That is correct. My camera, an NX1 records video to h.265 or HEVC and your calculations are generally in that ball park. This being said, it's still a distribution codec, and my guess in the case of this particular Phantom update probably in 8bit.
What the above means in practical terms is that you should get a better image than with h.264, with little gain in file size, if any, which is generally a good thing. As long as you don't push the grade too far. You will also need a hefty computer to decode in real-time the files in any NLE that can accept the format, which is limited. Thankfully the two most popular one do.
The codec shows a lot of potential, but in the shadow of something like Prores, and now Prores RAW, it gets far less development or attention. In fact, even though its made gains recently, it was a major problem when my camera was first released in 2014. No one supported it then.
I have to question why these manufactures continue to only offer distribution codecs fully knowing most of their product consumers are working professionals who would much prefer recording to aquisition formats. My guess is it comes down to liscencing fees. Seems Apple doesn't play nice with everyone.
Soft lighting is not just about making things look "prettier", it's also about getting better rolloff between darker and lighter tones, especially if you dont have a camera with 15 stops of DR. It's also a good way to add ambient dimensionality without looking like diliberate lighting.
This can be seen in the world of 3D rendering. If you've ever seen the difference between regular light sources, and global or ambient occulsion you will understand exactly what I'm trying to articulate. Ambient occulsion produces bounced light and there for brings up shadows, which is very similar to soft lighting, and longer gradient-diffused shadows. I would post examples if I could.
In my view, lighting is everything in cinema.
Or you could stick a 4k Hero in there and skip further hassles of kitting a DSLR/DSLM in those spaces. Also don't have to worry about focal plane.
No offense towards Andy, I actually have been a subscriber to his channel for years, but he never really makes a compelling arguement for handheld as opposed to stabilized, other than convenience. Then he goes on to totally contradict the title of this video by suggesting warp stablizer in post. Huh?
Convenience is the arch nemesis of cinematic. This technique may be great when you're in a run and gun situation but that's more about logistics than "making your films better".
Despite the handheld trend, I believe it should be used sparingly. It can create a great functional asethtic for the right narrative but it's being used way too much and in ways that contradict the narrative.
Filmmakers are getting lazy and relying on convenience way, way too much. There's something to be said for having patience and intention and the older gen cinematographers (I'm not one of them) knew how to stage a scene to great effect.
The shots/video in this example gave me a tense, stressful feeling when the narrative was supposed to be about the magic of a young brewing romance. Contradicting messages imho.
There is no reason in my mind why this scene was better served by the handheld technique as opposed to stablizing the camera. In fact, I would argue the scene/narrative called for more smooth and steady movement, and by the use of warp stabilizer apparently Andy unknowingly agrees.
Sorry Andy. I mean no harm.
I think what he's trying to arrive at is lifted blacks=more dynamic range. More DR is by virtue and property of film. But to suggest that's how one should grade, is like saying you should never expose your negatives too long in the dark room. High contrast has always been a sought after look in most film exactly because that is the artistry behind not just showing what the camera captured, rather crafting the image. High dynamic range wasn't a "thing" as you don't worry about this with film. Yet in digital, we are so unbelieveably obsessed with this that we are willing to throw $50k + just for a single camera body to achieve it. I think DR is only one factor, and one of the smaller factors in achieving a film look.
First, it has to be said and then repeated over and over. Story is king. There's no getting around this. No story, no film that anyone would want to sit through regardless of image quality. If your audience can't connect with your story, they will disregard it succinctly.
Crafting your scenes is another crucial factor. This means, framing, lighting, costume, set design/location. In Hollywood, these things are crafted with great effort, care and expense. So here it's not about how your camera is capturing it, it's what. Subject matter is very important. Aim any camera on the planet at boring, uninspired imagery, and that's what you're going to get. Effort in=quality out.
Stabilization/movement. Look back throughout the hay day of cinema, do you see a lot of shaky handheld footage? I'll answer that for you, no. No you don't.
It has become a relatively recent trend, an overused aesthetic since consumer video cameras came into existence, as this look has become synonymous with reality-tv, documentary and mockumentary. It's old enough to be used as nostalgia. Plugins are even developed to emulate it. What was sparingly used in the past to give a scene a little tension is now a whole genre of filmmaking in itself. If you're going for a more traditional film look you have to study the times and techniques of the look you want to recreate. Seems logical.
Can settings. Motion blur. You want the filmic look? Set your frame rate to 24/25fps at 1/48 or 1/50th. (This is not as dogmatic as you might think) Ultimately, film is chemical, emulsive, organic, and imperfect. It's not critically sharp. In general our eyes like the right amount motion blur in movement. Ever notice the difference between an animated object in After Effects with and without motion blur applied. It's pretty big.
Sharpness. I shoot on the NX1, which is an extremely sharp image, probably one of the sharpest in the industry. It resolves such incredible detail that it can be jarring and offputting. That being said, I have to set my internal sharpening to off (-10) and add a small amount of Gaussian blur to my footage in post to get it looking more filmic, and match better with other cams. The result is more emulsive, more imperfection.
You don't want your sharpness to visually compete with your motion blur. And you only want sharpness in areas you want your audience to pay attention to. Rims of eyes, etc. Again, craft your image.
Sound. This is 50% of your film. If this sucks, your audience will be taken out of the experience and feel disconnected. Good sound places you in the present moment and into your emotional mind. Bad sound throws you out of it and puts you into your technical mind. Good sound is sound your audience isn't aware of. This also goes for choosing the right music and foley.
Focal length. I know popular convention is "nifty fifty" but if you look closely at a lot of cinema you're going to see the use of 28mm a lot. A lot. It's just below our natural perception of the world, (50mm) so it stands out, but not so much to have the edge distortion of wider focal lengths. Also, shallow depth of field is way overused in video filmmaking. Somewhere along this digital journey we got it in our heads that shallow DOF=cinematic. Try a shallow DOF on a subject at 30fps or 60fps. It will still look like broadcast video. (Unless you conform to 24fps) Great examples of this can be seen on SNL between their live audience skits vs. their film spoofs.
Lastly, but certainly not least important, you have to have skilled actors. Nothing will take your brain out of a film than unintentional overacting. I do corporate work with mostly non actors, meaning clients. I can't tell you the amount of cringe I deal with in the editor's seat. I've got all my other factors on point. As soon as a non actor talks as if they're reciting a school play or breaks the third wall, the video is as good as toast.
Good editing. This is self explanatory.
There's no magic bullet. Even 8K RED footage will look like broadcast video with the wrong settings. Its a bunch of factors, some to do with the cam settings, some with the lens choice, stable movement, and a bunch of factors that have zero to do with the camera. It's a culmination of factors meeting together to create a whole piece we've come to associate in our brains as "film".
Get these factors on point and the grade won't even matter, high contrast, low contrast, it won't matter.