Andrew Reid

To really test sharpness you need to use a wide lens, stop down for a very deep DOF and focus to infinity. Close ups of plants sharpened in post hide the resolution issues of the D5300. Also for the next test make sure clouds in the sky don't make for your shots being lit completely differently from camera to camera. In one of your shots practically the entire scene is in the shade, whilst in the other shot most of it is in bright sunlight.

A resurgence of camcorders... I think 4K and 1" large-ish sensor are a way to go about it, as is great stabilisation and they're good for run & gun shot grabbing in a documentary form, journalism and interviews... but artistically I will always prefer the look of interchangeable lenses, so I can't see them gaining any real traction with the broader filmmaking community again.

  How much sharpening in post on the D5300 and how much on the G6?   Why is the roof felt out of focus on the G6 shot?   Hmm.

  My appetite for putting down $6500 for this is absolutely zero.   The video spec is barely any better than their $700 camera and it cannot match the GH4 for video quality, ergonomics or overall features.   Pro stills cameras with an afterthought video mode are yesterday's news guys... we have so much more to look forward to in 2014.

  The forums are not all about some cliched 'film look' and ultra shallow DOF actually.

The FS100 is underrated. Ergonomic design is not bad. It just has too many buttons (which you can ignore) and a dopey gain switch with 3 assignable ISO levels rather than direct ISO control, and it lacks built in ND... but I always went to mine for convenience and all-round performance, great in low light, when I didn't want large file sizes or small sensors.   Check it on eBay... going cheap

The 5D Mark III is a good option but have you considered the GH4 as well? The slow-mo would be a nice artistic flourish for weddings. It's small and unobtrusive. You can roll for hours in 1080p and it shares one of the C100's features in that the HDMI output is uncompressed 4:2:2. 4K if you choose to shoot it will give you better looking 1080p and the ability to crop in post, all with file sizes less than for 5D Mark III raw when you really need the extra quality.   However you may need to invest in new lenses to suit the smaller sensor.

  It definitely isn't a Sony. They told me it was a Panasonic sensor. It's definitely the one on the website or a close variant of that spec, because you wouldn't go to the effort of making a 4K capable sensor yourself (at huge cost) only to buy one from Sony. Panasonic are one of the few companies with their own CMOS manufacturing capabilities. Also physically the chip in the GM1, E-M1 and GH4 looks the same from close visual inspection.

Monday.

Like I say not trying to censor, feel free to put it all in a separate topic. Cheers

Does anyone see the title of the thread, something about 4K footage from the new Blackmagic camera?   Feel free to start a new thread for the grading discussion. Otherwise I will have to delete further off topic posts.   Thanks!

This is what happens when you have too much science in a technique not enough artistry. She's a lovely subject, the victim of hyper revealing grading. You're supposed to flatter her looks. You do realise that right? Softer, less contrast, opposite of what's technically perfect.

I would also like to know the exact recommended workflow. This is new territory.

  They're intentional and the time of year has a lot to do with it. Trust me the UK in Winter does not look like Australia's gold coast!!

  Not to mention they are comparing 720p streaming on Vimeo, when they should be comparing the 4K prores to 5D's 1080p raw.   Madness!

I depends really if you're doing grading, quite heavy filters, etc.   Usually it wouldn't make much difference, but I recently found Film Converts likes a ProRes timeline, rather than choosing the DSLR sequence preset or matching the sequence settings to the source material (i.e. AVCHD).   Try that first. Create a ProRes sequence in your Premiere and drop the AVCHD onto it. Should work well.   AVCHD is handled fine by premiere now (wasn't always to smooth). I wouldn't bother 'unwrapping it' to MP4.

OK let's put this in context HurtinMinorKey please. What affect does your theory have on the end result, are we arguing here over a tiny technicality / mathematical proof, or is it a serious issue which will mean we get nowhere near a higher bit depth as David and others are suggesting?

As I said. Image doesn't fall apart as much at high bitrates. No matter how you show your movie, do you want the source material to be falling apart even before it reaches the edit? Nope!   You're about to waste hours of time rendering, yes. If you convert it, convert it to ProRes, set your timeline to ProRes, then if you add heavy filters and grading to the clip it will hold up better, i.e. Film Convert.

Raw is a different thing entirely to 10bit 4:2:2.   Raw is just the 1s and 0s from the sensor. Everything else like bit depth, sampling, debayering, compression, encoding, comes later.   So 10bit 4:2:2 does not have mailability close to a raw photo actually.   The advantages of recording to a high bitrate is that the image doesn't break up when the movement or scene gets too complex for the codec. Also a finer more film-like noise grain is maintained.   However the stuff you can do with raw like changing the white balance entirely in post as if doing it in camera with no side effects, you cannot do with even the best RGB / YUV codec in 10bit 4:2:2, like ProRes.

It's not a public forum, it's my forum and my responsibility to keep it useful. Move on.

Stop polluting the forum with crap.   My only request.

Right and what is that proving exactly? That in summer you have a nice orange glow in the sky from the sun and in winter it's icy cold?   That Vimeo streaming at 720p in 7Mbit is softer than 1080p raw?!   Oh man.

Don't download anything from YouTube. It is mega heavily compressed. YouTube do not serve the originally uploaded file like Vimeo. You will not be able to download a high bitrate file from there let alone a ProRes clip.   To test this we need original 100Mbit MOV files from the GH4 or a 4K ProRes master uploaded somewhere.

Very different light and grading for Genesis. I like both. Just a different feel. One summer, one winter.   I hardly think you can say Genesis blows this out of the water for detail. Sorry dude you didn't think that through, because what kind of rational person makes a claim like that knowing that one is 4K and one is 1080p and not even bothering to look beyond the streamed version at 7Mbit on Vimeo!?

Indeed that would be an interesting comparison. I'll add it to my list!