kye

A few thoughts... If you are using the IBIS on the camera, an electronic lens that tells the camera the current focal length is hugely useful - this is one of the reasons I'm swapping to electronic lenses from manual zooms. Cheap zoom lenses tend to have similar optical aberrations to classic vintage lenses, especially if you add some filters as has been suggested above and I definitely agree with. Cheap often means variable aperture, but if you don't need the speed then stopping down to F4 or F5.6 will make most zooms a constant aperture. Try the deeper DoF look if you aren't used to shooting with it, most feature films have deeper DoF most of the time but internet people seem to be both blind and in denial about this for some reason which completely eludes me. Also, remember you can distress the image in post. This gives the advantage that you can adjust the amount per shot. If you shoot with anything even hinting at vintage then you'll be amazed at how variable the look can be - one shot looks completely clean and the next moment the sun comes out or you change the composition slightly and the image is a wash of flare. If you're not sure about what is possible in post, just think of all those action blockbuster films that have a super-heavy anamorphic look to them and then realise that all the VFX work starts out being infinitely sharp and they were able to degrade to perfectly match everything else on a huge cinema screen. Adding a bit of glow, blurring and vignette in post is super-simple and gets the job done.

Completely agree on both points. I owned the Hero 3 Black, and used it as my waterproof camera to compliment my GF3. I used it with the battery back for recording underwater, for snorkelling trips, for swimming with the kids, and for photos when it was raining. It was actually a pretty good photo camera - I shot with no screen and set it to burst mode and would pan the camera and then select the photo with the right composition. Great for street photography in this mode. Anyway, after having it just stop working almost every time I recorded with it, I just adopted the habit of pulling the battery every time I got out of the water. If I needed a new battery I'd swap it, if not I'd just pull it apart and wait 20s then put it back in again. That sorted it out - most of the time anyway. The frustrating thing is that if you notice it's stopped recording and you're snorkelling 500m from the shore, good luck trying to reset it... back to the beach you're swimming! Also agree that they didn't really know what to do in terms of the brands strategy. They might have had some idea when they went down the path of having that drone that could use your GoPro on it. The idea of buying a camera module and then mounting it to everything was a good one, but they just couldn't deliver, so got eaten alive by DJI. I absolutely and completely disagree. The Hero 3 Black, which I owned, was an action camera that: shot various combinations of resolution and frame rates had wifi control and preview had software tools that weren't really that innovative was buggy to the point of it being disruptive to shoot with Over the course of the last decade the product went from the above to a camera that: shot various combinations of resolution and frame rates had excellent stabilisation (new!) had a mode that un-fish-eyed the image (new!) had wifi control and preview had software tools that weren't really that innovative overheats unnecessarily compared to other cameras In over a decade, that's not innovation. I watched each year as the new models came out to see if I would upgrade mine. I really liked the form factor and entire concept because it complemented the rest of my setup so well. Spoiler: I ended up buying the Sony X3000 in 2019 because it had physical stabilisation instead of digital stabilisation, which works in low-light when the shutter speeds get longer and motion blur becomes a thing. The parallel example is what smartphone manufacturers have done with smartphone cameras, and those have changed a huge amount during the last decade.

Of course! With kids, you just hand over your wallet and try not to think about it.

Looks promising! Let's hope it's keeping up with the Joneses, and offering Prores!

I guess it's relative, but it seems like a ridiculous amount of money to me for a camera-body only. If you're going to use it professionally then sure, but for anything other than that, it's hugely expensive. By the time that you're adding in lenses to use with it, assuming you're using the AF and other fancy features that it has, it's starting to get ridiculous compared to other non-professional cameras. Now, I'm not saying that other much cheaper non-professional cameras are just as good as the FX3, because they're missing things like external 16-bit RAW and people don't shoot feature films on them, etc.. but these aren't things that are really relevant to most non-professional users. I see all these threads about these RAW shooting, FF, 6K or 8K cameras that body-only cost the same price as a reliable second-hand car, and I just think people here have lost touch with consumers. I paid about USD$1600 for my XC10 and about the same for my GH5, obviously these were some time ago now, but those were serious amounts of money for a camera in my eyes, despite being on the camera forums, and it was more money than almost anyone I knew would even think about spending on a whole camera setup, let alone a body-only!

Of course not! We judge them purely by megapixels and dynamic range. Every other consideration is irrelevant to us, as artists and creative people. 😂😂😂 Is it the most taxing mode? It is the mode with the most resolution to compress, but other modes have the burden of downsampling, which this one wouldn't have. I'm not sure which would be more strenuous. I've recently experimented with running Resolve in 720p (applying various blurs and colour processes at this resolution) and then exporting to 1080p via an up-sampling process from the 720p timeline. It surprised me, but having the timeline in 720p (with less than half the total pixels) and upsampling the result was dramatically slower than just doing all the processing to a 1080p timeline and not doing any upsampling on export. Both were compressing the 1080p file of course, so no differences there. I didn't realise that image rescaling was more computationally demanding than processing the higher resolution natively.

Finished it. I'm assuming that everyone else liked the post, saw it was 300 pages, then went back to scrolling social media about new cameras? It wasn't quite as useful as I was hoping, but then again I had a specific agenda when reading it, so that's my fault not theirs. Now I have to get back to work and actually test various things.

How'd you go with the other ones? Did the FX3 stand out as vastly superior to the others?

Do you think the FX3 is a consumer camera?

That's one of the best yet - until the DR was just overwhelmed of course. Nice find!

@gt3rs - what do you think of the above video from @SRV1981 with the diffusion filter? I thought the images looked pretty good with fine skin-tones (up until the DR of the camera failed and it went bizarrely saturated and then clipped). The model has impeccable skin though, so it's hard to tell as there didn't seem to be fine chroma detail in her face.

The only remotely solid thing that google has is this: https://competition.adesignaward.com/design.php?ID=145503 Which appears to be a design competition entry....

So, is anyone reading it yet? I'm up to chapter 11 and enjoying it, although I'm only skimming the technical parts.

To be honest, the whole thing of this movie getting all this hype for being shot on an FX3 seems ridiculous. I think on paper it sounds like this is an incredible thing where a big budget movie shot on a tiny cheap camera, which is the kind of story that makes people who can only shoot on tiny cheap cameras feel better, but it's not true. Even if you have a tiny cheap camera, you don't have $72M to spend in post... .....and if you had $72M in post, you could have shot it on an EOS M using Magic Lantern and it would have looked almost as good (professional colourists and VFX artists are incredible - high-end work looks great mostly because of those, not the camera that was used). The image isn't really that much better than other things I mean, can you tell which of these below is the FX3, or the Venice 2, or the G9ii, or the R6ii, or the GH6? It should be obvious right - the Venice 2 is something like $50K, and the G9ii and GH6 are consumer MFT cameras, and the FX3 should be easily identifiable, right? The FX3 isn't really that small You might be thinking the FX3 is small because it's smaller than a 5D, for example: But that's not what it looks like, this is what it looks like: It's not that cheap So you want external RAW - sure. The Fujifilm X-S20 does Prores RAW, and it's $1299 - which is a third of the cost! Oh, you want 16-bit RAW, not that crappy 12-bit RAW that the Fuji shoots. Let me ask you this - have you ever seen the difference? Have you graded it? I didn't think so. If I showed you a 12-bit RAW video graded by a professional colourist or 16-bit RAW video you shot and graded yourself, which would be better? Maybe you should shoot your movie (or cat video) on the Fuji and pay a professional colourist to grade it - it would look better.... It's a marketing stunt.

Yeah, sounds to me like marketing spin, where you say something that's technically correct (so if anyone asks you have an answer) but not relevant in any practical sense. For example the FX6 gets a lot heavier when you mount a screen etc, that the FX3 already has, but they shot in RAW on an Atomos, so the FX3 would never have been used without the screen anyway...

I recently asked for book recommendations to learn about human vision and was given a link to a free PDF. It is incredible. I'm only a quarter of the way through, but I'm absolutely blown away. The human vision system looks like it was designed by committee and then re-imagined by Dali and Picasso, while on drugs. It is a wonder we can see anything at all! Did you know that the rods and cones (which detect light) are BEHIND a bunch of nerves and nerve cells and blood vessels, so the light has to go through a bunch of crap before you even sense it? The book is actually a mix of how the human vision system works and also what we have done with the tech to try and align to it, so it's a nice blend of biology and tech. It's also very readable and tries to be as non-technical as possible. This is a rare find compared to other books that are hugely tech heavy. Take the red pill with me... download it here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php (download it by clicking on the box next to the file size).

Well, it is a telephone, after all.... Considering how bad the 14 was compared to this, if they keep going the 17 will be like a MILC, the 18 a cinema camera, and the 20 an Alexa!

Yeah. It also didn't look too bad with a Black Pro Mist filter either:

I'm surprised no-one has posted this yet.... Gerald tested the DR: The TL;DR is that below about ISO 1000 it measures 12.2 stops, but then around ISO 1000 it starts rising and at ISO1480 managed to get 13.8 / 13.3 stops.. Gerald said that he suspects the native ISO is around 1250 or so, and the DR going down below that is typical of sensors set below their native ISO. All in all, this is a seriously impressive result. It makes me wonder if you set it to full-auto and use it in daylight if you'll be limiting the DR by forcing it to a lower ISO? That's not quite so ideal..

More well-shot footage...

Well, if it goes from GX3: to FX3: ..the GX3 will be the size of a matchbox!! Then, in a massive twist no-one saw coming... Sony releases the next version of the GX85....!

I know of some VFX folks that use these in bulk to capture high-res plates for compositing, so they're at least known and in-use in professional circles. I don't know of examples where it was used as the main camera, but that's the thing about people that actually make content - mostly they're not online talking about the brand of paper-clips they use 🙂

8K is cancelled. Just use AI to make it better... IMAX does! https://ymcinema.com/2023/10/02/imax-ceo-we-use-ai-to-blowup-images/?expand_article=1 From IMAX CEO, Richard Gelfond: "we use it to blow up images. We use AI to make the images look better, we sharpen the edges, and we take the grain out. We have been using AI for supplements for a while." "However, the best reference for that utilization of the IMAX proprietary algorithm and AI tech, is the talked-about sci-fi project, The Creator. The movie was shot entirely on Sony FX3 which is not an IMAX-certified camera. Nevertheless, the ProRes RAW footage was undergone special treatment by IMAX AI technologies, in order to boost the imagery and make it capable enough to hold up against the huge canvas." Other streaming services only store feature films in 2K and upscale to 4K for people who stream in 4K, and now IMAX, the supposed best quality folks upscale using AI. We all knew that streaming was a low-quality distribution, and now IMAX is too... How can they get away with this???? Maybe.... *gasp* ....because it's not visible? I mean, you could say that AI is good enough for IMAX, but you could also say that visual perception is so low that you can't even tell that IMAX is upscaling with AI! It works both ways!! 😂😂😂

I don't think it matters as long as it's not white or black. Even if they just recorded a test clip where they point it at different stuff. If there was a pixel stuck on or off you'd notice it pretty easily I'd imagine. "Film something bright and something dark" might be relatively simple advice to understand?

It might be worth trying to come up with an "identity" for your audience, so you can hit the right level of info. For example, if you imagined you were talking to your partner, or next door neighbour, or grandmother, you would say things in different ways. You could even imagine there are two or even three audience members with different levels of knowledge. I get the impression that once you get going and start getting lots of comments on videos then you'll get a sense of who is out there watching. YouTubers often talk to their followers in ways that make me think they have a good sense of what their expertise is and what they like and don't like etc. But, to get you started you might have to make up your audience. A wireless mic sounds like the best solution. Even if it fails occasionally, a VoiceOver in post is a good fall-back option and far from ruining the video. Lights is a sensible solution, especially because large aperture lenses have shallow focus planes, and I'm not sure if it's worse to have a noisy image or one where you're out of focus half the time. For monitors, is it practical to have a wireless monitor? If you had a wireless monitor, a wireless mic, and a wireless trigger then you could put the camera wherever you like and still be able to control it and check focus etc. Most solo shooters only record from close to the camera with wide lenses, and that's one aesthetic, but there are other aesthetics too, and using a longer focal length from further away gives a much more professional look. Martijn Doolaard is a self-shooter and films from far away as well as close/wide, which gives a higher production value I think. Here's a video linked to an example: https://youtu.be/Ybgr8OUskcM?t=563 The alternative solution to using a monitor with power-out is just using a battery plate. These seem to be really useful as thy just take a battery and often have many different power outputs. One of these might make your setup more flexible in future if you decide to add more accessories or change the monitor etc.