Simon Shasha

As unrealistic as that grade is, as in, nobody would ever grade that severely, it does indeed show that 10bit internal is working, and well.

I'd like to hear Luke Neumann's take on that Cinema5d article

Besides Luke, the videos released thus far have been a let down.

Regarding the few points above - I do not believe one requires a 10bit monitor to see the difference.

I use 8bit monitors, and my Blackmagic Pocket, when shooting 10bit 1080P ProRes HQ, absolutely decimated my Sony A7S + Shogun 4K 8bit ProRes HQ.

I would bring both files into Premiere, push the grade in Lumetri, and the Blackmagic 10bit 1080P ProRes HQ held up, the A7S 4K 8bit ProRes HQ did not - banding all over the place.

When I shot for Blackmagic to promote their Micro camera, I found the results even better - the new colour-science and improved sensor/ASIC showed me even more how important 10bit is.

You can tell a 10bit image virtually immediately - the colours are deep, rich, have fidelity, accuracy. 8bit images always come across very "thin" and crayon-like - especially the skin-tones.

I am liking the 10bit I am seeing out of the GH5, however, I do not think its true potential will be realised until we see 10bit 400Mbps for 4K, and 10bit 200Mbps for 1080P.
Agreed.

You're not wrong there. Utterly bland.

No need to add to that. Saved me a heap of time.

The Oscars are rubbish. These days, anyway.

I believe filmmaking is the most powerful art-form. It has the power to influence hearts and minds, and allow people to feel things - truly feel things.

I really believe filmmakng can make the world a better place by means of subjective immersion, empathetic response, and telling the story of the human-condition.

Hence, I think success is if your film allows viewers to feel raw emotion via empathy (even with the most questionable of characters), and allow viewers to learn/experience something new from their subjective interpretation of your film.

I say this in regards to narrative fiction filmmaking.
With documentary filmmaking, I have the same beliefs, but the responsibility of remaining objective on the filmmakers behalf is very important.

With documentaries, I believe filmmakers have an obligation to remain objective - to strictly document - like a James Nachtwey photo - for the sake of the truth. However, even then, no matter how objective a documentary maker remains, the viewer will ultimately determine their own truth by means of their own subjective interpretation/research - well, I hope they do, anyway.
 

The Oscars are rubbish. These days, anyway.

I believe filmmaking is the most powerful art-form. It has the power to influence hearts and minds, and allow people to feel things - truly feel things.

I really believe filmmakng can make the world a better place by means of subjective immersion, empathetic response, and telling the story of the human-condition.

Hence, I think success is if your film allows viewers to feel raw emotion via empathy (even with the most questionable of characters), and allow viewers to learn/experience something new from their subjective interpretation of your film.

I say this in regards to narrative fiction filmmaking.
With documentary filmmaking, I have the same beliefs, but the responsibility of remaining objective on the filmmakers behalf is very important.

With documentaries, I believe filmmakers have an obligation to remain objective - to strictly document - like a James Nachtwey photo - for the sake of the truth. However, even then, no matter how objective a documentary maker remains, the viewer will ultimately determine their own truth by means of their own subjective interpretation/research - well, I hope they do, anyway.
 

The Oscars are rubbish. These days, anyway.

I believe filmmaking is the most powerful art-form. It has the power to influence hearts and minds, and allow people to feel things - truly feel things.

I really believe filmmakng can make the world a better place by means of subjective immersion, empathetic response, and telling the story of the human-condition.

Hence, I think success is if your film allows viewers to feel raw emotion via empathy (even with the most questionable of characters), and allow viewers to learn/experience something new from their subjective interpretation of your film.

I say this in regards to narrative fiction filmmaking.
With documentary filmmaking, I have the same beliefs, but the responsibility of remaining objective on the filmmakers behalf is very important.

With documentaries, I believe filmmakers have an obligation to remain objective - to strictly document - like a James Nachtwey photo - for the sake of the truth. However, even then, no matter how objective a documentary maker remains, the viewer will ultimately determine their own truth by means of their own subjective interpretation/research - well, I hope they do, anyway.
 

The Oscars are rubbish. These days, anyway.

I believe filmmaking is the most powerful art-form. It has the power to influence hearts and minds, and allow people to feel things - truly feel things.

I really believe filmmakng can make the world a better place by means of subjective immersion, empathetic response, and telling the story of the human-condition.

Hence, I think success is if your film allows viewers to feel raw emotion via empathy (even with the most questionable of characters), and allow viewers to learn/experience something new from their subjective interpretation of your film.

I say this in regards to narrative fiction filmmaking.
With documentary filmmaking, I have the same beliefs, but the responsibility of remaining objective on the filmmakers behalf is very important.

With documentaries, I believe filmmakers have an obligation to remain objective - to strictly document - like a James Nachtwey photo - for the sake of the truth. However, even then, no matter how objective a documentary maker remains, the viewer will ultimately determine their own truth by means of their own subjective interpretation/research - well, I hope they do, anyway.
 

The GH5 is the first time I am willing to trade dynamic-range for ergonomics.

I am absolutely sick of rigging up cameras, if not with external monitors, than with shoulder-rigs and whatnot.

For my personal shooting style, the 5-Axis on-sensor IBIS, high-res EVF and LCD, and 10-bit internal, make up for the lack of dynamic-range and usable 12,800ISO (which I wouldn't even use, anyway).

The GH5 is the first time I am willing to trade dynamic-range for ergonomics.

I am absolutely sick of rigging up cameras, if not with external monitors, than with shoulder-rigs and whatnot.

For my personal shooting style, the 5-Axis on-sensor IBIS, high-res EVF and LCD, and 10-bit internal, make up for the lack of dynamic-range and usable 12,800ISO (which I wouldn't even use, anyway).

Jesus they would sell more than they could make! Oh I would not put it past BM to do it though.
I am going on 70 years old so everything when I was young, and not so young, was all film based. I started with a 8mm movie film camera as a teenager making car chase movies, gangster style with a old 39 4 door Ford. We laughed till we nearly peed our paints doing that stuff. Nothing beats the look of film, nothing.
But you are right for what money the average person can afford the BMPCC, BMCC is as good as it gets to the look we all crave. It is a great editing learning tool also.

Ha. Calm down, mate.

Never said I was shooting in S-Log - not too fond of 50Mbps 8-bit 4:2:0 S-Log...but if you are, knock yourself out.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I shot live music for a long time (video below). All on Canon 7D and 60D. Pretty much only had one lens (Sigma 30mm F1.4), and would rent a Sigma 20mm F1.8, or Canon 70-200 here and there/when needed:
The Canon 7D and 60D were not ISO champions, they pretty much fell apart after ISO 640.

When I bought my A7S, I wasn't that impressed. Sure, I could shoot crazy high ISO, but given my experience with the 7D and 60D, I didn't really need it in the end. Not for the shooting style I had developed by that time, anyway. Fast aperture made the difference. Most of the time. I'd gotten so used to pulling focus at F1.4 - F1.8. Would drop the shutter to 1/40, 1/30, if the lighting being used allowed it. Was never fond of shallow depth of field. Tried to keep my shots wide to avoid it. I always found very shallow depth of field disorientating. I never used my own artificial light - I always found it visually obtrusive, fake. I wanted viewers to feel like they were there.

I guess I had to really choose my shots back then. Wait for the light. There were many times where I wouldn't be shooting at all, just waiting on the sidelines for the light to change. If I got the shot, I got the shot, if I didn't, too bad. Sometimes I think it was better this way - stopped me from over-shooting. The only downside was having to pay attention non-stop to the lighting...but I guess that's our job in the end, no?

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

Besides Luke, the videos released thus far have been a let down.

Regarding the few points above - I do not believe one requires a 10bit monitor to see the difference.

I use 8bit monitors, and my Blackmagic Pocket, when shooting 10bit 1080P ProRes HQ, absolutely decimated my Sony A7S + Shogun 4K 8bit ProRes HQ.

I would bring both files into Premiere, push the grade in Lumetri, and the Blackmagic 10bit 1080P ProRes HQ held up, the A7S 4K 8bit ProRes HQ did not - banding all over the place.

When I shot for Blackmagic to promote their Micro camera, I found the results even better - the new colour-science and improved sensor/ASIC showed me even more how important 10bit is.

You can tell a 10bit image virtually immediately - the colours are deep, rich, have fidelity, accuracy. 8bit images always come across very "thin" and crayon-like - especially the skin-tones.

I am liking the 10bit I am seeing out of the GH5, however, I do not think its true potential will be realised until we see 10bit 400Mbps for 4K, and 10bit 200Mbps for 1080P.
Agreed.

Found two new GH5 clips. Very impressed with the beach one.