kye

We'll definitely look back at todays cameras as inferior, but the number of pixels will be one of the last things that we'll be looking at. Isn't it funny how when people talk about resolution they say more is better, but when they talk about images they put the Alexa at the top?

Even just thinking about 8K 60p makes my hard drives hurt!

Just to confirm for the eagle-eyed amongst you, yes, I have commenced shooting on a super-secret project to be shot on the P2K and M2K cameras. These are the current rigs, but are likely to evolve over the course of production, which is scheduled to last all winter...

Thanks all for your insights and links - lots of good info and much food for thought. I never thought about a geared head and the idea that I can put the camera on it and then adjust it while not touching the camera (and interfering with whatever sag there is) seems enticing. The reviews I read on the 410 were promising although the complaints were that it's stiff and that you need to convert it to Arca Swiss (which I have already standardised on) but these don't seem deal-breakers. I do wonder how slow it is to use though. If I see something happening and want to frame it up - how long do you think it would take to adjust? I know that's a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string style question, but I just don't want the thing I want to look at to have disappeared while I'm twirling knobs as fast as I can. Would you pair it with a bowl base to allow a degree of freedom prior to having to adjust with the gears? Also, considering how much these things all seem to cost I'm pondering more "creative" solutions, like making an extender that will allow me to balance the setup better so they're not front-heavy. The GH5 400mm combo is not very balanced, and the BMMCC setup isn't that much better....

I'm not across the details of the S5 vs S5ii, but as a general rule I think you should only upgrade equipment when the upgrade will fix an issue that you routinely have when using your existing equipment, or it would increase the quality of your output in some way that matters to you (e.g. can you charge more, or get the same result in less time, etc). This philosophy helps cut out the temptation to upgrade because the grass seems greener, the manufacturers marketing looked enticing, or you are playing 'what if', which are all normal human reactions and completely understandable, but don't actually help in being more effective/efficient.

https://petapixel.com/2023/06/06/ai-image-spotted-on-giant-billboard-and-the-hands-are-all-messed-up/

I've shot projects in prores where I've changed the WB in post, often significantly, and found it to be really easy to work with. So easy to work with that it made me quite angry with the entire rest of the camera industry for not implementing codecs and colour science that was easier to work with. If BM can do it with a Prores file in 2013 then WTF are the manufs doing in 2023 when the WB slider is just a slider to make footage look like crap... It's one of the things that made me realise that all the modern cameras are flawed crap and the reason we use them is that we have Stockholm'd ourselves into being ok with it.

You're a little late to the party... it's not the best quality copy of it on YT, but look at the upload date on this one 🙂

To further reinforce @bjohn s comment about Prores, my experience with it has been that it's as easy to grade as the RAW, and doesn't seem more processed, so if you haven't tried it then it's worth giving it a go and seeing what you think. I'm happy to shoot a few test clips if you're not able to.

You really think it'll replace staff? Despite free online courses, open source textbooks, etc, universities seem to me (an outsider) to be one of the least progressive workplaces in terms of structural changes. I've seen universities implement lots of cutting edge stuff (in 1995 one of my computer science lecturers wrote his own software to compare all assignments and flag who was copying from each other), but nothing that actually impacted the idea that people who've never seen the real world stand in front of students and try to explain the world by giving them a strictly theoretical understanding of things that mostly miss the point of the subject at hand 🙂

I occasionally use a tripod at home and have gotten fed up with the $100 ball-head Manfrotto I bought some years ago and am now pondering getting a better one. I typically use it for: Getting stable shots on very long lenses - for example with GH5 + 400mm + 2x digital zoom (1600mm equivalent) Getting shots of the moon/sun during eclipses or super-moons etc Getting more run-of-the-mill shots (which it works ok for now) The issues I have with the current tripod are: it doesn't pan or tilt smoothly, so when you push it just flexes and rebounds to the same position but if you push a bit harder it 'jumps' to a new position (it's probably plastic on plastic). I don't pan or tilt while recording, I just want to be able to aim it properly. it sags, so you unlock the head, frame the shot, lock the head, and it sags down because the lens is sticking out a long way, thus making you resort to the above. Obviously a $5000 tripod would be great, but I don't use it frequently enough to justify spending a serious amount of money on a high-quality one. I don't really care what it weighs as I don't take it anywhere. What is the minimum I'd have to spend to get something that would actually be functional to use at 800mm+ focal lengths?

Just search for the camera/brands that you're interested in and see what pops up... I will warn you though - the GH5+metabones+18-35+gimbal stereotype is real!!

Not me. My day job is in project management within a complex office environment. As much as people are saying that AI will eliminate vast sections of office workers, with the complexity of office politics and "human behaviour" involved in most projects there's no way it's ready...

I disagree. Creativity is about creating, plain and simple. While we can debate if making videos or films is "art" or not, and we can debate what is and isn't "art" forever (because that debate has been going for the entire history of mankind practically), I don't see that the level of creativity of a final edited video/film relies solely (or even that substantially) about if you hand-hold the camera and grab 10s clips or if you put it on a tripod and record 20 minute clips. I don't know you, and I don't know what work you have or haven't done, but you're not speaking like someone who understands the entirety of the creative process. Camera YouTube and the online camera ecosystem of forums and blogs gives a completely fictitious impression that the camera is the main item when it comes to creating moving images (moving in an emotional as well as literal way). I have come to understand that the following things are so much more important to the creative process that they eclipse the camera entirely: Whatever preparation you do prior to filming anything (writing, scripting, concept designing, location scouting, etc) What you put in front of the camera (casting, production design, lighting, directing, acting, etc) What you do with the footage you have captured (editing, vfx, story structure, music and sound design, etc) What you do with the final edit (audience selection, distribution, promotion, etc) If you can't understand how recording footage from a tripod could be used in a deeply creative way, then you don't understand film-making that well. A large proportion of TV/streaming content is made from long recordings of fixed cameras - reality TV, documentaries (that typically have hundreds or thousands of hours of interview footage), game shows, most talking-head YouTube content filmed in a fixed location, music videos, etc. Is there lots of content where the camera is taking short clips, preferably from a moving camera? Sure, but it's not the only type of content. Take this recent comment from the Godfather of vlogging: It's not until you really study how professional content is made that you start to understand what goes into things. Are you familiar with shooting ratios? Feature films can vary wildly: and documentaries are often a lot larger (as you may not know what the story is going to be until after it happens, so you tend to just shoot everything): Source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/06/07/how-much-data-do-you-need-like-documentary-film-making-research-requires-far-greater-coverage-than-the-final-cut/ So, you may think that capturing 30 minute clips from a static location makes for boring footage, and you're likely right, but that's literally what editing is for. This is one of the (many) reasons that film-making is hard work. Going back to our friend Casey Neistat for a second, during the time he did a daily vlog for something like 800 days in a row, he mentioned that most of his vlogs took between 5-9 hours to edit. That's somewhere between 15-60 minutes of editing time per minute of final footage. I don't know how much footage he actually shot, but when he's interviewing people he's often severely chopping the footage down. He recently mentioned one example where he cut down 25 minutes of interview (during which the camera was rolling the whole time) to 60-75 seconds in the final edit of the video he made. If Casey Neistat, who revolutionised vlogging, needs a camera that can roll for 25 minutes reliably, then making the claim that long locked-off shots aren't "creative" then you've eliminated vast vast sections of the content created. I understand why it overheats, and why Sony would make a camera that overheats. The thing I find bizarre is that customers have somehow come to accept that cameras overheating is somehow normal, and not a sign of an inferior product. It's pretty clear that professional environments require equipment that has rock-solid reliability, and so the high-end / professional cameras are built for reliability. Where I think there is a lack of understanding is when it comes to lower-budget environments. If you have a lower budget then you're probably shooting in situations where you are less in control of the environment. So not only does this mean that you're less able to control the situation that the camera is in (and ensure it's not exposed to adverse temperatures / conditions) but you're also likely to require longer record times because the likelihood of getting the shot you want is lower.

No straw man attacks here - I simply replied to your comment: by explaining why people might take long boring takes from one position. True, and I also enjoy this as well, but it's not always about pushing just for the fun of it, size can also be a significant factor. There are a significant number of reasons that someone might want to shoot using a camera/rig that's as physically small as possible. Unfortunately, almost the entire industry is based around the idea that if you want better video quality then you will be happy having a larger camera, which is an assumption that works in many use-cases, but not all. The critics of this perspective cite the reality of needing to have large enough batteries and to dissipate heat etc, but the factor that this doesn't take into consideration is resolution. 8K60 is 10 times the data-rate of 4K 24p and 40 times the data-rate of 2K 24p. Things like screens consume about the same amount of power regardless of the resolution of the camera, so you can't just reduce the battery by a factor of 10x, but even if it meant you could quarter the size, then you're also quartering the heat dissipation requirements. But no, manufacturers insist on increasing resolution and keeping the same sized bodies, or, as this thread has included, they put too much processing into a camera body and will let it fail to operate and then declare that this is a normal and acceptable product design. They have even managed to convince large numbers of people that this is something to be expected - I find this kind of thing to be bizarre. Every thread is that thread, including this one. I'm not sure why you thought it wasn't....

Absolutely! If we all only did what the manufacturer suggested we do then you might as well erase half of the footage online, across all streaming services and content hosting sites. Some notable mentions (that make using a ZV-E1 for film-making look completely normal) include: Using GoPros in major feature films, like the $66M Need For Speed - https://www.filmmakersacademy.com/gopro-hero3/ Filming feature films entirely using a smartphone, like Tangerine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_(film) Using the Magic Lantern firmware on Canon cameras etc etc In fact, using DSLRs to record professional video at all was not intended by the manufacturers. Had we followed their guidance we wouldn't have had the entire DSLR revolution, this blog, and an entirely new chapter of indy film-making which includes indy features but also all the forms of video social media around. Ironically, had we only followed the manufacturers guidance, the ZV-E1 probably wouldn't exist. So when @markr041 talks about how the ZV-E1 should only be used for travel and vlogging, it goes against the entire idea that created the camera, both travel film-making and vlogging genres, and also the existence and purpose of this whole site.

There's definitely a magic to that image! Nice work!! 🙂

One thing that is essentially invisible on these forums is relative cost of these devices. When I joined a bunch of Facebook groups related to MFT and GH5 etc a few years ago I realised a few very interesting things: There were pros shooting music videos on MFT cameras like the GX85 and G9 - fully booked working professionals There were people who didn't know anything technical at all doing real paid work... posts like "I've just bought a GH4 and a vintage 50mm lens, my first real camera setup. I've got 8 paid gigs scheduled starting in 5 days time - what does the mode knob do? and is 50mm a good lens to use?" There were people who were incredibly excited to get (what we would dismiss as being) old has-been cameras.. I saw many posts of people saying that they'd saved up enough money to buy a GH4 or GH5 as it was "their dream camera". These were often people in poorer countries / areas. Adding to this other factors such as: There are countries that still broadcast in SD, or 720p People do work for community media channels (which have no money) People do work for not-for-profits (which have less than no money) What this means is that working with cameras that are sub-optimal or lower budget is very much a consideration and reality for many or even most people out there. When you add to the situation that to shoot events with a multi-cam setup you have to spread your budget across multiple cameras, all this becomes amplified and there are people literally sleeping on the floor of their friends and family to be able to buy equipment. So, to you and me this $2K camera might seem like a "low-end" option, and for more "serious" work people should spend double or more for a better model, this is to many a completely ridiculous price for a camera (maybe more than a years salary) and so if this is a way to get into FF Sony then why not add fans and all manner of jerry-rigging to it. All of the above applies even more-so to people trying to film their first (or tenth) feature film, or filming documentaries (where long takes are required for interviews etc). The more I get exposed to the wider world, the more I realise that my home videos are often shot, edited, graded and delivered better than a lot of stuff that appears on commercial TV. So, is this camera the right choice for such works? Probably not. Will some people try to use it for these things by adding fans and all manner of other things? Absolutely. But let's ignore that and just assume that no-one would ever try to do anything that this camera isn't capable of doing. Should we just discuss cameras in a non-critical way? Should we just thank the manufacturers for giving us whatever half-crippled products they decide will keep their bottom line as rosy as possible? No. We should push against the manufacturers at all times to do better. We should explore the options provided by the manufacturers from whatever angles we think of, so that not only will the less wealthy lurkers who read the forums but don't post have ideas about what is and isn't possible with each camera but also so that the manufacturers can see what improvements make sense in the context of each model. Panasonic was greatly admired over the time when it released the GH1-GH5 line because.... *drum roll please* .... they improved each model from the last by basically doing what people requested. The reviews had consistent themes of "in our review of the last model we made a wish list and this new model ticks all those boxes".

Oops, I thought we were discussing film-making. Feel free to go back to telling other people how they should film, what equipment they should have, how they should run their businesses, etc... sorry I interrupted. My bad!

Quite a few people on here are filming things like weddings or concerts where you need to run multiple cameras for a long time and have them run unsupervised because they're operating a roaming camera while the others are rolling. In these situations it's not uncommon for each camera to need to record for an hour or more, sometimes in full sun, without encountering any issues. If you are shooting a wedding with three cameras and one of them shuts down after 25 minutes then you're potentially screwed in the edit. I've watched wedding videographers edit a 3-camera multi-cam from a wedding ceremony and even though they didn't have a camera overheat and stop working, there were points in the edit when two of their three camera angles were unusable and they were down to one usable angle. Had that camera overheated, they'd have been down to zero (or forced to use the angle that was setup when everyone was sitting but in the moment that everyone stood up it just showed the backs of the people sitting in the back row - not exactly a professional moment). Add to this the fact that in these situations it's useful to have identical cameras so that all the lenses and cards and accessories are all interchangeable. So if one camera is at risk of overheating then it isn't impossible to have multiple cameras overheat, which would well and truly screw you. Besides, 87F is pathetic in terms of overheating tests.... I have overheated an iPhone before because it was 107F, I was recording clips that were several minutes long, it was in full sun, and the brightness of the screen was up full so that I could see what I was pointing the camera at. I literally submerged half of it in a river to cool it down because I was missing moments (the people swimming in the river). You can't do that with most cameras, and if they overheated without them being attended, you'd never know until it was too late. One thing that causes almost all the head-scratching (and starts almost all the arguments) is when one person cannot understand that someone else uses their equipment differently, to achieve a different result, for a different audience. I suggest you start paying closer attention to how people talk about their camera choices - video is one of those fields where there are lots of ways of doing things and where techniques from one approach can be really handy to understand in your own work which might be very different.

To return to the original question, perhaps the most important element in all this is the ability of the operator to understand the variables and aesthetic implications of all of the above layers, to understand their budget, the available options on the market, and to apply their budget to ensure the products they use are optimal to achieve the intellectual and emotional response that the operator wishes to induce in the viewer.

Ah crap.. I missed a step. Once your stream has been delivered to the streaming device, it will likely apply its own processing too. This is anything from colour space manipulations, calibration profiles, etc, all the way through to the extremely offensive "motion smoothing" effects, NR, sharpening, and all other manner of processing that is as sophisticated and nuanced as a TikTok filter. Plus, grandmas TV is from the early 90s and everything is bright purple, but no-one replaced it because she can't understand the remote controls on the new ones and she's too blind for it to matter anyway.

To expand on the above, here is a list of all the "layers" that I believe are in effect when creating an image - you are in effect "looking through" these items: Atmosphere between the camera and subject Filters on the end of the lens The lens itself, with each element and coating, as well as the reflective properties of the internal surfaces Anything between the lens and camera (eg, speed booster / TC, filters, etc) Filters on the sensor and their accompanying coatings (polarisers, IR/UV cut filters, anti-aliasing filter, bayer filter, etc) The sensor itself (the geometry and electrical properties of the photosites) The mode that the sensor is in (frame-rate, shutter-speed, pixel binning, line skipping, bit-depth, resolution, etc) Gain (there are often multiple stages of gain, one of which is ISO, that occur digitally and in the analog domain - I'm not very clear on how these operate) Image de-bayering (or equivalent for non-bayer sensors) Image scaling (resolution) Image colour space adjustments (Linear to Log or 709) Image NR, sharpening, and other processing Image bit-depth conversions Image compression (codec, bitrate, ALL-I vs IPB and keyframe density, etc) Image container formats This is what gets you the file on the media out of the camera. Then, in post, after decompressing each frame, you get: Image scaling and pre-processing (resolution, sharpening, etc) Image colour space adjustments (from file to timeline colour space) All image manipulation done in post by the user, including such things as: stabilisation, NR, colour and gamma manipulation (whole or selectively), sharpening, overlays, etc Image NR, sharpening, and other processing (as part of export processing) Image bit-depth conversions (as part of export processing) Image compression (codec, bitrate, ALL-I vs IPB and keyframe density, etc) (as part of export processing) Image container formats (as part of export processing) This gets you the final deliverable. Then, if your content is to be viewed through some sort of streaming service, you get: Image scaling and pre-processing (resolution, sharpening, etc) Image colour space adjustments (from file to streaming colour space) All image manipulation done in post by the streaming service, including such things as: stabilisation, NR, colour and gamma manipulation (whole or selectively), sharpening, overlays, etc Image NR, sharpening, and other processing (as part of preparing the steam) Image bit-depth conversions (as part of preparing the steam) Image compression (codec, bitrate, ALL-I vs IPB and keyframe density, etc) (as part of preparing the steam) Image container formats (as part of preparing the steam) This list is non-exhaustive and is likely missing a number of things. It's worth noting a few things: The elements listed above may be done in different sequences depending on the manufacturer / provider The processing that is done by the streaming provider may be different per resolution (eg, more sharpening for lower resolutions for example) I have heard anecdotal but credible evidence to suggest that there is digital NR within most cameras, and that this might be a significant factor in what separates consumer RAW cameras like the P2K/P4K/P6K from cameras like the Digital Bolex or high-end cinema cameras ..and to re-iterate a point I made above, you must take the whole image pipeline into consideration when making decisions. Failure to do so is more likely to lead you to waste money on upgrades that don't get the results you want. For example, if you want sharper images then you could spend literally thousands of dollars on new lenses, but this might be fruitless if the sharpness/resolution limitations are the in-camera-NR or you might spend thousands of dollars getting a camera that is better in low-light when there is no perceptible difference after the streaming service has compressed the image so much that you have to be filming at ISO 10-bajillion before and grain is visible (seriously - test this for yourself!).

I don't think there is a "most important". I tend to think of photos/video like you're looking through a window at the world, where each element of technology is a pane of glass - so to see the outside world you look through every layer. If one layer is covered in mud, or is blurry, or is tinted, or defective in some way, then the whole image pipeline will suffer from that. In this analogy, you should be trying to work out which panes of glass the most offensive aspects of the image are on, and trying to improve or replace that layer. Thinking about it like this, there is no "most important". Every layer is important, but some are worth paying more or less attention to, depending on what their current performance is and what you are trying to achieve. Of course, the only sensible test should be the final edit. Concentrating on anything other than the final edit is just optimising for the wrong outcome.

Now is the time to buy a couch, just so that when he's homeless he's got somewhere to sleep....