dbp

3 hours ago, TurboRat said:

I dont have micro jitters on mine. Will shoot some with my 35-100 when not too busy

It's all good! I ended up buying one and don't find it has much in the way of micro jitters at all. Great lens.

Anyone know if the 35-100 Mk II still has micro jitter issues with the GH5? Looking at grabbing this soon, but it's been tough to get a straight answer online. 

On 5/29/2019 at 1:48 PM, Thpriest said:

By ETC do you mean the kind of sensor crop zoom?

I have found it works with no loss in 4k but with HD it looks crap, very noisy. Am I doing something wrong?

It's definitely nosier. Depends on what ISOs you're using, I prefer to use it at lower ISOs if I have to. 

And honestly, I have a higher tolerance for noise than most, so what seems like no big deal to me very well might be offensive to you. 

Had another gig where it saved the day. Fast paced interviews in a cafe, followed by B-roll in a kitchen. Tight, cramped, not much time to shoot. They only wanted 1080p, so I could easily bounce between a few primes with regular and ETC mode, all 10bit V-log. Steady handheld even with a 60mm sigma in ETC. 

A is the GH5s, and I've noticed that V-log with the panasonic LUT has this effect. Skin seems to look much better with different grading on V-log, or a different profile. 

First live event today. Some interviews and then some B-roll during a graduation ceremony.  The IBIS is really a game changer, more than maybe any other feature/camera support system I've ever used. The IS-Lock is incredibly handy.

So oranges are reds on the pocket 4K? Hah! I remember finding the reds too orange on the original pocket. 

43 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think the argument ought to be 1080p versus 4K, it ought to be how sharp is the output of the final product. It is like the difference between a Canon C100 1080p, and say a Canon 5D mk II, or even a 80D. Heck the C100 looks like 4K because it is automatically downsampled from 4K. Night and day difference in 1080p. The A7s versus the A6300 is another good example.

Sharpness is what determines resolution nearly as much as the resolution its self. I know it is more complicated than that, but you get my point... I hope lol. ? Heck even brigtness determines it a lot. Look a that latest Game of Thrones thing. Hell it is so dark it could have been 12K and it would not have made a crap. You can't see resolution when you can't even see the output.

Yep, this. It's an interesting "all things being equal" discussion, but it rarely is.

I'd rather shoot 1080p with the C100 or the Blackmagic pocket than 4K with many cameras.

And this may be blasphemous, but I'm much less keen on the really heavy lesser compressed codecs in 4K. The storage space and media requirements are just too much. I'll be happy with my 150mps on my GH5. 

6 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

I have a GH5S, so no IBIS, and I just received my shiny new Pana-Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4. The OIS on this lens is pretty insane. I didn’t expect I could hand hold it at 200mm and get rock solid video of birds in flight. I deliberated between this lens and the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 but finally settled on the 50-200 because of the OIS. So glad I did. The variable aperture is not a problem with the GH5S as I can easily shoot up to 8000 ISO before I need to do some noise reduction in post. Especially if I’m downsampling 4K footage into a 2K delivery.

Cant wait to start shooting some projects I’ve had on my list.

Wow, that low light performance is really something. the GH5s really does open up possibilities of using different lenses in situations I would never have been able to get away with before. It's definitely my no-brainer choice for a second body eventually.

I thought a lot about the BMPCC4K, but I'm just in no mood to deal with trade-offs and workarounds anymore. 

The GH series just works. If they ever get internal NDs in there, I feel like that's the final frontier. 

This is, without a doubt, my favorite camera I've ever used.

7 minutes ago, Towd said:

That's the digital stabilizer that shifts the image on the sensor.  Kind of like an in camera version of post stabilization.  I prefer to just use the mechanical sensor stabilization and lens stabilization if a lens has it, and add digital stabilization in post.   If you need it and don't want to bother with the post work, it adds a little more smoothing to your video.

One difference between the mechanical and e-stabilization though is that the regular sensor stabilization will help correct for the motion blur in micro jitters, but e-stabilization will not.

Gotcha! Definitely no e-stabilization for me then.

I love this thing so far. IBIS is great, quite something on my 60mm. That used to be unusable handheld.

Another big surprised is how usable ISO 3200 is. Noticeably better than the GH4. 

Got it! Taking shots of my cat, naturally. Anyone know what the deal is with "E-Stabilization" under the stabilizer menu? It seems to crop in slightly. Does it add much or is the IBIS good enough alone?

1 hour ago, kye said:

Ah, yes, vintage lenses are a different aesthetic.  It's common for pros to have two sets of lenses, one vintage and one modern, although if you're shooting higher budget cine stuff then you often hire the modern ones (CP.2 etc) and keep the vintage set for yourself for low budget or personal projects (and maybe to hire out).  It's about choosing which aesthetic suits the project.

There's a new panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 in the works if that helps.  But I fully agree with you, FF has the 2.8 holy trinity, APSC has the Sigma 1.8 pair, and MFT has ......  nothing.  The holy trinity for MFT would be 8-12/1.4 + 12-35/1.4 + 35-100/1.4 and theres nothing even close.  In live event stuff you may be torn between having a zoom with a wider range vs faster aperture.

Totally. I suppose it's not a matter of better, but just different. I'll probably pick up a few more cheap Nikon AI primes, as I like the aesthetic alot, and they'll work well with the IBIS.

I did look at the 10-25. Figured it would cost an arm and a leg, and.........yep! $2500. Yikes, no thanks. Maybe a FF lens that could live on in other bodies, but I just feel like I might as well speedbooster and Sigma 18-35 at that point. 

Also, I don't know if this is just me, but I don't value a zoom on the wide end nearly as much. In those situations, I'm happy to either swap or zoom with my feet. It's the long end that I need to adjust quickly. Getting caught on a tight prime at a live event when you really need something wider is a bad place to be.

One thing I'm curious about is V-log at 4K / 60p.  I've heard horror stories with 8bit vlog but I'm hoping maybe it's not as bad as everyone says? 

12 minutes ago, kye said:

It's a workhorse, so putting it to work to earn it's keep is the right strategy

I don't really know what lenses are good for corporate, but your existing lineup seems pretty good.  The 42.5/1.7 is pretty close to 50/1.8 so maybe something closer to 35mm might be more useful?  Slightly cropping in-post is normally fine even if you're delivering 4K so you can always go a little tighter than the lens if you need to.

The 18-35 is a beautiful lens, but it's pretty heavy in comparison to primes.  The 12-35/2.8 has a great reputation and a bit more zoom range.  If you can go slower than 2.8 then there are longer zooms than that, although be aware that 12-35/2.8 on MFT is the same as 24-70/5.6 on FF, so it's not the same as a 24-70/2.8, or even the 24-70/4.

I don't have the v-log but shoot HLG instead, but I understand that both do a good job and it's more about your post-production workflow and if you have LUTs already etc.

The 50 1.8 is beautiful in a lot of ways, but it has.....character, I guess you could say, when it's wide open. Noticeably soft. Has a weird blooming effect in the highlights. I honestly like it quite a bit for wedding B-roll, but I've avoided it for talking heads. So it's effectively a 50 f2.8 for interviews. That's why I have my eye on the 42.5 f1.7. I know that will look good wide open.

I love M43 in general, but the zooms are the only downfall. I reaaaaaaaaaally wish there some in the 1.7 or even 2.0 range.  2.8 is rough in most indoors venues with the GH series (excluding GH5s). The Sigma's are big and clunky.  Trade-offs one way or another! Just depends on what kind of work I do. I only have interest in the zooms if I end up doing lots of live-event stuff.

11 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

It has a great image btw. Pretty much no moire or aliasing which can't be said for a lot of more expensive cameras. Also internal 10 bit 422 

Oh yes, I definitely don't want to imply that it's bad. Just that I know in the eternal chase for the absolute best IQ, it might not be top of the heap anymore. But still very good.

6 hours ago, kye said:

Welcome.  Heaps of knowledge here so post questions / comments.  

What projects are you planning on using it for?  What lenses / accessories will you use with it?

I'm living in DC now, just trying to get established, so probably lots of corporate / live event work. Maaaaaaaaaybe weddings. Build that stuff up to make money, and then slowly work into some more artsy fun stuff like music videos / short films on the side. 

But I gotta find the money first.

For lenses, I have the Rokinon 12 f2, Panasonic 20 f1.7, Nikon 50 1.8, Sigma 60 f2.8. 

Zhiyun Crane v2 for a gimbal. Some LED lights (2xAputure 672s) and a few others.

Slowly gonna build my kit up. I desperately need a better tripod, but after that it'll probably be lenses. Definitely the 42.5 f1.7 at some point, for talking heads. Then some kinda zoom for live events. I know everyone loves the Sigma 18-35, but I feel like something longer is more valuable in a zoom. The Sigma 50-100 or Panasonic 35-100, something like that.

Oh, and I ordered V-log with it. Excited to play with that.

I'm way late to the party, but just ordered the GH5! 

I have no illusions that it'll be some supremely groundbreaking image, but I do think it'll be the funnest and easiest camera I've ever used to just pick up and shoot stuff with.

9 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

On the flip side some couples want to see the big cameras, as they associate that with high end. I think it will be a while before that changes. Even now most people have no idea what or why cinema cameras are expensive and used professionally or how they compare to a cell phone camera. 

I've definitely seen that more with corporate work than with wedding work. I've had a few moderately tech savvy couples, but most don't care at all and just trust your portfolio. If anything, they appreciate a smaller profile. 

I used to take my GH2/GH4 pretty religiously on any excursion, but I pretty much exclusively use my phone now. Ever since I found out it could shoot raw and I could use the lightroom app.

In good light, it's really not far off from the GH4. I do miss the lack of zoom at times, but convenience can't be beat. 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I would think in this day and age walking around, especially at the Reception, with a cellphone might render better, more natural looking shots. Not many people like to have a C300 shoved in their face and act normal. That is the beauty of cellphones, most people ignore them.

 

Do any cellphones have zooms at this point? My Galaxy S8 doesn't. That's currently the big achilles heel, I think. You're stuck on a wide shot, which admittedly looks good in bright low. Doubtful it's gonna cut it during most low light receptions. Hell, my old boss used to send me his cell phone clips to use in edits and they looked terrible once the lights went down.

No one likes any camera shoved in their face, for the most part. Unless they're drunk. That's why longer lenses are so handy for stealthily sniping shots at receptions.

12 minutes ago, PrometheusDM said:

I think you are too fixated on having an ACTUAL robot to the filming. We aren't going to need to have robot filming/photography to be disruptive. The disruption will come from both hardware and software.

 

Yep, all of this. It doesn't mean actual robots will film weddings. 

It means AI will seep into the industry and have a trickle down effect. An accelerated version of what's already happened with cheap hardware and saturated talent.

I'm 34, but I've been on forums like these long enough to learn about what the generation prior to mine were able to charge. The rates for basic talking head clips blew my mind! But you could do it, back in the day. And frankly, the quality was trash. A lot of those folks washed out because they could no longer command the same rates as the younger crowd, and they got blown out of the water by people with actual artistic sensibilities. You have to stay ahead of this game, or it will eat you up.

And hell yes weddings are formulaic. The videos, the photos, everything. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit. I've produced enough of em'. I've seen enough from people all over Canada and the US. Slow motion walking through the trees and kissing to some goddamn Tony Anderson song. Seen it, x1000. AI can and will whip those up, and weekend warriors will undercut, and people WILL laugh at the old rates, cause they don't have to pay them. The wedding industry preys on the idea that weddings are expensive, and people should expect to pay alot. Photo/video has benefited from this for years.

10 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

The wedding part is about half way trough. It is not only that Robots Can do it, it is that more and more people are not going to pay ANYONE to shoot it. Keep your day job is the take away. Young people just don't have any money with Student Debt, Credit Card Debit. And a Smartphone on average with 50 people shooting them gets the job done well enough in this day and age for a lot of people that go down to Wal Mart and get them printed. Bingo.

 

Naw, there will always be reach families who will pay $5000 because it's peanuts to them. Tons and tons of those couples in Vancouver and by the looks of it, DC as well. 

You're right about the majority, though. Most won't pay for anything extravagant with their wedding, and if they do, video is routinely the last priority. I worked for a guy who offered DJ, photo, event planning, photobooth, and he said video was always bottom of the bucket.

BUT, I've also seen it routinely listed in articles as the thing couples regret not doing the most. 

The key is, you have to get really goddamn good, and then you can have a pretty comfortable living in the high end market. But that will only happen in a big city with ample rich people.

Otherwise, work for peanuts. 

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

We will all be long dead before AI robots and cameras can replace a human being for something like a wedding.

Anyone who thinks weddings are all the same has not been to enough weddings and doesn't do this for a living.

If you think you can phone it in remotely, you are having a laugh.

And I'm not just saying that because I am a wedding photographer but because I understand it's the human element that gets the results. Take out the human and what have you got? Not the results, that is for sure.

Eh, I've shot a ton of weddings across many different cultures.

Weddings more than anything have taught me how boring we are. The music choices between every couple overlap 85% of the time. I feel like I could copy+paste half the speeches from one wedding to another. 

Father-daughter / mother son dances all seem to have people picking the same 4 songs. Don't even get me started on all the cute 'marriage jokes'. 

15 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Will machine learning algorithms replace forum members? (J/k, based on some of the spam bots they already are.)

I feel like a 10th grade computer science student could write this one. How hard could it be? 80,000 threads talking about whether something is cinematic or not. *insert brand here* sucks and is great. Something about motion cadence and companies intentionally crippling codecs. Done! 

I really think there's a fallacy at work here. The lack of trust in the development in AI is because we want to think we are more unique and interesting than we truly are. 

I actually hope I'm wrong about all of this, but I doubt it.

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

To add to that, numerous people are attracted to dick-head personalities.  Just a fact of humanity. 

Adults should know better (yet don't), but kids are particularly susceptible to aggressive earnestness, regardless if it's healthy earnestness.  Any type of self-assuredness is viewed as a positive.

Thus, many personalities that reach broad levels of success are not uplifting and positive, but degrading.  This is not a YT specific issue.  This is an issue with what it means to struggle to be a good person in general.

To point out this theory in practice, I'll not post, but mention this:  That YT Paul asshole kid had the asshole crackpot adult from InfoWars on his channel recently.  A perfect storm of brash stupidity that makes life on this planet slightly worse for happening. 

Now, a few special people can transcend this "be a dick for attention"  scenario and have charisma that's compelling yet compassionate.  It's much harder to do.  The sad reality is evil is alluring.

True. And you're absolutely right in that it's not exclusive to video. One of my other hobbies is the diet/fitness industry, and it's absolutely ripe for overconfident charlatans. It's especially sad to have people preying on others' deep rooted insecurities and body image issues. 

I haven't explored a ton of the video based youtubers, but YCImaging seems to be one of the exceptions. Knowledgeable, great camera presence. Just solid, valuable content that isn't based on insane hyperbole. 

Youtubers are an interesting lot.

There's alot to be said about presentation, editing, etc.

But for me, the biggest variable is the intangible camera presence someone has. There are some how just have that natural charisma that make them pleasant to listen to. Others are a chore to get through, no matter how they present their videos.

It's definitely a talent. I could never be a popular youtuber, that's for sure.

5 hours ago, hansel said:

In General i simply don't get the fun of existence by using AI for this kind of stuff. For me it feels like I'd rather have Mario testino shoot my wedding than some spy cams plastered all over my place? Will vogue have a robot shot on the front page of a robot humanoid? Seems none sense. Especially with arts. Why would you want to leave the fun of doing it to Ai?

It's not about want, it's about cost. If I can film a wedding solo with higher production values and I don't have to hire / pay 2nd and 3rd shooters, why would I?

If I'm a producer and I can ditch 50-75% of the crew, just keeping the bare bones folks who call the creative shots, why wouldn't I?

If I'm some random corporation that needs a steady stream of inhouse video work, and I can either hire someone on salary or get AI to do it. AI that's been taught everything with regards to marketing trends, viewing retention etc, why wouldn't I?

On a side note, I think AI learning is going to expose how ultimately boring and predictable we are.  I think there's this romantic notion that humans are unique, beautiful souls, but the numbers don't lie. Our behaviors, patterns, and habits are quite predictable and quantifiable. It's sad, really.