webrunner5

Should have said a lot now, now a very few. The Star War movies have always been shot with by today's stands with a sub standard digital camera for parts of it. I know why he did it. He Had to because of some of the VFX parts, and the cost of film doing them. The Sony HDW F900 was used on Episode II. Great camera at the time for a digital one, but no way as good as film. But in a ground breaking movie like Star Wars was you have to do what you have to do.

We do have different ideas. I like Arri output. And there Has Never been a Star Wars movie that looked for a shit when it comes to a Cine look to it, from the Original Sony ENG cameras till now with the Reds. And a Arri Panavision was used on the http://www.arri.com/news/news/the-last-jedi-steve-yedlin-asc-on-skypanels/ "Production shot for several months at Pinewood Studios in London, with additional locations in Ireland, Croatia and Bolivia. Compared to THE FORCE AWAKENS, the number of sets and lighting schemes were far greater on THE LAST JEDI. Yedlin shot the movie in a combination of four formats: primarily anamorphic 35mm but also spherical 35mm, spherical and anamorphic ARRI ALEXA cameras from Panavision, IMAX 15-perf 65mm film, as well as the ALEXA 65 from ARRI Rental. His first ARRI ALEXA feature was the 2012 GIRL MOST LIKELY." Oh no doubt some films, very few now, are shot using all kinds of different cameras, from Go Pros to BMPCC. They use what works and what is more economical. All these new movies use tons of VFX stuff, Surely you can't do that with a Film camera? And geez half of a Mission Impossible has to be VFX stuff?

And the takeaway IS that he doesn't know how to grade Sony SLog files. Eh, not much of a video to be honest. Next. Is it going to hold up to 14bit Raw Red files, probably not, but I really have never thought Red footage was very Cinematic to start with. I am not a big fan of Red output. If I won the Lotto they are probably the last camera in hell I would buy. And like i said above, they are not the best camera to buy if you are looking for a FIlmic look. The Original A7s had a better output for that than the newer ones do now. And I would argue that the Filmic, Cinematic look is dead, dying anyways. Most people that even look at movies, go to them are all younger, and they probably haven't even seen 10 movies shot on Real Film. They are Used to the Digital look, and think that it is the cats ass. 4K, 6K, 8K stuff is Not going to look like B&W film from the 30's, ain't happening. And I think with HDR video getting a Film Look will be even More difficult. It is way past film DR wise if done and viewed right. Digital is here to stay, no surprise there. Damn good article on HDR, by a person that knows a thing or two about video.. https://vmi.tv/training/useful-stuff/HDR_reality_and_monitoring-a_DOP's_Perspective

I can tell you that Canon and Nikon sure as hell have their work cut out to begin to match a Sony A7 mk III, and I think impossible at that price point for either of them. They are not going to do it at 3500 dollars!

uh, you are allowed to buy the other half! I don't like Zoom stuff, so we are even.

Pretty good page here for some cart ideas to copy off of. https://www.pinterest.com/andyparnell1/sound-carts/?lp=true

So what ISO is that shot at? That sounds like a heck of a big limitation if 1600 is max on a Canon Cine camera!

Interview like 2 days ago with Elon Musk.

I really am not the one to ask about this LoL. All I know is that the Olympus cameras are a hell of a lot better than Panny on Photo AF. I hardly Ever used video Focus on my Oly cameras so I don't know how well that works. But I can't say my G7 was terrible in Video AF, or the GH3, but in this day and age they are way behind DPAF and even Sony now. I know the Panasonic cameras do not have Phase detect Sensors on the sensor for AF. They Only use Contrast ones. 225 on the GH5. I Think Olympus is comparing both types of sensors at the same time to get the better focus they have over Panasonic. But the old Olympus 4/3 lenses Only work with Phase detect sensors. Now there is not as many Phase Detect sensors on the sensor. Focus points on the Original EM1. 81 in contrast detection autofocus mode 37 in phase detection autofocus mode 121-point All-cross-type On-chip Phase Detection AF points on the EM1 mk II. A big difference! And ALL cross point to boot! Per Olympus "it is equipped with DUAL FAST AF which allows the camera to set optimal contrast AF and On-chip Phase Detection AF, along with the high-performance TruePic VII image processor, making it a Compact System Camera with pro-level performance. " Almost sounds like the MK II doesn't even Have Contrast Detection AF points anymore??? But, and maybe a big but, it is not as good at Video AF as the De Focus stuff on the Panasonic cameras. I really don't know? https://***URL removed***/forums/post/52042656

They are Really going to have to do something about AF or they are going to be out of business. AF is hot now even for Video. Having Crappy Photo and Video AF. Why even buy one?

Pretty decent phone App. Free also! https://www.provideocoalition.com/magic-viewfinder-a-free-directors-viewfinder-app-for-android-and-ios/

Sony on a roll. https://***URL removed***/news/0238379267/sony-takes-five-at-the-2018-19-eisa-awards

Pretty damn good price on this Rode Transmitter. https://www.ebay.com/itm/253816749257

The Oly EM1 is really a heck of a good camera in all respects. It is one of the few cameras that I regret ever selling. It just seems to fit well in your hand and it is responsive as all get out. The colors OOC are punchy, and the IBIS in it for the time is amazing. Yeah it could be better for video but for most stuff it gets the job done. I had the battery grip on mine. Little small for big hands without it. Two weak areas though. The strap lugs can break and the control wheel the back can go dead. Although some people just twist the wheel like heck and it comes back to life. But it is rare so don't Not buy one because of that. Might have been replaced under warranty years ago.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/7561/does-a-crop-sensor-affect-closest-focusing-distance-why-does-it-not-affect-foca

The BM PK4 is probably going to be just like the BMPCC. A pain in the ass to use with pretty amazing output. It is not going to AF worth crap probably, no IBIS, no preset of just shoot and post to the web video, not going to use it on vacation, give it to your wife to take shots of the kids, on and on. Bu it will be great LoL. The Sony A7 mk III is the jack of all trades. And a master at a lot of the trades. Probably the best Point n Shoot ever made. Other than better codecs I can't see nuch it is lacking in other than Big MP for landscape photos. Though choice no doubt. PK4, Kind of a poor mans Cine camera, or A7 mk III, an all arounder that can get the job done with ease other than a really great Cine look.

The ONLY modern camera that can use them in m4/3 is the Olympus EM1, EM1 mk II. And they work nearly as good as on the 4/3 cameras. They have both Contrast and Phase Detect sensors in them. The video specs are pretty limited, shooting only 30 fps at Full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution in the original one. EM1 mk II not so bad but might as well buy a GH5 for what they cost.

Yeah but 51,200 ISO is like 12,800 on most cameras, and 12,800 is like 3200 ISO on most cameras. That is the reason you buy a Sony A7.. is to be able to shoot high and not have to use f0.95 to get it. I don't see that as a negative. I see it as a plus in this test! It shows what it can do when you need it to do it. I can't think of any other camera brand you could get that shot with handheld. The A7 mk III is a game changer for the money, actually for any money. Your welcome!

I know it is easy to spend your money, but unless you need the smaller size for a Gimbal, wouldn't the FS7 be a better way to go over the FS5? Seems to me to be a better camera. The original one is not much more than the FS5 . But they are bigger no doubt, well a lot bigger. But I can see the desire for the electronic ND filter on the FS5. Kind of a quick and dirty comparison. https://www.hireacamera.com/en-gb/blog/motion/sony-pxw-fs5-and-pxw-fs7-the-difference/

Well I guess that is another reason Smartphones are so damn popular. You have to admit, other than at night in dark areas, it is pretty damn hard to screw them up output wise, whether it is photos or videos. And even editing in iMovie is not super difficult. Now is it Filmic looking as hell, well probably not. But I don't think 4k and higher can even look filmic unless you are intentionally trying to make it look that way. Even Arri spent years to get 4K with the ALEXA SXT Plus to "look" like Film. And I think the original Arri Alexa Classic at "Only 2.8K" looked better, Creamier. The Alexa XT at 3.2K ehh was not so bad either LoL. So heck I don't know what the answer is to be honest. We on here, well a lot on here, are trying to be a one man band, or at least doing stuff on the side if you work for a business that is into video. And it is nearly impossible to be good, let alone great at all aspects of video. That is why there is 200 people or more that work on a big time movie. They are all pretty damn good at their One specialty. And even then it takes them weeks, months to do it. How are we as a single person going to whip out some masterpiece in a week that is a Classic? Ain't happening I guess LoL. I would argue that post production is Way more important on average than shooting the footage, other than Audio. And who is great at that other than you know who on here. ? And how many of us are great in post production? I bet it is a damn small number. Nearly an impossible task to be honest.?

I guess we will find out soon, but I just don't see how Canon or Nikon can fit in this space and really move the ball down the road. Sony has such a lead on them. There is hardly anything their newer stuff can't do. What FF niche that Sony isn't covering is there? And APSC, I don't see a big enough market for it anymore long term. Sony apparently doesn't either. Other than DoF we don't Need f0.95 lenses, we can shoot at crazy high ISO's now. And we don't need that thin of DoF in reality and hope to focus right with video. Photos, well you have the time to adjust it on unless you are a action photographer, and I am not too sure that kind of lens would even be in their kit!. It's like Nikon is going to have to invent a whole new kind of FF Mirrorless camera to make a dent. Heck I guess anything is possible but.. I wish them luck but it is going to be an uphill battle that by the time they are on even ground even Mirrorless cameras may be a thing of the past sales wise. They have to do it, but wow they have their back to the wall.

Bingo. Give this man a Cookie!

Well I can't argue with your logic. And yeah getting it in camera IS the way to go. But most cameras that can really look pretty damn good output wise are not Point N Shoots, and most are going to have a Log or a damn harsh Slog 2, 3 Log in them and that is why you justified the purchase of it. And your right the more I seem to do the worse it gets. So for the average stuff I do, and it is pretty average trust me, gulp, I would kill to just mow, blow, and go as they say in the grass cutting business. So I am not against trying what he is trying. But I don't use FCP so I will have to think even harder LoL. It all is damn confusing for someone my age that really never did much editing with video. And this stuff is coming out faster than I can even wrap my head around, let alone master doing it. liftgammagain people are well, sort of, ehh, picky! Everything is sort of no no no.

Hell I just talked about using a Olympus EM1 mk II using a Panny 100-400mm for Sports, Birding over carrying a 800mm Canon lens on a 1DX. I would recommend it myself for the PK4. I do birding. What, people are only going to do Porn with one, and only need a super wide angle lens to do it with? Hmm do it, sounds dirty. ? Hell I can Only afford one system. I will use a 1200mm on the damn thing if I can carry the thing at my advanced age. And some peoples Garbage is Treasure to others. ?