I read the The absolutely mega Olympus E-M10 III thread and i presume the m5 shouldn't be much worse for video quality... perhaps i'm wrong but i thought i'd ask anyway. I'm not a pixel peeper per se. From youtube the vids i have seen  the video quality looks ok, so i'm wondering what the general consensus about the m5 mark ii video is and if the canon is rp is better or about the same ? 

both cameras seem to be at about the price point i'm willing to pay. higher end models tend to get pricey pretty quickly and for my purposes, i think its overkill thanks for your time.

A lot has changed in the nine years since the last version so it should have a significant bump in features but, equally, it will likely get a significant bump in price (from an already pricey base point) that we’ve seen everywhere else in that intervening period.

It certainly has the potential to be more than enough camera for more than enough people otherwise they wouldn’t bother bringing a new version out but equally it could also just be a grab for them.

The internal ND of the Panasonic FZ2000/2500 gave it the edge for me over the RX10 so that’s one area where Sony might have come back at it but, then again, Panasonic show little sign of refreshing the FZ2000/2500 so there may be no need.

All in all it might be something interesting or a head scratcher.

In case you don't know, keychain cameras are seriously tiny cameras (think smaller than a GoPro) and have gone viral in the last year or so.  The Kodak Charmera is probably the most viral one, with multiple production runs being sold out very quickly and reissues etc.  Here's mine in comparison to some other cameras, including a couple of GoPro-sized action cameras and some actually pocketable cameras (GF3 and GX85).

Why is the Charmera interesting?  I think the design is essentially perfect:

• It's incredibly small (obviously) and ridiculously light but it's actually quite tough
• It's got a 35mm equivalent FOV lens
• It charges from USB-C
• With almost any MicroSD card it has practically infinite storage
• It has a rear screen that is just large enough to navigate the (very simple) menu and frame shots
• It's super-simple to use, if you plug it into a computer it turns on, mounts as a USB drive (without needing any software), charges the battery while connected, then when you unplug it it turns off again
• It's a ~15Mbps motion JPEG codec
• It's USD $30

Why aren't I recommending it?

• The image quality is terrible.  TERRIBLE.
• It says it has a 1440x1080 sensor, and that's the resolution of the JPGs and video files, but I think it's 2x2 binned, and heavily sharpened too, so it's a very poor quality VGA camera.  I shot a resolution chart - the moire was practically psychedelic.
• JPGs are just as bad as the video files
• No control over anything and with its AE it's perfectly happy to clip the crap out of decent chunks of the image

Why am I even bothering to write about it then?

It's a new class of camera.

We haven't really had cameras that were smaller than action cameras before, but not only have we got them now, but they sold out multiple times, so the world (or at least the trendy impulse buying world) has solidly suggested there is demand for them.

As far as I can tell, the competitors are action cameras, or those that are smaller like the Insta360 Go, and that's about it.  Those are 10x the price though, and larger and not nearly as fun to use.  The image quality of them is vastly superior, but in todays market where I wish I could get a camera that was smaller, had a quarter (or sixteenth) the resolution, and was drastically cheaper, this is the kind of thing that didn't used to exist really.

Even just playing with it around the house, I film things I wouldn't normally film.  It feels different to use.  

This is a new product in the market that smartphones basically killed.

Everyone used to have small point-n-shoot cameras but they all got killed by smartphones - the industry essentially got eaten from the bottom up.  This is the first counter-example I'm aware of (other than action cameras).  I would venture that everyone who bought one already had a smartphone, so this fulfils a niche that their expensive fragile dopamine-addicting smartphone doesn't.  

Retro cameras have enjoyed a resurgence recently, but I would suggest that this is different as it's a new thing rather than an old thing limping along.  This might make executives take note - it's not that small cameras are dying slower than they think - there is active demand and innovation in this space.

Tech gets better.

Assuming this form-factor remains popular, the video quality will get better.  I don't know why it wouldn't remain around..  kids aren't likely to want to record themselves less in future, tiny things won't stop being cute, having something so small it takes up zero space in your pocket (it's a keychain camera!) won't stop being handy, etc.

What I'd really like to see is a 'pro' version of this camera..  one that takes real 1080p video and doesn't sharpen it like it's entering a butchering competition.  Same size (or a little larger), same simple design, could be more expensive and still be interesting.

The application can process RAW data and encode the result to H.265. It adjusts the saturation vectors in the linear domain to preserve accurate color relationships and supports color targets for calculating a 3×3 color correction matrix and TRCs.

It also includes USM and MTF-based filtering in a mildly nonlinear domain, allowing either sharpening or attenuation of high spatial frequencies.

I’m also planning to add film simulations after calibrating the camera using manufacturers’ spectral sensitivity curves.

I’m open to suggestions regarding additional features worth implementing. At the moment, my main problem is dropped frames during compressed RAW recording.

Below is an example from a Motorola Edge 50 Pro: the brighter image is produced by the phone’s ISP, while the other image is processed from RAW.

ISP:

RAW:

RAW:

I have the SLR Magic MicroPrimes: 21mm t1.6, 35mm t1.3, 50mm t1.2, and 75mm t1.5.

I read a lot on this site, but I never participate. I created an account because I'm stuck.

Are there any tests out there on Rawlite OLPF filters regarding moiré and aliasing?

There are a few tests, but they’re not really great and often about the Ircut.

A lot of people say rawlite olpf fiters are good for moire (but they only say "trust me"), but I can’t find any serious tests.

I’m talking about tests using test charts or clothes—comparing with and without the Rawlite filter. Not just a shirt or a chair for 2 secondes. Often, they're also too far from the target.
A simple close-up test showing the moiré pattern and the same shot taken with a Rawlite filter.... It's surprisingly hard to find.

I’m looking for a test that includes targets at different distances too, to confirm that the moiré pattern has indeed disappeared... With different kind of patterns too. 

I know it doesn't completely remove the moiré pattern, but I'd like to know what percentage of it it removes (5%–10%–90% ???)

I've decided to make all of the music on my site free for commercial use as well as noncommercial. Just please credit me properly as detailed on my homepage.

If you decide to use one or more of my pieces, a donation would be greatly appreciated...any amount you can swing would be helpful.

As always, thanks for your feedback and I hope you find something you can use.

Eric

Turns out it's actually a lot harder to film yourself and talk right to camera than I anticipated (I very quickly abandoned my plans to shoot it anamorphic, focusing on my S1, all by myself, was just way too difficult) and the whole process took me far longer to shoot and edit than I expected. 

Anyway, here's my (first ever) attempt at this kind of video:

I'm assuming a good number of users on here consume as much YouTube as I (sometimes regretfully) do? 

I've always considered Eoshd as a cut above the rest of the internet filmmaking-afficcionado crowd. I'd love to see anything anyone else on here is making in this space too, and/or see if we can start a discussion about good, lesser-known channels to follow that aren't specifically about shoving gear/affiliate links and clickbait sensation down our throats. 

https://www.youtube.com/@CommonHub/videos

In this case, MidJourney, Runway ML e ElevenLabs have been used according to the sources found:

Rumored spec from the comment section

44mp "high speed" sensor

Can do 40fps (with electronic shutter)

Can do 1.5 secs precapture RAW

Open gate

Price around $3500

8K opengate? I wonder will they have 8k60p as well?

Does anyone remember in 2019, Panasonic announced its 8k organic sensor tech? 8K LUMIX    Instead of having the sensor basically doing everything in one layer, the light capturing and the electronics are separated. What are the benefits? Well, higher dynamic range, global shutter without the usual hit in DR, and to me the most exciting part, electronic ND built into the freaking sensor. And in this 6 years old video a Panasonic rep specifically says this tech will trickle into LUMIX cameras.

It’s now been close to 7 years since the original S1H. If Panasonic has been quietly refining this technology all this time, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next S1H or a new compact cinema camera is the one that finally delivers the combination of high dynamic range, global shutter, and built in ND filters that so many people have been asking for.

Originally posted in another thread, but given what it is, I think it deserves a place of its own.

There’s something very real happening here right now. This is not just a minor upgrade.

: )

Insta360 sample for focal length range.

source 

(from Leica HQ BTW)

And that detachable screen is basically an on-set field monitor. WOW What a killer combo : X

I feel DJI should improve on the design and just improve on everything. The new Air 3 has this superb dual camera setup, which, IMHO, looks like the perfect setup for the Pocket 3. The specs are:

"Dual 1/1.3 inch cameras capable of shooting up to 4K/100 slow motion, 4K/60 HDR, and 2.7K vertical

Bottom camera: 24mm equivalent, F1.7, 2.4um pixel size

Top camera: 70mm equivalent, F2.8, 2.4um pixel size

48MP stills" 

(https://dronedj.com/2023/07/16/dji-air-3-everything-we-know-so-far/)

The dual camera setup seems like the natural progression from the present Pocket 2, especially since its coming in the Air 3, making the design and camera specifications easy to fit into the Pocket design.

What do you feel? Have you used the pocket? Do you like the form factor and ease of use? Do you feel the pocket needs version 3.0 with this dual camera design of the Air 3? 

*5-nanometer System-on-a-Chip (SoC)

source

I wasn't that interested until earlier today when I went to set my S9 up for the imminent season only to discover the audio on it has stopped working.

Or is at least intermittent enough I can't use it until it's fixed and as there is zero chance of that happening before my season starts and I am between 2 countries so which to even have it fixed in, is a bit of an issue.

So ordered a used S5ii from @Andrew - EOSHD favourite used camera emporium to tide me over.

But then, less than 2 hours later, my YouTube feed gets flooded by the Lumix Bros who have been on another jolly and...actually, as above, wasn't particularly interested as I had my S9 as my compact C cam and social media unit...except, this would work even better, so probably going to put a preorder in as they should be available in June.

The only thing I find odd is that every man and their dog has a video or press release and the only one's who don't seem to have mentioned it yet, is Panasonic Lumix themselves.

Same funny old Lumix marketing department 🤔

There were two highlights of IBC 2019 for me. The Sigma Fp, and the Z-CAM range. From the ground-up the Sigma Fp seems to be aimed at us, at artists. A small and incredibly light camera that hits the big full frame notes, some of the niche features like the digital director's viewfinder would be unheard of in a consumer full frame camera from a major manufacturer.

This is clever and will get the camera a lot of use by top-flight talent. Most exciting for me is the focus on the video recording features - which are big leap for Sigma and indeed push the boundaries of whet we expect from a "prosumer" camera.

Cinema DNG RAW 4K 12bit to USB C SSD media

Internal 1080p 12bit internal RAW Cinema DNG uncompressed

Internal 4K RAW uncompressed (bit-depth drops to 8bit at the moment)

Read the full article

Level 1 is where we start - with zooms

The normal start to using lenses is with zoom lenses, probably the kit lens.

We know the thinking at this stage: its convenient, you stand in one place and zoom, hooray!

Level 2 is what most YT lens videos are about - primes are better than zooms

We all know the arguments.  Primes make you "zoom with your feet", they make you learn about perspective, they're sharper, better in low-light, BOKEH!!!!1, you can learn the FOV and develop an instinct for it, vintage ones are cheap, "real photographers / cinematographers use primes!"

There are approximately 1000 billion videos and tutorials explaining this, but this seems to be where the thinking stops.  I've not seen that much stuff that goes beyond this, but this is really just the start.

Level 3 is where understanding begins - zooms and primes have their uses

Almost none of the discussion up until this point acknowledges that lenses create images, and images have aesthetics, and aesthetics are what is actually being discussed.

Moving to talk about motion pictures now, and cinema especially, there is a bunch of nuance that Level 2 doesn't really discuss.

People have decided that FF sensors are the most 'cinematic' and typically are used with FF vintage lenses.  This means that the FOVs are 24mm / 28 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 etc, with maybe a 40mm in there if you're getting fancy.
These weren't the FOVs of cinema though, because cinema was S35.  So the FOVs of cinema using the 50/40/35/27/18 were really like 75mm/60mm/52.5mm/40.5mm/27mm.
It gets stranger when you add anamorphic into the mix.  If I go to B&H anamorphic cinema lens category and sort by best sellers, we get:
 - DZOFilm Arcana Anamorphic Prime 3-Lens Kit, which are FF and 32/45/75mm and 1.5x, so on FF they are: 21mm 30mm and 50mm
 - BLAZAR LENS Talon 50mm T2.1 1.5x, which is FF and equivalent to a 33mm
 - Sirui Saturn 35mm T2.9 1.6x which is FF and equivalent to 22mm

If you're using the standard FF lenses on a FF camera, you are using the FOVs that stills photographers used, rather than those that cinematographers used.

Shooting on S35 sensor size (or crop mode) with FF lenses can create some of these in-between FOVs too.

People at Level 2 thinking probably won't be swayed by the above.  I would imagine the thinking is take a step forward or back, what's the difference?

Level 4 is where understanding begins to mature - enter the feedback loop

The feedback loop is where you realise that the focal length changes how you shoot.

A ridiculous example to illustrate it.  You decide to shoot on only a 28mm on a FF camera, but when you frame up a close-up shot, the distortion makes the talent look awful, so you take a step back and now the footage feels more distant because we're not seeing the talents face so much because there are no close-ups.  

We all know about perspective from level 2 thinking, but the level 3 thinking was that taking a step forward or back was no big deal, so which is it?  This stuff is subtle, but (like all feedback loops) it pushes us to act differently and this can create a cascade of changes over time.

Level 4 thinking realises that this dynamic is powerful and pervasive.

I shoot in public, so I don't control the environment.  I discovered that if I shoot with a 35mm FOV then I can get environmental portraits of my friends and family from close enough that people won't walk in-between me and them, but moving beyond a 45mm I'd either get shots of them that were tight and didn't really show their environment that well, or I'd step back and be struggling with people walking in-between me and the subject, which is a completely different situation.  How would I respond to this?  I might shoot from eye-level instead of chest height.
Now I've changed the shot angle because of a FOV change.  
If I shot from eye-level for a while I might notice that I get more attention and now I find that the people interacting with my subject are more aware they're being filmed and keep looking at the camera.
Now my subjects are acting differently because of a FOV change.

If I asked someone the difference between shooting with a 35mm and 45mm would they think it would change the shot angle and subject behaviour?  Not with the Level 2 thinking of "primes are sharper! duh!!", or the Level 3 thinking of "just take a step back! duh!!".

What about controlled sets?  
Sure, on a controlled set there aren't random people walking in-front of the camera, but now we're talking about actors and all the dynamics that goes on there.  
Can great actors deliver amazing performances while the matte-box is only inches from their face?  Sure.  Do YOU have actors that are that good?  I don't think so.
Can great production designers change a set to accommodate a camera being further away, while keeping the frame looking the same?  We know that as we move the camera back the subject gets smaller in frame, and that as we do that the background gets smaller but not nearly as fast as the subject does.  This is great if you are only filming the subject and don't really pay attention to the composition of the entire frame.  But you're a talented cinematographer, so you want to move back a bit and keep the same composition, which means that production design needs to 'cheat the camera' and basically rearrange every item in frame that isn't in the very background.  I remember shooting a student film in a cafe and every setup required moving the vase of flowers on the table the subject was sitting at.  That vase probably used two-thirds of the area of the table!

I watched a video recently where a street photographer tested a 40mm prime for the first time.  They didn't know what to make of it, having only a week to shoot with it before they had to release their video review.  What struck me wasn't that they didn't know what shooting with a 40mm was like, it was that they didn't seem to understand that there's a period of learning that goes on, they didn't understand that the feedback loop exists.  
I realised they had 'learned' each focal length by memorising its attributes (which Level 2 photographers will crap on at great length about), rather than having learned them for himself by following a process where you explore the feedback loop and see how it makes you feel and how it makes you act and how the world responds to that, and how you respond in turn, and how the loop feels and matures over time, and how to make the loop go faster etc.

I recently spent some time in a small town in rural Japan and shot the same location with FOVs equivalent to 71mm, 82mm, and 100mm.  I went out for a walk each night with one of those lenses, going out for perhaps an hour or two.  Shots that were possible with one were not with the next, shots that were great with one were lifeless with another.  As I walked down the same road from my accommodation seeing the same shots night-after-night and making different framing decisions with each lens (and deciding to take the shot or not to bother as it didn't work) I noticed that I made different decisions to walk one way or another as certain subjects required different FOVs and distances to make them.
I've also spend a lot of time, over several trips, shooting night scenes with 68mm and 71mm FOVs.  In some locations I can make some shots and not others, while in other locations I can take different shots.  If I'm shooting across a road then the width of that road (combined with my FOV) determines the type of shots I can take.  After taking a number of those types of shots I start to adapt to how I'm shooting these locations.  The more I shoot the more everything feels different.  Level 3 thinking says "just take a step back, what's the difference?" and when shooting in those situations the difference between a 35mm and a 50mm feels like it's a span where there are several complete aesthetics in-between the 35mm end and the 50mm end.  Thinking about shooting a 50mm FOV vs an 85mm FOV feels like travelling to a different country where things look similar but feel very different in practice.

I know I'm barely scratching the surface of Level 4, and perhaps there are levels beyond this that I'm unaware of, but it's just amazing to me that almost no-one seems to talk about anything beyond Level 2.  It's probably controversial to say, but I deliberately avoid almost all stills-only people because the thinking seems so rudimentary in comparison to people who shoot moving images.  You can feel the limited thinking and the "well, actually!!!!" responses where they miss the entire point entirely because one lens is sharper or something ridiculous.

Anyway, hopefully this helps.  I've not really heard anyone talk about this stuff, which seems a shame as the rabbit hole is very deep and to only talk about ankle-deep water seems silly.

Brian Williams wrote:

Quote

I am also working on an iOS app for the iPhone 12 Pro and Pro Max that will do the same things, use the phone’s LIDAR to control BMPCC’s af as well as record movement with gyro and accelerometer for stabilization. That one will be available soon.

Looking forward to this app! 🙂👍

Nice long (2 hour!) review from Richard Wong.

I've been thinking about the standardisation of body designs at Panasonic.

Taking inspiration from Sony they seem to want to design a one-body fits all standardised ergonomics.

But the lack of the top panel LCD and the angular body of the S5 Mark II does nothing for me.

And I'm wondering when Panasonic will start adding a bit of flair and soul to their designs.

If they came up with the S5 Mark II body design as a way of creating a Sony a7 IV mould to then go and do a whole set of other cameras with only minor ergonomic changes, they have done a really bad job.

The S5 Mark II body is not flagship material.

Sony a7 IV is.

The Sony a1 has an almost identical design and ergonomics to the a7 IV, but still feels like a flagship.

It's been the same since the Sony a9 being based on the a7 III.

The Nikon Z8 is probably the nicest of the bunch I think? Not too small, not too big, top panel LCD, very nice viewfinder hump, feels premium.

So in general just the design... what do people think of the direction Panasonic have taken since the S5 Mark II to standardise their bodies? The G9 II of course shares the same basic layout and looks too.

Maybe they will break the mould a bit with the S1H Mark II if we ever see it? They could certainly use some imagination at this point.

It's a VILTROX EF-M2II, and I tried my 50mm F1.8 and the AF was somewhere between functional and like it had a mind of its own.  The focus ring on the lens has such a short travel that it's impossible to use as a MF lens (which it wasn't designed for so I understand).

I'm looking for some interesting / fast / cheaper EF lenses that will be fine manually focusing.
I'm especially interested in lenses F1.4 or faster but are still budget lenses.

My thoughts immediately turn to the early days of cheap Chinese glass, but I can't seem to find any as any search is overrun with Canon AF lenses, or with new MF lenses that are for EF-M mount but are incorrectly labelled as EF (even Meike has a lens labelled as EF that is clearly a mirrorless lens!), and while EF was the only mount people never bothered to include that information and so things don't appear in searches.  Laowa doesn't even let you browse their products by mount!

Our new robot overlords suggested some options:

• The Samyang/Rokinon series: 35mm 50mm 85mm F1.4
• Zhongyi Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95 (nice but it's over AUD1000!)
• Zeiss ZE series: 35mm f/2, 50mm 85mm f/1.4
• MEIKE 50mm F1.2

Anything else I should be looking at?  I really thought there were more third-party options around than just those.

It applies to the equipment:
Questions like "how sharp is that lens?" don't have an answer (that is intuitive anyway - MTF charts aren't intuitive and often aren't reliable or even available).  Even if it did, that answer would only be true at one aperture setting, and even then, is only true for the middle of the frame or the edge of the frame, but not both at the same time.
If we shoot at base ISO with a 4K camera then we'll likely get an image with roughly 4K resolution, but at higher ISOs the effective resolution will likely drop due to ISO noise, NR, compression, etc.
If we use filtration, like diffusion filters, then these lower the effective resolution of the image.  It's literally what they're designed to do.  How much do they do this though?  Not only is there no published answer to this, but the answer changes depending on focal length, sensor size, etc.

It applies to the look we're creating:
Any colourist working creatively will be trying to create an image with the right amount of resolution / sharpness / noise / etc, not just "the sharpest" or "the highest resolution".  How much is desired?  What are the references?

I've been struggling with many questions from my own equipment and projects, including:

• My TTartisans 17mm F1.4 is less than half the weight of my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, but the TT is quite soft at F1.4.  How soft is it though?  Is it too soft?
• If I want to shoot low-light with the GX85 (which has terrible higher-ISO NR) then what ISO setting is too soft, and then which lenses do I need to use in which environments to get enough light into the sensor?
• My Takumar 50mm F1.4 on my generic M42-MFT speed booster has pretty soft edges, but how soft?

You'd think the solution to these would be to look at the footage and decide, but (for me at least) it's a double-edged sword because I also don't know what final images I want!  I have spent a good amount of time looking at Hollywood films and big budget TV shows (see the original The Aesthetic thread) but apart from just going "I like that" and "I don't like that" we have the problem once-again of there being no way to quantify things.  Saying "this show is softer than that show" really doesn't help.

My solution is to reference things back to film.

I originally did this with my Panasonic GF3, which shoots 1080p so soft you could cut it with a wet noodle, by comparing it to the presets in the Film Look Creator tool for 8mm and 16mm film I concluded that when the GF3 didn't show macro-blocking due to the (very low) bitrate, it was about the same as 8mm film.

This was actually a really useful reference for me, because the associations I have for 8mm and 16mm film are quite useful.  8mm film has an aesthetic that is very nostalgic and low-fi, but was never good enough for TV shows, let alone the cinema.

My new plan is to reference everything back to film, across quite a number of ways...

Texture, which is what I've talked about so far:
- I will be trying to "map" my lenses and cameras and codecs to a specific resolution of film (16mm, 35mm, somewhere in between)
- I will be trying to "map" my aesthetic preferences to film too, like wanting a certain project to have the resolution of 16mm for example, but further than this - the size and amount of grain can also be a useful reference.  These are useful references for me because a lot of the aesthetic references of cinema I have were actually shot on film and so by associating these things back to film it's a relevant reference, not just some arbitrary scale that isn't directly related.

Dynamic Range and Contrast:
- How does the DR from the GX85 look when put through an image pipeline in Resolve compare to the contrast of a 250D -> 2383 process?
- What about the iPhone vs a 16mm process from the 90s?  or a B&W process from the Italian Neorealism or French New Wave period?

Contrast and DR should be relatively easy to match to various film stocks by just shooting some over/under exposure tests and adjusting my standard Resolve colour pipeline to match what is in the spec sheets.
Speaking of spec sheets, not only do the spec sheets for motion picture film contain the Sensitometric Curves that show DR and contrast, but they also contain the MTF curves too as a reference for resolution.  When it comes to resolution you don't need to look at the charts though - I asked some film geeks I know to comment on the FLC presets and they said that the 8mm / 16mm / 35mm presets in the Grain panel have about the right amount of image softness and amount of grain (but that the character of the grain isn't accurate), so the FLC is a reasonable reference for the texture of film in a very broad sense.

What else?  
Image stability is another one.  8mm film cameras were larger than modern compact cameras so were more stable with the lenses they were normally fitted with, but 8mm had pretty terrible gate weave (alignment from one frame to the next) so having micro-jitters from hand-holding is compatible with the look.  Whereas 16mm would have had more mass and less gate weave but at least at first would have probably been shoulder mounted or on a tripod, so some types of shots / angles will be more compatible with the aesthetic than others.
Depth of field is another one.  Lots of people think the "Super 16mm look" just means deep DOF, but it's more nuanced than that, as the lenses typically used would have some separation in low-light when focused closer, but due to the lenses at the time the shots might have been softer wide-open, so that's another relationship to understand.
There are lots of other parameters that make an image that aren't covered here, but I am finding that getting some kind of reference for texture and contrast fills a very large gap in the landscape for me.  

The goal isn't to accurately emulate anything, its to develop a keener understanding of the spectrum these things exist in.

Where I'm hoping to get to is to be able to develop summaries like:

• The GF3 is about 8mm at base-ISO, which during the day is equivalent to <some particular F-stop>, so I can put basically any lens sharper than 8mm onto it and the result will still look like 8mm.  I can hand-hold this tiny camera with an acceptable level of shake up to about Xmm and it'll still fit the 8mm vintage / amateur / nostalgic vibe.  The GF3 is tiny but once you add a lens that is larger than a pancake then I may as well use the GX85, so the only sensible lens is the 15mm F8 bodycap lens.  Any other combo doesn't make sense.
  (This is an actual example I've worked out through testing).
   
• The GX85 at base-ISO is equivalent to <film size of some kind.. 16mm? 24mm? 35mm? 50mm?> which requires lenses of <F-stop> during the day and <F-stop> in well-lit night environments.  This amount of resolution is suitable for projects with a vibe of <gritty street? vintage? night cinema? high-end commercials? etc?> but not other vibes.
  (This is still yet to be tested, but once I've worked out the camera then certain lens combinations will reveal themselves to make sense and others will obviously not work)
   
• iPhone?  Where does it sit in all this?  It has huge resolution and very strong codecs (4K Prores HQ or even Prores RAW) but poor DR and even worse ISO performance.
   
• GH7.  What are the aesthetics I want to create that I can't create with the above (because the above is too limiting).  What lenses and shooting styles and approaches are required for these aesthetics?

The ultimate thinking is developing "constellations" where there is compatibility / alignment between: a camera, one or more lenses, certain shooting situations and techniques, an image pipeline, and a target aesthetic.  I've been working on finding these "constellations" by starting at the camera and working forwards, but also by starting with the end aesthetic and working backwards, and I've identified a number of partial matches, but I think that by relating everything back to motion picture film, I can make more progress fitting the pieces together.

If someone could provide any sort of links to gh2 patches available, that would be highly appreciated

How it was filmed and lit is really interesting the interiors look real but have a creepy eerie feel to them.

Shot on a Sony Venice 2

Thanks for help

After some testing of my equipment, I've realised that my GX85 has image quality equalling or surpassing a Super-16 film camera (with some categories surpassing a Super-35 film camera) so in my pursuit of a pocketable, portable, fun, simple, and fast setup that looks like film, this project is born.

The criteria is to work out how to get great images from the tiny setup that are enough like film that most people would believe it if you said it was shot on film.  My approach is simply to compare the two and find the biggest differences and then work on bringing them closer together, 80-20 rule and all that.

The first point of comparison is already known, the crop factor is similar (2.2x vs 2.88x) so making sure I don't go too hard into shallow DOF then this should be comparable.

Second consideration is camera movement, shake, and how they'll be used.  S16 film cameras can be hand-held, but they've got some weight so are relatively steady in use.  8mm cameras were designed to be hand-held and are much lighter, so will move more.  The GX85 is far smaller than either, but has IBIS (and OIS with some lenses) so that should make it feel larger, but I'll have to watch out for parallax, which will give away the cameras lack of heft.

Third is the DR.  Film has a huge DR and I wasn't sure how this would go - harsh clipping of highlights and blacks will be a dead giveaway.  Without knowing anything about its rec709 profiles, I shot an exposure test where I took shots one stop apart.  Film negatives have a lot of DR, but print film has far less, with stocks like Kodak 2383 only having about 5-6 stops in the linear range of their exposure (between about 10% luma and 90% luma, before the rolloffs kick in).  Bringing in my test shots and matching the contrast within my standard colour pipeline (based around the Film Look Creator tool in Resolve) I realised the GX85 has enough DR to push its highlights well up into the highlight rolloff curve of the FLC, and same with the shadows, so this is fine too.  DR, check!

Fourth is resolution and texture.  The images should be soft and noisy, but how much?  After reviewing a number of sources, I realise that there are all kinds of factors, such as the speed of the negative, how it was exposed (0...  or -1 and pushed in post, etc), but often the biggest factor in softness was the lenses used, and the biggest factor on the grain is the processing that the streaming service does when you upload it!  In this sense, I have a lot of freedom in these aspects, but I'll have to do further tests on uploading to YT.  I have seen videos that have really nice grain in 4K, so I know it can be done, but my previous tests showed the YT compression really changes things, so I'll have to do more tests.

Then we're into testing with real images and just seeing what we see.

My first test was some random shots in the garden, just to have a starting position.

The feedback I got (including one friend who practically lives to talk about film!) was that it looked good but needed more saturation.  My thoughts were that I exposed too high (I'd forgotten that the LCD is deceiving and the GX85 has a lot of shadow info) and as such the highlights in the first image were clipped in the file and still show in the graded image.

After this test I happened to watch a YouTuber go through their grading process and they said they exposed by putting the image in the middle of the histogram, which made sense to me and I realised this is what I should do with the GX85.

Second test was just a few images while out and about.  It's the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 pancake lens.  I'd previously forgotten this lens is both a 31mm and also a 62mm (with the 2x zoom) and so is much more flexible than I was remembering, so I made sure to include some 2x shots to see how useful that was with this level of image degradation.  I also decided to push the images to get more of the kind of look I'm chasing.

The 2x seems completely fine too, having quality far more than this level of softening will show.

I also re-graded them in B&W, pushing the contrast much further.  I may even want to go harder on these.

Much more work to do, but I'm really liking the process so far.

In these days of digital perfection, the attraction of film is in the colours and the texture.  If you want the colours and not the texture, wanting to keep a much more modern level of sharpness and noise, emulating some of the properties of film is so ubiquitous that I think it's just called "colour grading".  The phrase "film emulation" then is for the texture of film and deliberately wanting the imperfections and aesthetics of it.  You don't have to go hard like I have with Super-16 film + Super-16 lenses levels of softening, but if you did this is easily possible too and FLC has 35mm presets which soften, but do so far more subtly than this.

I'll continue to iterate on the colours and textures, but moving into moving images is probably next, with all the testing of the YT processing and compression that comes with that.

But seriously, imagine telling someone in the 80s that you could fit an interchangeable lens camera capable of shooting feature-film level images in your pocket...

Feedback welcome.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/gimbals/hohem-isteady-mt3-pro-review

https://store.hohem.com/blogs/news/the-ultimate-all-in-one-stabilizer-hohem-isteady-mt3-pro-review-is-the-ai-tracking-worth-it

Any takers / user experience over here?

There are a lot of “Arri look on your xyz camera” videos but I think this is a far more interesting take on it.

The question is are you doomed to never match it because it is baked in (not least the IR cut filter) and it can’t be reverse engineered in post?

Can anyone who has bought the Arri license for their supported Panasonic camera chime in with their thoughts?

https://blazarlens.com/

This OP here says that's the only low-budget anamorphic lens that has convinced so far...

Any takers out there from these pages?

This is Pretty Neat. Unfortunately, since the Sony IMX377 and other 1/2.3" sensors, most smartphone sensors have abandoned 12-bit, for photo or video (Staggered HDR sensors do 12-bit HDR for photos instead). So, this is limited to 10-bit video for now. But, the video quality looks pretty stellar. Unprocessed and I am guessing the highlight and shadow recovery maybe pretty decent. It apparently does 10-bit 4-2-2 (most smartphones that do 10-bit video, have 4-2-0).

(The new Snapdragon and MediaTek SoCs talk about 18-bit imaging, which I am guessing may be some crazy HDR, upressing bit-depth, though that may solely be limited to photos).

This RAW video does look pretty neat, and doesn't look over sharpened or over processed like most smartphone footage. 

You may or may not have see this, Adapter with Native AF Speed!?   Only works with a g7 or gh9 ii no others it seems.   Available for about 100 lenses but works with some others just as not quick it seems.

on futher reading  Olympus E-M1 series and OM System OM-1 series] Metabones transmits the same PDAF/IBIS data to the camera in the same way as the latest Panasonics, and gets a significant boost in AF speed

Greg Clarke from Blackmagic says Gen 6 is for the top end RGB cameras and whilst the update should be available to some other cameras  there will be a cut off due to processor limitations

on older or less capable  cameras.

No FilmConvert:
https://vimeo.com/253014620

My post workflow is very simple: convert .MLV files to DNG's with MlRawViewer and then drop them straight into FCPX. Do a bit of colour correction with an adjustment layer if needed, then export clip as ProRes 4444 XQ. Bring it back into FCPX and conform the 18fps to the fps of the timeline (I always use a 25p timeline and *think* this requires slowing the 18fps clip to 72% but I'm not confident my maths are accurate - it certainly looks close to normal speed to me though).

I'm not very technical so you won't find much explanation of why it's working from me. I'd appreciate contributions to what's going on here so I understand it better and other can replicate if they want to. In particular I'd like to figure out the effective sensor size I'm using, and also why there are no pink dots.

The things that excite me about it as a viable Digital Super-8 camera are:
1. The shutter speed - only Magic Lantern allows that really, and it really helps give that authentic Super-8 feel. 
2. The 12bit colour space and RAW grain makes the footage film-like and organic. 

3. The fact you can adapt C-mount lenses to the EOS-M. The lens I used for these tests is just the 15-45mm EF-M kit lens in manual focus mode. However I have a Cosmicar 6mm f/1.2 on its way to me as we speak and if I can get it to infinity focus I think I'll have a 'normal' lens (again, I need to figure out the imaging area I'm working with).

4. Shooting 4:3 and 18fps, like Super-8, allows continuous shooting.

Things I don't like:
1. Live view is not perfect but using the info button you can jump between Canon's 5x zoom to focus and ML's rather choppy live view for framing.
2. I'm not seeing horrible rolling shutter but it's no Digital Bolex so that does give it away as digital footage somewhat.

I hope some others start playing around with these settings. With the 16mm Digital Bolex discontinued and Kodak's new Super-8 camera all the rage, there's a space for a small sensor digital cinema camera to get some love.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gorqbss1yxq6lufl81x44/HAWK_WATCH_SCREEN_DRAFT.mp4?rlkey=x5d8vcd4igr3bix0cdsgajq0b&st=mt1xzunz&dl=0

The 1st draft here is still loosey-goosey, but if you're so inclined, take a look and see if the story intrigues you enough to say, "Yeah, you might be able to get this out there other places."

We feel it's such niche topic that distribution isn't much of a reality, but maybe being niche is a positive in a certain way --and with a significant cut down it could have opportunities?  Not sure.  As one work on these things one gets rather myopic.  As you might imagine, feedback from folks in our local community is too biased.  They're just happy to see themselves, colleagues, and friends in a film.  

Any advice is welcome if you have time to watch. 

I've been away from the field for a few years and am having a hard time catching up, hence why I'm posting this question.

What cameras would you go for in 2025 for the following scenarios?

1) For recording live events, such as concerts or interviews, on a limited budget (minimum 3 cameras)?

2) ditto, but no budget constraints?

3) For independent feature films (or shorts)?

My picks would for each category would be:

1) Lumix GH5 (are the GH5II or S1 worth the extra money?)

2) GH6 or Fuji X-H2S?

3) same as above?

Your input would help a lot. Thanks.