jonpais

I'm viewing on my iPhone, but looks pretty good!

Have you shot Cinelike D?

For interviews, I don't think you'd want to place the microphone on camera. As close to the speaker's mouth as possible.... I think even a lesser mic positioned properly is going to give better results than the best mic in the world that's too far from the subject.

I go with insane.

Any reason why it should cost less? Do you believe Canon isn't offering enough features for the money, or is it your budget constraints? Because we all dream stuff cost less. I'd like Sigma to charge $2,000 for their cine lenses, but that ain't happening anytime soon. I'm not taking sides, I've got no intention of picking up a cinema camera anytime soon, but it seems to me that the C200B is a great deal at only $5,999.00 USD.

How about when you reduce levels on the microphone or mixer by -10 dB or -20 dB? Is this something to be concerned about?

Where did you see info about Sony releasing a full frame cinema camera?

Not a great example I guess.

I'm not sure why you believe underexposing by 1/2 stop is desirable, but here's what you asked for anyway - two different shots, one with the histogram bunched up to the left, the other exposed slightly to the right. Because of the strange way this website handles uploaded media, the images may appear darker than the originals and the colors will probably have changed as well. Before anyone says they prefer the warmer color of the first screen grab, be aware that I white balanced the two shots differently. Edit: I read your comment again and realized that's not what you requested. But I'm not sure why anyone would prefer underexposed shots to correctly exposed ones, so it's kind of baffling to me. If you shoot video, you know that it's always best to start with as much information as possible, then to pull midtones and shadows down in post. If the blown out buildings in the background of the second shot are distracting, the solution is to change the vantage point or shoot at a different time of day, not to give less exposure. Lifting shadows in post only leads to noise and possibly banding. But you already knew that I presume.

Why do you want to purchase outdated tech? The Nebula 4000 is just plain awful. Have you looked at the Zhiyun Crane?

I do care what you think, I like the colors as well, the skin tones look great (but like I said, I'm viewing it on my iPhone), but I'm wondering whether this is SOOC or graded.

I knew for certain that you would rush to contradict me. What's the matter with you? Gotta love the three exclamation points for emphasis. I'm not seeing anything here showing the greater dynamic range possible with Cinelike D. It could just as well have been shot with Standard. Wonder why only one person has shared an actual video up till now...

Automatic shutter? Do you mean you're shooting video using aperture priority? I'm seeing this on my iPhone, but it looks underexposed. Is this straight out of the camera?

Not sure why you've decided on this focal length, what it is you shoot, or why you'd want to lug all that weight around, but I'd go native - maybe the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8.

From Paul Leeming's Facebook page: A couple of ETTR examples from a feature film I shot a while ago which is just now hitting the festival circuit, called "The Trade", showing how ETTR allows for great shadow control with no noise. Knowing what you want to do with your image to achieve the end result when shooting, really helps once you actually get to post ;) These were shot with the GH4 in Portrait profile (before I ever made the first LUT, but was still shooting ETTR because I knew the benefits for post). And this from the Luminous Landscape "Why are we still using 100 year-old exposure technology?"

In the forums, someone can say they shoot exclusively vivid profile, recommend raising master pedestal +10 with all settings at -5, swear by idynamic or e-stabilization, or espouse increasing shutter speeds to 1/250 of a second rather than using an ND filter and no one will bat an eye. People can write any nonsense they like, such as even with sharpening set at -5, there is ugly sharpening being applied in firmware, but I've been shooting with sharpening at -3 with Leica and Olympus glass, and not a single person would say my images look oversharpened. They can claim there is clipping going on in a clip I shared where there is no such clipping to be found anywhere except in areas of no importance whatsoever. They can assert that shooting a 1/2 stop over results in bizarre skin tones, when in fact the the only limitation to getting good skin tones is accurate white balance in camera and good color correction skills. But suggest increasing exposure by 1/3 stop, and all hell breaks loose. Because often, that's all we're talking about here. At times it will be a bit more, but in many circumstances, for example, when shooting a high contrast scene, ETTR involves at most 1/3 stop increase in exposure, flat scenes, a bit more, maybe 1/2 stop or so. It must be understood too that we don't just arbitrarily narrow the aperture until all zebras disappear - if there are zebras in inessential areas of the image - specular highlights, reflections, what have you - it's okay to let them blow out. It's also necessary to understand that ETTR does not apply when shooting at high ISOs - it's most effective at base ISO, which in the case of the GX80, is probably ISO 200 or ISO 400. There is another misperception that if you want to shoot a dark scene, you should shoot it dark - in other words, with the histogram bunched up to the left. But that will only lead to noise in the shadows, little dynamic range and less color information. Give more exposure, then pull the mids and shadows down in post and the image will be cleaner. I don't need a white paper to know all this, it's just common sense. Pulling up shadows is a recipe for introducing noise into the image. I have said repeatedly not to take my word as authority, that everyone should do their own testing. But beware of people online giving advice who have no website, no work to show, no YT or Vimeo channel or who haven't even used the camera or picture profile we're talking about here.

Sure thing!

The fluorescent lights in the upper right and the patch of sky to the upper left just beneath the awning are clipping at or just above 100 IRE.

Settings are simple: -3 sharpening, -5 noise reduction. And a touch of coriander to taste.

The clips I just shared are SOOC. Presumably, if I had used the highlight/shadow pickers or the Leeming LUT, the results would look better. To the best of my knowledge, no one has done an extensive test of the X-Rite ColorChecker, Color Finale, Cinelike D and ETTR in the same review. I'm currently at work on one, but as usual, no scientific method, just examples how I shoot and color correct, what works for me. I strongly encourage everyone to do their own testing to see what works for them, and to not just follow what I or anyone else has to say. I blindly followed the opinion makers in forums for years, and my results were the worse for it.

I do own a Panny camera, I expose to the right, and footage isn't clipping the RGB parade. I believe the screen grabs I've shared show that if anything, highlights are more likely to clip in the Standard and Natural profiles, which also have considerably less dynamic range. And I'm not convinced that Panasonic's recommendation to lower gamma levels equals reducing exposure. And the only time my clips are orange with today's Panasonic cameras is when my white balance is off.

Share? Anyway, I can't find the link here, but here's my comparison. If anything, it looks like you'd want to give less exposure in Natural or Standard to save the highlights, Cinelike D can obviously benefit from even more exposure. Highlights are clipping faster in the other profiles, am I wrong? Forgive my ignorance about reading graphs, but I was educated in the USA. https://www.google.com/amp/s/jonpais.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/shouldnt-you-be-shooting-cinelike-d/amp/

I'm not sure that reducing gamma (or video level) by 1/2 is the same as reducing exposure by half. It's pretty certain from the screen grabs I've shared in another thread comparing Natural, Standard and CineLike D that the last thing you'd want to do is to underexpose CineLike D.

I should add that I do appreciate kidzrevil sharing his clips, which is more than most do on forums, here or elsewhere. if I were a newbie, I would be very skeptical of those voicing opinions on matters about which they have no work to back up their claims. If a person has no website or YT channel, I pretty much dismiss their comments outright, for better or worse. It also helps if uploaders show their waveform monitors in their NLE, etc, as well as giving information about the settings used in camera, as well as what was done in post processing, something few people do, but which I always include in my YT videos.