Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,256 visits to this link)
17,286 topics in this forum
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 458.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 700 replies
- 304.4k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 749.7k views
-
- 5 replies
- 137 views
-
- 60 replies
- 5.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 105 views
-
- 15 replies
- 834 views
-
- 2 replies
- 396 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 7 replies
- 243 views
-
- 7 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 120 replies
- 62.7k views
-
- 3 replies
- 311 views
-
- 560 replies
- 257.3k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 2 replies
- 227 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 57 replies
- 18.4k views
-
- 46 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 692 views
-
- 126 replies
- 57.1k views
-
- 88 replies
- 57.8k views
-
- 71 replies
- 34k views
-
- 14 replies
- 844 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 10 replies
- 750 views
-
- 79 replies
- 55.3k views
-
- 26 replies
- 19.6k views
-
- 3 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 105 replies
- 42.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 454 views
-
- 15 replies
- 920 views
-
- 33 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 557 views
-
- 4 replies
- 615 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.7k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By fuzzynormal · Posted
I bought a used Em10iii over 5 years ago for $300 and haven't stopped using it since. Nice 4K video and you can put good vintage lenses on it for next to nuthin'. Yes, concentrate on lighting and getting a good mic (I use a Tascam DR10L) but do know there are a lot of good affordable cameras out there too. I also have 2 old GH4's in the cabinet. They're cheap as well. -
One of our favourites ones among us over here... LOL oh boy : D ...has just spoken: -
By newfoundmass · Posted
These days the camera is the least imporant thing, since we all own phones that shoot very good video with the right lighting. Something like this might be useful, to help you frame yourself so you can use your main cameras instead of the selfie camera on your phone. https://www.smallrig.com/Wireless-Video-Monitor-for-Phone-Vlog-Kit-4851.html?skuId=1902205216988602369&utm_source=google&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign={us_roasl}&utm_content&utm_term=1902205216988602369&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22986129310&gbraid=0AAAAA9ksdxlR0rKJm8KPUZEfnds4FA25H&gclid=CjwKCAjwidXQBhAZEiwA4egw6IMJP7OXRfSob5wBL8w-tVSe1oUTWPIYilNm1fLnTWsIBMzdbzi5RRoCELoQAvD_BwE -
Very interesting. I've been looking into this for a long time and hadn't heard some of these insights. Very useful. One thing he got wrong, at least for v3 of their colour science is that there isn't anything luma-specific done to the image inside the camera, it's all done in the LUT. The evidence for this is when people do under/over tests, where the camera is deliberately under and over exposed, when you correct the image in post to the correct exposure the colours are all the same. If they were warming the highlights or cooling the shadows in-camera then when you overexposed and brought the exposure down in post then that warmth would be baked-in and your mid-tones would be warm (or they'd be cooler if you underexposed) but that's not what we see. It's also no secret that they compress the skin-tone hue range and also tend to skew yellow, especially compared to Canon which skews magenta/red. The IR-cut filter letting in a bit of far-red so the skin-tones get that scattering is interesting. To a certain extent it might be 'recoverable' in post (ie, perhaps we can guess what might have been there based on what info we do have). Perhaps the key aspect of any such attempts would be to blur this new channel once it's been simulated, as this is the information coming from deeper in the skin and is scattered a bit. It's been hinted at that part of the 'Cooke Look' was that they used materials that slightly blurred light at a range of frequencies within skin tones, so the lenses sort-of worked like a skin-hue-only diffusion filter. Potentially anyone with a full-spectrum camera (OG BMPCC BMMC anyone?) could seek out IR-cut filters that are designed to let in more far-red. Potentially even people with IR-cut filters on their sensors could get strong ND filters to boost the relative proportion of IR coming into the camera. I'm guessing that the right amount of the right ND might do it - have enough ND that the IR is boosted but not so much that the blacks become polluted. It's funny he mentioned that the iPhone has a strong IR-cut filter - I was testing my iPhone 17 Pro the other day with lots of ND (because it doesn't have an iris!) and I got a ton of IR pollution, including getting a non-trivial amount of it when using the same vND I use on my GH7 which I've never seen any IR pollution on. So the iPhone must have less IR filtration than the GH7. It's worth adding that a lot of these things are also accomplished by film emulation. -
-
(4).thumb.png.1a464bc858217b4bee2ca3c1634079ad.png){kind=logo}