KnightsFan

I've never used AF. Most shoots there are 2 people on camera, so someone pulls focus with a wireless unit. And I can pull focus for myself if not. Any log format that is supported by Resolve's color is ideal. I haven't used everything out there so I'm not going to try to give brand generalizations. Honestly the NX1 was the camera that gave me the best results SOOC, but I can't recommend a discontinued series from 10 years ago. The S5 works really well for me now. The XT3 was great, but if I recall correctly there were issues with FLog in Resolve for a while, so I almost always used HLG and was happy with it. I haven't shot with any modern blackmagic cameras, but I from what I see in other people's footage, they have the best color with their end-to-end color management. Again, that's not personal experience. If you need to get good Rec709 color SOOC I'm not the best reference, as everything I've ever shot has had time for coloring. Another factor that maybe I should state explicitly is that Resolve is the only color software that I like. Assuming you're using a decently nice camera with color management, good software will speed up the color process more than the difference between Sony FX6 and Canon C70.

Yes, 10 bit log is extremely flexible, so you can get similar color from most modern cameras. I say modern because sensors are better now than they used to be. My one extra note is that I find that the most important thing is to nail your white balance. Many cameras that I have used look way better if you manually set them to a white balance setting, rather than balance to a card. My Panasonic S5 in particular looks terrible balanced to a card. So I always shoot 5600K and correct it later. If you do correct it in post, it's best to use color management and do the corrections in linear gamma. If I recall, my old NX1 actually looked great balanced to a the same white card. So it definitely varies by camera. I love Fuji's color. I'm not overjoyed by Panasonic's SOOC Rec709 (but am happy with VLog when I have at least 2 minutes to color it). But in a broad sense and with possible exceptions, I am happy with any camera made after 2018 that cost more than $2k at launch. I really disliked older Sonys and Panasonics, but that is no longer true. Speaking specifically about color, being able to use Resolve color management is huge. It is faster and better than using LUTs to move between color spaces. Other than that, the only real consideration is the time/quality ratio. How fast can I get to the image I want, or, on the other end, how fast can I get to an image that can be turned in by the deadline. Like you mentioned in your first sentence, images can be made similar, but the question is how quickly. Speaking about the entire system, compatibility is my #1 concern. Lenses, batteries, audio, rigs--these all have to work together. I've put a lot of effort into things like "put a right angle XLR on the bottom of a boom pole so that it can be set down without damaging the cable." All my lenses are EF. All of them have 77mm filter threads. That sort of thing matters a lot. Typically, I will do plenty of tests ahead of time. I'll build color nodes in Resolve before the project begins, so I know what settings to use on set, and roughly what I'll do in post. If you have that kind of preparation, the camera used does not matter as much. I think 10 years ago, Canon reigned. The 5D3 was much better than Panasonics and Sonys back then. Nowadays I don't think it holds anymore. But that's all subjective.

My thoughts exactly. Actually, all I want is a Z Cam E2-F6 with faster readout, and if I'm really making wishes then I want Resolve to include Zlog2 color management. Other than that, the F6 is my perfect camera, because it sort of has what you describe: a tiny menu screen, builtin low latency USB/Wifi monitoring, and plenty of 1/4-20's.

It's overkill for a menu navigation screen. 1500 nit, 4", 1080p display--it's got to be drawing like 15 watts. It's probably a higher quality/more expensive panel than most budget monitors out there, and it's poor placement for anything other than checking settings. I'm not saying it's a poisonous design choice, but it is not a good one. It would be cool, for example, if they had interchangeable side panels on both left and right, and some kind of connector so that either of the side panels had the screen + buttons. Then you could choose which side, and maybe later they could make a side panel with a foldout screen. The lower cost option is to have a kit with no screen at all, for people using their own monitor. Just two metal side panels. My guess is they'd start with the budget end, so a 2 or 3 channel recorder. Blackmagic is uniquely positioned as they own the camera, file format, video/audio software, and hardware. They could design something modular that works both standalone, or mounted on a camera, or in their massive lineup of live production hardware.

I'm shopping for a cinema camera at the moment, so here are my thoughts on the Pyxis. Tl;dr it doesn't quite fit my needs, so my main hope is that it drives used prices on other cameras down. Price No objection there! It's very reasonable Image Rolling shutter speed is a let down. Otherwise, image is fantastic, assuming it is in fact identical to their previous FF camera as Petty said. Blackmagic has some of the best color out there, particularly considering how it carries through to Resolve. DR and noise are fine. Recording Formats Disappointing. I'd like a 10 bit consumer codec. ProRes would be welcome too. But, if you're stuck with one format, BRAW is a good one. It's disappointing but not a deal breaker. Body Design +1 for L mount. It'll be easy to add an adapter with NDs. All my lenses are EF, so really I just want to be able to get them on, ideally with NDs. Ports and connectivity look decent. No real complaints. A few years ago, lack of HDMI would be a con because it limited you to pro monitors, but there are lots of affordable SDI monitors now. The interchangeable side panel is really cool. I could even 3D print my own panel to hold my exact gear (wireless TC, mic receiver, etc). I love how many threaded holes are on the top and bottom. Other than that, ergonomics are... okay. I dislike the side screen. It's useless without flipping out, and blocks left side rigging. It's better than blocking rear rigging, but I do prefer putting handles on both left and right for handheld. If you're going to have a large, fixed screen, maybe Red had the right idea putting it on the top. Where Can BM Go? One thing I can't live without anymore is wireless video monitoring. I know you can add a 3rd party product, but that's extra weight, batteries, latency, wires... I really hoped BM would do something similar this time, since they have an iOS app and are moving into wireless streaming devices. All BM had to do was say "high quality wireless monitoring on an app" and I'd have preordered (side screen and everything!) Z Cam simply got it right, and no one competes with them yet. It's time we saw high quality 32 bit audio in cinema cameras. The Zoom F3 has been game changing to me. One con to 32 bit audio is varying support in file formats and software. However, Blackmagic controls both the BRAW format and Resolve software so that wouldn't be an issue. Even a single 32 bit XLR would instantly make the camera that much easier to use on solo doc projects. My pipe dream was for Blackmagic to integrate a wireless receiver into their camera. I'd love to run a camera body and a couple transmitters, and have synced, distortion-free audio without any extra gain knobs, cables, boxes, or batteries. BM hasn't ventured into audio... yet. It's got to happen at some point, right? Now they have the whole Fairlight system. Obviously, a faster sensor readout.

Agreed. It's probably feasible to swap mounts between Pyxis models, but voids the warranty. BM probably manufactures the models exactly the same, with just that part different. Conceivably, they have some annoying firmware difference to prevent electronics from working, but that would be so difficult for them to manage for FW updates.

Yeah I mean obviously they aren't manufacturing their own drives in house. I just can't tell if they are saying, "buy M.2 drives and put them in our caddy" or if they are encouraging (or worse, enforcing) branded drives. There are 4 drives per caddy, but I'm not sure whether it's a RAID array or another redundancy. They mentioned the 4x4 lanes make 16... so I don't know if that implies that at max data rates it needs to stripe data to keep up. I guess best case the reason they decided to make a caddy is that it would be hazardous to change M.2's on a set. But it does raise my suspicions as soon as someone makes a branded connector for a generic part.

Wow, what a set of releases! The Resolve 19 presentation was pretty amazing. The audio panning tool in particular looked pretty sweet. Overall, I find the Fairlight tab to be rather unusable. Compared to Reaper, it's much harder to see large projects particularly compared to Reaper's amazing keyframe visualization and track parenting. So I'm probably going to stick with Reaper for large audio projects. And then on the visual side, a whole slew of AI based tools that look like a lot of fun. Some of the tracking tools looked pretty great, as do the new color plugins. Ursa Cine looks like a pretty sweet camera. I like the USB EVF solving both power and data at once, without proprietary connectors. I wish/hope that there can be an open standard for it, so other manufacturers can make interchangeable EVFs in that system. I can't say I'm that enthusiastic about the data rates required for 12k, but I guess it's the future. The footage looks good in any case. I'm glad they switched back to a larger, 5" 1080p screen, up from the rather smaller and lower res one on the UMP models. The screen on the old Ursa Mini 4K was nice to use. I'm a little confused on the media drives. I can't tell if they are off the shelf, user-replaceable M.2 cards (that's how it looks) or something more proprietary (which is what Grant Petty implied verbally). I'm intrigued by the USB ports along the right side, for "3rd party accessories". The Pyxis looks alright. I'm a little disappointed that they kept the 6k sensor from the previous camera, but it's what I expected. Keeping the accessory ecosystem from the Ursa Cine is great. I love the interchangeable side panel. For $3k, I don't think I would buy it over the Z Cam F6, with the main points being higher frame rate, H.265 options, interchangeable lens mount with eND option, and builtin wireless monitoring. I think the points in BM's favor are the screen, physical buttons, XLR connector, color, SDI, and timecode. Of those, color is the only one that I really care about and I don't know if it's that much better to justify the other cons.

S5 is definitely "better" image quality than GH5 imo, and that certainly factors into my choices, but technology is at a point where pretty much everything looks pretty good. So if all my lenses were MFT, or if GH5 had some other feature that I really needed, I'd be happy with GH5 as well. Better photographers than I might have a more nuanced look at photo ergonomics, but to me all hybrids are roughly the same amount of pain when rigged for a narrative shoot. For my amateur photography, every camera I touch reminds me that the NX1 was more comfortable 😞 The S5 has a great APS-C crop mode, which will pair nicely with your Sigma 18-35. You're already in the system, no pressure at all!

My opinion is to go for an S5. I got one a few months ago for about $800. That opinion is partially based on having owned and primarily shot on a MFT Z Cam for the past 3(?) years and using APS-C NX1/XT3 for the 5-6 years before that. I primarily shoot scripted narrative projects, and nature photography. The increased dynamic range and noise performance of the S5 over the GH5 is definitely a factor for me. Actually, for $800, I can't recommend the S5 enough, if you don't need AF. Absolutely wonderful camera for me. However, my choice of camera is primarily lenses, while you specifically said lenses are not a factor. I have many beautiful vintage photo lenses, and in general I've had an easier time finding modern, high quality FF lenses than APS-C or MFT lenses. It's hard to find a small sensor combo that matches the price/performance of (used) Sigma Art, Canon L, or Zeiss Milvus--keeping in mind that, for my use, autofocus is never in play. (The 18-35 is a standout lens, a notable exception to the generalization I just made) If you are set on real cinema lenses, a smaller sensor might be better. There are plenty of Super 35 options to choose from, and honestly the budget FF lenses (Meike, DZOFilm, etc) are optically rather lackluster in my opinion. If my plans this year go through and I shoot a lot more narrative content, I might look for a Super 35 cinema camera, because at that point we would rent high quality cinema lenses, and there are a lot of those available for Super 35. I don't know much about the S1, but the reason I got an S5 is that it weighs a lot less than the S1. It would be less fun to take an S1 on a backpacking trip.

Awesome! Have fun and good luck! I am also making a short film tomorrow. Definitely looking forward to hearing about how well your shoot went!

I totally understand paying for different software features, like separate purchases for raw recording, or log recording, or higher frame rates Subscriptions with monthly payments, on the other hand... how does that even work? Are there enough theoretical updates to warrant paying each month? I can't think of more than 1-2 software items I'd want updated on any camera I've owned. What can they do month after month? They can't increase dynamic range. So if the only updates are little things I either never use or work around easily, then I'd just unsubscribe. Not sure why I would pay for a subscription and not get functional updates that I care about. Unless the manufacturer shuts the camera off remotely if I don't pay monthly, which would of course be hideous, and I would never buy into that system. However... if the subscription model was like a constant rental, where you pay $x/month and you not only get software, but also hardware upgrades as they arrive, that might be a neat pricing model. When I buy a camera for X, sell it Y months later for Z, I always calculate my cost to own over that time period. If a manufacturer cuts out the buying and selling part, I see it as a win. For example, I could conceivably pay some fixed price per month to always have the latest Fuji XHx model--with some kind of future reporting on when new models will arrive and what they will have, of course. This is a very unlikely model for any company to move to, I'm just writing it out as something that would be interesting and actually pretty acceptable to me.

This. I have no interest in mirrorless cinema lenses locking me into a particular mount, particularly manual cinema lenses. Nikon lenses in PL mount, however, that would be extremely welcome.

I think the patent says 2k, not 4k and I don't think many people want to shoot <2k even for compressed raw. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8872933B2/en (A rumored reason is that the SI-2K, which existed prior to Red's patent, shot 1920x1080 cineform raw. Red added 80 pixels and stepped into history).

I fully support your endeavor! I'm not negative on what you're doing. Ideally it is best to standardize, I just worry that the list won't grow very large, because of the purchase requirement. Unless you can get buy in from a big reviewer who gets their hands on a lot of models (or maybe you are a reviewer who gets your hands on lots of models personally)

Sounds like either you or the other person measured it wrong (or possibly both of you did).

Here's my list https://outerspaceoatmeal.com/tools/RollingShutterComparison.html You can add or not , up to you. Most of my numbers come from DVXuser, CineD, and a couple from other primary sources where the test method has been shared. Global shutter cameras are self explanatory so I link to the product page. Yeah I mean it's ideal to always do it the same way, I'm just not sure many people will buy a specific arduino to fill out this table. Difference with DR is that it's extremely subjective. Rolling shutter is not. People can measure it incorrectly-- which they can do whatever their intended test method is -- but they can't measure it correctly and then arrive at a different conclusion than someone else. Edit: And to be clear, measuring signal to noise ratio is also objective.

In that case none of my values will go into your table. Seems like a waste, though--it's a raw speed so there's no subjectivity.

Nice! I have my own database of rolling shutter values that I can get to you. The one column I would add to the table is the ratio of the rolling shutter to the frame rate. That value normalizes the skew per frame.

I have no idea who licenses what anywhere in the industry lol. Between Nikon buying Red, Blackmagic joining the L mount alliance, several global shutter cameras announced in quick succession, and AI video generation/editing taking off, I do think this might be the point at which I least recommend buying a brand new camera. 2024 might be a big year for market shifts.

Probably Nikon has wanted to acquire a cinema company for a while. When Nikon first announced Z mount, they mentioned cinema a lot, but never backed that up with a full feature set. There were little things, like the tripod locating pin (so critical for solid cinema rigs). And of course supporting Raw outputs. But Nikon didn't make the big jumps, like timecode, internal NDs, XLRs. Maybe they wanted to, but didn't quite have the tech, personnel, etc. and buying out a smaller company was the easiest option. So really there are three possible futures. 1. Red's tech moves to Nikon's mirrorless cameras. Redcode perhaps, accessory compatibility e.g. their new EVF, the global shutter sensors. 2. Nikon's tech moves to Red. Z mount, autofocus, or even simple things like LCD screens, mirrorless-size EVFs. And the other huge category: lenses. Perhaps some of Nikon's excellent optics will find their way into cinema housings, either in PL or Z mount. 3. Nothing changes, but Nikon owns a more diversified product line

That was a Z Cam E2-M4. I saw similar results with the XT3 back when I used that primarily. Fwiw, I also saw similar color issues comparing Canon 5D3 8 bit vs magic lantern Raw. The color blocks are most obvious in relatively uniform gradients, such as skies. This tree shot isn't the best viewing since it's so busy with high frequency changes, but you can still see it pretty easily when you zoom to 100% or view on a 4K monitor, especially in motion. Most obvious is the greenish splotch in the bottom area that I highlighted, and the upper highlighted area has red and green splotches. If it's not a big enough deal for what you do, then great! To me, it's a big enough deal, since I have the option of 10 bit. There's no downside: file size is the same, and I've never encountered overheating on any camera ever (shooting narrative I take relatively short clips with time in between). That's not to say the difference is uber important... I mean I am splitting hairs about something that has very little bearing on the final product. I'm posting here to show what the difference is not to tell you that it matters for you. All else being equal, I'll always use 10 bit on the cameras I've tested.

I don't know if this is universal, or just the cameras I've tested, but I've found that recording 8 bit produces blocky color artifacts that are visible even without log recording or color grading. See my example in the other thread, and note that the comparison is with roughly equivalent bitrate (In this particular example, the 10 bit file ended up slightly smaller but within a couple %).

When people talk about motion cadence, I think it's a conflation of many possible sources, where rolling shutter is just one piece and is often not the prominent one. The various motion problems I have identified are below. I don't see a lot of discussion on 4, 5, and 6 on film forums. I see stuff about 4 every now and then. Obvious Settings 1. Frame rate (24 vs 30 vs etc) 2. Shutter speed Sensor Tech 3. Rolling shutter 4. Weird artifacts almost like double exposures. My camera explicitly has a mode that captures at two shutter speeds simultaneously for higher dynamic range. I've seen artifacts like that on other cameras, but not advertised as a specialty mode. Display Issues 5. Display scan rate, frame rate, ghosting, trails. Some screens scan slowly, like rolling shutter on the display end. Others have ghosting effects, where the previous frame is still slightly visible, or trails. I see a lot more information about displays on video game tech sites, rather than film tech sites. Refresh rate, as mentioned earlier, includes pull downs or judder, to fit nondivisible integers. 6. Decode speed (laggy motion with H.265 on older computers, and stutter from high bitrate files on old mechanical drives).

Yup, it was always amusing when people watched 24p on a 60 fps monitor and claimed it looks better than 30p. Maybe some people like the effect of pulldowns or frame blending, but to me it's a strong BS indicator. I am fortunate enough to have a 120 fps monitor, which is a great number because it's divisible by 24, 30, and 60. It's great that high refresh rates on our screens are the norm now! I really dislike rolling shutter. It's one of my least favorite imperfections. I'm not saying "global shutter or bust" but the faster the better, and 10ms is around the cutoff where I'm happy. Quick controlled pans don't bother me so much as the vague wobble when it's on a steadicam, or handheld. My favorite movies to make have plenty of action, running, fighting, etc. so it's way more present to me than for most corporate or wedding shooters. I'd sacrifice a stop of DR and noise from modern full frame sensors to get rs in the 5 ms range instead of the 20ms range. The nice thing is that plenty of budget cinema cameras have fast readouts these days, like the UMP 4.6k G2, FX6, and of course Komodo.