kye

You might be right about the next race being frame rates, but sadly there's not a lot of creative space left there either. The way I see it is: 24/25/30p = normal. Some might distinguish between 24/25 and 30p, but it's subtle 50/60p = emotional. Motion looks the way that it looks when we experience heightened states of emotion and "time slows down" 120p = special effect. Motion looks like a special effect, with things hanging in mid-air artificially, ripples moving through objects surreally, etc. It's potentially only useful creatively to simulate extreme drug use or be used outright as a special effect for the spectacle of it. >120p is the same as 120p only some things happen faster and you have to slow them down more, but the aesthetic is the same. I'm not saying there is no benefit to, say, 500fps or 1000fps over 120p, but the times you'd need it are few, and the look is the same as 120p, so it's not anything "new".

Are you noticing this look from the RAW as well? If not, it's rather odd and indicates perhaps excessive NR perhaps? If it is in the RAW then that's even more strange and I really would know where that would be coming from...

Note that the video is 3 years old 🙂

It would be amateur hour if he was making a film, sure, but he's a reviewer, so stress testing the camera is the name of the game. A review where they put the camera on a tripod, put on a low-quality lens, and film a stationary low-DR scene would be of basically zero value to anyone. The purpose of testing a camera is to push it to, and past, its limits, so that the viewers can see what those limits are and align them to their own needs. One thing that I really think is missing from the camera tests is a stabilisation testing setup. If someone built a rig that was mechanically controlled to vibrate the camera across a range of frequencies at a range of amplitudes, and that were repeatable and therefore comparable, and put a bunch of cameras and lenses on it, then we'd be able to see how the cameras / lenses compare and then we wouldn't be trying to work out if that person has steadier hands than we do, or if they've had lots of coffee that day, or if it was cold, or if they were walking on a smooth or uneven surface, or what their blood sugar is like, etc.. Depending on the shutter angle you use, you could just record RAW and do a screen grab. Even compressed 4K stills can be high quality, enough for printing magazine size anyway, so that's an option worth considering. It also means you don't have to be Henri Cartier Bresson on the shutter button.

Well, it's not my challenge, so I'm not the official adjudicator, but pretty sure that fame and glory is the reward...

It depends on how you're using the camera. I love the EVF / IBIS combo for vintage lenses on my GH5 but shooting low angles doesn't lend itself to using the EVF and high angles would require dozens of radical leg extension surgeries to enable me to use the EVF! In-camera Electronic IS is handicapped compared to EIS done in post, because the camera can't predict future motion so easily but NLEs can easily do so. With RAW files there isn't really any advantage to using the in-camera EIS so in that situation you can do a better job in-post, which if you have time to do it will always be a better option. Plus if you're recording in 8K (or as I call it, ridiculous-o-vision) you can process the living bejeebers out of it and it'll still look fine once you downsample to 4K and run it through the YT hammer-the-shit-out-of-it compression and processing.

The form-factor and external power requirements will make it less attractive to productions that can afford a cinema camera like a C200 or C300, and the lack of IBIS will make it less attractive to low-budget single-shooters. That leaves it targeting this strange middle-ground that manufacturers seem to be trying to understand. Personally I think the "step in the right direction" sentiment is short-sighted. Compare the R5c with the 5Dmk2 - a 17 year difference. The problems that the 5D2 had haven't been fully fixed by basically any Canon camera since. The "progress" being made has been on things that no-one needs, and the sacrifices made are the things that have always been desirable. I get that we all have different requirements, and things like AF vs MF and RAW vs compressed etc are dependent on the situation, but try and make an argument that 8K60 is more important than, well, anything....

Technically the question was "wider than 12mm". It sounds pedantic, but for me 12mm isn't wide enough for landscapes and architecture, and it's also not wide enough for comfortable vlogging either as you have to hold your arm out basically straight to get a neutral composition.

R5c finally explained.... Now I understand.

Now is a good time to watch a few lighting videos and try the various techniques on your little test setup. First thing that comes to mind is putting up a bounce as fill.

OMFG is right. I'd say "what the f* did I just watch" but I only made it to 2:27s. I haven't seen acting that bad in a looooong time. Then I thought, "did Canon give a pre-production model to some random influencers and this is what they posted?". Nope. CanonUSA official YT channel. *facepalm*

If they just stopped crippling their cameras then they could make a few models, make them cheaply with large volumes and price them to sell in volume because we'd all buy them. Of course, back here in reality...

This take suggests that it's a professional stills camera with a cinema camera basically thrown in for free. That's one way to look at it. The other way is that Canon have been half-crippling and selling their hybrid stills/cinema cameras as only stills cameras and the market has finally pushed them to stop doing it. Of course, we know the potential of the hardware was always there because of Magic Lantern, but wouldn't have otherwise. I'm really looking forward to the GH6. Panasonics ethos seems to be "give the customer the most functionality from the hardware that they're paying for" and Canons ethos seems to be "give the customer the least functionality from the hardware that they'll still pay for".

Vintage lenses are really for films/cinema, rather than commercial videography work. It's a different product for different audiences who have different preferences, thus the use of different equipment and techniques.

Are you referring to the retirement of the BM Micro Cinema Camera? That got mentioned here. Were there other models that got discontinued too?

I suspect that low budget productions haven't been using vintage glass for long due to not having access to such high-spec cameras for long. Back in the 8mm 16mm SD digital days there wasn't enough resolution or bitrate to be able to tell the subtle difference between various lenses and to counter the softer renderings having as sharp a lens as you could get was a good strategy. At that time large productions were using 35mm which could render lens differences. Then came the HD days, but once again, the codecs on affordable cameras were pretty low until the OG BMPCC came along and we got access to RAW 1080p and 4K compressed, but most were still obsessed by sharpness and hadn't snapped out of their infatuation yet and come to their senses. Now we have RAW 4K or more and compressed 6K or more almost in our pockets and some are starting to snap out of resolution mania and remember we're trying to evoke emotions, not showcase our equipment.

The investment is encouraging, although I have heard that the last thing a company does before shuttering is do a massive advertising blast as a final effort. Let's hope it's a larger strategy and not one from desperation, although renaming the company doesn't seem to make sense in a short-term context, so here's hoping!

Source: https://ymcinema.com/2022/01/16/oscars-2022-the-lenses/ I'd say that this bunch are a little more out of our price range than the normal lenses we discuss, but Panavision lenses aren't for sale, so they're out of literally everyone's price range 🙂

"I would like to talk about the topic of this video, but I just have to do something else first" <half the video later> "I would like to talk about the topic of this video, but I just have to do something else first" 30s of real content at the end of the video... I saw a video where Italian people had xmas trees up for something like a month beforehand, so throwing them out on Boxing Day doesn't mean "two days".

Have there been many new MFT sensors developed? I have no idea. It'll be interesting to see what the GH6 specs include, as obviously sensor tech will limit them. I agree about the need for a fast wide zoom for MFT. There aren't even any 16-35/4 equivalents, let alone 16-35/2.8 equivalents.

@BenEricson to demonstrate things a little more, here's a test I did some time ago. Started with an 8K RAW file from a RED Helium, put it on a 4K timeline and downscaled/upscaled it to various resolutions to see how visible it was on 4K YT. Even pixel peeing won't reveal any meaningful differences much above 2K. So, when there's so little difference between sub-4K Prores HQ and 8K RAW on a 4K YT video, basically all the sharpness differences you'll be seeing will be lenses or processing.

You can't judge resolution or sharpness of a camera by watching YT. So much stuff has been done to the data coming off the sensor before you watch it that it's like judging if a restaurant uses high-quality organic ingredients by drinking the sludge at the bottom of their dumpster rubbish bins in the alley behind the restaurant. Colour science is a different matter, but once again, so much of it isn't the camera. Have you ever seen Alexa footage SOOC, or graded ARRI footage shot by amateurs? It is almost indistinguishable from any other footage. I think one third of the look of ARRI happens on set, and another third happens in colour grading, and only the remaining third happens in-camera. At best, this is like trying to taste the quality of the ingredients after they've been cooked. Which is also a decent parallel because the average mum/dad cooking with the finest ingredients on the planet is still likely to end up with a mediocre result, at best.

Just a small point, but if I take this sentence literally, then you're saying that somehow when light enters one of the photosites on their sensor that it's also somehow activating the photosites around it, which I think violates the laws of physics. Every other source of softness exists outside of the sensor, being the optical performance of the on-sensor filters, in the subsequent processing of the signal after the sensor, including debayering etc. For proper evaluation of the sensor, you'd have to evaluate RAW stills, taken with super-high resolution glass, stopped down, in black&white, and under ideal test conditions. The limit on resolution is far more likely than people expect to be the optics or processing / compression rather than the sensor. Besides, 2K is pretty close to the threshold of what can be seen at normal viewing distances, and while that's debated, 8K is easily outside that discussion.

That graveyard video looks fantastic... if it didn't have the clumsy gimbal movement it would look like clips from a feature film!