JulioD

https://shop.filmomat.eu/products/135-autocarrier This seems to be doing some interesting things.

What they are calling "overclock" isn't. This looks like some kind of industrial high speed camera. It's just a different operating MODE. Just like on the spec sheet. And the so called downsides are more to do with the engineering side on the camera (thermals and data pipes) not keeping up. And 1000% certain that Fuji aren't going to offer a menu option that says "overclock me baby"

To be fair this is the spec sheet for the Mk1. It’s safe to assume it’s in the same sensor family. A modest improvement of RS time is likely compared to the MK2 as is. It’s not going to be radically different.

I’m not sure. But he stopped using his cool scan 9000 which is basically the very best of desktop film scanning tech short of going to a Hasselblad Flextight. Both of which are now considered obsolete. I use an inexpensive Plustek only because it’s automated and don’t have time to do individual frames but the consensus is that higher res cameras do producer better results now than most dedicated scanners. I think there’s a huge difference between exhibition resolution (shitty 2k multiplex projection) and the resolution you capture at. Seinfeld on 35mm still looks great on SDTV compared to a SDTV video camera of the same resolution. It’s not a complicated idea to acquire at a higher resolution than your distribution format. Nobody masters using 264.

Here you go bro. This is an example of a sensor spec sheet. By the way, the really quick way to tell if the rolling shutter is “fast” is to look at the fastest frame rate the camera can do. It’s not complicated. But thinking you can just “overclock” without it being DESIGNED to actually do that or have those modes designed from the ground up. This sensor is designed around being a stills sensor. Not a fast RS motion sensor. Page 105 shows the maximum frame rates depending on the mode being used. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/85986570odkx36kc7tw9e/GFX100-Data-Sheet-2.pdf?rlkey=6ek4lgy5lqcx138jz3afliuks&e=1&dl=0

Only if the sensor supports those modes. It’s not overclocking.

Some examples of scanning with higher resolution cameras showing how much more 35mm still holds https://fstoppers.com/film/youve-never-seen-digitized-film-resolution-using-fuji-gfx100s-597874

Yes. No way are they getting anything much better from what this sensor already does.

It can do more than 4K, but notice, that there really aren't very good ways to scan motion picture commercially at more than 4K. For a long time in the early days of DI and digital VFX, the thinking was that 2K and 10 bit was good enough. Because that's all the hardware could do back then. Funny how everyone thinks 4K is good enough now when that's pretty much all you can easily and commercially scan at... And yet as I said above, in home enthusiast photo scanning, plenty of home brew scanning setups now just use very high resolution (and DR) cameras to do scans and they're getting much better results than from traditional film scanners.

I think the argument is that the original film probably has more resolution. That’s not what you’re watching though. i have seen many home film scanners now are based on using a Fuji GFX cameras…

Rolling shutter and bit depth will be the big question for this. As far at the 17K, I’m sure it will be similar to the new 12k which CineD just tested and seems pretty impressive. https://www.cined.com/blackmagic-ursa-cine-12k-lf-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/

I think the drone market is huge. Making video cameras for video enthusiasts…. Not so much. I don’t think the market is really big enough for them to care to make something. They did the 4D thing and I think it basically bombed. Didn’t they just slash the price of it? I don’t know anyone that’s using it beside the high profile users they paid for the launch.

Douglas Trumbull is a VFX legend. His first credit is 2001. He has said many times he tested HFR on people, but it was never exactly published. You find general quotes online like this… “What reaction did you get when you showed the higher frame rates to viewers? We did tests at 24, 36, 48, 60, 66 and 72fps. We filmed a first person point of view shot in a car driving down a winding road. We brought in people to look at these movies at these frame rates, and hooked them up to an electrocardiogram [records electrical activity in the heart], electroencephalogram [records electrical activity on the scalp], galvanic skin response [measures electrical conductivity of skin], and electromyogram [records electrical activity in muscles]. We found out that people’s physiological stimulation levels would rise tremendously as a result of frame rate. It showed a perfect bell-shaped curve that peaked around 66 frames per second. We created the company Showscan, raised money, and started making films at 60 frames per second in 65mm format. We saw only a very subtle difference between 60 and 66fps, and so that was where we set Showscan.” (Don’t forget he’s talking about film, not digital and it’s a hell of thing to make a film projector run that fast. They sure are noisy.) He just died recently. With the Hobbit failure I do remember him coming out and saying HFR isn’t good for drama, it should be used for heightened experienced only, but more recent comments were more that 120FPS was the answer! Think about it though. Do you want everyone’s heart rate RAISED for a 2 hour movie?

Then there are those that are those that don't even engage in that conversation by defining themselves by what equipment they have but by how they tell stories, what they might do differently or better as a professional image maker, how they might understand the needs of the client better or more deeply, making those leaps of insight or empathy that the client might not have even thought about, something that isn't about being defined by technicalities. Of course those things do matter, but I think if thats how you define yourself then that's all you deserve... I'd rather be hired because I'm a great communicator, or because clients think I can tell a story in a unique or better way not because I have a certain piece of camera equipment. If it's only about owning a certain camera, then what's to stop them going to anyone else with the same camera? And there will always be someone that has that camera that will do it for less than you.

So to the OP’s question, doesn’t seem like anything’s different. Cary on.