KnightsFan

Both of those films have strong characteristics of those formats. I don't think any Marvel movies would be satisfied with the look of 28 Days Later, they'd rather use cameras with more dynamic range and less noise. A lot of projects want the clean noise floor and higher dynamic range of larger sensors. I agree that 8k is pretty much useless. However, 4k is not being used to its potential. You can easily tell 1080p from 4k in a video game game from normal viewing distance on a TV. I think that with recorded video, a combination of lens softness, missed focus, CFAs, motion blur, and compression is the limiting factor that makes it so hard to tell the difference. So while 1080p is almost always "enough" resolution, I think there is still plenty of room to improve 4k. 4k isn't intrinsically overrated, but the compromised 4k video we see isn't maximizing the image size's potential.

If Panasonic goes over $5k on a Lumix camcorder, I would have to wonder if they are planning to quietly ditch the EVA line.

Nikon would be nuts to bank on outselling Sony with their 1st generation. I'm sure they are looking long term towards building an ecosystem as they gradually win over new customers as they look to upgrade their A7III's in a few years time. The Z6/7 was all about getting their name out there. And in that sense, they got their name out before the flood from Canon and Panasonic, yet they waited until they could output RAW video with their first model. No one expected floods of people to immediately jumping ship from Sony or from their DSLRs, Nikon just needed to get their name out so that anyone upgrading in the next two or three years has "Nikon" on their radar. Cheap used Z6's are probably good for Nikon long term. Whether people buy in at list price or used for peanuts, they still need lenses and future bodies.

I'm not the op. I'd also like to know what @Tomda goes for in the end, and how well it works out!

I've honestly liked the look from decent LEDs as much or better than tungstens in my uses. Yeah, it's bizarre. I did equipment checkout for a few semesters, and I had an entire shelf of totas with problems. Maybe someone before me had methodically ruined each one? That and the exploding one really put me off totas. Oh wow, that's disappointing. Another strike for totas, I guess.

...and if you are using equipment that students have touched, assume the worst and never use one without a protective screen. This is the main reasons I use LED lights: if you are working with inexperienced crew on a no budget set, LEDs won't burn anyone or explode. Or cook the room. To be fair, though, I only ever had one tota bulb explode on me. I used 2-3 different totas with electrical problems, shorting, buzzing loudly, or sparking. I never had any issues with other Lowel lights, just the totas. Like, half as bright, or like 500w equivalent? If you got any sense from what you've seen so far.

I am curious if anyone has experience with the new lowel tota led? I haven't seen many reviews. They seem to output a lot of light for relatively cheap. I have fond memories of tungsten tota lamps exploding in college.

This is a bit nitpicky, but these numbers are for are MB/s, not Mb/s. The XT3 goes up to 400 Mb/s which is equal to 50 MB/s. You should wind up with 4:4:4 actually, so even better!

Ah, I see now, I wrongly assumed 35mm to be FF since you mentioned the 5dII days. I'm jealous of your lens collection for sure! With that budget, I recommend the XT3. It's a phenomenal camera, I got to use it quite a bit earlier this year. I don't think you'll find anything else in your budget that has 10 bit. Unfortunately it doesn't have a crop mode. But as for the competition, none of the Sonys output 10 bit even over HDMI, and the GH5 and P4k both have <s35 sensors. And then maybe wait a year to pick up a used OG BMPCC for peanuts just for your 16mm lenses. There is actually also the Z Cam E2c, the $800 little brother to the E2. It can record 10 bit 4:2:0 to an SD card, or 10 bit 4:2:2 via USB C. It's M43 and I haven't heard about a 16mm crop mode, so not ideal sensor size--but it's affordable for 10 bit and ProRes. Again I haven't used it, but you can try the Z Cam E2 facebook group for info if you are interested.

I usually just use ffmpeg by itself, it's worth learning if you do a lot of unconventional media manipulations.

Here's my blind opinion. In order of preference, best to worst: G, C, D/E/F, B, H, A A. the only "bad color" to me, way too red/pink B: Maybe a touch more saturation would make it perfect, but he looks a bit too pale and dead C. Pretty good. The only reason it's behind G is it's lacking a touch of richness D. Highlights are ugly. Not bad, though. E. Could use more contrast. It might also be slightly out of focus? His lips don't stand out from the other skin enough. F. Highlights are ugly. I think it's just overexposed a little. Also kinda soft, maybe out of focus. Not enough richness, really. G. This one's good. Nice, rich color, not too much red/pink. This and C and the only ones that look really well exposed. H. Possibly overexposed, but it's just ugly. Pink lips and white skin. Overall, I think G is good, the rest are kinda ok but mainly just overexposed a teeny bit for my taste, and A is not good.

Have you looked into the Z Cam E2? It has a multi-aspect M43 sensor like the GH5s, and it has a S16 crop mode. With a speed booster, you can get full frame or S35, or you can use the crop mode for S16. And it shoots 10 bit 4:2:2 internally. It's $2k for the body, so more budget friendly than an FS7 or URSA. The downside is that it requires an external monitor, though you can use a smartphone for wireless monitoring and control via wifi. I do not have first hand experience with one yet, unfortunately. I can't think of anything else in the price range that can go up to 35mm with a speed booster, and has a dedicated 16mm crop mode, and 4:2:2 10 bit internally. I would stay away from ML for pro work. It was too finicky when I used it extensively on the 5D3. It was a phenomenal image, but I wouldn't be confident in it working 100% of the time (even due to user error, cards filling up too quickly, etc).

That's a good idea. A few versions ago, Resolve's H265 output seemed to be poor quality, so I would export DNxHD and then convert to H265 using ffmpeg.

For Vimeo, I usually export 2k H265 for projects shot in DCI 4k. That gives the most quality per MB, which is good because you get limited upload space on Vimeo. I'm not sure if you can export H265 in the free version, though. If you wanted 4k, you could export UHD. You'll get small black bars on the top and bottom, but significantly higher resolution than 2k.

You need the full version to export 4K DCI. You can go up to UHD in the free version. You will get black bars if your delivery resolution is different from your timeline resolution. What is the resolution of your vimeo delivery?

Last I heard, the S6, F6, and F8 will have H264, H265, ProRes, and a proprietary RAW format. ProRes would be pending Apple's approval (no reason it wouldnt be approved, it was for the E2 after all). Raw could be converted to Cineform raw in post using z cam's converter.

If you're coming from layers, it might help to conceptualize nodes as being similar to analog audio systems. Say you have a mic going to the input on an EQ, out to a compressor, and then to a speaker, like: Mic -> EQ -> Compressor -> Speaker You can stick headphones in at any stage and you hear the audio signal at that point. You aren't applying EQ to the mic, you're placing an EQ on the signal between the mic and compressor. That's how nodes work, too. With layers it's often like you are "applying color correction to an image," whereas with nodes you're "piping the image signal through a color correction operation." You can use the viewers in Fusion like you'd use headphones on that audio path, to see what the signal looks like at any given point in the chain. I don't know if that helps at all.

Nodes are certainly much better for composites and fine tuned control of effects that don't change much over time. Layers are generally easier for motion graphics, or effects that take place over time. Just for fun, I did a recent motion graphics bit in Fusion which I would normally do in AE. It wasn't too bad at first, but it was a nightmare to retime things. I think that with a few small changes, Fusion would be almost as good as AE for motion graphics though, while keeping all the benefits of a node based compositor. Some of these may be possible already, but I just haven't learned about them yet: - Easily make collapsible node groups / nested node graphs. You could then sort your "layers" into collapsed node graphs. This would solve the problem of a massive, un-navigable node graph - Merge node with unlimited inputs. PixaFlux has this awesome merge node with unlimited inputs. Each layer is just composited onto the next. It saves SO much space on the graph. - Sensible, intuitive merge options. What does an apply mode of "Normal" with an Operator of "In" mean? I have no idea, so I have to memorize what different things do. It would be so much easier to just have "Add" "Subtract" and "Multiply." - Nodes with multiple outputs. How about an RGBA split and combine? Or keyer nodes that output the image and the matte as separate outputs? - I still haven't figured out how to manually adjust tracking markers, or how to redo a portion of a track.

Is it fusion specifically or node workflows in general that is baffling? I continue to find fusion's nodes unintuitive for very basic operations (compared to nodes in other software).

I never notice a difference between 4k and 1080p for distribution even on a large 4k tv. However, with every camera that I have used or edited footage from, downscaled 4k for a 1080p delivery is significantly better than natively shooting 1080p. For capture, I think 4k is without a doubt "worth it" in terms of SD card and disk space, and processing power--unless you need a very quick turnaround and don't much about image fidelity. 4k is also very useful for green screening, motion tracking, and other information-hungry VFX processes, especially if you downscale to 1080p afterwards. On the other hand, I can't honestly say I see a difference between downscaled 4k and native 1080p after YouTube compression. But FWIW it's a fairly well known trick to upscale 2k to 4k just to get a higher bitrate on YouTube, if the bandwidth supports it at the streaming end.

Krita is also great and does seem to have an active development community. It seems more geared towards creating artwork from scratch, with a phenomenal brush engine and great graphics tablet support. I find Gimp quicker and more intuitive for simple photo touchup with the clone and heal tools, but it could also just be that I have used it more.

You're welcome! Reaper is an incredibly flexible tool that has more features and capabilities than you see at first glance. Kenny Gioia's reaper tutoroals on Youtube are a fantastic place to start also.

AE: Fusion. It's not as nice for motion graphics, but much better for compositing. It's still usable for motion graphics. Fusion's tracker is phenomenal, though I still haven't quite gotten the hang of manually adjusting tracking points yet. Audition: Reaper. Reaper completely replaces Audition multitracking, and mostly replaces the audio editor. Reaper's builtin noise reduction plugin isn't as good as Audition's, but that really the only downside I've found. Reaper works very well with VST (and other) plugins, so a third party noise reduction plugin could even out the difference. RawTherapee is fantastic for RAW photo processing. Gimp is my goto for photo editing.

I do accept that, what I'm saying is that his signature style makes me less likely to enjoy the film.

Ah, the old "it's bad, but intentionally so." Solo was too dark in many scenes, and it wasn't a question of not calibrating my TV, or watching on an ipad, or even compression. I saw it on blu ray on a 60" TV that is within reasonable calibration, in a dark room. It's funny because the Godfather, a movie famous for "underexposure," is so much easier on the eyes--because it's not about darkening a scene, it's about lighting it so that the viewer gets the impression of darkness. ...is exactly right.