utsira

Are these tools meant to be used for general color grading? Because NoFilmSchool says really LUTs are supposed to be used at the final stage to make up a difference between monitor colour and film print

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

I've been using it with the G6, it's a lot of fun so far. I'll try to post some tests in a day or two.

Shame, 4K only at 30 fps... no 25/24? :( Maybe PAL model with 25 fps?

 

Edit: Yep, EU model shoots 25 fps: http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-digital-cameras---point-and-shoot/bridge-cameras/dmc-fz1000eb.specs.html

 

Apart from that, amazing specs...

According to DP Review, it does 24 fps in 1080p mode only, 4K is 30. Seems a bit mean of Panasonic....

 

http://***URL removed***/articles/4245510255/panasonic-fz1000-not-just-another-superzoom

APS-C vs 4/3. 4/3 format is a bastard talking about cinema standard. Between Super 16mm and 35mm. Less cinematic image and not video image too.

Nothing wrong with being a bastard. We should embrace its bastard-ness!

 

Besides, there were all sorts of film gauges besides 16 and 35, 17.5, 18, 21 etc

I don't think the speedbooster offers aperture control? And who knows when the EF will appear and RJ is plenty sharp so I'm happy. The only time I want to stop down outdoors is when you want your wide nice and sharp, I wouldn't stop down for light, I'd use the ND. I just set the Sigma to whatever and swap it out, takes 5 seconds.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your set-up, that answers a lot of my questions.
 
I think e-mount is heaven for adapting manual primes (and some of the system primes are really nice too), but I've come to the conclusion that trying to get a fast zoom on e-mount is too much hassle, for me anyway.
 
edit: just found an interesting solution in a different thread:
 
>
 

Solution is simple: buy a cheap Canon EOS focal reducer, a Sigma 18-35mm with Nikon mount and a Nikon F to Canon EOS adapter with aperture control. Voila.

 
 

Yes, you have to set it on the Canon, but in reality most of my shooting will be at 1.8f whenever I can, unless I need a establishing shot with this Lens for some reason? But I have a Panasonic 12mm for that anyway.

Wow, 1.8 plus a speed booster. Presumably with a variable nd filter for exposure?

 

I wouldn't be prepared to give up aperture control or carry an extra body around, personally speaking. I guess that's partly why the metabones ef speed booster, or the smart adaptor (the one that isn't a focal reducer, but has the electronic contacts) is worth the extra money.

 

The situation is worse with e-mount than m43, as there are no fast zooms for e-mount. What would the best bet be, for a fast wide-ish zoom on apsc (ie 18-35 or thereabouts) e-mount? $400 smart adapter (aperture, af, OIS, EXIF) plus apsc zoom like the Sigma 18-35 1.8? Or cheaper lens turbo focal reducer ($160 or less) and something with an aperture ring?

Oh yes, I have no nikon lenses and lots of Canon and Vintage Lenses adapted to Canon EF. I didn't want to buy a Metabones and Nikon 18 -35mm because it would mean nothing for my Canon gear, plus I get to use the 18 -35 on both my 600D and BMPCC.

How do you change aperture? Do you temporarily put the lens on  a canon body before you put it on the lens turbo?

I think my previous post was a little incoherent, I'll have another go.

 

So far, almost all my lenses are manual primes, Nikkor, and some M-mount stuff. I like having the aperture ring, lovely direct-drive focus rings (ie not fly-by-wire), as well as the slight softness, funky rendering/ bokeh etc of older glass. Also, I have both m43 and e-mount (APSC) bodies, so being able to use the same lenses on different cameras (using only dumb adaptors so far) is great. I like not being tied in to one system.

 

However, it's difficult and expensive to go wider than 24mm, which isn't particularly wide on either crop sensor. So, I'm thinking:

 

a. get a cheap focal reducer, probably the Lens Turbo. Metabones is out of my budget unfortunately (of course this won't work for the M mount stuff)

 

b. get a zoom. I don't have a zoom currently. I'm zoom curious. 

 

The question is, is it a good idea to combine these two purchasing impulses? ie put a zoom onto a lens turbo? As I was trying to get at in my previous post, there must be ergonomic issues with doing this, given the lack of electronic contacts on the lens turbo? (eg would you need, say, a canon body to change the aperture on a canon zoom? would it be best to stick with something that has an aperture ring, like the Nikon D series?) It'd be really helpful if people could comment on this from an ergonomic/ practical perspective.

 

Or, with zooms, is it better to forgo interoperability with different mounts and bodies, and get a system zoom?

I have a few questions about using modern zooms such as the sigma 18-35 on one of the lens turbo focal reducers. Given that the cheaper focal reducers don't have electronic contacts like the metabones, presumably you can't change aperture, autofocus, or use ois? Would I be better off with a manual zoom (ai-s) or at least one with an aperture ring (nikon d series)? I have no experience with putting zooms on focal reducers, so far I've been using primes on dumb adaptors (mostly Nikkor Ai-s).

Got my RJ Turbo EF- M43 today and tried it on my Sigma 18 -35mm and Pancolar 50mm on my BMPCC and WOW, works great, can't fault it really sharp!! So glad I didn't go down the Nikon mount Sigma 18 -35mm and Nikon Metabones route!!

Can I ask why you're glad you didn't do the Nikon mount route? I was thinking of picking up an f-mount lens turbo (I know that nikon mount is less adaptable than others because of the longer flange distance, but my thinking was, most of my lenses are ai-s, and I can't be bothered to add little nikon-to-ef rings to all of them). I was wondering if you were just talking about the greater adaptability of the EF mount, or are there other advantages to the lens turbo EF mount version?

Hi guys, good info here. I have been editing with FCP X for a while now, all footage is AVCHD from the Sony A7, 24p 24Mbits/s. I have a Mac Pro 2012 so for me there is no reason to optimise media on import, so I edit natively. I rarely apply any effects, just doing cuts, sountrack and titles most of the time, so the performance is great all around.

 

I currently use FCP X sharing pane as follows:

- Export File

- Format: computer

- Video Codec: h264

- Multi Pass

 

This export settings output files with a bitrate of around 20-21Mbit/s so lower than the original 24Mbit/s. I also tried to export a Master File which automatically transcodes the native files into Pro Res and the resulting files are much larger with around 5-6 times the native bitrate of 24Mbit/s. The thing is how could the native AVCHD 24Mbit/s file have a 110Mbit/s after export, even though I have not transcoded it on import? (for some reason FCP X transcodes it into ProRes on export as master file). The quality could not be 5 time higher right? And it's not, it's identical to my eyes.

 

So my question to you: how should I export, or how do you export the final output in order to preserve the initial quality of the AVCHD 24Mbit/s that I shoot with? I don't want inflated or lower bitrates on export.

 

My output file is for archiving on external HDD, I make movies for myself with family and friends, so it's not meant for any sharing websites and should be the best quality, as close or a clone of the original in terms of quality. 

 

Maybe I lack some understanding of AVCHD bitrates and what I ask sound stupid. :)

 

Thanks.

Did you check that the original files from the camera are 24 mbps? I don't have the A7, but on most cams ( including the NEX series) it's a variable bit rate, so depending on how busy the shot is, the average bit rate of the file varies quite a bit below the theoretical maximum of 24 mbps (my NEX 5N shots seem to average out at around 20 point something, according to MPEG streamclip file > show stream info. The OMD-EM5 averages around 18 point something mbps, ie also a few bits below that particular camera's maximum level of 20 mbps). So the 20-21 mbps export might not be losing anything.

Fabulous. Loved the rubbish bin in the snow, the gun shot sequence, the crayon drawing (calligraphy?)

I just recently picked up a second hand EM5, only been using it for a couple of weeks.

 

Very obvious question, but what IS settings are you using? IS1 corrects all movement, but for pans you could try IS2, which only corrects vertical wobble. This will stop the camera trying to "correct" for the horizontal movement of your pan. If you're using a non-system lens, you also need to manually set the focal length for IS. Apologies if this is all things you tried.

 

I haven't used iMovie for a while, are you transcoding the footage into optimized media when you import? In FCPX I find that if you're just doing a few light edits you can get away with using the out-of-camera footage. If you're doing anything more strenuous than that, even just a very light grade, then the OOC files fall apart, so I recommend converting to optimized media (if I remember, iMovie has a similar setup to FCPX, giving you the option to transcode to optimized media?)

 

I just use 1080 Fine, haven't experimented with Normal. I imagine it's a lower bitrate though? (not that the manual explains anywhere what it is....) Edit: OK, the person on page 2 of the thread reckons the bitrate is the same for fine and normal, I'll have to experiment with that. One interesting tip I picked up somewhere is to use a custom shadows curve (ie shadows +2, highlights -2) and leave contrast on 0, to get more DR. I haven't compared this to using a flat curve with contrast -2 tho.

 

As Andrew explained in his original post, it is quite easy to make the image fall apart, if you pan too quickly, especially over a detailed, deep focus scene. It is a little more blocky than the best 24 mbps implementations of AVCHD. But for close-up work, you get a really nice image I find.

If that is true then demonstrate to me using a graphic such as mine how a speedbooster provides more light and increases exposure.

Your own graphic demonstrates this (the first one you did). It is the density of the rays, not the number of rays, that determines the brightness of the image. So yes, 4 rays are hitting the full frame sensor vs 2 for the crop, but those rays are spread over a much bigger area. The speedbooster makes the image brighter because the density of the rays is increased. 

Dishe, Andrew, again appreciate the discussion thank you.
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing but so far I do not understand how what I am stating is wrong.
But I will gladly learn something and stand corrected.
 
I do understand that sensor pixel size is to be taken into consideration when talking about exposure of the sensor, larger sensors generally having larger pixels than crop ones for instance. And architecture as far as gaps between pixels and the amount of pixels. 
 
In order for me to understand your arguments, can we proceed step by step?
 
Can we begin solely with light intensity? Regardless of sensor specs.
 
What I don't understand in your arguments is regarding the intensity of the light, focused by speedbooster or not.
 
For the sake of understanding here is a lens that has an aperture that lets through 4 rays of light:
Is this correct or is this wrong?
 

But in the full frame example the 4 rays are spread over a much larger surface. The crop sensor is just that, a crop. It doesn't make the cropped area brighter or darker. That is why almost everyone on the planet does not multiply aperture by the crop factor.

This sample is for grading as requested with trees.

Please let me know if you want some other settings:

10 o"clock in the morning with full bright sun

Portrait mode: -3, -3, -3

24 fps (24 Mbps bitrate)

1080p

white balance: 5000K without any colour filter

Shutter: 1/50

Apperture: f/5.6

ISO: auto (but it must be near the basic)

DR Level: Level 2 (it increases DR but can introduce some noise in night shooting).

Exposure metering: center weighted (and not wide, thats why there are highlights burned at the edges of the screen)

Lens: SEL 50mm f/1.8 OSS

Steadyshot: ON

 

I had the following filters on the lens:

- CPL polarized filter (but forgot !!! to turn it based on the reflections - I had my mind somewhere else)

- ND X2

- ND X4

It was too bright (South Europe) so I preferred to have more filters on the lens and keep ISO in auto mode (easy solution).

 

ok, here we are:

dropbox link

 

Since I am learning now how to grade, if you manage to grade it as you like, please tell me also the workflow you used:

e.g. transcode to specific codec?

what you used to grading?

what effects? (Saturation, Gamma, Red curves, etc.)

 

Thank you.

It seems like there is very little rolling shutter. The pan at around 38 secs, very quick, the verticals stay pretty much vertical.

 

It does seem a shame that the last 2 cameras Sony announced have XAVC-S (the RX100 Mk 3 and the A7S). The A7S os obviously a lot more expensive and high-end, but the RX100 III is $800. It's as if the A6000 just missed out, or perhaps Sony think that a really high-end APSC camera could cannibalise A7 sales. I wouldn't hold my breath for an XAVC-S firmware upgrade from Sony. I am tempted to trade in my NEX-6 for this though, rather than wait a generation for an a7000 or whatever. I don't know how much of a difference 50 mbps would make. Would you only notice it in busy, deep focus shots?

I think some of the recommendations on this thread are complete overkill for AVCHD/ 422 Prores. I'm always surprised at how well FCPX runs on my mid-2012 Macbook Air (i5 1.7ghz), almost the lowest-spec. True, I'm not sure what would happen if you attempted a feature-length project, and I assume that 4K and raw video are out, and you can't run Resolve (no discrete graphics), but for short 422 Prores projects, FCPX flies along, basically. If you use intensive effects like Optical Flow you have to be a little patient, but everything renders away in the background and the interface doesn't slow down so you can carry on working on other parts of the project. If you pile the effects on really thick then that part of the project will drop frames during playback, but I don't see that too often. USB 3 external drives work great. 

Was tempted to vote lenses, but went for grading, as I thought there's already a lot of focus on gear on the forum, and not enough on process. I think the screening room, creative ideas fora, currently sub forums (sub fora?) could be promoted to the main page (ie have a series of main fora on the front page, instead of one main forum).

Looks interesting, I might have to pick up a copy! 

 

Do you look at many lenses that have a short-ish flange distance (ie Leica M mount, Pen-F, and other rangefinder formats)? Is that the "small and compact" chapter? Is the "Contax Zeiss" chapter about the Contax G mount, the 29mm flange distance?

 

It looks as if you mainly cover SLR format glass. I've never been that happy with the ergonomics of, say, Nikon Ai-S on an NEX-6, because the adaptor is so long, 28mm or so. But longer-flange distance glass is so readily available, so cheap, and I guess doesn't have the CA issues that some wideangle rangefinder glass has on a mirrorless mount. Are you basically suggesting that long flange distance lenses are the way to go?

Her is a link to my water and dog video..hope it looks better than on vimeo ..but i´m no pro..so go easy on me
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIIHm_0eJUw&list=UUyu3cHtoRbF6R9aJ8hucKHg
 
I also have a  Sony A6000 video with Canon fd Lenses
 

How's the rolling shutter on the A6000?

Andrew are you planning on doing a full review of this?

Of course it has an internal mic, yes :)

 

AVCHD clip uploaded https://copy.com/edilC2jd0kbi

 

Investigate what you can put in the hotshoe in terms of audio support. I am researching this for final review but it will be a week or so away yet.

The link isn't working for me. It takes me to a copy.com page with no visible files, pressing "save all" creates an error.

 

Really keen to see this. I got a cheap second-hand NEX6, fantastic for stills, but as many have pointed out (Johnnie Behiri, Brandon Li), the video is awful, almost un-useable, worst moire and aliasing I've seen. A real disappointment after the 5N (which was reasonable on the moire front IMO). Looks like I might be trading the 6 in for a 6000 tho....

Maybe my standards are too low, but I couldn't see anything wrong in these shots (I watched it on vimeo, but didn't download the MP4). Are the issues he's talking about in these shots, or did they get cut? He says he added sharpness in post, but doesn't say anything about noise reduction, or having to abandon shots due to moire.

 

With the NEX 6 video he did, he did a separate out-take video with notes in the comments showing the aliasing he was talking about: https://vimeo.com/53577244

 

Perhaps there'll be an out-take reel for the 70D too...

Thanks both of you for the advice. Another thing you often hear is people talking about "losing the advantages of raw" at a certain point in their workflow, which I guess means making a decision about "baking in" an exposure and white balance. I guess that if I have ProRes in FCPX I'd still a lot of latitude in the final edit tho.

Hi there

 

I'm thinking of getting a 50D, but I'm a bit worried that I don't have Adobe Photoshop/ACR, Lightroom or Premiere, which seem to figure heavily in people's workflows. Has anyone tried processing ML raw video outside of the Adobe ecosystem? Nothing against adobe, I just can't afford to invest in a different platform right now.

 

I have Aperture, FCPX, and DaVinci Resolve Lite. Anyone have any suggestions for what a non-adobe workflow might look like? I am going to be at a disadvantage compared to those in adobe-world? :-) 

 

Andrew, does your 50D raw video book cover non-adobe workflows?

 

thanks