dbp

42 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@mercer in 5-6 years 8K will be the standard and the conversation will probably shift to full frame video cameras, or medium format video.

I am not going to dismiss a Canon just from the spec list, or else 98% of the world and 90% of the professional world, would be shooting with the a6300, and that is a really bad implemented camera. In the end, numbers are just numbers, real life samples and workflows are the final judge.

 

Yep, totally. Canon C line seems to always overdeliver compared to the spec sheet. The footage will tell the tale, as it always does! 

I think it looks better than a smartphone, but I do know what you mean. It's solid, just as the GH4 was solid, and many other cameras are pretty good at this point. It's a tier of image quality that's usable, but not high end. It's been done and it's hard to get overly excited about. 

I would not want to dump that kinda money on camera unless it really brought me closer to the high end, and was a noticeable improvement over the GH4/5 and A7S's of the world. 

1 minute ago, deezid said:

I'll take two of these if it has the real Varicam (LT) look. That would be amazing.
If footage looks like shot with a GH5 (processed, homevideo like) I buy the C200 instead.

Yup, that's the major "if" at this point. I've learned not to trust paper specs. The proof is in the image. 

This camera sounds like a winner to me, especially if it ends up having the Varicam look. Love the size too!

Were they formatted in camera? I feel like I've had issues with otherwise good cards that were formatted elsewhere.

Haven't shot with it personally, but one of my second shooters uses one, so I've edited footage from it. I quite like the colors/skintones that it produces.

Sigh, another camera I can't afford. It would do everything I need it to do well, though. Wouldn't need to upgrade for a long time.

Pair it with something smaller (GH5, A7S) and your bases are all covered. 

3 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

I played with the VFR mode this afternoon. Added a bit of Twixtor to get a 20x/600fps equivalent slow motion. Each 10 seconds sequence in the video represent 0.5 sec in real life. 

Of course the VFR hurts the image quality and Twixtor soften the image but the result is not bad. I really love the GH5.

 

Neat! You can still see Twixtor artifacts in some shots, but it plays much, much better with higher frame rates. A lot of those shots would've not worked at all with Twixtor and 60p.

Hopefully it'll have 4K 60p but I won't hold my breath.

Sometimes. Slow rendering speed and it rarely producing good results makes me not want to bother.

I don't own it, but I frequently lust after the Olympus 75 f1.8

The GH5 offers so much in terms of usability, it really gets out of the way and lets you be creative. IBIS, 4K, different slow-mo modes etc..  all allow for this. Even if the pure quality might be exceeded by other cameras, you might be able to shoot more interesting stuff thanks to the GH5 feature set. Which ultimately makes for better looking stuff. 

I was mega on the fence and in a lot of ways it looks like a mildly improved GH4, image wise. But I really want one now. Just seems like it'd be fun to shoot with and there's nothing *wrong* with the quality. In skilled hands, it's gonna look great. 

That's cool, would love to see the Varicam really succeed. If nothing else, it's nice to see the high end not monopolized by 2 companies. Keeps everyone on their toes.

Panasonic used to be known for their mojo, in light of being technically inferior in some ways. I've found most of the Varicam stuff to be quite nice. Seems like RED and Arri are so established that the high end nut is hard to crack, as opposed to the Varicam not being up to the task. 

1 hour ago, Don Kotlos said:

The highlights look better, but I actually prefer the skin tones of your (original) grade. 

After looking at both full screen, I definitely agree with this. A little to lifeless in the kholi one.

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

 

 I guess what I mean is I would Not use a BMPCC to interview the CEO of General Motors over the GH5. Who, by the way, is a Woman. You are allowed to turn sharpness down a bit on the GH5! 

 

I've heard this sentiment from others, but I find the pocket does very well at looking "real" if you want it to. Grading from scratch and avoiding any of the commonly used LUTS will get you there. In fact, I'd say it excels with nature and corporate type stuff.

At the 8 minute mark of this video, another example of why 10bit is awesome.

1 hour ago, jcs said:

 

The only thing I'd be careful about is the CC 2017 bug with the media cache- if set to the root of a drive, clearing that cache will delete all media files for the entire drive: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2306406 (looks like the bug deletes all media files recursively from wherever it's been set). Reported on this forum here: 

 

I turned off all the settings to automatically delete the cache files, and I haven't had an issue since. Knock on wood.

Such is a shame, no doubt. The original pocket will still be useful for a while though.

On 4/25/2017 at 4:24 PM, hijodeibn said:

I can see the jaw falling in most of the GH5 early adopters….

I don't see it that way. To me, they are entirely different products and Panasonic should always have both in their arsenal. GH5 is much smaller to carry around. Handy for certain situations. Not to mention some of us actually rely on taking stills with our GH4/GH5s, shocking as that may seem!

Larger camera is more appropriate for other situations. Honestly I would want both if I could afford. Especially if they matched in look easily.

1 hour ago, Lintelfilm said:

For pros turning jobs around FCPX is the bees knees. It's the Canon of the NLE world in many ways - easy to get snobby about its tech specs but in real world use its super reliable, straightforward to use and performs fantastically where it matters. For factual content and solo filmmakers it's a dream. The filmmakers you see using it are the ones consistently putting out content, not those dissecting the latest greatest tech. 

Its fast, gets out of your way and lets you focus on the storytelling. Nobody should be writing it off as a top contender for any reason now, especially not solo filmmakers.

Seems to be a pattern where people hate it, dismiss it... then try it, and slowly fall in love. If I had a mac, I'd be all over this, especially for smaller gigs.

I got another reason to dump Adobe.

There's a bug in the newest version where it'll delete all of your media files on the drive with the media cache folder. Happened to me on one drive. Assumed the drive was going bad, so I brought a new one. Moved the media cache folder to a different drive, and it happened on that one! Folder structure stays intact but files get deleted. Lots 2+ TB of data in both cases.

Luckily I was able to get it all back with recovery software, but the time it takes to transfer/format etc....  I mean, good god. 

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2306406

How's the stabilizer? I've heard good things, but that was one thing that kept me in Premiere instead of Resolve 12.5.

I've been with Adobe for so long. It's what I learned on, and it's hard to break the habit. I'd love to move on though. Really hoping Resolve 14 is ready for the bigtime once the bugs are worked out.

Also be curious with how it fares with large projects with a ton of media.

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Hey,

This update(audio, plugins and stabilizer improvement) is great and all. But I am really bummed out about the price drop from $999 to $299 for Resolve Studio version. I mean the resale value just dropped massively. I own 2 davinci dongles, and this hurts my wallet big time! This business is hardcore. 70% price drop over one night, I feel kinda f##**d by BM at this point. 

It's been going on with all forms of camera tech for a while. Nature of the beast, unfortunately.