kye

I'd be surprised if they weren't working on these. Resolve has already got pretty good capability already and AI is where it's at for this stuff now (and 16 has it already included so we know it's where they're going) so I would say it's just a matter of time.

This sentence is rich with things to ponder... EOSHD forums are The Pub, but now I hear there's a couch recliner?? and that it's possible to leave here as a better adjusted member of society??? I guess you learn something every day!

I completely agree. It's only about if it's appropriate for the project or not. We wouldn't say that any other creative choice was cheating - it's a good choice if it helps the creative vision of the project and it's a bad choice if it doesn't. Everything is an artistic choice. [Edit: I will say that if you think it's being overused, then it's that you're not a fan of the type of aesthetic it makes, or people are using it badly and you're reacting to that]

Video files are just data. Every operating system has a software tool that you can enter in any machine language data you like. So according to your logic, I don't need a camera, crew, lighting, sound equipment or anything - I should just start typing away, then hit save on Masterpiece.MOV and I'm done! What's that? Having to understand and memorise the MOV container is cramping your ability to get convincing dialogue? Understanding the header flags on codec container formats in HEX when converting from long_integer binary encoded data shells distracting you from getting good wardrobe? You said it yourself.... You are forgetting that film-making isn't just about using a camera. It's about many many many things, and if the camera can do something for me then maybe that means that I can take my finite capacity and concentrate on something I wasn't able to put my attention to. I understand your sentiment, but randomly assuming that limitations you're able to compensate for should be accepted by other people just because you say so is pretty arrogant, and also pretty ignorant and just tells me you don't know shit about real film-making or how other people do it.

It shouldn't be Resolve 17. BM have a pretty predictable announcement/release schedule and this is way outside it.

When you down convert 4K 8-bit down to 1080 you get 4:4:4 colour space and depending on a bunch of different factors, you will get a result that is somewhere between 8-bit and 10-bit. Going into the technicalities of why this occurs will derail the thread somewhat so I'd suggest looking it up and reading about it to anyone that questions this.

We've all been there! You might have noticed the vitriol earlier in the thread about Canon crippling it's lineup. I don't know if you've ever seen the RAW footage from a Canon camera with the Magic Lantern hack, but it really is something quite special, so there is no technical reason that Canon couldn't have taken a good quality 1080 readout (at 10 or even 12-bit) and put it through a nice h264 compression to give a lovely image. Of course, is having an 80D with DPAF in video, great CS and a wonderful and robust image a good business idea for them? Well.... I own a Canon XC10 and it outputs the kind of image the C100 gives, only it does it in 4K at 305Mbps. It's a wonderful camera, except for the fixed lens which limits creative choice in that department.

The T2i codec was probably better quality than the YT 1080 level of compression, so maybe it would be more similar than you might think!! ???

Your proving my point. Imagine what the bmpcc would look like if instead of "upgrading" to the p6k you bought all the stuff and made a great bmpcc rig instead. Which would win between a p6k with only a cheap lens and a bmpcc with lenses and a rig to the value of the p6k retail price. And also don't think badly about vintage lenses, the absolute legendary vintage lenses are worth more now than they were new, but everything else is worth a tiny fraction of how much it cost new because demand has plummeted. Vintage lenses aren't 'cheap' they are spectacular bargains

Is anyone here shooting with a lens that is more expensive than their camera body? I think that might be a threshold of some kind... sadly, I'm not. I take your point but disagree.. Although motion is very important (along with sound, acting, storyline, etc), stills show: colour, DoF, grading, composition, and do so without the YT compression crunch that obliterates much of the subtlety, so it's not meaningless.... Yes, Vimeo is nicer than YT but I have never been able to play anything on it without it pausing to buffer (and many others were similar when Andrew polled this some time ago). and people posting images from the photography mode of their camera is just cheating! (unless it's just to talk about the lens of course)

Yes, what I was getting at was that by doing this you would be able to: Shoot a real project with a C200 Get 8-bit footage from a real job that you can do test grading on (instead of setting up a fake job and not getting paid for it) Not risk stuffing up a real job if the 8-bit footage wasn't good enough Get a taste of how difficult the RAW workflow is (maybe it's not as bad as you think..) Edit: Depending on your NLE you could deliver the project to the client from the RAW files and then just swap in the 8-bit files to the same grade and see how they hold up. It's not about comparing them to the RAW, but by processing them how you would normally and then working out if they're good enough.

What are you going to use it with? Have you used it yet? Is it good?

This is what a $62K setup looks like on a Canon M50. IMHO by far the most important aspect of that setup was the lens. Buy lenses, not cameras.

Interesting experiment @TrueIndigo. It reminds me of the YT guy who uses a custom rig, moving the camera in relation to the lens, shooting a static scene several times and then combining them to get high-resolution or large sensor output files. I'm also reminded of the people that experimented with taking a flatbed scanner and putting some kind of lens on them so that when the scanner did a 'pass' it was actually taking a photo from the left to the right of a scene. It generated absolutely enormous resolution files, but of course it was a horizontal rolling-shutter and took a few seconds to make the pass, so if anything moved you were stuffed! I shoot 4K and will crop into it for 1:2.35 and my problem is that I forget that the resolution is so high and so I tend to try and get too close to things in framing. I need to train myself to have faith that things will be visible and I can go wider!

An idea for consideration.. Rent a C200 for a real project but give yourself an extra day beforehand. On the prep day get setup and familiar with it and shoot some side-by-side shots with the two codecs, partly to practice switching back and forth, and also to compare in post that evening. Then on the day shoot a couple of takes of each shot with the 8-bit codec, then do the 'real' takes in RAW. Use the 8-bit takes to practice your camera moves or whatever, which I'm sure you'd do anyway, in a sense you can just hit record on the 8-bit mode, do your setup and let the camera roll (they're low bitrate so storage wouldn't be an issue) then just hit stop when you're ready for a real take. Then in post you can use the RAW ones to deliver for the client and not take any risk in delivering for your client, but you'll have gotten some real-world side-by-side comparison shots to play with in post, almost for free as you probably would have spent almost all the setup time doing stuff anyway. The C100 was famous for having a low bitrate codec that looked a lot better than the bitrate would have suggested, so maybe the C200 is similar, but you'd have to test it in real life to be sure.

I suspect not. Canon has deliberately crippled its product lineup in order to take people such as yourself (who are heavily invested in Canon glass and like DPAF) and make you tempted to buy the top of the line camera. Kind of like making smokers buy Lamborghinis by not supplying ashtrays in all the cheaper cars. Of course, the unfortunate thing about this is that there is no viable alternative that gives you what you want. The way out of this is to understand what priorities you have and then work out what suits your priorities best. I ended up with a GH5 because I don't care about sensor size and I realised I prefer the manual focus aesthetic. Had I wanted AF I would have been screwed. No perfect camera exists...

I think one of the biggest problems we face when talking to other film-makers is that we underestimate how differently other people might shoot compared to the way we do. I don't know if the OP has mentioned what kind of films they make in other threads, but even such (quite sensible) suggestions of lighting and audio might not apply if they were doing extreme sports, underwater shooting, natural light shooting, etc. I get that almost everyone will spend a lot of time recording someone talking (audio equipment) and will also spend a lot of time recording someone sitting in one place (lighting) but that's not everyone. You'd assume that someone would know which equipment they would use and things they wouldn't, but someone that is asking for equipment recommendations on forums without specifying what they shoot may very well not know these things. I'm sure that every now and then we all speak to someone who says they're getting started in photography and got a Canon with a prime lens because that's what someone else said they should get and now they're asking us why they can't pinch-zoom like on their phone - so you can't assume such things reliably I think!

Enjoy creating! Hope to see some of your stuff when you're resurfacing! ???

Instead of getting advice from other people about what would be useful for other people to buy, think about what would be useful for you by thinking about what you could have used in shooting past projects... They say that yesterday is the biggest predictor of tomorrow. Things change, but they don't change that fast. So, think about previous projects and what problems you had when actually shooting things, then think about what would be the best way to address those issues, and once you've done that for each of the problems, look at the ones where the best solution is equipment and only then think about buying something to solve those problems for you. I think everyone has bought something to solve a problem they think they will have, and they've ended up never using that thing they bought. If you buy something that will help a problem you've actually had in real life, then you've got half-a-chance of actually using it.

This stuff is very impressive.

This is an excellent question. The only way that I can see AF making real penetration into the high-end (at any real speed that is) is for one of the big manufacturers to release an adapter that will do AF on MF PL lenses. The tech has been available for decades(?) and if you could pop your MF lens on it, set it to infinity focus, and then turn AF on, that would turn the owners of the millions and millions of dollars of cine glass around the world into potential AF customers. I don't think this has much chance of happening, but I think that if the manufacturers are going to go with the old 'just buy all your stuff again' strategy, then they're probably in for an unpleasant surprise.

This! Yeah, I'd imagine that most attempts would not strike gold, but I'm anticipating that with enough work you would take away things that you could use. I often wonder where people with strong signature styles 'got' those in the first place. Soderburghs strong colours in post and long tracking shots, Wes Anderson using crazy coloured sets and centring everything, J.J. Abrams lens flaring, and even Bayhem. I suspect that it is probably from 'happy accidents' but my theory is that by experimenting we can create our own happy accidents.

Probably lots of us do camera tests, but who does experiments? Like, make a film: using only one lens (or with that crazy lens) only looking up / down with no people with only people walking away with only peoples faces only close-ups non-standard compositions (mostly sky and everything in the bottom quarter of the screen) multiple shots at the same time (eg, like Sliding Doors, or 24) strange speeds, like all footage is sped up or run backwards nothing is in-focus no dialogue dialogue without any pauses in-between start with music or soundscapes you've never worked with and shoot something to match them etc and by 'make a film' I just mean take a bunch of shots and put them together, it doesn't have to have narrative or anything. I guess in a way these might be experimental or even abstract films. I'm thinking about doing more of these myself, just to do things and see what happens. Explore new angles and ideas. Learn how they feel and what they do. It's only trying new things that we can find things to add to our normal style.

What a ridiculous situation. Who thought that was a good idea? I also realised that the handle/screen mount obscured the tripod mounting hole in the bottom of the X3000 camera itself, and didn't provide an alternate mounting hole, but no worries - I own a drill! I mounted a Peak Design Capture plate on the bottom of it to make it compatible with my Arca-Swiss QR system and also the Capture system too. I'm now on day one of the trip I bought the X3000 for in the first place, and so far it seems to be doing well. I haven't checked the footage from it yet, but so far the mounting thingy is really comfortable and intuitive to use and having a screen tilt vertically is really great for shooting at different heights. It's also very comfortable in the hand when you're not shooting with it. I'm tempted to say that I think this mount might be the reason that you see thousands of pics of people mounting GoPros with all kinds of rigs but you get very few hits when searching for X3000 rigs, as I think that this is perfectly designed - it really is that good. I'd also imagine they didn't sell nearly as well as GoPros sold, but the ratio wouldn't have been hundreds to one and I think this partly the reason why. Another killer advantage of the X3000 is that the camera is currently on a gorillapod facing out of the window of the hotel shooting a time-lapse and I'm sitting comfortably no-where near it and because the screen is wireless I don't have to get up to check on it! Win!! I did a lot of thinking about not having the mic port accessible in that mount and my theory is that I don't need directional audio for it as I don't tend to shoot people talking with a super-wide lens like that. I shoot things like amazing scenery, busy places and crowds, and underwater stuff with it. So for this trip I didn't pack the mic for it and I'll see how I go with ambient audio. It records stereo sound so should be helpful with that immersive vibe, as opposed to my GH5 / Rode VMP combo which is only mono.

I'm not sure if the idea of mashing these two genres together is obvious to everyone else but it's new to me, and it seems very interesting. The travel film seems to be a relatively new genre somewhere between location documentary and a marketing video and made popular by the rise of video on social media. I wonder then what interesting ideas formed in this new style of film-making that could be brought back into traditional travel documentaries to move the genre forwards? They say there's nothing new under the sun, but I believe the hyperlapse is something new (or at least new since the travel / location documentary genre was established), so maybe there are other things too. When I think about what travel films used to be (I'm thinking of Around the World in 80 Days and others with Michael Palin) then we've certainly learned a bunch of things since then. and when I say I'm interested, please reply as I make mostly travel videos of my family on holiday, so it would be interesting to incorporate other touches to get a sense of place, rather than 'we went here, we went here, we went here'