SteveV4D

Thats odd as S35 cinema cameras cost a lot more than many fullframe hybrids.. and I'd rather have the money to buy a C300, a Red Komodo or an URSA 12k over a fullframe A7C, or any other fullframe hybrids for that matter... 😆😆

Someone suggested Gen5 colour either solved or limited it. Though not tested it myself.

Why, BRAW is more about 12 bit colour than DR. You can see that in the colour holding up in my opinion better on the Pocket 6K footage, aside from some red clipping. A fullframe sensor is obviously going to be less noisy than a S35 one and this test focused very much on noise in shadow areas. Again comparing H264 to RAW, can be comparing no NR to some NR.. The advantages of RAW are more with changing ISO and WB and working with 12 bit colour. Given the S1 and S1H has better DR than the Pockets, its not hard to expect the S5 to follow in that line.

Yes, I tend to separate the cameras. Each have their own layer and their own colour label.

I select all the clips for the camera, sbich on their own layer, just means ctr A and then apply a grade, then click in the menu above, apply grade to node on selected clips, or append node to selected clips. Something like that. I'm not in front of resove, so basing this on memory.

I find if I hide any layer in the edit page, those clips don't show up in the colour tab. I often use this to separate drone, different cameras. Hiding all layers except the one devoted to the camera files I wish to grade. It also works on adjustment layers and transition layers I have, making sure I don't accidentally grade these when I apply a node to all clips.

Actually I am trying to move away from MFT.. I have 2 EF-S lenses I use with a metabones adapter or without on a Pocket 6K. I even got my first fullframe lens recently. I am looking at getting a fullframe hybrid to replace my GH5, unless a GH6 is announced soon to wow me. Then we shall see. However I am also looking at cinema cameras that are S35. Sensor size is immaterial to me. Its the options available in both cinema cameras and hybrids that dictate my choice of sensor.

You're taking this thread personally. To me MFT is necessary as I have MFT lenses. But in the wider issue, is MFT necessary, ie essential to making great video. No, that would be silly. Fullframe gets singled out because companies are shifting towards fullframe, even in the budget range. With Panasonic delaying a GH6 and focusing on fullframe cameras, I am asking is fullframe necessary. Not as an attack on fullframe, but a question of do I need to move to fullframe to take advanatage of the latest camera technology.

People see and react to the posts that trigger them the most. Sony users says DpReview is full of Canon trolls, Canon users say it is full of Sony trolls. Who is to blame. I see both, but then I am neither Sony or Canon. Its the same with fullframe or MFT. I've seen and read many posts suggesting MFT is inferior to fullframe, even here. Doubtless you've seen the opposite. Ultimately this thread has asked a question. Most have answered it.. general opinion is that it isn't necessary, which of course its not. No more than any other format; but with the industry moving towards fullframe, it is a question many of us will continue to debate as fullframe dominates the hybrid market whilst slowly entering the cinema camera market.

No one has said that MFT or S35 or even 1" sensor is necessary for anyone to deny that it is not. Fullframe however seems to have some users suggesting it is necessary, hence I imagine why this thread was created, asking that very question. I shoot MFT and don't feel that format is necessary, nor do I feel S35 is necessary. It maybe a requirement if you're looking at cinema cameras, as there are few fullframe cinema cameras out there. Fullframe ILC and their equivalent lenses are numerous and affordable as they are targeted for Photography which has often favoured 35mm in the past. Professional photo cameras are more likely to be fullframe with APS-C reserved more for budget users who are less likely to buy a wide variety of expensive lenses. Once you look to invest more money in dedicated cinema lenses, there are more options for S35. For most of us, this is out of our reach. I'm sure for many looking for a single or just a few lenses to invest in, fullframe is more ideal, as you can get a great single zoom lens that covers most needs, lowlight and zoom range at a good price. With MFT, I use a variety of primes that give me a range from 12mm 1.4 to 75mm 1.8. I have a 12mm to 35mm zoom lens at 2.8, which only disadvantage to a 24 to 70mm 2.8 is that depth of field and lowlight will be inferior at the lowest aperture. The range is still there for regular shooting. And of course the lenses are smaller, and easier to carry a number of. So there are advanatges a smaller sensor can provide, cheaper options if your needs are extreme telephoto. You can adapt a lot more lenses out there to it and video functions are less likely to be crippled by crop or overheating.

My cameras get butchered out on the field, they are hardly sellable once they've had a few years with me. Buying new gear is part to replace worn out gear and partly to add new features that make my work easier and more to my taste.

Personally I find the idea of a crop between video modes unacceptable. There will be in all likelihood a S2H, and doubtless will remedy the issue as well as bring the benefits of improved focus. Or else there is the GH6. I'm reluctant though to invest in a new lens mount until I see what Panasonic has in store. At the moment, there is so much chatter over their future in the camera industry, will it still see a MFT GH5 successor, will there be ASPC models, will they continue to develop and inprove fullframe.. the hybrid line is frustrating me and given I shoot so little photos, I wonder if just focusing on video cameras, though you lose the small size that hybrids bring.

This argument that we are not forced to buy the camera and therefore can't criticise it is just the remarks made by apologists trying to deflect any negative opinions on something they're invested in, be it either the camera or manufacturer. However if you want a reliable fullframe mirrorless with AF, 10 bit HQ 4K and has above 20mps for photo taking, your options become limited. Add uncropped 10 bit 4K 60fps, RAW external and there isn’t one. Choosing a fullframe camera is really down to deciding what functions you can do without.

If I owned a fullframe camera and therefore fullframe lenses, I would shoot fullframe and not S35. Why wouldn't I use the camera to its best advantage. If I pay for fullframe, I use fullframe. There is no look as far I as I am concerned, just advantages and disadvantages to each sensor. S35 isn't more cinematic than fullframe and vice versa. What matters more is if I were to buy say a S35 URSA 12K, I wouldn't feel disadvantaged because fullframe was considered necessary. As you say, fullframe isn't necessary and those owning and using S35 and MFT cameras are not going to be cast into a pit of irrelevance along with those shooting video on 1" sensors. 🤣🤣 If looking at a new camera, I won't care if it is fullframe or S35, I will judge it on other matters like codec, colour, DR, and other video functions. However once I go for that camera, I will use the full width of that sensor. To not do so, is a waste of resource.

Why pay for fullframe and not use it? I don't agree with movies changing aspect ratios between shots, but I've no problem mixing fullframe and S35 and many productions do mix the two. Were I to do so, I would choose a S35 cinema camera mixed with fullframe hybrid. Each have their advantages. However this has nothing to do with the argument, is fullframe necessary. Its more a question of how important fullframe is currently needed to shoot with. I still feel that its not. Yes, fullframe hybrids are dominating the market, but S35 is still popular for cinema cameras, and we can expect to see it continue for many more years.

Definitely not. There is no fullframe aesthetic as far as I'm concerned. Just advanatages with depth of field, especially at wide angle and low noise. I got a speedbooster simply to make my 18 to 35 S35 lens more consistent with MFT field of view. As for depth of field, choosing a MFT Voigtlander lens at 0.95 aperture is hardly chasing fullframe, but still gives improvements in lowlight. But again, its more practical in darker venues than aesthetics.

Its 2020.. its become a year for it. 😕

We should have had a GH6 by now; the fact we don't is down to Panasonic's shift to fullframe. Maybe they feel they have exhausted what is possible with MFT, or at least in relation to what they can market well. It would be a shame to see the GH line end, but it feels only a matter of time. The writing is on the wall. Whether we get one more GH is the best we can hope for, and I am not sure if even that is going to happen.

Given how many movie and TV productions use S35 cameras and lenses, I would say, no its not necessary. Its better in lowlight and you can have more OOF at the same aperture, but apart from that, its not adding more to a cinematic image.

1080p BRAW on my Pocket 4K is heavily cropped... so not a great comparison. 🤣🤣🤣

You wanted a discussion by posting this, but you shut down any arguments by saying its not relevant to the thread. You're only interested in discussions that support your position it seems. Thing is, if you ignore particular cases, and treat HD vs 4K simply as black and white, then yes, 4K is more expensive to use. Will be heavier on your computer processing, encoding time. Its not even an argument worth having. Every time you jump up in resolution, you add to costs and processing power needed to handle the files. However it is not black and white. That long list you gave on hidden costs that weren't hidden really; many could be applied to HD should you chose to shoot 60p or All-I exclusively over someone shooting 4K 24p IPB. How a computer handles processing files and effects is as much down to codec choice as to resolution. If you're going to ignore this and just focus on HD and 4K without the wider issues of codec and bitrate choices, then there's nothing to discuss. 4K is bigger than HD, therefore costlier. Youtube isn't that great displaying your video. So watch it on Vimeo or playback on your TV via USB. Aside from telling me that Youtube is rubbish, which I know, this feels like a thread to support 1 point of view. If my method of delivery was down to Youtube only, would it be worth my while shooting 4K. Yes. Your opening post gave some excellent reasons for shooting 4K over HD, but they were so broad in range, they could be easily applied to every single job I do. Maybe this thread would be better served identifying ways to get great looking 4K from Youtube rather than justifying an HD workflow. If anyone has tips on that, it would be appreciated.

I can see the GH6 big selling point being 8K. Whether we need it or not, the R5 has shown its very marketable. I prefer more internal RAW, ND Filters, punch in focus during recording, SSD recording via USB, AF at PDAF quality, recording 2.35 ratio and full Vlog. Give me that and its a winner for me.

To add the storage costs argument, just looking at my Panasonic GH4r, if I shot in 4K, its 100mbps, but its not the highest file size I could shoot in. That belongs to All-l 25p and 50p at 200mbps. So I could be shooting HD and not 4K and actually need more storage space, not less. There is also an HD option that is 100mpbs, same file size as 4K shooting.

I'm not sure what a 12k timeline has to do with the advanatages of HD over 4K delivery?? 🤔🤔 I'm only just getting into colour grading, but regardless of what effects I apply, the truth is, applying what I am applying to HD H264 or AVCHD files is much slower on playback than doing the same or more to my 4K BRAW. So its not as clear cut a negative. In fact, the argument could be more H264 or AvCHD vs RAW, rather than HD vs 4K. I'm not arguing there aren't extra costs to 4K, just that they're not hidden. Media and storage costs, PC Power and processing costs, encoding time costs. They're clear cut. Its why I was reluctant to upgrade to 6K. I know these costs. The same as the costs from HD to 4K. I'm not just not so sure of these mysterious hidden costs, and even if they are significant to be even applicable. Noisy fans are random and can kick in at any resolution. That can be easily codec and grade dependant. Resolution is just one factor of a workflow cost. For example, I had an easier time testing BRAW 12K clips over the R5 HQ 4K clips. 😁

Feeble... 🤣🤣🤣 Most of what you said amounts to media storage costs and extra encoding. Both of which I mentioned and neither of which are hidden. Sure, you've given extra details of individual media needed and cases of encoding. Batteries aren't a good argument. Will my GH5 use more power recording HD downsampled from 6K rather than 4K downsampled...?? IBIS and screen will be a heavier draw. As for issues with effects, I mentioned that my worst experience editing was working with HD AVCHD files. I was still working with them when I was also working with H264 4K files and I had an easier time with the 4K. So its not resolution dependant. Now I film with BRAW onto a SSD drive directly from the camera. No media change needed and no stress. It copies much quicker and can also be used for editing directly. BRAW edits much quicker than H264 HD as I found when I worked on am old project recently. The HD files played back worse after grading than the BRAW which had even more grade nodes than HD including noise reduction and grain. My cooling fan can kick in just as quickly with HD H264 over 4K BRAW. I never work with proxys or caches. I don’t need to. I did get a new computer a few years back, but only as my old one packed up. Sure it was higher spec, but not more expensive than the old one when I bought it new. As I render overnight, the length of time is often immaterial, but I would give the edge to HD over that. Also storage costs. But again, these aren't hidden costs. I'm having a much easier time editing these days than I ever did back when shooting HD. Colour and detail is better and I get results I'm happier with much easier than before. When you factor in things like crop, stabilisation, selecting areas of the video for fine tuning colour; the benefits of 4K outweigh the few negatives it has. Stress of file management is as much a case for HD as it is for 4K. If I shoot 100 HD clips I still have the same concerns over copying them all successfully. In fact, last year I lost some HD clips from a Guest Message booth I setup. My 4K clips were fine. If anything 4K ensures I don't have too many projects on a hard drive should it fail. 😉