SteveV4D

Real shoots with real clients.... wow that's amazing... as opposed to the rest of us who go on unreal shoots with unreal clients... you're are so in a league above everyone else on this forum... 😂😂 Tell me then, why are you using P4K and P6K. You don't need RAW as apparently the finished files end up in ProRes. The S1H sounds a better fit for your needs. Sure AF is poor, but a lot better than the Pockets. It has IBIS, its fullframe, full VLOG, timecode (useful on Professional shoots), and is Netflix approved when set to it's best codec. Why suffer a camera that is reducing your workflow by 40%, when there are already cameras out there that would better serve your needs. P4K and P6K are for people like me, on a low budget and can't afford the more expensive cameras. 😉 Though my clients are real too. I know, I've met them and they weren't imaginary. Does that mean my working for them counts as a real shoot too... ??? 🤔🤔

Destroy... destroy... destroy!!!! 😂😂😂 What you mean is that the R5 may well be a better camera for the work you're doing than the P6K... that's all. It's not what you're saying, it's how you say it that promotes these reactions from others. You sound like a hobbyist using cameras when you go off on one about one camera destroying another. What, will the R5 be attacking your P6K with a baseball bat? Destroy indeed. 😂😂😂

Oh I know smaller cameras get used by large production companies. Often because they are disposable or small enough to fit inside a narrow, tight space. Maybe I'm just naive though to think such large production companies are not shooting with cameras they're not familiar with, and making rookie mistakes with them, but if you're playing with the sort of money some larger movies have, why risk any longer, more cinematic shots on a camera that costs a fraction of their Red or Alexa. Sure for quick cutaways maybe. If the Canon 1DX Mark III is such a great camera for grading and colour, why bother with those pesky P4Ks and P6Ks, if you're a professional Production company using Reds. I mean I like them, I use my P4K all the time, but boy, you have to rig them to hell to make them work, with extra battery, cage, monitor if its outdoors. Better options are now out there for the sort of B shots needed these days, even compared to what was available when Mad Max Fury Road was being made. 10 bit in smaller mirrlorless cameras just didn't really exist then to the extent they are now. So you can understand their choice. Now an S1H with its timecode and Netflix approval, is a better choice for B camera for larger production companies. Especially if none can be bothered to make good use of RAW. Plus I'd wager the R5 will do just as well when released for those sort of jobs too. It's being touted by Canon as a great B camera for their C300 and C500.

I'm not sure if I was large studio, I'd be sending people out with Pocket 6Ks, or relying on footage go be produced by people not well versed in cameras strengths and weaknesses. I would have thought such cameras were reserved for the amateurs and smaller Production companies. The self employed Video producers. Still it's one reason I prefer not to be a part of a large studio, I prefer the control to rest in me from start to finish. I've always been that way. But it probably does mean, I have the luxury to shoot and edit in RAW that some production companies don't have. Though in my mind, I always felt they were more professional than that in their workflow.

I remember reading it a lot on the subject soon after the P4K was released. So much so, I got myself an IR filter soon after my camera arrived in December 2018. It was definitely talked about, with examples posted. It's a well documented issue.

I agree, issues grading P4K or P6K are in most cases user error in capturing the footage in the first place. I shoot BRAW with mine all the time as do nearly all other users whose work I see posted on Facebook and other forums. With its range of compression presets, theres little reason to go ProRes in my opinion, unless handing over footage to people who don't use Resolve, or prefer ProRes. I am interested in how RAW will be implemented in the R5. I've heard conflicting stuff about Canon and RAW from cameras like the C200. I'm not sure what to believe, over how useful a codec it is. Most Canon fanboys though are going nuts over 8K. I am more fascinated by RAW in 4K and the workflow using it.

Maybe we should debate which movie has the more accurate colour science and is easier to grade. Deep Impact or Armageddon.... 😂 I'm joking... let's not.. 😱

I like Deep Impact too. Though most prefer the other asteroid movie from that year. Maybe we should switch discussions to an Armageddon vs Deep Impact debate. Would be more fun. 😂😂

Fair point; I wasn't aware of this, not owning the cameras. Still I'm not sure this detail can be used to dismiss the entire test, or its relevance to video. My personal take is that such colour tests are like comparison videos on YouTube. They only tell half the story. However to dismiss one so easily whilst advocating the other in order to support your own opinion, is one area where I have an issue with Super8's responses.

Editing BRAW in Resolve is a dream compared to my H264 files I work with from my GH5 and GH5s. Editing H265 from my drone is even worse, but I think RAW on a Mavic Pro drone is a wish I shall be waiting a long time for. Thankfully I've never edited MJPEG files, not since the early days of video DSLR. The Nikon D90 I owned, which first introduced me to the idea of shooting video with a photo camera. That was almost 10 years ago. Video has progressed a lot since then. I'm almost reluctant to look at any camera now that uses H264 as it's codec. Though if my GH5(s) is set to all-i, it's workable. The only issue with ProRes and BRAW recording is power, which is frankly a pain.

It would seem so... see link https://www.eoshd.com/photo/shooting-with-the-canon-dream-lens-50mm-f0-95-on-my-sigma-fp/ I never knew Canon used a different colour science for Photography instead of the one they use for video. Wow... you really know things other people don't. 😂 I do have an opinion on it, but I feel you're not in the right frame of mind to receive it. So which Canon colour profile is the most accurate for colour? Do you know? I feel you're making things up about colour science as you go along.

You weren't technically, but with you, the word argue just seems to fit when discussing your replies.

I think the strawman in this argument is you. You've been consistently arguing with other members on this point. Some of my replies to you have got likes. Yours are not so well received. 😄 In fact one of your replies was to argue why a forum member wasn't using the viewfinder in a DSLR camera when recording video in sunlight. Whereas we all know such a thing is impossible for DSLR cameras as the mirror is up when using the camera. So remind me again, which of us is foolish. Now I'm not arguing cameras like 1DX Mark III can be better than the Pocket cameras for colour grading. I can't, I don't own the 1DX. My only issue is with your blanket statement that Canon Colour Science is easier to grade. Whereas I feel it is wholly dependant on the camera and codec being used. My point about how our eyes can see colour differently, is one of the reasons why I feel colour is subjective, even accurate colour. I'm sorry it went over your head. 😄

I'm not sure arguing your point of view counts the same as sharing your knowledge. If enlightening others including me is your goal, you need to rethink your strategy I never argued that accurate colour isn't important. I personally feel Nikons colours are more accurate to real life than Canon, though also feel that Canon look is more pleasing to the eye than Nikon. Yes, I did ask what accurate colour is? But those screen shots no more prove or disprove that. Some shots to me look good to me, 1 looked a bit off. But maybe that's my own eyes. Or my phone. How do we prove accurate colour when we all have different eyes, different devices to view the colour and a preference for colour that can cloud our judgement on what is and isn't accurate? To be honest I'm not sure whether you're arguing which colour science is easier to grade or which is more accurate straight out. Or both. You seem to swing your argument to whatever you feel gives you weight to your opinion on Canon. If Canons colours are superior to others for being accurate straight out, what's your thoughts on the below tests of camera models for accurate colour reproduction. https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/ I would have thought all Canon cameras would be top, but no, and it also seems not all Canon cameras are equal for accurate colour reproduction. Of course this test is contested by some on the comments section. By Canon users naturally 😄 But then it seems accurate colour reproduction is subjective.

I'm not a colourist. But I disagree from working with many different cameras that Blackmagic is on the same level as Sony. That is your opinion, and not fact. And as for Canon, I will not argue against that their top cameras are better to grade than Blackmagic. I have no experience with such models, so can not offer an opinion. But I have worked with Canon colours in lower models and I would say my experience grading them is inferior to my work with Blackmagic. But then I'm sure you know that working with an image isn't just about its colour science; it's about the codec, the dynamic range, the bit rate and a whole lot of other things. In the end, I still prefer Blackmagic colours to Canon, straight out of the camera. Those samples you searched the internet for to prove your point are nice, but I still prefer the colour I see in Blackmagic. Whether one is better to grade straight out is besides the point for me. I don't care whether colour from the 1DX Mark III is comparable to ARRI. I'm not likely to be buying either of them. If this notion makes you happy, good. If you feel Canon colour science is 2nd to ARRI, good. In the end, I just work with what I got, and I'm happy with that. 😄

Because I would expect better results from a camera that costs a whole lot more than the Pocket. All these comparison videos are very nice to watch, but apart from points scoring, they are worthless to me, unless I was seriously thinking of buying a camera that costs 3 times as much.

If only, see above.

But which Canon camera? I've worked with 8 bit Canon footage from various versions of the 5D, 6D and 7D over the last decade and the footage was a terrible experience to grade compared to my experience with BRAW from the Pocket. Sure, when you pay money for their higher end cameras, you get the sort of files that make colour grading easier. But does my Pocket 4K or 6K sit in the same level as a Canon C500 or 1DX III. Of course not. It's not in ARRI territory either. Its foolish even to compare them in my opinion. I do look at image quality and colour, just as any other buyer of camera. I chose the Pocket 4K. I will doubtless choose the 6K too. I won't be choosing the R5. I am certainly intrigued by its developments and welcome Canon taking their lower end cameras more seriously, but it's not for me. As you say, no one cares what you shoot your footage with. They care about what you created. I pick the camera that is in my budget, has features I need and like and an image quality and colour I can work with. For those reasons, I chose the Pocket. Others on this forum chose the URSA. In my opinion they made great choices. Whether Canon colour is easier to grade with certain models and with the R5 is frankly besides the point. If I like Blackmagic colours, then I'm not fighting their colour science, I'm embracing it. That will always make grading easier. Why would I want an image I am working with to look like Canon, when I am not always a fan of the Canon image. Aside from great skin tones, which I do like, their colours often don't do much for me. And your examples have only proved that point to me. I'm sure we can all dig around on the internet to find videos to support our points of view. But frankly it's an argument that still is as many have said, including you at one point, very much subjective.

Of course it's up for debate. It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere. How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated. How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing. How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red. There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person. The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image. Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers. You have an opinion, nothing more. I agree Arri is very popular. So is Canon. But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth. To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out. Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life. My opinion of course. In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at. I get you love Canon. But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

My take on it is that I prefer Blackmagic colour science over other manufacturers. Always have done, even before I owned a Blackmagic camera. I do like the colour I've seen in Canon footage I have worked with, and I've seen good colour in Fuji and a few Panasonic cameras. Does Blackmagic have a certain look to it. Yes it does, but then so does Canon. In fact I find sometimes the Canon colours can be too orange for my taste. Why is that? But my take is my own, and one I am sure not shared by you. I think you feel your view of the matter of camera colour is an absolute. A logical conclusion based on experience. My take is, it's just your point of view of your own personal taste, and others such as myself have a different one.

Such questions are for people who want to prove their own point of view.

Why consider the R6, why not? I do take photos, and their AF is hard to beat, match with good colour science. The only brand I won't do is Sony. I own Panasonic and Blackmagic, but would happily get Fuji and Canon with the right camera. That said, I love Blackmagic Colour Science. Can't agree with your scathing cristisms at all. I prefer it to Canon, in many cases. Comparing BM Colour to Sony is 😄 Its so forced an argument, it really undervalues it. Oh and I've seen Blackmagics Specs.. there are crucial things missing from their Pocket in terms of features, I won't deny it; but then Canon have been guilty of that in the past. They still have their supporters.

It'll take more than Canons R5 to make me want to part ways with my Pocket 4K.. 😄 I'm even considering buying the 6K, now its price has dropped. However fair play to Canon for upping their game. It's about time and can only benefit the video industry. I'm not interested in 8K and even 4K 120p doesn't excite me too much. I'd might be interested in the R6, but I wonder if Canon will take away too much from the R5. I've found some of Canon's choices of what they include and don't include in their products just so bizarre. It often feels that with their choices, the developers are throwing pieces of paper with specs written on them to a box at the centre of a team meeting table. If it goes into the box, its included, if not, they leave it out. Maybe with the R5, everyone just had better aim that day.

I am interested in 8K, but aside from delivering better quality 4K, which frankly 6K can do, I'm not sure there's a huge need for it in my workflow. Yes, there is the crop possibilities. But what of the trade off. As others have said, there will well be more rolling shutter, there will massive file sizes. Maybe limited recording time. To be honest, what interests me is the codec, the extra functionality of the camera. 8K makes a fine boast, but until I'm delivering 6K footage, it is not something I urgently need. I'd be more excited if they announced Canon were developing a camera that shot ProRes and had internal ND filters, SSD recording, different aspect ratios filming.. There a tonne of useful video functions I would like to see in mirrorless cameras, and I hate to see them neglected just because manufacturers focus on the resolution war.

I think punch in focus is essential for cameras where you are focusing yourself. Especially if the screen is small and need to ensure you have focus in the right place. Can you make do without it, sure, but I shouldn't have to. SSD recording isn't essential, but I find it very useful. Personal prefernce. Wire isn't that much a problem for me. And as for mini XLR, not the only solution for audio obviously, but like mentioning SSD recording, something the Pocket has that many other professional cameras in this price point do not. Just balancing the negativity here with a few positives.... 😉 Speaking for the negatives you mention, I don't gloss over them at all.. they are valid points of criticism, which you have mentioned one or two times. 😂😂 I neither defend them or excuse them. I just wish to balance them with the various points that exist in the Pocket 4Ks favour. And there is more to it than just the ability to record RAW and ProRes. And whilst I wish to see BM consider battery life, IBIS, AF and a better screen for outdoors in future models, I would also like Panasonic to consider things like punch in focus, SSD recording option, and a few other things the Pocket has, along with ProRes recording when updating their cameras next.