kye

A few questions: What was most surprising during the whole process? What did you learn? What did you do that worked brilliantly that might be useful for others to know? ???

A couple of monopod videos talking about how they suit shooting weddings:

No worries! This field is absolutely huge and is a never-ending challenge for everyone. It's got all the great ingredients: it's hugely technical with a fast pace of change so you're always learning to keep up, it's almost always a team activity and involves working with people both behind and in-front of the camera, and is an art-form not a science so there is no final answer and there is always something more to learn. Here's my advice - learn as much as you can, but learn by doing. Make films, learn from them, and then make more. Lots of people are all talk or all tech and don't actually create anything, don't fall into that trap.

There are many things that really define what a camera setup is capable of.. DR, 8/10/12bit, lenses, filters, etc, but sensor size isn't one of them.

Which adapter do you use? If that lens can be made parfocal then that would be great news for a lot of folks I think

Sounds like someone needs to make a 3 Hour 1 Minute film about getting kicked out by security... who wants to stuff around with artists who might not show up, the security guys sound pretty reliable

I'd suggest that you put it on the camera and: check the connection to the camera is mechanically sound turn on the camera and if the lens is electronic then check that the connection is working hit record focus to infinity and check that you can get the horizon in focus (it might not be exactly at the infinity mark on the lens) change the focus all the way to its nearest position and point the camera at something that distance away do a similar test with testing the full range of the aperture from wide-open to fully closed if it's a zoom lens, do a similar test with the full range of the zoom then point it at something plain (a blue sky is useful) and close the aperture completely and do a full pass on the focus from near to far if it has OIS or other buttons on it then test those functions also test whatever automatic focus modes it has That should test the lens mechanically and electronically, and to check it optically you need to then review the footage on a decent sized display. Pay particular attention to spots (that's what the sky test is for) which might indicate dust or fungus inside the lens (or on the sensor) and then look for vignetting, colour shifts, or anything else that stands out to you. Then just use it a bunch to get to know it, and how it handles flares, skin tones, how soft it is wide open and how much you have to stop it down before it sharpens up, etc.

Looks fine but I'll just say that the two focal lengths you're looking to buy are very similar to each other and I wonder if having a bit more variation might be more useful initially? I do understand that the 16 and 25 are probably the most common focal lengths that get used, so depending on how you shoot it might be fine. I'd suggest thinking about what camera angles / framing you're going to have (two-person, one-person-wide, one-person mid, tight, over the shoulder, and b-roll closeups, establishing shots, etc) and how close your camera will be from them (are you shooting on sets, temporary locations in larger rooms, in people's houses in open-plan areas, houses in smaller rooms, open plan offices, individual offices, meeting rooms, locker rooms, etc ) as this combination of shot+distance will dictate the focal length you will need. For close-ups consider the minimum focus distances of your lenses too. Also consider that if you're shooting 4K you only have to crop into the 16 about 150% to get 25 (which will be a 2.5K image) and if this is acceptable for you to do so, if you're delivering in 1080 for example, then maybe you get a 35 or 40 instead of the 25. Or, you get a 12 and the 25, and you can crop in to emulate a 16, and also emulate a 35 or 40 with your 25. As I said, this is personal, so the only person who can answer it is you, but make sure you've considered that before spending your budget

Watchtower of Turkey is a classic, and IIRC was one of the? or the? video that started the fast-cut-fancy-transition genre of travel film. I don't have favourites really, but this is a great one, and somewhat contrasts Watchtower... I should add that it's not all 'cinematic' but alternates between vlog and cinematic, which to my eye makes the cinematic stuff even more so because of the contrast. We could argue that the vlog parts are cinematic too because of the storytelling, humour, and content rather than the aesthetic, but regardless.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8127095/Spam-boat-passengers-tell-of-cruise-from-hell.html

Interesting device, but wow is it expensive! But you're right about hardly any accepting CFast or CF cards.

Welcome to the forums! I know nothing about weddings, but the Wedding Film School YT channel has an absolute ton of great info if you're just starting out, so you might want to give it a look. It's lapsed with posts recently, but don't let that put you off. The channel has talked about equipment in the past (which is less relevant now since time has passed) but it has dozens of videos on technique, planning, BTS, how to talk to clients, the business side, lighting, camera angles, and everything else. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5QuUjtd80FkGRSLYP_052Q/videos

Morning! I see you've all been busy while I was sleeping There issue here is that there isn't such a thing as a 'better' camera, only "better for ...... situation" The S1 might have colours that please you better, the Z6 might have menus that someone likes more, sure, and these days there are no more bad cameras, I'm sure the S1 and the Z6 are just lovely. But it depends on what your situation is - for the person with m43 glass the GH5 is better than the S1 (or an Alexa for that matter), for the person who has very little HDD space and only needs 1080 the c100 might be hard to beat, and for the person who shoots underwater or in action sports a GoPro is a pretty good option. Hell, for the person that wants 240fps an iPhone kills basically everything else because not much else can do it. If we make some assumptions about what you're trying to say, and we assume that the person: 1) has no lens collection, 2) has $5K or whatever for a new setup, 3) values the colour straight-out of the camera or with very light grading, 4) has the time and hardware for RAW and high-bitrate codecs, 5) assuming that what is announced actually gets delivered on, and 6) a future camera with a different lens mount doesn't come along that will significantly beat their choice, THEN maybe the S1 or the Z6 might be the best options for that person. You may be right - those cameras are probably the best current option for many many people. The problem is that any of the things that I listed as assumptions may not apply to the person out there that you are trying to save from online treachery. If that person has a lens collection already then that skews it for mounts that are compatible or can be adapted (if that's ok for that person). If they don't have a setup but don't have the $5K+ for a new setup required then maybe a lesser camera with a cheaper / more available ecosystem might be better. If you don't mind about colour straight-out of the camera, or can grade, then practically any 10-bit camera will be good. If you're looking for Alexa colours then the GHAlex LUTs from Sage are a real plus for the GH5 right now. If they don't have the time or heavy footprint of RAW then they'll be wanting something that shoots the quality / bitrate compromise at their optimal point. Lots of people shoot in a regular profile and get things right in-camera so they don't have to grade at all, this is mainly for speed in post-production, which is a big deal for people on tight timeframes. If you're looking for the best camera and the S1 is better than the GH5 and you go all-in for that, then you're at risk of the GH6 making you regret your decision. No-one can predict the future, but if I was in the market right now, even if I didn't have any m43 glass, the system still looks like it might be more attractive because of its history, although FF third party lenses are starting to fill out like they did for the m43 system over the last years. Until we get a camera that's perfect for everyone, people will still have unique requirements that mean they prioritise factors differently to others, and therefore buy differently.

I think I understand now. You think that everyone sees film-making like you do. This is a false assumption that you will hopefully shed over time. Here's a question for you - what's the point of colour grading? If the point of any cinema camera is to get the best representation of reality we can then why not just colour balance and then be done with it? Why is the teal/orange look popular? Why was The Matrix all green? Why do they still make B&W films. These are all exceptions to your "best representation of reality" argument. I couldn't care less about what camera is better than a GH5. I have said so many times - feel free to review my past posts. It sounds like there's a lot of emotion for you in the people who are saying things about the S1 or the Z6. Even if I called them both potatoes - why would you care?

Absolutely. Remember that when you see footage from two different cameras you're also comparing the grading done on that footage, and unless they were both graded by the same world-class colourist then the grade of one is going to be better than the other one. People talk about the magic of colour science, but @Sage has proven that with enough dedication and skill the footage from the Alexa can be very effectively emulated with a much 'lesser' camera - the GH5.

One thing I have learned from this forum and others, both across film-maker as well as professional colourist discussions, is that different people have different taste and associations. There is evidence to suggest that we heavily identify with the aesthetic that was to our taste during our teenage years according to a range of biological factors, including things like the levels of hormones burn in the neural pathways more strongly, etc. In this sense, many prefer film, which is medium/high resolution but low sharpness, high DR but variable in tint and saturation, etc. Getting an 8K camera will not be a step forwards for these folks, despite the fact it is objectively 'better'. The other thing to remember is that we are creating art, not doing scientific record-keeping, so the aesthetic lining up with the artists vision is the fidelity that is required, not fidelity to reality (unless reality is the artists vision..). I'm not particularly interested in shooting RAW but here's my counter-offer - why don't you come along and hang out in the 3 Hour 1 Minute Film Challenge thread where we try and look at all the aspects of film-making instead of SNR and bitrate. To paraphrase one of the guidelines of the challenge.... Publish in 720p - equipment shouldn't matter and if your film looks dull in 720 then 4K RAW will not save you

If you didn't mind a little damage, drilling a small hole right next to it might allow you to tighten the nut inside, then some decent strength glue to hold it all in place and close the hole again?

If you don't already own an S1 then you might consider if a different camera has better high-ISO performance or DR. I'm not saying there is one, but it would be worth checking against things like the A7III, etc.

This conversation is essentially a symptom of a rapidly converging industry. A cinema camera was designed to be used on a large set with multiple operators and in a highly modular configuration with external everything. They cost $100k+ weighed a ton and everyone was happy. A home video camera that could fit in your pocket was designed to be used by one person, was fully self-contained, and would run all day on a battery. They shot low quality 480p / 720p / 1080p, and everyone was happy. A DSLR was designed to have interchangeable lenses, take nice photos, be used by a single user, and need accessories, filters, spare batteries, etc. They cost $1k-$3k and everyone was happy. Convergence #1: The DSLR revolution The DSLR revolution began when the video functions of the home video camera got put into the DSLR camera. All of a sudden video people were using DSLRs and enjoying the interchangeable lenses. It meant that they had to fluff around with extra batteries and other accessories, but this was accepted as a necessary price to pay because you could get video with blurry-backgrounds, and that was like real cinema, so hooray! People lamented that DSLRs didn't implement video functionality perfectly, which was often an overhang of the still image history of the DSLR, and wanted to have the best of the home video camera world they had come from, and the cinema camera world they looked longingly at from afar (with rose tinted glasses). Completely spoiled, they moaned endlessly about the dreaded crop factor, the recording time limits, and the overheating. Convergence #2: The cinema camera revolution Advances in technology started to put cinema cameras within reach of the spoiled DSLR revolutionaries, and the heavy poor low-light multi-operator modular cameras started appearing at sizes, weights, and price-points that resembled DSLRs. The "we want it all, we want it now" DSLR revolutionaries embraced the high image quality, ease of use, and simplicity of design of these new cameras, however they skipped straight over the fact that the industry had chopped of a zero off the price of these products and they lamented that they were modular, requiring rigging, external power, filters, whined that they weren't industry-leading in low-light performance, and some even criticised them for not being able to take still images. Convergence #3: The smartphone revolution Eventually, smartphones with vast arrays of individual camera/lens modules driven by AI engines replaced all but the most specialised cameras. The camera forums heaved with devastated punters ranting incoherently that manufacturers reduce the cost of these technological marvels to $1.

I once saw someone give a mobile flip-phone a 1-star rating because they didn't like the ringtones it came with. Just because people do something doesn't make it sensible. You can go on comparing the past with the future all you like, but I fail to see how its relevant or even useful. If you're looking to answer the question "Should I buy an S1 or get in my time machine and go back to when the GH5 was launched and buy one of those? They were the same price at launch" then I think you've missed the point of what the potential of a time machine is

Nah, but they have all the musicians, artists, free thinkers, and interesting people, so you can just hang with them instead of watching them on TV

But the original price isn't what people are paying these days. Tech always devalues, otherwise people who are talking about laptop computers would be comparing them to the original computers with valves in them that took up entire floors of buildings and cost millions of dollars in money from back then, which is obviously a stupid comparison because the tech has advanced and gotten cheaper.

If only that was true! I had a brief look, but didn't have time to go through all of them. My first impression though, was that his grading didn't seem to look much good. I know there's taste involved and there's no such thing as 'wrong' but it didn't make me want to listen to what he had to say. Juan Melara on the other hand......

If you haven't tried it already, maybe the 6K anamorphic mode might work better for you? It uses h265 instead of h264, and has way less sharpening (or maybe none? not sure). I don't know what you mean about it giving us "wide open wide shots" or that it can't give "mid cowboy" shots. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about sensor size - it's just about using the right lenses. You're right about it not being a low-light king, but I've found the answer to that to be using fast lenses. I know that by using large aperture settings makes focusing more difficult, but with my 17.5mm at f0.95 or my 40mm at f1.8 the camera can see about the same as I can at its base ISO. The GH5 isn't actually so far back, it's more that we're spoiled, but also you have to take the cost into account, comparing a GH5 to S1 without taking price into account is like comparing the S1 to an Alexa - an academic but not-so-useful exercise. He did. Unfortunately he also brought a lot of conflict and animosity into the conversation as well. My personal opinion of Jon is that deep down he's a good guy - he helped me out with lots of info via PMs in the past. I'd encourage you to get in touch with him if you feel so inclined.

Cameras convert ideas, planning, setup, teamwork, passion, skill, practice, attitude, and luck into files on a hard-drive. Then editing software converts vision, taste, timing, essence, persistence, and files on the hard drive into a finished film. This is why a great camera makes no improvement to a bad situation, and a bad camera takes only a small amount away from a lot of hard work and dedication.