kye

This isn't click-bait BS, let's actually talk about why 6K RAW cameras aren't really needed. I see two main reasons: Many cameras already shoot 6K downscaled to a 4K output (and the GH5 even has a lower-processed 5K anamorphic 4:3 mode) so the resolution benefits of 6K debayer resolution for a 4K delivery are already being enjoyed by many people For those who are claiming you need 6K to reframe for a 4K output, it is likely you don't know what reframing actually looks like There is a third reason - that resolution has absolutely nothing to do with how good your film is, but I'll just assume that people who are desperate to get more resolution are probably not yet ready to hear this and I'll move on and pretend it somehow matters. Much analysis has been done of the 6K -> 4K downsampling cameras, so I won't replicate those conversations, but instead let's look at the reframing argument. If you're shooting 6K to reframe and get a 100% 4K crop out, you can reframe into the image up to 150% . ie, if you want to match the same re-framing with only a 4K source, you must scale up that 4K source to 150%, effectively using a 2.5k source. It sounds terrible, and despite people repeatedly saying that ARRI cameras capture at 3.2k and upscale to 4K (a 125% upscale) people still dismiss upscaling out-of-hand without actually knowing what difference this scaling makes, and being too lazy to actually test it themselves. So I did it for you.... I look forward to people arguing their point in the face of overwhelming evidence.... ??? That is, unless you're delivering in 6K and also want to re-frame heavily in post, but seriously - who would be doing that?

6K RAW for ..... >$5K. Ouch!

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?