Inazuma

Time to reveal...
 
RX100 III is the first shot number 1, second is Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera.
 
Surprising hey!

Went home for Father's day yesterday and took some footage whilst we were out. I didn't really mean to make this into a piece, but I started doing colour grading tests with the footage and ended up obsessing until it became this. I'm currently writing/directing a series, so this was good editing practice.
 
Feedback welcome!

Hi everyone,
I've decided to make all of the music on my site free for commercial use as well as noncommercial. Just please credit me properly as detailed on my homepage.
If you decide to use one or more of my pieces, a donation would be greatly appreciated...any amount you can swing would be helpful.
As always, thanks for your feedback and I hope you find something you can use.
Eric

Looked pretty good to me. Anything I didn't like was very easy to iron out in Resolve.

For Premiere 5.5 I would right click on the footage in the project window and select Modify -> Interpret Footage.  Make sure framerate is set to 25fps and Field Order is set to No Fields (Progressive Scan).
 
Hopefully that will be enough clear the problem.

I'll try and clear up a few bits:
 
You can edit ProRes on Windows Premiere without installing Miraizon. I have done this many times.
 
Miraizon allows you to encode to ProRes straight from Premiere or via Media Encoder. You cannot do this without Miraizon.
 
Here's an example of it in use:
 

 
I bought  DNxHD and ProRes QuickTime Codecs from here http://www.miraizon.com/store/store.html
 
For the money I can't see a problem with this bit of software.
 
***
 
On Premiere, yes it's a 32-bit floating-point engine, though you won't always see this in timeline, unless you choose Maximum Bit Depth in sequence settings.
 
As long as you tick the Render at Maximum Depth box at render, you'll get best colour space. If you don't, banding is a lot worse. So tick it! :)
 

 
The maximum render quality setting at the bottom affects scaling only. Tick this if you've scaled at all in your project.
 
***
 
I never transcode to an intermediate unless my computer can't play back footage in real time. You don't gain anything visually, as all processing is done in 32-bit. The colour you lost at compression in camera  was, you guessed it, lost at compression in camera. Turning 8-bit to 10-bit won't give you any benefit, so if your computer is powerful enough, edit native
 
5D to RGB did have some arguable benefit, intelligently reshaping the red channel of 4:2:0 footage, but Premiere is pretty good at it all to be honest, so I'd save the disk space and time.
 
Being able to output ProRes from PC is great, as many film festivals and clients  want it.

Try www.videoink.co.uk/musicvideoproduction

I have a completely new site coming out in 2 weeks with a new look and loads more vids, but plenty to see there :)

ha.. "i don't get this place". 
 
as if there was any consensus on this forum.

That was originally what film LUTs were designed for. But who distributes on film nowadays?
 
I think the ImpulZ LUTs are definitely meant to be part of a colour grading workflow, and not a substitute for grading. Some of them are very subtle. They're a lot of fun. I blog a bit about it here:
http://marginaliafilm.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/using-impulz-luts-to-grade-hdslr-footage/
And here's my test on vimeo, only 720p I'm afraid:

The generic Rec.709 LUTs work really well with the G6 footage. If GH4 users aren't keen on the Cinelike D profile they could shoot with a natural profile and try the Rec.709 LUTs rather than the GH4 specific ones. 
 
Right, time to watch Mexico v Cameroon

If you need an empty city for a postapocalyptic movie, you can do this with this camera at night :) Great footage.

https://vimeo.com/97877583
Just a test with Neutral Creative Style. I tested DRO at Level 5 and on OFF to see how it would impact the image. I can't say I see a real big difference if any at all,at least in this shooting scenario.
  frame rate-24P creative style-neutral shutter-50 iso-100 post-curves,color corrector,saturation eq filter-neewer variable nd glass-sony 35mm 1.8 OSS editor-Vegas Pro 12  
 Download footage straight from camera re-wrapped in DNxHD MOV. files. we.tl/hpFXN2C0pO

From the bullet points OP made, it doesnt sound like there was any new info from that webcast except that Panasonic acknowledge the audio issue as a hardware problem.
 
@Michael: The thing is that I have not noticed as much love for the GH4 as you seem to have. Not that I love it either (pretty happy with what I have already). Every clip of the GH4 posted is met with quite a lot of criticism either about the sharpness, dynamic range, low light performance and/or colour. And then there's people like me who have shot with these Panasonic cameras and know their potential, so I do get a little frustrated at the backlash but meh, I cant change opinions so why bother caring so much? What I will agree with is that there are too many fucking GH4 threads. And that includes this one,

The better camera doesnt improve his filmaking. His filmaking ability was always there. It just enables him to get even nicer shots :)

I've never understood why people care that much about "jello" anyway. In most situations it just doesn't come into play. 

I will lighten up (not that im actually angry) when people stop making the same nonsensical/ill-informed arguments about why one camera is better than the other. My favourite is the "sharp = video" one, which makes no sense because I've never used a video camera that has been as sharp as DSLR footage. Unless we're talking about those ones that cost tens of thousands that are used in sports stadiums.

Why did this need its own topic? There are already plenty of GH4 threads you could've slipped this garbage in.
 
To get a great image out of the 5D3 you need to shoot RAW, which has its issues (stability, storage, etc). Otherwise you get something inferior to the GH3 even (

jonpais thank you so much for the feedback and critique, I learned a ton from this shoot being a one man band. There's a million things I will do differently on the next one.
 
inazuma the actors were actually friends of mine who have never acted before, just doing favors for me. I actually did shoot just about the entire film on the glidecam, good eye!! I'm in the process of a regrade right now and will upload for review. Thank you very much for your input! 
 
Thanks Guys!

Had a go with my newly aquired GH4 today. Took a short trip to local cemetery in bleeding harsh noon sunlight. Everything shot with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 Ai-s and ND. Shot in 4K and cropped to 2K in AE. Graded with a lut only. Used James Millers settings with minor adjustments. Aspect set to 1:2.40 for the infamous "movie/film-aspect ratio".
Sorry for only still images taken from the edit. Have not been able to render out yet, but wanted to share what I consider a fantastic value-for-money camera. I think it captures wonderful images I can't wait to explore it more.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just looked at that video, and I have no idea what you are talking about.  The reviewer said, "If I really had to compare it (the D4S) to the GH4, I would have to say they are so close, as to be basically equal." 
 
Michael

Wait, there's a face in that picture?

Better DR and finer detail on GX7, but I see some artefacts on the building on the left at 00:13 in the Panasonic's video and a lot of "dancing noise" in dark areas. As someone already said these are two great cameras with some limits and issues. Thanks for your useful video, Inazuma.

First off, I'd either remove the feet or tie them up.
 
I'd say what you show in the video is pretty normal. The reason it keeps swinging is because you have it well balanced (like a gyroscope). If you want it to stop naturally faster you can speed-up the drop time, but there isn't any need to do that really. You just need to do what you do in the video - stop it with your hand. But grab it gently, just below the gimbal between your thumb and forefinger. And keep them there, barely touching it - that's how you keep it steady and "aim" it. Just very delicately encourage the position and movement you want with your fingers.
 
Don't worry, I had the same reaction when I first got it. It takes quite a bit of time to learn how to balance and fly, but I can balance it easily in 5 min now. Flying it just takes a lot of practice.
 
Check out Nitsan Simantov's YouTube channel (also an EOSHD member btw). He has a few MonoCam videos (below), but he does good tutorials on flying other Glidecam type stabilisers and they all work the same. He knows his stuff.
 

 

 
The most useful thing I can tell you is don't expect to use it all the time. It's only appropriate for certain shots (mainly because you can't control the camera or lens while flying it). I'm very pleased with mine though ...

There seems to be various pissing matches concerning specs of this camera and that. At the end of the day, does it produce an image you like and how useable it is? I'm in prep for a movie I start in a few weeks. Intended for theatrical release we need IQ that'll hold up to the big screen. So we tested F55 vs Dragon vs Alexa. The tests were precise and extensive: ISO, over / under exposure, all with people and Macbeth Color Charts. Because of the tight schedule, I wanted the smaller cameras (f55 and Dragon) to be as good or better than the Arri. So we graded and projected the results at a full on commercial grade suite with a 15' screen.
 
The producer and director immediately felt the Arri was a hands down the better image. They couldn't quantify it. Being a tech, for me and the colorist, it all came down to flesh tones and color grade across the entire exposure range. When we wrestled with the F55 to get a rich honest flesh tone, the color chart was completely off (read: extra time in post keying and windowing that no one wants to pay for). The Epic came close, having quietest noise at all ISO's, but it too had some flesh tone issues as well as color aberrations in clipped areas. Worth noting, we shot the Alexa at 444 Pro Rez, not Arri Raw. How does it retain its amazing colors? Trading pixels for color space, instead of spreading your butter too thin.
 
Why do I bring this up? Because much of the conversations here obsess about pixel count, DR and other specs but few mention how well it grades the human face and how the grade effects your back ground colors. When I compare cameras, it's the first thing I look at (and what audience's pay the most attention to). The F55 despite it's stellar specs is dead to me as a feature film camera. We don't make movies for techs.
 
So I'm holding my judgement on the GH4 until I see some footage, not of rocks, bridges and buildings at night, cars, aggressive music video LUT's but just attempts to shoot faces, graded as naturally as can be. This is what attracted me to the BMC line up. I felt the colors were honest, requiring little work out of the box. I believe this is much of the success of the C300/500 line (see Hurlbut tests) despite being 8 bit and clippy on the high end. The F55 held highlights 6 stops over key. Insane DR. But specs do not a great image make. We also tested Scheider Xenars vs Cooke S4's vs Super Speeds. The sharpest of the bunch, the Schneiders were the F55 of lenses. Soulless paperweights.

I am in talks with some professional musicians and film scorers here in Berlin and have discovered some real talent... The average quality of their work far exceeds the current music licensing libraries and it is more original, more interesting.
  I am thinking therefore some kind of music licensing service might be useful to offer on EOSHD especially with the Vimeo copyright problem filmmakers are facing. I don't want to see people sued for copyright infringement when they are just trying to express themselves and their art.
 
Some of the pros I know here are doing really high end audio - we're talking Hans Zimmer & feature film standard. However these are professionals and we need to pay them. It is simply not going to wash using a track for free that took them 6 months of recording time in studios that charge $400 per day.
 
I'm wondering what a fair and acceptable rate would be for licensing? I want it to start low to be accessible to artists but scale up to commercial work in the right way. Typical prices at the Music Bed range from a minimum of $50 for non-profit to $399 for commercial work and for larger scale commercial work custom quotes are required.
 
EOSHD music licensing would be different.
 
For personal work or zero budget short films on Vimeo / YouTube (non-commercial)
$19 - 1 track
$50 - 5 tracks
$99 - 10 tracks
 
For commercial work - small clients (<10 employees) and non-profit organisations
$50 - 1 track
$99 - 5 tracks
$199 - 10 tracks
 
For commercial work - large clients (>10 employees) and advertisements
$199 - 1 track
$399 - 5 tracks
Custom quote - 10 tracks
 
For features, documentaries and short films with a crew
$199 - 1 track
$499 - 5 tracks
Custom quote - 10 tracks
 
Of course before you buy you can play all tracks in full on EOSHD to see if they are what you need.
 
I'd like some feedback on this first before I decide to go ahead with it or not as the amount of work involved here is very significant.
 
In particular what do you need from such a service?
What projects do you need music for... And what do you think of the pricing?
 
Cheers!

All I can think of is that the bulb is dimmed or lower wattage, maybe some milky coating on the glass. Probably someone has a better explanation.
Edit: Also I suppose that everything is placed further away from the black background, so light from the bulb doesn't spill on the background.