Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,222 visits to this link)
17,280 topics in this forum
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 457.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 700 replies
- 303.1k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 747.6k views
-
- 7 replies
- 343 views
-
- 46 replies
- 2k views
-
- 19 replies
- 738 views
-
- 60 replies
- 18.9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 600 views
-
- 126 replies
- 56.4k views
-
- 88 replies
- 57.3k views
-
- 71 replies
- 33.7k views
-
- 14 replies
- 707 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 10 replies
- 586 views
-
- 559 replies
- 256.4k views
-
- 79 replies
- 54.9k views
-
- 26 replies
- 19.4k views
-
- 118 replies
- 62k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 105 replies
- 41.9k views
-
- 17 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 374 views
-
- 15 replies
- 837 views
-
- 33 replies
- 6.2k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 493 views
-
- 4 replies
- 544 views
-
- 10 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 44 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 388 views
-
- 56 replies
- 5.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 483 views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 450 views
-
- 122 replies
- 24.7k views
-
- 10 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 5 replies
- 823 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.6k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
In a sense it's much better than people give it credit for. In terms of bit depth, what matters is how close (or not) the bits are to each other in terms of what hues / luma they describe. We all know that 8-bit LOG is worse than 10-bit LOG. In general, the below are roughly equivalent: - 8-bit 709 == 10-bit LOG == 12-bit Linear - 10-bit 709 == 12-bit LOG == 14-bit Linear and the killer... - 6-bit 709 == 8-bit LOG == 10-bit Linear The challenge with 8-bit 709 is that the 709 from consumer cameras is essentially a creative picture profile, and so when you try to grade it there will be all sorts of tints or knees and elbows in the gamma etc. If you try and convert from 709 back to some sort of LOG space for grading it makes the image much more flexible, as I outlined in my 8-bit REC709 is more flexible in post than you think thread, which showed that with some care you can turn this: into this: However, this is a "naked" transform without any look applied, so once you add in a transform with some flavour (like the 2383 LUT) then you can get an even more consistent output, turning this: into this: @Framed_By_Dan the above thread is worth checking out as it has a lot more detail, but the crux of it is to make sure you're using the right colour spaces etc, which FilmConvert should be capable of doing I would imagine.. Adding a film look will help obscure any shot-to-shot differences, and would probably give a decent set of tools for making small changes that are normally needed between shots when working with footage not shot on a closed soundstage. I think the reason people are so dismissive on 8-bit 709 is because when it was out, the colour grading tools people had access to were primitive and the colour grading knowledge was minimal, however when 10-bit LOG came in everyone needed to convert and people with specialist knowledge built LUTs that looked really good, and then after that the tools got a lot better and people started learning how to grade. I think had those tools and knowledge been around when 8-bit was the norm then people would have gotten a lot more out of it. The examples above show absolutely unforgivable exposure and WB errors and the results are good enough to be amateur-level. Had these been the variations that someone even semi-competent would have in their footage, the results are likely to be basically flawless. Indeed you should!!! 😆😆😆 Seriously, everyone has their own standards and looks for different things, so me saying it's good enough won't carry any weight for you using it on your projects (and it shouldn't) because we shoot differently. The sensor is 4592px wide, which with its 10% crop in UHD, means the normal mode is reading 4174px across (which seems an odd number actually). If we assume the 2x is half that width (and not half the full sensor) then that gives us 2087px wide for the 2x crop. I always shoot 4K so I get the 100Mbps bitrate, but edit on a 1080p timeline, so any artefacts will probably be obscured in post for me. Depending on what you're shooting, how sharp your lenses are, and your timeline resolution you may get quite different results I'd imagine. I've got a few S16 c-mount lenses and some have wider image circles than others, with my Risespray 35mm F1.6 c-mount even covering the full MFT sensor on my GH7! Definitely worth testing and they can add some great character to the image without taking up a lot of space and making the rig really big (unlike using adapters and vintage S35 or FF glass). Also, definitely recommend using FilmConvert for this, as not only is it likely to be a more accurate film emulation (it's film emulation, whereas the Film Look Creator is just that, a Look Creator that creates Film LOOKS), but also it should have settings for input and output colour spaces, so if you set these correctly then you should be able to adjust exposure and WB in a pretty neutral way. I've been using the Standard colour profile, with Contrast / Sharpness / NR all turned down to -5, and Saturation left at zero. If you're using different profiles then I suggest shooting some test shots in both Standard and your normal profile, then pulling them into FilmConvert and playing around and seeing which you prefer. All the profiles on the GX85 do quite significant things to the colour, rotating hues, lightening and darkening different hues, changing the saturation of different hues, etc, so there is no neutral profile and it's just a matter of taste. If you get some good results I'd be keen to see them so please feel free to share them! -
By Framed_By_Dan · Posted
Following this! I have the GX9 and have often wondered about trying come C Mount S16 lenses on it. After all, some should cover the 2.2/2.3x crop in 4K. I'm not going to go as deep as the OP here but if I can get a decent look with FilmConvert I'd be happy. -
The GX85 with the 14mm is such a nice and pretty combo. Best bang for the buck for wide angle rangefinder style photography. I still got my GM5 but I'm thinking about selling it as its cuteness factor wears off quickly and the GX is just so much better in every regard. I would have loved a Leica branded version with rock solid build and perfect button feedback and layout. I think this little Lumix is still well build and to me it is a classic indeed. It's my favourite small camera in regards of small form factor, great image and bang for the buck. If it had Pannys great 10bit codec and HLG I would have called it a digital S16 camera. I do call it a personal cinema verité camera nontheless. Anyway, awesome thread and interested to see your findings, kye! I've been using my two GX85 cameras for photography over the last couple of months, with a 14, 28 and 50, even a 75mm in use. Different 50s btw, C-mounts from Schneider and Zeiss. That Zeiss is astonishing, the Xenon painterly with its uneven focal plane and it other attributes. Would love to put em to usage for video. I guess this thread is a good starter for some GX85 motion picture love!:) @kye I have not experimented with the 2x digital crop. Is it without artefacts? That would make it a usuable 2/3" camera, though with one bayer sensor instead of three sensor blocks of course. Kind of like an LX10, which in 4K has about 2/3" sensor size. Could the 2x digital crop be downsampled from a 2.3K image? I could test it myself, couldn't I? Shouldn't I?:) @Clark Nikolai I would love to see a picture of your shoulder mounted D16. Awesome! Do you use it for personal occasions or for projects and what kind of projects? Cheers and thanks for this fun thread! -
It seems like Panny is asking if we want a Lumix L2000- an L10 with a mount, full HDMI, IBIS and a headphone jack, for 1199 and a Lumix L1000, an L2000 with GH5 sensor, for 899. I'd say two times Yes, please! Keep em coming! I would go for the L1000. The names are too cool, so I am looking forward to my L1000. Heck, why not, the L2000 will be it for me.
-
By fuzzynormal · Posted
Oh, this deserves admiration. I've learned to try and do this too. The gigs I now accept for clients grant me autonomy. I've failed with a few clients in the twilight of my career because I wanted to protect my autonomy, but I chalk it up to not being creativity aligned, and try to not let it bother me. Well, before I found (developed) my own voice I certainly worried about that stuff -- I had to worry about the $tuff. Good on you for building something that expresses your creativity so well that people want to pay you for it.
-
