kye

My understanding was that the RAW settings that could be taken from the camera was around things like ISO, WB, etc. I'd be stunned if something like Resolve would do anything other than the minimums to construct an image from the RAW data, and I can't see why sharpening would be required for that. In a sense, shooting in RAW is desirable precisely because it removes all the decisions that other people make for you in the other modes, so that you can make them yourself.

So a smartphone will be the first camera with a screen large enough to manually focus without AF assist features, but because of the sensor size the DoF won't be shallow enough to need it.. what a crazy upside-down world!! I'm not really sure how this will impact ILC photography though - most cameras aren't that much larger than the size of the screen plus some buttons. Unless we start making cameras that are like a foldable iPad mini with a lens mount on the back? Ergonomics be damned!!

I would say the measure of a codec is how it looks. If something looks great and has a lower bit-rate then I would say that is a BETTER codec than one that takes more bitrate to look as good. Of course, no-one is suggesting that a sub-40Mbps codec is going to grade like RAW..

So you're saying that if he returns it after making another clickbait video then the purchase will have ceased to exist? We should use fake news to severely re-write history.... imagine all the people we could save from natural disasters, genocide, etc.. Slightly more seriously, I didn't see anything where he says he's switching, and I do remember him saying he's not definitely switching, so even if he returns it I'm pretty sure no promises will have been broken. Unless brand loyalty means you can't even look at a different manufacturer when an interesting model walks past you in the shopping centre and you turn your head to look without thinking and then get evil stares from your other half. Umm.. what were we talking about again?

I have the bigger brother to the UP2718Q - the UP3216Q. I chose it because I was tempted by the wider gamut, but it's been a complete bust for me. I tried googling how to set it up for the higher gamut modes, and I tried to calibrate it with my Datacolour Spyder Pro 4 but when I set the Dell and Spyder to extended colour modes the Spyder never recognised the Dell as extended colour. I googled for hours but eventually gave up, and so I just use it in the normal mode because although the wide gamut mode looks nicer I can't calibrate it (it calibrates fine in sRGB mode). If someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong then I'd be very happy to hear it. It's still a nice monitor though. Oh, and I should also mention that I'm using a USB-C/Thunderbolt to Mini DisplayPort cable, which throws another variable into the mix. IIRC to get a decent refresh rate in UHD you needed to run multiple HDMI cables and buy a converter box that cost an arm and a leg at the time. The MBP automagically turns a USB port into a DisplayPort when you plug a monitor in which is nice, so it's hot-swappable, and the cable was <$100

Wouldn't any digital sharpening, noise reduction and compression effects be N/A when recording in RAW? I understand that the OLPF and other optical aspects would of course still apply.

I think it's the lenses on MFT that are the biggest limitation. When we consult a tool like mmCalc which calculates equivalent lenses on different sensor sizes: An F5.6 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F3.7 lens for APSC and F2.8 for m43 An F4.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F2.7 lens for APSC and F2.0 for m43 An F2.8 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.8 lens for APSC and F1.4 for m43 An F2.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.3 lens for APSC and F1.0 for m43 (The APSC numbers are a bit funny as crop factor varies by manufacturer but they're approximately correct for my purposes) FF is drowning in F1.8 - 2.0 primes (and even lots faster are common but let's set these aside for the moment), and these are standard lenses. Equivalents are available on APSC at F1.4, and there are a rare few F0.95 or F0.85 on M43. The range for ~F1.8 equivalent lenses on m43 is severely limited, but it's a start, however you're out of luck if you want a FF F1.4 equivalent (it would need to be F0.7), and you're dreaming if you want a FF F1.2 equivalent lens. FF is drowning in F2.8 zooms, and these are the standard pro lenses. Think how many 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been made over the decades. Only the Sigma F1.8 zooms match it on APSC, and are no F1.4 zooms on M43. This is the one that I think is strange because the fastest zooms on m43 aren't even one stop slower at F2, they are two stops slower at F2.8, which is the FF equivalent of a fixed F5.6 zoom! Most (all?) variable aperture kit zoom lens on FF bodies are faster across most of their zoom ranges than the fastest PRO zooms on m43, including extremely expensive offerings. Please someone tell me I made a mistake......

John Hess just posted a cracker of a video about why 24fps is here to stay. Highly recommended

Matti Haapoja has been tempted for a second time... He obviously read my post about DR in the Nikon thread! ???

Does anyone make a ILC with a 1" sensor? I can't think of any, but I'm not a database

Yes, workflow is a big deal for people who publish frequently, I find that lots of the people on here are down on Canon because they value image quality over having an easier workflow, but if your job is to pump out videos then workflow is more important than image quality. Plus, for the average person, if it's HD, has nice colours, and has a bit of background blur then it will look amazing I agree about the XC10. I'm a fan and own one as my main camera, but I'm looking at upgrading because of the limitations of the lens. Apart from that it's a great camera. In a way it's a real lost opportunity. I guess if you use 60p all the time then it does matter. In terms of 120p vs 60p, I think 60p is potentially more useful in many situations. I don't know how you use it, but I find that 60p makes things look nice, smooth, and kind of gentle in a way, but it doesn't look like a special effect. 120 looks like a special effect to me. I would imagine that kids smiling and running and things like that would have a nice aesthetic in 60p - I've used it in a couple of my home videos and it's a nice look. I notice that really nicely shot TV shows use 60p quite often (probably slowed down to 24p, which is a bigger slow-down than you're doing) and they kind of use it for emotional scenes, like when showing footage but putting music over the top. The only times that I can think of frequent uses for 120 or slower is food or hair-care commercials!

The future is an amazing place filled with next-level stuff. When I was growing up the future was about 3-10 years away, but now it's only 6 months or a year away at best. It's taking its time but one day it might be here!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity ???

His need for quick turn-arounds in the edit suite, and existing Canon lens catalog are pushing him towards Canon, and his budget and need for longer recording times are pushing him to a cinema camera, and the only overlap between those criteria are the C100 models. I'll also mention to the XC10 / XC15 cameras, just in case the OP isn't aware they exist, but they're probably not a good choice as they have fixed lenses that aren't that fast, and the OP looks like they prefer faster glass. If he was looking to replace all his cameras then that might open up other systems but right now he's in Canon lock-in mode, just where Canon wants him. If anyone wants the definitive answer for why Canon is doing so well commercially, this example is the one they should reflect on. Assuming that we didn't all miss a major difference between the C100 Mk1 and Mk2, the main difference seems to be the 60p. If so, I think the OP should think about what situations slow-motion actually makes it into their final edits (no point shooting stuff you won't use) and if the C100 would be suitable in that situation. Eg, if slow-motion is always shot on a gimbal then it's not a good match, but if they are shooting on the monopod with their 'best' camera and are switching back and forth between 30 and 60p then the Mk2 makes sense. Buying a Mk1 and then have to carry around the 80D and Mk1 because the Mk1 doesn't do something the 80D does is what we're trying to avoid here.

@Cinegain - great love letter to m43 post.. ??? You covered most aspects and I agree with your analysis on most things. I think that the A7iii, GH5, and the Pocket2 are going to occupy special places in people's equipment lists for a long time yet. I'm looking forward to the Pocket2 vs ARRI videos that are inevitable (Potato Jet YT channel I'm looking at you!) because when I think about the differences between compressed video and RAW video and then I look at the A7iii screenshots that @jonpais is posting I'm struggling to imagine there will be a huge difference between the Pocket2 and high-end cinema cameras. Certainly nothing to justify the price difference when looking at the images anyway - I'm aware that high-end cinema cameras offer a huge amount more than just good images. I definitely don't represent the average user, and I feel caught in the middle of these three cameras as each offers something I would genuinely love. The A7iii represents the best compromises for me personally but I'm not at all against smaller sensors. I currently have the XC10 and in many ways it is the perfect camera. It has 30+minute recording times, a reliable thermal solution, really nice 4K with a high bit-rate (305Mbit), long battery life, a flexible 24-240mm equivalent lens with solid IS, c-log, built-in NDs, ergonomics DSLRs can only dream about, etc. The only reason I'm considering upgrading is that it doesn't have the 'look' I want with a shallow enough DoF. I completely agree with you about bokehmania being a passing fad and you say that no-one really needs anything better than f1.4 (which IIRC is 2.8 FF equivalent?) and I agree, in fact I'm happy to settle for F4 FF equivalent. For me having shallower DoF is about having my images look less flat and have a bit more depth in them, so the choice is creative instead of trendy. I did some tests with my APS-C camera and 18-35 1.8 and when looking at the frames decided that the F2.8 (F4 FF equivalent) was sufficient, anything else would be nice, but would be a luxury. I've shot a few test videos at APS-C F1.8 and I find the look too strong on almost every shot. As you say, things should have a 'sense of place'. The setup that is "winning" for my needs right now is the A7iii with the 24-105 F4 as this would give me the flexibility to shoot my home and travel videos where I'm shooting a landscape one minute, a bird 200m away the next and then a portrait of one of my kids the moment after that. That lens combined with the crop mode and clear image zoom provides about 24-250mm which is flexible enough for my needs. Unfortunately FF seems to be the only system that has that combination of aperture and zoom range. As a bonus, the IBIS + OIS of the combo will also help the good but not great IBIS (the 24-70 F2.8 doesn't have IS). The AF will be great for me because my brain often can't deal with the chaos of a family holiday plus trying to anticipate what is about to happen so I get the shot plus actually taking the current shot, let alone doing down-to-the-pixel MF. It seems to me that the GH5 is great for slower film-making where there is time to change lenses and do MF but allows hand-held and lightweight setups. The Pocket2 will be fantastic if you have time to change lenses, do MF, and you can put it on a tripod or gimbal. The A7III will be great for those who need the flexibility of zooms without compromising the shallower DoF. @Robert Collins I agree about the convergence of photo and video being a big deal. One of the key advantages is being able to crop into the sensor but retain full resolution like the A7III. This is an advantage over dedicated cinema cameras because they tend to have sensor resolutions that match their output resolutions, or are slightly higher (like the 4.6K Ursa). This gives a tremendous flexibility. For example my 700D / Sigma 18-35 is 29-56mm equivalent, but the 3x crop in ML makes it a 87-168mm and gives it enough range so be a walk-around lens, not to mention my 55-250mm is both an 88-400mm equivalent and a 264-1200mm equivalent, and that crop mode comes in hugely useful at my kids sports games and they're on the other side of the field. This is for 1080p - when the 45+MP sensors start being used like this we'll be able to get 2-3X 4K crops, if any of the manufacturers are that bold, plus the full-sensor will be 8K capable. I have no idea what the market for a C100 sized camera that shoots 8K video would be in, say 2021, but it would sure be an interesting thing to see.

I'm a Resolve user, but haven't really played with HDR so I'll try not to speak out of turn on that, however I have a couple of thoughts that might be useful. Instead of controlling the input colour space via the clip properties you can convert the colour space in the node graph using the excellent Colour Space Transform OFX plugin. Juan Melara has an excellent tutorial about how to grade footage using it here: I think that method (using the OFX plugin) is the answer to how you can work with input clips that come from different colour spaces, but some google searches should be able to confirm that for you. Also, I've heard that Resolve is a bit limited with options when using the GUI because it's designed to be used with a calibrated monitor via one of the Blackmagic video output devices listed here: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products (under the Capture and Playback section). There is also a discontinued product called the Ultrastudio Mini Monitor that was only 1080 but might also be useful (I'm not sure on what colour spaces it supports), and I believe there were also an equivalent PCI output card if you're on a desktop machine. This is how Resolve is designed to work so support for these hardware devices is fully integrated into Resolve and it's how all the pro colourists all work so there's lots of support for that kind of setup. If the nice people here aren't able to help then I'd recommend liftgammagain.com forums where the pro colourists all congregate, and they do this stuff all day long Good luck!!

In terms of budget, I'd say that you're about to spend a large sum of money so you should get a large upgrade. Buying something that only adds a little to what you can do wouldn't be worth it. It sounds like you already have enough cameras for your multi-camera setup, so buying another one isn't a huge value-add. In that sense you might be better off selling one of your existing cameras and using that extra money to make sure your purchase really gives you a lot more than your current setup. I find that if you have analysed the problem well enough then the solution becomes obvious, so try making a list of all the current pain points in your setup (is it stabilisation, is it the 30 minute limit, is it something else?) and then rank them as to what the biggest ones are, then you'll be able to tell which potential purchase will give you the most benefit. Good luck!!

Thanks @Aussie Ash and @BTM_Pix - I was definitely fooled!! I was thinking WOW!! ???

This looks very deep to me - certainly a lot deeper than the mirror in the DSLRs it is emulating. For our lens experts - does this mean there is glass inside it? and what implications does that have? It's certainly not a compact setup then, to use the new body and a small pancake lens!!

Cool. I've said it can be useful in some situations, you've said it can be useful in some situations. I'm just not sure how any of that added up to the below....? Unless it was autocorrect and you meant to say "yes, you raise valid points, but have you also considered....."

All of us our-country-is-also-a-continent people over here have a club, one of the main things is cool names. The US says "across the pond" about the UK, but actually that was started by the UK, because they are technically a member of the club too, and we let the US use it because we're all very nice. That's part of the club rules too. All you have to do is start being nice, and to merge with Canada, Mexico, and all the South American countries and we'll consider your application ???

@Tone1k the point I am trying to make is that AF is useful in some situations, can be reliable enough to use (as long as you have other footage to cut to if it occasionally screws up), requires less equipment and can be cheaper. I'm not sure why you're arguing against AF, and maybe it's not your intention, but it sounds like you're completely opposed to it ever being used, and I think that's a very impractical position to take, given the vast range of shooting situations that the DSLR revolution and YouTube has put within reach of todays film-makers. If the OP reads my arguments for why AF might be useful then they can look at their film-making style and aspirations and see if my arguments fit their situation or not. Debates are useful to some extent, which is why I have continued to reply, but taking a position of "never/always" is where the debate stops being useful. You obviously have a great deal of experience, and in many situations that means that your advice will be relevant and valuable, but for film-makers who have learned / are learning the craft with features you didn't have when you learned, are shooting situations you haven't ever shot, for film distribution channels that didn't exist when you learned, for audiences who haven't graduated high-school yet, I'm not sure the traditional knowledge or ways of working are always going to be the most relevant. I see a lot of people on here who are solid industry operators with lots of experience who think that the methods used by Hollywood are always applicable to every film shoot, and I look at my 14 year old daughter who shoots videos with her iPhone with her friends, edits them on her iPad and uploads them to YT, and think "nope!". When someone posts a question I think it's valuable to offer opinions and information about pros and cons, but as soon as we start making statements about what they should do, without really knowing their situation and individual style, that's when we have veered off course. When we think about the user Charlie who posted about making the wedding video like the fashion ad, many/most thought he was crazy to attempt such a thing, but he delivered in a big way, so we shouldn't pretend to fully know what is best for someone.

You may well be right, all this talk of the industry is all speculation after all. I think that the move to mirrorless will be looked back on as why a whole bunch of companies went from good standing to being put out of business. Kind of like how we talk about Kodak basically inventing digital photography and then screwing it up by abandoning it.

It doesn't make sense TO YOU. That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. When we hear about string theory or calculus or Byzantine poetry we might not understand it but that doesn't mean that no-one understands it. This is beginning to sound like you've never shot an interview before... The answer why you don't have one camera is jump cuts. If you shoot with multiple cameras this gets around the issue. As an example, here's an interview (one of many) shot by a professional film-maker who is on-screen interviewing, this example is not that bad and she could have used MF with a smaller aperture but if you want a close-up with a bit more production value then not only would AF be required, and from Canon or Sony it would be 99% reliable too. Like @jonpais says, you're assuming. I think the misunderstanding is that you're used to shooting things that are either in controlled situations, or if they aren't controlled (like ENG isn't) then there's a dedicated camera operator. AF starts to make sense when things aren't controlled AND there isn't a dedicated camera operator. Also, AF is also cheaper. MF requires manual lenses with nice fly-by-wire focus or mechanical focus, it requires a camera with a screen that is bright, large, and has good enough focus assist features. A face-detect DPAF camera costs a few hundred dollars, and you can film yourself and not have your feet nailed to the ground. It can also be turned off too. That's definitely a thing. Just in case you weren't aware.

I read something somewhere saying that being memorable is about setting an expectation and then violating it. I guess it's the essence of those "I did something - YOU WONT GUESS WHAT HAPPENED" clickbait titles. If Canon is going to release a corker then the best prelude would be the luke-warm expectations that everyone has. If we all get excited about the Nikon mirrorless it will be hard for them to shock us, but a C150 in DSLR size with 6K downsampling would break the internet

I'm not being sarcastic, but you're not understanding my point either. If you have the skill to MF and make the film you want then that's great - focus is an artistic tool (as you rightly point out) and having exact control over focus will benefit your end product, no doubt. However, if you're operating in a situation where you aren't able to pay attention to everything and you have to sacrifice something, then relying on autofocus is a good thing to 'delegate'. If you're interviewing someone who moves around a lot and have two cameras, using AF and concentrating on better questioning will bring you a better film. It seems like AF hunting is a real turn-off for you, and I get that - everyone has their preferences and that's totally fine, I'm not a fan of it either. Your statement "Id rather watch a good story shot on Betacam with no AF hunt than a good story shot in 8K , 16stops DR with DSLR type AF hunt." isn't my argument and isn't the comparison I'm making. In your comparison both are good stories. If we re-frame the comparison to what I'm saying then we get this.. I'd rather a great story captured clumsily rather than a boring story captured with outstanding cinematography. Maybe it's a difference of shooting situation? Maybe you're used to shooting films that are well planned, shot under predictable and controlled conditions, where there are enough hands to cover all the necessary jobs. If so, MF would be totally fine. If you're a single-operator, with multiple cameras, interviewing someone while trying to hold a boom mic, then adding MF to that will mean something else is compromised. People can't be an expert in everything simultaneously and sometimes something has to give. AF hunting can be very distracting, but it's rare that you can't get around it in the edit room. It's impossible to get around a dull story, bad sound or pointing the camera at the wrong thing, you simply can't edit your way out of those things. It's a question of priorities, and focus is important, but it's not the most important.