HockeyFan12

How did you like the XC10? Is its autofocus any good? At what ISOs does it become problematic with ghosting from NR? Is it clean at 800 ISO? 1600 ISO? How do you find its low light compared with the 5D raw? I was thinking of getting a B cam next year for use on the Ronin, once the prices bottom out a bit, and I could really use the 4k for a b cam because I inevitably warp stabilize Ronin footage to reduce translational bounce. The autofocus would be nice, too, if it it's half decent.

Damn it I was hours away from putting up on eBay my P50ST60. Now I think I'll just move it into the other room instead.

1) The 5k iMac is a great machine. Perfect for 4k editorial. I still don't see the advantage of 4k tvs unless you stand three feet from them (not for me), have better than 20/15 vision, or spend so much money that you're also getting the benefits of other technologies too (4k OLED? yes please... but if not, 1080p kuro plasma). Past a certain size (maybe 100" or so, mostly for projectors) they will have an appreciable advantage in terms of resolution, but below that not really unless you stand close. For monitors and smart phones (very close to the face) then the retina advantage is huge, though, imo. For web deliverables 4k makes sense to me if you can handle it in post. 2) Depends on your workflow. I transcode everything to ProRes or DPX so for me it would be a huge problem for me. You can always switch to 1080p for less important content, though, or if you're editing in Premiere just use the native codec.

Agreed. I used to work for one of the bigger mastering and tape/film distribution houses and their libraries are all 1080p excepting maybe 1% of the deliverables are 4k. We'll transition to 4k content for sure, but it's going to be very gradual and 1080p will remain a viable master format for older content.

I have an acquaintance who works for one of the larger 3d scanning companies. They use reality capture for software (widely available) and about 100 consumer-level dSLRs in an evenly lit space designed to reduce specularity on the subject. You could set this up too but the 100 dSLRs gets expensive. There are consumer-level 3D scanners but they're too low res for what you want to do. I would give a call to some of the higher end 3d scanning houses.

Why is it then that none of the major networks (tv and cable) broadcast in 4k? And the majority of DCPs are 2k, even when the source material is 4k and above? Sure there are 4k tvs everywhere (as there were 3d ones everywhere a few years ago), but in terms of content creators and distributors, it's really only Netflix and YouTube Red that care about 4k. For everyone else it's a buzzword. Sure there are 4k tvs, it's planned obsolesce and marketing. But how much 4k content are people watching on those tvs in 4k is a good question... Netflix's 4k streams look imo worse than a good blu ray. More high frequency detail but worse tonality, with more mosquito noise and compression. YouTube 4k looks worse. For network and cable tv and for normal wide theatrical release, 4k doesn't matter. For IMAX it matters, but only maybe 20-30 features get IMAX releases a year. For YouTube and Netflix it matters, but not for image quality so much as marketing (again, a good 1080p blu ray looks better 90% of the time). Almost anywhere else? Not really a factor. I can see 4k mattering more for Vimeo than for theatrical release, since laptops have high res screens and you hold them close to your eyes. But most staff pick are still 1080p and resolution doesn't seem to drive how they're chosen... so I'm still confused by why you place so much value on a fairly insignificant feature. I do understand the need for 4k. For the occasional vfx background plate or stock footage that might get punched in on, absolutely. On a GoPro you need all the resolution you can get for stabilization and de-fisheying. 4k on GoPros is great. I just don't understand the wider need for 4k on production cameras outside IMAX features, and YouTube Red and Netflix shows, where I would still argue it's mostly a buzzword. And that's such a narrow target where next to nothing is sourced on consumer-grade cameras anyway (Netflix's cheapest acceptable 4k camera is the BM 4.6k). So the purpose of 4k on consumer cameras to me is and always has been marketing. I dunno. I don't see the appeal. Diminishing returns in image quality for a massive increase in time spent in post.

I agree that it's choice, but everyone's choices are informed by different priorities. While it might mostly be consumers blindly choosing the name brand who are buying Canon, it might also be that 4k isn't a priority for most consumers (and pros). The Alexa, too, is still essentially a 2k camera. It offers a LOT in exchange for this trade off. IMO, certain Canon models do too. Mostly in terms of ergonomics, color, and DPAF. Ultimately, I think whatever tool makes you enjoy the process most will be the one that results in the best result, and the result will sort of be tailored to the process anyway. So if art is subjective and mirrors you, then whatever equipment you prefer is the equipment you need to use to do you at that given moment. (Try something new and challenge yourself from time to time, though. Shoot 16mm!! You'll only know yourself better after trying.) Of course, on set, a 5D Mark II might be a lot of fun. It's tiny and easy, and the viewfinder image looks ok, but in post you have a shitty image to work with grading is gonna suck. Or a DP might love the Red Helium and the editor hates it, or the DP might hate the Alexa or C300 and the editor loves it. So when you're only the DP or only the editor you're gonna have really different priorities than your fellow creatives... and you're gonna see weird preferences and messy workflows and in-fighting and... well... a less fun process. (The Alexa is kind of great on set and in post... ditto the C300 Mk I. They both did well commercially... Just sayin'.) For most of the people here, this is a hobby. We're probably shooting and cutting and grading our own footage. So if we want to keep doing that, we'd better make it fun. For the pros among us, they want the easiest job possible while still enjoying the work and delivering a good product. Fairly similar priorities. You've gotta love it to do it. So I'd say let the Canon hate go and focus on the Panasonic/Sony/BM love. For the portrait shooter dead set on a full frame stills camera and the 85mm f1.2... just let them have their 6D Mark II, they won't even switch the knob to video. They'll have a blast. I know it drives clicks trashing there 6D, but you know why Canon and Arri are doing well in the market. And why the 1DC failed despite it being a great camera. Fwiw, I can imagine scenarios in which I'd absolutely need 4k. I like Canon, but I still wish their cameras shot 4k prores.

Yeah I wouldn't get worked up about it. 7Ds on technocranes were common in tv for quite a while. Granted Deakins I'm guessing would have turned down the 7D but this is more about size and convenience than it is about image quality. But yes, it proves the 1DC is "good enough" for a sweeping wide shot being intercut with the Alexa. Which is pretty good!

I actually liked the effort it took to shoot content on film (back when I shot on film) because it felt like you were using a precious limited resource, a physical and tactile medium, and you had to treat it as such and with respect. The effort to get a great image and the delay between shooting and seeing the dailies put you in a different headspace… counterintuitively, it put you in the moment. I think it puts your audience in the moment, too. I love film. I will never love digital as much. But that era is over. Even when shooting film, it’s difficult to stay in the moment when shooting on a difficult, restrictive medium when your brain is constantly reminding you that there’s an easy, better-looking, and cheaper alternative… that you already probably own. And we’re an ADHD-addled generation, anyway. Transformers coverage distracts better than Jaws coverage. Art is, unfortunately, of its time. :/ There’s a place for film. It’s nostalgic and will grow more nostalgic. For a Christmas story or WWII drama or throwback you might get some beautiful physicality and nostalgia on film that even well-processed digital couldn't possibly give you. The different process contributes to that. But it’s a regressive choice for those reasons, too. So I do agree that the Alexa (which, don’t get me wrong, is the best camera ever) is the worst of both worlds in a way. Works like a film camera (ACs love it); looks like a film camera; isn’t a film camera. It’s the I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Butter of cinema. Thing is, sometimes I actually can’t believe it’s not butter. See Yedlin’s Nuke script. That's not inherently bad. Twin Peaks the Return, shot on Alexa but with thoughtful film-like coverage and lighting, is amazing. The Alexa is an amazing camera, even if it’s a weird stopgap camera. (Whereas Red is innovating toward a “high end digital” experience and look rather than “film replacement” one.... and it’s working...) But to me the cutting edge is on the consumer side. Trash the C200 all you like, but the image is closer to an Alexa than you’ll get with anything cheaper. MUCH more importantly, the ergonomics are A+, the low light is amazing, and the autofocus is bonkers good. This is the camera that lets you fire 2/3 of your crew and replace your HMIs and generator trucks with LEDs and batteries. It’s a good Ronin camera too, and the Ronin itself is a pretty genius innovation. Yes, I want to use a Fisher dolly and steadicam and technocrane instead. Shooting on a Fisher dolly is so gratifying and I prefer the result. But like… I get that it's outdated. You won’t take the Fisher dolly out of the closet most days. Or actually ever, since it’s rental only lol. It’s of another era entirely... but man... I can tell one when I see one. Just from how it moves (or maybe it's a PeeWee, but same idea). So I think the C200 is the ideal middle ground, and not the GH5 or something, but that’s fine and that’s me, and yeah, I’d want a GH5, too, and would use it more. But to me the perfect middle ground between restrictive and empowering is the C200 or similar. There’s one missing piece, though, and it’s funny you mentioned it prominently and defensively in your article: audio. There’s yet to be a game changer in audio that equals the Red One or 5D Mark II or Movi in innovation. There are cheap mics that are okay now, but the 416 (40 years old) is the golden standard. Still. You can buy an iLav that sounds remarkably good enough compared with a real lav…. but ingesting, logging, syncing, hooking that thing up to an iPhone. It's the worst. Not that using timecode sync via slate is exactly reliable or fun, either. But while I don’t want to put my sound operator friends out of business, sound recording needs to be next. Sound Devices just released cheap mixers that can compete with the big boys. Just this year. For the first time ever. That’s HUGE. That’s the 5DII. What we're missing is the DPAF or the Ronin or low light equivalent for sound. Something that makes good easy. Good sound is still hard, no matter what camera, XLRs or not be damned. Not that I follow post as closely, but post seems to have changed as fast as video has, so sound is next. (Great direction and art design and acting will forever remain elite and exclusive because the mis is physical. This fact favors porn but also storytelling.) But for non-porn, that difficulty seems to help. Shooting dual system sound on an Alexa still results in something with more intention and focus than your average snap or even youtube video. Even if that Nagra and Panavision Millennium just brought out every drop of genius and the Alexa is kinda hacky. So if someone made a camera that was nearly impossible to use, would it produce the greatest content of all time? Is art just doomed to get worse? Who cares. Do your thing. That's all that matters. Don't do someone else's.

Spot on. You're getting a battery powered joker 800 (which has grown to be my favorite HMI) for under $1000 and cameras are crazy sensitive. Night exteriors have changed forever.

I'm not sure if there are any widely available anymore but I know you can (know of someone who bought 65mm short ends, or had them given to him). Helps to know someone who knows someone I'm sure. While I can't figure out the math maybe just because I don't believe in a 1:1 shooting ratio for a feature, shooting film does seem more affordable than I realized. Gonna have to get some quotes on development and scans.

I think it was Fotokem or one of their competitors I think. We saved money by going with a cheaper session (first light rather than best light) and a cheaper delivery format is what I was referring to, lower quality processing and scan. We were basically grading proxies. They wanted $50k extra for a proper scan, which would have been worth it, but it wasn't in the budget and the look of the film suffered for it, though I think we did well with what we had. The increase in budget for shooting film rather than video was between $100-$200k. I believe the budget for the feature was just under $1 million. I don't know more, I wasn't a producer on it, just worked in camera department. That does seem like a very good price. But even at $200 for a roll of 16mm film and $200 for development and scan (lower than I've ever seen available, but consistent with what you suggest) that's $400 for ten minutes of footage (inevitably the ends don't get used, or it would be 11 minutes). At a very conservative shooting ratio of 15:1, a 100 minute feature would cost $60,000 extra at those very low rates (which I still have yet to find). I agree, I have seen small features shot competently for under $500k and so $560k isn't that much more. But the extra costs in terms of support gear, monitoring, and lighting (500 ISO film is about as clean as 3200 ISO digital, you have a ton of over but your under is just dreadful) push things up much higher. I just can't figure out the math. Even if everyone is working for free, I can't imagine a budget under $200k for a 16mm feature. I know the story about Primer, but that's sort of the extreme example of a 1:1 shooting ratio and shooting in someone's garage. 99% of stories won't work with those limitations and the budget was much higher than that once it was polished up for a salable deliverable. What features have you shot on 16mm for under $5k? Were they small stories like that or were you able to scale up efficiently beyond that? Did you pay the crew? What gear did G&E gear and how big was the crew? I still can't do the math. I used to shoot a fair amount of 16mm (for student films and stuff, never professionally), and even back in those days when film was cheap it was still hundreds of dollars extra for a short exercise versus shooting digitally. Nevertheless, for the money, film is still a great deal and I like your idea of using a digital b camera sparingly. I still plan to shoot my next short on film, but I'm budgeting a few thousand dollars extra just for a 10-minute short and planning to shoot with a tiny tiny ratio.

Seeing as both are APS-C and designed for a roughly 1.6x crop... and the 5D's video is a 1.6x crop... I don't think the speed booster would do that much good (maybe you could squeeze 10% more FOV out of the Sigma). I would be careful with the Canon. The rear element might bump up against the mirror and you will need to remove the EF-S tab just to get it to mount. Furthermore, its IS is not particularly good, not as good as in the current kit lenses by far. It's a nice lens though, despite that.

I bought a small set up for about $10k and paid it off quickly shooting corporate videos and some cable tv on top of a day job (also in production). I did borrow some money to buy it. I quit shooting but didn't quit buying stuff. Currently in the process of selling it at a big loss. As a hobby, it's way too expensive. But I should have kept it up except I moved. I was surprised, there was a lot of money there. Most people I know who freelance in camera make good money and gigs like Zach's (not guessing his specific rate, but that type of work) often pay $800-$1000/day and are flexible, not that you'll work all year but that's really good pay for a creative especially as a dry hire essentially performing a day job. I just want to know how he affords a mortgage in LA lol. There are trust fund kids but they're at a disadvantage because they're bidding on work that's over their head with gear that will depreciate in value fast. If you take a much slower approach gradually growing your skill set, client base, and rates over time, you'll still end up in a better position than they will be in within a few years. And you can always rent! Which is what smart people do imo.

The 18-35mm Sigma has 72mm filter threads and you can stop down pretty far with it (f16 or f22 I think). So I don't see the issue shooting in bright light. Optically it's better than the 17-55mm f2.8 IS, which doesn't have great IS anyway and you need to remove the EF-S tab (seeing as it's Canon-branded) and even then you'd want to check clearance with your mirror so it might not work in the first place. Between the two, I'd get the Sigma for sure! I've had two samples of the Canon and the Sigma blows it away (both are good).

That's not much money, but then you still need someone to operate the scanner and you still have development costs. That's really not bad though. Maybe it is getting cheaper. It's been a while since I looked into this.

The last feature I was on that shot 35mm had a very low shooting ratio, got a killer deal from Kodak, and used horrible low quality scans. I think the added cost of shooting film (despite a virtually free camera) was nearly $200k. This was the ABSOLUTE cheapest deal around at the time, and prices have gone up. I just can't figure out how you're shooting that cheaply. They also shot with a digital b cam for a pretty substantial part of the shoot. I find lab fees and scans significantly more expensive than film stock if you want high quality 2k scans. What labs are you using that will develop and 2k scan 400 feet of 16mm for $200? I've yet to find any but every time I budgeted it out shooting on 16mm adds at least a few thousand dollars to the budget for a 10-minute short, and maybe much more. I agree having a digital b cam is smart. That said, for a short film, a few thousand dollars is not much, but difficult to stomach when it's all out of pocket and with no hope of a financial return.

Another vote for the 18-35mm (I'm selling mine if you're interested.... but I'm in the US). AMAZING lens. As sharp as many $40k cine zooms, faster than cine zooms, and par focal. Diffraction limited wide open in the center. Good rendering, too, feels apochromatic. Ridiculously good. But it's not that wide. It's as wide as I need to go and as wide as "classical" lenses go but for that John Woo/Terry Gilliam/Michael Bay look you gotta go wider and tackier.... This lens is a classic, though. A+. The 14mm Samyang has too much distortion imo. It's okay but kind of gross for video. A lot less bad cropped than it is at FF, though. Also a lot less wide. C+ 11-16mm Tokina is fine. Not exciting rendering and high flare and some CA but I find it to be quite good. Sharp. An okay look. Very low distortion. 11-20mm is a little better. Neither have a lot of character. B The 18-55mm kit lens is not horrible but you'd need to remove the EF-S tab. It's not that good... but it's really not that bad and for its price used it's a big winner. And it has very good IS. Too bad about the EF-S tab. It's a decent lens. I (incomplete)

It does not. The contacts do seem to pass data.

But your average set day costs in excess of six figures. That's nice when someone else is paying for it (in that case, bring the Alexa). When you don't have those luxuries, it's better to work around them than to buy them out of pocket. I wouldn't have that much fun or feel that much freedom if I knew my shoot were costing me a year's pay. And without those luxuries (which are far more expensive to hire than the cost difference between an Alexa and a t2i), a smaller camera ends up delivering a better result 9/10 times. But you're right, there are incredible advantages to being a pro DP and it's a great job and something to be very proud to be. I was kidding about the "being a pro sucks" rant. Of course it's great! It's just that it has its trade offs, and for us amateurs, we'd do better using amateur gear. 1) because it's cheaper to buy 2) because it's much cheaper to use. And the image quality is, as you say, only about 10% better. Most pro DPs aren't lugging an Alexa around to shoot pick ups, either. Most aspiring pros would do better to follow their example. I say this as someone who's tried running around with an Alexa a few times before lol. It's no fun!

On a bigger budget shoot of course a camera designed to be most efficient with a larger crew will be more efficient with a larger crew. But without that crew, 9/10 it won't be. And the image is gonna be pretty similar. If you have your director sitting in video village and a zoom that weighs 10kg of course you will need a huge rig you can balance out and a BNC out to run to the monitor. If you don't need those things, don't add them. Look how Kubrick shot Eyes Wide Shut, with almost no crew and pushing his stock a stop or so so he could light minimally and shoot for days. Most directors wish they had that freedom. Difference is, if you're not a pro, you do. If you want it. Nothing against pros, I would love to shoot for a living.

But the middle ground is being added later and the low end codec looks better-implemented than Sony's more data-heavy codecs. Same with AVCHD on the C100 beating Sony's 50MPBS options on the A7S and even C300 footage beating the pants off the F5 until Sony released its film-emulating LUTs (which are pretty good, I'll gladly admit). Granted, if it's not for you, it's not for you. The lack of a middle codec is annoying, and if you can't wait for it, I hear you. But I waited a lot longer for that F5 LUT. And it seems to be for a whole lot of other people. Canon is the market leader for a reason. Like Arri, they don't focus on specs but they deliver on image and ergonomics and user experience. Big time. Fwiw it's also not for me either (too expensive for me to spend on my hobby). But it looks like it follows in Canon's tradition of under appreciated excellence. And kudos to Canon for over-delivering so consistently. They're Arri for the little guys, both in excellence and in overpriced frustration lol.

Does this work at 24fps 16:9 at 10 bit or is it scope only?

I look forward to seeing Avatar 2 in HFR but I am generally not bullish on that technology for cinema. It looks foreign to cinema and uncanny, as do CGI and weightless CGI camera moves. But "motion smoothing" might be acclimating younger audiences to that look, just as video games are acclimating audiences to bad CGI physics. The thing about film is that it's physical and the combination of its flaws offer an experience that feels like a record of reality, not a simulation of it. The more CGI you add and the closer you get to grainless HFR, the less physical digital cinema looks and the less it looks like film... Neither is inherently better. You can guess which I prefer, though. (By far...) I really liked Avatar but it's very much (like Edge of Tomorrow, another good movie imo) inspired by video games. The rules of the story and the style. Stylistically, so are many many films today inspired by video games but I thought those two took a great approach that's not too on-the-nose. Avatar's story is basically about a VR or a Second Life type experience and the 3D and motion capture work and digital cinematography do a great job of complementing that story and that feeling. For dramas, I don't see the appeal of this style. I do see cinema adopting it for some films, but I see it as more appropriate for video games and VR, which is probably where it will trickled own from, and down to super hero movies, which look increasingly like really beautiful video games anyway. So I'm into it. For the right projects, of course. It took B&W decades to really be phased out. 24fps will be around, even if it's not all that's around, for quite a long while, and I prefer how it looks by far for most of the stories I prefer to watch. I'm still dying to see Avatar 2, though, even those that kind of look is not my preference generally. I very strongly disagree about HDR, however. Well, I sort of do. I saw a tech demo of Dolby's very top of the line prototype tech (which I think draws more power than power companies distribute to an entire house for just a small screen). It's breathtaking. It really is like looking out a window. It seems sharper than 4k, even though it's HD. The contrast and acutance and detail are like reality but not in a bad "simulated way" more in a looking at slide film through a lightbox way. Its contrast ratio matches the eye's dynamic range and the tonality is flawless. It's insane. It's so beautiful, regardless of what format the original content was shot on. Of course, even at perfect efficiency (which is not possible to achieve so far as I know, and it was already LED based), that tv would be too energy inefficient for consumer use and so it is many orders of magnitude (I think) brighter than today's tvs. So while the HDR tech can be mind-blowing, truly incredible, I think its implementation might be garbage for home use right now. Still, you're comparing those images on an SDR screen. Of course the HDR one looks flat. On even the lowest end HDR screen, the one on the left should have brighter looking whites than the one on the right has on even a very good SDR screen. If not... uh oh lol. Deakins also has a tv background and likes to blow out windows and use them as light sources. HDR does better with more naturalistic lighting where nothing is blown out or loses detail. But it looks good with everything imo. But if those screen grabs are real, even just looking at the histogram, it seems that the colorist isn't taking advantage of HDR at all. The SDR content should look better on any screen in that case. I think this will get better over time.

I agree with your first post 100%! Except for the Canon-bashing (my favorite video camera may be the t2i, not for its technical merits) and the comments about audio I disagree with, too (use dual system sound or just don't worry about it for b roll). But yes, the idea that "pro" gear is better is so misguided. I even see directors ask editors to cut on Avid thinking the edit will be better... somehow. Pros want the cheapest good enough image, amateurs want the best cheap enough image. Similar priorities, but 1 and 2 are flipped. Pros pay more up front to get just what amateurs dont want. AVCHD on the C100? Great! I'm saving money on storage for my wedding videos... says the pro. ProRes on the Alexa instead of raw! Great! Says the tv show post sup that can save server space. Many pro photographers shoot JPEG! What's funny is I really love the C300's ergonomics butI worked with a pro who AC hated them when he used a C300 on a super bowl ad. After trying to run around operating an Alexa or an Epic on my own a few times I was like... why would you prefer something that clunky? But I like those cameras because it's easy for a single owner/op to use a C300 because it's just like a dSLR mixed with a video camera (still bigger than I'd like). But he hated it because it was such a pain to rig up like an Alexa (with gold mount batteries, monitors, a clunky shoulder rig, etc.). A large pro crew is more efficient with those ergonomics. A one man band sure isn't; it's badly hobbled by them. (And I find most non-union ACs and camera ops don't handle them great either.) Truth is, the 5D Mk III raw has very comparable image quality (at 1080p, which is what 99% of deliverables are) to a Red Epic MX, and it's easier to get the colors to look good and it's much better in low light and tungsten so you don't need a big G&E crew on top of not needing two-and-a-half ACs. The AS7II is not that much worse than the F55 (well, its skew and chroma clipping are worse). These b cams are used all the time professionally, too, it's just rarely publicized because, like, it's not really a big deal. What makes the biggest difference in image quality isn't the camera. It's that on an expensive set you have great talent and big lights and big support gear. What you don't have is time and flexibility. What's nice about dSLRs is that they're so light sensitive you can skimp on the huge HMIs and use LEDs. Or you an use a Ronin M instead of a steadicam. Or a slider dolly or small moco system or car rig. You can wait for good light because each hour isn't costing $20k. Look at the difference between a 1DX and the SL1. Under good light, the stills are not that different at all. Like... really similar. What you're paying for are the ergonomics with the 1DX. That is, a massive, heavy camera, that's difficult to use for extended periods of time, but which excels in certain circumstances where you're getting paid. "Pro" ergonomics. Just because it's "better" doesn't mean it's better for you. I would hate to have to bring one with me. It's more reliable under pressure, sure. But I prefer my hobbies without extra pressure. That I leave for work. So I usually just use my iPhone and take it out when there's good light. And I'm taking better photos than I did with my 5D. But this is the elephant in the room, isn't it? Not a lot of great content is coming from amateur photographers or Red owners (nor will it come from amateur C200 owners, but hey I like Canon ergonomics). They're too difficult to use well, especially when the rest of the gear and talent isn't there. If amateurs could afford to use Alexas and MFDBs there would be a lot of Alexa and MFDB trash, too. And pros are turning out enough trash of their town with those. Meanwhile there's a lot of good content on YouTube shot by vloggers. If that's your thing. On Vimeo, Watchtower of Turkey was amazing, and it used consumer gear–to its very best advantage. Nothing against pros, but being one sucks. You're answering to your client, to your budget, to your crew's limitations, to the clock, to the director, to the brand, to the malfunctioning and expensive and heavy gear. Yeesh. Why aspire to that life when you can, you know, have fun and tell the stories you want to tell? If you're a pro, I get why you do why you do. You're paid to. If you're not one, stop living in the worst of both worlds. Go hack a 5D or grab a go pro. Shoot something cool. No one is stopping you but your own insecurities about your gear. (On the other hand, shooting 16mm film is cool as shit and looks amazing.)