kye

There appears to be a broader context to all this. I think that people fall into one of two situations.. People that are happy with the images they can achieve This could be that: they can't / don't colour grade (maybe beyond adding a simple transform) but are happy with the images they get don't colour grade at all and just shoot in a 709 profile but are happy with it they can colour grade, potentially at a very high level, and their skill is able to match their expectations This appears to include people like our friend @markr041 who seems to enjoy the results of his many camera tests, and the vast majority of consumers, but it also includes quite a number of professional colourists who have high expectations but also high skill levels to be able to craft images. This is also likely to include the cohort of people who have high expectations but are able to meet them by using tools such as FilmConvert or Dehancer and have had enough practice that the heavy-lifting of these very sophisticated tools is able to get them over the line with their images. @BTM_Pix appears to be in this category, although he seems to be suggesting that the camera is adequate because any shortcomings are due to the lack of the other 499 people typically involved in creating nice images. They do say that great skin-tones begin with the makeup department so this definitely has merit. @hyalinejim might be here too, I'm not sure, but has certainly demonstrated significant skill in film emulations in other threads. This category of people rely on the colour science of the manufacturer to different degrees, but it might be quite significantly, and potentially spent many thousands of dollars buying that colour science. I include even many deeply experienced colourists in this equation, as typically, even though they have significant levels of skill at their disposal, they're also mostly spending time grading footage from the best cameras around like ARRI/RED/VENICE and would absolutely not be able to get such satisfying results from lesser cameras. People that are NOT happy with the images they can achieve This could be that: they can't / don't colour grade beyond adding a simple transform don't colour grade at all and just shoot in a 709 profile they can colour grade, potentially at a very high level, but their skill is NOT able to match their expectations (This list is almost identical to the previous one) These people rely on the colour science of the manufacturer and are unhappy at the manufacturers because the manufacturer doesn't deliver sufficient image quality to get the desired results. Where this is discussed on EOSHD is from people that are familiar with the colour that has been shown to be possible by cameras like the OG BMPCC/BMMCC, Digital Bolex, Canon 5D with ML hack, etc. I think that no-one sensible expects a 3K modern MILC to have the colour reproduction of an Alexa 65, but the fact that a S16 sensor from a decade ago could do a MUCH better job than todays cameras is extremely frustrating. This is where my comment about "more pixels instead of better pixels" comes from, and definitely represents my position, and explains why I have been focusing on colour grading - I have basically accepted that the manufacturers have abandoned us and am learning to do what I can on my own. Cameras seem to be in one of several categories: cameras that have a baked-in look that is quite "video" (e.g. iPhone, DSLRs, MILCs, etc) cameras that have no baked-in look (RAW) and require colour grading for all the colour work cameras that have a baked-in look that is very filmic (e.g. OG BMPCC, Digital Bolex) Unfortunately the last category is now extinct, despite there not being any real reason why this was necessary or desirable. There are thousands of people online who share this view - this thread has 3700 posts and is still going strong: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/409881-ccd-sensor-cult-i-mean-club.html What is interesting is that the vast majority of colourists are in this second category, despite having the highest skill levels of the bunch and even when grading ARRI/RED/VENICE footage. This is mostly to do with film emulation, combined with their incredible visual acuity, which has to be seen to be believed. It's widely acknowledged that Steve Yedlin has implemented the best film emulation seen in the wild in recent times, which was used on his films such as Knives Out / Glass Onion and especially Star Wars The Last Jedi which was shot on digital and film with the digital processed to match seamlessly with the film. This article gives an excellent overview of the many technical essays that Yedlin has posted to his website Yedlin.net: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography The reason that I raise this is that Yedlins work is perplexing, because it shows that emulating film basically perfectly is possible, but also that it is not possible for most people, even most high-end colourists. In the Display Prep Demo FAQ Yedlin mentions that he had to create his own tools to do this manipulation: He doesn't say it specifically in a nice quotable format, but the impression I was left with was that he built these things for himself because they're beyond the capabilities of even Resolve / Baselight, which are deeper and more capable than almost anyone on the planet (let alone these forums) could even comprehend, but are not adequate. This is where we get into the difference between a colourist and a colour scientist. Accurate film emulation requires a colour scientist, not a colourist, and the two are quite distinct skillsets. Summary When it comes to getting the look you want, it's either a case of: camera colour science + production design + your grading skills > your expectations camera colour science + production design + your grading skills < your expectations The problem with the second one, especially for film-like images, is that we have seen it's possible for camera manufacturers to create starkly better images than they currently do, so this is enormously frustrating. Obviously production design matters, but if you're just looking at people outside in natural light, this aspect is far less significant than the camera and your colour grading skills. When it comes to film emulation specifically, the cruel joke is that: It is possible, because Steve Yedlin did it, but simultaneously it is not practically possible, because only a handful of colour scientists in the world are capable of doing what Steve Yedlin did to achieve those results Most of us could get better grades with the great examples of older cameras (OG BMPCC, Digital Bolex, etc) than we can with modern cameras, so in a world where the only people that can afford to get access to the colour scientists is the manufacturers, they have deliberately not done this, basically cutting us off from that potential

Reminds me of that Modern Family episode where the whole thing was from the perspectives of their various devices as they video chatted etc with each other all the time. I read that they actually tried shooting it like how it was portrayed but ended up using real Apple device cameras but operated by camera ops and the actors just resting their hands on the camera ops wrist.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's less in-keeping with the "how far and how fast can you go" ethos of endurance sports, and more a weekend event designed to not only challenge you physically but to challenge you on every level. If the goal is to create an opportunity to fail then it fits, and it makes sense that it would take a very different form than the other ultramarathons around. When I watched the original doco on it I didn't know much about them, but I was surprised to discover that ultramarathons are super common.

I'm also often impressed when I see something shot on film, but in addition to that, I'm often impressed by something that I think is shot on film, but when I look it up I see it was shot on something like an F35, which shot 1080p and was introduced in 2008. Often the things I see from pre-Alexa digital cameras are on TV shows, where they wouldn't have had the budget for a colourist to dedicate themselves to optimising every shot, so a lot of the look must have been from the camera. Also, and to partly counter what @BTM_Pix said about it being a team effort, sometimes the shot that is more impressive will be an external shot in full sun, which is something that most of us are much closer than 499 people away from being able to re-create. This is why I've turned my attention to colour grading - the camera companies are no longer trying to create the kind of images we're actually chasing. So it's either shoot on film or you're on your own.

I have seen various snippets over the years of influencers talking about the craft and lots of them have a far more developed sense of things than you'd imagine. Not all of them of course, but definitely a lot of them. One of the things they're often very aware of is the aesthetic of various types of production. In todays terms, things shot on a phone have a certain look that tends to be viewed as more authentic and less produced. If you're making content that plays better if your viewers think that things are unplanned and 'real' then this aesthetic would help that, and if you want to appear as a professional authoritative source then maybe some nice lighting and shallower DOF would suit better. As a few examples, Gerald Undone seems more like an authority figure with a nice studio setup rather than shooting on a phone while unboxing things on his floor, Chefs that want to be taken seriously have professional looking kitchens and have nice lighting and cameras, but not everyone wants to look professional. A bit of searching revealed this channel - a kids show that looks like it's shot on a smartphone. https://www.youtube.com/@KidsDianaShow/about BUT, the channel has 112M subs and 93 BILLION views! I have no idea if they do paid content but the YT ad revenue alone would probably buy them an Alexa. I suspect part of their allure is that the content sort-of looks like it was made by the kids themselves. Maybe it is, and maybe there's an entire production team, but the aesthetic is deliberate. Cinematographers choose lenses deliberately because they're professionals, you'd be crazy if you thought that professional YouTubers weren't aware of the difference between filming on a smartphone vs a cinema camera 🙂

If they overheat then they're not for influencers... The best way to shorten your record times is to: Develop script & storyboard Shoot in controlled situations Create the excitement deliberately Most influencers, except the serious ones that have mature and controlled processes, just setup crazy situations and then see what happens, recording the whole time, then edit it down. If it overheats, it'll be yet another floater in the camera specs pool, along with cameras without wide angle lenses, selfie screens, external audio inputs, etc etc.

Actually, I thought this forum was mostly focused on 8K RAW with global shutter... I always seem to be the minority opinion when discussing what cinema actually looks like, what is practical in the real world, that spending $5K on a camera and 5 minutes slapping on a LUT isn't the best approach to getting good colour, that the content of the video matters more than the DR, that editing is more important than colour subsampling, etc etc

Even watching a movie trailer on YT, then watching "cinematic" videos on YT will show, very clearly, that despite the movie trailers being right there, just a few clicks away, most online film-makers are in a parallel universe. I understand that not everyone wants "cinematic" results, and that's fine, but it's just incredible that those who do are so far from the mark and it's so obvious. Maybe we're in a post-truth moving image design world?? 😂😂😂

49 people?? That's WAY more than the Barkely Marathons... only 17 people have finished that since 1989 😉 (For anyone not familiar, the Barkely Marathons is essentially what a cross country race would be in hell, and was specifically designed so that high-achievers would be able to experience failure.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Marathons) Seriously though, the two races couldn't be more different, how fun. I've never needed to do crazy things to find the limits of myself as a human being - just watching anything shot on film and then trying to colour grading your home video footage to match will show you your limits in about an hour!

Production process: Shot on Panavision Cameras and anamorphic lenses Using Kodak and Fuji negative films and Kodak projection film No digital intermediary - editing was done on the negative The image quality that blew you away was the state of the art in colour science in 1989. Here we are in 2023, 34 years later and we have 8K RAW but it still doesn't look even remotely like that. It's a pity everyone wanted more pixels instead of better pixels.

Well, if that's what you want to do then don't let me stop you, but social media is bad for your health in many ways and something like this might be one of them!! It also reminds me of the doco The Barkely Marathons which used to be on Netflix but doesn't seem to be available any more - if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it 🙂 This one is on YT and is also a pretty good watch, although I think the other one was a better edit (and definitely a better colour grade!):

How to say you're in the US without saying you're in the US! My experience travelling elsewhere is that people stop and look at you, but not to pose...

In a moment of temporary insanity I read the first few pages of that thread and the previous camera one, and was left with impression that BM have a bit of a problem. The people in the thread seem to want a new BM camera to be: FF sensor modular / "box" design with Pro features UMP sensor (or similar performance) replacement for BMMCC Micro Cinema Camera bright tilting/flipping touchscreen replacement for P4K The way I read those incompatible requests is that, according to the customers, BM have four "holes" in their lineup: professional modular camera, likely FF, with SDI / timecode / etc, flagship modular camera, likely S35/FF, to compliment P6K update for P4K for entry-level users replacement for BMMCC I'd even suggest a fifth hole in their line-up, which is an update to the OG BMPCC, which would have the look of the old sensors, but with 2.5K, better battery / sound, brighter tilt screen, and dual-ISO. Of course, the market for that last one would be too small 🙂

and your NLE will be so fast that the editing experience will be fantastic!

Everyone knows that long takes are boring......

Yeah, it's the first example I've seen that's ready for genuine pro work right now.

Sure! But for a weekly upload schedule you might need to branch out somewhat 🙂

These folks are using generative fill to create matt environments for videos... Interesting stuff.

I'm also interested in shiny things, but less-so now, and to a certain extent I'm protected from getting better equipment simply due to how important size is in how/where I shoot. It's also worth acknowledging that there are lots of reasons that buying new stuff might provide a benefit... improved end results is one that we're all familiar with, but also things like ease-of-use / quality-of-life, sentimental / emotional attachments, status, learning and discover, novelty, and other factors are in the mix too, and will be worth something to each of us, even though we may differ significantly about how much each of these is worth. Of course, when someone is spending thousands of dollars on a new system for the sake of getting nicer colour science rather than learning to colour grade beyond just using LUTs, then that's not the best use of resources!

Simple - people would rather pay for better-looking videos than put in the work to develop their skills.

While we're on the subject of innovation in camera design and vlogging in particular.... The new DJI Action 3 looks pretty innovative, and despite being an "Action" camera is better for vlogging than most vlog cameras: For vlogging, it has: a very wide lens (they claim it's equivalent to a 11.24mm lens on FF!!!) square sensor that can record horizontally, vertically, or the whole sensor and let you stabilise/crop in post crazy-good stabilisation, including things like horizon lock GoPro-sized charging case with pop-up selfie screen that doubles as a remote monitor magnetic / sticky attachments and lots of mounting options H264 @ 80Mbps up to 2.7K Is tiny and weighs practically nothing: camera is 35.5g / 1.25oz and action camera case thingy is 96g / 3.4oz Crucially, it no longer has restricted recording times - previous models had restricted recording times that were progressively shorter when you applied heavier stabilisation (I think it was a thermal limit). Product Showcase / AD: Footage comparison to Go 2 and GoPro 11:

Ideas for your new channel: "Ask the beard" a channel with you reacting to videos and viewer questions from a NZ perspective "Hold my beard" a channel where you do challenges and review the many extreme sports in NZ "For the beard" a channel focusing on progressive fashion culminating in launching beard-care products for both men and women The possibilities are endless, just like the talent available!

What is the rest of your image pipeline? If you're uploading to virtually any streaming service then their compression will do you a huge favour by removing almost all the noise in the image. I did a test of creating a video with increasing levels of noise and then uploaded it to YT, and was absolutely stunned at the amount of noise I had to have on the timeline before any noise was visible in the output at all.

This is the exact reason they made the GH5S. It was a non-IBIS companion to the GH5, designed to be used on gimbals and other mounts.

Sounds like you've got lots of options on the table, but I'd just caution you against getting wrapped up in specs and forgetting that durability and reliability are your primary concerns, as you're operating in harsh conditions for long periods and are a long way from support if something breaks. I don't know how this translates into the various models being discussed, but I'd imagine it would point towards the professional-bodied cameras like the FS and FX lines. Not only will they be built with the right build quality and cooling and temp and humidity and dust ratings, but having more durable hardware with things like integrated XLR connectors and such will also make the camera more robust. Having cheap, light, small cameras with great image quality is great for careful consumers like me, but that's definitely not what you want in the jungle.