independent

Google glass or augmented reality glasses.

Consider a monopod

Gitzo CF traveler w/ hook for added stability when moving the flat-base fluid head.

Can you develop an app to bring the same functionality to an Apple Watch or smartwatch?

That cinema dng footage looks great.

True IMAX is the only way to see it. Lincoln center here in NY. Of course the cinematography was superb. Deakins did a great job of keeping the overall look consistent with the original while introducing some interesting stuff as he always does. Not too much groundbreaking stuff, but Deakins is the utmost pro and storyteller - he does whatever fits the story. Except he was let down. The story had some promising plots and subplots, but it seems as if they condensed a trilogy into one. Harrison Ford showing up at the third act? That was a mistake, undermining K/Joe's character arc by replacing it with the daughter subplot. Too fast, too cheap. The Sean Young resurrection was fast and cheap. In the end, it felt like a mashup of themes from the original, Star Wars, Alien Covenant, etc., all on a Christopher Nolan soundtrack. It never broke through. Never had that moment. I doubt it becomes a masterpiece - they didn't break new ground nor effectively till old ones. They should have just focused on one major plot, K/Joe's character study, and settle for beautiful and elegiac, like Assassination of Jesse James. So no, not transcendent. In the end, a DP can be better than the story, but it won't be enough. This movie was already done, but better, in Metropolis, the 2001 animated film. Deakins would have murdered that remake.

Again, reading comprehension: I said “Will be.” I don’t need to repeat all the reasons why I think it will; just read these posts a couple times before responding. Also, how is it that you have a medium format camera? Damn, what a waste.

Keep your panties on. The question was video not film. Reading comprehension is tough, I know. Third grade was tough, but I made it. I don’t ask my focus puller shit. We both know how to work within technical constraints. The issue in question is whether full frame digital will be a standard. I’m saying yes. It doesn’t even matter if I get to be right...because it’s happening. The argument is over. Also nobody cares about m43. If you work with it, great. But no, it’s not a standard right now. Get over it.

Shallow DOF doesn’t have any drawbacks in of itself. It depends on the intended effect and the technical contingencies. Also, you might find your aperture control affects your depth of field more than sensor size. Try it. And, yes, historically, video camera sensors have been increasing in size. Right now it’s at super 35mm, which wasn’t a standard a decade ago (Red One came out 10 years ago). Alexa 65 and Red 8k are already full frame. It’s definitely going to happen in less than 10 years, and on the horizon are medium format sensors.

Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4. Full frame, full readout sensors will become a video standard.

Anybody know how the c200's low light compares with the 1dxii? My 1dx ii seemed pretty clean at hi isos with organic noise pattern, all at 8 bit 422 mjpeg

Low light? Can somebody post a high ISO / low light still or video? Aside from the resolution penalty (who cares), I'd like to see what the noise patterns are like.

I guess I'm trying to see the upside of it, since one could get raw from blackmagic without so much hassle, for not so more money (especially the 2.5K). If one already has a 5D III, completely makes sense.

How does the quality compare to Blackmagic's raw, 12-bit CinemaDNG RAW (4000x2160) ?

The lowlight is very good? I heard the opposite. I'm curious how it compares to the 1DX II if you still have both models. The high iso/low light on my 1DX II looked remarkably film-like and organic; the noise structure looks more analog than digital. I imagine the Sony A7S II to have the clearest image in the low light, but even then it doesn't quite shed its digital look.

Preference for either the Sony or Canon's color science is subjective. The A7SII's advantages in low light and the 1DX II's autofocus are not. Each has its pros and cons, leaving it up to the project to determine either's suitability. Both are great cameras. I'd be leery of putting too much of an emphasis on the out-of-box image for either camera. Too many factors play a role in the final image. Neither camera is going to make your movie for you.

Curious to see how functional the touch bar on the new macs will be with final cut.

I'd say it depends on your needs and style of shooting. If you're in a sound-controlled room, yes you can get away with a quality mic into a quality recorder. But when you increase the number of subjects/actors, or need better isolation because of the shooting environment, or meet the expectations of the client or studio, then you need more tools. in many situations a mixer would be essential - regardless of how good a cameras preamps are. In the end, that's why you really do need a person for location /production sound, for the majority of shoots. You need experience and the tools to capture sound in the most appropriate way. Can you shoot without one? Sure. But it would have to be very limited to a specific situation, or your results will be compromised. Maybe that's ok - I know eng guys often use a mic with a wider pattern and just shoot close with a wide lens. Depends on your needs and limitations. But for a more dynamic single operator you should have a mic with decent reach and rejection, and two sets of wireless mics. And a mixer with quality preamps. Even for a single subject interview in a treated environment, I would send a lav into one channel and the mounted/boomed mic into the other, for safety. Again, clipping, self-noise, batteries, too many potential problems, avoided with not much more effort. It depends on the project, but sometimes getting out of the way and letting the story come through means doing things right, which can mean hiring a sound guy. Even if that sound guy is your buddy you roped into holding a mic for eight hours.

You must definitely be a video guy, raw dogging a schoeps into your dirty camera's xlrs. I previously owned that mic, and it's beautifully clean and transparent. But it can sound thin and it's pickup pattern is both forgiving and promiscuous. No mic can read your mind. Not a problem in a studio, but like you noted, on location it's different, you really need to maximize that s/n: mic placement, proper gain staging, etc., and you need the right tools. You really need to raise the gain if you can't boom tight enough, which is often on an indie set, where challenging conditions (lack of noise control, short crew, limited takes, etc.) calls for quality mixers and recorders. And I'd highly recommend redundant audio for a one man band, for safety. Doesn't have to be complex.

The Fostex is built like a piece of shit MyFirstSony. But it records some clean sound. And it's dirt cheap used, as is the marantz. Sound Devices are excellent, i own a mixpre-D, but they're heavy and relatively expensive. If you need everything on the camera for handheld, you can easily attach a high quality handheld recorder such as the aforementioned sony pcm10 and/or one of the newer zooms..the u-series look pretty good. And that will capture better sound than your C100 or any other video camera. I'd do it even for safety, can't even count how a secondary track saved a shoot - batteries crapping out, levels, etc. Funny, I've been through a lot of cameras, but lenses and sound gear have stayed with me. Loyal like dogs. Cameras are bitches.

Far more DR? Let's not get carried away here. And I'm talking about practical advantage. Unless you're shooting at 850 all the time and properly exposed, you won't take advantage of the C100's dynamic range in c-log. There's also usable dynamic range. It's codec is 8-bit and the bitrate is low. The recording levels are stretched thin if you're shooting in c-log. There are also artifacts such as vertical stripes and horizontal banding. These are well-documented. Even the 1DC suffers from it. C-log on 8-bit cameras is overrated. On the other hand, the 1DX II, while not having a very efficient codec, gives you a lot of information. It's a thick image. Dynamic range is one consideration, but so is recording level. And on top of that, if the 1DXII's 4k footage were downscaled to HD, how would it compare with the c100's HD? Detail, color information, etc.? Well Andrew himself tested the 1DC 4k downscaled compared to the c100, and it was WAY BETTER in your words. The 1DX II would benefit from the same advantages. Bottom line: the 1DXII will have better downscaled 1080 than the c100. And there is no 4K comparison, of course. Sound - What's the blatant misinformation here? Personal experience: last year we used c100's for a shoot. We had an SD mixer/recorder for the schoeps on a boom. But despite the tight budget, we wanted the best possible safety/guide tracks directly into the camera. We tested an ancient Fostex recorder and I believe a Marantz 661 - both were noticeably cleaner even to me - and I'm not particularly sensitive to sound. The Sound Devices is rated an EIN of 130, Fostex, 129, Marantz, 125. I have no idea what the c100's rating is, but shockingly good? It wasn't, not compared with "decent" affordable recorders. But maybe we have different standards and professional expectations. (And sorry, it's not way better than Zoom's new recorders...the F8 was rated at 127 and their H6 at 120. They've leveled up since their h4n. Talk about misinformation) I like the c100II a lot, but it has its limitations, including that it doesn't shoot 4K - and it's $4k. It's long in the tooth...but it's a great HD doc camera. Just don't misrepresent misinformation...it's just your opinion. Enjoy the c100's WAY BETTER dynamic range and SHOCKINGLY GOOD sound. Just know you didn't back it up with anything. I'm not going to make any assumptions about your competency, because I'm sure you make SHOCKINGLY GOOD wedding videos.

The 1DX II isn't a video camera? It shoots video. It's a video camera. We're past the time when a dedicated camera necessarily means a better image capturing machine. As far as dynamic range, most of the good dslr's have about 11-12 stops (s-log3 is problematic for sony's 8-bit codec). Blackmagic does give you more usable dynamic range, and they have excellent noise control/grain structure. But some people have their issues with them. Now does the c100 II have a better image? Well, no. The 1DX II gives you high quality 4K with low rolling shutter and great out-of-the-box color. Also, the best video AF w/ touchscreen. And the c100 would not give you any practical advantage in dynamic range, color, low light, noise, etc. Even the 1DC's advantage is way overblown here...c-log has limited use because of the 8-bit codec, and you need to shoot at native iso, in many/most situations you'd probably be using a different picture profile. As far as audio, yes the C100 does give you XLR inputs, but the quality of the preamps aren't even as good as the consumer Sony PCM-10 (<$250) or the newer Zoom products, which give you far more options in a compact package. Unless you absolutely need the super low bitrates of the c100. Also, the 1DX II is a world class stills camera. Why would you be investing in an old video camera and an old stills camera when their combined price is pretty much the same as the 1DX II? The 1DXII is both a quality 4K video camera + top stills camera.

Depending on budget and the demands of the shoot, the 6300 could be a great option or a terrible one. Same with the 1DX II, A7R II, or A7S II. None of those cameras are bad, they all have appropriate situations. And resolution isn't the only factor for flattering actors. For one, talent with good skin. It's a cruel business. Next, makeup artists, lighting, focal length, shooting distance, lens characteristics, filters.

If you need video autofocus and are a hybrid shooter, then the best all rounder seems to be the Canon 1DX II and the Sony a7r II. Best bang for the buck is the a6300. No perfect camera out there. At any price. You're better off seeing what the needs are of the specific project or your own style of shooting and workflow. Do you work as a DP on a traditional film set, or are you a one-man band, are you a wedding shooter, are you a hobbyist, etc.? If you're looking to invest, just keep in mind the short refresh cycles for cameras. Photographers always say invest in the lenses and that's largely true for videographers too. I say largely true, because with autofocus, many of the amazing manual focus lenses are less important to you. If you don't use autofocus, then you'd still be able to take advantage of all your nice leica-R's and zeiss lenses.

Nothing shot on the 1dc would be identifiably unique. It's just a camera. What is far more recognizable is style of lighting or grading.