Leaderboard

Went hot-air ballooning and if there was ever a challenge for shooting, this was it. Extreme low-light and extreme DR from hugely bright light-sources. They say you can't take bags in the balloon, and it had been really wet weather, so I decided to go small. I took the GX85, TTartisans 17mm F1.4 for the low-light, Laowa 7.5mm F2 for an ultra-wide, and the 12-35mm F2.8. I was a bit cheeky and took a sling bag and kept it under my jacket. The requirement is that nothing is loose in the basket and that you can hold on with both hands for landing, so I figured my bag under my jacket was basically the same as having a big pocket. It's a crazy early start. We arrived in the field before first-light and they started setting up in pitch darkness guided only by torches. I started shooting at F1.7 and needed ISO6400 at first to get any kind of level on anything except their torches. I shot on the 17mm at F1.7 and gradually reduce the ISO until the balloon was mostly inflated, then swapped to the 7.5mm for a few wide shots, and then swapped to the 12-35mm F2.8 and it was time to get in the balloon and off we went. I also shot with my iPhone 12 mini for some quick shots using the ultra-wide when I didn't want to change lenses, and also as we were approaching landing, as I had put the camera away in anticipation. It was super-foggy and the pilot ended up having to land early and for a while we were going pretty close to the treetops so I'd put my camera away when he told us that he'd be landing at the next opportunity. Frame grabs.. mix of GX85 and iPhone, put through a quite moderate FLC pipeline. In retrospect I took the complete wrong equipment and used it in the wrong way (so, it's business as usual!) but the FLC pipeline really took the footage to the next level, and I used just enough strength on the film emulation to get rid of the digital look to the images. Here's a comparison. Grade (same as above): SOOC: The GX85 has super-whites so despite being SOOC that image is actually slightly clipped in-post and some highlights can be recovered, which the FLC grade has done, but you get the idea. The SOOC is with the GX85 default profile and has much more of a video look to it, despite being pretty good compared to other similar cameras. If I was to take the same equipment again, I'd lean into the darkness and just use the 17mm at F2.0 where it cleans up and use the GX85 at something sensible like ISO1600. This would have the early shots as perhaps being unusable, but it would mean that the torches the crew used wouldn't have been clipped (I clipped them in favour of exposing what they were shining on). We're going to go again later this year, and for that I plan to take the GH7, 9mm F1.7 and 14-140mm F3.5-5.6. This will be a much larger setup but if I use a neck strap then I only have to have one lens in a pocket and so I won't need a bag at all. I just bought the 9mm F1.7 and it's sharp wide-open, so apart from having AF, it is both an ultra-wide as well as a low-light lens. I can crop in-camera and/or in-post to get a tighter FOV, but you don't normally need long focal-lengths when it's that dark. The more I use this FLC pipeline the more I like it. If I'd have shown these images to my 2018 self, I wouldn't have believed me when I said that it was me that made them.

The gap between APS-C and Micro Four Thirds has turned into an advantage to Micro Four Thirds with the G9 II And the gap between the G9 II and full frame is very small. Impressive little camera.

hmm to be fair this theory of “everyone who is involved and interested in this clearly terrible product is a pedophile” makes more sense than anything i can come up with

The question you asked was “Is it possible to record only Log without the LUT with the G9 MKII ? And how? I haven't found it.” That was the question I was answering. The question you should’ve been asking was if it was possible to record Log without the LUT whilst using a monitoring LUT. For that you need to use the view assist.

Thought I better flag this video up since there are some serious concerns here. I'm not sure what ALTCINE are up to: The video emphasizes certain symbols which are known to be associated with the organized ritual-abuse of childen, as reported by a Guardian Award-winning, Times / Telegraph journalist in this article here: https://vo.lc/School-Of-Fools-Aldenham.html I have taken screen-grabs of the symbols from the ALTCINE video posted above. I have highlighted the relevant symbols in green boxes: Ostensibly as a demonstration of the camera, the video then zooms into the symbol above the door, which contains one of the main symbols used by these cults: Additionally: The abacus on the capital of both columns either side of the door, precisely match the symbols used by the cult operating the Aldenham School Library (and at many other locations) where children were abused in rituals. The library can be seen in many photographs, here. I have included one below, for comparison: The symbol above the door in the ALTCINE video matches other symbols found at the same location, and many other locations of abuse, described in detail here and here. In summary, there's no gentle way to put this: For some reason the ALTCINE video is full of occult pedophile-symbolism. The Power Of Symbols Naturally, there may be some explanation for this: The makers of the video are unaware of the occult (hidden) purpose of the building in their video. However, the problem we have is that pedophiles actively use these symbols to demark territory, and to signal to each other that their behavior is socially acceptable; sometimes by including the symbols in videos and movies. These symbols are also designed to trigger an unconscious fear response in those who were abused in conjunction with these symbols, as children. Basic associative-conditioning. This may be very hard for some of us to accept, but there are those who walk among us who take immense pride in their abuse of children, and flaunt their 'power' in the architecture of buildings, and the media they create that includes these symbols. Let's hope ALTCINE made a serious mistake here. But to me, it looks intentional.