BenEricson

I would have to disagree. “The kids” are the ones shooting tons of actual film right now. Largely driven by millennials it seems. There is so much 16mm and 35mm being shot right now, I would imagine 10 times more than what was being shot 5 years ago. Nothing beats the real deal if you can afford it.

Personally I would shoot baked in on some sort of neutral profile. You’d wanna shoot 10 bit over 8 bit 4k. Always shoot at higher f stop so you can pull a clean key on details like hair or the shirt / jersey. F8 if possible. Make sure you have enough light and make sure they’re far enough away from the screen so you don’t get green kickback on the side of the face / hair. As far as lighting, I would kinda think you’d want a little more backlight or a little falloff on the face. The frames you posted feel very evenly lit. Are you shooting waist up?

Thanks man. This was the Rokinon 8mm I think? It's been a while since i've used that setup. It worked really well at the time though.

:46 is with that setup. I believe this was 1080p / 60p mode. 4k might crop a little more? You mean the 8mm 3.5mm, correct? No vignetting. The black Magic pocket looks better but there was no fisheye option at the time.

www.freesound.org

Christopher Nolan used 65mm a ton in The Dark Knight and even more so in The Dark Knight Rises. The option has always been there, it’s just easier now so suddenly everyone “needs it to help tell their story.” I’ve often heard everyone loves the texture and the film like noise of the Alexa Classic. I would wonder if the intense DI / coloring on all of those films mentioned is a way of negating the gloss from the added resolution. It seems like too much resolution / sharpness in digital formats has always been where the magic starts to go away. The lust after 1080p CCD sensor cameras are a great example of this. I mean a digital bolex and an Alexa Classic are getting close to the same price these days.

Don’t forget some fill under the chin can be nice too. It may happen naturally depending on the color of your floors. The wider you plan on shooting, the more lights you will most likely need. If you have budget, Canon cameras do such a good job in these types of settings. Even a C100 I would imagine would be better fit.

Have you made sure you’re exporting to 59.94 and not 60? That will cause drift. I haven’t heard of it in a while, but the drive speed could potentially slow it down. Maybe try going to 422 or LT and see if you have the same issue? Just to trouble shoot. Is it happening on all of the clips?

The sensors are tiny. My iPhone XS looks only okay in lower light with anything but the widest lens. It’s great in the right conditions, but that’s always been the case. Even the phones now seen good enough for most consumers. I should mention that the skin tone and color is actually much worse on my iPhone XS than the 6s that was made 3 years earlier. This might have to do with improved high ISO performance. Historically that always seems to be the problem with all lowlight cameras. Portrait mode is also so dodgy and kinda works well sometimes?

Yeah, but the audio from the vx and soft desaturated highlights still compete with what is available now. It's just such a good all in one package. I also think that skateboarding undeniably looks better in 4:3. Agreed. All of the hip ad agencies are all shooting 16 and 35. The amount of labs and the price and demand for cameras really reflects this as well. A bit of nostalgia and I think the resolution battle has slowed down, as the search for better looking texture and color increases.

On the fence on if a director with literally THE worst list of movies expects to be taken seriously? I knew he did the hangover and then recently found out he did old school and road trip. ? Youre not Tarantino. Do you get to make trash films for 20+ years and then expect people to forget? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/davidmack/todd-phillips-joker-woke-culture-comedy

The Canon C series is really great for events, but a GH5 would do good and you use it with your Ronin S.

Pro Mist is really underrated. Really gives the highlights a nice look.

I am curious how the 3 cameras work on the new phones. I have the XS and the telephoto is only SLIGHTLY sharper than taking a wide shot and zooming in. I assume this is because the wider lens uses more of the sensor? Or are these using separate sensors all together? The processing done on the new phones is also really really harsh. Lots of noise reduction and smoothing going on. I find the camera is most usable if you download a third party apps to control exposure.

My thoughts exactly.

No audio track at high frame rates is really annoying, (maybe even 60p?) That screams cinema camera, as opposed to the one man band C300ii.

Is this meant to be a solo operated camera? Or more rigged up? The OG C500 was more of their cinema camera option. This camera is a beast. The Canon Cinema cameras have always been my favorite. I was honestly surprised at the price tag. I expected closer to 20k.

First off, the C200, C300 MK2, are work horse cameras. You can literally shoot entire documentary with a bare bones package. The reliability, form factor, ND filters and XLR ports make things so easy. The batteries run for literally 4/5 hours. It is ridiculously easy to color grade. The skin tones have a softness and smoothness that the pocket just does not produce. Also, this guy is a youtube review guy. The pocket 4k clips so damn hard. If you clip highlights, it looks terrible. His example shots are literally the best case scenario. He also keeps talking about "how accurate the green in the trees are." To be honest, the trees look like Sony green, with lots of yellow. Kind of sickly. Sharper is not better. That pocket is looking harsh in comparison. It almost looks like the C200 has an extra scrim up to soften the light. The forehead and cheeks have this harshness in the highlights that literally does not exist with the C200.

More BMMCC. The skin tone and color rendering is pretty incredible.

Going from F8 to F2, makes the focal plane basically 4 times smaller.

If anyone is curious, I just finished up a piece shot about 50 percent with the pocket. This was graded by a colorist. The other half is Super 8 and there's maybe 4/5 shots with the GH5. This might not make sense if you don't live in Seattle but maybe relatable. Anyway. Shot with the OG bmpcc. "An experiental piece about a population coming to terms with a rapidly changing city."

No Sony will produce color like that.

I just finished a short piece that was all Super 8 and the bmpcc. We had a few GH5 inserts and the colorist said they looked “glossy” compared to the pocket camera. The small size was perfect for what I was doing and I have always loved the look. I think the S8 and bmpcc is a good combo. I completely agree as well. Flat film scans are the same way. A beautiful look can be had with a simple three way color balance.

If you bought a C200 and the pocket was even on your radar, then you probably bought the wrong camera regardless. The benefits of the c200 are the ergonomics, auto focus, battery life, Internal NDs and reliability. The pocket can probably get close strictly image wise, but it’s a lot harder to get there.

The most intriguing part to me is the larger S35 sensor and EF mount. I hope they did something to improve battery life. 6k is cool. Lots of talk about “adapting to the future. ” It is an interesting time with a lot of commercial work literally being shot on 16mm and 35mm film right now. I am curious if the resolution war even as big of a deal as it was even a few years ago?