kye

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'

I know it's besides the point, but nice work on correcting that - the colours in the end result aren't half bad!

Imagine what this would do to the next cheap camera challenge!!

Nice pic! I really like the 35mm FF equiv focal length. That said, I really think that any focal length is very personal and it depends on what you shoot, how you shoot it, and under which conditions you shoot. For example, I shoot holiday videos of my family, which is essentially environmental portraiture. In this sense, I want to see my family members interacting with the environment they are in. This could be people or the place itself. In this sense, I want a FOV that allows for two or three people in the frame. I also shoot fairly close as we're in public, so the lens has to be at the wider end, otherwise I couldn't get far enough back / people would walk in-between. Also, I have discovered that when doing portraiture, we tend to frame up the people in the shot in roughly the same size, and when we do this over different focal lengths the distortion of that focal length comes into play. Lenses longer than 'normal' create a distant feeling with a compressed background and lenses wider than normal create a 'you are in the scene' / up close and personal feeling. In my videos I want them to feel like you're there with us, rather than somewhere nearby watching us, so I like a lens wider than normal, but not too wide. Here are a couple of examples I've shared previously from a 35mm FOV lens: In terms of using this as your ONLY lens, I guess you could, but you'd either have to have the ability to create the set around the lens, or be the kind of film-maker who is looking for subjects that fit that lens and ignore great shots that don't work on it. I've worked out for me that my kit is equivalents of a 16mm, a 35mm and an 80mm. The feel of those lenses is exactly what I want - the 16mm gives those WOW shots, the 35mm gives those "you're here with us" environmental portraits, and the 80mm gives a feeling of looking at that thing over there, wether that thing is something in the distance, or if it's a stolen moment from a bit further away when no-one saw you watching. In this sense, the lenses give the same feeling as you get in person, so for me they match what I shoot (people I love in interesting situations), how I shoot it (while I'm there enjoying the experience with them - and also enjoying the film-making immensely too), and under the conditions that I shoot (in public, often in crowded or restrictive circumstances where you don't have freedom to get into the right spot for the right composition). In terms of what is right for everyone else, that's not for me to judge, but for anyone who hasn't already worked out what focal lengths they like, I would encourage them to think about the feeling they want to create and look for the lens that gives that feel while composing how they like to compose.

He's got 57 now. I mean.... I just happened to notice... and was there for no reason at all....

That video is hilarious!! I guess I was saying that what matters to me is originality. You're bang on that the most successful ones are often derivative dishwater, but so are most of the successful songs, so I guess they match in that regard! I like music videos because they are a way to get paid for short films, working for artists can offer permission to deviate from the normal rules and content of film-making, and there is room for considerably more experimentation than is perhaps offered in any other genre. Of course, there are exceptions where videos were creative and also successful. The video for Thriller by Michael Jackson was certainly both, at least for its time.

You may be overlooking the difference between a 4K sensor and a 4K output file. The 4K sensor has ~12 million photo sites but each is only one colour (R, G, or B). A 4K monitor has ~12 million pixels, but each pixel is made up of 3 lights, one Red, one Green and one Blue. In this way if you want a full 4K image you must have an 8K ~48MP sensor. Of course, modern cameras are smart with how they process the sensor data and do a pretty good job from a 6K sensor to output a 4K file, but if you want true 4K then a 4K camera doesn't cut it. For most of us it doesn't matter that much, and at standard viewing distances (ie, in the SMPTE and THX specifications) the difference between a 4K image and a 1080p image is barely perceptible, so we kind of talk about capture resolution and delivery resolution in the same context, but they're really not the same thing. I'm a big fan of blur and I used a ton of it in the recent $200 camera challenge. I also think that resolution and sharpness is one of the reasons people are so fond of the older 1080 BM cameras (amongst other factors).

I would say FF FTW, but who knows. What I am happy to commit to is FF FTH - Full Frame For-The-Hype!

I think cinematic 'language' is something that is always evolving and things people do will always fall into three camps: things we've established (eg 180 rule, J and L cuts, etc), things that don't work and will never become a standard part of cinematic language, and things that are unfamiliar but will eventually become part of the standard language. The issue is that 'standard cinematic language' isn't as standard as we'd like, and it will be different between languages, cultures, and sub-groups. For example the technique of deliberately over processing and downgrading the image and audio (making the audio so loud that it's clipped almost beyond recognition) is a completely standard thing that started in meme culture and has worked its way into almost all types of social media video. I can't tell you what it means, but I'm familiar enough with its use that I get the joke when people use it. This is the problem with art - they take what is normal, then create impressionism, cubism, surrealism, post-modernism, post-post-modernism, etc etc etc....

and proving that creativity knows no boundaries, I share with you all this. The most epic and philosophical song about radiators ever written.

and the EOSHD Nihilist quote of the day goes to.......... *drum roll* ???

@ghostwind Your approach sounds sensible. I appreciate the buy-once-buy-well approach, and it sounds like you probably have a good enough idea on what your requirements are and how you work to be able to determine what will work for you, both creatively and from a return-on-investment perspective, and considering that the image you deliver may even be secondary for some clients compared how how impressive your camera looks or the specs you can advertise (like shooting in 4K). I don't know what platforms you're creating for, but 4K would give you the ability to deliver 4K 16:9 and also >1080p 9:16 vertical video from the same shot. We've spoken on these forums about vertical video and I recall a lifestyle/branding/advertising film-maker suggesting that filming vertical video for social and also for portrait-mounted TVs was becoming more in-demand. The framing may be different for different aspect ratios, but I would imagine not having to have a 90-degree adapter to flip the camera would be a plus on set, as for each shot you could just reframe and do another take, and then be able to produce a vertical and horizontal version of the same video without much extra time on set. The only other piece of advice I have is to get your hands on a few options and see how you like them. Even if you assume that Canon knows how to make a decent cinema camera (which is pretty well established) there may be little personal elements that would work or not work for you specifically. Ergonomically, conceptually, and for your workflow too.

So.... how did it turn out? Talk about ending your post on a cliff-hanger!! These writers, always trying to make sure you'll read their next post!

All valid points, but it makes me wonder how much you want to spend for a "what if" scenario. An alternative to this is a C100 and if the client wants 4K then hire a C200 for that project. At the point that clients routinely ask for 4K then you can consider how long a purchase would take to pay for itself based on data rather than a general concern. "What if" is the enemy of photography because it leads you down a path where you buy so much equipment that you don't have time to learn how to use it and you take so many things with you that you can't actually go anywhere or shoot anything. True wisdom is knowing how much is enough.

also, someone else just posted this excellent example of exposure tests.....

If you're asking me how I do it personally, then I just let the camera do it. I've played with my exposures enough to know that I'm ok within a certain range and can get what I need. I think this is personal. Have a read of these: https://www.hurlbutacademy.com/film-education-arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/ https://www.hurlbutacademy.com/film-education-arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500-part-2/ If you do the tests and absolutely love it at a certain exposure and hate it at anything else then expose it like that. If you do the tests and discover you don't care, then let something else guide you. We all see differently, we all have different preferences, you will notice things I won't and vice-versa. I think there is a progression of knowledge and technique: Level 1: Full-auto go go go Level 2: I'm now very aware that I don't know how to do this right, I need help! Level 3: I've read a bunch and am experimenting and I've worked out all the settings and all the numbers and all the ratios and all the things Level 4: I don't bother measuring, I just adjust it until it looks right The Level 4 people can adjust it until it looks right because they know two things: what to adjust, and what looks right. To get to this level you have to go through the previous steps first. No shortcuts. My comments above about Level 4 apply here too. Read everything you can get your hands on, do all kinds of tests, learn everything you can, then just expose it so it looks right. I'm reminded of how professional colourists talk about grading skin tones. Level 3 people ask questions about the skin-tone line in the Vectorscope and the Level 4 people just laugh and ask "How would you grade these?"

Try everything. My suggestion above is a lot of work but think about it this way, you have two options: Spend an afternoon or two doing my test, learn how your camera responds, learn things about image quality, and build a new skill Shoot ETTR because someone on the internet told you to, and maybe years later you learn that it wasn't the best way and you could have been making nicer footage all those years I mean, Internet forums always have better advice than what professional cinematographers do themselves, right?

I understand your point, but I suspect we have a philosophical difference here. My end goal is to make art. Out of the many ways I could do this, I have chosen video as the medium, and for this purpose I own a camera. If I could stick a USB stick in the side of my head and render my memories to it then I wouldn't bother with any of the opto-electric-trinkets that we talk about here. So, when we talk about spending many thousands of dollars on equipment instead of $40 for a 10-year-old point and shoot on ebay, we are doing so because we think that expensive equipment gives us a nicer image. For me, and I suspect most others, nicer typically means that the end product looks far less crunched when compared to what we pointed the camera at than a cheaper camera would do. This is why our discussions talk about everything in the image pipeline. Walking through it, we talk about filters, lenses, the sensor stack, the sensor, the digital processing (colour science), the codec, editing, grading, delivery codecs, distribution, and final projection. We care about everything. I understand that not everyone wants to have perfectly realistic imaging, there is this concept of a 'cinematic' image and we talk about how certain distortions have a pleasing effect. Swirly bokeh lenses are an example of this - not everyone wants the modern look. However, when we're talking about what we want vs what we don't want, not everything is desirable. For example CA isn't something most people want. It's definitely not something I like the look of. There are other things we sometimes want to get rid of. ..and here we get to the crux of the problem - if there is a problem with something in the image pipeline then we have the choice of having everything else in the pipeline have high-quality and therefore ruthlessly reveal the issue, or we can deliberately lower the quality of something in order to effectively hide that issue. It's a question of how clearly do we want to see the best part of the image, knowing that we will also make it clear to see the worst part of the image too. For me, it's about spending the money on the worst part of the image pipeline. If someone said they had an Alexa and PL cine lenses but used a scratched $10 ND filter and were thinking of upgrading to an ARRI LF because they wanted to get better image quality we'd think they were crazy because they should replace the ND filter instead as that's clearly the worst part of their setup. For me, I think that lenses might be the worst part. I watch a lot of Netflix and on almost everything I watch I'm seeing bad image quality caused by lenses, not by filters, not the sensor stack, not the sensor, not the digital processing (colour science), not the codec, not editing, not grading, not delivery codecs, not distribution, not the final projection, the weakness is the lens. And when I look at moving from 4K to 6K I think about what lenses people are using and I think "4K isn't your bottleneck". Using a Helios... 4K obviously isn't your bottleneck. Using a Sigma 18-35, Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 or Canon 16-35... I still think that 4K isn't your bottleneck. Using a CP.2... Even then I think 4K isn't your bottleneck. I know it's a taste thing, but when I see lens issues I'm just thinking everyone is spending big dollars to make high-resolution copies of fuzzy 70's polaroids.

I'm planning on getting one of those when OSX drivers are released - the horsepower-per-dollar ratio is pretty good on that. Of course, I'm not sure if getting a better card will help me as my CPU might be the bottleneck. I'm currently talking with one of the BM support providers so am hoping for some wisdom (and performance gains!).