iamoui

I've been using 5D3 Magic Lantern RAW for a few years now and it's my personal gold standard for image quality as I'm very familiar with it, can predict the results I'll get in various situations and have developed my own look that I like using in post. I do a lot of documentary and corporate stuff and wanted to do more handheld, so I got the GH5 for its IBIS, 10bit V-Log, 4K and general ease of use. Although the GH5's colour is an improvement on its predecessors, the 5D3 is nicer looking to me. So I wanted to see if I could tweak the GH5's VLog colour to be more similar to the colour I get from Magic Lantern Cinelog-C, processed via Adobe Camera Raw (other debayering workflows will give different results).
I shot a chart with both cameras, extracted the squares and put them side by side in Resolve. V-Log on the left, ML on the right:
 

 
I used Hue v Hue and Hue v Sat to line up the signal on the vectorscope:
 

 
Here you can see the effect of this correction.This is accurately white balanced V-Log (default colour) with a curve and saturation added:
 

 
And here's the same shot with the colour correction applied:
 

 
Skin goes from green-ish to pink-ish. Reds become more saturated, blues are pulled back. Foliage separates out into varying shades of yellow to green to blue-sh green, rather than being one big block of pure green. So next, I wanted to test this by comparing the same shots to Magic Lantern RAW. Would this correction really turn my GH5 into a handheld and more usable version of my 5D3?
I stuck the GH5 on top of the 5D3. I shot the 5D3 at 3520 x 1320 (the maximum resolution I can get that's both continuous and at a sensible aspect ratio) - this has a crop factor of 1.63x. ISO was 100, and aperture at f5.6 on the Canon 24-105. The GH5 was 10 bit V-Log, Cinema 4K, ISO 400, aperture f4 (roughly equivalent) on the Leica 12-60. I used shutter speed to control exposure, so motion blur is different between shots. It seems like the GH5 has around 0.66 stops more info in the highlights at the same exposure as the 5D, so I shot it one stop over to maximise DR.
 
 
First I corrected the 5D shots to the way I wanted them to look. Then I tried to get the GH5 to match. It's not a perfect match by any means, there are individual hues that tend to go awry a little, especially in the first shot. But for me the exercise is a success: the GH5 footage looks more like Canon Magic Lantern than it would straight out of the camera. And I would be happy to intercut the two, or to use the GH5 in situations that are more suited to its features. The take home message is that V-Log has a lot of grading potential - you're not necessarily stuck with Panasonic's colours on this camera.
A nice surprise for me was how much detail is in the 3.5K 5D files compared to Cinema 4K GH5, especially when sharpened. However, it's not very practical to shoot in its high resolution modes at the moment, due to the slow refresh rate of the LCD preview.
If you want to check out the files yourself, here are a series of matched pairs of 5D DNGs, and GH5 V-Log TIFFS.
FOLDER:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFdi1FZ3hma09YZms
ALL FILES ZIPPED:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwzsbjMgrAwzTFJZby0xSTV6VmM

Of these, Blackmagic's really the only company that has traditionally announces camera slates at NAB. Usually these companies prefer their own event or IBC.
The new Panny looks good but perhaps they're not ready and/or are after an audience a little more in-line with who they're but targeting.
Also, most of these companies already have relatively new cameras, and usually camera manufacturers don't supersede or replace particularly quickly anymore (unless you're BM), especially when there's not all that much more to offer in the grand scheme.
And btw, Arri did release a new camera. And Sony released the A9.
I think there's heaps of exciting stuff from NAB this year, and I'm looking forward to seeing Panasonic's new cam.
I wouldn't call it a bust at all. Sure, there are significantly fewer new cameras announced, but you just can't have a slate of new cameras every single year....
Took them long enough! Seems they're finally hitting their stride. Hoping for good things. They've always made really good cameras, they just went through a weird and incredibly slow-to-adapt 5ish-year phase...

If you want to ban someone for pointing out real log is different to your flat profile (which is really good and useful, btw)... Then ban away.... I thought you liked honesty though?

I'm tempted to register there just to reply to him that the only way we'll definitively know if Canon are ripping us off is if we have to pay by Western Union and Canon tell us their mother is posting the 5DMKIVs back.

Found another video this one is NX1 vs GH5 straight up... I believe hes a Korean brother... Figured I would post here rather than make a new thread...
It seems the NX-1 is way sharper (can be good or bad depending) and the 10bit color on GH5 does look a little "Thicker" but I could easily get them to match in resolve... 
also I dont think he has NX-1 is in standard color profile if you dont want to correct much it looks great.. 
Guess im not the only one going down with the Samsung ship!  Trapped in a velvet coffin!  
That is all..

I've been toying around with the idea of using an FD speedbooster on the GH5 for more organic looking video, and then for my stills camera using a Canon AE-1 film camera. Best of both worlds for stills and video? 

So if one had a lot of old Canon FD lenses, so no benefit from AF, what camera body would be good if running a metabones speedbooster? Would a Sony APS-c body be the only one to use the whole lens but also have ibis? Or would an Olympus or G85 be an idea to match lens and body size? Probably only for photos.

Cool shit that's been announced at NABs passed:
A7S URSA Mini Micro Cinema Camera C300 MKII XC10 Terra 5K GH4

Trust me, it isn't a camera thing, it's a world wide phenomenon. Trump v Hillary, United v screeching man, gender v genderless, sjw v everything. It's not critical articles that are different, but the reaction to them. All or nothing in a world of grey, anything to lift people out of a feeling of mediocrity and give them a pretend sense of both self importance and relevance despite become even more irrelevant. Even Neistat programs to them with the idea to boycott. Sigh. I've got a very big list of very small things that I either don't understand (usb-c but no power) or think are fishy and will be fixed (live view not working in hdr with angle/iso set) and about 2 things on the good list. And the good list still wins. By a long way. Loooooong way. 

+1
The guy is making $120k/mo off his channel and he's pulling in $$$ from Samsung, CNN and others along with getting tons of free shit to review or just get mentioned in his videos. He's creative and his stuff obviously resonates, kudos to anyone that can carve out a niche and make a living doing what you like. I'm still amazed that people making videos of themselves playing video games are even more popular, or applying makeup, or many of the things I don't do that seem mundane. While searching for guitar technique videos, I stumbled across videos of a beautiful woman with a big rack that just plays covers on a guitar wearing low cut tops and she gets millions of hits. I'm on her level guitar wise, no way I'd get more than a few hundred hits. Go figure.
Cheers

Respect to the guy for creating a style. Respect for filming every day. Respect for using every available tool at his disposable and getting rid of it if it doesn't work, for putting himself out there and being so open to criticism. It's not my thing, it's not my genre, but I really can't help but have a lot of respect for the guy. It's always easy to dig on folks because they're popular, and a million times harder to get to that level.
Casey represents one side of filmmaking that I suck at. Marketing, being inventive and making shit work if it doesn't go your way, finding solutions when it'd be easier to just say it won't work. I like that, and I'll drop by his channel sometimes to get some inspiration and motivation. It's refreshing to take a break away from conversations about bit rates and colour banding and things that aren't at all related to just telling a story.

The NX1 beats every other body at hijacking threads, but joking aside, there were tests showing that the NX1 can't write the fastest UHS-II cards at more than 60MB/s, so it's not ideal for RAW recording.

Marques Brownlee (a tech reviewer) did a Casey Neistat studio tour a while ago, he indeed uses an A7RII as his fix set-up studio cam. An 80D as overhead cam at his work station. RX100 V as pocket cam (like for... plane bathrooms). iPhone for just always having it with him. GoPros perhaps. However... the main vlogging camera has for the longest while been a Canon 70D (on a Joby Gorillapod, with either Shure or RØDE video mics). Then switched to the 80D... then had the urge to go 4K and yes, up to recently he had been using the A6500. But... he hates not being able to see himself and that's exactly the problem if you have a microphone mounted on the hotshoe and no vari-angle side frontfacing screen... which made him have to mark the lens with a white marker/tipp-ex to make sure the lens is zoomed out and lined up at that setting. Then you have the nauseating rolling shutter of the Sony... and well, that's not the greatest if you move around on a board and being hella active. Then there's the threat of having your recordings stopped at any moment due to overheat protection kicking in... that cannot happen to a content creator, sometimes there's no re-dos. Also... when recording in sunlight with the A6500 the screen dims... so if he would be behind the camera filming something, he'd have a hard time seeing what the hell is going on.
So yeah... what do you do in that situation? I'd search for the next best thing that you can make work. A reliable camera with front-facing screen that doesn't dim on you, good rolling shutter performance, sensor stabilization. No 4K: no Canon EOS-M. No frontfacing screen/sensor stabilization: no Samsung NX1, no Fujifilm X-T2. So you automagically end up at Panasonic/Olympus that do everything right. Reliable cameras: check. 4K: check. Excellent rolling shutter performance: check. Vari-angle screen: check. Sensor stabilization: check. 'C-AF... well, it already checked so many boxes, let's see if I can make it work'. That's probably the attitude. He just looked objectively, what is the best camera for my needs and I mean, the GH5 is just about the most ideal camera you can think of... and apparently he did make AF work for him (though, we have no way of telling getting those results was an easy task or if like maybe this is 20% of the footage shot that was actually usable and that he had to throw away a lot of good content or had to shoot 10 takes to get one good take...). So this could be a keeper. Until finally someone else with APS-C sensors steps up and makes an E-M1 Mark II/GH5 with APS-C sensor/performance and superb C-AF.

Yea... who'd want a forum member that occasionally disagrees with it's owner... In this instance, with a slight tongue in cheek remark.
I think i'll take your advice... Never been a big fan of dictators.

Well, it's no secret, he has been showing that in the Vlogs for a few weeks/months now, explaining why he switched and what his new setup was so....
He maybe trying the GH5 as a possible contender, why not, just to see what the hype is all about. The FACT is the last one is shot (at least in parts) with a GH5, meaning at least possible interest.
Good vloggers nowadays are the new filmmakers. Dismissing that is, i think, a mistake when you seen the content and quality some of them can put out every single day.
Storytelling is storytelling.

I know the actual video market is rather small on the big scheme of things. Yet... everyone pulls if off nontheless... Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Fujifilm... they're all adapting to fit everyone's needs. I didn't think we'd see an Olympus with 4K or vari-angle screen, but we did. I didn't think Fujifilm would embrace video, but they have. These brands aren't clinging on to traditionalism and are far from being stagnant like Canon and Nikon. Ultimately, evolutionary, adapt or get extinct! Now this might be a solid short term business plan and all this innovation is pretty 'fresh', but are they really planning to keep up their act? I mean, they gotta do what they gotta do, I have the option of not buying their shit, easy as that. But I'd rather they just came through, for everyone's sake.

Hi!

I've shot this film fully with GX80 (GX85) + ProColor.
All shots handheld with 5axis stab on.

I thought I will share the video, it shows this LUT capabilities:
 



Footage during night with ProColor LUT without noise reduction in editing, mostly ISO800:  https://youtu.be/E5nYXPcDk_g?list=PLY1xsQ047Gnh2maspLJuKMIUcv0KF_3Tu
 

 

Hopefully when you run your billion dollar camera company, you can show them how it's done!

2real4me. 

Yeah but she still has the best skin tone and still pretty hot. You kinda wish you could hook up with her again (even just once) if it wasn't for all her issues and the fact that she's a gold digger. 

Here a small test :
3009 x 1280@24p (upscale to 4k) + 14 bits lossless = continuous shooting.
I used the new ML Cinelog-C to Ektar 100 LANDSCAPE lut of @hyalinejim
Graded in Davinci Resolve 12.5, edited in Premiere.
 
 

No offense meant to you personally, but the more people throw over the top teal & orange grade to everything, the more I f..king hate it. For me this video looks great in terms of image quality but its ruined with that grade.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

Although I respect Mr. Caldwell for his optical engineering prowess and for his high-quality products, his "calling your tests valid" (please provide a link to this statement) certainly "isn't proof of anything."  In addition, Mr. Caldwell might not desire your dragging his name into this discussion.
 
In regards to my "referring to bad tests done by others" as not being proof, note that not only did I criticize the setups of the tests but that I also analyzed the results of the tests.  Those results show a difference in DOF/focus between optics made for different formats, a point which you still have yet to address.
 
Perhaps you (or Mr. Caldwell) could  explain why the "beer bottle" equivalence test shows the BG bush/car to be conspicuously sharper in the Iphone image than in the FF Nikon image.
 
 
Perhaps we should first thoroughly analyze the results of the tests done so far, instead of glossing over the information and dismissing discrepancies out-of-hand.
 
 
Why would one do a comparison test and not focus on the differences in the results?  My guess is that such a tester does not want to contend with results that he/she is biased against.
 
 
Again, dismissal out-of-hand...
 
 
Mr. Ezcurra is clearly referring to how the Cyclops works and to the making of the Cyclops in the passage you quoted.  He is not commenting about the results of the Cyclops.
 
There are several videos on Mr. Ezcurra's Vimeo channel that show the unique look of both the "full" and "mini" Cyclops versions.  Again, if you (or anyone else) can duplicate this look with just a S16 camera and S16 lens, I will give US$100.

No.  It's not.
As I just said, the fact is that all of the equivalence tests so far show a difference in DOF/focus between lenses made for different formats.  I would be happy to point out those differences to you once again.
So, given the DOF/focus differences inherent in all of the equivalence comparisons up until now, the "burden of proof" is on those who deny those results.
 
 
I said that I would not bother to do a test unless it involved two extremely different formats, so that the differences are undeniable.  The differences are already clearly visible in all of the equivalence tests so far, but biased testers and equivalence followers deny the results.
 
 
Your two tests were flawed in almost every way, so they are hardly worth considering, even though the results showed differences in DOF/focus between different focal lengths.
 
In the first place, you used the same lens for every single test image.  How do you expect to get a valid result if you use the same lens (made for a single format) in every test? 
 
And that lens is a zoom lens to boot, which means that its internal convergent/focal point doesn't necessarily move to different positions to match the positions of focal/convergent points of prime lenses with different focal lengths.  Using two different focal lengths on the same zoom lens is like using the same prime lens with and without a focal reducer -- there will be almost no difference in DOF/look between the two focal lengths.  To properly test equivalence, one must use two prime lenses with differing focal lengths and with each lens designed for a different format.
 
Secondly, you did not include any middle-ground in the frame that could reveal the character of DOF/focus fall-off.  This mistake seems common amongst those making tests biased toward equivalence.  Having only air between the foreground and a distant background renders useless any test of DOF range/falloff.
 
Thirdly, you misinterpreted/ignored/dismissed your results.  When you first posted your two tests long ago, I and others stated that we could see differences in the DOF/focus, but you and other equivalence supporters failed to address those points.  In a more recent thread, I used flashing GIF images with colored circles which pinpointed these differences.  You and the other equivalence folks dismissed these differences as slight imperfection inherent in testing equivalence that only becomes apparent in flashing GIF images, even though these differences are quite clear to me and others without the flashing GIFs.
 
Furthermore, in your second test, you eliminated the variable of in-camera sharpening -- lo and behold, the differences in DOF/focus became more dramatic.  However, you and other equivalence supporters glossed over these more conspicuous non-equivalent second test results and only "focused" on the first test in all of the discussions.
 
 
Such examples have already been linked several times on this forum.  You almost never respond to such links/points.
 
Notable examples would be the PhotographyLife "beer bottle" equivalence test (note the obvious differences in focus of the BG bush/car to the left of the bottle) and footage from Gonzalo Ezcurras extreme large format Cyclops cameras (if you can show a lens made for S16 that has this same, exquisite DOF roll-off/look, I'll give you US$100).
 
 
First, why don't you explain one-by-one each of the DOF/focus differences that I pointed out in your tests (especially the DOF differences in your second test).  Also, please explain the huge, conspicuous DOF/focus differences in the "beer bottle" test linked above, which compared an Iphone camera lens to a full frame camera lens.  Here is the first post covering my points on both of your tests and on the "beer bottle" test, and here is a further breakdown of your first test.
 
There are a lot of specific focus/DOF differences both in the BG and FG in the tests that you (and others) have already done which you have not yet reconciled.  Even the bokeh is substantially different in size and edge sharpness (both tell-tale signs of DOF differences).
 
As I stated before, I will do an equivalence comparison if I can obtain a S16 camera/lens and a large format camera/lens, but you or some other equivalence supporter must be present to oversee the camera settings.
 
In regards to the optical properties that might differ between various sized formats, once again, these have been posted several times in this forum.