Skip77

That filmmaker Steven testimony seems fishy. He claims to be talking about digital specs like he's reading the back of cake mix ingredients. No one was talking about detailed specs that RED was using when the RED ONE came out in 2006-07. It's as if he's reading the patient page word for word. ProRes RAW is Apple. Seems like Apple doesn't want road blocks from RED or RED has already started fighting Apple in some way. Seems like you're right on the shitty codec comment. That's seems to be why Atomos championed ProRes RAW out to their recorders. And we all blamed the camera makers.

You only have to use Resolve for color grading, then edit down and transcode the footage out to ProRes HQ. Then FCPX or PP. It's not the issue most make it out to be. Resolve has killer color grading set up that blow FCPX and PP away. But for editing Resolve is not fast enough for me. And I love FCPX.

What?

Man this P6K footage is so bad and vidoish. Wow the P4K looks like a baby camera next to the P6K footage.

You say you can forgive RED as a company if they give your RedCode in a cheaper body. RedCode is not that different from CanonCode and SonyCode. They all handle the code themselves and you've fallen for the RedCode marketing. What about ArriCode? That fish took that bait hook line and sinker. Let's charge 10K more and call it RedCode and then market to guys that will buy anything.

Yup - smooth as silk. Just like I said.

Cars are more of a necessity than the RED camera. And other camera companies do it right.

The RED mini mag card controversy is 100% greed driven. And the mop up that RED does to save face is also an issue. RED is nothing but smoke and mirrors right now. Major brand and major companies don't always go together.

The difference today with RED and the past is public sentiment has changed and turned against them. I've worked with many DP's that are jumping to Blackmagic because of the cost and practices that RED uses. RED is losing what used to be loyal costumers. RED is running on it's name and name only right now.

I won't be giving RED anymore of my money. I can read between the lines and they're just not good people. They started out great and then got greedy and dishonest.

Every cine camera company writes it's own code. This isn't a new thing. You bought into it and pay for it.

You missed the point PAL. The deal is if you read the post I mad and the ones from the older Motion cadence is when you break down and look at what camera produce good motion cadence, you realize it's not about 24fps and 1/48s but as @Oliver Daniel wrote: "It's no coincidence that expensive cinema cameras (and BM cams) have this motion cadence (very high shutter readout, RAW and ProRes, high bit rate) and consumer cameras do not at all (besides the 5D Mk 3 Magic Lantern)." "So in a nutshell, for beautiful motion cadence, shoot in RAW at 24p and 1/48s with a very fast rolling shutter /global shutter, with manual "proper" cine lenses and finish in ProRes. Come think of it, I now find my post pointless, as I thought we all knew that anyway!! " I clearly wrote about the same-thing as Oliver, not a well, but the same. You guys decided you didn't like my tone or the words I used. You even posted a dork posting about ND filters on a iPhone. So you can keep posting and then run it back with "I'm sorry everyone for posting again". I made my point clear with the help of @Oliver Daniel older post. "expensive cinema cameras (and BM cams) have this motion cadence (very high shutter readout, RAW and ProRes, high bit rate)"

Any idea when this will get a proper release date? Not sure if this was asked but "Who on here would buy the RED Komodo" if the price is right? Say it's $6,500?" Would you buy it? I remember lot's of DP's buying the RED ONE and being the "rent the camera and the DP at the same time deal". The problem was the market was flooded with REDS. Heck even Rosco P Coltrane from Dukes of Hazard bought a bunch of RED ONES that he rented out. Did you ever use the RED ONE yourself? And what cameras do you use now?

I bumped this thread because it has good information that previous posters took the time to debate and comment on. If you don't want to post fine. Not sure you need to announce a deleted comment.

You are wrong again as usual. You try to store things up and make false accusations. My posted with footage started on page 17 I posted footage from the P6K and said "There has to be more data being captured at a better scan rate then the P4K." and And what you and everyone else has been saying is who needs, who can work with and 6K is not better then the P4K with a speed-booster. This footage shows the P6K is more cinematic then the P4K." You can think the others for not letting someone have an opinion. No one brought facts they were just annoyed that I said the P6K looked better then the P4K. Motion cadence was first mentioned by Crivase on page 15

@Oliver Daniel wrote: "Lenses with a smooth rendering, regarded "creamy" So why tell me why you have issue with me saying smooth as silk but @Oliver Daniel can say ""Lenses with a smooth rendering, regarded "creamy" and you have no issue with it. And of course I used the word smooth as silk to describe 50fps. I never said all film motion is smooth as silk. I said film motion cadence is captured natural in film. You can apologize for being an hypocritical ass and posting nonsense that you don't do to others.

My motion cadence comments are not about shutter speed or shutter angle setting but purely on sensor readout and processing. I never commented on the correct settings used for motion because that's a given. Here's a short thread about motion cadence. Where is your funny comment and post in that thread? Black Magic is mentioned as having very good motion cadence. This was posted by SAM a few years back. (No not Sam from Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park) What surprised me, even though the clips were synced, there appears to be drift by some of the cams. And not the kind where one or more of the pendelum shots either pull ahead or fall behind the others due to a tiny difference in frame rates like 23.98 vs 24. The clips seem to be drifting minutely ahead in one frame and then getting slightly behind in another and so on through out the clip, but they start and finish all together. What's easiest to see is the impact of rolling shutter. And we've all seen at least one of the multitude of rolling shutter tests involving cmos sensors. In the discussions that revolve around these tests, someone usually chimes in with "well the Alexa has a cmos sensor" and then the conversation turns to "faster read out speed" This, http://tessive.com/mechanical-shutter-comparison/ , which many of us have seen before, at least outlines a difference, stark or otherwise. Whether this is part of what people notice, or not? ________________________________________________________________ Good stuff talked about before. You had some great information on "motion cadence" that goes way back before 2014 I believe. Can you add some additional input on the subject? Here's what you posted before - @Oliver Daniel Posted April 22, 2018 @jonpais, I recently submitted a broadcast file via the Universal Records system and you have to pass numerous quality checks. One of them, is motion cadence. You can't submit a video that has 4:1 cadence, which has 4 progressive frame of video, and every 5th frame is a repeat of the 4th frame. (This is more to do with people using content shot at a lower frame rate (like 24fps), and converting it to 30fps incorrectly). They are preventing the video motion from looking unusual or low quality with this check. I'm in NO WAY WHATSOEVER a camera technician or scientist but I'll explain my understanding. Apart form the obvious frame rate / shutter speed / global shutter / codecs influence on motion cadence, all cameras capture and interpret frames differently. Some cameras may capture in a "false progressive" (interlaced frames which mimics progressive video), frame capture that is made up of some progressive frames or some interlaced, or cameras that have a truly progressive frame capture. Now there's motion blur. Motion cadence on modern TV's is destroyed because they are defaulted to a special motion setting (like TruMotion), which manufactures say makes the images look clearer and smoother. The setting when turned "On" makes the image feel like there's a bunch of new frames thrown in, eradicating motion blur and giving us the dreaded "soap opera effect". With all of this considered, an attractive, cinematic motion cadence is the ability to capture full progressive frames smoothly with intricate motion blur (as long as your frame rate is half your shutter and if it's global then BONUS!). To do this, you must start with the right codec first (the best of which, to my experience, is uncompressed RAW converted to ProRes). It's no coincidence that expensive cinema cameras (and BM cams) have this motion cadence (very high shutter readout, RAW and ProRes, high bit rate) and consumer cameras do not at all (besides the 5D Mk 3 Magic Lantern). An external factor I find is the lens. A lens with electronic contacts with I.S and all that jazz, usually overly sharp and contrasty, hurt motion cadence. I feel it's because they heighten the "electronic" factors (sharpening, aliasing, moire, noise, jittery look). Lenses with a smooth rendering, regarded "creamy", very often manual glass and high T-stop really smooths out the motion of the image and hides the electronic factors that make our images digital looking. So in a nutshell, for beautiful motion cadence, shoot in RAW at 24p and 1/48s with a very fast rolling shutter /global shutter, with manual "proper" cine lenses and finish in ProRes. Come think of it, I now find my post pointless, as I thought we all knew that anyway!! ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's bump this up to today's date. Back in the days when the EOS debated in friendly talk. Shall we play a game?

Motion cadence is NOT motion blur. Who taught you that? That's 100% what motion cadence is not. And cinematographers that use the C200 or C300 or RED would laugh at you. Of course you use ND filters when you need them. Motion cadence issues are not based on what shutter speed you use. It has to do with the camera, sensor and processor ability. Shooting at 24fps, iso 800 and shutter speed of 50 for the RED, P6K and GH5 will give you the same results if each camera can keep up. You actually don't understand what good motion cadence actually is. The difference between cameras is night and day if you know what to look for. It's not talked about today because of the VIDEO you posted of yourself talking about jacked iPhones and ND filters and what you sell online. Are you also really basing your information on another message board talk forum about camera pans? Really? You have zero experience to pull from? It depends on the speed of the pan and distance but it's a data issues not a glitch in 24fps. But shooting at 24fps and 180 degree shutter 7 seconds of someone walking across the street doesn't give you a "stutter" in the footage at the 7 second mark. In the cine world changing the "shutter angle" is not the first thing you do when fighting with light and exposure. IN the DSLR, mirrorless and iPhone, ND filters online r us world, shutter speed is the first thing they change.

From your link "In shots that do exhibit undesirable judder there's always post motion flow and blurring effects". Judder is not stutter and show me in motion film where that "stutter" is the you say exist? What exist is sensors and cameras today can't process the information. It's not a stutter in 24fps.

Cine cameras don't have shutter speeds as they have shutter angles. Why wouldn't you know this if you posted this guys video? Motion cadence in cameras has to do with the processor and sensor read out. The GH5 has the perfect glitch when panning left and right. Not sure if they fixed it. The sample video and information is not about motion cadence from the P6K or P4K.

Motion film done correctly captures natural motion cadence. Have you found a better way to capture motion in the industry? So is the film community really torn between the P4K and the new P6K release? Or are you all afraid to post because I said how good the P6K footage looks?

It would be awesome if you would talk about motion cadence and if you think the P6K produces this better then the P4K as I originally stated. Smooth as silk is not an industry term and was what I called the 50fps. Motion film that we see on the big screen and on classic tv and classic movies captures motion cadence perfectly. If you disagree then say so. We have no visible stutter when watching 24fps motion pictures and for you to keep saying that we do is false. The job of film and or digital film is to capture motion that we see naturally with out eyes. Our eyes don't have a stutter built in and 24fps doesn't have one. This is true for film and animation. Any stutter you see in recorded video is when a camera isn't able to capture motion cadence correctly.

Can you speak in your native tongue ? I can't understand your writing? Your point was I have to earn respect to get the correct feedback. You wrote it in broken English, what your doing now is back tracking..............

I'm not looking for credit or to be liked on this board. People can agree or not agree. You comment above proves Mattias posted a junk comment with nothing to back it up because I'm the one that said the P6K is more cinematic then the P4K. Thanks for proving my point that he post was with out substance. Motion film does not have a stutter. You are flat out wrong. Just because TV's have a setting to deal with motion blur does not prove film has a stutter. If you were right it would be more of an issue then me and you talking about motion cadence. And at 50 fps the RED and P4K and C200 capture natural motion cadence correctly.