Two quick thoughts:
- work lights can be handy for no-budget. Very inefficient, hot, harsh, but they give you more sheer output than any lights mentioned above, better CRI than any LED or fluorescent, and can appear in shot as practicals in some scenes. Alleviating the problems is all about how you modify the light. Bounce it off a wall or a sheet of aluminium foil, add a dimmer, add black wrap as makeshift barn door, shine through diffusion, etc.
- LED might have have weird colour spikes etc, but it's possible it's cheaper in the long run than tungsten with bulb replacement factored in. So, all those dimmable Hong Kong on-camera LEDs on eBay might be worth a look.
I've been talking about this camera on another forum. Perhaps the main sort of person this might appeal to is someone who has a C100 or C300 and wants to add a combined 4K option/B-cam/possible drone cam to their toolkit. Obviously, no one quite likes the look, the price, or the f/5.6 at the tele end. But there's a few people who are still a little interested, including myself. Price will likely drop to $1500 or $1000 in a few months, and the ability, at least on paper, to seamlessly match a C100 or C300 without grading is maybe the main advantage over the better-value FZ1000 or GH4.
The way I see it, it's not a beautiful film camera, and it's not a consumer camera. It's for videographers, documentary people, ENG people; and it's a stop-gap solution for those rare times you need 4K -- until 2018, when every camera at the C100 price level will have 4K as standard.
Just wondering... can anyone briefly explain how a camera sensor works?
My vague impression is that there's a mechanical phase and a digital phase. You have a photosite that collects light; a charge is transmitted to a gain amp; the signal is then converted to digital, and can then be the subject of further gain. The Panasonic Varicam 35 is said to have "two native ISOs" because there are two circuits prior to the gain amp. The 5D3, using the expression "native ISO" in a different way, is said to have native ISOs of 160, 320, etc because the gain amp boosts in these increments prior to digital gain. But if you used the expression "native ISO" in a different way again, then both these cameras (and, in fact, any camera) have just one native ISO -- the sensitivity of the photosites in the first place, which doesn't change.
Does that sound about right?
Morph Cuts look great, but until the flickering issue (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1547393?start=0&tstart=0 or https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/958590) is resolved for CC 2014, the software is unusable for many people...
I know nothing at all about editing, but one thing that's begun to fascinate me lately is transitioning between scenes, and I think that slightly different considerations apply than for intra-scene cuts. Here's some initial thoughts:
-- Graphic matching seems a common inter-scene device.
-- Often sharp contrasts. For instance, of mood, brightness, colour, or camera movement. One of Tony Zhou's recent videos, maybe the one on Kurosawa, I think talks about going from a moving shot to a static shot to announce scene change.
-- There's often closing and opening notes in emotion/story/acting/camerawork/editing that announce start and end of scene. For instance, a change of pace in the editing, a door closing or extra walking past to act as a screen wipe, or a cut to a wide-angle establishing shot.
-- "Intellectual montage" still applies, but often with slightly different effect. Often, it's almost like an L cut, with the last scene echoing over the first part of the new scene, or the images at the start of the new scene implying something about the last. (True Blood does this a lot.)
-- There's no "cutting on movement" continuity as such, but there might be other continuities, like continuities of eye direction or screen direction. You might flow with these continuities, or you might break them to announce that this is a new scene.
-- There's often a bit of misdirection, so that the first shot of the new scene seems to belong to the last scene. Or there's a bit of playing with the audience, each scene being a new opportunity to hold off on answering the questions "Where am I?", "What's going on?".
Smaller zoom range than FZ1000, smaller aperture (so maybe worse in low light, even if high ISOs happen to be cleaner), and a not insubstantial hidden cost too: the price of CFast vs SD.
I suppose some of the advantages of XC10 are: higher frame rates at 720 (120 vs 30... but they both do 60 at 1080), you can record longer than 30 minutes without missing anything, and presumably better image, at least in terms of dynamic range, but I guess we'll see...