BMPC4k & ___________

I own a BMPC4k camera, like it but not in love with it... and that's probably mostly because I needed a camera for shooting weddings and that's a camera for a tripod, not a gimbal.

So I'm looking at this Panasonic Lumix S5 II. Anyone have any experience with this bad boy?

This guy bought one and found that it wasn’t the camera that he hoped it would be:

madsmadalin wrote:

“I own the S5II (since February) and the Pocket 6K Gen 1 (since it came out a few years ago) + some Contax Zeiss lenses, Sigma 18-35, Helios 44M, Isco 1.8x Anamorphic Projector Lens and Sigma 24 1.4 Art Full frame for the S5II.

I got the S5II as on paper it looked like an amazing hybrid camera, amazing for video and photos. So it should've been the best camera to document my life. I don't do video professionally but I've done a few music videos and paid projects - again, I'm a musician and videography and photography are just my hobbies. Here is some of my video work to better understand - all of it shot with the Pocket 6K (except the indoor shots in the "Vocea Inimii" video.

In my opinion, the S5II in video mode lacks a lot in the color science department, compared to the Pocket 6K. It's so easy for me to get true to life and filmic result with the Pocket 6K while with the Lumix I have to work it so hard... and even then it's not even a 7/10. Greens are so over saturated. Blues have a cyan shift to them. But it's not as easy as just desaturating everything. It takes time and still, for some reason it still looks off. The image is also oversharpened. It lacks punch and depth. It's something you can't really describe but you instantly know when you see it. I use my camera to capture moments and for me, the Blackmagic lets you capture them the way you remember them happening. You know how when you see something beautiful - like a sunset - you take a picture or video with your phone but it looks "meh" compared to the real thing? That is what I feel about the S5II. Of course, it's much better than a phone, but it's not like how you remembered it looking. The Blackmagic on the other hand... looks so real, so good. And it's so easy to grade if you shoot RAW. Also... being able to change the white balance in post is life saving.

One would argue that you can add the Blackmagic VideoAssist to the S5II. But carrying that with you + a cable just to get a usable image? And still it's not as good as the Pocket... no thanks.

Yeah, the IBIS is amazing. Yes, Autofocus is great (if you use new autofocus lenses - I don't other than the Sigma). But I would rather have shaky footage and manually focus and have a timeless image and memory, than have a perfectly balanced and focused iPhone looking video (yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit, don't hate me haha).

…I usually take both with me. The S5II for when i want easy vlogging style content with Autofocus + pictures and the Pocket 6K (or Full Frame 6K if I love it when it arrives) for anything video.

EDIT: Another thing I find great on the Blackmagic is the better Focus Peaking. It's more precise than the S5II. Also, the False color that is missing on the S5II and is great to have.”

r/bmpcc BMCC6k

https://www.reddit.com/r/bmpcc/comments/1cza72z/bmcc6k/

madsmadalin wrote:

I keep saying this, but shooting h.265 with S5II looks like a better iPhone footage that has a lens strapped to it - when you compare it to the filmic look of any Blackmagic camera.

.. Now, don't get me wrong. The S5II is probably the best value hybrid camera there is and ever was. If you don't care that much about the feel of your videos and you want fast and easy autofocus (firmware 2.0/3.0 is AMAZING) and IBIS (best out there in ANY camera), then the S5II is a no brainer honestly. Perfect travel camera by far.

...Why would you need Autofocus on a camera that is meant for cinema/movie making? To benefit from autofocus you would need new photography lenses with Autofocus. Photography lenses are not meant for video, for multiple reasons - like the image is way too sharp and "perfect", lacking character and not being color/flare matched in set and their terrible focus breathing.

The moment when ARRI and Blackmagic will add autofocus will be when cinema lenses will have autofocus. Also, PDAF messes up the image quality too much to be ever considered in a PRO cinema camera. Look what it did to the S5II versus S5 gen 1. There were too many compromises made to add PDAF and satisfy the Youtube Creators.

Smaller body will be nice, but that also comes with downsides. IBIS would also be nice, but no PRO would want that wobble risk in their footage. They'd rather put it on a gimbal instead.

Better battery? I don't know, the NP-F570 is pretty decent at ~1h of recording.

I honestly think their cameras are great.
What indeed needs to improve is their CMOS smear performance and sensor readout speed. Otherwise, their cameras are perfect for me. And many others out there. There's no other 1500 USD camera right now that can get you the image the BMCC6K delivers in one single package, all internally and in RAW. There simply isn't. The haters probably never graded RAW or never used a BM camera. ”

r/bmpcc Black magic can destroy the market

https://www.reddit.com/r/bmpcc/comments ... he_market/

This guy bought one and found that it wasn’t the camera that he hoped it would be:

Thanks for sharing this; was an interesting read coming from someone who's used both cameras.

In my opinion, the S5II in video mode lacks a lot in the color science department... ...with the Lumix I have to work it so hard... and even then it's not even a 7/10. Greens are so over saturated. Blues have a cyan shift to them. ...And it's so easy to grade if you shoot RAW. Also... being able to change the white balance in post is life saving.

BMPC's can shoot RAW so they're going to get more color than H.265 4:2:2 10-bit. But if you're recording externally you can match the BMPC with 12-bit. (RAW is 12 or 14 bit) It's just a pain in the ass to record externally. Or maybe not so much once you buy all the equipment to do so.
When he's saying greens are so over saturated, blues have cyan... that sounds like someone who has their settings wrong. What cinema camera is going to naturally shoot like that?

Color grading in DaVinci is smooth, or easy as he says, but you can do that with any footage. It just works best with BRAW. And yes, WB in post when shooting in RAW lets you manipulate that to whatever you want, but why are we needing to change WB? That should be been set right from the get go.

Yeah, the IBIS is amazing. Yes, Autofocus is great (if you use new autofocus lenses - I don't other than the Sigma). But I would rather have shaky footage and manually focus and have a timeless image and memory, than have a perfectly balanced and focused iPhone looking video (yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit, don't hate me haha).

This blows me away. rather have shaky footage... This is one of the most frustrating things about my BMPC4k is there is zero stabilization. When I first got the camera I went on a shoot and all the footage was trash because of the shakiness. So what are you left to do? Gimbal or tripod. Why are we limiting ourselves with a videocamera? That's not too much to ask from a camera to be able to run n gun, gimbal and tripod. And he's comparing a cinema camera's look to an iPhone?! lol, again... all of these things add up to I just don't trust what this guy is talking about. (more on the iPhone later...)

EDIT: Another thing I find great on the Blackmagic is the better Focus Peaking. It's more precise than the S5II. Also, the False color that is missing on the S5II and is great to have.”

Now these are 2 important things and the BMPC does focus peak very well. It's easy to use, you can see it clearly, saves your life practically because there is no autofocus. So diminishing that and losing false color all together is def a strike against the S5II.

I keep saying this, but shooting h.265 with S5II looks like a better iPhone footage that has a lens strapped to it - when you compare it to the filmic look of any Blackmagic camera.

So this is now the 2nd person that has said this so it really makes me wonder what these guys are seeing. Granted, I haven't looked at footage side by side of both, have no experience with both, but it's just hard to imagine that you can't get a good picture outta the S5II being that it's specs are not so slightly under the BMPC6k. Doesn't make sense. Will have to research that more.

.. Now, don't get me wrong. The S5II is probably the best value hybrid camera there is and ever was. If you don't care that much about the feel of your videos and you want fast and easy autofocus (firmware 2.0/3.0 is AMAZING) and IBIS (best out there in ANY camera), then the S5II is a no brainer honestly. Perfect travel camera by far.

See now here is the best thing written in this whole thread. The most important part of a camera. So many will start with it's sensor or some other high profile spec but neither of those are most important. Most important is, what are you going to use this camera for? The question I should have asked myself before buying the BMPC4k. (worked out in the end, I love DaVinci)

It's said to have the best AF and IBIS tech out there and those are very important to me. Both of which I don't have on the BMPC4k. I'm going to be shooting weddings. I'm on the move. Go go go. I can't be pulling focus while I'm walking backwards and also trying to line up the next shot in my mind.

The only thing that's concerning is now another comparison to an iPhone lol. REALLY?! I mean are we talking the iPhone 15 Pro Max or the iPhone 7? Because this is what a 15 Pro Max can shoot: 4K@24/25/30/60fps, 1080p@25/30/60/120/240fps, 10-bit HDR, Dolby Vision HDR (up to 60fps), ProRes, Cinematic mode (4K@24/30fps), 3D (spatial) video, stereo sound rec.

That's not a cell phone. That's a mini cinematic video camera! I mean I don't know about you but I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a cellphone being able to shoot log! Of course footage from an iPhone is going to look great!

...Why would you need Autofocus on a camera that is meant for cinema/movie making?

To shoot weddings.

The moment when ARRI and Blackmagic will add autofocus will be when cinema lenses will have autofocus. Also, PDAF messes up the image quality too much to be ever considered in a PRO cinema camera. Look what it did to the S5II versus S5 gen 1. There were too many compromises made to add PDAF and satisfy the Youtube Creators.

This is interesting. PDAF is one of the big reasons I am interested in the S5II and this is the first time I've heard anything bad about it. But of course image quality is important so that begs the question, what does the footage look like while using it. Another something I will need to research.

I guess they're making a case for contrast detection then? or probably none at all and go full manual.

I honestly think their cameras are great.
What indeed needs to improve is their CMOS smear performance and sensor readout speed. Otherwise, their cameras are perfect for me. And many others out there. There's no other 1500 USD camera right now that can get you the image the BMCC6K delivers in one single package, all internally and in RAW. There simply isn't. The haters probably never graded RAW or never used a BM camera. ”

I have no idea what they're talking about here. In regards to the sensor; will have to look that up, but he is right about the 1500 USD bang from BMPC. Not sure you can beat the internal recording specs for the price, but that's just the thing... you're most likely never going to find a camera that has everything you want. I have the BMPC4k so I can get super quality shots with that, but I also need something completely different for what I'm looking to do, so specs have to give somewhere.

This was a lot of good information though, thank you for sharing.

The PCC4K has been my camera workhorse since 2018, it has shot from narrative to events and anything between. On sticks, handheld and on a gimbal. For me it became a natural prolongation of my body.
But you will need to rig it up to get the best out of it. A left side handle gives more stability.

The Olympus Pro f/4.0 12-100mm with its outstanding OIS is for me the perfect addon to the camera.
Also when OIS is off, you can make use of the excellent gyro stabilization in post where Resolve is using the camera gyro data for smoothing out the shots. For fast paced shootings I combine the camera with a monopod and change between that and handheld. For interviews always tripod.

Setting the BRAW whitebalance in post is handy because nowadays there are many situations with mixed lighting especially through saturated LEDs where it can be a challenge to get it right on location.

What I am saying is that it is doable - but you need to put in some thoughts into the rigging and some time into the practicing.

But I totally understand anyone wanting to go the easier route with another camera with IBIS and AF. It’s just a tool and it must fit your working style.

spend the extra few bucks and get the S5XII if you're going that route.

that's a camera for a tripod, not a gimbal.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... lizer.html

You can use a Blackmagic Video Assist with the Lumix S5II/S5IIx to record BRAW. From what I read here, there's no processing load on the S5IIx's body.

AliTheAce wrote:

“...If you like BRAW, the S5iix can shoot Blackmagic RAW using a Blackmagic video assist, has incredible IBIS, great battery life and solid autofocus. Braw on it is equivalent to what you get on BMPCC cameras. My Nikon AIS primes look absolutely incredible on that full frame sensor.

Note that Panasonic cameras do have HDMI delay/lag issues but I've been able to work around it and it hasn't been an issue for slower moving content.

…I've used both the BMPCC 6K and currently own the s5iix as my main cam with the video assist so I'm familiar with the BRAW bitrates. Been using BRAW on the S5IIX exclusively for 2ish months.

You get the exact bitrates BRAW would give you at that specific resolution, all the way up to Q0 or 3:1 compression. The video assist has a USB C port for SSD's, basically is a pocket cinema camera without the body, same OS in a monitor.

Affordable, unfortunately the monitor is really pricey Round 600+ USD but it's great as monitor and recorder, 2500 nit brightness monitors aren't cheap regardless.

…The S5iiX does have a fan, it's mounted in the EVF area and I've never had the camera overheat, even on days with 33C 90% humidity.

And I've stress tested the S5IIX in both internal 6K for 3 hours and external raw for 3+ hours. The internal 6K got much hotter as the camera processor was working hard to encode the file. The RAW output had the camera barely heating up, in fact I don't even think the built in fan in the S5IIX was running. Since the camera simply has to dump RAW sensor data over HDMI, there's no processing load on the body. Never once did I get any heat issues, heat threshold set to high. I ran out of my power bank and NPF battery before anything came up and I'm confident it would do well with a full V-mount power system.

What did get hot was my Blackmagic Video Assist, the fan on it was running pretty fast but that's because I had the screen maxed out brightness wise, it's eye searing. And my SSD was extremely hot, hot enough that it felt it could burn me. I was recording 6K Braw 5:1 to a Samsung T7 Shield 2TB. The video assist was giving me a temperature warning but never once shut off, once I reduced screen brightness to 65% it went away.

…(The fan on the) BMPCC4K doesn't get loud, but the 6K's I've worked with do have noticeable fan noise. Thankfully it's not that bad on the video assist.”

r/bmpcc Is micro jitters and vintage lenses a bug issue on BMPCC 6k?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bmpcc/comments ... bug_issue/

AliTheAce wrote:

“...I use the S5iiX exclusively, and 90% of the time with a BMVA 12G. I have used the S5iiX for sit down interview work and also for run and gun handheld work and the AF hasn't failed me once. My XT3 did a lot worse. You have to set it up right but once you do it's pretty solid. Proper AF modes, human/face detect if you need it and the speed and @@@ responsiveness settings as required.

This time, the Panasonic implementation of BRAW is equivalent to that of the BMPCC cameras. You have highlight recovery, you have all the gamma and gamut options that BMPCC cameras have, with the only exception of ISO, but you can adjust the exposure directly through the metadata in camera raw. The previous S1/H/5 cameras did not. I used BRAW one the old S cameras and it looked pretty zprocessed and had sharpening baked in. They did not output a pure RAW RGB sensor data stream, now the second gen S5's do. I can upload some footage to play with if you're interested. This is after splitting apart the color0channels to inspect under the hood to see if there's anything nasty going on. There isn't. I've worked often with the BMPCC6K and am quite familiar with the files and how they handle. The S5IIX, in my stress testing can handle over/underexposure extremely well, including highlight recovery for channels that are clipped, to a certain point. Yes you shouldn't rely on highlight recovery but in emergency situations in a run and gun scenario it's handy. I still expose to the right before clipping and it's not failed me.

Rolling shutter wise, that's the main Achilles heel I'll agree with but it's not a big deal. If you need fast rolling shutter, drop to 4K S35. For the kind of work most people shoot, which is corporate/narrative style, it's not an issue and is better than competing hybrid cameras. 6K 16:9 BRAW works well for most situations.

Is it perfect? No. But in my experience handling BMPCC cameras for outdoors/run and gun scenarios, they get pretty damn cumbersome.

r/bmpcc Can someone show me the difference between the 4k and 6k

https://www.reddit.com/r/bmpcc/comments ... en_the_4k/

AliTheAce wrote:

BRAW on the S5ii/X is finally proper BRAW. You get everything it has to offer, unlike the previous implementation of it on the Gen 1 S series that was processed and had compression applied to it.

Behaves like it does on the Pocket cams without any extra sharpening or processing applied.

It matches what the BMPCC cameras can do and has the exact same controls, with the only exception of ISO in Resolve but that doesn't really matter as you have other controls that do the exact same thing.

Having shot with the pocket 6K, the S5IIX is a good bit ahead. Cleaner shadows, more highlight headroom, autofocus and battery life are pretty damn good and IBIS is very handy.

You basically get a full frame mini Pocket camera with autofocus, IBIS and solid battery. Well worth it if you can stomach the cost of the video assist.

You have to get any of the 12G models to be able to do BRAW. That leaves you with the 5" 12G HDR or 7" 12G HDR.

…ISO is simply a mathematical gain operation, the exposure slider works the same way and you have that in camera RAW.”

r/bmpcc Im thinking about getting the black magic video assist for braw for my s5II how does braw from the video assist compare to a actual black magic camera image wise?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bmpcc/comments ... gic_video/

This was posted before Panasonic came out with firmware updates, and you should do research to see if focus issues have been addressed:

What if you decided that you should forget about your set of manual focus lenses and buy a Panasonic LUMIX S5 IIx Camera w/ Lumix S 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens, and switch to the L mount AF lens ecosystem? Now that Panasonic has Phase Detect Auto Focus, you can shoot video while running with your camera!

How would you feel if you then found out that a 40 year old manual focus lens that costs a couple of hundred dollars had better continuous auto focus on your old cinema camera than your new system has in a simultaneous side by side shootout?

u/Restlesstonight wrote:

"Quick test what new auto focus solution can do… and what not. PDAF auto focus of the upcoming Panasonic Lumix S5IIx versus the mighty Arri Alexa fitted with a DJI LiDAR focus module (RS 3 Pro is folded and attached to the side of the Alexa M head). Purposefully trying to irritate the systems by walking out of the frame, covering the face, turning away and so on. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses."

Re: DJI RS3 & RS3 Pro Bring Autofocus to Cinema Lenses

search.php?keywords=%22S5IIx+versus+the+mighty+Arri+Alexa%22&t=162298&sf=msgonly

The PCC4K has been my camera workhorse since 2018, it has shot from narrative to events and anything between. On sticks, handheld and on a gimbal. For me it became a natural prolongation of my body.
But you will need to rig it up to get the best out of it. A left side handle gives more stability.

I just find it hard to believe a rig (assuming you're talking cage?) would be the stability necessary unless it's on a gimbal. There is zero stability happening while you're rolling (still blows my mind) and I find gyro nearly useless. I think somewhere back in this thread I mentioned I had done a shoot for a wrestling match so I was def doing some moving around and I come home (this is before I realize BMPC had no IS) and I mean all the footage down the drain it was so shaky. So I learned of gyro, ran all of it through that and I seriously could not even tell the difference.

I later watched a YT on gyro and this guy shows how the camera is barley moving and then runs gyro and it's nearly perfect. That's what gryo is to me... corrects minor minor problems, has no chance for large shaking. The only way I can think to counter this is a gimbal.

The Olympus Pro f/4.0 12-100mm with its outstanding OIS is for me the perfect addon to the camera.

This is something I have not tested and should track down a good lens with OIS. See how much it helps basic shake on the camera. And then further putting that through gyro and see what happens.

spend the extra few bucks and get the S5XII if you're going that route.

So I thought of that and then did the research. As far as I can tell the only difference between the 2 is the S5IIX can record in ProRes. That's a $214 difference to be able to record in ProRes...

There is zero stability happening while you're rolling (still blows my mind) and I find gyro nearly useless.

It shouldn't blow your mind if you understand what these cameras were first and foremost designed for: cinema. That's why the word "Cinema" is in the name of the camera. In cinema, everything is rehearsed, cameras are on tripods or steadicams or similar external stabilization. Autofocus has traditionally never been used in cinema, nor has in-camera stabilization. The best stabilization happens externally. IBIS (in-camera stabilization) and OIS (lens-based stabilization) are always catching up to your movements.

Gyro stabilization works and the data are recorded in real time, but you have to understand that it involves a crop, and also that you need to use a lower shutter angle (90 degrees or 45 degrees instead of 180), which will make your footage look choppy but you can add back the motion blur in post using DaVinci Resolve.

Plenty of people make these cameras work for non-cinema applications like documentary, music videos, events, etc., but if you want a camera that you can just pick up and start shooting handheld with no gimbal, steadicam, etc., Blackmagic Design cameras are the wrong tool for the job. It's not what they were designed for.

that's a camera for a tripod, not a gimbal.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... lizer.html

I stand corrected. That's pretty cool. Especially being able to connect an external battery to it. So that solves 1 of the 2 problems but there still is the problem with AF/MF. I had a thread going a while back where a guy said he did wedding videography and he runs with MF and so I asked him how long he's been doing that and he said something like 15 years... so I don't have anywhere near that amount of experience so for me to legitimately jump into wedding videography and not slaughter some poor bride's big day, I'd have to roll AF, unless I'm missing something.

The problem, or maybe challenge, with wedding videography is there's only 1 take. The gimbal setup for shooting a narrative wouldn't be as big an issue as you could just do another take.

I feel like my idea of having the BMPC on a tripod while I get something with great AF like the Lumix S5II is the best route for me.

No?

The most overstated advantage of raw is white balance. Temp/tint/offset done. Who is this shooter with Steadicam-like handheld skills that continually hits perfect focus on the fly but regularly misses wb by 3000k? Exposure can be adjusted in scene linear for just about any major camera in the market using the HDR wheels. So that’s not exclusive to raw as of a few Resolve’s ago.

Good Luck

Note that Panasonic cameras do have HDMI delay/lag issues but I've been able to work around it and it hasn't been an issue for slower moving content.

This is exactly why I ruled out the BM Video Assistant. I don't know how anyone tolerates that much lag. The real question is how did this person do a work around.

Is it perfect? No. But in my experience handling BMPCC cameras for outdoors/run and gun scenarios, they get pretty damn cumbersome.

And this is the reason for this thread... I'm trying to find a primary camera because this statement is 100% accurate. cumbersome might even be an understatement, and that's because of the all important 2 reasons: no IS & MF.

This was posted before Panasonic came out with firmware updates, and you should do research to see if focus issues have been addressed:

I've watched 3 different TY reviews on the S5II and none have mentioned a focus issue. They show it off and it looks great. Maybe the issue was before these reviews.

DJI LiDAR focus module

So the 2 problems I'm trying to solve are IS and MF. Lidar, I've heard and seen mixed reviews on it, but let's say I went with it for the BMPC4k. I also need a gimbal to counter the lack of IS. I'm not 100% sure if I could attach the lidar system and my audio to the camera and gimbal, if I couldn't then I would need a cage, but let's just say I didn't need a cage and I'm getting the Lidar and gimbal.

Both those items are going to be close to, or maybe even surpass, the cost of a S5II. So now we're talking about tricking out 1 camera or getting a 2nd camera that has the features needed to get the job done all in 1 camera.

If I'm looking at this right this is a no brainer. I need a 2nd camera to shoot a wedding; no sane videographer would only use 1 camera at a wedding. But I will admit, I might be missing something.

It shouldn't blow your mind if you understand what these cameras were first and foremost designed for: cinema. That's why the word "Cinema" is in the name of the camera.

And you've touched on one of the toughest lessons learned when I bought this camera. I just blindly trusted my friend's recommendation on a camera and bought the BMPC4k. What he should have done, and this is far more so on me, was ask THE most important question when buying a camera: what are you wanting to use it for. Had that been asked I would have replied wedding videography to which we never would have even considered a blackmagic camera.

I'd have to roll AF, unless I'm missing something.

Practice.

Shoot with a fully manual lens like the Meike 25mm. The results are...nice!

I shoot with Focus Assist always on. That helps. I also have some Quick Release plates so it's literally a snap to go from handheld to tripod to monopod to gimbal (assuming you already have the lens on the camera that you balanced with).

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... embly.html

The most overstated advantage of raw is white balance.

It is a nice advantage, though. I shoot everything indoors 3200 and everything outdoors 5600, worry about fixing it later.

For me, however, the far larger advantage of RAW is changing ISO in post.

The most overstated advantage of raw is white balance.

It is a nice advantage, though. I shoot everything indoors 3200 and everything outdoors 5600, worry about fixing it later.

For me, however, the far larger advantage of RAW is changing ISO in post.

Yeah but you can do that with most cameras using the HDR wheels. The advantage of raw is that it will take the most abuse without falling apart. WB and exposure are trivial within Resolve.

Good Luck

For me, however, the far larger advantage of RAW is changing ISO in post.

Which is even more over-rated. Simple, rudimentary corrections like these don't require raw.

spend the extra few bucks and get the S5XII if you're going that route.

So I thought of that and then did the research. As far as I can tell the only difference between the 2 is the S5IIX can record in ProRes. That's a $214 difference to be able to record in ProRes...

ability to record to usb-c and better compression options and codecs are worth the extra 300 Especially if you're shooting weddings IMO. But to each their own.

a sony fx3/30 on a gimbal will solve whatever problems you have. Tailor-made for wedding videography.

spend the extra few bucks and get the S5XII if you're going that route.

So I thought of that and then did the research. As far as I can tell the only difference between the 2 is the S5IIX can record in ProRes. That's a $214 difference to be able to record in ProRes...

ability to record to usb-c and better compression options and codecs are worth the extra 300 Especially if you're shooting weddings IMO. But to each their own.

a sony fx3/30 on a gimbal will solve whatever problems you have. Tailor-made for wedding videography.

Was not aware those advantages were on the table... I would agree with you. The Fx3 got ruled out due to cost and the 30 got ruled out 1) not as good a sensor 2) AF system is not as good 3) not as good ISO 4) all that for a $151 difference.

Was not aware those advantages were on the table... I would agree with you. The Fx3 got ruled out due to cost and the 30 got ruled out 1) not as good a sensor 2) AF system is not as good 3) not as good ISO 4) all that for a $151 difference.

If you're talking about the FX30 versus the FX3, I think you're missing at least a zero in the price difference. Last time I checked the FX30 cost half as much as the FX3. If you really need low-light performance the FX3 is the way to go, but you could also check out the less expensive Sony A7siii, which has the same sensor as FX3 but has an EVF and some other advantages. It's older and no longer being updated, but that shouldn't stop you; plenty of pros use outdated cameras: if they do the job, who cares how old they are? Come to think of it, that applies to the videographer as well as the camera.

If you're talking about the FX30 versus the FX3, I think you're missing at least a zero in the price difference. Last time I checked the FX30 cost half as much as the FX3. If you really need low-light performance the FX3 is the way to go, but you could also check out the less expensive Sony A7siii, which has the same sensor as FX3 but has an EVF and some other advantages. It's older and no longer being updated, but that shouldn't stop you; plenty of pros use outdated cameras: if they do the job, who cares how old they are? Come to think of it, that applies to the videographer as well as the camera.

FX3 and the A7SIII are both over budget. And the price difference between the FX30 and FX3 is greater than 1/2.

FX30 - $1,419
FX3 - $3,605

FX3 and the A7SIII are both over budget. And the price difference between the FX30 and FX3 is greater than 1/2.

Okay, that's why I was confused when you said the price difference between FX30 and FX3 was only $151.

If you didn't look carefully at the FX30 I'd give it more thought. But the Panasonic S5iix or whatever they call it should be a decent choice too, and it records ProRes in-camera, much better than those Sony codecs.

Was not aware those advantages were on the table... I would agree with you. The Fx3 got ruled out due to cost and the 30 got ruled out 1) not as good a sensor 2) AF system is not as good 3) not as good ISO 4) all that for a $151 difference.

The differences in the pannys are minute but meaningful (for my usage case) I'm sure there's sites that get into the details vs each other... we tested them individually but not head to head so im going off memory here.

We own both Sonys and they're our current setup for weddings/music videos and have been great with some post work. We use 2 fx30s on gimbals and the FX3 on a tripod ... the difference between the 2 is negligible at best, unless you WANT full frame and have a reason for shooting above 5k ISO the fx3 isn't worth 2x the fx30. But these cameras are literally the perfect wedding shooter cameras.

I prefer the image on the fx30 to the fx3, but that's just me.

we ordered 3 Nikon Z6III to replace these though and will be using them for weddings/interviews/music videos from now on. I was never a fan of Sony's image but my partner is so we used them for weddings only.

we ordered 3 Nikon Z6III to replace these though and will be using them for weddings/interviews/music videos from now on. I was never a fan of Sony's image but my partner is so we used them for weddings only.

I got one. I ordered one the day they were announced thinking it would be ages before they became available and I'd cancel if the reviews were bad. Next thing I knew the courier was at my door. No regrets. Fantastic little(ish) camera.

we ordered 3 Nikon Z6III to replace these though and will be using them for weddings/interviews/music videos from now on. I was never a fan of Sony's image but my partner is so we used them for weddings only.

I got one. I ordered one the day they were announced thinking it would be ages before they became available and I'd cancel if the reviews were bad. Next thing I knew the courier was at my door. No regrets. Fantastic little(ish) camera.

yea ours came Friday. Havent had time to mess around with the Nikons yet, but we use the z6ii for BTS photos and videos so we're assuming it'll be slightly improved.

how do you like it?

how do you like it?

I'm still getting used to it but it's here to stay.

For video a huge advance over the Z6/Z6II. A baby Z8 is no exaggeration. A whole different world with internal 6K NRAW and ProRes Raw, H.265 etc. I got it mainly for the lightness but it feels chunky enough.

The AF for stills is way better than the Z6II - very good tracking, can focus in very low light. The viewfinder is the brightest in existence they say. Excellent IBIS (claimed 8 stops).

rudimentary corrections like these don't require raw.

It helps. Blown own background through a window in RAW and H.264...guess which one I was able to recover those highlights for?

I gather you're talking now about "highlight recovery" (rather than ISO metadata changes), which works occasionally but not very often or very well.

It's funny to note that 7 figure features and series, with actual professional graders for post, are routinely shot on Prores, but event work and youtube, with graders who don't begin to have the skills to exploit marginal codec/raw advantage, is somehow unthinkable without raw.

It helps. Blown own background through a window in RAW and H.264...guess which one I was able to recover those highlights for?

Changing ISO in post and highlight recovery are two very different things. The only time you can change ISO in post is when you're using an ISO range with digital ISO changes. All that's really doing is storing the ISO as metadata so the NLE can apply a gamma curve in post. Since BRAW is 12-bit expanded to 16-bit in post, you can do exactly what the ISO setting does in post... like mathematically no different. That also applies to ISOs that are strictly electronic like 8000 and above on BMD cameras which don't give you any option to change the ISO.

Highlight recovery theoretically doesn't need RAW but it only works well when the highlights haven't been compressed and the bit-depth. Usually each channel will clip at a different time so highlight recovery tries to use data from the non-clipped channels to interpolate values in the clipped channels. If all three channels are clipped, it can't do anything.

It's funny to note that 7 figure features and series, with actual professional graders for post, are routinely shot on Prores, but event work and youtube, with graders who don't begin to have the skills to exploit marginal codec/raw advantage, is somehow unthinkable without raw.

OMG, how true this is! I only do indies and in my experience the indies with the bigger budget shoots on Prores and deliver them as such. I have encountered boastful YouTubers who shoots RAW on a RED Komodo for events and have no idea what they can get from it except only that it is raw and therefore it must be good.

I gather you're talking now about "highlight recovery" (rather than ISO metadata changes), which works occasionally but not very often or very well.

It's funny to note that 7 figure features and series, with actual professional graders for post, are routinely shot on Prores, but event work and youtube, with graders who don't begin to have the skills to exploit marginal codec/raw advantage, is somehow unthinkable without raw.

That’s only funny if you have never done both. I have (well only in the low 7 figure feature).
For the feature you have much better control over lighting, the ratios and color temperature. And there is a team behind everything with a common goal.
For an event on the other hand you mostly shoot alone, with no or little control over lighting, ratios and color temperature. And everyone has different goals to achieve at the same time.

That’s where the flexibility of BRAW can help. I had a new years event to cover in the evening where they blasted red LEDs on the reception area, mixed with ceiling lights of alternating color temperatures (because no one cares). In the hall there were constantly changing saturated colors combined with a blue and violet wash. That is where BRAW made it possible to get a good representation back - ProRes would have been a disaster. And at the event there was no chance to set a white balance to anything usable.

It's funny to note that 7 figure features and series, with actual professional graders for post, are routinely shot on Prores, but event work and youtube, with graders who don't begin to have the skills to exploit marginal codec/raw advantage, is somehow unthinkable without raw.

That’s where the flexibility of BRAW can help. I had a new years event to cover in the evening where they blasted red LEDs on the reception area, mixed with ceiling lights of alternating color temperatures (because no one cares). In the hall there were constantly changing saturated colors combined with a blue and violet wash. That is where BRAW made it possible to get a good representation back - ProRes would have been a disaster. And at the event there was no chance to set a white balance to anything usable.

I agree. I have actually tested this several times with different raw formats (BRAW, NRAW, ProRes Raw) compared to non-raw (ProRes, H.265) and it is far far easier to restore correct white balance with raw formats. For example, shoot a scene at the correct value (say 5600K with a 5600K light), shoot the same scene with the same light at 2600K and try to correct the latter blue color cast. With raw it's a quick one touch correction in the raw tab and the results are essentially identical. Try the same with ProRes and you will have your work cut out to get it even approxmately right, probably impossible to get full matching.

The 12-bit over 10-bit advantage is also significant if more subtle and harder to demonstrate but in some cases (e.g. blue skies) there can certainly be a smoother gradation of color and tone that is perceivable when looking at the same scenes shot in raw versus non-raw codecs.

In addtion there are significant file size advantages to using BRAW and NRAW over ProRes. This is very easy to demonstrate. And NRAW is real raw before that gets jumped on.

Sweeping statements based on pure supposition with no evidence whatsover to back them up have little or no value at all in any conversation. The notion that shooting raw video is for those who supposedly don't have the skills or ability to exploit so-called marginal differences is ridiculous. Maybe we could see actual evidence for this but of course there is none. You don't need to spend years studying or have a PhD in color science to be able to shoot and grade video to a very high technical if not aesthetic standard and have a decent understanding of the practical processes. All you need is to learn, test, observe and learn from what you see. Above all learn from your mistakes. Human intelligence is a wonderful thing.

That’s only funny if you have never done both.

My point was, there's an element of consumer madness here: you have parties with very limited grading abilities and very "basic" productions making a fetish out of raw and low compression ratios, and in many cases also claiming to do HDR as well -- without the equipment and expertise to manage it.

Note that the big argument offered above for braw was post-production ISO adjustments, not LED corrections.

I don't dispute that braw has in theory more data to manipulate, that a shot which *might* be lost to Prores *might* be recoverable in braw. But for most users at the low end, and thousands and thousands of hours of material? It will make no qualitative difference, any more than Q0 will produce a "better" youtube than Q5 or 12:1.

For anyone looking for a detailed consideration of log versus raw formats, one skeptical of the usual commercial promotions of raw, this discussion might also be of interest:

https://prolost.com/blog/rawvslog

That’s only funny if you have never done both.

My point was, there's an element of consumer madness here: you have parties with very limited grading abilities and very "basic" productions making a fetish out of raw and low compression ratios, and in many cases also claiming to do HDR as well -- without the equipment and expertise to manage it.

Note that the big argument offered above for braw was post-production ISO adjustments, not LED corrections.

I don't dispute that braw has in theory more data to manipulate, that a shot which *might* be lost to Prores *might* be recoverable in braw. But for most users at the low end, and thousands and thousands of hours of material? It will make no qualitative difference, any more than Q0 will produce a "better" youtube than Q5 or 12:1.

Totally agree!

That’s only funny if you have never done both.

My point was, there's an element of consumer madness here: you have parties with very limited grading abilities and very "basic" productions making a fetish out of raw and low compression ratios, and in many cases also claiming to do HDR as well -- without the equipment and expertise to manage it.

Note that the big argument offered above for braw was post-production ISO adjustments, not LED corrections.

I don't dispute that braw has in theory more data to manipulate, that a shot which *might* be lost to Prores *might* be recoverable in braw. But for most users at the low end, and thousands and thousands of hours of material? It will make no qualitative difference, any more than Q0 will produce a "better" youtube than Q5 or 12:1.

For anyone looking for a detailed consideration of log versus raw formats, one skeptical of the usual commercial promotions of raw, this discussion might also be of interest:

https://prolost.com/blog/rawvslog

That article is quite outdated and at times plain wrong.
Just one point: With BRAW Resolves color engine does tap directly into the RAW data and not first convert it to RGB and then go further from there. We have Hook explaining this explicitly in detail somewhere on this forum (would have to dig around a bit).

If I find some time I look through my archive of the last 5 years and pull out some samples in BRAW and convert them to log ProRes and upload them here. So you can show us that there is no difference.

You've done both, high and low end production, so it's not surprising you have the ability to manipulate raw to your advantage, however large or marginal the difference.

But most users, as the discussion above indicates, will not be able to do so. For them, it makes no difference.

You've done both, high and low end production, so it's not surprising you have the ability to manipulate raw to your advantage, however large or marginal the difference.

But most users, as the discussion above indicates, will not be able to do so. For them, it makes no difference.

The controls are the same for all users so the ability to manipulate raw to your advantage exists for anyone invested in learning them.

But for most users at the low end, and thousands and thousands of hours of material? It will make no qualitative difference, any more than Q0 will produce a "better" youtube than Q5 or 12:1.

You've done both, high and low end production, so it's not surprising you have the ability to manipulate raw to your advantage, however large or marginal the difference.

But most users, as the discussion above indicates, will not be able to do so. For them, it makes no difference.

Do you actually have evidence that most users will not be able to do so or that it will make no qualitative difference......? Is there a quantitative scientific study that backs up these statements?

The premise of these unsupported statements appears to be that it is more difficult and somehow less advantageous to work in raw whereas I believe and find the opposite to be the case.

Once again, BRAW (and NRAW) file sizes are significantly smaller than equivalent ProRes which most people would probably be happy with (just guessing that most people prefer to save spending money unnecessarily). BRAW (and NRAW)) are just as easily, or in fact more easily, graded than ProRes or H.265, not just in terms of ease of white balancing in post (among other things) but also including the pressure on the computer hardware.

How difficult is it to work the raw tab in Resolve? Do you need to have worked on big movies to even go near it? What qualifications should one have to brave something as complex as that? Talking of qualifications, how about yourself?

The controls are the same for all users so the ability to manipulate raw to your advantage exists for anyone invested in learning them.

You could say the same of golf clubs, violins and tennis racquets. Just put in the time and you'll be an esteemed virtuoso or sought-after professional.

For that matter, great cameras are also widely available today. Has that availability turned buyers into accomplished DPs?

All I'm saying is that the advantages of raw are commonly over-stated by parties who aren't capable of exploiting it anyway (see above)..... Prores is dandy for professionally produced features but is somehow unequal to a wedding?

Do you actually have evidence that most users will not be able to do so or that it will make no qualitative difference......? Is there a quantitative scientific study that backs up these statements?

Youtube?

I'm not arguing against braw, or its undisputed advantages, such as smaller file sizes. The issue is the not entirely convincing claims made for raw (see above for same, which started this unfruitful discussion). Saying more than that will turn this into a personal dispute, which will not be helpful.

But yeah, shoot braw. It has advantages. And if you master color grading, you may be able to exploit them.

Do you actually have evidence that most users will not be able to do so or that it will make no qualitative difference......? Is there a quantitative scientific study that backs up these statements?

Youtube?

I'm not arguing against braw, or its undisputed advantages, such as smaller file sizes. The issue is the not entirely convincing claims made for raw (see above for same, which started this unfruitful discussion). Saying more than that will turn this into a personal dispute, which will not be helpful.

But yeah, shoot braw. It has advantages. And if you master color grading, you may be able to exploit them.

Wow thanks for the encouragement. I've only got >40 years experience with stills photography and 4 years messing with video. I'll probably manage. The difficult thing for me is getting actual camera motion into my stuff, not exposure and grading. Whatever, I'm enjoying the journey. Lifelong learning and all that.

PS: You haven't mentioned your qualifications.

I'm principally a narrative editor who performs temporary color grades by necessity, for previews.

Very basic stuff, and no more. At best I have a partial inkling of knowing what I don't know. That incapacity informs my views. My limits (and worse ones) are quite common.

I know full well I can't get the best out of raw -- or any format, for that matter. Would it be dastardly or insulting to suggest the same is true of many others? Or is everybody a violin virtuoso, notwithstanding all the screeching?

I'm principally a narrative editor who performs temporary color grades by necessity, for previews.

Very basic stuff, and no more. At best I have a partial inkling of knowing what I don't know. That incapacity informs my views. My limits (and worse ones) are quite common.

I know full well I can't get the best out of raw -- or any format, for that matter. Would it be dastardly or insulting to suggest the same is true of many others? Or is everybody a violin virtuoso, notwithstanding all the screeching?

So you appear to be saying that you are judging others by what you judge to be your own shortcomings.

I don't limit myself in that way. I just love what I do. I am not expecting to be a grade A grader or shooter at this stage in my life but I do put everything into learning and doing the best I can. It may not be what people who have been doing this all their lives can do but that is not going to stop me trying. It doesn't have to be perfect but I believe in aiming high.

I know what I know through practical learning, mainly self taught, something I have been doing since I first went to university to study science in my late teens. I learnt then that it was up to me. The masters were there to guide and very often they didn't. So I could say that almost everything I have learnt in my life is self-taught, sometimes the very hard way, but that tends to stick.

As I said, I do genuinely find it easier to work in raw, primarily because it is more flexible. So, for example, I don't worry about setting white balance in-camera if shooting outdoors where I can't control the light. I have been shooting and developing raw stills and using stills color management since that became practically possible in the early 2000s so I guess that helps. I don't care about the theory, I just need to know how to use it.

Same with HDR - you need the right gear but it is not any more difficult than SDR. In fact I find it easier than SDR because the restrictions are lifted. But that's another story.

… I do genuinely find it easier to work in raw... I don't care about the theory, I just need to know how to use it.

Same with HDR - you need the right gear but it is not any more difficult than SDR. In fact I find it easier than SDR because the restrictions are lifted. But that's another story.

I shoot events primarily, sometimes with the luxury of influencing the lighting, and I pay a lot of attention to the theory and industry standards for delivery.

I only shoot BRAW now and grade for HDR PQ, SDR 709, and SDR sRGB as well as generate flat ProRes 444 masters. I agree with the sentiments you have, but the limitations on delivery are important and should be tailored to the capabilities of the viewers’ typical equipment.

Love the additional tools grading in HDR which is my starting point for agrade and then perform additional grades for the SDR deliverable options. HDR grading must respect the overall maximum illumination available for viewing and the diffuse white point target of your grade that can vary as HDR capabilities evolve. Currently I deliver HDR for 1000 nits maximum illumination and 100 or 200 nits diffuse white point.

Even SDR must pay attention to the capabilities of the illumination options of a viewers’ monitor. Maximum monitor brightness has continued to climb in the last few years from less than 300 nits to say 500 nits or more for newer equipment.

So you appear to be saying that you are judging others by what you judge to be your own shortcomings.

Absolutely, and no apologies for it. The world is full of poor and indifferent color grading. That's my scientific proof that few people master color grading. And worse, that even fewer know that they haven't mastered color grading.

Advice here also comes from the most unlikely places -- parties committing astonishing bloopers one day, then offering earnest color grading instruction to the multitudes the next. Or bloopers and instruction in the same post. But best not go down that road....

That article is quite outdated and at times plain wrong.

If you're convinced he made serious errors, or that times have changed, why not take him up on it? He's easy enough to reach through his blog. AFAIK, he hasn't disavowed the post in the intervening years.

It seemed to me his position was worth a measure of deference, given his professional standing and experience. I don't have the engineering myself to evaluate his arguments but am probably not the only one interested in the result of the conversation -- if there is one.

FX3 and the A7SIII are both over budget. And the price difference between the FX30 and FX3 is greater than 1/2.

Okay, that's why I was confused when you said the price difference between FX30 and FX3 was only $151.

If you didn't look carefully at the FX30 I'd give it more thought. But the Panasonic S5iix or whatever they call it should be a decent choice too, and it records ProRes in-camera, much better than those Sony codecs.

I can't remember who I talked to in regards to FX30 v S5II/S5IIX but it's not really a fair comparison. I created a spreadsheet go keep track of these cameras and widdled ~10 cameras down to 2, the FX30 and S5II but the S5II has 3 more advantages for $151 more in price.