kye

West Wing. Shot on film, with early episodes in 4:3 and only going wide-screen in later seasons. Content is king and West Wing is one of the rare shows that doesn't dumb down the content for the sake of the lowest IQ in the audience

When someone no longer has anything rational to say as part of a discussion it is common to make the conversation personal instead of keeping on topic. I used to think that you were above these kinds of petty contributions, but obviously not. I'll be around here on the forums if you guys want to talk about cameras but I'm not interested in being part of a discussion that you're no longer willing to speak rationally about.

Your seem to be under the impression that people would decide between buying the new iPhone and hiring a camera. I would suggest that the situation is more like "I want to make a film but I have no money for hiring a camera" and the next statement is either going to be something like "crap, it don't know anyone with a camera I can borrow that's good enough" or "wow, the new iPhone has the three lenses I really need.. Someone we know must have it! Right, we're in business!" You're right that anyone could have made a film with the last iPhone, but the improvements in this one are taking the video quality past a threshold that makes things look palatable on a big screen (previous smartphones have produced footage that was borderline and so fragile it almost couldn't be graded, especially the 50mm camera) and it also adds a super-wide which makes it more flexible again. I'll agree that the differences aren't night and day, but small differences at threshold points (FOV options, IQ, and perception) can make more difference than you might think.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Congress_(2013_film)

Exactly. So why take money from those things and put it into the camera dept?

Who will shoot on a phone and not the BM Pocket? Someone who owns a phone but doesn't own a BM Pocket. I know film-making is complicated, but I wouldn't have thought this part of it was particularly difficult to understand! They won't. But they might revolutionise who gets to shoot films because they didn't previously have enough money for a "proper camera".

I think it depends on how much you have to spend. People have made feature films from people working for free, borrowing equipment and under $50 in cash. I think it's easy for people like us who have come a long way to forget what it's like being absolutely broke, owning basically no equipment and not knowing anyone with equipment but having all the time and enthusiasm in the world. Or maybe we got jobs first and were never in that situation. Saying that everyone can make their film with a DSLR or MILC because it's a small part of the budget is the same as a big time Hollywood producer coming on here and telling all of us that we have no excuse not to film with an Alexa because it's a tiny fraction of the catering budget on a real film. They don't understand our world in exactly the same way we probably don't understand the world of a no-budget film maker who might benefit from using their phone.

Werner doesn't care about happiness.... Be more like Werner.

I think Noams article was talking about the very ragged edge where people who want to make films will basically live off instant ramen if they could do it and be a professional film-maker. For this segment of the market the phone will be the tool of choice, representing the biggest cost saving a project can have. Imagine being a poor student or recent film school graduate and being able to get together a group of friends and shoot an entire film on phones, spending basically no money on lighting, sound, camera, wardrobe, art dept, etc. You could literally make a film for the cost of a few lav mics running into each actors phone as an on-talent wired lav setup. Sure, you can buy an old Canon DSLR for almost nothing, but that's money, and it's also 720p at best. A smartphone setup would be free, 4K or higher, capable of slow-motion, and has a set of lenses included. Sure, you don't get DoF but storytellers don't care about such things, especially when your phone can get you onto Netflix and the old Canon cannot. Noams other articles talk about film-makers stripping out every expense to basically make films with no out-of-pocket expenses at all, as the less you spend the less money you have to make from a film in order to stay in business as a professional film-maker, which is the goal of many many people.

True, but some people are after better low-light rather than shallow DoF. In this sense, MFT is better than FF because an MFT lens at F1.4 will have an exposure around T1.4 and the DoF equivalent of a FF F2.8 lens, whereas the FF lens at F1.4 will have an exposure around T1.4 and the DoF of an F1.4 lens. This means that (ISO performance being equal, which is another whole topic) the MFT lens will have a deeper DoF than the FF equivalent lens at the same exposure, or you can stop down the FF lens to match the DoF but now you need a higher ISO on the camera. This is why people say that FF lenses are harder to focus manually, it's because if you match exposure values then the FF lens has a much thinner DoF than cropped sensors. In low-light this is an advantage of MFT lenses over FF.

I should also add that colour is purely subjective, so there's no such thing as "too saturated", only "too saturated for my personal tastes". Yes, lots of people will agree on such things, but lots of people think chocolate is better than strawberry for icecream but that doesn't make it a fact.

I think we're talking about the same thing. My point was that I think in the future even 1080p phones will download the 4K stream, downscale it locally, then display it. This would give a much higher bitrate and higher resolution source file for the phone to display, essentially creating a kind-of oversampling image pipeline. This would greatly increase the IQ on any device, considering the very anaemic bitrates involved in the lower resolutions. I view YT the way that @thebrothersthre3 describes, with it automatically going to 4K and me manually setting it to 4K when watching an image test video. All this is to reinforce that content is king and IQ is the icing on the cake, rather than the cake itself.

Sarah Dietschy just put together her doco setup with a P6K and a P4K, using the MFT lenses from her GH5 for the P4K and borrowing some EF lenses for the P6K but will likely re-buy the EF glass she sold when she went Sony. She also went Resolve-only for a month and will likely be using Resolve for editing the doco footage she'll potentially be shooting in Braw. This is kind of a big deal as although she started off with two BMPCCs, she transitioned to Sony and was a big fangirl for them for years. She was also an Adobe Creator for a year, so that's a departure from there too, at least for doc work.

If you upload to YT etc in 4K then as internet speeds get better for people then more people will view it in higher resolutions. I'm sure that if the YT app sensed it had ridiculous speeds to play with it might stream in 1440p or 4K and downscale to whatever the display resolution is, or at least it will in a future update. One thing I've noticed is that app developers are keen to give you a better user experience even if it absolutely smashes your internet usage. Yeah, I think that when they say streaming in 4K it might not actually be 4K, but just a name on a bitrate. These things will get better with time though, and if h265 streaming (or the next compression invented after that) becomes a thing it would be pretty easy for the services to re-compress their original files into newer resolutions/bitrates to suit what internet speeds people are streaming on.

Do what you can in-camera and then remember you can tweak footage in post using Temperature (yellow/blue) and Tint (green/magenta) adjustments.

Colour comes from many steps along the way, being finalised in post with corrections like saturation etc. Essentially, if footage is shot well enough for the codec being used (better codecs are more flexible) then you can (*almost) make any video have any colour you like by processing it in post. I say "almost" because there are a few limitations: the various filters in front of the sensor (including the RGB one) the processing in the camera itself how well the footage was shot and how good the codec is (10-bit, etc) the level of flexibility you have in your toolset (NLE, and other video processing software) the limitations of your monitoring (colour accuracy of monitors etc) the level of skill you have as a colourist In most situations it's the level of skill of the colourist that dominates how good the final result will be. The rule of thumb is that if you shoot it well by setting exposure and WB on set, shoot in suitable conditions (not crazy DR, no mixed lighting, etc) then you should be able to get good colour in post with only a few simple adjustments. Getting great colour requires everything to be almost perfect and a huge level of skill from the colourist, or just getting lucky. Hope that helps..

If you're talking about my rigs, it's not fashion, it's weight and bag size!! I have to make room in my suitcase for the coffee machine my wife insisted that we bring on the holiday! ???

Great dutch angle @Geoff CB

At the risk of taking the thread in an unexpected direction, here's my two set-ups from earlier today, pictured in their natural habitat, on a beach towel on my lap in a tour bus, with people around me wondering WTF I was doing taking a photo of two cameras with a third camera (my phone). Sony X3000 for crazy wides, gimbal-like stabilisation when walking and handy actions shots like getting in and out of busses, trains, planes, etc for b-roll and establishing shots. GH5 with Rode VMP+ and Konica Hexanon 40mm for a bit of reach for the main shots where I have a bit more time.

If this happens it's more likely to be the SSD than the P6K.. the data volumes we're talking about with this (and the P4K when it was released) are incredible and past the limits of all but the best of current technology. It's also likely to be content-specific as (I would imagine) that Braw and Prores will compress the video stream more if there is less movement. It would be interesting to see a torture test between a SSD and a CFast card, as one of the reasons CFast cards are so expensive is their blistering performance spec.

You have no idea how many times I've almost bought a Jupiter-9... I'm talking put one in my ebay cart and everything. One of those times was yesterday!!

@jonprimo nice lighting - not many go really bold, so good work!

We keep reaching theoretical thresholds and keep finding ways around them, so I'm not worried, Moores Law is safe. And in terms of hard drives not shrinking that's a form factor question. Otherwise we wouldn't have SSD drives (smaller than a 2.5 inch HDD and things like 256GB micro SD cards are ridiculously tiny, so storage is absolutely shrinking. This has some interesting data... https://medium.com/predict/moores-law-is-alive-and-well-adc010ea7a63

Wow, 14-bit RAW 6K would be crazy...

I agree with "not as soon as you think" but if we take my 20MB 3.5inch HDD as an example, a 2TB drive is 100,000 times the capacity and that's not even cherry- picking a better example. That took about 30 years, which is a 47% annual increment, and I don't see any reason that wouldn't continue almost indefinitely. Moores Law says double every 1.5 years for the same cost, which means that in 3 years 8K will be as taxing as 4K is now, and in 6 years 16K will be as taxing as 4K is now. That's not that much time really ???