Thank you! Not sure what you mean, the cropped super35 mode is 4K, not 6k. If you’re referring to the text on screen that says “6k full frame”, it’s just so you know which camera in on screen as in that sequence, I’m comparing the full frame against the pro

@@corryraymondfilmsOhh now I see what you meant… thanks! Actually I’m waiting on my Pyxis and learned a lot from your video, new subscriber here 😃

Amazing thank you!

You’re welcome

Yes it’s very noisy

It’s a mix! The shots where the camera rushes past or does a 180 on the subject, that’s a gimbal. Shots which are static are all on a tripod. The ones on the pier however were handheld, literally the palms of my hand, and I was able to stabilise it to appear like it was on a tripod. The Catta is a really heavy lens, so that’s either on a tripod or on a shoulder rig with two handle grips which I am holding onto

So Q is going to prioritise quality. When I’m shooting 12:1, it’s normally because I need the drive space and the project doesn’t need to be at a high bitrate, for instance, because it’s on KZbin. I bring out the Q compression when the project’s life is going to go beyond KZbin for instance

@@corryraymondfilms okay, I was wondering what your thoughts were because I never know which compression rate/type makes sense to use.

I know what you mean. The Q ones are the best. I would recommend using the Qs and only use the 12:1 if you need the card space and the end client is like KZbin and can afford to be heavily compressed. It does make a big difference in the quality of the shadows shooting on 12:1/Q5 when compared to Q0,1,3

@@corryraymondfilms okay, thank you. So you personally pretty much only use constant bit rate (CBR) when you know you’re going to use 12:1? Otherwise, you’re just using constant quality C.Q.? Are there any use cases for 8:1, 5:1, or 3:1?

Cases for 8:1, 3:1… I personally haven’t found one. The Q is really useful for getting high quality images, especially Q0 as it is the lowest compression you can get (although it’s still compressed) and Q is very reliable for card space. 3:1 is going to be less than Q0, Q1 and sometimes it’s going to be more quality than is necessary and sometimes it’s going to be less than needed. However, Q really takes care of that. 12:1 vs 8:1 I have noticed a difference in the shadows, so 8:1 doesn’t mess with the blacks like 12:1 does. Q5 I have also found to have purple hues in the blacks, when compared to the higher resolutions. Hope that helps you decide what to shoot with

Thank you 🙌

Thank you! I’ve found that it doesn’t need to be running the whole time, you can close the phone

@@corryraymondfilms This is great news! Thanks so much for the great video and the quick response!!!

Did you ever find out about the Nano II?

I’m not sure to be honest. I haven’t tested the II

Thank you! The sigma adaptor is the best!

The RS3 has an accessory where you can attach a focus wheel and focus motor to the lens, this is how I do it

Just a standard V mount lithium battery and the D-Tap to Blackmagic Pocket 6k adaptor

Yes that’s right! A shoulder rig setup

Thank you, it is the lens, the Zeiss at 1.4 is pretty unusable

I use the Ronin RS3 Pro

“Super 35 is AN industry standard” Thanks for the rant though on your misunderstanding

@@corryraymondfilms Hey, what's a KZbin comment section without a proper drunkard rant? It's nice to be acknowledged. Thanks for that. I still think Super 35 is a marketing-driven upsell of a discounted technology, but maybe we'll built wider TVs in the future.

Dude, check in on yourself. I said super 35 is AN industry standard. As in it’s a common format. That’s it. It’s not a marketing push, super 35 sensors are cheaper and the lenses are cheaper too. You can also get great zoom lenses at a good price to cover super 35. It’s the same in digital as it was celluloid. Then you’re ranting at me because I shot in 2:39:1 aspect ratio. I happen to like it and my audience isn’t watching my content on television- these are extracts from shorts I have had screened at film festivals, some of these are Oscar and BAFTAs qualifying shorts. My intention is for them to be displayed on the big screen, not on tv. And funnily enough, if you do shoot at a cropped 2:39:1 on BRAW, it is cheaper because you save card space, which is the other reason why I did it. 🙄

@@corryraymondfilms I thought I did check myself. I freely admit it was a rant, and I'll add that parts of it were unbecoming of me. Super 35 is cheaper, yes, but it is also a way to put a 6K label on a camera with a sensor that doesn't exactly shoot 6K; hence marketing. Setting aside anamorphic lenses (which are still shunned by pretty much every distributor or outlet), most distributed content with 2.39ish ratios (anything wider than 2:1 really) isn't native but rather matted. I guess our main point of disagreement is about the definition of "industry". I've worked in film and tv for over 20 years, so what I think of as "industry" is mostly about financing/selling content. A lot of that money comes with strings attached, delivery format being a big one. Mattes were preferred to 3-perforation (native Super) 35mm film for the same reason, and framing is often skewed to conform to 1.777:1 or 1.85:1 to this day. Producers need to keep their options open in the edit. Distributors, streaming and even broadcast are huge parts of financing, and completion bonds and insurance depend upon at the very least letters of intent from these sources. I understand your audience/distribution is different, I got my start in this business by producing online content for media conglomerates that didn't know how to deal with this back in the mid-2000s. I used anamorphic lenses on 4:3 DV cams back then, and had to stop because those formats didn't cut it for multiplatform use. So that's all I have to say. Be well, keep on doing what you're doing and don't listen to old f"ks like me. This business changes constantly, albeit slower than expected, but I'm not the harbinger of anything. Although, the last 20 years have been tough on the big-screen, financing-wise.

I’m going to say it again, check in on yourself. This KZbin channel gets a lot of comments and I sit and read all of them. Most ask for instructional advice, many however want to pick up on the odd detail and rant about it. An industry standard means the industry uses it. I have the American Cinematographer Manual on my desk and there’s chapters upon chapters titled “Super 35”, so you can’t argue with me about this. I actually know everything you’re talking about perfs, but think about the context: I’m not going to go into these details for an instructional KZbin video which is ultimately a piece of entertainment for people wanting to get into cinematography. These discussions are ultimately you trying to let me know that you worked in the industry for 20 years. Great. We don’t disagree with anything, I’m reading a transcript of you using this opportunity to get validation that you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for the insulting remarks about my work along the way. Personally, I take deep care and attention to my work and it’s very important to me, so if you insult my work I will defend it. Check in on yourself next time before you rant about another man’s work, you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick

Firstly download the BRAW player from Blackmagic Design. Then, when you import, import it the footage from the media browser tab

@@corryraymondfilms Sorry, but Final Cut does not import BRAW files. Even with having the latest BRAW Player installed.