mercer

Does anyone use that Portkeys EVF with the BMMCC? If so, how does it handle? I was thinking about getting one and pairing it with one of those trigger LANC handles to shoot it like an old Super 8 camera.

8bit = FS700 internal. 10bit = GH5

V60s are fast enough for the Raw Lite? That's not bad. The C70 doesn't have a CF Express slot, right?

That makes sense. If I shot professionally at all, I'd probably shoot 1080p on a camcorder or C100 Mark II for social media content. I am kinda curious about the camera though. Do you know how fast of cards are needed for up to 4K 60p Raw Lite? I'd mostly shoot in 24p. I'm thinking of renting one this summer for a short film and to just try out the camera. As much as I love my 5D3, I still get curious about these new cameras.

How many C70 users shoot in Raw Lite? I found some pretty nice looking samples on YT? I wish I had an extra 5 grand lying around.

No, but the camera's filter array will. For instance, Raw video from a Canon will have its own look compared to other cameras, no matter how it's processed. Well... sure you can make it look however you want, but a straight conversion would yield a different color look than a straight conversion from another camera's raw video.

Agreed. Even the stable 1080p still pulls its weight over most $3000, and under, cameras... especially with the right lens combo. Throw an old non-ai Nikkor, like the 28mm f/2, on it and it will give an almost instant 70s/early 80s gritty film look like something from Mean Streets.

This looks really good. I always suspected the internal 8bit raw was usable. I'd imagine it would do well with a processed noir B&W image.

As usual, these conversations become boring and too one-sided. It's convenient to use Apple's complaint as some type of proof that Red is in the wrong here. The court found differently... perhaps Red's response cleared it up. Their timeline, supported by affidavits, state they were working on Redcode well before the other patents were filed. They also state that their compression is not based on JPEG2000. https://*banned URL*/red-camera-apple-patent-challenge It's easy to believe one party over the other if it supports your thesis or world view, but that doesn't make it true. Don't get me wrong, I would love for more manufacturers to offer an internal Raw capability. I'm no Red Fanboy. But I do believe in the protection of intellectual property. I'm curious how IntoPix claims its TicoRaw is a protected property given Red's stranglehold on compressed Raw.

With any footage I've ever worked on, it matches FCPX's waveform for 0 or 100 IRE. So it will only tell you if something is off if you compare. Side note: it's a pretty nifty tool to use when practicing grading by hand/eye with FCPX's basic Color tools.

A simple way to check would be to click on the View drop down menu next to the screen and go to the safe levels and select either Luma, Saturation or All. Then a Zebra-Like image will appear when you're beyond Rec709 safe levels.

This looks great!

As others have pointed out... any one of these companies could create an external handle or grip as a raw module and get around the patent. Red used an idea, put in the R&D and made a workable product. Why should these multinational conglomerates be allowed to come in and piggy back their work just because it was inevitable someone else may want to do it sometime. We'd have zero innovations if that's the way things worked.

Exactly. I don't care about Red. I'd love to own a used Scarlet X but it's unlikely I'll ever be a customer of theirs. The greater point is that these majors could have avoided all of this 10 years ago and licensed ProRes from Apple and not have needed a raw codec. It's really overkill for hybrid cameras anyway. Blackmagic saw the obvious benefit and forked up the dough. I don't feel sorry for Canon or Nikon or Sony and their overheating issues.

Exactly, there is plenty of wiggle room for these HUGE corporations to invest R&D and figure it out. I'm sure Apple, Sony and Nikon have the resources. Canon figured it out, or licensed it from Red. Others can too. Again I cannot subscribe to the notion that someone shouldn't be allowed to patent something due to an obvious evolution. I mean, obviously it was inevitable that someone would have wanted to invent artificially illuminated light, but we still got the lightbulb from Edison (and Co.) because they put the work in and did it.

A few years ago when another post popped up... probably during the Apple case, I read the patent. I remember thinking that I didn't know why people are complaining. I remember thinking it was specific enough. They even described the way in which the compression occurs. Now that may be JPEG2000 compression, but it was very specific to their use. Sorry, I just don't understand this idea that people cannot claim ownership to something that they created based on some idea that it was obvious someone else may eventually do it. I'm sure patents are issued every day that alter or improve upon a product or invention.

And still no mention of lenses... Haha. Hey, I've been there. I spent a couple years chasing an image. I went from a t2i to an eos-m to an nx500 to a G7 to a BMMCC... Damn, I forget... I know there was a couple Sony cameras in there... some point and shoots... an FZ2500... Eventually, I forked up the dough for an open box 5D Mark III, installed Magic Lantern Raw and never looked back. I've been curious about other cameras, but nothing in my price range has come even close. Right now I'm really curious about the Sigma FP and the S5. The FP for its raw capabilities, its small size and a bump in resolution. The S5 for IBIS run and gun, B&W with 14 stops of DR. I'll probably just go forward with my 5D... I love the IQ, I already own it and KNOW it, and chasing specifics costs too much money for a hobby. All that said... knowing what I know now... don't get the FX3. There's no reason why you can't get comparable images with the R6. I wouldn't even bother shooting Log right now. Practice with it and practice grading but just use Neutral Profile dialed down with the ProLost Flat settings... then make a couple simple adjustments in your NLE of choice... contrast and saturation... maybe add some Tint for style and move on. If you're intent on buying a new camera... then get either an M50 Mark II or a GH5ii. The GH5 is a workhorse camera with plenty of headroom to manipulate the footage. Search Rowe Films on YouTube or Vimeo for examples of what can be accomplished. The point is... it seems like you're chasing a pot of gold. I know, I've been there. I found mine, but when I did, everybody had moved on from it and I questioned my purchase a bunch of times... do I need 4K... should I have IBIS... do I need better AF. It's all nonsense. The fact is this... all cameras under $4500 kinda suck in one way or another. So you either accept their faults based on other strengths (ibis and AF) and learn to bend the image a little or spend some money and get something more expensive... but then you won't have the convenience of the small size of hybrid cameras... and more expensive cameras aren't any easier to operate... they're just going to give you a sturdier footing.

If I remember correctly, it's not as broad as stated here. It discusses the process of compression, which compression ratios they are claiming ownership of and how it will work within the confines of the camera. There's also room within the concept for others to work around.

Gotcha. The FX3 will check a lot of those boxes, but it may not be as run and gun as you think. In that BTS video, you posted, the filmmaker used a gimbal in some of his shots, which may indicate that the IBIS isn't that great. I've never used one, so I can't speak to that. I'm sure it's acceptable, though. With that said, if I was in the market for a camera in that price range, I'd consider the FX3. I like the form factor, the lowlight looks fantastic, and I think the video IQ would look amazing in B&W. Which is something I am looking for right now. But there are other cameras that fit the criteria... the S5 is a fine camera and is only $1499 right now. There probably isn't a better deal on the market. I also like the X-T4, although it's probably not as good in lowlight. Good luck in your search. Resolve is a great program, but it can be complicated. Luckily, there are a ton of resources available at your fingertips.

Idk, it kinda feels like you're arguing with the people you've asked for advice because you've already made up your mind? Which is fine... go buy an FX3. As everybody has already said... it's a fine camera. But if you want advice, then listen to what people are telling you and asking you... what lenses do you own? What kind of video work do you want to do... personal, travel, documentary, music video, narrative. With that, of course there's a difference between a t3i and an FX3... but if you have zero experience color grading footage, then you would probably get better results with a t3i than you would with an FX3. sLog isn't the easiest Log profile to grade. So your R6, with a modified Neutral profile (ProLost Flat) would probably look better than the FX3. Also the GH6, shot in ProRes is probably on par with, or better than, the FX3. It will definitely have better stabilization. As far as the C70... well now you're talking a different classification of camera. If you can afford one, have video experience, plan on using it for work, etc... then it could be a great choice. But then you may as well get a Red Komodo. But why stop there? For a bit more you could get a C500 Mark II... for a little more than that you can get a Red V-Raptor... a bit more you can get an Alexa... surely that's a better camera... The point is that there's always a better camera. But cameras don't have a "cool" button. Roger Deakins, and others, would make video from a t3i look better than I would with an Alexa.

Speaking of the C300... if it's good enough for a Hollywood film by Ti West...

Jeez... a production could take the casing off and use that as a prop in the next Bond film. All it needs is a countdown timer.

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii. Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled... But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that. Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves. I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care. I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable. Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?

With ML Raw, the basic idea was to use BM Film but there really isn't a designed post workflow. I've used everything form the LogC transform in the MLV App, to BM Film in Resolve, to LogC CST and also used Rec709 in the Raw Panel. None of them seem any better than the other, really. I think this is why I'm intrigued by the FP because it seems similar to ML Raw in some ways, and I've found that some times you just need to wing it and make it work.

With FCPX, has anyone tried using the "zebra" tool in the View drop down window to see if it corresponds with anything? Also Color Finale has a raw importer tool called Transcoder which will read the dng files. I'd be curious to see how they compare with the ProRes Raw files. And finally, regarding internal raw... is it possible that the settings from photo mode are effecting cine mode? For instance... if you have the photo setting at 4:3, perhaps it's effecting the meter readings of the cine mode 16:9 and if they're both set to 16:9 maybe it will click. I'd also check the Director's Viewfinder. Anyway... just some thoughts.