kye

I run Resolve.

iPhone X has focal lengths of 4.25mm and 6mm (source) which for the 4.25mm lens at f1.8 gives a DoF of 12.3cm at a distance of 20cm. A 26mm lens (which is what the equivalent FF focal length is) that was f1.8 gives a DoF of 0.28cm at a distance of 20cm. That's why you can't get any background blur with a tiny sensor unless the subject is very close. They love to say it's a 26mm equivalent f1.8 lens, but when you take the crop factor into account it's the equivalent of a 26mm f11 lens. They love to convert the focal length to FF equivalent but conveniently "forget" to convert the aperture. So their 4.25mm f1.8 lens is fast from an exposure point of view, but not from a DoF point of view, which is why I commented - every shot has infinite DoF and it impacts the aesthetic.

Yes, taking into account sensor size. If you don't take into account sensor size then it's a crazy fast ultra-ultra-ultra wide.

Great stuff. I think it was obvious from a visual perspective that it was shot on a phone, but after 10 seconds it wouldn't matter any more and it would all be down to the acting and story. I maintain that phones are very useful for what they do, which is essentially a camera with a slow / wide prime lens. Time spent not film-making because of equipment limitations is time wasted. I think discussions about equipment are fine as long as you're already shooting with what you have.

You're probably right. I compared a RAW still to a 1080 frame and saw a massive difference, but it will depend on bitrates. Maybe for $200 you get good quality 1080 and rubbish 4K. I guess we'll see!

I was contemplating not entering because I was pretty sure I'd be last.. Maybe the 'cheapest camera you can find' is a better approach? I do like the sound of that

Yeah, @quivering_member.. we made Australia great again some time ago before it got trendy. ???

The results of my morning walk yesterday.... Not an official entry (I may as well just put the camera in a box now in preparation for shipping it..) just a kind of proof of concept test. I went for the "it's rubbish, so mess it up and make it look like early film" but I know very little about early film, so there you go. Equipment used: Panasonic GF3, Super Takumar 55mm f1.8, generic 0.7x m42 to m43 SB. Graded in Resolve. Things I learned: It's difficult to focus on a fixed LCD screen with no MF assist functions It's kind-of pocketable and the tiny fold-out Manfrotto Pocket worked well for low angles on the ground, benches, rubbish bins, etc People really get freaked out... one guy walked into the middle of my shot, stopped, pulled out his phone and using selfie mode had a good look at me and took a photo. All the time I'm just standing there looking at the screen on the camera and thinking "get out of my shot! why couldn't you have just walked though it like a normal person!" I should have added way more film-grain in post to survive the YT compression The camera has no manual controls in video mode, but if you set the camera to manual stills mode, 1/50 and base ISO then you can adjust ND/aperture to expose correctly, then when it auto-everything's in video mode it should get a 1/50 with base ISO.... it should do, anyway. This wasn't shot with an ND, just in dark conditions, and some of these shots weren't set up right so shutter angles will be all over the place. I took a photo (RAW still) and video from the same location, then overplayed them in post to compare. Whomever manages to get 4k will absolutely kill everyone else.

The entire point of an eGPU is that it's an expansion for someone who needs a laptop (for whatever reason) but wants to edit quickly when they're 'docked'. I'll use my eGPU to create proxies, and then to do final editing and grading on the original footage when I've finished the edit. It will also be useful for doing quick edits. Surely someone here has gone down this path?

Resolve is moving towards GPUs over CPUs, and v16 is absolutely killing my MBP 13" with its 'you-might-as-well-not-have-a-GPU' integrated Intel Iris 550, so it's time to get an eGPU! I've done a bit of research, but no-where near enough, so I have questions. I've seen the Razor Core X chassis recommended lots of places, does anyone here use it? I've heard about bottlenecks due to the Thunderbolt connections, and potentially that it's Mac drivers and might be fixed, so is it worth getting a super-duper card? The 1080ti was the card to beat for ages, is it still right up there? or is there another card that is better value? Who else has taken the plunge?

On a recent trip my wife took pictures with her iPhone and I took video with the GH5. We often took images from the same vantage points one after the other so there was ample room for comparison. One thing I noticed when I started grading the images was how lovely the iPhone photos were in terms of colour and processing. I've got it on my list to try and break down the iPhone colour science to learn some stuff. It's an interesting thing, the debate about convenience vs output. A friend of mine who is into stills photography still uses his Canon 40D (or maybe it's even a 30D) because although he's done several major trips (eg, weeks going through Europe) and really tried to use his iPhone, he says that "the only photos I give the slightest f@#$ about came from the DSLR". For him the matter is closed - no smartphone picture has ever done it for him so taking a picture with a smartphone is basically like throwing the moment away. It's not like it's about anything other than the image either: he's a minimalist, hates the size and weight of the DSLR, he prints the odd picture but mostly they go out in a regular email update to friends and family, and he part owns and runs a tech company doing programming and virtualisation of services in the cloud. He's the perfect person for a smartphone, a parent who values convenience, is completely connected online and has disposable income to buy whatever smartphone he'd like, but nope! Do you think it's the shutter delay that gets in the way? or something else specific that you can think of? I've done street photography with both and apart from stealth, the real camera wins in every other department IMHO.

There are, they're just not what you'd call 'competitive' Australia has historically been subject to the 'Australia tax' which makes new goods about 40-80% more expensive due to lack of competition through wholesalers having a monopoly across a geographic area, and while this is currently diminishing, I still get a lot of "this item does not ship to your location" on Amazon, and retailers here haven't really adjusted to internet pricing. In terms of local second hand goods, shipping costs somewhat kills price competition: People here who are spending even a few thousand on luxury items like electronics, fashion, or even art, often fly to Asia to buy and then bring things home in their luggage as the total cost is less than buying locally! It's a good thing though, it somewhat curbs my bower-bird-like curiosity ???

Nice images!! You win the $150 challenge! oh, hang on...

I took my GF3, M42 to M43 Chinese SB, Super Takumar 55/1.8 and Manfrotto Pocket desktop tripod for a walk this morning and grabbed some shots as a sort of concept test. The GF3 has terrible IQ, no controls in video mode except WB, and a fixed screen with no MF assist function, so focusing it when it was on the ground looking up was a little.... challenging. Especially wearing full corporate uniform! But, I shot something when I otherwise wouldn't have, so that's a good thing I think "below average" might be being kind! But I bought it as a stills camera and for that it didn't disappoint. Combined with the pocketable 14mm f2.5 pancake lens mine has racked up enough flier miles to go around the globe more than once. I bought mine new with the kit lens, 14mm f2.5 lens, and all the extra batteries, filters, screen protectors, rocket blowers, and practically everything else available from china that might be useful for just under US$400. When I dropped it and it landed on the corner where the touchscreen was closest to the edge the metal chassis took the shock and apart from a slight wrinkle in the body there was no other damage. 2 weeks! 2 weeks!?!? You're hilarious!! Shipping to Australia often costs more than the item and takes MONTHS. When I was buying lots of old valves/tubes from the eastern block the ebay feedback time limit would close before I received the goods in the post! I had items take 10 weeks sometimes!! I received a package on Monday that I'd ordered in mid-May from JAPAN. A modern country with effective logistics infrastructure, strong trade relations, and is even in the same timezone as me! 2 weeks.....

I'm one step ahead of you. I already have MFT lenses, so... Find list of Panasonic m43 cameras <check> Ebay search GH2 under $150 <nope> Ebay search GH1 under $150 <maybe....> Ebay search G7 under $150 <nope> Ebay search G6 under $150 <nope> Ebay search G5 under $150 <nope> Ebay search GHX1 under $150 <maybe....> Ebay search GF6 under $150 <nope> Ebay search GF5 under $150 <maybe....> Find list of Olympus m43 cameras....... But hang on, how good are these cameras? Crap, I don't know anything about any of these, except that my GF3 video quality is gonna get laughed off the internet.....

@Andrew Reid - good job on the rules I also kind of like the idea that if a cameras current value is less than $150 then someone can still use it, considering that someone else who didn't own it can buy it and use it, and also that any camera currently devalued to that probably isn't in use any more! but happy with your call. That's because resolution really matters!! Look.... ??? Also, and completely unrelated question for the group. I have a particular new project coming up and am looking for recommendations for a camera that is as cinematic as possible and that I can buy for less than $150.....

Wow.. 8 weeks and that big. He's gonna be huge!! Better start writing your masterpiece so you can afford to feed him!

Oooh, I like the manual lens only idea!!

Never apologise for being a nerd. Never.

As cliche as they are, Gorillapods are very popular with vloggers for many good reasons. Lots of vloggers walk about talking to their DSLRs on Gorillapods, with hardly any bothering with a gimbal, and people aren't going crazy talking about stabilisation for those shots.

Lots of cool ideas and ways that this could be done. Another idea is that it can only be $150 (or whatever the amount is) for everything in production. That would make people trade off how big their SD card is with how fast their lens is with what mic they could use, etc... it might need to be more than $150 though. Also another suggestion that people can enter an unlimited number of times. This would encourage people to make more films and be less precious about them, which is also a good thing. Cool idea. I'm kind of reminded of the Top Gear challenges where they buy old sports cars that are now falling apart If we do standardise on a singe lens, the Helios is a good choice - everyone can use a crazy-bokeh 50mm FF lens, after all!

True. Anamorphic doesn't seem to tickle me in quite the same way that it seems to tickle others though. I quite like the aspect ratio though.

Awwww! How cute! How old is Bruno? (my wife wants to know)

Every technical choice has an aesthetic association. It might not be the same association across different groups of people, but everyone will have some kind of association. It would be the perfect choice if you wanted that 80s video look, the 90s home video look, or you were creating something where there was altered perception involved, like someone with a migraine goes outside into the sunshine. Everything depends on the outcome you're trying to achieve. Including trying to impress people on the internet with your camera tests....

It will likely be here sooner than we expect, but I don't expect it for a decent amount of time, so even if it's a lot sooner it will still be a while Those demos were sort-of interesting, but some were considered standard computer science graphics algorithms and were being given as assignments back in the early 90's. I'd certainly hope that the processing power would be available to do such things, being that Moores law has had almost three decades to work on it! We do have face-detection built in, which is a large part of it, but I recall that the harder part was getting computers to do object recognition in the less-than-perfect conditions. I remember watching a 'latest tech' type show on TV many years ago and the guy was talking about computer vision, and how the computer could recognise a spoon pretty reliably, as well as many other kitchen cutlery they'd programmed into it, but when they pointed it at the drawer with all the random serving spoons and tin-openers that every house has, it was pretty much useless in partial matching things. I'd suggest that there's a similar problem with recognising things in a 3D environment when they're not in focus, especially if you only have one lens to try and extrapolate depth from. It's worth noting that the depth extraction algorithm was from a stereo pair of images, which probably had a very deep depth of field. Humans, on the other hand are pretty good at depth perception using only one eye, using things like size, relative motion, parallax, contrast, and other factors to build a 3D model from a series of 2D images. Maybe the AI of the future will have a few cameras on the front of the camera for analysis, or even like phones do where one is a low-res depth sensor.