jax_rox

Exactly. Not only that, it's not fair to compare FCPX's latest version with what it was day 1. There are plenty of features that have been implemented since it was released five years ago that have turned it into a viable piece of editing software for some people and some jobs. But there were (and still are) plenty of omissions that meant for a vast amount of users on FCP7, it was simply unusable. Adobe's pricing, coupled with the fact that it was essentially FCP7 with an Adobe flair, meant that it was the logical choice for many people left without an editing home. Avid also cut their prices for a while (and offered deals for FCP7 owners who wanted to come over), but they couldn't compete price-wise with Adobe, and they always were the more expensive option. Again - this is the exact point I'm making. For a photographer shooting video, or a YouTuber, or other sorts of applications - it is a very powerful and quick piece of software. But that's not everyone. A photographer who shoots a bit of video doesn't care if he/she can send the Audio team an OMF, how it round trips from DaVinci, how it deals with source timecode, or whether or not they can share their timelines with assistant and other editors. But some people need that stuff, and use it on a daily basis. That's the thing - I have both FCPX and MC, and you have to put yourself into the FCPX mode of thinking when you use it, and accept that whilst it will be faster to do this thing, it will be much more time-consuming, or nigh on impossible to do that thing (even if that thing is very quick/easy to do in other NLEs). You mean when the audio is the first thing you drag in, as you want to cut to it, and it automatically becomes the main storyline, and you finish your edit, or are 1halfway through but want to adjust the audio track a little - you're saying the best thing to do is to start over and/or re-think your edit? Really?

Surely you're being farcical Which is great to get 'close enough' to the bits you want, but it makes it much more difficult to finesse by individual frames. You mean other than linking, grouping etc? Again - as I said, it's overall perhaps easier to throw things together to get close to what you want. And that part is relatively quick/easy. But start trying to finetune and it gets real difficult. Want to fine-tune timings of transitions between clips that have forced themselves into a storyline? Have fun. Want to slide an audio track that is the main storyline over a few frames because it's slightly out of sync? Good luck. Want to trim a certain part of a clip, but keep the gap there to ensure sync is retained? Again, good luck. Except - again - when you want to fine tune your edit (which takes more time than other NLEs so potentially it cancels out the time saving of the assembly). Not to mention that it's costly and/or time consuming and/or simply impossible to get an OMF out of it to edit the audio appropriately. If clients aren't paying for 'fiddling around with clips' - I certainly find myself 'fiddling around' with clips in FCPX to get it to do what I want more than I would with say MC. Which is why I moved to Avid Don't get me wrong - even Media Composer forced a different way of working to what I was used to with FCP7. But the way of working made infinitely more sense to me than FCPX, and I'm faster on it than FCPX. FCPX is still a good editor - don't get me wrong, but I use FCPX for quick edits, stuff I don't want to spend too much time on (and I had to use it full time initially when I bought my A7s as it was the only software I had outside Resolve that read XAVC-S natively). When I want proper/full control, and care about making my edit the best it can be (and/or need to do a proper sound mix), I use MC. FCPX lost the 'pro' market because Apple decided to go after a different customer base - its aimed at, and priced at a point where they've likely made more money on it in the past few years than they ever did with any previous versions of FCP/FCP Studio. Most of the target demo (particularly YouTubers) probably don't care about pro features like OMF and TC (okay it has source TC now but didn't for a long time) and plenty of other things that the 'pro' (if you take pro to be the kind of market that used to be dominated by FCP7/Avid) user needs. That doesn't make it a bad editor, and there are plenty of things to like about it. But there are also major downsides that in some use cases can be hard to work around.

I mean just scrubbing in the... what do FCPX call it? Event viewer? What would be a bin in Avid. But fine scrubbing across the board is harder. Yeah - although that's not a great selling point for a piece of software, is it? :-P FCPX: 'For when good enough is good enough'.

I'll have to upgrade and check it out. It looks like this is what FCPX should have been when it launched. I will say I find editing on FCPX to be a different beast, and a different way of working to both FCP7 and Avid (have not used Premiere that extensively so can't really comment). I really like FCPX's background tasks. Makes editing quicker. I agree to some extent - though I find that whilst FCPX makes it quick to assemble a basic edit, fine cutting and even things that would seem as simple as finely editing transition timing can get extremely finnicky and difficult. If FCPX decides to make the two clips you've put your transition on a storyline, it makes it really difficult to adjust the things inside it. Similarly, if FCPX decides the audio track you've dragged onto the timeline first to cut to is your main storyline, it makes it really difficult to adjust the position and timing of the audio clip without having to re-adjust everything else. The lack of definable tracks can be annoying as well - handy in some instances, annoying in others. Even things like scrubbing are slightly more annoying than in other editors. Not to mention that the organisation of multiple cuts seems unneccessary. Rather than simply having multiple sequences, you have to duplicate Projects. And the biggest one of all - no OMF support! These are all things that are easy in other editors... Use what works for you though - there's plusses and minuses to any system. I can see why FCPX is popular amongst certain editors - it fits certain types of work and jobs better than others. For the right job, it's very very good. For the wrong job, it's annoying as all hell. The one thing about Avid, Premiere, FCP7 etc. is that they tend to be at the very least very adequate regardless of the job.

Dan, I think you're thinking of a colour Meyer - which measures the colour of a light so you can balance the colour temps and shifts. A light meter measures the output of the light so you can balance your exposure and lighting ratios.

Depends what you're shooting. If you're truly run 'n' gunning it, you're probably exposing off the VF anyway. Anything that's got a little bit of setup time - I use mine all the time. It lives around my neck for the day. Even though I tend to use a combo of false colour and waveform on digital, I still use it to set lights and ratios. I find overall it gives me more of a 'feel' of what the light is doing, plus it makes it infinitely easier to dial in light levels to where you want, and to then match those ratios in subsequent setups. That's how I learned to set lights so maybe if you're super comfortable with the monitor and the waveform you might be able to do the same with just that... Plus you look like you know what you're doing when you pull your light meter out! Haha. At least much moreso than standing at the monitor yelling across set at your Gaffer

Anyone who thinks that's what I was implying maybe needs to do some more work on reading comprehension and critical thinking. Or do I need to use more emojis to convey the emotion from now on? I'll have a quota of four per post. Work for you? Anyone who doesn't get the basis of the point is about arbitrary rules that only take into account paper spec, rather than the actual image probably should get their head checked, right? We talk ad nauseam about how a paper spec sheet doesn't equate to a better image, and here we have a real world example of an original content company caring only about a paper spec sheet rather than the image. A company that rejects the Alexa, but accepts C300 or Blackmagic. Rejects the Alexa. An FS5 meets the criteria for Netflix, but an Alexa won't! But yes, rather than talk about that point, let's ensure this devolves into a discussion about semantics that goes nowhere

Lordy. I never said that, ever. Feel free to read through my comments, and show me where, exactly, I said that Netflix are turning down Alexa footage and accepting GH4. I didn't. What I'm saying is the requirement is arbitrary because it doesn't take into account anything other than the technical spatial resolution, despite the fact that an upscaled Alexa can potentially look better than UHD-acquired source material. Yeah - no mention of Alexa. In fact, Netflix would prefer Blackmagic-acquired content than Alexa-acquired content. Which is the exact argument I made. Technical spatial resolution does not equate to a better image. Be outraged all you like, but in no instance did I ever say that Netflix was accepting GH4-acquired material. But, it's also not accepting Alexa-acquired material for its original content. The point is a blanket 'UHD only' rule ignores the fact that spatial resolution does not make a good image, and that there are cameras that hold up poorer on a big screen than the Alexa, yet they're okay'd for original content acquisition whilst the Alexa isn't. It's a discussion of the arbitrary nature of such a decision, rather than implying the GH4 would actually be accepted.

I'm not suggesting that's what's happening. But the blanket rule suggests that you can't use an Alexa to shoot, say, B-cam, but you could use an A7sII. The point of the argument isn't 'wow the GH4 is the best camera ever', the point of the argument is 'how ridiculous is it that technically a GH4 could pass but an Alexa won't'. And Netflix have no say over non-original content. I'm not suggesting they won't accept Alexa gear, just that on Netflix original content it's not acceptable. Which is crazy, surely. But again, feel free to not understand the argument once more and throw some more random condescending comments around..

No, they shoot in UHD natively. There's nothing that suggests Netflix only accepts content originated in raw acquisition, just that they won't accept anything originated with a spatial resolution <UHD. That's the point. A blanket rule is a bit strange, and suggests that an A7sII or GH4 shot show would have more chance of being approved (as they are originating in UHD) than an Alexa originating in 2k or 3.2k despite the fact that we all know the Alexa footage would probably look better. There are plenty of productions shooting Varicam and F55/65 that don't shoot raw and still end up with mass distribution, including on Netflix.

I'd also suggest it's probably easier to police a blanket 'everything has to originate in at least UHD' rule, than it is to assess the spatial resolution quality of every piece of original content that comes through..

I think it's an example of people making decisions who don't really understand the nuance of acquisition. They're looking from a perspective of delivering the highest quality you can get on your TV set. I guess, technically, a show originated on the A7sII or GH4 would have more chance of getting through than something shot on an Alexa... Which is strange to us, but I guess if you're looking at a paper spec sheet, and you see one originating in UHD, the other upscaled, you would probably assume the one being upscaled would be of poorer quality..

Stills cameras or digital cinema cameras? Before or after a grade? There's a very big difference between an A7s and an F55, and a huge difference between a GH4 and a Varicam. Plus, they all get graded. And look, making actors look good is part of the job, but most of the time I'm shooting to serve a story, not simply to do beauty on an actor or model. Of course, there are times when you are shooting for exactly that, but to be honest, I'm yet to hear a complaint about a RED or an Alexa on those shoots. In fact, most of those types of shoots are more likely to request a RED well before a C300. If I was doing stills only, I'd probably use a Canon. But we're not talking stills. We're talking high-end digital cinema cameras. A video camera and stills camera are two very different things, but apart from that, the fact that there are more people shooting stills on Canon means only that Canon has a good brand name in a large market. Arri has a better brand name in a smaller market. There are also a lot more people watching television on cheap HD sets than expensive 4k ones. That doesn't mean the cheap HD sets are better, nor does it make their manufacturers more knowledgable about how to make TVs look good. Arri have also made film scanners (not just image scanners), the sensor in the D20 is essentially straight out of an Arriscan. Arri have been making cameras longer than Canon have, and have collaborated with some of the best lens manufacturers in the world to make lenses. Canon certainly have some knowledge and expertise, but I couldn't say definitively they know more than anyone else. Selling printers and scanners doesn't inherently mean you know more about colour, nor does selling more of your product in one market than another product in a different market (especially when you consider you appear to be comparing numerous camera bodies that range in price from <$1k to $30k, to a handful of bodies that start at $30k). I'd argue Kodak, the company that at one time manufactured film as well as digital sensors, knows a lot about colour too, but their sales sure don't reflect it. Does that mean they made bad business decisions, or that they know nothing about colour? I don't know how you can possibly say this given the C700 hasn't even started shipping, yet you seem to be suggesting that it is (or will?) outsell the competition somehow. I can't find specific sales figures for their cinema division, but please feel free to share with me the figures (in comparison to the other manufacturers) and show me by how much, exactly, they're outselling their competition in their digital cinema camera division. If you're talking stills, it's the same reason Coke outsell Pepsi. Brand name. This. Canon's colours are far from accurate, but I guess if you use one camera enough, you get used to it. I'm in no particular rush to decry Canon, as I said at $15k this camera is potentially competitive. In terms of the streaming sites, it appears that most have switched to (or are newly originating in) Sony, Varicam or RED. And I would be surprised if Arri don't have a 4k+ Alexa coming soon for this exact reason (and I've heard whispers that it isn't too far away). The ALEVIII sensor is over 6 years old, and is still just as good, if not better than every other camera out there, so will be interesting to see what's in store for a 4k Alexa

Skin tone? You mean some people like the almost fake tan skin tone of the Canon gear? The Varicam has the most accurate skin tone capture out of any of the cameras, and I don't know how you could possibly say that Canon's skin tone will be better than the Alexa...? To be honest, I think the only people who really like Canon colour that much are those that have only ever used Canon, and don't really know any different. As I said elsewhere, the VaricamLT offers almost everything that this offers, in a smaller, light, single-operator type body, yet designed to be operated with a full crew as well. It also offers Dual ISO, and arguably some of the most accurate colour reproduction on the market. And it's about half the price of the C700 And it's failing to gain real traction at the moment. The C700 is not a single operator camera, really, and yet the single-operator function of DPAF is their major selling point. DPAF is about the only feature you can't get elsewhere at the moment. So you're banking a lot on people going for it simply because it's Canon, but I think the issue is that most people at that level go for image rather than brand name, really. So it better have one hell of an image... At $15k this thing starts to become competitive. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw this eventually drop to there, and the C300II drop in price slightly to make room for it. when you're looking at this vs Varicam vs F5, that starts to become a more interesting proposition. But this vs RED Weapon vs Arri Mini vs Amira vs F55 vs Varicam is not a very strong position for this camera to be.

That's a very big if. It would have to be significantly better than those cameras and that's a tough ask And camera rigs are getting smaller - people want to be able to throw something on their shoulder, and a gimbal and a drone. This ain't looking like an easily handhold able camera. Even the Alexa is more ergonomic than that brick looking thing. But then, I never did like the ergonomics of the C300 either

Yeah, I certainly would rather my focus puller.. you know, pull focus, rather than screw around with DPAF. And I can't see too many productions at that level that would want/need it. Perhaps Producers trying to keep costs down, but it obviously doesn't replace a focus puller. I think it's best suited for the C100/300 single-operator type cameras, I don't particularly get it on something like this, but hey maybe there's a market?

Don't forget the URSA I dunno, sometimes it's better business sense to double down on doing the things you're already doing the best you can do them, rather than trying out new territory... I would've thought that doubling down and feature packing the C100 and C300 mkII's, in order to go hard against Sony would end up moving more units, and making more money for Canon than introducing a highly expensive high-end camera in an already over-crowded high-end camera market. But hey, who knows.

True. But then, it's not like we're talking C300 vs A7s type colour. You're looking at an F55 with it's F65-style colour gamut, colour science and DR, Panasonic with it's great colour science and gamut, Alexa with it's amazing colour and dynamic range... Compared to that, I wouldn't say Canon colour science is necessarily a big plus over everyone else. Sure, it's a plus - but it's a plus for the other guys as well. RED maybe has the disadvantage (maybe) but you're getting raw internally, so the 'issue' is negated a bit, especially considering you're surely grading your gear properly if you're looking at that level. True

Interesting. So the $30k market has another new competitor that operates the same as all of them. It's body is big and long by the look of it, so will be interesting to see how it sits on the shoulder. Reminds of the original URSA. Anamorphic de-squeeze, assumedly for 1.3x anamorphic lenses, as the sensor doesn't appear to be 16:9 And a 'modular design' - you know like every other camera manufacturer out there nowadays. DPAF is nice for some productions, but is it enough to keep it competing? At around $30k: -RED has 6k raw in a small body, at up to 75fps in 6k, 120fps in 4k -Panasonic has dual ISO in a small, light body (at half the price too!), plus their very impressive Varicam colour science -Sony F55 has F65 colour science in a body that's still smaller than that C700. -Alexa Mini has a 4:3 sensor, and an Alexa image. No 4k, obviously, but as we all know, not all 4k is created equal. Still a small, light body. -Canon has DPAF Interesting to see how it all pans out. I feel that if an amazing camera like the VaricamLT struggles to gain traction at ~half the price(ish) (assuming the suggested $30k of the C700 is correct), Canon may struggle. But then, perhaps the DPAF is enough to sway some (VLT has EF mount, but no AF).

Sony's camera bodies are also priced much higher than the GH4. The GH4's release RRP was the same as the A7II's release RRP. You're talking Panasonic's top of the line, versus Sony's middle of the line. The GH4 is half the price of an A7rII or A7sII. So given that essentially the GH4 is competing with the A7II, it only really needs to beat that and it will sell. It doesn't need to do anything, particularly something as 'drastic' as that, to stay in the game. If you consider the A7rII and A7sII to be high-end ILC game, Panasonic aren't competing there. They have neither the sensor size, resolution, low-light ability etc. to be able to compete at that level. But they can compete in the mid-range level a la A7II. I would suggest you'll get significantly improved low-light ability before you'll get 4k 4:2:2 10-bit. Maybe 4:2:2 8-bit, even 10-bit 1080p, but I just can't see it going full 10-bit in the GH5. Sure, right now they have no higher tier product to protect, but that's only thinking short term, and again these people are running a business and in business, you make long-term decisions for long-term sales. There may not be a product on the market right now to compete with an FS5/FS7/C300 etc. but unless anyone here works at Panasonic, no-one knows what may be in the pipeline. If there is an AF100 successor in the pipeline at any stage of development, it will have to sit between the VaricamLT and the GH5, and those decisions are made now. And if Panasonic can do 10-bit 4k internally in the GH5, and still make a profit margin with it priced at $1600 - why would they put that in a camera whose market is largely stills shooters, when they can put it into a $5k camera aimed at video shooters and make significantly more money? Again, happy to be proven wrong, and more than happy to put an edible hat on the line. But I just don't see it happening.

It just doesn't make business sense. We saw the 5DIV rumours, which were already watered down specs, that ended up being even more watered down in the actual product. Sony had all sorts of rumours flying around prior to the A7r/sII releases, and there's been 'rumours' about an 'imminent' a9 release almost since the a7 came out. Rumours are just that until the camera comes out - and the camera is almost always not as good as the rumours suggest. And even on the rare occasion that it defies expectation, the rumours still aren't correct. Too many people get bogged down in their 'hopeful' and 'ideal' cameras and try and find ways to justify the reason that it 'definitely will' happen, rather than thinking of these companies as businesses. But hey, I'll happily eat my proverbial hat if it does, in fact, happen.

Does make you kinda laugh how many eat up the ridiculous rumours I'm yet to see a rumours site get a major announcement totally correct (cue all the links and examples of the times a rumours site got it 'totally 100% right'). If anything, they're almost always wrong on the video spec.

yet...

Didn't know that the GX85 had 4:2:2 10-bit internal.... I think the point is that the FS5 does 1080p 4:2:2 10-bit internal, 4:2:0 8-bit 4k internal at $5k+ and many here are suggesting that the GH5 will not only do 4k 10-bit 4:2:2 with no crop internally, but also bring it in at a $1500 price point. Dream all you like, but it ain't gonna happen. Panasonic aren't dumb. Even if such features came in the form of a GH5, they're going to price it where they can make as much money as possible. Sometimes it feels like people forget these companies exist to make money.

That doesn't mean Panasonic can't/couldn't do it. It's all a branding gimmick - why not make it work for you?