The £3-£4K Market

[mercer]

41 minutes ago, martinmcgreal said:

I did both roles for that particular piece, but I'm a dp mainly. It was all shot in ProResHQ.

It's daylight robbery how cheap the camera retails for, given it's superior to systems five or six times the price. I'd always encourage even amateur shooters to make the pocket camera their first ever camera purchase. Yes, shooting/grading LOG images can be tricky/daunting at first, but you'd rather learn the hard way early on, than later. The menu system is perhaps the easiest/cleanest interface I've ever seen too, compared to say an A7S. 

I agree, and this exactly why it's perhaps worth me waiting even longer, to pull together the funds for say a Scarlet. I could make a purchase as early as next month, for a system that may last me a year or two, but for the sake of waiting an extra few months, I could purchase a system that would last me the best part of five years. It's a no brainer, when written like that. 

 

 

I had the Micro last summer but didn't enjoy rigging it up for the run and gun shooting I like to do, but the image with old Kern c-mounts was amazing. I sold it, then eventually bought a Pocket but I think it was defective because the camera got so hot that it felt like it may melt, so I returned it. A few weeks back I was messing with the footage and it just looked so much better than anything I had shot. I've been practicing my color correcting/grading skills because I was tired of using LUTS and you have to do more to the image, but the latitude is insane... you really have to try really hard to get those files to fall apart.

[martinmcgreal]

47 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I agree. The grading is just to die for in those shots. That is what we all strive to get, as least I do. Well done!

Thanks for the kind words! 

19 minutes ago, mercer said:

I had the Micro last summer but didn't enjoy rigging it up for the run and gun shooting I like to do, but the image with old Kern c-mounts was amazing. I sold it, then eventually bought a Pocket but I think it was defective because the camera got so hot that it felt like it may melt, so I returned it. A few weeks back I was messing with the footage and it just looked so much better than anything I had shot. I've been practicing my color correcting/grading skills because I was tired of using LUTS and you have to do more to the image, but the latitude is insane... you really have to try really hard to get those files to fall apart.

LUT's are great, if you treat them as just a small part of the grading process, and not expect drag and drop results, which most do. Of course, it helps massively if you're shooting with an external monitor that can import 3D LUT's, so you can then finesse your look all the way from principal photography to post - a process I myself followed for the stills on the previous page. I appreciate such monitors are viewed as both a luxury, and incredibly expensive, but I can't emphasise enough just how useful they become, even more so on cameras like the pocket which don't shoot Rec709, since the 'video' mode is still relatively dull/flat. 

You're always fighting a limited battle on set lighting/exposing/white-balancing to a LOG image, hence why I'd always encourage people - especially for narrative work - to purchase an external monitor with importable LUT's. 

[mercer]

28 minutes ago, martinmcgreal said:

Thanks for the kind words! 

LUT's are great, if you treat them as just a small part of the grading process, and not expect drag and drop results, which most do. Of course, it helps massively if you're shooting with an external monitor that can import 3D LUT's, so you can then finesse your look all the way from principal photography to post - a process I myself followed for the stills on the previous page. I appreciate such monitors are viewed as both a luxury, and incredibly expensive, but I can't emphasise enough just how useful they become, even more so on cameras like the pocket which don't shoot Rec709, since the 'video' mode is still relatively dull/flat. 

You're always fighting a limited battle on set lighting/exposing/white-balancing to a LOG image, hence why I'd always encourage people - especially for narrative work - to purchase an external monitor with importable LUT's. 

That makes sense, I just don't want to be a DP. I'm a writer that is looking for another outlet to showcase my writing. So, external monitors and a bunch of cables are too much for my sensibility.

From reading this site over the past year and a half I learned a ton, and I care about image quality, but for my needs I don't want to be hindered by too much equipment for my skill set or needs. There's a phrase in screenwriting called K.I.S.S. which stands for Keep It Simple Stupid... and when it comes to the technical element that's how I have to approach it.

With that being said, I really respect the craft and skill set of so many people on this site and I am obsessed with learning from all of you. 

[mat33]

10 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

Whilst the 35mm look isn't really my taste anymore, it's hard not to fall in love with the D16's image. It's the type of camera that your more than happy to make comprises for, in terms of say low-light and resolution, for that colour and motion. It's definitely under my consideration, that's for sure. Just a shame it's so difficult to come across in the current market (?) What's the issue with these things crashing etc. too? I've never looked deeply into the D16's flaws, but you see people flag it up every-time these are topics of discussion. 

Cheers. I can't access the link however until my request to join the group is accepted, and worth noting too, I don't actually have the funds to make a purchase as of now. More March/February.

This is one of my options too - as in, waiting even longer to make a purchase, say until the summer, for a much pricier yet superior system. As ever though, once you've fell out of love with a camera, and have your eyes peeled on an upgrade, it's hard to wait much longer. 

I've had a D16 for about a year, and I have had no crashes or freezes and no dropped frames.  My general impression is the camera is very stable with the latest firmware. 

Digital Bolex has recently stopped making any more D16's but the company the actually made them in Canada and Digital Bolex are still going, so the warranty and servicing is still there.  There are still a few new ones that pop up at retailers now and then, and the occasional used one on eBay, Facebook etc.

The latest firmware was a pretty big upgrade -added a published wide gamut colour space with log transfer function, false colour exposure aid, new iso scheme, new display colour gamuts & gammas, uncompressed 10bit 4:4:4 HDMI output.

[martinmcgreal]

15 hours ago, Liam said:

@martinmcgreal great images! Have you compared the pocket cadence in prores to raw? I heard raw is notably better

I actually haven't, come to think of it. I can't say I've ever heard nor seen evidence to suggest RAW influences motion candence, as such, I've never drawn comparisons myself. 

12 hours ago, mat33 said:

I've had a D16 for about a year, and I have had no crashes or freezes and no dropped frames.  My general impression is the camera is very stable with the latest firmware. 

Digital Bolex has recently stopped making any more D16's but the company the actually made them in Canada and Digital Bolex are still going, so the warranty and servicing is still there.  There are still a few new ones that pop up at retailers now and then, and the occasional used one on eBay, Facebook etc.

The latest firmware was a pretty big upgrade -added a published wide gamut colour space with log transfer function, false colour exposure aid, new iso scheme, new display colour gamuts & gammas, uncompressed 10bit 4:4:4 HDMI output.

The D16 is definitely creeping into my final considerations, alongside the MX and Scarlet. Of course, the RED's are far more versatile systems, which should be my main consideration when spending such money, but it's hard to ignore the image the D16 delivers; it has that magical filmic feel to it that nothing else in this price-range can quite deliver so organically. I still prefer the clean, smooth, digital look, but the D16 is making me fall for the 'film' look again. 

[ade towell]

Sony F35 if you want to emulate film with super 35 size sensor, not 4k but as sharp a 1080 as you can get and uprez's very nicely

[martinmcgreal]

2 hours ago, ade towell said:

Sony F35 if you want to emulate film with super 35 size sensor, not 4k but as sharp a 1080 as you can get and uprez's very nicely

If the F35 was doing the rounds in this price-range, this thread wouldn't exist.

[ade towell]

they were going for about $4k not so long ago but yes looks like prices have gone up a bit

[mat33]

11 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

I actually haven't, come to think of it. I can't say I've ever heard nor seen evidence to suggest RAW influences motion candence, as such, I've never drawn comparisons myself. 

The D16 is definitely creeping into my final considerations, alongside the MX and Scarlet. Of course, the RED's are far more versatile systems, which should be my main consideration when spending such money, but it's hard to ignore the image the D16 delivers; it has that magical filmic feel to it that nothing else in this price-range can quite deliver so organically. I still prefer the clean, smooth, digital look, but the D16 is making me fall for the 'film' look again. 

I think you can get a clean look from the D16 -the D16 really highlights the characteristics of the lens used more than other cameras I've used, and a lot of the stuff shot with the D16 have used vintage C-mount or s16 glass.  I think if you used more modern, sharp & neutral glass like Sigma (or Arri Zeiss master primes), you would get the look you want.

RED is very nice as well-more $$$ but if you want 4K or need higher frame rates then a good way to go.  I don't have any personal experience with RED but it seems they have their own share of downsides as well, and I'm not sure if their colour science is as nice as DB (especially skin tones). But if I found a RED Scarlet-W under the Christmas tree I wouldn't be unhappy :-)

[martinmcgreal]

23 hours ago, mat33 said:

I think you can get a clean look from the D16 -the D16 really highlights the characteristics of the lens used more than other cameras I've used, and a lot of the stuff shot with the D16 have used vintage C-mount or s16 glass.  I think if you used more modern, sharp & neutral glass like Sigma (or Arri Zeiss master primes), you would get the look you want.

RED is very nice as well-more $$$ but if you want 4K or need higher frame rates then a good way to go.  I don't have any personal experience with RED but it seems they have their own share of downsides as well, and I'm not sure if their colour science is as nice as DB (especially skin tones). But if I found a RED Scarlet-W under the Christmas tree I wouldn't be unhappy :-)

Does the Bolex come with either PL/MTF mounts, or? Would be ideal if I could continue using my pocket's speedbooster and sigma glass .. 

[mat33]

22 minutes ago, martinmcgreal said:

Does the Bolex come with either PL/MTF mounts, or? Would be ideal if I could continue using my pocket's speedbooster and sigma glass .. 

You can get separate c-mount, passive m4/3 mount or a PL mount which are user changeable (although not something you want to do often or on the fly).  I have m4/3 so can use speedbooster (BMPCC works well) and use a m4/3-PL for s16 glass. 

[Laurier]

 

On 12/17/2016 at 9:14 PM, ade towell said:

Sony F35 if you want to emulate film with super 35 size sensor, not 4k but as sharp a 1080 as you can get and uprez's very nicely

 

That camera is gigantic and heavy , you also need an external recorder, and pl glass only . 
Sure it as global shutter but no slow mo at all .

This camera is still overpriced as it s very hard to use if you don t have a full crew with you , they should go for 2k not 4/6k , I d rather for for a red one if I had to pick one of the two.

 

[IronFilm]

32 minutes ago, Laurier said:

That camera is gigantic and heavy , you also need an external recorder, and pl glass only . 

Some people have made their own Nikon F mounts I believe?

[TheRenaissanceMan]

10 hours ago, Laurier said:

 

 

That camera is gigantic and heavy , you also need an external recorder, and pl glass only . 
Sure it as global shutter but no slow mo at all .

This camera is still overpriced as it s very hard to use if you don t have a full crew with you , they should go for 2k not 4/6k , I d rather for for a red one if I had to pick one of the two.

People have definitely found ways to mount other glass on it. Besides, there's plenty of affordable PL lenses these days. It can shoot 48fps iirc, which is half speed, and I've talked to people on DVX User who use the camera completely solo. The F35 gives you a much better image then the RED One--just not better specs. Hollywood films are still being shot on F35, not RED One.

[webrunner5]

Found another Red camera chart comparison that might interest a few people.

  http://www.alex-stone.com/2016/10/14/which-red-camera/

[Laurier]

On 12/19/2016 at 3:52 AM, TheRenaissanceMan said:

People have definitely found ways to mount other glass on it. Besides, there's plenty of affordable PL lenses these days. It can shoot 48fps iirc, which is half speed, and I've talked to people on DVX User who use the camera completely solo. The F35 gives you a much better image then the RED One--just not better specs. Hollywood films are still being shot on F35, not RED One.

Thank for the 48 fps, I didn t know it .

I think the camera is still overpriced when you compare to what you can get for the same price today.
 I mean for the price, why bother, you can get a ursa mini 4.6k.

[ade towell]

Have you actually seen the image the F35 puts out, alongside the Arri cameras it is the most cinematic image you can get in a digital camera imho, it's not always about specs, the camera is a few years old now but was $250k when released. The OP was looking for a camera with film like texture and motion cadence, the f35 is still a great camera 

[Geoff CB]

10 hours ago, Laurier said:

Thank for the 48 fps, I didn t know it .

I think the camera is still overpriced when you compare to what you can get for the same price today.
 I mean for the price, why bother, you can get a ursa mini 4.6k.

Because the F35 is built like a tank compared to the easily broken Ursa, and has an incredible image without any magenta issues?

[martinmcgreal]

7 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Because the F35 is built like a tank compared to the easily broken Ursa, and has an incredible image without any magenta issues?

and, if I haven't said it enough already - motion candence, motion candence, motion candence .. 

Just because systems appear superior on paper to say the F35 in usability, size, resolution, codecs, dynamic range etc., it doesn't mean for one second it's a superior system. Ultimate judgement should always rest with the image, in which case the F35 wins hands down. This isn't to say I'll be purchasing the F35 however; simply too pricey, and too large. 

[Jimmy]