Axel

What works with GH5S probably also works with P4k.

20 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I'm not overly fond of the teal and orange look. If I were working with a LUT, I wouldn't want it to automatically apply that color scheme.

Well, unlike S-Log, BM FILM is not that hard to grade "from scratch". 

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 LUTs available in fall - look nowhere else. 

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 Canon, swore to never sell it again). Had it with the Pocket MB speedbooster then, made it a 30-58 @ f1.0 (!!!). Practically never changed the lens from then on.

Speed booster Viltrox is just 160 €, will make it effectively a 24-47 @ f1.3:

Easy choice.

Don't need to go wider, but obviously need a longer lens. Adapter without speedbooster? Didn't look into that, but why not? 

Opinion on adapted vintage lenses: good, but you need to become an expert. Don't expect good old lenses to be bargains anymore. People became smart.

Opinion on slow lenses: no. Anything below 2.8 should be considered 'crap' for this kind of camera. This is no Sony.

7 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

 

@tomsemiterrific It's hard to say with this new camera, since there's no official samples, but things look like it's going to be great. That said, if you're struggling with grading skills, I don't think this is the camera for you. Unless you're eager to learn grading.

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):

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. 

Unfortunately, this hasn't changed. Yes, the sensor is bigger, the crop factor is just below two, but the pixels are smaller. And since hyperfocal distance works where the circle of confusion (that's us, the BMPCC fan group!) is smaller than the dimensions of the smallest picture elements, you only get HFD with very wide lenses with very narrow apertures.

HFD means absolute depth of field, fix-focus. I certainly like the idea, but not everybody will. For tripod and handheld shots (we definitely, absolutely need at least a basic rig-stabilization, never believe because it's comfortable to hold it will be okay!) we need to practice manual focussing (P4k display, if sufficient, if not with external monitor).

On a bright sunny day like today I'd strictly use HFD on a gimbal. Otherwise we'd need something like the Crane 2's follow focus and learn to operate that. This was something I dreamed about ever since I learned about steadicams. Have a big box of RC servos and miniature rig parts from my DIY efforts (originals were ridiculously expensive). 

Then again, with the existence of gimbals we stumbled into a trap. Do I really need to constantly move the camera in the Z-axis? No, I even don't consider these shots particularly cinematic any more. Whatever that means. It's time to revisit old threads on filmlook and adjust our understanding of it in 2018.

> 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

7 hours ago, Mokara said:

Lol....all he said that it was possible to send RAW over HDMI as a general observation, not that the camera itself can actually do it. He was explaining why they didn't have that feature in the camera. I would be very surprised if they had the hardware set up to do it.

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), it could be a wise move for Pana to have the FW update ready.

So IF it's not hardware-related, we will see it in due time. 

3 hours ago, Damphousse said:

You can use the IS on Canon lenses with a speedbooster.  That is what I do with my BMPCC.

Interesting. Didn't know hat.

3 hours ago, Damphousse said:

I also use tripods.  I am in the market for a monopod.  A gimble is also in my future.

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?

1 hour ago, cameraeye said:

Can anyone clarify though, if I update to 10.4.1 the CC I've done remains, but do i have to re-add clips and then effects to see the bug fixes? thats a lot of work.

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.

1 hour ago, cameraeye said:

Also, is there any benefit to changing to 2020 once updated? I'm working on a P3 Wide-Gamut Macbook Pro display and will need the CC to appear right on as many devices as possible online. Will I need to regrade everything after changing colour space and do I then export back to 709?

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 no longer manufactured. 2020 looks just as good on 709 displays, looks better on new displays. 709 looks good on new displays too. The big changes are yet to come, because 2020 WCG has the same brightness values as 709.

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 years with GH2). I know that the BMPCC4k will bring a lot of problems, challenges. But also a lot of fun. You love it or you hate it.

25 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For now however, it is going to rule. Interest in it is completely justified... Just don't expect it to last more than 1-2 years

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.

34 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@Axel Not to mention storage. ?

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 Pocket are similar: it's fun to use them. They invite you to go and get the shot. The menus are good, the buttons are good. Once you got used to them, they are extremely reliable. 

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 there. After two or three month you make a list. And if you add all expenses you might find that you could as well have bought a GH5.

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.

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Color wheels and curves fixed in 10.4.1? Not sure, because this YouTuber doesn't say what color space he's using and never compares results using the curves or sliders...

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 is gone - almost. The shadows in the Exposure tab of the Board still have the bug.

On the one hand, kudos to how Apple handled this without ever admitting there were bugs. Then again, why don't the shadows work? 

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

The new closed caption feature is excellent for me though, since I can painlessly add text to interviews and upload them to YouTube. 

 

Beautiful as always. The subtitles jump. A long line runs from left edge to center, two short lines are centered. Irritating. Don't know how to fix his, never tried Closed Captions myself ...

EDIT: 

Shadows work neither in 709 nor in 2020, neither with the Wheels nor with the Board. Not sure about Midtones. Highlights work everywhere. Tells me once again that Apple is no expert for color.

8 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

Yeah, the lack of white balance control makes me lose a lot of interest for sure. 

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:

Quote

And one of the most important things is the metadata from the camera. We record all of the metadata. We know what the white balance was, we know what the ISO setting was, we know what the shutter speed was. And it means we cando all this realtime decoding and re-encoding to make everything work in the timeline.

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, nowhere. This weakness is just the tip of the iceberg. If it comes to serious color work, FCP just isn't the right tool. God is in the detail, they say, and I have found too many flaws compared to Resolve. 

This doesn't necessarily mean that PRR isn't interesting. If Resolve adopts it, I could edit RAW in FCP.

On 13.4.2018 at 5:07 PM, Danyyyel said:

Take that fucking camera and comment at least what you are seeing. Take for example rolling shutter, I mean it is so easy to pan right left and have at leat an impression about rolling shutter, but until now zero.

Not the smartest people at such events. 

I wasn't aware that HLG - us poor men's HDR - was in the menu:

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.

24 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Just who exactly confirmed that it's possible?  I haven't seen this anywhere...

Quoting a slashCAM member quoting a dvxuser member quoting Mitch Gross, Panasonic product manager:
 

Quote

"So if you were to build a device with RAW output over HDMI, you would likely also have to build the device on the other end. And if you are going to do that, you are going to be spending a lot of time and money to make this system work, and it will all be a technical cheat and jumping through a lot of hoops in order to make it work with the limiting factors of the signal path that must be adhered to in order to remain HDMI-compliant ... so short answer is yes it is technicaly possible to send RAW over HDMI."

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:

ProRes Raw is desired mainly for one reason: smaller file sizes. Without respecting the individual color science of the camera manufacturer (RAW isn't standardized), it will be inferior in quality. Who is responsible for this respect? The Apple codec? The device - Atomos - that encodes the video?

For my own part, I made up my mind already. If by September the BMPCC4K has ProRes Raw, that's fine. If I did the maths right, 4k PR RAW had about the same data rates as 1080 CDNG from the old Pocket. That meant low additional costs for cards and reasonable recording times. If BM says, no, we won't implement it, it's crap, I accept hat.

If some Gyro Gearloose offered to hack my Sony, I said, no thanks, I rather wait for a good implementation in new cameras (BM).

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 highly praised ProRes degrades your images - to some extend!

2. there obviously is a difference if you record PR in camera, over HDMI with an Atomos or if you transcode it as intermediate. There is a logic to that. If those external PR recorders helped so much to avoid compression artifacts (without adding others, like the atrocious macroblocking on the meadow) , no one in their right minds used anything else.

4 hours ago, cantsin said:

 

• There are no WB and ISO controls in post (FCPX), which is weird for Raw.
• (...)
• The playback performance of ProRes RAW in FCPX is excellent - but there are suspicions that this is because of some built-in Proxy workflow since you can't adjust WB and ISO.

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.

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.

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:

Quote

Add any camera you have into a RED-like RAW workflow with an Atomos recorder and Apple professional video applications

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, Premiere, Edius or what have you? 

But let's assume the advantages over other raw solutions are as self-evident to everyone as they look right now. 

> Apple would confirm and prove that it still invents and develops for the pro market

> by initially making PRR proprietary and not trying to make it an 'industry standard', Apple could make the 'industry' look like the video-version of 'the rust belt'.

> if PRR is successful, Apple could consider to sell licenses to competitors