Are people going back? ....to S16 ....to MF ....to limitations ....to older cameras?

[EduPortas]

15 hours ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

Certainly not a bad camera the XF100. Just the lack of ND and use of CF cards was a turndown for me.

It has some sort of "gradation filter" or electronic ND filter. There was a big discussion about this almost 10 years ago.

Kicks in at F4.

[IronFilm]

On 7/28/2020 at 10:06 PM, Tim Sewell said:

In fact for me, the ideal camera would basically be my C100 mk1 with the only changes being a bit of HFR and external 'real' 4:2:2 10 bit up to 60fps.

Sounds like a Sony PMW-F3 😉

On 7/28/2020 at 11:17 PM, kye said:

Things like the OG Pocket probably don't make sense commercially any more

If you're a low budget videographer, the OG Pocket still makes a lot of sense. 
Or if you are traveling, then OG Pocket is much more compact in you carry on bag than an URSA Mini

On 7/29/2020 at 7:38 AM, TheRenaissanceMan said:

The professional production world never stopped using MF. They just transitioned to wireless transmitters/follow focuses. 

And with range finding tools too: 

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

If you're a low budget videographer, the OG Pocket still makes a lot of sense. 
Or if you are traveling, then OG Pocket is much more compact in you carry on bag than an URSA Mini

Hahaha, yes, that's not a small size difference!

[Tim Sewell]

13 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sounds like a Sony PMW-F3 😉

Or an Alexa Mini with DPAF!

[anonim]

13 hours ago, IronFilm said:

"Things like the OG Pocket probably don't make sense commercially any more."

 

 

 

https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/lillian-review-1203227609/

[majoraxis]

Once there is an USRA Min Broadcast with a 6k RGB sensor using the same sensor tech as the BM12k, the both super 16 and b4 cinema lenses will be back in fashion.  

The super 16 lens is not the problem,  it is having camera that can make these lenses shine.

I had a GH1 with a vintage C-mount 25mm f0.95 and in video mode it look pretty good but in photo mode it look like a still frame from a movie.

Anyways, tube mics where kind pushed to the side by solid state mics in the 70’s as there were cleaner to analog tape then with digital audio recording the tube mics (and tube compressor) became in fashion again an doubled and quadrupled in price overtime.

Once Blackmagic’s RGB sensor tech as a lower price point and compatible with super 16 resolution wise, I’m sure it will be popular option for specific film genres like horror, documentaries and action scenes.

[kye]

1 hour ago, majoraxis said:

Once there is an USRA Min Broadcast with a 6k RGB sensor using the same sensor tech as the BM12k, the both super 16 and b4 cinema lenses will be back in fashion.  

The super 16 lens is not the problem,  it is having camera that can make these lenses shine.

I had a GH1 with a vintage C-mount 25mm f0.95 and in video mode it look pretty good but in photo mode it look like a still frame from a movie.

Anyways, tube mics where kind pushed to the side by solid state mics in the 70’s as there were cleaner to analog tape then with digital audio recording the tube mics (and tube compressor) became in fashion again an doubled and quadrupled in price overtime.

Once Blackmagic’s RGB sensor tech as a lower price point and compatible with super 16 resolution wise, I’m sure it will be popular option for specific film genres like horror, documentaries and action scenes.

I've been into hifi and custom audio for decades and there are parallels, to be sure.

In audio, the bad digital had various forms of distortion that were lessened when combined with tube/valve equipment that kind of smoothed over the bad digital and left a more aesthetically appealing end product.  The tube equipment usually paired with bad digital is actually pretty awful on its own, so it's a long way from neutral and often very heavy handed.  As digital got better there is less of a need (and desire) to be so heavy handed with the tube equipment, and the end result became more transparent as a result.

In video, we have had a similar journey when we moved from film to RAW image capture with bad colour science and then as the DSLR revolution occurred we then started employing low bit-rate high-compression codecs, and to counter the high-compression we started to use vintage lenses.  As we are getting higher bit-rates there is less of a need to be so heavy handed with the softness of vintage lenses to reach an aesthetically neutral final image.  

I'm not sure if that parallels the availability of a good S16 sensor or not, but perhaps.  I would tend to think that the Micro, being continually available since release, would have meant there was already a ready-made S16 sized sensor available: it shoots uncompressed RAW, has 60p, and is a professional form-factor for rigging etc, especially with its port for having external hardware controls rather than forcing you to use it's menu system.

Why are you expecting an UMP 6K to suddenly raise the demand for S16 and B4 glass?  Obviously the UMP is viewed as a professional camera and the Micro probably as a curiosity, but people who would go back to S16 or B4 lenses aren't cutting edge I wouldn't have thought, my impression was that they were curiosities too?

[fuzzynormal]

I can upload a montage of my camera test footage from when I bought my EM10III if anyone is curious.  Shot mostly in 30p 4K with some shots in 1080 60p.  Used a 1980's Nikkor 50mm lens on a no-brand Chinese speed booster and a cheap Zomei variable ND filter.  Most shots at f2.8, some wider.  Auto-WB.  I'd film a movie with this camera set-up.  Why not?

So, yeah...if anyone wants to pixel peep some of my 8-bit 4K with that setup, lemme know.  I look at it next to my GH5 footage and I can see differences, but it's marginal, they don't worry me much.  I like the color out of the EM10III better, actually.  Oh, and when I use this vintage glass, the IQ is wildly different between f2 and f1.4.  Color, chroma aberration, softness, etc.  All the flaws that some avoid, I'm like, "Eh, let's roll with it.  Looks cool."

At any rate, maybe this all rolls back to the arguments we've all been having (at this indy level of production) as cam tech advances.  Ultimately, you're making gear decisions based on what you got available and what aesthetic you're aiming for --then making it fit in your budget.  

I've never had a big hang-up trying to achieve pristine footage because what I grew up watching was visual shit regardless if I was at a movie house screening or watching something on VHS.  The times I'm paid to care, I try to.  Otherwise, [shoulder shrug emoji].  Just one old guy's POV.  The "Film Look" demands flaws in my mind.  I'm not going to stop appreciating all the cool Walter Hill movies I love because there's a hair in the gate, y'know?  It's the other bits of the craft that create "cinema."

[majoraxis]

19 hours ago, kye said:

Why are you expecting an UMP 6K to suddenly raise the demand for S16 and B4 glass?  Obviously the UMP is viewed as a professional camera and the Micro probably as a curiosity, but people who would go back to S16 or B4 lenses aren't cutting edge I wouldn't have thought, my impression was that they were curiosities too?

Great question.

1. Value.  You can purchase a cinema lenses that were 10 of thousands of dollars for 5 to 20 percent of what they cost new especially for B4 lenses.  You can purchase a Fujinon 15x para focal constant aperture cinema B4 lens zoom lens for $1700 on ebay today, Adorama sells it as a special order for $39,500. https://www.adorama.com/fuhac15x73b.html?utm_source=adl-gbase

2. Performance.  Having access to a long zoom range and much of it at a constant aperture (in many cases) opens up creative possibilities. Size, weight and cost are in line with the reasons people chose super 16 in the first place:.  You get a tool for shooting like a lager budget production at a lower cost with some expected compromises like greater depth of field.

3.  Design: a true cinema is a joy to behold and to hold and use.  You can get a Zeiss DigiZoom 6-24mm (that’s like a 24mm - 96mm) 1.9T constant aperture for $1600 on ebay with a flight case.  This was about $60k new.  The thing is It is a Zeiss cinema lens and the glass has the Zeiss look/fire..

4. the right toot for the right job.  If you have  $1500 prime lens,  why not complement it with a $1,500 ($50K designed zoom lens).  I think you need both because and they are different tools. Yet, with the right sensor you can get both looks/functions on a budget.

5.  It is really a matter of preference.  Some productions shot on super 16 for the look, control, speed of shooting and the cost savings.  I think some people will shoot it again because it is now possible to get the color fidelity and resolution of close to film with BLackmagic new RGB sensor tech.  The limitations weren’t the lens in the first place, so people can now get the look they previously had loved and enjoyed without the costs of shooting on film.

To me it is a comparatively inexpensive way to get a much-needed cinema tool.

 

 

 

[QuickHitRecord]

On 8/2/2020 at 9:49 AM, fuzzynormal said:

I can upload a montage of my camera test footage from when I bought my EM10III if anyone is curious.

I'd be interested in this. I bought an EM10iii last year for a pittance because I liked the idea of an inexpensive camera that could shoot decent, stabilized 4K through my Kern Switars but I haven't had much of a chance to shoot with it. I finally put it through its paces on the stills side this weekend (photos here). Hoping to capture some video soon.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, QuickHitRecord said:

I'd be interested in this.

Sure.  As mentioned it's shot with vintage glass on a cheap speed booster.   Um, what else... "Natural" color profile, no tweaks, no color correcting.  Auto-WB so you can see how it'll drift into strange colors every now and again.  4K Frame rate is 29,97 and I believe I was shooting with a 40 shutter speed.  Did a few 1080 60p shots in there. I guess that's pretty much it.  Focal Length is 50mm x 0.7.  

When I open that lens all the way to 1.4, it really fringes and halos.  Pretty wild.

I've also shot a bit now with my Olympus 12-40mm 2.8 Pro Lens.  That's a whole 'nother look completely.  Much more sharp and clinical.

https://vimeo.com/path88/review/444427937/9888f03bd9

 

 

[QuickHitRecord]

4 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

https://vimeo.com/path88/review/444427937/9888f03bd9

I mean, this looks pretty good to my eye. Certainly as good or better than most of the current crop of mirrorless cameras. Plenty of IQ there to tell a story. I'm shocked by how well the auto WB works. Thanks for sharing.

[JimJones]

On 8/3/2020 at 4:58 AM, majoraxis said:

Great question.

1. Value.  You can purchase a cinema lenses that were 10 of thousands of dollars for 5 to 20 percent of what they cost new especially for B4 lenses.  You can purchase a Fujinon 15x para focal constant aperture cinema B4 lens zoom lens for $1700 on ebay today, Adorama sells it as a special order for $39,500. https://www.adorama.com/fuhac15x73b.html?utm_source=adl-gbase

2. Performance.  Having access to a long zoom range and much of it at a constant aperture (in many cases) opens up creative possibilities. Size, weight and cost are in line with the reasons people chose super 16 in the first place:.  You get a tool for shooting like a lager budget production at a lower cost with some expected compromises like greater depth of field.

3.  Design: a true cinema is a joy to behold and to hold and use.  You can get a Zeiss DigiZoom 6-24mm (that’s like a 24mm - 96mm) 1.9T constant aperture for $1600 on ebay with a flight case.  This was about $60k new.  The thing is It is a Zeiss cinema lens and the glass has the Zeiss look/fire..

4. the right toot for the right job.  If you have  $1500 prime lens,  why not complement it with a $1,500 ($50K designed zoom lens).  I think you need both because and they are different tools. Yet, with the right sensor you can get both looks/functions on a budget.

5.  It is really a matter of preference.  Some productions shot on super 16 for the look, control, speed of shooting and the cost savings.  I think some people will shoot it again because it is now possible to get the color fidelity and resolution of close to film with BLackmagic new RGB sensor tech.  The limitations weren’t the lens in the first place, so people can now get the look they previously had loved and enjoyed without the costs of shooting on film.

To me it is a comparatively inexpensive way to get a much-needed cinema tool.

 

 

 

Yup - agree with all this. A LOT of wildlife docs were shot on B4/F23

[billdoubleu]

In my dreams I see a Fuji GFX camera with:

Medium format Fairchild sensor

2K DCI/ UHD at 23.976 fps, 24 fps, 25 fps

Internal Blackmagic RAW

SD Card slot

A form factor that would look like a cousin to the Sigma FP with a large tilting screen.

And $2000 or under.

Who wants to shit all over my dream here?

[kye]

2 hours ago, billdoubleu said:

In my dreams I see a Fuji GFX camera with:

Medium format Fairchild sensor

2K DCI/ UHD at 23.976 fps, 24 fps, 25 fps

Internal Blackmagic RAW

SD Card slot

A form factor that would look like a cousin to the Sigma FP with a large tilting screen.

And $2000 or under.

Who wants to shit all over my dream here?

Overheating?

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, billdoubleu said:

Who wants to shit all over my dream here?

10 minute time limit?
No mic input?
Micro HDMI ouput? (that cuts out when you're recording)
No focus peaking? No punch in focus while recording? 
No 8bit or 10bit recording options?
 

[billdoubleu]

17 hours ago, IronFilm said:

10 minute time limit?
No mic input?
Micro HDMI ouput? (that cuts out when you're recording)
No focus peaking? No punch in focus while recording? 
No 8bit or 10bit recording options?
 

Haha! I can't tell if my post was the result of too many beers or just the right amount of beers. I can only imagine how difficult it is to engineer these cameras in a way to make them desirable enough to a wide enough range of buyers.

Apropos of the BMPCC discussion; I've been watching the prices on eBay/ Craigslist since the 4k came out. I was waiting for them to dip into the $250 range so I could justify to myself the purchase. They came close for a short time early on, but seemed to climb steadily back into the $400-500 range and stay there until recently. Now these cameras are going for much more on eBay and those prices seem to be keeping Craigslist prices up as well. I just can't justify spending that much money on a camera that has plenty of issues as is, has been referred to by more than a few people I've spoken to as a "disposable camera", and most people originally purchased for $500 six years ago.

[kye]

3 hours ago, billdoubleu said:

Haha! I can't tell if my post was the result of too many beers or just the right amount of beers. I can only imagine how difficult it is to engineer these cameras in a way to make them desirable enough to a wide enough range of buyers.

Apropos of the BMPCC discussion; I've been watching the prices on eBay/ Craigslist since the 4k came out. I was waiting for them to dip into the $250 range so I could justify to myself the purchase. They came close for a short time early on, but seemed to climb steadily back into the $400-500 range and stay there until recently. Now these cameras are going for much more on eBay and those prices seem to be keeping Craigslist prices up as well. I just can't justify spending that much money on a camera that has plenty of issues as is, has been referred to by more than a few people I've spoken to as a "disposable camera", and most people originally purchased for $500 six years ago.

I think there are two kinds of film-making, each with a different set of criteria for equipment.

The first is controlled situations, where for a camera the following criteria are what is important:

1. Image
2. Image
3. Image
4. How difficult it is on set to get that image
5. How easy it is to deal with it in post

The second is uncontrolled situations, where for a camera the following criteria are what is important:

1. Can you use it at all?
2. How good is the image in difficult situations?
3. How good is the image inn easier situations?

The BMPCC and BMMCC are designed for the first situation.  People HAVE used them for the first, but they're DESIGNED for the second.

We talk about cameras like it's a popularity contest, it's a beauty pageant, it's a stock portfolio, its a ticket into a club, its a fashion accessory, or it's a phallus extension.  This is all crap.  Cameras are ugly, expensive, fragile and fiddly and it shouldn't matter what your mates think, how much they retailed for, or what colour they are (even if they're fricking gold plated - Nikon).  A camera that shoots 1080p RAW and various flavours of Prores is either worth $500 to you or it's not, and I'd suggest that if it isn't then it's either because you have a different camera that already does what you need it to do, or it wasn't designed for you.

[billdoubleu]

19 hours ago, kye said:

I think there are two kinds of film-making, each with a different set of criteria for equipment.

The first is controlled situations, where for a camera the following criteria are what is important:

1. Image
2. Image
3. Image
4. How difficult it is on set to get that image
5. How easy it is to deal with it in post

The second is uncontrolled situations, where for a camera the following criteria are what is important:

1. Can you use it at all?
2. How good is the image in difficult situations?
3. How good is the image inn easier situations?

The BMPCC and BMMCC are designed for the first situation.  People HAVE used them for the first, but they're DESIGNED for the second.

I think you meant vice versa in your last sentence, but I agree with this one hundred percent. In the second situation, which I find myself in more often than not, the biggest two problems I run into are; either too much light or not enough light. I imagine these have been two major issues for filmmakers since the beginning.

Obviously, no company seems to want to handle the first problem from the factory in a mirrorless hybrid form factor. So the onus is on us. And while it's frankly a pain-in-the-ass most times, it's a simple enough fix.

The second problem is only now starting to better and better with dual native ISO, large sensors, better noise reduction, or all three together.

19 hours ago, kye said:

Cameras are ugly, expensive, fragile and fiddly...

 They truly are!

19 hours ago, kye said:

...if it isn't then it's either because you have a different camera that already does what you need it to do, or it wasn't designed for you.

I view cameras like automobiles. They are tools, toys, collectors items, and pieces of art. A Ferrari isn't designed for my particular needs, but I'd sure love to see one parked in my garage!

[aaa123jc]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:46 PM, majoraxis said:

Once there is an USRA Min Broadcast with a 6k RGB sensor using the same sensor tech as the BM12k, the both super 16 and b4 cinema lenses will be back in fashion.  

The super 16 lens is not the problem,  it is having camera that can make these lenses shine.

I had a GH1 with a vintage C-mount 25mm f0.95 and in video mode it look pretty good but in photo mode it look like a still frame from a movie.

Anyways, tube mics where kind pushed to the side by solid state mics in the 70’s as there were cleaner to analog tape then with digital audio recording the tube mics (and tube compressor) became in fashion again an doubled and quadrupled in price overtime.

Once Blackmagic’s RGB sensor tech as a lower price point and compatible with super 16 resolution wise, I’m sure it will be popular option for specific film genres like horror, documentaries and action scenes.

Love that microphone analogy. 

There is a reason why most of the popular high end microphones are all tube mics. The imperfections just make the sound more pleasant and interesting. However, I like solid state preamp more. But that's probably because I can't afford a good tube preamp. 😆