PPNS

that is probably a better way to look at it. phones are good for convenience, and they will allow you take the shot. but if you rely on them to give you actual good image quality, or whatever expectation you set for 8K or any other of their promised specs, and you'll end up terribly disappointed.

well good camcorders had 4:2:2 color sampling more than a decade ago, and often had insane versatile zoom lenses, so the sensor size argument is kind of moot. The 8k out of a phone will still probably be worse than hd out of a camcorder from 10 years ago. an original bmpcc will probably resolve more detail than video coming out of a phone with an 8k sensor. its a waste of anyone’s time.

and the image quality happens to be ass as well

the pocket 4k is probably the best video camera you can buy for the money. however, it is annoying. the pocket 6k is more expensive, with image quality that is about 3% better at most imo, but every annoying bit about the 4k is extra annoying (especially battery life) on the 6k. the 6k pro is more expensive than the 6k, but fixes many faults of the regular 6k with its quality of life upgrades. So imo its not even worth considering the regular 6k. Even though i have really liked using it due to its NDs and bright screen, you are kind of stuck with an annoying mount: canon photo lenses arent particularly pleasant to work with, and cine lens wise you're most likely gonna have to rent, because your selection is pretty small, and Sigmas or Zeiss CPs aren't particularly affordable. If you're looking for a B cam for a more serious cine camera, you could just convert the mount to PL permanently. Lens wise the 4k just rocks, Olympus photo lenses are good for manual focusing, and the MFT cine meikes are insanely good for the price. Since everyone is so convinced that MFT is dying out, this means that they are insanely cheap on the second hand market. I myself hate speedboosters, but you can find some qualitative PL and EF adapters for a bargain occasionally online as well. This means that your selection of viable lenses is basically endless. I can basically live with most of the grievances with this camera, because the footage you can get out if it is so good, and it costs nothing compared to anything else.

2 years ago, they announced the 6k pro after their atem switchers too, so i presume its a relatively small update. either way i’m interested!

i've seen so many of your posts where you're unable to decide on which camera to choose. i dont think suggestions are of much use to you tbh. Just show an example of a video you've made, and show 1 example of a video that you would like to achieve, maybe it'll be easier to help you that way.

thanks guys, very nice of y’all!

did another short with this camera, feel like showing off some stills again. the short itself is not yet finished.

Thats what sigma does with the fps and people call that “real uncompressed raw” lol

Would you call yourself a first tier professional? Because i’m being honest and i wouldn’t call myself that (and neither do i think of myself as a snob). The place i work for mainly does online ads, with occasionally some stuff that gets on tv. Completely disposable stuff, that either gets crushed by social media compression or broadcasted in 1080i to people who dont turn their motion smoothing off lol. outside of that i try to do narrative short films, but those just get seen by film profs or get a hidden link on vimeo. Again, conditions in which hdr would not help very much at all, and where a well calibrated 709 environment would be perfect. as far as i know, my macbook pro only does fake hdr too, so whats the point there as well? since you claim that producing hdr video is worth it, and i would like to at least be convinced, could we see some of your professional hdr video work please?

are you just front lighting? you dont really need to use the grid, and if something bothers you, you should still be able to cut some light out with a flag

my camera is cheaper than yours and nothing i own can display hdr as far as i know.

if someone forced me to use a photo camera for video, i would probably choose to shoot with the 4:2:2 codec. is it shaming? Or is it trying to tell you that you couldve saved yourself a bunch of time? i was not talking about professional standards, i was saying that no one i know who works in video cares about hdr. I was curious why you did. if people had such unrealistic expectations as you with niche features their only options are the alexa lfs and the kinefinity cameras lol. Luckily most people are pretty normal.

Have you maybe considered that maybe people aren’t trolling you and are trying to give you helpful advice? I can maybe understand that you dont like my nor AF’s tone, but consider the points raised in this thread: - i asked you why you needed to grade in hdr, and this was a genuine question. I dont know anyone in my professional environment who does this, and i am curious. What would a broader gamut help you achieve that you cant with 709? - you’ve explained that you want to shoot open gate out of preference, but you dont actually have a justifiable reason, other than using some cheap theoretical anamorphic lens that would give another theoretical result. you can still shoot 4:3 by cropping the sensor and you will get the extra color information you need. 4:2:2 will give you the bare minimum for working with video imo. - can you actually explain why you think using a smaller format is inherently worse? Because in your case it would genuinely only give you better results. Have you realised your sensor cropped to 16:9 is already too big for most anamorphic lenses made throughout history already? i attached some screenshots to more clearly illustrate my point. - by responding this way to criticism, falling for cheap marketing gimmicks (hdr, full frame, cheap anamorphics, open gate, netflix approval, etc.), not understanding that any 4:2:0 codec is worth nobody’s effort, and then not having a particularly good looking test image to show your point, it kind of makes it easy to assume that you’re not very sure of what you’re doing. i agree with Alexis Fontana here, I think you should start refocusing on the things that actually matter in the field of making moving images. genuinely man, good luck.

Arent you just describing a p6k pro?

Nobody is going to use these for netflix unless they need a crash cam. Not a single serious person is going to use anamorphic lenses on these.

1. Why would you ever need to grade for hdr? 2. You are shooting in an interframe codec with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, youre supposed to expect macroblocking and banding

Well he wasnt fucking wrong

it costs about 120 euros a day here to rent a terradek bolt

Wireless video transmitter is fine for a directors monitor, but unusable for focus pulling due to the delay

probably some of the nicest lenses to use for video on mft. what might also be interesting is that i had the chance to compare them to Zeiss CP2s. while i dont want to take away the advantages of the zeiss (PL/swappable mount, the majority of the set covers FF, some lenses are faster), they really dont look better than the meikes. the general look is very similar, but the zeiss set has more unpleasant aberrations wide open when pointed towards a light source. the focus breathing is way more apparent on the CP2s as well (cropped to mft, on FF theyre almost unusable due to the breathing imo). pretty crazy for a set thats easily about 1/10th the price.

nothing wrong with shooting 1080p prores, something i do pretty often on the p4k. speaking of black friday deals, check out those meike mft lenses on their site, or look for them on the second hand market where people are tend to be selling them for an insane price occasionally.

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size. if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it? how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between? how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

i might be interested in one without the eoshd logo

i disagree, but it can look pretty good just like in some of the examples. if you need an external recorder to get good results out of your camera i dont think its worth anyones effort.