kye

Any footage out yet?

...and the average forum poster also has very different needs than wants!!

Laowa made a 9mm f/2.8 ZERO-D Lens for that mount, but I couldn't find any adapters. These were drone lenses up until this camera so adapter-related shenanigans makes a lot less sense when your camera is a mile away and you're pretty much only filming landscapes. This page has some MTF charts that show the lens performance. Buyer beware as they're from the manufacturer, but they seem reasonable and making a S35 f2.8 prime isn't a major challenge if you're a huge Chinese camera company these days. https://www.dji.com/au/zenmuse-x7 (you have to scroll down to the lenses) Making a S35 cinema camera without support for existing lenses (even just a single other format like EF) would be product suicide, so I can't imagine them not doing that. If they went the way that Canon did with the C70 and provided an offical speed booster then it could adapt to any EF mount FF lens then that would be a pretty good way to provide that flexibility. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that it's probably not going to have PL support. I know. I'm making big calls today!

It's a mount used on their X7 with is a S35 camera. Looks like it's a proprietary mount though so not sure about compatibility, although it's likely to have a short flange distance so maybe they'll provide adapters?

I don't think it looks like a fixed lens... That looks to me like a 24mm focal length, in fact, it looks like the 24mm in this set... Which is here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1373413-REG/dji_cp_bx_00000039_01_zenmuse_x7_part_14.html Certainly, they have lots of other ILC cameras, so it's not a new thing for them.

Aren't their drones (the big ones at least) completely modular? You can buy the X3 and X5 and X5R separately, right? So, maybe this thing might be compatible in some way that isn't obvious? If they could make it so that as a wedding photographer or adventure photographer or event photographer you could buy all your equipment from DJI, that would be a pretty sweet kind of lock-in. In this new world where every brand wants you to get locked into their eco-system, DJI are the natural choice to go first. Much more likely than Canon or Panasonic or Blackmagic are to release a drone... DJI have been in the camera business for a long time already, and already make cameras and lenses. This includes: the X5S which is an interchangeable MFT camera which shoot 5.2K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG and Prores internally the X7 which is a S35 sensor and shoots 6K CinemaDNG and claims 14 stops of DR the Z30 which is a 1/2.8" with fixed lens with a 30x optical zoom These are not specs to be dismissed, and if they go all-out then there's no reason they couldn't make an impressive camera, and with a 30X zoom drone camera already released then maybe it could also have stabilisation that no-one could touch.

I'm in a number of FB camera groups across a few different camera brands/models, and every one of them gets a post every week about which gimbal camera X fits on, and which lenses will balance. FB group posts typically last about that length before they're buried, so I suspect that this conversation is continuously being had, probably for every camera, probably in every language, around the world. For contrast, I don't think I can recall a single thread about sliders, cranes, easy-rigs, or dollys in those groups. Gimbals, for whatever reason, are a big deal. Yeah, it doesn't look particularly ergonomic!

All these are relevant, but there is much more to something looking cinematic than just 24p with 180 shutter with a bit of background defocus. To elaborate on my comment about resolution, the answer is that videographers tend to think in simplistic terms (eg more is better) and film-makers have a much more nuanced perspective that quickly moves from talking about resolution to sharpness and texture, and how to adjust all the various parameters through the signal chain to hit an optimal look. Videographers who are obsessed with higher and higher resolutions typically don't talk about texture or 'looks' (other than talking about LUTs), and would NEVER talk about deliberately lowering the sharpness of the image with lower-sharpness lenses.

I've posted this before, but it's worth posting again. For the people who actually make cinematic images, high resolution is desirable on capture, and undesirable on delivery. I think the quickest way to see if someone is a film-maker or videographer is to ask about resolution.

Can you share any examples? Either by yourself or things you've found? It would be great to see something, anything, other than that video in a thread about the 'cinematic' look!

This is a thread about an Apple device, and the video posted was an example of that product, so that's where I'm focussing my comments. You're absolutely right that cinematic is much more than just the image out of the camera, but the video was very VIDEO in almost every other way as well, perhaps besides composition. The movement wasn't on a slider or large rig, so bobbed around, there was no lighting beyond just whatever was happening while the person happened to be there, I didn't get much sense of story, of drama, of journey, and the music was just a nice song from a music library. I would know, I make exactly these videos all the time when I'm travelling - they're not that interesting unless you know the people in them. In terms of this video making the new iPhone look cinematic, older phones look more cinematic than this video as they had lower resolution, more flare when pointed into the sun, and people making "cinematic" videos put them on sliders, heavy rigs, used lighting, filters, and didn't sharpen the living daylights out of them. I'm not saying you can't like the image in that video, taste is personal, but don't confuse it with something that looks like what gets shown on the big screen.

In a sense, yes, and we acclimatise over time. At one point colour film wouldn't have been "cinematic" because none of its predecessors were, and the same with movies with sound. But the transition from film to digital is 20 years in, and high-budget productions destined for the cinema (as opposed to high-end corporate work) still go to great lengths to emulate film. I heard one professional colourist make a comment that a huge amount (IIRC it was half or more) of films are graded with a Print Film Emulation LUT, and the Alexa image processing that occurs in-camera is known to be very film-like. So yes, your point has merit, but 20 years on, digitally shot productions destined the the cinema are most likely using one or more of the below: Shot on a camera with proprietary image processing to emulate film Graded with a Print Film Emulation LUT, or employing many many techniques that mimic film Distributed in 2K to theatres, despite being shot on cameras up to 12K Plus, people still shoot features on film, despite digital being better in practically every way except the authenticity of the film look, which is still almost impossible for colourists to match. The below links might be of interest: http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/ http://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/ReplyToRecipeRequests.html I suspect that even in 40 years time, the only people making images that look like the iPhone video posted earlier will be doing so to emulate footage taken by a phone. If you're still not sure, I suggest you find a movie (or the trailer) of a movie shot on film, one shot on digital where the cinematography won more than one award, and then watch the above iPhone video again, and play a game of "one of these things is not like the other...."

BMMCC is small until you mount a monitor on it, then it's the size of a FF DSLR. I know, I've tried. The OG BMPCC was my next attempt and discovered that the screen is polarised so it's not compatible with polarised sunglasses. *sigh* The FP would be a great candidate for Prores XQ which is 12-bit 4:4:4 and 396Mbps FHD / 1591Mbps UHD, compared to the FP RAW 12-bit 610Mbps FHD / 2400Mbps UHD. The FP can do 1670Mbps internally (UHD 8-bit 25fps) so XQ would mean it could get UHD 12-bit 4:4:4 internal recording. It could also open up the possibility of recording in a LOG format, giving 12-bit LOG which (if downscaling in-camera) could be superior to 12-bit Linear. You'd have to learn how to grade the FP images, but with that much data getting any look you want is a matter of skill in post, not opportunity from the equipment.

I'm not really sure what you're saying, but I can't imagine a universe where "cinematic" means anything like "it looks like someone filmed this with a phone". If, one day, someone makes a phone that does look cinematic, then it will be described as "it looks like the images from larger, better, nicer cameras". I think people have forgotten what cinematic images actually look like.

Yes, the FP is one of the closest contenders, along with the OG BMPCC, and GH5. How I wish I could pick and choose aspects from each into a single perfect package!

Marvel looks nothing like an iPhone test video on YT. Unless you're saying something different?

The word has no specific meaning that people can agree on, except that "cinematic" is a look created by talented people with large budgets for cinema or high-end TV, and "video" looks like it was taken with a handycam by someone with no particular experience or training. The video itself was fine, composition, movement, etc. The quality of the image, however, was as video as I can imagine, which is a pretty big statement coming from me, who literally only hours earlier was editing videos I took on holiday with a video camera. Any image that isn't 60p but looks like it is has managed to do something amazing. Not great, as the people who saw The Hobbit in 60p concluded, but amazing nonetheless. The "better" cameras get according to keyboard cinematographers, the worse the images coming from them seem to look. I'd suggest that it's a very useful point of reference - take every spec where that camera is "advanced" and eliminate them from the list of specs that matter to getting a gorgeous image. If ever there was a post that proves why the original Alexa models are still relevant and continue to be highly regarded, that video is it.

WOW - that was one of the least cinematic videos I have seen for quite some time, and I shoot videos almost weekly on my GF3, which is a MFT camera from 2011 that shoots 1080p at 17Mbps. I actually stopped the video to check it wasn't 60p (it wasn't) or that I hadn't set some other setting incorrectly. Whatever they did, they've managed to make it scream VIDEO from every frame at the very top of its lungs. I didn't realise a video could be that VIDEO. If a famous cinematographer had directed that to make it as VIDEO as possible, I would sit back and think "no wonder that person is famous".

Yeah, I've made that point a number of times, except relating to camera size, and it's frustrating as hell. As soon as you want something smaller, it instantly comes with less. Less bitrate, less bit-depth, less DR, less IQ, just... less. It's like the logic seems to go: Me: I'd like to have high image quality in a small and simple rig The world: Then use a large camera Me: You didn't hear me - I want a small simple rig The world: Then use a 35Mbps 8-bit 8-stop point-and-shoot Me: You didn't hear me - I want high image quality AND a small simple rig The world: Here's an FS5, cine prime, 7" monitor, matte box filter set on an easy-rig Me: No, I need something that is almost pocketable The world: Why do you need something so small? Me: In order to be able to take it where I want to film, which is places where "professional" filming isn't allowed The world: If size matters then why do you need high image quality Me: I shoot in uncontrolled conditions with no lighting or control and need lots of latitude in post The world: Well, if you want both then.. um.. err.. well.. you shouldn't. You should want what is available. Me: Why don't you make something with high image quality in a small and simple rig? The world: No-one wants it! Me: *facepalm*

There's a concept that no-one talks about, and that I think is one of the most important things that exists with equipment, which is how using it makes you feel. We all know the trope about content being more important than image quality, but no-one here talks about the factors that make the content good, and I think that a key factor in that is how we feel while we are filming. If we are fighting with the tech then we will be frustrated, less efficient, and generally in a bad mood. Like when anyone is in a bad mood, this will radiate out to the people you are working with, the people who are around you, and perhaps the people in the frame. The opposite picture is also true. If we are using equipment we love, then we will be upbeat, calm, and will have a positive impact on those around us. Film-making is art, and art is about creative expression, which comes from a place of emotion. Obviously, if a camera is fiddly to use and the ergonomics are crap then that's a challenge, but I find that the biggest barrier to feeling good while filming, at least for me, is knowing what kind of images I am creating, and this is all about colour for me, and it sounds like it might be the same for you as well. Going back to Sony vs Canon, considering that you're using FCP and don't want to learn colour grading, I'd suggest going with the camera with the best colour science that you can justify (ie, it has to work practically with those "other factors" you mentioned). Definitely wait for the A74, as Sony colour science is getting significantly better with each generation, but make sure you're looking at footage that is SOOC rather than had a colourist put lots of work into it. Best of luck, and don't forget that the equipment are just tools to get the outcome you want, and a great experience captured with a lower quality camera will make a much nicer video than a lacklustre experience taken with the best camera in the world, and while filming you're influencing the situation.

It must block pop-ups... I was instantly greeted by a kind invitation to join their mailing list (a manufacturer I'd never heard of.. not sure how that makes sense) and other pop-ups from the manufacturer themselves. Maybe it'd be interesting to turn off your ad blocker for a few minutes and find out how terrible most of the web has become. I rarely use commercial websites anymore, partly because they have ads for themselves or others on the top, the bottom, both sides, pop-ups for videos from their YT channel, and just when there was any danger of you consuming any actual content, they pop-up something on top to "Never miss an update from us ever again!!!". I instantly close about 80% of the commercial websites that I open in a tab. Luckily there's not that many of them, as I tend to not require information that is of interest to whatever type of human isn't instantly repelled by a website yelling over itself to try and get you to skip down their sales pipeline.

Clicked on the link and immediately had to work out how to close about 4 pop-ups. Why any manufacturer would think that annoying me before I'd even read their PR BS about their product is beyond me. If any manufacturer reads this, let me share this one thought - I find the easiest way to close pop-ups is to simply close the tab. Seriously - FFS.

What NLE are you using for colour grading? +1 for getting WB bang-on, and -1 for confidence in auto-WB doing a perfect job in difficult situations. To be able to correct WB in post requires more powerful tools and more sophisticated methods, but these require greater skill in colour grading and more time and skill required to get them right.

Why settle? https://ymcinema.com/2020/06/08/reds-baby-dragon-komodo-an-action-cinema-camera/

I find this conversation to be quite amusing. Maybe we should rename it "videographers discover cinema cameras aren't designed for them" 🙂