Skip77

It's very odd that cinematographers and DP's on this forum keep questioning 4K and why it's needed and the norm. This is our craft and passion. When we hit that RED record button we are capturing the moment, the sunset over the Grand Canyon or that one and only take for the next blockbuster movie. We should all champion 4K and beyond if not only for capturing those moments in glorious 4K detail. It's not 4K's fault all 4K is not equal. But this has been going on forever since film vs 8mm debate was started. We are stuck in the smartphone 4K, compact camera 4K, all the way up to cine line up cameras. We all want that organic look from 4K on our phones but that's not how it works. You don't have to be a technology nut to figure out why 4K is needed and relevant. It's not about seeing your 4K footage at the movie theater but it is about the future. Once streaming and displays align and catch up all this 4K content that's been created will get new life and be discovered again. Streaming companies need content and if the content created now was only 1080p, then that content becomes irrelevant when everyone is ready for 4K. That 2.8K is 120fps. Doesn't the RED and other cine cameras do the same as the fps go up?

Can you be clear? Which video is from the 6K and 4K models in one edit? I thought you said and questioned why no footage from the P6K. Can you reaffirm that BMD does have footage from the P6K on their site?

How much you guys wanna bet BMD P6K is more future proof then you think? You all missed the fact that we all stream 2k and 4K content over the web to devices that show more detail and better quality then your flat panel above your fireplace. As I stated above, the Netflix and streaming content providers are the reason 6K and 8K matter. If you're watching that NFL game or soccer game live then that 50in flat panel is the way to go because they stream in 4K. But for tv and movies and original content streaming is the way everything is going. It's all about cutting the cord. Now I'm all good and support getting the best 4k cameras and streaming options available and agree the demand for 8K in not what most people want. But it's a different time right now with 4K to 8K then when we went jumped from 720p to 1080p and then to 4K. @Emanuel have you watched "The Last Kingdom" on Netflix? If so what did you think?

1861 thru 1865 is a long time ago. I edited my comment because it's not on topic. I will kindly always try to inform someone who doesn't live in the U.S. about what it's like in the U.S. @webrunner5 is 100% correct about the ethnic and cultural make up of the U.S. It's not just one way in the south and one way in the north or the west. The media wants to paint Texas one way and Cali another way. And yes the make up is different but not when you take a deep dive into each area. And across the U.S. everyone does get along. Go read webrunner5 comments about where he lives and what he said and ask your self if that's what the media reports. Your comments / threads are open to everyone one to comment on, yes? I know you were talking about EU imports and you jumped and changed the topic with webrunner5. I know more about living in the U.S. then you do and that's not up for debate. I get what you're saying about 4K being mainstream but it really is mainstream right now. Not on your TV at home but on computers. This is were we see every detail that 4K has to offer. When we see Netflix on the computer at 1080p we see the detail that you don't get after direct tv or cable compressed the signal. A 27in iMac or 27 or higher 4K computer monitor is how 4K and 6K come into play and we are already ready for 4K over the internet. 2k to 4k to 6k mostly is about viewing the same content on bigger screens. The outlets for 4K have changed and will only get better and the 50in flat panel at home is not the best way to view compressed 4K.

What's next for BMD? And high end cameras and does the 6K take sales away from the other BMD lineup.

Don't believe the media. It's safe in America and just as safe as the U.K. Every country has it's problems. I don't have a negative opinion of the U.K. and would love to travel and visit.

The burst rate and AF on the S1H will be worse them the S1, so for a still camera the S1 is lacking a lot and last in it's class. No one is buying the S1H for photography. Yes it is brilliant. BM just toasted the m4/3 sensor and nailed the first nail. I love what they did with the P6K. Glad I didn't buy the P4K. BM just beat the A7SIII before it even came out. WOW!

I'm glad you posted the video. Orange/Teal is not what we see everyday but it does fill in the gaps with how cameras record color. The reason Canon color is so loved is because it knows what to do and I would say borrows from orange and teal. LUTS and color science is a mixture of color working together, a color palette that cameras work from. This is why cameras are not equal when it comes to color.

This is true. But in natural light we don't control the shadows. Also what's wrong with his test is that cameras don't reproduce what we see. Go see how much light it takes to make that black paper turn white in real life. It's easy to do with a camera and off course it will blow out the light and turn the black paper white. Things also change with skin tone and shadows. I will watch again but I'm not sure he talks about reflective light that also affects shadow color. Color in the shadows has to be looked at from real life and from a master painter eye. Camera optics don't tell the truth. This is why we chase gear so much.

That's for the input. My callout for input on that video was feedback on the Z6 camera and lens that he used. Nothing else and I pointed that out. I don't want anyone to critique that guys work or choice of subject matter. It's obvious he shot run and gun in natural light. I want the Z6 to produce great image quality because I have one and believe in it but I am also looking for feedback other then "it sucks ass" when someone gives feedback on footage. I thought shadow detail and color mattered and highlight rolloff and a ton of other things that people can point out when reviewing footage. I have worked on high production content. I can get those shots in those vimeo video you posted. I'm a creative director / director and artist. My comments on learning were about cameras and lenses. I want to learn about these cameras and lenses and which ones can do what. Can the Z6 and S1 give you the look that the Vimeo video does? That's what I want to know. Other then that renting the gear and crew is no issue. You need to vision first. You need to creative and creative eye to pull that content off. You post has some great information it. I love the shot at 2:07 mark. How much higher is the main subject over the signers in the background?

It's weird that we really don't have many deep dives into really comparing what these cameras can or can't do. We have carts and tech test but not much that actually push the camera in real world test. It all matters. That why I posted links and asked opinions. I don't care if people don't like my comments or not, I want to learn about cameras and it seems many people just want o find what's negative and then they won't stop commenting. Not many people take memorable photographs or video content. Not many people are capturing the moment.

Thru out the video 90% of the scenes have blacks that reach black levels. You took one scene from the whole video. The one you referenced looks like he made a choice between blowing out the tent and bringing it down. The image above is rich with data information. Dark, middle and light tones are present. He said he shots flat and this shows you can move the footage around. Underexposed scenes? Under-graded maybe. Most cinematographers shoot their exposure don to protect the highlights and keep tonal value on the subject. Nothing looks underexposed where he pulled it back up and footage fell apart. I looked at the 200$ EOSHD challenge and the cadence and video data recorded can't keep up. Thanks you for your input and feedback. This might be the first discussion in months about video quality.

I posted this to show non cine Nikon lens. That is in topic. What faded blacks ? The black level goes to the darkest dark on the grey scale and nice middle tones up to highlights. What is faded blacks anyway? Do you mean when the darks are lifted and darks aren't black but 2-3 values up? That's not what this footage is. You gotta do better then that. What exposure issues? I am asking because I want to learn. Not very much teal and orange applied to this footage. It has a look but even Sony color would show throw with this grade. I think you have Nikon bias going on a little. I've seen horrible footage from the GH5 that people wet their pants over. Did I mis the area that people discuss real footage? Sorry for the rant it's just that I don't see anyone talking about real footage. Thanks for the input.

I did not film those videos or part of that channel. Please give more details about the footage looking only pretty good. That's what I signed up to EOS Only on the technical side. The footage looks full and deep to me like the Canon 1DX footage or P4K. Sky isn't blow out, great color.

What do you think of this footage? It's shot on the Z6 with Nikon lens. (adaptor). If this looks off or more video then cinematic let me know. A good set of cine glass is a must at some point.

Nice review of the Z6, S1, A7III and EOS-R Here's some great Z6 footage. Classic case were AF follow focus through the touch screen beats manual focus. (Beats as in much easy and you can just get the shot and worry about the shot). This footage compares to the P4K and C200 in my eyes. Looks rich and deep data rate coverage.

Re-compression only brings out the information on the original. Except for banding issues re-compression doesn't push everything off the deep end. What gear and lenses did you go with? What was the lesson learned?

The thing about cine lens vs non cine Nikon, Canon, etc photography lens is that sometimes the photography lens has abetter image and clarity and almost zero breathing over some cine lens. I'm not talking $3K and up priced cine lens either. Lot's of DP's don't love the Canon prime cine lens and you might just get better video image quality from a great photography lens. And the comments about cine lens being more reliable is bunk. That's got a tone of noise in it. Very magenta with lots of noise in the shadows and background. How's the video? Does that noise hold together?

I'm sure webrunner is a good guy.

Webrunner5 must need a new person to attack, curse at and call a bastard. I don't get that guy at all. Life is not a tough guy act that you bully people if they have a different opinion. And if my Dad was alive and saw the exchange you had with webrunner5 and the picture you posted to him, my Dad would say hell ya Mercer, it's about time. I get runner5 is old school and giving advice but in 2019 there is not 1 (one) way to do things anymore. Everything you guys have different opinions about have trade offs. Cine lens vs Zoom lens. Both can get the job done and it comes down to budget and what you have to work with. I will be visiting a local rental house and will be taking my Z6 and testing out some cine glass and do some comparisons. Stay tuned. What gear are you shooting with?

I had one poster continue to say the Z6 footage was horribly bad or sucks ass and sometimes you just have people that hate Nikon or hate Panasonic. It looks like the thread started as a hate Panasonic one. The S1 has really good looking video footage.

And Nikon is just a cool brand. I never even looked at Nikon because I needed video. That changed when I got better video footage then the FS7 (and DP I hired) on a multi day video shoot. The Nikon has better color then the FS7. The Z6 with adapted Nikon lenses gives you more lens selections then you will ever need. And for professional video rent or buy cine lens.

Get those while they last. Prices will jump when 12 bit RAW comes out. The A9 was down to $3,500 with $1,000 discount before the new updates came out.

Nikon is innovating with the Z camera series and lens. They have quality in camera and glass and they pushed the 10 bit full frame market farther then anyone had. That's innovation because they didn't have to do that with video. They have also updated and improved AF and added EYE AF. Nikon has more of the camera market share then Sony. And Sony lost market share with 3 new full frame brands hitting the market. Nikon makes tons of money in the health imaging industry and semi conductor. Companies make money on the lenses they make and long therm buyers. Nikon owns the low market with Canon. If you go into Best Buy you see Nikon and Canon and 3 Sony cameras. Nikon will not stumble anymore and they have the brand that people still admire and look up too. Professionals and beginners use Nikon, and more then they use Sony.

S1 doesn't look WAY BETTER then the Z6. I haven't seen it in comparison footage. The Z6 you can lower the sharpness to - 3