pixelpreaching

There we go, thank you!!

?? That just directs back to this forum

I agree it is speculation but I am very confident in the specs I listed. I know the XLR thing is true, for example. I know it will only be 4K120p, no 6K or anything. I know it will use CFexpress Type A (and I assume also UHS-II SD). The rest are speculations but I'm quite confident. Maybe I'll eat these words later.

You're misinterpreting my point. Of course people use it for both stills and video - they'll be able to the same with the FX3. My point was.... well, did YOU buy it FOR photography? If the FX3 was out then with the same features plus more at the same price point, would you have gotten the a7sIII?

I did say {except better than the Fp} after that. But yes, the Fp is not a good stills camera because it lacks many things, primarily a mech shutter and EVF. My point was, it's still designed as a hybrid, but like the a7sIII most people do not/did not buy it for its photographic qualities. It's not a pure cinema camera in the way a BMPCC6K is, for example, even though that actually takes 18MP stills. The same is true to a lesser degree with the a7sIII - people these days simply aren't buying that camera for photography. It's not a low light champ for photos anymore and it has no other qualities that would make it preferable to another Sony costing the same or less money with more features. I think it's pretty clear they released the a7s before this because if they did it at the same time, the a7sIII would not have done well - I am, however, assuming here that the price will be very similar and that it has IBIS.

Honestly, I know a lot of you are excited about this but.... this should have just been the a7sIII. The only point in having both is to make people want to buy both - I mean how many people are buying the a7sIII for stills? This camera has the same features - 4K120p, same sensor, I assume the same AF system, Cfexpress Type A, etc. But, it has many things that they (now clearly purposefully) left out of the a7sIII - like waveform, timecode, vectorscope, a nicer LCD, superior video ergonomics, 3/8 mounting on top, an XLR adapter in the box which mounts into two of those 3/8 holes, etc etc. Unclear about IBIS, but I assume it will have it but no eND. Some of these are just rumors but I think they're accurate. It will still be a perfectly good stills camera in the same way the S1H or Sigma Fp is (except better than the Fp). But, significantly better design and features for a video shooter. Maybe I'm wrong and a ton of people bought the a7sIII largely for photography. But I doubt it. This just kind of reeks of the Canon-like cripple now that we know this is basically what the a7sIII easily could have been, with essentially no sacrifice. Even further supported by this coming out AFTER the a7s.

That would be amazing. I wouldn't mind if they kept the MCS out if they used that 50MP Sony a1 sensor. Would literally not be an issue. IBIS is very cool and 60MP is a strange resolution... wonder what that means for video. That would be like 9.4K if read out 1:1, so wonder what it would downsample to. The a1 sensor (61MP) is the same as Fuji's 26MP sensor when in APS-C mode (it's the same chip, just different sizes, as is the GFX100 being the largest size). So it could have downscaled 4K in APS-C and maybe downsampled 8K in full frame. Let's get that FF L-mount Foveon next, Sigma!

Thank you! I love how that looks like an old Hasselblad waist level finder. Beautiful and very cool. I'd immediately grab one if I still had my D810 and D850. Too bad they don't make one for the Z7 or Panasonic S1H. Though... how did you get it to fit the Sigma Fp? All I see are Sony, Canon DSLR, and Nikon DSLR.

No it's the same. You're just looking at two Venice cameras, with the detached lens block from each one stacked on top of each other between the two Venices.

This is super cool. What is that viewfinder that looks like a waist level finder from a Hasselblad or Bronica? The GSS I thought was a loupe and doesn't look like that. Maybe I'm missing something.

Sony Venice What your arrow is pointing at is the lens mount essentially. You can remove the lens mount block from the Venice, keep it tethered to the camera via a cable, and place it elsewhere so it can fit where the whole camera cannot. Like in say an airplane cockpit facing the pilot or a race car facing the driver.

I think it'll be a hybrid in the way that a Sigma Fp is. As Grumble says: I think this is exactly right. Shutter button functions as video record and picture taking depending on what mode you're in. And the joystick being on top does make sense if the rear is basically all screen (like the Fp), except the Fp has no joystick. Thankfully other companies are following in the footsteps of Blackmagic, who came out with the first camera like this in like 2013 or 2014 (BMPCC original). And remember even the BMPCC4K and 6K can take photos - with the 6K you get decent 18MP photos. Hopefully that hot shoe can take an accessory EVF.

yes he used the M4/3 Noktons for a lot, but I know he used the old Rokinon 85 at least for some and I read somewhere he used at least one Olympus or Panasonic zoom for a few shots. Here you can see the Rokinon (if you zoom) (and point was that plenty of major films have used non-cinema primes and zooms.... probably a lot more than Carruth did on this one TBH. Like TINY FURNITURE and LIKE CRAZY were shot on a Canon 7D for example - no idea what lenses they used, but you get the point that if someone is used a GH2 or 7D they probably aren't using parfocal zooms or cinema primes.

I was reading the most recent 5 pages of this thread and this made me literally laugh out loud Andrew, you have this weird thing against Blackmagic that I think is personal. Things you complained about on the BMPCC4K (no IBIS, no AF, no tilt screen, no EVF) are all literally true for the Sigma Fp. Not all cameras are made for vloggers and hybrid shooters. Cinema cameras fall into that category. It's ignorant to expect a cinema camera to conform to the same expectations as a stills camera that shoots video. None of the cameras you listed output better IQ nor do they have the ergonomics or user interface of a proper cinema camera (a la BMPCC). Please, for the sake of your readers - myself included, get over your grudge against Blackmagic. It's childish.

A lens can't be "too sharp" for video - Zeiss Supreme Primes and Master Primes are incredibly sharp from wide-open. The Leica Summicron-C's are also very very sharp. But they are made to have a bit gentler falloff and different coatings for flaring, among many other things. But they're still very sharp - compared to say, a Cooke lens. Not to mention, it's entirely in the eye of the beholder. The same lens on a BMPCC or Arri will look very different than on an R5 - the lack of an OLPF on the R5 would arguably be even more detrimental to the video in this regard. Parfocal zooms are great. Lenses without focus breathing are great (many of the higher quality RF, Z, and Panasonic L lenses have no focus breathing or very very little - some of the zooms are even parfocal). BUT, it ain't cheap to buy a parfocal zoom lens. Cheapest would be a DZOFilm Linglung (for the Pocket 6K) - that's $1600. And even many cinema lenses aren't completely lacking focus breathing - the Rokinons have a pretty noticeable amount, and the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 Cine lenses are not parfocal AND have noticeable focus breathing - for over $3000 each. Arheo is clearly working on a limited budget. IMO, he's best off using the lenses he has and adding a wide like he said, and maybe picking up some vintage primes (Nikkor AIS, Minolta Rokkor, Canon FD, Olympus OM, Pentax K, Contax Zeiss, Pentax Takumars - all great options for dirt cheap). I shot an entire show using stills lenses for probably 80% of it. Know the limitations and what to avoid and you're fine. As for sharpness... IF you find that it's an issue - which it's less likely to be on the BMPCC than on a camera like the R5 - there are effects in post that work well, or (my preference) you can get some filters - Tiffen (Warm/Black/Bronze/Regular) Pro Mists, Tiffen (Black/Regular) Glimmerglass, or Tiffen (Blac/Regulark) Pearlescent, Tiffen (Black/Regular) Satin, Tiffen Digital Diffusion/FX, or Tiffen (Black/Warm/Regular) Soft FX. I use the Warm, Black, and Regular Pro Mists, and regular Glimmerglass. Tons of different strengths from very weak effect to very strong. And they all have other effects/advantages aside from a bit of softening. The Glimmerglass gives a nice soft halation around point sources and mutes bold colors slightly - compare that to the Satin filters which softly reduce sharpness and contrast, but don't cause blooming or an increase in halation. Shane Carruth shot UPSTREAM COLOR with some old non-cine Rokinons and some Olympus and Panasonic zoom lenses. Looks great to me no one's ever mentioned that there's focus breathing in a shot.

Personally if I had the $$ in his position, I'd get the 6K - it would be different if it was still at its original price of $2500. But the 4K is still $1300, so it's a $700 difference. And the 6K is more future proof, better for cropping/reframing, and has a bit more dynamic range on either end. A bit. But, advantage to the 4K, which may be useful for him is the availability of super cheap (and optically excellent) M4/3 lenses. And the cheaper M4/3 cine lenses (like the SLR Magic Microprimes that are ~$500-600. The Super 35/FF Microprimes are $1200. But, he may be planning to just use his Canon lenses. But then crop factor may be an issue and once you add a speedbooster, you might as well get the 6K. Anyway, it's a good suggestion depending on his budget and needs.

Not really. See their facebook page (link in OP) and they have one or two videos. They have a very brief video showing the bokeh of one lens.

On the topic of grain and the "film look" - one of the best examples of a digitally shot movie looking like film in recent times, for me, was LADY BIRD. And they did some work to get it that way, which I haven't heard other DPs talk about (this process). They (Greta Gerwig and DP Sam Levy) shot on the Arri Alexa Mini. They did NOT shoot in ARRIRAW because they felt the 3.4K was too sharp. So they shot 2K ProRes (goes to show that RAW isn't everything - WHIPLASH also shot ProRes according to the gaffer). Then the *grain* in the movie, which is substantial for a modern digitally shot movie. It's NOT artificial grain. What they did was record a black signal and pulled the noise out and amplified it. Basically boosting the gain from the noise floor and finding the right amount. This way they could get the amount of grain they wanted without boosting the gain in the footage itself, which would have other (some negative) consequences. And I think it goes to show how great Alexa does with their noise - it's extremely film grain-like.

To answer your questions first: 1) Yes it does, but the 12K resolution is indeed the reason for that. 3) I assume? The 12K resolution is kind of irrelevant in terms of shooting at full resolution. The camera isn't really designed as a 12K camera. Yes, it can do that and produce great results and many people may want 12K. But, it's really 12K so that it can be an amazing 8K and 4K camera (which it can do with the full sensor, no crop). 4) Sharpening: again, see #3 The new sensor in the 12K is unlike any other sensor out there. Instead of the typical bayer array on every other cinema camera (aside from monochrome cameras), it uses a 6x6 CFA (Bayer is 2x2). This means true RGB (equal number of red, green, and blue) - Bayer is GRGB (1 red, 1 blue, 2 green). But, it doesn't stop there. It then has a second layer of white (or clear) pixels. It's kind of like two 6K sensors stacked on top of each other (not exactly true, but KIND OF like that). The white layer then lets all light through, vs color that does not (to the tune of about one stop on a bayer sensor). Because of the 12K resolution, aliasing practically doesn't exist (after all, for aliasing to happen your lens must out-resolve the sensor - a tough task on a 12K Super 35 sensor). This smoothes out higher frequency edges. That's as close to analogue as anything to date. IN THEORY, based on the sensor design. It doesn't mean, though, that the sensor tonal response will be like film (digital tends to be linear, film is non-linear - CCD sensors were non-linear, which is why many of them were thought of as "film like.") Anyway, that's the basics of it. It's probably the best we'll get until a 1:1:1 Foveon, provided such a sensor will be able to shoot video - and even then, will it overcome the abysmal high ISO limitations of current Foveons? Probably not. Then again, film was worthless in low light too.

Any modern, high-quality stills lenses will be very clinical, sharp, and often contrasty (particularly compared to vintage lenses). I can attest to Leica R and Contax Zeiss lenses. I have a 6 lens set of cine-modded Contax Zeiss lenses. They're phenomenal. I have a couple Leica R's as well. I prefer the Contax Zeiss's, but that's one of those things where opinions are split pretty evenly. Both will serve you very well. If you want newer proper cinema lenses with a more vintage look, the SLR Magic APO Microprimes are my favorite (they cover full frame). Meike makes a very nice 35 T2.1 EF mount cinema lens that covers Super 35 for $540. There's also the option of using a Tiffen Promist filter or Schneider Hollywood Black Magic filter on a modern lens - these are often used to lower contrast, smooth out the ultra sharpness a bit, and give some nice blooming to the highlights. I use them frequently. Tiffen Glimmerglass is cool too. Alternatively, on a budget, you can't beat Nikkor AI or AIS lenses. They'll easily adapt to Canon EF with a $30 adapter (very thin adapter). Since they're vintage lenses, they have a similar drawing style to the Leica and Contax lenses, though all three have their differences of course. Only issue with the NIkkors is that the focus ring rotates the opposite direction of all the other lenses, so that can confuse some people. Bonus: they're dirt cheap.

I could not disagree more. And most people would too. BRAW is the easiest to edit of anything I've ever used. Whether it's BRAW 4K, 6K, or even the new 12K. My 2017 MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM can handle it just fine. My desktop doesn't even notice. Not to mention that BRAW is, you know, RAW. There's no RAW format easier to edit that I've used to date.

I would 100% get the BMPCC6K, especially if you can keep your 5D. I'd take the BMPCC over the Canon R5 for anything (except photography, of course). One is a proper cinema camera with the haptics and UI that a cinema camera needs, plus phenomenal IQ and the amazing BRAW which makes 6K raw files a breeze to edit even on a several year old laptop. The R5 might have 8K, but you'll probably spend more on storage for it to make you really regret buying it over the Pocket and losing your 5D. Like, look, hybrid cameras have their place. I use them all the time. There are some great ones - the best are the Panasonics (the S1H is the first camera I thought really truly captured what a true hybrid should be - the a7SIII is pretty good, but lacks a lot of features that it really should have). Most others feel like stills cameras with video as an afterthought/marketing tool - R5 included. And hey, I've shot tons of video work (narrative, commercial, etc.) on cameras like the Fuji X-T3, Panny G9, etc, but when it comes to having the goal of making a movie, most of the time none of these are substitutions for a proper cinema camera. Some people on here (not naming names) complain about things like the BMPCC6K not having usable autofocus or not having IBIS and on and on - wanting that stuff is kind of divorced from the reality of what cinema cameras are. IBIS is not good for a cinema camera; no production uses autofocus. Sure, you may be a one man band and need great AF tracking, which is why cameras like the Canon C300 are very popular (and the 5D line). That's totally valid. At any rate, it sounds like - for stock and documentary - the BMPCC6K is exactly the ticket for you. UNLESS you need good AF tracking for the documentary work - but even then, I wouldn't get the R5 because frankly it's terrible for video. I'd invest in a nice gimbal that allows you to pull focus while operating or get a different Canon or one of the Panasonics (S1 and S5 are fantastic for the price; AF tracking not nearly as cinematic as Canon's though). But nothing else in this price range will offer raw 6K video that can be edited without phasing an average desktop computer. Nothing else will compete on ergonomics and UI - one of the most irritating things about using hybrids for shooting video work is all the unnecessary crap (buttons, dials, 90% of the menu options, etc). The Blackmagic has the best UI I've ever used on any video camera - and the buttons and dials are exactly what you need and where you need them. And the screen is better than anything else out there - full 5" 1080 touchscreen. Records to SD, CFast, and cheap external SSD via USB-C - none of the hybrids can do that. The BMPCC6K also has the dual native ISO sensor, which is tuned specifically for video - ISO and dynamic range work very differently on a cinema camera vs. a stills camera and if you know the best settings to allocate the DR where you need it, it makes a world of difference. I think only the S1H operates like this as far as hybrids go. Anyway, pretty obvious how I feel. But if I were in your shoes - and I've done a lot of the same kind of work as you - no question what I'd get. It would be a different story if you couldn't keep your 5D, because then you'd have no photography camera. But since you can... I would never in a million years trade a 5D4 and BMPCC6K for one Canon R5. Also, if this matters to you because for some reason it does to many people - if you really need that "full frame" field of view instead of Super 35 which is full frame in cinema anyway - you can get a LucAdapters MagicBooster, which goes inside the the mount over the sensor. It also contains an UVIR filter, which is fantastic because the Pockets do have weak IR cut filters which gives the footage a slight magenta tint (and worse when using ND filters). You can also buy (for a lot less money) just a UVIR filter (there's two options, a standard and a 100%) to put in it. That's what I did - I have no care in the world for the magicbooster but the UVIR filter internally is a godsend for me (I might be making the issue seem worse than it is - it's not that big of a deal, but I'm very much a perfectionist where I can be). https://www.lucadapterstore.com/shop Whatever you end up getting, I hope you love it and I hope it serves you very well! Update us with what you get and again after you've used it. Edit: also - you mentioned the IBIS of the R5, so like I mentioned, if you can invest in one of the Zhiyuni Cranes or DJI Ronins, that's far better than IBIS anyway. And most of them have controls specifically for the BMPCC6K (trigger recording, change settings, etc.) and if you get one with a follow focus you can pull focus while operating using controls on the gimbal. (if you use a non-cinema autofocus lens, you sometimes don't even need the follow focus - the gimbal can control the focus pull via its connection to the camera). Well worth the money, imo.

Same. On the facebook page there's a (very brief) sample of the bokeh wide open on one of the lenses. Looks nice.

That's what I assumed and only makes sense - that's still an incredible price for a non-rehoused cinema lens that covers at least full frame. Other than Rokinons, I can't think of any true cinema lenses (that cover FF) for that price. The new Meike FF-Cine primes are $959, the new DZOFilm Vespids are $1249, and the (fantastic) SLR Magic APO Microprimes and Irix Cine lenses are around $1200. These also look to be lighter and smaller than other FF cinema lenses, which would bode well for smaller rigs and handheld or gimbal use.

Most people don't give AF, yes. But honestly I think that's always been true, relative to the time period. In the 80s and 90s when people watched a lot of television - soap operas, shows like Maury, and of course sitcoms - none of that stuff remotely looks like a movie or film. But that's what most people were consuming on a daily basis. It didn't prevent them from liking and enjoying movies that look good. They have no idea why it looks good and that's completely fine. I couldn't explain to you in technical terms why a song sounds good. And honestly, I think non-filmic looking movies are pretty jarring to the average person - TANGERINE, for example, I know that many "normal" people (regular people who don't work in or care about film) thought that it looked really bad or wondered why it looked that way. Basically, it's up to us filmmakers to hold ourselves to a high standard of quality - people may not know why they like what they're seeing, but I do think they notice when something isn't as good as what they're used to. Days of Our Lives and Maury didn't ruin filmmaking or the public's perception of/engagement with movies. I don't think any of this will either, at least not in the way that you're talking about.