loved for their video focused GH5. I would think a full frame GH5 with 13-14 stops DR would sell like hot cakes at S1R prices, and bring a lot of L-glass sales. Do they sell that many EVA1s that they have to protect this, given that none of their glass is being used on their 'pro' bodies and a S1R + 24-105 + 50mm brings them more $$$ than a EVA1?

I was considering the S1 but its a bit of a strange release. How many advanced/pro photographers are really going to dump their Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras/lenses for a Panasonic, the big 3 all have pretty compelling hybrid mirrorless offerings now and while the S1 is a mighty fine camera, does it do enough to get people to switch and commit to the new system?

My understanding is that most log profiles end up effectively underexposing the sensor to give more dynamic range to the highlights, hence why the AF isn't as good when shooting in Log on the Z6. Saying that Nikon are working on improving the AF so we may see some improvements here, and that flat profile is also pretty nice for most situations. As far as filmic image, motion cadence and all round I really want an Alexa in a tiny hybrid body that costs $2000 mojo, I think it comes down to how much processing the image receives in camera. IMO the most beautiful image in terms both colour and motion cadence in an indie camera comes from the digital bolex. There is no fancy downscaling, no inter frame compression, and zero noise reduction or sharpening done in camera, just a pure image processing pipeline (and the global shutter helps). So hopefully the raw output on the Z6 will have minimal processing/sharpening etc and if so should be very very nice. I'm looking forward to the 1080p raw output just as much as the 4K.

I’m getting flashbacks to 2002 before the Panasonic DVX100 was released with its ground breaking filmic 24p...

Are we really surprised by this?

I think offering full frame (no crop) 12 bit raw video on a US$2000 hybrid body pretty much meets the definition of going into complete and total overdrive.

Thanks for offering to help satisfy my gimbal needs ?