PPNS

^ in that case i can still safely recommend a pocket 4k

im not yelling? i could make the argument that this consumerist driven attitude is more toxic? i think the 50/100k arri/venice setups are actually necessary for the context theyre made for, and i think there’s a decent argument to be made in regards to getting those and making a profit from renting those out. Almost every camera now performs almost exactly the same. this means that theres no little to no difference in image quality between the lower budget options (pockets, fx30s) and the mid tier (canon c-whatever, fx9, red). you’re not going to see that price difference in the end result. if you’re going to be shooting basic stuff in nature where you dont need a bunch of bells and whistles, you might as well get the lower cost options that let you record in a good or decent codec, which also happen to be light. your back will be much happier afterwards. you can save some money with which you could buy a decent set of lenses, nds and a great tripod.

you are also doing that (and judging quite poorly imo). i can only find your stills which is why i’m asking for your reel of moving images. i think spending more than 4000 on a camera is a bad decision for people who make money using cameras, so i think that decision is even worse for those who dont do it professionally. Theres literally millions of things in life on which money could be better spent.

lets see your reel @gt3rs

If this helps, you technically wouldn’t be using the full potential of the pocket 4k either, you would just be wasting less money.

i think anything more than a pocket 4k will be overkill for you

i’m dit-ing a european co-produced feature rn. Theyre shooting on an A35. Almost every feature and tv show here is being on this thing now from what ive heard. The last commercial i was pa-ing on was miniLF.

just an interesting sidenote: basically every belgian dp agrees that the standard arri r709 conversion is way too tame. thats why they always shoot with a custom lut (usually per project)

damn completely misremembered that i guess.

I dont disagree with you either here kye, i think we’re both somewhat in a camp of having the most image quality for the money. i’m not entirely sure if i technically paid off my p4k, lenses, etc with freelance work for example. at the same time, 10-15 years ago something like an fx3 seemed pretty crazy to imagine probably. I think the first bmcc came just out for slightly more money (without adjusting for inflation even)?

i guess prosumer is more correct, but its kind of an arbitrary distinction imo. its a technically ‘good video camera’ that you could buy in most camera stores for not that much money. Ive never had a pleasant time using it, but some people made a movie with it, so my opinion is irrelevant.

its a marketing stunt obv, and nothing will change because of this movie, but it’s still a cool accomplishment to shoot an ambitious feature length film with a consumer camera. I wish i was shooting features.

seems pretty large, but cool that mft is still going. might get a 8 year old olympus or panny for photos at some point

https://vimeo.com/860191315/ Shared the stills of this a while ago

this project ended up not being graded and ended up discarding some of my favorite parts. Here are some of my favorite screengrabs from that though.

If the rumor site cant even get the sensor brand right lol… i dont get why people yearn this much for new gear. If it happens, it happens.

thanks guys!

here it is, a rejected music video for a demo of my band's song: pw: buster luckily that's not what i said. i said that it's not that much work to match two cameras shooting at least 10 bit log 422 files in a rec709 color space if you know the right technical transforms and have some grading proficiency, in case you're shooting the same scene. i said that it's also not hard to make a display lut for a monitor to give you an image that is more similar to the og bmpcc on the 4k and 6k if you figured that previous step out. depends on the production. of course an arri would be nice, but i'm not going to turn down a shoot if that's the last minute change in a camera package. they say that, and i'm sure they've had a huge hand in designing it, but i find it hard to believe, especially since the sensor dimensions match the komodo's exactly, and it's not exactly easy to become a sensor manufacturer. exactly. the bmmcc was made as a crash, drone, or awkward angle cam, with an ok sensor, and 2 good for the time codecs that made it possible to get a close match to better cameras of the time. but if you really think the image you get out of that is per definition better than any of the newer bmd cams combined with a good colorist? that I think, is a bit naive too.

i dont really want to turn this into an annoying self repeating argument, and frankly i dont have a lot of experience with most of the cameras mentioned here. bmd sensor wise, i do know that you missed the ursa mini 4.6k, the ump and ump g2, which are made by the same sensor company as the og bmpcc and bmmcc. The 12k might be canon, and a belgian company did the dogshit sensor for their global shutter cameras. i do have some experience with both the original pocket as well as the 4k (and the 6k for that matter), and from what i can tell is that the original just has the kodak 2383 characteristics embedded in its luts/color space transfers in resolve. You can very clearly tell that, while the 4k and 6k dont, they have a way more neutral r709-ish starting point. That doesnt mean that they cant look like that, you just need to apply the cst to cineon (or gen 1) + kodak lut in resolve, and add some extra grain, to basically get the same result. You can even export that look as a lut, and embed it in the 4k and 6k to have it displayed while its shooting. The data is all there, you just have to know how to finesse it to get it to look right to your eyes. what this means to me, is that those older cameras are just less flexible if you ever do want to get a more neutral look out of them, or go for something different. They might have some digital noise that may remind you of film grain, but it is pretty clear that they just perform worse imo. When the ursa minis were updated to gen 4, they also had a more normal r709-ish looking profile that matches the look of the 4k and 6k more closely. Give me a while and i’ll post something that was shot on a sony sensor, and was graded by me to look a bit more like how i wanted it to. Let me know what the concrete “sony sensor characteristics” will be please.

some moving images for once.

In the past, if you wanted to be a good dp, you would have to know about film processing techniques, and have good relations with the people at the film lab to get the exact results you wished for. now you have the ability to capture more, and more pliable data, and you need to work with colorists to get the exact look you want. The look you’re aiming for tends to come from preproduction anyway, so I’m not actually sure how much changed. the alexa also looks clean and modern imo.

i would also advise everyone to avoid manfrotto at all costs

get a second hand sachtler ace or libec something. don't get some bottom of the barrel shit that's barely better than whatever you have right now. even if you're not planning on panning/tilting while recording, it can actually be useful at some point in the future.