kye

I'm reminded of hearing that some cinematographers want equipment that gives a great look SOOC camera, and some want a neutral capture that they can then manipulate in post. The former tend to view cameras and lenses and lighting as artistic tools, and the latter talk about the highest resolution and lowest distortion components and view the camera as a technical tool. It seems to me that Canon, Nikon, and others have followings because of certain artistic elements - people buy Canon despite the weaknesses because of "those Canon colours" etc. No-one seems to talk like that about Sony. People seem to buy Sony because they have designed their products to extract the most technical performance out of them, not because they have some sort of killer feature - no-one is saying "oh, but that 6K downsampling resolution!". In a sense it's a philosophical choice for the user, do they want a camera that is a flawed but wonderful artistic instrument, or do they want a precise but neutral capture device? I prefer the latter but I understand why people would choose the former, it's personal.

There are systems with vertical slots and shelves that clip into those slots - I think that was what you were looking at in the video? The shelf brackets look like this (for some reason the image is upside-down): They would allow some flexibility in placement, would be sturdy when assembled, and would be relatively easy to dismantle for transportation. These are probably what you were considering anyway

Ken says that ~6MP is enough, even for billboards! https://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm But seriously, he has a point that there's a level that is good enough for most things, and 24MP is probably beyond it. In a sense this applies to video too, but 4K video is only 12MP and in consumer products is highly compressed in comparison to even JPG images, let alone RAW, so a few extra MP isn't ridiculous.

Yep. Lots of discussion here: I did some experiments with my Sigma 18-35 1.8 (which is basically a ~2.5 in FF equivalence) and came to the same conclusion - that F4 on FF would be sufficient. For me it's just about having a bit more depth and separation to the image. I shot a test video at 2.5 of my wife and I going for a walk along the beach and DoF was too shallow in almost every shot. I also had trouble with MF on the not-so-great Canon 700D screen in full sunlight - which having focus peaking will rectify nicely.

Cool idea. A few thoughts... cable ties might be useful - they're stronger than elastic straps but also less permanent than glue/screws, and Id imagine that something like this would be tweaked and changed over time. Also, having the equipment like mixers etc anchored to the shelves somehow, or having shelves with a lip around the outside might be useful if you're wheeling the trolley across uneven ground as they'd prevent things from bouncing out. I'm not sure how many times you're on a set without mains power (maybe never) but that bottom container would be a perfect place for a battery and inverter. I've seen buskers with that kind of setup powering a small amp / mixer.

Woohoo! <starts downloading>

Does anyone know if the API supports a live view function? Even if it's not that fast it would still be useful for framing, especially for people who are operating the camera but are also in front of it, like vloggers, or people who are acting in their own productions.

Thanks @IronFilm Those B-roll shots look gorgeous don't they!!

Just like everything I guess - the flexibility of the fully articulating screens makes them less attractive for people that only need a tilting screen not a front-facing one. My XC10 has a tilting but not front-facing screen (like the Sonys) and if you're always behind the camera it's brilliant. My 700D has a fully articulated screen and it's a PITA if you want to tilt it because you have to flip it out to the side and then rotate it 180 degrees, making it much slower to tilt and almost impossible during a shot, much more vulnerable to knocks or hand positions, and making the setup far less compact.

Ah! Thanks - I think I missed that review. It sure looks good, even compared to other downsampling cameras!

Cool - if you are designing a new product (and indeed a product in a new category) then it makes sense to start with a blank sheet of paper and question all the 'normal' decisions. Good stuff. I think this bodes well for it not being a 'same same' performer.

I agree.. YT 'shows' is a pretty good name, although I'd still stress that there are people doing both 'shows' and 'vlogs' and also people who use a mixture of techniques, or even a technique somewhere in the middle. Only earlier today did I watch a video by a lady who shows how she does construction projects (this particular video was about her making a large wood and metal gate) and as we'd been having this conversation I was paying attention to the shots in it. It seemed that she was sitting and talking to camera with the narration of the video and was cutting b-roll of the build over the top, however what was interesting was that her shot was a tripod / lav mic shot but it was outside in uncontrolled conditions, so that's somewhere in-between your two scenarios described above. Also, included in the standard tripod b-roll shots was a fancy dolly shot where the camera follows her from one room of her shed to another (the front face of the shed was open, so it was one of those "looking into the building from outside" style shots). It was an interesting shot because I think it shows she's got an appetite for upping the production value, and the fact she's already got a lav and sound is nice means she's not new to the game. She also sells plans for projects online, so her channel is a business. Would she benefit from having a cinema camera? Maybe. I didn't see any evidence of auto-focus requirements, or IBIS requirements, so a cinema camera wouldn't be ruled out. If she shot 1080 in prores then maybe her edits would go faster, so there's perhaps some benefit. I don't think she'd benefit from having more DR via a flatter profile, but others like her might. I think the lines between (hand-held + selfie + outside) and (tripod + not selfie + studio) scenarios that the industry thinks in are so blurry that they ceased to exist quite some time ago. And yes, I did notice Jon Olsson getting excited about the RED and then it not featuring much again. I heard a mention that their camera guy had a routine of taking it out to get b-roll early in the morning when they were in Monaco before Jon had woken up, but yes, in terms of lugging it around during the day or through airports etc it's not the right camera for the job!!

LOL, crying face is right!! But actually for a single operator it looks quite functional, it's quite elegant really. Then again, I've used the HDMI input on my 32" UHD computer monitor as a monitor when doing some camera tests in my office!!

I guess that's part of my point @jonpais - there are more and more people who don't fit the title 'vlogger' neatly. Any vlogger who watched a "how to vlog" video will be trying b-roll as an alternative to jump-cuts, and any vlogger who bought anything and has watched an unboxing video will be doing product shots, so to say that a vlogger is someone who only ever shoots selfie shots would eliminate most vloggers. Take Kelsie Humphreys for example (who I showed above interviewing Tony Robbins) - she makes vlogs as BTS from her interviews. Does that make her a vlogger or is she the producer of a talk-show / interview channel? Same for Laura Kampf (also above) who shoots no-dialogue creation videos, using MF-focus tripod shallow DoF techniques, but also shoots vlogs, is she a vlogger or not? We can use your definition of "recording a sort of video diary of your life" which I think is quite a nice definition, but it isn't very useful if we're talking about what equipment matches that style of creation, because video diaries can be shot in any style with any equipment, because it refers to a subject not a style. It might have been the case that certain types of content matched certain types of shots and equipment (game shows vs TV drama vs blockbuster movie) but those pesky Youtubers haven't been told the rules, so they're just using every colour in the whole paint-box with reckless abandon!

I wouldn't be surprised @jonpais, not even a little bit. It's the same in the hifi arena with CD vs SACD - you'd go to a demo where they'd be comparing CD with SACD and the SACD would definitely sound better. You'd look around and people would all be nodding their heads about SACD, but I'd be standing there and thinking "both sound completely awful compared to my CD setup at home - how is this a valid comparison?".

Vloggers tend to operate in three distinct environments, a fixed camera in a purpose-built studio, a hand-held camera while out and about (selfie and b-roll), and an action camera for harsh environments. Some have drones too. These are often covered by a G7 or RX100 for the first two and a GoPro for the third, but there are vloggers who do use a dedicated camera for their studio setups, and I've seen REDs, C300s, FS5s and 1DXs as well as the usual suspects of the various Canon cameras. These 'premium' setups have boom mics, monitors, and large soft-boxes permanently setup. I think for those that have a fixed studio camera setup the BMPCC4K would be an excellent choice because of the combination of low cost, the anticipated high quality, and the convenience of having prores to edit with SOOC. They might also find use as a mobile vlogging camera when combined with a gimbal, MF (like Sony users have learned to do), and a fast wide lens. I find that increasingly YT creators are blurring the lines between documentary film-making, studio film-making, studio talking-to-camera (vlogging), mobile vlogging, travel vlogging, travel film-making, etc etc. Will these niches drives a lot of sales? No. But I do think they'll have a small footprint in the YT / vlogger ecosystem. Here are a couple of examples of potential customers that blend "vlogging" with more traditional film-making elements, and who might be interested in upping production quality: I'll stop now, but there are many many examples of this blending of style, and I think the idea that you can approach RED/ARRI quality for mid-range mirrorless prices will be a HUGELY attractive factor for these people As a special bonus, here's a couple that shoot mostly hand-held with an FS5 (IIRC) and a GoPro. Production quality isn't top notch (stabilisation is an issue), but I've seen previous videos where they had a smaller Sony video camera, so if they can afford an FS5 then a BMPCC4K wouldn't be out of the question.

They are interesting. That the project is dead doesn't matter because I think it's something that they will have learned a bunch of stuff from, and will keep that stuff in their back pocket for future times and products. I think in the past companies would have done things exactly like this but just never told anyone about it, but because this is the cutting edge they don't really lose much from telling people it's a product 'coming soon' and then just don't launch it if people don't line up with their wallets open. It's interesting that Intel went for middle-class-businessman - which is probably the right market to go for eventually, but the early adopters will be 'those pesky kids' and they will need something a little more fashionable.... Not a display, but an example of wearable tech that's actually fashionable.

If you're referring to the resolution after debayering, then you're absolutely right. People say that the 1080 from the C100 is so nice because it's downscaled 4K, and the A7III downscaling 6K to 4K seems to be a feature that isn't spoken about enough. I find it strange that through this whole conversation about 4K vs 1080 on YT no-one mentioned debayering. With film you shot at the same 'resolution' as what you delivered in, but digital doesn't do that. Anyone who wants to see what 4K YT can look like if done correctly should compare it to a video by MKBHD, who shoots 5, 6, or 8K RAW. and if you think he can't possibly be shooting 8K RAW because it's ridiculous in terms of camera equipment and storage, check this out: There's a pretty strong technical argument that the A7III should be the C100 of FF mirrorless, because it should have a bunch more resolution in its 4K output than anything that shoots at 4K. I'm surprised that the pixel peeping people aren't publishing test charts of this. If I end up with an A7III then I'll do a comparison just for my own curiosity.

I thought it was that they made you look like a complete turnip! ???

I think this depends on what level of film-making you're doing. The professional colourists over at liftgammagain are likely working with RAW and high quality Prores files from the high end cinema cameras, and live in a different world to the one we talk about on here. There was a thread about buying "cheap" client monitors for their grading studio (these aren't monitors to grade with, they're only for the clients to view the grade) and I just about had a heart attack when someone said that their budget was $8000 per monitor, and they were looking to buy half-a-dozen of them!!

I think it's to do with the colour accuracy after a conversion, especially considering that most proxies are much lower quality than the original footage. If you were transforming from RAW to something like Prores 4444 HQ then I don't imagine it would be a huge problem, but I could be wrong about that. Another thing I didn't mention is that if you're doing VFX work or any precise tracking then you want to use the original files too because they'll enable much better tracking accuracy. I've heard VFX people say that for realistic 3D compositing work you sometimes need to be able to track to within a single pixel of accuracy, or even to within half or a quarter of a pixel. I've never done it but it makes sense if you're moving the camera and putting in a 3D object that is also meant to move like it's part of the environment then if the VFX object wobbles around in comparison to the real environment you filmed then that's going to be quite noticeable if your tracking isn't great.

Cat overlord!!! oh, that made me laugh!! ???

I remember back in the day seeing a little video about a guy who worked for Nokia whose job it was to travel the world and see what cool things people were doing with phones, and report those things back to Nokia as product and feature development ideas. One of the most interesting ones he mentioned was that villagers in rural Africa were buying a mobile phone as a business for their village. Obviously the other villagers would pay them to be able to call people on the phone, and the phone owner would make a percentage, but the big thing was that the phone acted like a bank. In Africa there is a very rural-oriented culture where people go into the city to get a job for a few years, but are sending the money back to their families in their village. So the city worker buys a pre-paid phone card, sends the card details to the phone owner in the village who then pays the family most of the value of the card, taking a percentage on top as a 'transaction fee'. I thought this was brilliant for Nokia to be basically crowd-sourcing their R&D. I wonder if Apple or Samsung are doing similarly, or if perhaps the innovation is simply in software not business models? The most interesting thing about the smartphone, to me at least, was that it's basically a generic device, it has no specific interface, no specific display limitations, no specific processing limitations, etc. It's a device that can be adapted to as many different styles of interface, display, or app design that app developers care to create. It's kind of the antithesis of how old phones used to work (and how cameras currently work) where you choose a product and you get their hardware, their OS, and their apps all in one.

I agree that the chipset and requirement for AC power are both severely limiting factors.. I watched a Hackintosh video where the guy mentioned something about the compatibility of various chipset manufacturers that surprised me, but the fact they didn't put a higher powered Radeon in there is a bit strange perhaps.. Unless it was designed to a spec, perhaps something like "FCPX must be able to play 4K 30 in real-time with 2 LUTs and some basic curves adjustments applied on the nicest Apple display" or similar? The first battery-powered one will be interesting. One thing I learned over at liftgammagain is that you can ingest footage with a slower machine, you can generate proxies with a slower machine, you can edit with proxies, you can do sound with proxy video, but you can't grade with proxies, so if you are grading in front of a client then your machine needs to be able to play the original footage with all the grades applied in real-time. Grading, however, is done in a controlled lighting situation with calibrated monitors, so it's a situation where AC power is available, so in that sense an AC powered solution still makes sense. Personally I don't need to be able to play graded footage in real-time, so it doesn't matter for me. I'm happy to scrub the playhead around and see how things look over the footage, and then render it out and watch that render back again, and then make changes if required. For my home videos my 'clients' are my family so I can play them the mostly finished project and get their inputs but also be reviewing the output for any strange things that catch my eye too.

You forgot to include "flange distance" which after all that discussion in the Nikon FF and Pocket 2 threads must surely be the leading search term in all of photography today!! ???