Leaderboard

I stumbled on this GitHub project. Not sure what to think about it (and suspect it might not be real). They're using the same sensor as the Digital Bolex and 3D printing a similar shaped body. No mention of an A to D board, just the chip going in to a Raspberry Pi. I remember the original Digital Bolex team took a few years to get the sensor's quadrants aligned and to get the colour science sorted out and these guys' sample images look great after only a short time. Maybe all this stuff is just faster to figure out nowadays. https://github.com/lafauxbolex What do others think? If real this would be great! They're changing some things from the original: A M4/3 mount, a big monitor and compressed DNG files.

I don't recall if it was added in Resolve 18 or 19 but with the new feature you don't need to grab the still. It works in edit and color page, File -> Export -> Export Current Frame as Still (I have mapped to F4). What is great it keeps the folder selection and the file format but you can change it at anytime, the file name will use timeline name + a time code as default. So what I do is spacebar for play/pause, left or right arrow to select the best frame, hit F4 and Enter to save. Much faster that the old Still Grab process.

I have the S1RII and the S1II. I also still have the old S1 and S5. The S1II is the same than the S5II about video details, even if some youtubers said the details rendering has improved, it's not true at all. Same bad rendering as the S5II. I understand some people are not bothered or can't see the difference and it's nothing wrong about that, but the difference is clear by example if you zoom inside your videos on people faces. Like the S5II, there is a sort of rough detail sharpening and in the same time a lack of very fine details. As always V-log looks better than the 709 profiles but it's still not great in my opinion. The S1RII also has the same detail rendering and I was very disappointed by the 6,4K Open Gate, it was not better than the 6K of the S5II, maybe even worse, like if this mode used a tiny bit of binning like the 5,9K 16:9. The new 7,2K is ok and looks better than the 6,4K. The 8,1K Open Gate is even better but limited to 24fps. Even if the video engine is the same between the S1II, S5II and S1RII, the later has much more resolution in 8K, hence the fine details looks finer even with the bad processing. it's only when the footage is a bit underexposed or overexposed that the S1 6K looks better. I read somewhere something interesting about Real Time Lut, using a burned in lut with a good amount of contrast helps to recover fine details. When recording V-log without Real Time Lut and grading in post, some fine details can't be recovered. I can confirm it's true. So using Real Time Lut V-log on the S1RII in 8,1K Open Gate is the best for details rendering. I'm glad Panasonic has fixed the colored pixels issue in Prores Raw on the S1RII and now the footage looks great, same details rendering than on the S1 or S5. But it's really crazy we must use Prores Raw to get the same good details rendering than on the S1 or S5 H264/265. And the crop is a shame, 1,45x ! When cameras like the Z8 or Z6III offer 6K or 8K 60fps raw video without crop ... About the S1II, Prores Raw only has a minimal crop (about 1,05/1,1x I think) and it was the main reason I bought this camera. Like on the S1RII, Prores Raw is excellent and like it has much less crop, fine details looks even sharper (in a good way). Finally we have a Panasonic camera with not only excellent IBIS but also excellent detail rendering and good AF without using external recorder (even if Prores raw is a pain for the workflow). The only issue I found is the 240fps 1080p mode, it is clearly not finalised because some horizontal lines appear randomly. I also found the photo raw files of the S1II and S1RII to be slightly less contrasty than the S5 and S1, they have less that punchy looks and I still prefer the rendering of the S5 and S1 with my best lenses like the 50mm S or 24-70mm Pro. it can be because of ACR but the JPEGs out of the cameras also looks slightly less contrasty than on the S5 and S1. Other than that, IBIS is stellar but sometimes more digital than on the G9II or GH7, color science is good but not as good as the GH6 to my eyes. The S1II also has better AF than the S1RII and I can feel the difference. Compared to Nikon, Lumix has several advantages like the IBIS and Open Gate. L-mount also has great "practical" lenses but I think they lack really great lenses with very nice rendering and more pancakes. After using most of the L-mount lenses, only a few looks really fantastic, like the 50mm S Pro (if it has not the coating issue), 24-70mm S Pro, 28-45mm Sigma and the APO Summicron SL. While absolutely great, the APO SL are really too much expensive for most people and it will be hard to attract a lot of people in the system, it is why Lumix try to attract people with smaller lenses and never released again new S Pro lenses since 2019/2020. Nikon has better AF most of the time but also more great lenses. The 50mm f1.8 is much better than the Lumix, the Nikon 35mm/50mm/85mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8 are some of the best lenses you can buy. You can also adapt Sony FE lenses and there are more interesting "cheap" lenses available from third party manufacturers like Viltrox (mainly the 35mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8).

It is since many years that I take stills out of the video instead of taking pictures, this is why I’m shooting mostly in 8k RAW. I use Resolve, remapped the F4 key to export still, I first grade for the video, copy the timeline so I can do some tweaking to the grade still by still, if I like the result, I hit F4 and export the jpg, if I want to do a complete different edit I export as a tiff and edit in camera RAW. I normally do a quick pass in camera RAW to do the cropping as in Resolve is a pita as you would need to change the timeline resolution. It would be cool to have an AI tool that finds the good ones especially when I use the 180 rules that finds the one with the no motion blur on the face. Right now, is a bit of a tedious move forward/backward.

Thank you for your thoughts, Wondering Hypothetically if you were to start from scratch right now, would you still go Lumix or Nikon?

I hadn't thought about that, but if that's an option, I guess I could have done it. Though at this point, I doubt I have an installer around for the old version. Yes, for someone who needs multiple or many Adobe products, the current pricing is somewhat advantageous vs the old pricing. A lot of people, me included, are not that person and use Lightroom almost exclusively. The only time I use Photoshop is when I need to run SRDx. The current cost for the entire suite is $70/month - over 3 years, that's $2,520. So... wow. That's an additional $20 in cost over $2,500. So it doesn't seem "much cheaper" to me. It seems to be "the same cost." This is the pitch that is made for subscription software. It's not applicable to most people. I use Lightroom often enough that it doesn't make sense to turn on and off my subscription all the time. There's no need to guess. They went with it because it radically increased their profits and gave them a steady predictable monthly revenue instead of an unpredictable spiky revenue that got reduced if people didn't like the new version. Now it doesn't matter if you don't like the new version. F U consumer, you are paying for it anyway. Here are some charts that show the true reason that Adobe went to a subscription model - prior to it, they had a pretty consistent/flat 4-5 billion dollars per year in revenue. This is plenty of money to develop their software. It has been on an upward ramp since then and now they are making 20 billion dollars per year. If it flattens again, expect them to increase subscription pricing to further enrich their shareholders. This is why subscription models exist - to enrich shareholders, not to make your life better. I used to work for a major e-commerce company - discussions of subscription billing, etc, were very rarely phrased in terms of the benefit to end users. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ADBE/adobe/revenue The free version is intended to stay. Petty said in their NAB livestream that he expects that, at some point, people will be asked to pay for upgrades to the Studio License to fund continuing development of Resolve. This is, for me, fully acceptable. My existing version of Resolve Studio will keep working as long as it needs to work and if I find the features in a new version to be compelling, I will pay them for it. This is a healthy business relationship.

Pardon my ignorance, cant you use adobes dng converter to change raw file to dng's ? you can then do anything you want. Well thats how i get my raw files into photoshop cs3 and that has to be older than 2017 lol. I guess there's probably some sort of image loss going on in any conversion however my 58 year old eyes don't notice it.

Is the last sentence intended a a joke? Lightroom-only subscriptions are $12/month. That's $144/year. In 2017, Lightroom cost $150 and you could use that copy of Lightroom for as long as you wanted. If Adobe released a new version with features that you didn't want or need, you didn't need to buy it. And this might blow your mind, but... about 95% of the "features" that Adobe have added since going to the subscription model are things I don't need, want or use. https://fstoppers.com/apps/creative-cloud-it-time-ditch-adobe-200441 Unfortunately, the version from 2017 has no chance of opening any files that I take with my modern cameras. Previously, I would have probably bought a new version of Lightroom every 2-3 years, as needed, to support my new camera. Now I have to spend 3 times as much to continue using my photo editing software. And again, many of the features that Adobe add are completely disjointed from what I would want. Making me pay 3x as much to keep using the software to support the development of features that I don't want is not a consumer-friendly practice. I'm not sure what malfunction you're having that makes you think that Adobe wouldn't have developed things like better denoising and debayering algorithms if they released new versions of the software that people had to pay for. In fact, they might have spent more time on those things. And if they released a new version that didn't improve that and only added, for example, AI object insertion, I could punish them by not buying it and continuing to use the software I already had. Now, punishing them is also punishing myself because I have to learn to use entirely new software, transfer 20+ years of images in a catalog, and find new plugins (which sometimes don't even exist, such as SRDx which I use to clean up dust from film scans and only works with Photoshop). Do you work for Adobe? You seem really motivated to say how paying more for their software so that they can develop features that many users don't want is somehow good for the users.