mercer

And that has been my point all along. The manufacturers spent a ton of time and money pushing resolution in lieu of features that will push IQ. Look at the "The Storm" video from the GH6. By all accounts it looks great, but the 24p ProRes footage looks way better than the slow motion.

It was inevitable, I think, for Panasonic to be the first major manufacturer to offer internal ProRes, but you're right, it should've happened sooner. it doesn't mean it's any less impressive. I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe at least 75% of Hollywood productions are shot in ProRes. Sure some BM cameras have included it for years, at this or a lower price point, but not with 7+ stops of IBIS. With that said, like with raw video, 90% of the members of this site, do not need ProRes.

Cool camera. Finally a m4/3 response to the P4K from a major manufacturer that makes shooting simpler. Sure I wish it was a little cheaper... I'm a cheapskate. But it's better than the rumored price... so that's something. If Micro 4/3 is dead... then MAN... this is an honorable way to pass.

Thanks @PannySVHS I really enjoyed shooting B&W with that camera. Changing the color to monochrome in the sLog settings seemed to help give the highlights a filmic look due to the higher dynamic range. And as I mentioned earlier, it negated the dreadful sky banding. Before I changed the setting to monochrome in camera, I tested the theory on color footage and as I brought the saturation down, I could see the banding disappear. I like the MonochromeL profile on the GX85 as well. I've been considering buying a camera that I only use for B&W. I suppose the Fuji X-S10 would be kinda perfect for that. Acros Film simulation, or fLog, Super 35, IBIS, high bitrate 2K and 4K. There was something very cool about the RX10ii, though. It felt like some kind of cine-camcorder.

For years, people complained that they couldn't get internal raw video on their cameras and now Panasonic is releasing a camera with internal ProRes (the next best thing to raw) and people aren't impressed? ProRes is a professional codec. With that said, is $2500 too expensive for a GH camera... YUP! Can you imagine what the S2H will cost? $5000? Way too much for that camera too... even with ProRes. I'm curious why more of the pros, on this site, aren't buying a Komodo or C300 Mark III?

So... back to Portra 400. I've been shooting some film lately and although I haven't shot any Portra yet, I've been looking at hundreds/thousands of photos on Flickr and it looks pretty close to me. I like how your LUTS are handling different types of skintones, which is evident in the Caucasian male image and the Asian male and female. If only you made a set for ML Raw.

With a name like OM-1, which is recycled from their 35mm SLR days, you'd think they'd follow their own company's history and produce the smallest full frame camera. And with the 12bit raw rumor, I was hoping for an internal version, or internal ProRes. If these specs are accurate, this isn't how you make a splash. I mean, no 4K all-i?!

No worries... I may have been being a little bit of a prick there. I get it. Although I'm still happy with my 5D, there are times when it just isn't sharp enough for certain looks I'd like to try. But with the right lens, I usually find my happy place again. Sad to hear that about the C200... I was just noticing that the C200 was coming down in price. Adorama even has an Open Box C200B for around $3000. I'm not hating on 6K at all. In fact, I am planning on renting a Komodo this summer for a couple weeks to shoot a short film... as long as our society doesn't;t fall apart from war, famine or disease by then. I think 8K might be getting into unreasonable territory... but to each their own. You know your needs/preferences more than I ever could. I don't think it takes away from it, it just seems like you can one without the other. Until I can shoot with an Alexa Mini, 4-6K seems to be the sweet spot to get a good 2K final cut, it's hard for me to justify the costs that go with it. The camera is one thing, but when you add the extra storage costs... recording media and editing, batteries, etc... I don't make my living doing video work and there's only a slim chance that any of my films will go anywhere... I just don't know if higher resolution will change that. Again Dual ISO would be great though for my horror/thriller stuff I want to do. Sorry, I misunderstood. Damn they must be lucrative gigs? Your clients do realize that their iPhones can record the same footage, right? Oh I know, I recently went back to shooting some film and I am dumbfounded at the price of some of these cameras. Luckily I like cheap things and my new, to me, Minolta X-700 and Yashica FX-3 are more than enough to satisfy my interest.

You make some valid points. Nikon did introduce internal ProRes into a $5k camera that has the possibility of coming to market before decade's end... and about 12 years after the start of the DSLR revolution and 8 years after BM introduced it into a $1k camera. Progress. I'm not complaining at all. I'm just curious when we have reached the apex of resolution? At what point do videographers have the resolution they need... when we can confidently count the exact hairs in a model's nostril? And just to be clear, I don't mean any disrespect and I'm really not complaining, or judging, at all. I feel very lucky to have a camera that I love that is more than enough for my skill and talent. It's just a discussion.

@leslie do you have the version that can shoot raw? I believe it's the V1... https://www.eoshd.com/creative-filmmaking/nikon-v1-shooting-4k-60fps-raw-for-200/

This looks wild, thanks for posting it. I loved the shots of the actors invading the other actors frames.

Sorry... I think you are contradicting your own thesis statement here... 'ignorance is bliss...' I don't understand why these discussions always devolve into condescension? Plus, I haven't read anywhere, in this thread, where people are complaining about tech moving forward. That would be a futile complaint. With that, at what point, do we as consumers, tell Canon, Sony, et al... that we don't want higher resolution? Give us ProRes, give us true 14+ stops of DR, give us better color depth. Is 8K enough? DO we need 12K... 16... 20K? Most of these companies haven't even given us very good 1080p yet. For some reason there's this belief that higher resolution = technological evolution when it's fairly obvious that Arri has proven that resolution is probably the least important factor in image quality. Sorry, I was discussing two different things there and should have separated my thoughts more clearly. What I meant was that I find it really depressing that the trend is to create images/videos that look like they were shot on an iPhone. For those projects, it seems a camcorder would be a better choice than a FF stills camera that shoots 8K video. My other comment was just a reaction to the idea that shooting on an iPhone in Portrait mode seems to be a modern concept so I find it surprising that these young kids are interested in analogue photography. Anyway, nice images

Good point. But most films are still projected in 720p/1080p as well. So this idea that 4K+ is NECESSARY seems a bit far fetched. With that said, I am a firm believer of doing whatever you want with your money. But where does it end? How much does one need to crop? How many zoomed in versions of the same angle is sufficient to put together an edit? As someone else already said, it doesn't matter because technology advances so the future is higher resolutions. But Kye also has a point that when these higher resolutions require a lot of filmmakers to dirty the image for a pleasing aesthetic, one has to wonder what is the point in using the higher resolutions? On this forum, it seems there is more videography being shot than narrative, so the discussion is kinda moot. I assume most clients want the newest tech. This so interesting... yet so depressing. I wonder if it's form vs. function. Film photography is huge on IG, so is it that the new generation prefers authenticity, or are they truly just seeing the world differently now that they have had their heads glued to their smartphones for the past 15 years? With that being said, it seems that this only strengthens the less is more argument. Why would anyone shoot 8K for such content? Honestly, if I were creating this type of work, the first thing I would do is go out and buy a small sensor camcorder. It would pay for itself in an hour or two, and the production benefits are massive. Anyway, I think discussions like these go off the rails way too easily. Obviously, this is a theoretical discussion on some level, but people end up taking offense because it defies their own thoughts or choices. The truth is there are valid reasons for both camps. However, I will say that I imagine it could be pretty frustrating for beginners to read this site only to learn that you need to have an 8K camera now to create proper footage. This isn't personal to you, or anyone specifically, but it seems we're in a place, as a culture, where we yield to the commands of consumerism rather than the rebellion of creation. Recently, I was wondering what camera Godard would use if the French New Wave happened today.

I'm hanging in there, thanks. Well played with the "100% agree." Well played. Thanks for the link. I don't remember it sucking at all. I remember it showing a strong artistic hand crafted it. 5 more films?! That's great news. I admire your work ethic. Did you pitch a producer? I am so horrible at pre-production. I just want to write a script and shoot it. I hate casting and funding, etc... you know all of the things that make a movie happen.

Hey Kaylee, how in the hell are you? I don't think you're wrong at all... but neither is Kye. In fact, I think his point is being missed here. Higher resolution is fine... to a point... but it's completely unnecessary when you consider that it's all the camera manufacturers are giving us. Two years ago when 6K was popping up, most people here were saying that 4K is more than enough and we'd rather have higher bit depth and better DR. Instead, they give us more resolution and now some of those same people really NEED 8K. I can't tell you how many times I have almost bought a Sigma FP because I thought I needed 4K raw, but at the end of the day, I still haven't made enough with my 5D3 and ML Raw. I'd rather have 14bit color and internal 1080p raw than 4K raw, a bunch of new storage and a computer upgrade. I actually don't think any upgrade, shy of a Komodo, or better would be worth the trouble at this point... especially when you consider the OG Alexa Mini is probably still the most used camera in Hollywood. I, mean, Yellowstone, the highest rated TV show still shoots with the Mini... and nobody could say that's and outdated image... that's gotta mean something. But everybody has different needs, so YMMV. Btw... can you send me a link to your short film? I've been wanting to watch it again.

The crazy thing is that a couple years ago everybody was complaining that Canon wasn't giving its customers enough resolution. Now they give 8K and people still hate them.

I can't speak for the C70, I haven't seen much footage from it, but everything I've seen from RawLite looks amazing to me. I love C200 Raw and the 1DX Mark III seems like the perfect camera for me. But I agree with @BenEricson... Komodo footage is next level and, based on IQ alone, bridges a major gap between prosumer cinema cameras and the big boys. I really like the Canon look. Heck, it's why I still shoot with my trusty, old 5D Mark III and ML Raw. Most cameras that I can afford would be a lateral move in overall IQ. Blackmagic cameras have a nice image and so does Sony, but the Komodo, at $6K, is a major leap in my opinion. With that said, if the RawLite rumor for the C70 is true is good news. I don't know if it's necessary for half of the camera's users, but that's neither here nor there.

Looks great. I was about to do some research on this. Any advice on the best, cheaper phone for this? Are there any phones with bigger sensors? I don't know much about android phones.

Yup, my BMMCC came with the Metabones Nikon speedbooster, but I really would have preferred the Canon version for those reasons. The Canon 17-55mm would have been a joy to use with the Micro as well as the 35mm f/2.

I suppose, but I can only imagine the money they're losing by discontinuing most of their EF lenses.

I don't watch too many YouTube reviews but I have to admit that your near-awkward Web 1.0 video style is kinda endearing. If I have to see another blue light special review on the bridge of the S.S. Cliche-aprise I may just gag. And since nobody on YT makes videos about the 5D Mark III and ML Raw, I have very little reason to watch. With that said, why are Canon going all in with the R Mount? The R3 seems kinda nifty I guess, but I'd much rather have RawLite on an EF mount 5D Mark V with IBIS and internal NDs. Like you said, the DSLR revolution is... over. Maybe we should start producing art on cameras that were released pre-2015. Fuck 'em!

Agreed. That video alone could get her a job shooting 2nd Unit on a feature. The Komodo looks amazing and for only the double the price of the A7... I love the promo film Jason Momoa shot with his... And this one looks pretty good too... check out the highlights in her hair...

@PannySVHS really?! I still think that the 1DC has one of the best 4K images around...

I should have been more clear with my comment. I meant, in Hollywood standards and the rules of the ASC. I'm barely a competent camera operator and that woman is way more talented than I am. We're all striving to be better at the craft and she deserves and earned the same respect anyone on this forum would ask for.

And at its core... cinematography is about making pretty images. Technically, I don't think anybody on this forum would be considered a cinematographer or DP. I think she did a nice job with a camera that isn't known for its lowlight capabilities.