Great post, very informative and inspiring. Thanks!
Which is why everyone is a fool not to switch back to vhs camcorders.
Tests like this are nice but this one doesn't prove what most of the posters desperately want it to prove. No one wants to invest in new equipment (it's the hack's lament) but what do you really get out of comparing a nice 2k camera and nice 4k camera and a film camera, if you view this test on a 15 inch laptop? Even pixel peepers like me know that nice 2k footage will look nice on a laptop--it'll even look nice on a 50 inch 4k screen 12 feet away. But if we're talking about cinema exhibition--and by throwing 65mm Imax footage into the mix--large screen, immersive exhibition, which I think is the future if movie theatres are going to survive, then there's no "ah-ha" moment in these tests. An ever-so-soft 4k Liemax Theatre is still always underwhelming and (IMHO) a waste of anyone's money--and a 65mm Imax experience is still eye-popping, and provides an electric jolt, an uncanny "You Are There" quality far beyond what you can get from a 2k or even 4k camera. Even the 35mm scenes from Dark Knight looked a soft compared to the Imax scenes. People forget that the eye and the brain are constantly scanning an image, picking up new details every few milliseconds for as long a that image holds. That's why 4k projected on a multi-story Liemax screen looks "fine" but it's never going to be breathtaking--it'll never get that audible gasp that audiences emit when the screen faded up on a real Imax movie. I admit 70mm Imax can't go on forever but I saw an 8k large screen demo at SxSw last year and it was INCREDIBLE, a game changer--it had the "wow" factor in spades--and as nice as the much-vaunted "Skyfall" looked, a 2k camera/projector could have achieved that sensation. I can't imagine a superhero film in 2035 being shot or exhibited in anything less. Hell, even a middling horror film shot in 8 or 10k, projected on a giant screen would scare the bejesus out of the most jaded audience--that's the power of large format and that's the power of resolution. So here's another eye test: cut and paste most of these comments from this blog and mix them up with comments from a DV forum from 2002, where they complained endlessly that "even experts can't see the difference between SD and HD" and that "HD is a fad and thank God pros like us are brave enough to say so"--and I promise you won't be able to tell the difference between the 2002 comments and 2017 comments. And as myopic (in both senses of the word) as those 2002 forums look today, 15 years from now when even a low budget horror film is immersive, the comments from this forum will age just as poorly. For myself, I'm tired of going to 2k movie theatres and seeing those damned muddy images--but then I don't sit in the back of the theatre. Beyond 2k, even with a great film like There Will be Blood, shot and exhibited in 35mm, its sweeping vistas fell (just a little) short if you were in the front 3rd of the theatre--those images couldn't quite achieve an epic quality. It was still a great film but it would have been even grander in 70mm and Anderson was wise to switch over to that format for The Master. For now, 4k is better in most situations than 2k, at least when it comes to big 4k tvs, VR, and nice movie theatres. And for the future, 8k and beyond will be even better still, and they will be essential as surviving movie theatres (and lightweight VR-like eyewear) become more immersive.
So no internal stabilization or AF, right? Harder for one-man bands...
How doe this "Clean on a Budget" when it's twice as much as its main competitor, and with fewer features?