Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Axel

  1. What works with GH5S probably also works with P4k.
  2. Well, unlike S-Log, BM FILM is not that hard to grade "from scratch".
  3. Just put the free Captain-Hook LUT "Hook_BM4KFilm2Vid_3DLC-VIBE_V1" (designed for the old color science) to the illegally uploaded NAB clip (no CC, nothing) and made a screenshot of frame 00:02:07:17 (one that looked well exposed), see attachment. Now if you keep in mind that the whole set represents a once-dreaded color-temperature-mix, that there probably was not an exact WB taken on set, that I did not apply any corrections and that the LUT is not tailored for this particular color scheme - I dare say nobody needs to be afraid of poor colors with the "Batcam". Once Hook makes new
  4. On the lens debate - 'crappy', 'different strokes for different folks', 'opinion vs facts': There are a lot of optically superb native M43 lenses. For example the Olympus 12mm f2.0 (Zuiko Digital or so). Had better reviews than SLRM 12mm f1.6 (less distortion, sharper at wide open, less lens flare). But was not a manual lens. And (my opinion) you should prefer a lens with a good and big focus ring. A 12mm was a 35mm equivalent on the old Pocket, the 'reporter wide'. Now a 16mm (Sigma 16mm f1.4) would be a 30mm. 420 €. Easy choice. I own the 18-35mm Sigma (once for Nikon, now Ca
  5. I don't think so. I am "struggling with grading skills", but therefore I look forward to getting the BMPCC4k with it's new, improved color science. Because I do love beautiful colors. Take this old Ursa 4k wedding (12 stops DR, shot mostly in 1080 ProRes 60p, basic CC and a popular BM LUT):
  6. On (missing) AF, gimbals, speedboosters, hyperfocal distance and lens-choices. With Pocket "I" : the screen wasn't good, but it had the best peaking (Kryptonite-green). With shallow depth of field, no problem. sDoF, of course, was only possible with rather fast lenses, because crop factor was almost three. With a slow lens and with he said hyperfocal distance, almost the whole display became green. You wished you could reverse the peaking so that oof-areas were highlighted. Because of the size of the sensor (S16) but nonetheless relatively big pixels, it was sometimes hard to focus.
  7. > no prominent fan noise > apparently useable atmo > body sounds like yoghurt cup > comparatively clean shadows (in underexposed parts), noise level acceptable (Dual ISO at work) > noticed no moire > slight but acceptable RS
  8. Well, I'm not an engineer, but from what I conclude when I combine this statement and J.Youngs "demand your camera manufacturer to unlock it!" (NAB Ninja V presentation), it doesn't seem to be a hardware condition. If it was something that could be achieved by a firmware extension and if that became publicly known ... > it was hard for Panasonic (or others) to explain why they wouldn't do it. Could piss off the user base. > the cameras would be hacked anyway. > if, as some already speculate, Sony will be offering it in one of their new cameras (hard to keep track)
  9. Interesting. Didn't know hat. Yes, tripods. Have a look at the Sirui monopod. It's fantastic: This is the carbon version. I have the aluminum version, cost 160€ in a regular shop. I am also planning to use a gimbal, own the Ronin M (too big) and the Zhiyun Crane ("1"). We could use hyperfocal distance instead of AF. Or we use something like this. Most of all, I have the best idea for a new "rig". Consisting of parts for under 10€. @John Brawley Please tell us: Will there be something you can show us in advance?
  10. Since in my view the CC section of FCP has become a mess since December, I wouldn't guarantee anything. But as it seems right now, you are safe! Your previous work isn't changed with 10.4.1. Expect the Wheels and the Board to behave differently from now on. Be amused if you can. 2020 is the successor to 709. It swallows 709 completely, it expands it. If you already graded in 709, leave it that. If you graded for 2020, same. If you grade for a classic broadcaster, he will demand 709. Your P3 display is already slightly better than just a good 709 display. These are the majority now, but
  11. The usability of the Sony mirrorless hybrids borders on bad intent. I hate to take my A6500 out of the bag. Everything about it already feels wrong. For video. It's a little better for stills. A lot of that is personal preference of course. Ask vlogger Max Yuryev, and he explains why he prefers Sony over Panasonic. RAW is a little overrated. If a camera has a good color science, a good codec and good profiles, that's enough. It's not the codec. So this to every GH5 owner, who is interested in the Pocket *just* because of RAW: forget it. I should have bought the GH5 (after happy
  12. Or months or weeks/days/hours. Was the same with the old Pocket. Buyers stared at the camera, very low frustration tolerance, didn't know how to start. Made all mistakes at once, exposed wrongly, didn't find the focus (difficult with this display and a relatively deep DoF), captured moire and IR pollution, had abysmal sound, had shaky footage. They tried hard, but then the battery was low - again. Given that this time there will be no supply-bottleneck, you could buy the BMPCC4k for 800 bucks on Ebay in December.
  13. For instance. But once you have bought this, it ceases to be an issue. Took five 64 GB cards with me to cover a wedding with the Pocket. Back then they cost 100 € each. Also took 5 batteries with me. Found out that they sufficed for one (35 min) card each, with pauses. Good rule of thumb, since neither the charge status nor the remaining space on the card was reliably shown on the display - if I remember correctly. Had the brides' brother running around with a Tascam and wore the Earworm microphones to capture audio (because the Pocket had very bad audio). Now I remember how Lumix and Poc
  14. Pocket and Lumix share something, but it's hard to say what it is exactly. I'd say the Pocket 4k in a way is like a minimalist GH5 or GH5S. The naive fallacy was to think the BM came cheaper. Without IS it definitely needs some kind of rig (imho the less the better). It needs stabilization more desperately than the HD Pocket, and it may be harder to operate on a gimbal (no CAF, the AF is just a function that sets focus once, but doesn't keep it during the shot). It also has no flip out screen, so an external monitor might be necessary (one has to see how good the display is). It doesn't stop t
  15. We deserve a Brawley short film asap. Apart from that, I already preordered at my german seller. The worst things hat could happen are these two: 1. Because the sensor is just 4k, you will probably get some moire in 4k RAW, like with the old Pocket for HD. It will probably be perfect in ProRes UHD and RAW in 1080. 2. there might be infrared pollution because the sensor won't be coated against it. You were practically forced to stack two filters on top of every lens: IR-cut and Vari-ND.
  16. You can read rec_709 above the RGB parade on the upper left. They surreptitiously fixed all but one third of the two existing bugs concerning Color Wheels and Color Board. To recap: Wheels didn't work properly in 709, Board not in 2020. Now if you open an existing project with 10.4.1, FCP forces you to convert it. Why? So that everything looks like before. Nothing of he CC work you performed was destroyed. If you test the tools in the existing timeline, the bugs are STILL there. It's only when you add a new clip and apply wheels in 709 or board in 2020 that you realize the bug
  17. This thread is called Final Cut ProRes Raw. The actual wb value must be saved in the file. How we know? First, Atomos CEO Jeremy Young says so: Then there is this clip You don't have to start playback, just watch that stupid lamp in this posterframe. This is probably with the exposure, ISO and WB the filmmaker intended. It's what you'd also get with ACR or Resolves CR, a serving suggestion based on the metadata of the file. That it looks like this here is an indication that the metadata are there and that they are read by FCP. BUT: FCP doesn't display them, no
  18. Not the smartest people at such events. I wasn't aware that HLG - us poor men's HDR - was in the menu:
  19. Too much new information to digest. I take Grant Pettys remark that PRR is useless if in the chain (camera with HDMI out, recorder with PRR encoder, software with decoder and CC tools) the metadata of the camera's color science isn't contained, saved, recognized and utilized. It's not probable that an illegal hack can do this. Panasonic must provide those metadata. Then again, why would they? They could do Atomos a favor. Or they could do it for themselves, integrate PRR via firmware, data rates would allow it.
  20. Quoting a slashCAM member quoting a dvxuser member quoting Mitch Gross, Panasonic product manager:
  21. Panasonic has already confirmed that it s technically possible to output Raw via HDMI. I think it's unlikely that the GH5S gets a FW update to enable that. As for other existing prosumer cams, I'd say it's highly unlikely. When pigs fly. If there are no hardware changes necessary - such as soldering miniature cables or circuit boards - I start thinking about a *hack*. Please brick my smart mirrorless and make it a dumb RAW sensor with a lens mount! But then there is this post. Is Atomos really doing the job right? And there are Grant Pettys comments on ProRes Raw:
  22. Just one minor error in your video: ProRes422 is 10-bit, not 8-bit. I must admit I was shocked by your excellent test, thank you for that. I use ProRes a lot. So what I did is taking some XAVC clips I currently deal with and their ProRes422 copies, zooming in 400% to critical areas and making screenshots to compare the artifacts. I was - again - shocked to see that there were indeed small differences. And then I was relieved to see that they were *very* small. Unlike in your comparison. That leads me to two conclusions/statements, please comment: 1. be aware that even the h
  23. Take this from a hardcore FCP fanboy: you can blame that on FCP. Or I better put it this way: the fact that you have no WB and no ISO in the CC tools (I couldn't find the metadata for those either, only for codec, manufacturer and camera name) doesn't mean they are generally not stored with the video.
  24. Nothing beats the original, and if the worst acquisition codec - AVCHD - was used, then transcoding that to ProRes, no matter the flavor, it won't get any better. There's a useful rule of thumb: ProRes Proxy: for proxy editing, but never for export! ProRes LT: for editing of everything, for export of material up to 1080. Some report it as good upload codec for Youtube No recompression! ProRes422: for editing of everything, for acquisition of HD, for crucial quality check, for export of UHD. ProRes HQ: for acquisition of UHD, allows recompression.
  25. If Alex4D is right - and he often is - this is a very aggressive strategy on Apples side. PRR will be acquisition only. Apple will help any camera or field recorder manufacturer to implement the encoder - probably even for free. But the decoder will be exclusively for Apple software: The competitors may soldier on with Arri-Raw, RedRaw or DNG, these solutions don't become extinct. But if you want an alternative, try FCP. This might initially lure only a few hundred pros and semipros to FCPX. It could be a DOA scenario. How much could Apple charge for PRR licenses for Resolve,
  • Create New...