kye

I suspect that basically everyone can do significantly better than that colour grade if they follow a couple of simple suggestions when they're colour grading. The first is to find a reference image, or set of images, that they like, and to refer to them throughout the colour grading process. It's easy to adapt to what you're seeing and to make tiny little changes until you've gone far astray. The second is to apply small changes that each make the image a small amount better. Obviously you will need to convert LOG footage to 709 and that step will be a big improvement, but apart from that just make small improvements. When you make each change, you should be able to compare the before/after of that change and each one should make the image better. If you applied the above and just played with each control, even not knowing what they did, you'd find the occasional one here and there that made the image nicer in your eyes, and by keeping each one that is an improvement you'd gradually be making the image nicer, and I genuinely think you'd do far better than that grade.

My main changes came from my two last big trips, which were Melbourne and Korea. Partly these changes came from shooting, partly from reviewing the footage, and partly from thinking about it since. I realised my iPhone 12 Mini shoots 10-bit HDR footage internally, and the colour science is quite benign / neutral Ironically, I did a test to rule out the iPhone as a real camera, but ended up proving the opposite! I preferred the shooting experience with the GX85 over the GH5 This is just purely down to the size and form-factor of the camera. Not only is it easier to carry and therefore faster to shoot with because it's close-to-hand, but less people look at you while shooting, the kids were less intimidated by it when shooting them, and it was a generally nicer experience. I preferred the speed of AF vs manual focus lenses The AF-S on MFT cameras is practically instant and very reliable. I don't need continuous AF as I tend to compose-focus-shoot-stop then repeat when I shoot a new composition. I realised that a zoom lens would get me a wider range of shots I am used to working a scene pretty heavily, seeing shots at various focal lengths, and also anticipating compositions and moving around to try and make them work (e.g. can I get a shot showing the view in the background, the church in the foreground, and framed by this flowering plant?). Having a zoom means just quickly grabbing all the shots I can see. I realised I don't need a fast lens This was an interesting one. I shot a lot with the 14mm F2.5 and it was borderline too shallow DoF wide open, because what I want is a bit of background separation, but not so thin a DoF that I get focusing issues, especially during the shot when the subject is moving around and the subject distance changes a bit. I realised that variable aperture zoom lenses (the cheap ones!) are surprisingly constant DoF lenses I just realised this today. For example, let's imagine I have the 14-42mm kit lens and I'm taking a mid-shot of a person. If I'm taking this mid on 14mm then I'd be 1.9m away, the lens would be at F3.5, and the DoF would be 2.9m. If I take the same composition at 42mm then I'd be 6m away, the lens would be at F5.6 and the DoF would be 3.6m - very similar! This is actually what I want creatively - a mid shot is an environmental portrait so having a DoF of 3-4m will include what's around them but give a bit of defocus outside that range. For the same lens, if I shoot a close-up, the DoFs range from 0.6m/24" to 0.8m/31" which is appropriate as a close-up is more about the person in isolation so a bit more separation is a nice thing to have. I realised that my 12-35mm F2.8 lens on the GX85/GH5 has adequate low-light capability as a walk-around lens This gives me enough low-light performance as a walk-around lens, and if I need better low-light then I will most likely have enough time to pull out a faster prime. My 7.5/2, 17.5/0.95, and 50/1.2 are small and light enough to take if I know I'll be going somewhere with serious low-light. For example, zoos at night, less-lit places at night like the beach, lookouts at night, etc. I've also learned a TON about colour grading and how to get the most from what I have, with the most important thing being that one critical difference between over-sharpened digital, high quality digital, and film is how it renders the contrast on fine detail, and conveniently, a simple blur will fix sharpening and give digital the same rendering characteristics as film LOL. The name of the game is getting the images you want with the least work, so no criticism from me on how we all get there. I also decided when I started this that I'd do things the hard way and therefore learn the most, rather than just buy my way to good colour (which is realistically just buying a Canon or recent Sony camera and Dehancer/Filmconvert). I fear I may have over-emphasised the potential complexity of Resolve and colour grading, without putting adequate emphasis on the fact that the most mileage comes from the basics, and it's a game of diminishing returns that kicks in pretty quickly. I've contemplated starting a thread showing what benefits can be had from only using very simple tools. Not sure if that would be worthwhile.

Physically... the 200Mbps is just about right for bitrates 🙂

I agree - the colour grading looks to be with one of the film emulation suites, and is very very heavy handed. However, I think that this video shows a number of things... The shots included a wide range of difficult situations and held up. There were high-DR scenes, including the sun. There were low-light scenes, including a fire which wasn't clipped to hell. There was slow-motion, etc. None of it looked like there were any issues at all - sure it wasn't an Alexa 65 amount of DR but the images didn't really suffer either. The footage didn't break-up under an extreme grade. This is quite an accomplishment and anyone who knows what it's like to grade images from very small sensor size cameras know that when you push the image, especially to include huge amounts of saturation like this one has, the image very quickly shows its digital thin-ness and brittleness, but this didn't not happen. There were lots of skin tones pushed severely and no-one looked pallid-yellow or lobster-red. It's very difficult to push that amount of saturation without lips becoming glowing-red or there being yellowish areas (or both), and then when you try and compress the hues by pushing both sides towards the middle hues, it's hard to keep the right colour contrast - so many tools make people look like their whole face is covered in foundation by making the whole face the same hue. This is a real-world test by a real-world person. In the same way that the SlashCam test is valuable because it has been shot competently and hasn't been messed with in post, this is a valuable test because the person who made it obviously isn't a professional cinematographer or colourist, it wasn't shot in controlled conditions with pristine lighting catering to the exact weaknesses of the sensor and including models who had perfect skin even before they spent an hour in make-up. Any camera can look glorious if you do that. This sort of test indicates what anyone who gets the phone, waves it around, then colour grades it with Dehancer/FilmConvert/Filmbox/etc can expect to get. It's not a beautiful film, but it's a useful test of the camera.

But not it's size!!

Not unless you're shooting long record times and we all know what that means..... booooooooooring films!!

I've seen quite a few videos from the BMCC6K now, and they all seem to shoot and edit in 3:2, which I find quite strange.... CAN doesn't mean SHOULD! This one is an 8K YT upload:

Great stuff! The single biggest predictor in the quality of YT video is the planning (or lack thereof) beforehand. So many YouTubers ramble incoherently in every video, but are then concise in their Q&A videos, which tells me they normally hit record without thinking, or having a plan. Finding a tool that works for you is great. I've heard it's common for people editing documentaries to use index cards stuck to a wall to organise the story arc and which beats to hit in each section, etc.

Great video and looks like a good channel to follow in future - people doing controlled and straight-forward tests are rare unfortunately! This result is what I was hoping for and good to see. When I did the image quality tests comparing different codecs and then doing the mathematical comparison with the original file it showed how much more efficient the newer codecs were over Prores, which is a now getting quite old. There are situations where I would still prefer Prores over a h26x codec, but those are getting less common as resolution increases (and the pixel-level compression artefacts get smaller). I wonder, can it shoot lower resolution Prores internally.. for example, Prores 4444 1080p? Imagine if we could independently choose the options like in BM cameras: profile (SDR, LOG), codec (H265, Prores LT/422/HQ/4444/4444XQ), Resolution (2K, 3K, 4K), Framerate (23.976, 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, 60, 120, 180, 240), and destination (internal, SSD). That would be a dream! I'd set it to LOG / Prores 4444 / 3K / 48p / Internal and just leave it there. Yes, for ease-of-use it's definitely becoming a powerful option. I've used my smartphone as a second camera for a while, and on my recent trips my smartphone replaced my action camera as the second camera with super-wide angle.

TBH the image quality on the new log makes me a little sad for all the potential image quality sitting unused in previous models. After all, the codec made no difference to the look (Prores SDR was still awful) so in previous phones it wasn't the codec, it was the processing. Sure, the smaller and less capable sensors from previous models wouldn't have been as good, but they'd still have looked better than the SDR mode on the latest one. Upgrading isn't a priority for me yet, but I must admit I'm tempted to pull a couple of stills from the above and see what tools I can use to make the SDR one look closer to the LOG one, and then try applying those tools to my own iPhone 12 footage and see if it's useful. As you say, the image quality is now proven thanks to this latest test, so now we just need to figure out the right tools and settings etc.

Enjoy your new camera - these Fujis certainly have a very nice image! I've bought the Wasabi USB dual USB-charger and two batteries pack for each of my cameras (GH5, Canon, GX85 / BMPCC, Sony X3000, GoPro) and had good results with all of these. The batteries don't have as long a lifespan (in years) as the genuine batteries I have purchased, but they still work out to be better value for money. I know they're a third-party company and there's a certain risk to that, but I've found it's a convenient and cheap way to get spare batteries and be able to charge in-bulk.

If you learn to colour grade then your images will be nicer than either of these by a very wide margin. On camera forums it is standard practice to compare cameras using only the manufacturers LUT or some standard transform, which is a reasonable way to compare cameras, but when you go into the world of colourists and colour grading they will often break down colour grades step-by-step, and compared to the final graded image the standard 709 conversion looks like pallid anaemic garbage in comparison - even with Alexas and REDs. Seriously, buy the camera and lenses and accessories that are most compatible with your workflow and then learn to colour grade. Even if you only apply a film-emulation LUT and then adjust exposure, contrast, WB, saturation, and sharpening, you'll be creating images that absolutely smoke the standard conversions.

The more I learn about colour grading and human vision, the more I understand why such a thing might exist. Human visual perception doesn't see in even remotely the same way that cameras and displays work. It is both infinitely more sophisticated than the current state of the art in tools we have now, and also very flawed and easily duped with optical illusions of almost infinite number. Cameras and monitors/projectors are also radically less capable than it (although HDR is partly closing that gap) and so almost all the images we view are enormously processed (the sun is 16,000,000 times brighter than white in rec709) and in colour grading we rely on various tricks to make things feel less artificial. Humans are wired to stay alive and the human visual system plays a large part in this, detecting movement in our periphery so we react to predators/prey, and even motion sickness (which compares our inner ear movement to what our eyes see) makes us feel ill when it thinks we have been poisoned and are hallucinating, etc etc. Our vision is for much more than just walking around - all these incredible distortions in video are all bound to have a feeling of some kind, some sort of aesthetic quanta that go with them. How could they be a completely pristine experience when we sit and watch a 2D pattern of dancing lights impersonate a 3D environment, where it jumps from place-to-place, it moves and the perspective changes when the whole time our body is continually aware we're sitting down and motionless, it takes us to places that are warm and cold and where the wind is blowing and our body tells us we're on a couch eating snacks, etc etc, there is infinitely more. We can do this because we evolved the ability to look at a scene through a window / gap / mouth of a cave, and understand that what we see out the window might be a different white-balance / brightness / etc than the environment we are currently in. If we hadn't evolved this ability then TV would just look like a glowing object in a room and would make no sense at all.

Finally, a proper test... Let's try this again @gt3rs 🙂 To be honest, the differences between the SDR (processed) and Apple Log modes is quite staggering.

Yeah, I agree that it's a strange approach. As someone who is a solo shooter of uncontrolled situations, in the rare moments I get a simultaneous second angle on something it's an incredible difference in the edit - even if in my case it's a second mobile phone! It sounds to me like they're more focused around the equipment / process rather than the film, with an attitude of "I work in this way therefore I can only capture a certain amount and therefore you get what you get in the edit" rather than saying "I want an edit that is a certain way and so I'll adapt how I shoot to that and then what equipment I have to those processes". Seems strange to me, but you know, whatever... They might also be a RED zealot, and not willing to compromise on that basis. I have a recurring thought pattern about my cost-no-object setup being a Komodo to get that image, then I immediately remember several of it's limitations, and then remember why I ruled it out. This little cycle takes about 3 seconds, and has happened dozens of times - you'd think I'd just remember! Yep.... it's the dream of staggering drunk people everywhere - a stabilised burrito!

That's how I have come to think about cinema cameras vs hybrids / video cameras - that cinema cameras expect you to work around them and hybrids are designed for the camera to work around you. It makes sense, considering that cinema cameras are designed to be on a controlled set where things are literally worked around the image, whereas hybrids don't expect that at all. There are some overlaps, like cinema cameras starting to have AF and IBIS and other things that help speed things up, but those are exceptions. There are also exceptions like stills cameras that are very manual and are designed for studio settings where everything is controlled, like fashion shoots with a Hassleblad for example. Talking about that guy and his RED, it would be interesting to hear how he is able to ensure he has enough coverage - I'd expect that he probably directs the action more than someone who is able to react faster, and he's probably got a formula for which shots he knows he needs to get. I got a bit of a peek behind the scenes with one of the top wedding photographers here in Perth maybe about 20 years ago (AUD$15K without prints - full package was brand new car territory) and he took the formal shots with the couple and his second shooter took other setups and also more candid shots (kids playing, people laughing, etc), but he took the same compositions in the same venues week after week after week - there was a great place where he could look straight down on a large group and I saw that composition with five different wedding parties in just a single fortnightly order from his printer. He ended up leaving Perth a few years after that and moving overseas because he was just bored because it was so formulaic.

Well, nothing wrong with that image. The only thing I'd suggest paying attention to is that the Alexa wasn't as sharp as the Panny, but you can soften that in post. Very encouraging!!

Do photography stores have the FX3 and not FX6 etc? I can understand they don't have the hire-only models, or the super high end stuff, which is order-only even at places like B&H. I definitely agree with you about the number of casual shooters buying Canon 1D series cameras, and 5D before that, and have mentioned it many times here on the forums, but video was always a small percentage of the sales compared to stills photography, and even then if someone has a top-level stills camera from Canon or Nikon or Fuji etc those can all take very good video without needing to get an FX3, which is far from the best choice if you also take stills. Do you really think the high-end video-only consumer market is as large as the high-end stills/hybrid consumer market is?

Yes, it's called "being a parent".

I have seen BTS videos showing YouTube channels being shot with multiple ARRI Amira cameras. There's a principle in economics that if there are X people who are willing to buy a product / service from you at $Y, there will be X/10 people willing to spend $Y*10 on something from you. This is something that is mostly ignored by the retail market, but occasionally someone actually implements it. The Oxfam shop has gift cards that you give someone as a gift, but the organisation uses the money as a donation. These have been discontinued in the US shop, but the Australian shop has them ranging from $10 up to $300 (for a pack of 7 cards), and then they have one that's $2400-$8100. Rich people often want to show off, so that is for them basically. So yeah, I get that there is a segment of people who want "the best video camera money can buy" and then when they get shown an Alexa 65 fully rigged they realise they want something smaller for one user, and then get shown the FX3. If you can afford a brand new Porsche then you can afford one of these, and Porsche sells a bunch of cars each year. BUT, going back to my original point, which seems to have gotten lost... Even if there are a few rich folks shooting cat videos with it, I still don't think the FX3 at over $4000 (body/batteries/media) or $5000 (with lenses) is a "consumer" camera. I actually don't think the percentage is high enough to even be a "prosumer" camera either, considering the number of professional solo operators who would have one (or three).

It depends on what you want to do with it. I think you can use it in basically three ways: Use the more basic tools it provides to manipulate the image Start playing with other colour spaces / gammas, and then use the tools it provides to do things they were never designed to do Program your own custom plugins and adjustments There is also a level "2.5" where you're using the built-in things to basically "build" a module in Resolve. But it's an 80/20 thing - you can go a long way with just the simple tools. It just depends on what you want to accomplish.

I'd suggest that the vast majority of professional work is too low budget to have you on set doing sound, so it's a segment of the market hidden from you. For every film set with a professional sound person, there will be 10 or 100 solo videographers shooting weddings or corporate gigs or music videos etc, and something like an FX3 would be a good fit for them. Not a lot of folks doing video for fun and using an FX3, or at least, a tiny percentage compared to the videography industry.

If you can learn it, colour grading will set you free. The reason that folks get so caught up in the colour science of one camera or another is because they are trying to buy good colour rather than creating it themselves. Did you know that the Alexa RAW files are very high quality light measurements? All the beauty in the camera comes from having a very accurate sensor, and then applying very pleasing results in post. If you're curious to learn more then just ask. I can give you more links than you could possibly be interested in! Learning Resolve is like making art by attaching a paint brush to the space shuttle and then flying it around. Learning all the controls is a gargantuan task, and then once you can do it you still have to work out what makes a nice picture.... Learning it in a winter would only be possible if the winter was nuclear! You obviously don't mix with the folks who make movies or shoot high-end TV series. There has always been a desire for lenses with less optical perfection than the current state-of-the-art. Lots of modern cinema lens announcements are lens manufacturers re-issuing classic lenses from their history with a modern physical design and electronics that talk to the camera, but promise the same classic look as the original lenses. The Panchro/i Classic FF lenses are an example of this, with Cooke saying this as the first text on their product page: "The famous Speed Panchro lens, re-invented for Full Frame" then.... "In 1935, the Director of Photography of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer studios said, “… at least 50% of our productions are made with Speed Panchros.” A true icon, which first established the optical characteristics that would one day become known as the Cooke Look. Panchro/i Classic FF evolves this further with modern opto-mechanical design." and later... "The same coveted Cooke Look aesthetic as the now legendary Cooke Speed Panchro. Cinematographers talk about Panchro/i Classic as having qualities which enable to convey more emotion in their work, particularly with faces." If everyone wanted the cleanest lenses then this would be a terrible product page! This is typical, and is why there are so many lens tests from cinematographers online - they're choosing a look based on the various imperfections in the lens. There is NO SUCH THING as a cheap Porsche. Repeat it back to me: There is NO SUCH THING as a cheap Porsche! You pay for it when you buy it, or you pay afterwards....... ask me how I know 😂😂😂

I knew about these, they just weren't noteworthy. My summary is still accurate. In 2012 there was my GoPro Hero 3 and the iPhone 5, which were broadly comparable. Now in 2023 there is the iPhone 15 which includes 3 cameras, one of which has an 8K sensor, it records Prores HQ to SSD, the log profile has a white paper and associated colour management profiles in ACES etc.... plus, it's a telephone, music player, video player, computer game console, portable computer, internet connection, etc etc etc. If you want to talk about being informed then it might interest you to know that Sony cinema cameras can all record RAW externally, as well as a plethora of different compression options and profiles internally, which seems like world-class control over such things, instead of the GoPro which offers very few codecs, no RAW, and the colour profiles aren't supported by industry colour management frameworks. I'm not saying that GoPro haven't done anything, I'm just saying that apart from adding their stabilisation (which was very impressive at the time) their upgrades have been incremental at best.

The BMCC 2.5K was $3K in 2012 does equate to being about the same as the FX3 now, including inflation, so that seems a good comparison although it quickly went down to $2K within a year. Of course, they followed it up with the P2K a year or so later, which was one third the cost(!) and apart from being slightly lower in resolution was light-years ahead in basically every other way. To continue the comparison, the BMCC was 2.5K to oversample for 2K/1080p delivery and apparently they collaborated with Arri to deliver ARRI PL-mount kits of it(!) so that's all very "professional". The P2K was much more lower-end in comparison (auto-focus, consumer mount, pocketable, consumer batteries, consumer media, etc), so in this comparison the P2K is the prosumer camera and the BMCC is the completely professional one.