tupp

The Panasonic EVA1 was a great camera, giving the power of an FS7 (and arguably a prettier picture too) in the smaller form factor of a FS5, but.....  it had a few problems, a few examples:

1) came out too late, the FS7 had already got a firm grip on the low/mid end market (same problem the C300mk2/C300mk3 suffered from)
2) lacked a MFT Mount, thus couldn't build upon the huge huge success Panasonic had created with the GH series (and the rest of their MFT range)
3) Panasonic lacked a history in the S35 market to build upon, unlike Sony or Canon (which had their older F3/FS100/FS700 or C100/C300 etc). Not even on the high end did Panasonic have much of a track recorder having not long ago (relative to the EVA1 launch) brought out their Panasonic Varicam S35. 

The colourist in question was probably referring more to chroma noise, which I think we can all agree is pretty ugly and 'video' looking. I've seen a couple of videos showing how drastically improved even quite clean-looking clips can be once it's removed.

Usually you denoise and then add grain :).

Right, but having a blanket approach of shot on digital = we have to denoise that, every time, suggests a lack of tolerance for even naturally occuring, finely controlled noise, and possibly a love for plastic textures.

I honestly think it just comes down to technology and conditioning. If filmmakers of the past had the ability to DNR the hell out of grainy filmstock, a subset of them would have done just that. They had no such luxury, so they sought out the finest grained stock they could access and/or embraced it as an aesthetic quality of the image. With digital, we developed the technology to scrub the image of noise before people the textures of digital filmmaking had stopped seeming alien, let alone started to be romanticized for its limitations and quirks.
I don't really think it's true that noise destroys resolution, and grain only adds flavour. Large grained filmstock is considered to hold less resolution relative to finer grained stock. Outside of extreme examples of visible FPN in the image, I also don't think the pattern vs random aspect makes much difference to the viewer. In practice, digital noise is perceived as random. 
The appearance of noise varies from camera to camera, but I think it's the kind of imperfection that can prevent images from looking sterile and inhuman. I look at it as the surface of the medium becoming visible. The philosophy that denoising should always be applied to digitally sourced images seems like one that's opposed to to the inherent characteristics of digital, and ironically it's one that ends up creating images even further removed from the world of film. To me it's more interesting to be open to the new. Noise can be ugly, but it can also in the right hands have a soulful texture to it.

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Yes.  Fringing can sometimes be an issue with some ellipsoidal fixtures.  Instruments that use lenses made for slide/film projectors usually exhibit minimal fringing.
 
Use an open-face tungsten or HMI source with a snoot.  Add a tube of blackwrap if the snoot is too short.  That should eliminate most of your spill, and the open-face filament/arc will give you sharp shadows if the fixture is set to full flood.
 
Both open-face and Fresnel fixtures always give their sharpest shadows on full flood.

Yes.  Fringing can sometimes be an issue with some ellipsoidal fixtures.  Instruments that use lenses made for slide/film projectors usually exhibit minimal fringing.
 
Use an open-face tungsten or HMI source with a snoot.  Add a tube of blackwrap if the snoot is too short.  That should eliminate most of your spill, and the open-face filament/arc will give you sharp shadows if the fixture is set to full flood.
 
Both open-face and Fresnel fixtures always give their sharpest shadows on full flood.

If you do use a cookie, try to move it as far from the light as possible (without it being in frame) and having it be as large as possible. The light is probably sharper at full flood than full spot (if you're using a fresnel lens) and you can use black wrap around the light instead of a flag.... maybe.... I'd just get the projector. 😕 

I suspect that even a Bowens mount COB LED is too soft a source for a modifier right in front of it to cut a sharp-edged shadow.
Short of using a really big cookie just off frame, I suspect the shadow will always be too soft because it's unfocused. Unless you can back it way up. The projector kits let you focus the shadow so distance is less of an issue. Some of the projection kits have chromatic abberation but that's the only way to approach this without going totally crazy imo. The Joleko type light is also SUPER useful because you can cut out a 4x4 piece of foamcore/bead board, angle it however you want on a c-stand or just tape it to the ceiling, and bounce a light into it, cut the edges using the blades in the projector, and use it as a soft light source (assuming no fog in the room). Of course with thin LED flex lights this isn't quite as unique as it once was.
Experiment with making a homemade cookie by cutting holes in an old cardboard box. Forget spill or whatever, just see how big it needs to be and at what distance to make shadows that are sharp enough. Maybe it's possible, not sure.

WARNING: Contains some strong language. Does David Lynch think a yappy assistant is trouble? Try getting clawed in the neck on both sides from Canon fanboys and Philip Bloom sheeples.

Yes, we're often camping and working out of vehicles - plenty of lights on the 4WDs, as well as flashlights, headlamps, firelight, etc. Plus needing to light a scene does not always mean it is nighttime.
I do a 4WD Adventure show and we usually rely on the hero vehicle's dual battery/2kw inverter, but sometimes we're away from the main cars for a day or two (eg somewhere that is only accessible by boat/helicopter) and need another solution.
 
IV - Interview
PTC - Piece to camera.

We've got plenty of light off camera. No problems there. This is just specifically for the lighting for remote IV/PTC setups. 600W would be the max if all lights are running but that would not be 100% of the time - just for the 30mins or so to record that piece.
 
If I went the Generator route, I'd be looking at at least 2KW.
If I was in a position that I could run a cable then I would, but it's hard to find a power outlet when you're sometimes 1000km+ from the nearest town!

So sad. 
He was one of my favorite writers and video bloggers.  With his unique and interesting insights, he could easily entertain even when discussing a mundane camera bag or consumer lens.
He certainly contributed to my love for the m43 format.  It's a sad irony that as we find new life being breathed into the these smaller cameras, we have lost one of their most talented advocates.

That’s very sad news.
I’ve watched many of his YouTubes.

David Thorpe passed away on May 25th. For those that aren't familiar, David was a huge proponent of M43 and shared his love of photography on his blog and YouTube channel. 
A message from his family can be read in the description of this video:
His channel is well worth checking out. He was a very thoughtful reviewer. 
His blog is also excellent:
https://m43blog.dthorpe.net/

Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone has any input for on set power solutions? In particular experiences with block batteries versus generators. I'm looking for something to power a laptop and a v-lock charger, as well as LED lights (up to ~600W total) when required.

A battery seems like a much simpler solution and has the ability to have a data/charging station setup in a car or van. And because my work car is also my family car I like the idea of not having it stink like petrol for a week after every shoot just from carting around the generator and petrol can. No problems with sound either if I go the battery route.  However a generator does have the ability to run for much longer because you can keep topping it up, whereas a battery solution would only last a few hours and require charging overnight.

Has anybody had this same dilemma, and what direction did you go in the end?

Yes!  The EOSM with ML raw is amazing, and @ZEEK has a great eye!  EOSM ML raw videos are constantly appearing on YouTube.
This guy also does nice work with the EOSM.

Darn this thread it tasty as the other other EOS M RAW thread. Both threads are some of the greatest browsing pleasures for nerds like us. 🙂  Anyone shooting narrative shorts with this beauty? How does it hold up against a BMPCC? Anyway our friend @ZEEK has provided us with beautiful pieces like this one.
 
 

On another forum someone was dreaming of a speedbooster for this to push it up to super 16 sensor size. Maybe time to rethink the classy classic EOS-M rather then waiting for a speedbooster for this little kitten.:)

Even though you'd expect it to be, it's not interlaced, it's 24p footage someone put into a 1080/30p timeline from what I can tell.
Is there any fast way to do this with After Effects or Premiere or Compressor?

I have a 30p stock footage clip that looks like it was shot at 24p and then encoded at 30p with repeating frames. Is there any software I can run this through to detect the repeated frames and remove them?

Very cool!
 
Your rig reminds me of @ZEEK's EOSM Super 16 setup.  It shoots 2.5K, 10-bit continuously or 2.8K, 10-bit continuously with ML at around 16mm and Super 16 frame sizes.

We've certainly talked about resolution, and other Yedlin videos have been linked in this forum.
 
I merely scanned the videos (that second video is over an hour in length), so I don't know all the points that he covered.
 
Resolution and sharpness are not the same thing.  There is a contrast element to sharpness, and it involves different levels (macro contrast micro contrast, etc.).  One can see the effects of different levels of contrast when doing frequency separation work in images.  Not sure if Yedlin specifically covers contrast's relation to sharpness in these videos.  By the way, here is a recent demonstration of when micro features and macro features don't match.
 
Also, I am not sure that his resolution demo is valid, as he seems to be showing different resolutions on the same monitor.  I noticed in one passage that he was zoomed in to see individual pixels, and, when switching between resolutions, the pixel size and pixel quantity did not change nor did the subject's size in the image.  Something is wrong with that comparison.
 
To properly demonstrate resolution differences in regards to discernible detail, one really must show a 6K-captured image on a 6K monitor, a 4K-captured image on a 4K monitor and an HD/2K captured image on an HD/2K monitor, etc. -- and all monitors must be the same size and and same distance from the viewer.
 
The only other demonstration that I have seen by Yedlin also had significant flaws.
 
Furthermore, there are other considerations, such as how resolution influences color depth and how higher resolution can help transcend conversion/algorithmic losses and how higher resolution allows for cropping, etc.
 
 
There are problems with the few Yedlin videos that I have seen.  Also, one of his videos linked above is lengthy and somewhat ponderous.
 
 
I would put the Panavision Genesis (and it's little brother, the Sony F35) up against an Alexa any day, and the Genesis has lower resolution and less dynamic range than the Alexa.  However, the Genesis has a lush, striped, RGB, CCD with true HD -- 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups.
 
Similarly, I recall that the Dalsa Origin demos showed a thick image (it shot 16-bit, 4K), and the Thompson Viper HD CCD camera yielded great footage.
 
 
I certainly agree that there is a threshold beyond which higher resolution generally is not necessary in most cases, and I think that that such a threshold has been mentioned a few times in this forum.  On the other hand, I don't think that such a threshold is absolute, as so much of imaging is subjective and a lot of SD productions are still very compelling today.
 
 
I have shot a fair amount of film, but I would not say that the image quality of film is "better."  It's easier (and more forgiving) to shoot film in some ways, but video is easier in many other ways and it can give a great image.
 
 
Exactly.

Well?