kye

Every year is a great year for equipment now... And when that 3x crop factor comes out with DPAF and Canon CS, just watch @Andrew Reid put an Angenieux C-mount on it and drive up the price of C-mount lenses again!!

Absolutely. I used to hate doing a first cut because of all the keyboard and touchpad/mouse work required just to go to the next clip, but that all changed with the Cut page. Now it's like gradually floating down a river watching things go past and just sticking your hand out to grab the good bits as they glide by.

Resolve doesn't have any issues with the files from my XC10. The 4K 305Mbps files need a good computer to play though.

I agree. Reading my post again I realise I was a bit loose with my language, sometimes saying 'best' when I was thinking 'more popular', and anticipating the likely customers for the camera. I still think that those shooting vintage glass won't care as much about 6K, or at least shouldn't care that much. What I mean is that I understand that 6K gives you all sorts of reframing options in post, and that's great, but those reframing options still exist in 4K if you're willing to crop into the image a bit. This is where we hit the 'should' part of the situation - many people won't want to do that and will be thinking from a purist perspective and "I need to capture 4K pixels to output 4K pixels" and being kind of philosophically / religiously / fanatically opposed to up-scaling. My point is that: Upscaling is actually way more popular than camera nerds on forums understand - case in point is the ARRI 3.2K mode which is regularly up-res'd to 4K for major cinema blockbuster movies (do people really think that what is good enough from ARRI for top-end cinema isn't good enough for them? what the hell are they shooting?!?!) People who choose to shoot vintage lenses due to aesthetic (rather than budget limitations) may do so because of the softer look they give, which is also accomplished by up-res'ing slightly after cropping in and reframing 4K footage Many/most of the people talking about this have never actually compared straight vs up-res'd footage themselves to see what the hell we're actually talking about - the 'downgrade' in quality they're religiously avoiding is subtle at best There is actually a line of discussion that suggests that part of the cinematic magic that ARRI cameras create is the fact that they upscale from 3.2K and don't shoot 4K natively, putting this as a massive plus in the aesthetic rather than the liability some perceive it as.

6K RAW seems super tempting but the file sizes makes my eyes water just thinking about it!! We recently bought two TVs (one for someone else and one for us) and my wife is a super-star bargain hunter, typically finding deals like 40-70% off. Anyway, IIRC we bought a 58in and 63in and we made the decision to buy the 63in one without knowing it was 4K because it didn't mention 4K on the box or on any of the little feature stickers on the display model. When a TV with a huge discount doesn't even mention it's 4K, that's an indicator that 4K isn't new any more. I don't know how long people typically own a TV for, but if 4K isn't even mentioned anymore then pretty much everyone will be getting 4K in their next upgrade.

lol about swords existing I do take your point, but I kind of think it's just funny, and TBH if you put much credence in how things are named then you're in for a great many surprises, like when you find out what "free trade agreements" are all about, etc IIRC the P4K and BMCC were practically the same width, with the P4K being slightly less tall. I think I saw a pic somewhere comparing them.

It all depends on your perspective.... for example, if you understand that this rig is pretty minimal for a cinema camera: and that they get much bigger: People have no clue what the word 'cinema' really entails....

Have you studied the ads of competing products? and the ads that are regularly screened in the target market? One thing we can't know is what the client is used to seeing or what their environment looks like. Also, they might have an instagram full of oversaturated HDR pics and we wouldn't know.

Managing client expectations is potentially harder than actually doing the work, at least that's what I've heard from the professional colourists. It's good practice to get clients to send examples of grades they like to give you a starting point to work from. Another strategy is to do a few rough grades straight away and have the client choose which one they like for you to refine, that way it's not that you got it 'wrong' it's just options. The ideal grade for my tastes is somewhere in between the two grades, but that's taste as well. I know professional photo retouchers are constantly battling the clients about how much thinner/poutier/etc to make the models, with the client wanting to push the images completely off the deep end, and it's not uncommon to go back and forth a dozen (or more) times with the client saying 'more more more' the whole way. Remember that you're an artist, and often the client is trying to sell things. They're very different jobs with very different mindsets.

A 6K downscale to 2.8K would be a pretty lovely looking image, especially if you use a good codec like BRAW or Prores HQ, but is it a downscale or is it a crop? Prores is only offered in DCI4K, UHD, and 1080. In terms of battery life, I wonder if the target audience for a 6K camera might be the more serious shooters amongst us, who are more likely to have a rig and external power anyway. I know the EF mount makes it appealing to those with lenses, but there's a reasonable price differential too, so you'd have to want it!

I'd suggest: Setup a short section on the timeline so you can export quickly to test IQ Disabling all grading then export Check timeline resolution (IIRC output resolution doesn't override timeline resolution, but could be wrong) Create new timeline, add test clip, export that Create new project, new timeline, add test clip, export that Not sure what to do after that point... Re-installing resolve is the likely common recommendation It's called a Freemium business model. They've (mostly) written the free version already by writing the paid version, so it costs little to give away. They create a big name for themselves and it works as marketing. People go onto the free version of Resolve rather than pay for FCPX or PP, learn it, get used to it, then when it's time to upgrade and spend money their habits and workflow is all optimised around Resolve, so they've essentially 'converted' a customer before the customer has decided to buy.

I've been thinking a lot about lenses recently, and my take is that the best lenses for the P6K will be the usual FF/S35 suspects, skewing to the more modern end of that range. ie, the Sigma 18-35, Canon F2.8 zooms (especially the 16-35), and fast/modern primes. Here's why: Anyone shooting 6K will be interested in resolution and detail, so will be interested in higher-resolution glass The P4K can get similar framing with similar lenses by adding the Metabones SB, and there's even a new one now, so the older one might drop in value Anyone wanting to adapt lots of older lenses will want the shorter flange-distance of the P4K MFT mount Anyone shooting older more 'vintage looking' glass won't care about 6K and the P4K would be enough for them

I'm going to claim some points with my prediction... I guessed a higher resolution pocket camera, and lo.. 6K it is! (part marks to me!) I guessed that resolve edits for you, and lo.. v16.1 beta includes "Boring detector with timeline indicators to detect edits which are running too long"! (more part marks to me!) I'm semi joking of course, and my "guess" was a completely ridiculous extrapolation of current trends designed to get a laugh, but wow, they actually moved decently in those directions. BM just keeps on giving

It's the BM Ultra Pocket Cinema 8K Pro Plus, and the new Resolve 17 which edits the video for you!!

How long did it take for you to find a 3d rendered picture of a can of spam??? ???

How wonderful! Great stuff.. My wife said "Aww, that was really cute, and touching".

I use proxies all the time. I create 720p Prores proxies from the 4K h264 or 6K h265 source footage, which allows me to fit the source media onto the SSD of my laptop and edit on my daily commute to work. The 720 Prores cuts like butter and doesn't kill the CPU and battery. I just wish Resolve had a nicer way to render them.

The first few generations of tech always look hideous - just wait, it will get better, then it will get great. This is me going on record.

It's probably worth mentioning that there are three magic ingredients here.. "wide aperture", "MFT", and "sharpness". Our problem is that if we're testing the adapter for how sharp it is, then we're in trouble with most/all of the fast MFT lenses, because they are absolutely not sharp when wide open! I have the 17.5mm f0.95 Voigtlander and the last two stops are quite soft, and compared to the difference that the adapter is likely to be making they are probably useless. What we need is for someone to test it with a lens that actually is razor sharp when wide open, and for that I think we have to adapt something else. Just look at the lens test that @BTM_Pix posted in the Lenses thread - how much sharper the master prime was than the Rokinon or Dog Schidt lenses when wide open, and then look at the size / cost comparison! I'd be surprised if any of us with our mere mortal lens collections would be able to tell any difference at all.

This is potentially the best IQ of the bunch IMHO. Great work!!

The Z6 has a lot of fans on here - many believe that it has the best colours (or close to) of any of the modern bunch of cameras. My impression is that shadow detail and colour are partly matters of taste and the project (think about how green the skin tones in The Matrix were!) but obviously an ARRI does better than the first iPhone so there are some objective measures. In terms of highlight rolloff I think this is purely taste. If you capture a scene without clipping, with minimal noise, and in 10-bit (or more) then you should be able to create whatever highlight rolloff you like. The work that @Sage has done with the GHAlex LUTs is a good example of how closely you can emulate an Alexa with a GH5, and the highlight rolloff is a significant component of that look. I would suggest that many cameras can get the shots in the video I posted - or at least 99% of the way there. Many great looking videos have been shot with very modest equipment when put in the hands of someone with the requisite skill, and given the right lighting, production design, etc. Anyone can pick up an S1, Z6, or Alexa for that matter, and record awful looking footage. The difference between what the best and worst GH5 footage looks like is night and day, and the difference between what the S1, Z6 can do in comparison to an Alexa is much smaller than the aforementioned gap. Thanks! I suspect they're all walking on flat ground and the subject in the foreground is a little taller and the camera height combined with the wide angle lens is what makes the height difference more apparent.

Considering it's not your video I will not analyse too deeply or be too critical, but this is what I see: There is quite a bit of variation between shots, some are really good and some aren't as good Overall the colours are pretty good It wasn't shot with an ND (the fan shows no motion blur) so that gives it a slightly video look, but this is a minor point I think what lets down some of the shots in this film are lighting and composition - this is where the top end of cinematography really shines and in this video some shots are very nice and others have odd framing, distracting backgrounds, unflattering lighting angles, etc. Having said all that (much of which is nit-picking) it needs to be acknowledged that this video was obviously shot on the street, the models were shared amongst many photographers, there appeared to be no artificial lighting and I didn't see any lighting modifiers in there, and it's likely that the time available wasn't huge. In those circumstances it's a completely different challenge, and comparing a high-end cinematographers showreel to something shot run-n-gun in probably only an hour or two doesn't make sense. If you're interested in good examples of cinematography then I'd encourage you to stop looking at YouTubers and start looking at the pros. Make a list of the most gorgeous movies, TV shows, and advertisements you've ever seen, research who shot them, who graded them, and then go find their showreels and use those as a reference point for great images. Here's a good one: Then read as much BTS stuff as you can find. Using IMDB and shotonwhat.com will unearth huge amounts of information about how these images were created. Also, there is no substitute for hard work. Find a shot you like, take a whole day and try and replicate it. Work out what lighting was used, what lens, what angles, then pull it into post and try and replicate the grade. Find the sites that sell very expensive LUTs (not youtubers - people that actually work in the industry on movies/tv/advertising) and find their before/after images. These are useful because they often have a colour chart in them, so if you have a colour chart of your own then you can try and replicate that look and be able to apply some science to it. It's great to connect with other people, and this site has many skilled people that will answer questions etc, but there's no substitute for hard work. If reading about things or talking to people on the internet made us great at film-making we'd all be multi-award-winning geniuses! [Edit: also, videos comparing high-end lenses, like the ones that BTM_Pix posted just recently are great too, because they will be well lit and perfectly exposed/WB etc, and probably aren't graded either, so can serve as a great reference point]

It looks pretty good, but not great. I can offer more feedback than that if you're interested, but a lot of this stuff is quite subjective too, and with art there isn't a right or wrong way to do it. What were your goals with the piece? Are you happy with it? What kind of feedback are you interested in?

How's the latency @webrunner5 ?

Recompression will make an image worse in all kinds of ways, depending on what settings were in there and what was in the source. I'm not saying that the image in question was perfect to begin with, but just clarifying that the artefacts are a mixture of what the camera saw, what the artefacts the codec in-camera created, and what artefacts the still image compression put on top of all that I all my travels with equipment I learned that: I prefer Manual Focus over AF, because AF isn't there yet and with MF I have full creative control I don't mind the aesthetic of human focus pulling and don't need everything in focus at all times (I shoot only travel and home videos so I have full creative control) I really like being able to get subject-to-background separation via background blur, which if you're at a distance from subject requires a large aperture I also shoot exclusively in available light, and shoot a lot at night, and I have pretty good night vision so I also want a camera/lens combo that 'sees' in the dark as well or better than I do, which means a combination of high ISO and large apertures I really really like 10-bit files as grading them is just as good as 14-bit (IMHO, but I did comparisons between compressed 10-bit, and 10, 12, and 14 bit RAW) I'm not very good at mixing the focus direction (I've shot with the "wrong" MF direction lenses before and afterwards it screwed me up for a week or more each time) I'm not super-picky about consistency between shots and I can always compensate between lenses etc in post (at least to my personal standards, probably not to others) When I shoot sports I want very very very long lenses (I shoot a lot at 840mm FF equiv) I hate hate hate clipping and I like ~12+ stops of DR (as opposed to less) as I like creating a lower contrast output image that shows off the full range (reminiscent of how high DR cinema is graded) I'm pretty good at spotting the most expensive / highest quality cameras and codecs in blind tests, so my tastes run towards RAW and ARRI colour science I like 16mm, 35mm, 70-80mm, FF equivalent focal lengths (and a very long zoom for sports) To this end, I ended up with: GH5, as it has 6K 10-bit low-sharpening H265 mode, 4k60, and 1080p180, EVF, loads of buttons, MFT crop factor for the long focal lengths, I don't care about AF, and the colour science and 10-bit make it nice to work with for nice colours (although I still have huge amounts to learn about grading) 8mm F4 SLR Magic (to be upgraded to 7.5mm F2 Laowa lens when I sell my Sigma 18-35) 17.5mm F0.95 Voigtlander (the default lens on the camera) 40mm F1.8 Konica Hexanon (on a dumb non-SB adapter) 58mm F2 Helios (on a dumb non-SB adapter) 70-210mm F4 Canon FD zoom on a 2x Canon teleconverter on a dumb non-SB adapter Rode VMP+ (with the attenuator set for a safety track) I am missing a prime in the ~80-85mm range but haven't managed to find a budget friendly option yet, considering how little I would use it the budget isn't that much. For trips I would either take a three-lens set of 8mm, 17.5mm, and 58mm, or a four-lens set with more extension of 8mm, 17.5mm, 40mm, and 85mm. I have bought a bunch of other lenses and literally have a box of stuff to sell, and there's a 135mm f2.8 Minolta in there that I'd also consider taking on a trip for extra coverage, so I'm not sure about keeping that one or not. It's always a compromise between travelling light and being flexible... Had a look over this and it's interesting to look at the Dog Schidt, which (I believe) is a Helios 58mm F2 modified to flare a lot (depending on the options chosen in the customisation). It really shows how soft it is at F2 and how sharp it is at F4. The bokeh on that is quite pleasing and quite reminiscent of the higher cost options. @mercer was right about the bokeh on the Rokinon being really busy and distracting, I didn't expect that from it. It'd suggest that's because it's dirty (which IIRC is what the texture in the bokeh normally reveals) but it looks like internal reflections or something and not just random dust or fingerprints or whatever. Any ideas? It's quite off-putting to me. I looked at a bunch of the cheap vintage brands like Rikenon / Mamiya-Sekor / Chinon / Revuenon etc but eliminated them because of the hard-edged distracting / bubble bokeh and the fact I want my bokeh to shift attention to what is in focus rather than be a special effect that pulls attention from what is in focus to the background!