dbp

2 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Depends on what NLE you use.Davinci Resolve mainly uses the GPU.

 

I know it uses GPU more, but it still relies heavily on CPU for rendering.

I just switched from a GTX 570 1.2gb to a GTX 1060 6gb and my render times with  HD pocket raw footage increased exactly 0%.

19 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Editing PCs are a rather extreme niche of a niche, but the good news is there is a MASSIVE overlap between what makes a good gaming PC and what makes a good editing PC. 

Thus reading how to build guides for the optimal gaming PC at the moment for a given budget, often gets you 90% of the way to figuring out a good and close to optimal build for an editing PC. 

Seems like editing is way more CPU heavy and less GPU heavy than gaming. Storage speed and RAM are also a lot more important for editing.

Gaming really has become a GPU fest. Which is nice, makes it easy in a way. 

ahhh good memories

1 minute ago, zerocool22 said:

I was hoping for this. Hopefully they drastically improved their stabilizer. Then it is finally goodbye for Premiere for me!

Yep, pretty much thinking the same!

That is a fine case!

I am the same, been building my own. I used to do a big upgrade like clock work every 3 years since 2001. This has been the longest I've gone without one (5 years). Harder to afford for me now. Would need a new cpu/mobo/ram/gpu at this point. Definitely on my list of priorities. 

Thinking about getting a better fan to at least overclock my 2600k but I dunno if I can be bothered. Buying a 1060 6gb in a few days to at least help with the 4k instability. 

I know  I've been putting off editing system upgrades in favor of lenses and lights, but I think it's time to pay some much needed attention to the ol' girl. 

Nice! I'm still using an old sandy bridge 2600k and I need an upgrade. My card is a gtx570 with 1.2gigs of ram, so it's always crashing and causing problems with 4K footage.

44 minutes ago, Phil A said:

Dear god I hope not. It's of course personal taste but it looks as bad to me as watching TV with Intelligent Frame Creation. 

But it explains why some people say auto focus is fine and others say it'sbad. Today's Newsshooter short review also says that AF is a lot better in 60p than in 24p. I would guess most people will only use UHD 60p to create slow motion (also seeing how 24p 10bit is internal but 60p 10bit needs external recording).

Some of the newer stuff coming out really shows nice images. I think Panasonic really delivered a great camera and I'm looking forward to see how the coming firmware updates improve on it further.

Wouldn't surprise me. I've noticed that trend of 60p autofocus being better, usually much better, with every camera I've owned. 

Just a general observation I've noticed with GH5 videos so far. Many of them seem to be shot at 60p. I wonder if that framerate slowly end up becoming more popular.

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Now changing subject, here's some marvelous imagerie from this piece of work:

Shot on 12-60mm f2.8-4 and 100-400mm f4-6.3 -- only two zoom lenses and here we all can go very light ;-)

 

Cool stuff! Nature footage is something the GH5 excels at I think. IBIS, compact, easy to get a long zoom range with m43, 4K 60p. 

On 4/6/2017 at 0:22 PM, mercer said:

I tend to like more muted colors, but for the people who prefer some saturation, here is one of my first versions of the video with more saturation. On my computer and phone this looks decent, but on my TV it is nuclear... so YMMV...

 

Looks absolutely lovely. Something about the 5D raw gives me the warm fuzzies haha

Most of my wedding venues, I'm at iso 1600 usually on f1.8-2. Every now and then I'm up to iso3200. A clean iso 3200 would solve most wedding woes for me, but the GH4 certainly isn't there. 

4 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

"300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube." YouTube quote.

So you really think real PEOPLE are going to review 300 hours of video every minute!! It ain't never going to happen.

True, but they don't have to watch *everything*, they just have to stop automatically allowing ads once you pass basic viewer number thresholds. Make it a privilege. 

Honestly, part of me is happy about this. Youtube was becoming this junky clickbait, desperate for views cesspole. I feel bad for those working hard to provide genuinely valuable content, but fuck those clowns who are just churning out boring "ohhhh so edgy" nonsense for money. 

Auto focus killed my sister and ruined my marriage!

Man, I must say, a few years ago I would have never guessed that auto focus of all things would be such a heated debate topic on these forums!

1 hour ago, ozmorphasis said:

Are we seeing the downside of the lack of an OLPF in the GH5 in the roof of those buildings.  As a GH4 owner, I've never had to be anxious about Moire.  It just hasn't been common enough to fret about it.  Your shots of the roof on that building, however, is totally unusable for any of my paid work.  

 

Of course, native lenses with their oversharpened look tend to exacerbate the issue, but still.  That shot looks worrisome to me.  

Watch it full screen, it's not there. An artifact of a youtube embed. 

Even on an 8bit monitor, you will see the differences with gradients and transitions between colors. There's been tests out there that demonstrate this with the GH5, no pixel peeping required. 

14 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Some off the cuff comparisons between um4.6 and gh5.

Would like to see skin off different types of interior lights, wide and cu, and also mixed lights.

Interesting, GH5 seems to have a similar magenta tint that I see in GH4 stuff often. 

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You know we are damn fixated on the camera end of the equation, but what if were twice as good at editing, grading, audio, 3 times as good or more?  I know that is my weakest Link.

I would think that would have more of an effect than our cameras in the end. Thoughts.

Definitely. I am ok shooter, ok editor (being generous). I know little about grading or doing audio well. My skills have absolutely not outgrown my GH4 or pocket.

but gear talk is fun dammit! 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well the Arri is a s35 sensor using 16bit Codec. I would hope it is better LoL. Oh and they cost 45,000 bucks. Well we agree to disagree on what is a better camera, AF100, GH2. I have had one, and a GH3 also. I would still have them if I thought they were Better, and I am not talking about handling. The G7 I have makes the AF100 look bad in certain ways. Other than using it in 4k I would NEVER shoot it in 1080p and use the output of it over the AF100. Not even close. It looks like, the G7, like a freaking digital camera. I hate digital camera looks, and I am not alone.

Now if I was shooting ads for clients I guess I would go for the sharpness in 4k. Even down sampled down to 1080p. I am sure the client wants to see his or her widget stand out. That sort of sounds obscene.   But that is not Cinematic, Filmic, and that is why I bought the AF100.

But I guess those qualities do not pay the bills sad to say. And if lots of people agreed with me they would still be selling the AF100. Point taken.

I'm with ya on liking cinematic looks over something too digital. I just found the AF100 highlight clipping was unpleasant and definitely screamed video to me. The color science was pretty blah as well. So was the GH2 color, for that matter. It just seemed better. 

Good 1080p is fine by me, I don't care that much about 4K. It's all about color and dynamic range for me. I realize that color in particular is subjective, so to each their own.

4 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

I wasn't impressed with the 96FPS on the GH4 and I haven't seen anything that "wows" me about the 180FPS on the GH5.  The AF is just unacceptable in video mode even with native glass.

Can I see a difference between HD and 4k?  Hmm.  I have 3 UHD sets in my home that upscale everything to UHD.  So for really "good" HD (C100 II) vs. crappy 4k (Canon 5d IV) I prefer the upscaled 1080p.  Of course I can tell the difference, but there is so much more than just resolution and sharpness for good video.  Smooth glider shots, low angle, multiple camera, shallow DOF as needed, skin tones, story telling all are more important TO ME than absolute detail.  I am 20/20 at least in one eye and from a few feet away playing back 4k vs. 1080p on a 60" Vizio set?  No, I can't really tell the difference, and neither can anyone in my family.  My kids have perfect vision...so.

I will say years later the 240FPS of the Sony FS-700 still dazzles friends, so does the C-log on the C100 II and the raw 5d3 footage.  Same for the A7s in low light.  For me personally the GH2 and AF100 footage holds up remarkably too after 5 years.  I find 4k a bit of a bother - I'd rather shoot really good 1080p60 for action and 1080p24 with good colors for everything else.  Or setup multiple cameras - cropping 4k still won't give you a completely different shot.  But, that's me.

96fps mode is pretty crappy. I'll use it for the effect, but it's a noticeable drop off. Better than not having the option at all and I applaud Panasonic for at least offering 180fps.

Interesting anecdote and not all that surprising. 5D3 raw and c100 II both consistently look great. 

Sharpness isn't always better, agreed. There's a threshold to where stuff is too soft for my taste. Early Canon stuff and the AF100 would fall in that camp. I've seen comparisons between the two and the GH2 was always a bit sharper, and looked better. Especially with blown out spots. AF100 would go orange and cyan in the highlights. Once the GH2 got the hack, the differences in compression artifacts became apparent as well. 

GH2 was definitely a better sensor and I'd wager many more would agree with me. I was following the discussions here, on DVXuser and hack forum quite regularly. 

Alexa absolutely resolves more detail than the AF100. I would call it a camera capable of very sharp images if so desired. AF100, not so much. 

Honestly, I think what killed it was the IQ. It just wasn't that great. The much cheaper GH2 was better. A bit sharper and handled highlights better. Then the hack hit and it was all over.

On paper, it should've been a killer, but the look/mojo wasn't there for people coming from 5Ds, etc. I don't blame them.  M43 lens selection was definitely lacking compared to what it is now, too. 

I don't think the AF-100 sold that well. Still though, an updated effort might do better. It's probably the only request I've seen more than a new version of the blackmagic pocket, so there's clearly demand for it. 

I go back and forth between raw and pro res on the pocket.

Pro Res is really really good, but ultimately raw is where it's at. I know one test showed 1.5 stops of dynamic range improvement, and I'd believe it based on experience. Not worrying about white balancing, being able to shove the footage around in CC.

It used to really impractical but not so much anymore. Compatiable SD cards have fallen and resolve runs quite well even on my ancient machine.  4K raw would be another story I'm sure.