TrueIndigo

Well as an old turd that has done a lot more stuff than I have deserved, or ought to have,  and when I look back at it 75% of it was a total F ing waste of time family wise, stress wise, money wise, on and on.
A persons life goes fast as hell, and you never know when you are going to die, or one of your family dies, like my first wife at a young age of cancer did. Hey it happens, but to go thorough all the stress, the shit you put up with in doing it, for really no real gain is pretty disheartening when you look back on it I can tell you that.
You might as well live on a sailboat out on a river or the ocean, in a cabin in the woods and just sit back and enjoy life with not a lot of commitments. All those accomplishments don't amount to shit when you get divorced,  have a heart attack, or wake up one day and your kids are all grown, and it's like man did I waste half my life for What!
I know some of you people make a living doing this stuff, and a hell of a lot as just a hobby. I can see a trend here now in the Video industry that there is NEVER going to be an end to a better toy next year. It is like Smartphones now, You have to have the latest and greatest, and man in the video industry that amounts to a Hell of a lot of money. Tons of money. Is it really worth it. It all goes back to my first sentence. Is it worth all the bullshit? I bet it's not. I am not going to buy anything! I will use what I got, good or bad. A new camera won't make me that much better.

Sure,
The format that the Arri Alexa actually shoots to is LogC. The LogC conversion conforms VLog to the exact output of the Arri (when the footage is WBed correctly under a supported light source)
From there, the LogC data format needs to be conformed to the display to allow the correct handling of RGB. The standard approach for Rec709 is to apply the Arri R709 Lut to the footage (which has the correct RGB primaries). Other Luts and workflows intended for LogC may also be used following the LogC conversion (the Alexa is often well supported by 3rd parties).
My experience has been that Arri's default 709 color space is a very uninspiring starting point for me. The underlying color science is great, but the luma and saturation placement is just not very cinematic.
Enter Main/Soft; these include the LogC conversion, combined with a luma and saturation placement that I much prefer (and conforms to the 'Sicario luma ceiling'). They include the Arri R709 primaries for correct RGB on a Rec709 display. The base look is informed by film (celluloid) luma and saturation. I may release this as a separate component for Arri users eventually (the 'Emotive Color' component)
The following is from an Alexa Mini (Master Prime 35mm):
LogC

Arri 709

EC Main

(Click to see in the correct dark context, the page is very bright)

Yeah I took this with my Panny G7 using the 14-45mm kit lens hand held. It is straight OOC.That is the very first kit lens Panasonic ever made and I think they are actually the best one they ever made.
For the money a Panny G7 is just too good to pass up. I know it doesn't have IBIS, but for less than 400 bucks at times what is really better. And it does 4K.

But to add, I think we’re seeing the beginning of a new movement where photography and video pursuits are becoming entangled.
I already see it so prevalently on IG and YT where people will do a photo shoot one week, then a short narrative film the next.
The jobs of writer, director, photographer and cinematographer are melding together into this “content creator” moniker... at least for internet distribution.
Instagram is becoming a mobile art gallery... YouTube is your local theatre and Vimeo Staff Pics is your Sundance.
The next Spielberg will be discovered on IG... but to do that one needs content.
You need to constantly create and upload. There’s not enough time in a day to solely do video.
Now I’m not naive, or delusional, enough to think I’ll be the next Spielberg, or even have a career from any of this. But I enjoy it and there are a lot worse things I could be doing with my time and money.

So... I've been messing around with making a new add on for my controller system and this is it in its embryonic (cardboard and electrical taped chassis) form.

It has 3 dedicated keys on the controller for incrementing and decrementing in stops (it goes to about 95% total blackout) and a clear function. Though this is not a full clear as there is about a half stop of ND at the lowest position.
The level of reduction is actually fully variable but for the implementation I'm after it makes more sense to control it in stops.
As with the other functions, it can be recalled within one of the 8 one touch recall global presets along with exposure, white balance and picture settings.
I've also incorporated an automatic aperture tracking function.
This means that you set the exposure and ND level that you want at a given stop (say f8) and it will adjust the amount of ND up and down as the aperture changes to keep the exposure constant at any aperture.
Right, thats the good news out of the way....
The bad news is that the surface area is going to need to be a lot bigger (these things are usually mounted at the back of the lens but I'm after a front mounting solution for flexibility) to work properly.
Quite a bit bigger and unfortunately that will mean quite a lot more expensive.
The question is how big and how expensive would this be before you wouldn't want it, if you even want it at all? (currently its part of my controller system but I've already ported it to a small micro controller to have it be a standalone as well).
The other question is would you want it within a lens adapter solution anyway rather than it being front mounted (as per the Lens Throttle EF to MFT) so it could be an electronically controlled version of one of those ?
 
 

Well well we all have to admit as of late the line between "Professional" and "Consumer" have really narrowed. When I was most of you guys age you either worked for a place that did video, or you bought a $200.00 at the time spring powered 8mm movie camera. If you were rich you had a Bolex, or my dream camera, a Beaulieu 4008 ZM Camera. They made beautiful looking cameras. Not too many choices compared to today.
Now with the 4K BMPCC coming out it can nearly compete with rich people on an equal footing. The GH5s is amazing, the Sony A7 mk III is, the ML Canon 5D mk III, Canon C100, on and on. We live in an amazing time for video. It is now down to skill more than gear. The tables have leveled. No real excuse these days to not get the job done.
 

If I remember the DVX100 hack started on the DVInfo forum (in the Alternative imaging section), then they got their own website and it was named Andromeda. There seem to be a lot of desperate stuff going on in those days - I was one of a handful of people trying to use industrial camera heads for video, RAM-recording about 20 seconds at a time of Bayer video to a laptop, great times!  

If I remember the DVX100 hack started on the DVInfo forum (in the Alternative imaging section), then they got their own website and it was named Andromeda. There seem to be a lot of desperate stuff going on in those days - I was one of a handful of people trying to use industrial camera heads for video, RAM-recording about 20 seconds at a time of Bayer video to a laptop, great times!  

I also remember following this development all those years ago. It seemed as exciting back then as the start of the Magic Lantern RAW video hack.

Ive enjoy this little pocket 4K "camcorder" vey much so I had to put together a review.
 
 

Hey Glenn, G7 even fits better. Just the buttons are worse regarding size and clicking. Colors are great to grade. And it works well at iso 1600 in lowlight, better than G6 at 800.

Would you buy the Ninja V despite the fact that it's heavier and more expensive than the smallHD Focus (yeah, I know, only 800 nits, but it works well in bright sunlight) and that you couldn't record anything bigger than 1080 through the Pocket 4k's HDMI (see one of Anacondas Q/A)? I wouldn't. Bought - let me count quickly - 3 external monitors before - won't sell this one!
Zacuto built a viewfinder loupe for the old Pocket, I hope they do for this new "Batcam" (your name). You'd need no rig with one - perfect 3-point stabilization (though on the long run it's more comfortable for me if the right grip is in a 45° angle).
This time I will not use a shoulder rig.I am already thinking about the right-arm-only "exoskeleton" isometric contractor. Imagine your right arm was in a sling made of rubber (problem with just a sling is that it will slip). To extend the arm to the position in which you can hold the camera, you'd need to use some force. And concentration. Left hand cradles the lens and pulls focus. Should be as lightweight and easy as possible. Any ideas/suggestions? Let's build this together!

The video was shot with a single GH5 (with a little A6500 in there) in 10 hours, edited, graded and effects done in 4 days (by me). 
The new album (last I heard) was at No.7 in the official UK chart. 
I'm a big fan of what Panasonic has done with this camera. 
That said, the shining star of this video is the band. 
 

Fair enough, but he also shoots with an Alexa. In my opinion, all of the cameras we discuss aren’t in the same category or on the same planet as they’re using in Hollywood. Putting a master prime on a GH4 isn’t going to make GH4 footage look like The Revenant. What I think these cameras can do, is mimic older film pretty damn good. 
So I’ve always looked at it as this... there is no way in hell with my resources that I am going to get an image that even minutely competes with an Alexa... even if I was insanely talented. But I may be able to get an image that looks like a 70s or 80s film. And for me, the mere thought that it’s possible with a $2000, or less camera, is pretty astounding. Your mileage may vary.

I made this so so long ago on the Canon 50D with ML raw and I remember it had a very cinematic look to it. 
Also...I know some of you guys saw I was selling my 1DC....well the eBay buyer flaked on me and now I still have it. Im never doing that again. I almost had a heart attack thinking about saying goodbye to it

I tried my G7 this weekend, which I bought a year ago and have never used ever since due to my purchase of the GX85 a few weeks later. Guess what, that form factor is hard to beat when it comes to DSLMs. Didnt miss the IBIS, as the G7 must have a much faster sensor readout than the older G6. I was able to do some steady walks with it. I think it is the prettiest of the Lumix cams, just the buttons are a step backwards from the G6. Color mojo after grading. Love it. My recommendation! Woulndt call it an old camera just yet though. Sensor and pipeline are pretty sweet.

So, as you may recall, I have an interest in tweaking the combinations of the basic profiles in the camera along with the contrast/sharpness/saturation/NR parameters.
The purpose of that is basically a mining operation to see if there are some combinations that perhaps may not be intuitive but whose interaction may yield pleasing results.
Outside of the usual "select cinelike d, reduce everything to -5" etc stuff that we all do, who really knows if Natural with +4 contrast/-5 sharpness/+3 saturation/+2 noise reduction might actually be the golden ticket?
I did a hardware controller last year based on a midi control surface that let you tweak the parameters in real time which, whilst offering a way of 'discovery through play', wasn't exactly ideal from a structured testing point of view. 
It also wasn't particularly practical (or cheap) for you to go out and replicate yourselves if you fancied a go !
Anyway, in pursuit of something a bit more structured, I created a very simple automated testing app which I thought I might as well hand out in case anyone else is interested in this sort of thing.
Its Android only so you elitists with that other phone type are out of luck for now
As its also a bit of a utilitarian thing that was only really designed for my own meddling, its not exactly pretty either but it works. Mainly.
OK, so here is how it looks, how to use it and what it does.
 
First things first, obviously, is to enable the Wifi on your Panasonic camera as per if you were using their app and then go into your phone/tablet and connect to it.
In the ProfileStepper app, you then press the "Connect" button and it will take control of the camera. It might complain the first time about approving the connection but if it does just repeat and it will be fine.
Once connected, you press the individual parameter buttons and select the range that you are interested in so in this example we have set it to be using the base Natural profile and how it looks with all permutations of Contrast from -5 to +3, Sharpness from -2 to 0, Saturation from -5 to +5 and NR from -5 to +1.
Next up is to set if you want to use Stills or Video, which we toggle between by pressing the Stills button and then to create a delay (of between 1 and 10 seconds) between shots you press the button (currently set to 2 seconds) and select it.
When you are happy with the settings range, press the Start button and the app will begin compiling the list of commands it needs to send to the camera. As this is a variable amount of time (in our example there are 2079 commands ) you may see a progress pop-up before it proceeds to the playout screen. Be patient.
The progress screen will then appear and display the value of each parameter in the set it is sending to the camera and the current progress (in this case we are on set 4 of 2079).

After it sends each set to the camera, if you have the mode set to Stills it will then fire the shutter on the camera. Obviously, make sure you have a decent memory card capacity if you are testing a lot of permutations!
If you are set to Video mode, a recording will begin on the camera as soon as you pressed the Start button and the changes will all be recorded into this one recording. This is where the Delay function becomes useful as it determines how long each setting is held on the video as it progresses. As with the Stills mode, be careful regarding capacity as if you have 1000 permutations with a Delay time of 5 seconds then, well....
In either mode, pressing the Stop button will abort and return you to the main screen and if you are in video mode it will stop the recording.
The purpose of the progress screen is not just to provide you with a countdown to whats going on but also meant to act as a slate so that you can put your phone/tablet in your test scene and the settings will then be embedded in the images/video when you review them. This is an example frame from a GX80 to illustrate. 
There is a 3 second delay built in to the beginning of the command playout process to allow you to do this but obviously as the camera is being controlled over Wifi you can place the phone/tablet in the scene and press Start from there anyway. This just gives you a chance to get your hand out of the way !

So there you go.
Its a bit of a niche app to say the least but might be useful for some.
Bear in mind, its not really meant to be about analysing every single permutation in one go (though it can do that if you want) its more about helping you to look at how more targeted ranges of settings interact with each other (such as Saturation and Contrast in a specific Profile for example). And what exactly is the Noise Reduction bringing to the party in terms of colour shifts and sharpening etc.
Download link is here
https://mega.nz/#!Vux3UDIK!TPJNYc8gJ6YrQY5T8xkZRAQ_IpBac16xIIGe3ET6R0Y
You'll need to set your device to install apps from non-Play store sources etc.
Its completely free, no ads or any bollocks like that.
As I say, its my own test tool and wasn't designed for general release but thought it might be useful to share.
If nothing else, its a quick way to get the Cinelike D hack on to your camera!
Because its just a quick and dirty test tool, there is no particularly elegant error handling going on (other than telling you that you haven't connected the camera) so if it throws one up just quit and restart it. 
If you set the To range to be lower than the From range (i.e. the From is -3 and the To is -4) then it won't execute the commands so don't do that. 
NB - The eagle eyed amongst you may have spotted the Bracket function at the bottom of the screen. This does exactly what you might expect but its unrelated to the main function but I needed it to test something so you get it as a bonus! You set the shutter speed and then the 1/3rd steps above and below and press Bracket and it takes the required frames with suitably altered shutter speeds. Its a bit flaky on some Panasonic cameras because they don't all allow the 1/3rd shutter changes so your mileage may vary and, as I say, you can largely ignore it.

So I kind of want to start the smallest film festival ever… I’d be curious to hear feedback
I like the idea of starting something as a way of meeting people and getting somewhere for myself, but also as a way of doing something for others that I wish was done for me way back when. I also think we’re just due for a revolution… and I don’t know if I’ll be able to start it, but I’m so sick of every other option right now.
Channel 101 is a bit of an inspiration for this maybe, though I don’t love their format, and maybe that has become slightly too big now anyway and lost a little bit of its original charm.
I want it to be entirely inclusive, no submission fee, not one gets rejected (unless they have a budget etc and know that they’re too big for us).
So it would have to stay small but still be fun.
If we get too much interest, we’d have to rent a big venue, maybe get a sponsor, charge a submission fee, turn people away, which all sounds like what I’m trying to avoid… And if no one is interested, it can’t happen.
I’d probably want to keep it kinda local, which could help make it only filmmakers who are actually going to show up.
Maybe I could get some guest speakers. I do know a couple people…
Filmmakers could talk about their films.
And it would just be one night, so people wouldn’t be tempted to only show up for their own films, which is the worst.
Anyway, does this sound like something any of you would be interested in? Just trying to gauge reactions. Like maybe it’s actually unappealing that no one gets rejected?
The idea probably needs a lot of work. Please let me know if you have any input.

I would love to know 'what' mojo is, but I don't think anyone will be able to answer in detail, so in the absence of a detailed description I'm happy to try and approach it from a different direction, which is to ask where are the examples of it and what is it that we can describe?
My underlying motive for all this is to 'learn to see'.
I am relatively new to 'real' cinematography / editing / colour work (or compared to some of you I'm a complete noob!) and I don't yet really know what I like, and when I see something that looks nice I can stare at it but I just don't really know what I'm looking at.  Thus, all my questions.  I am also a very logical person and the inner voice that reacts to creative content is quieter, so I have to learn to listen to it, and when I do it's harder to understand the subtleties of what it is telling me.
Many people have made the very valid point that it's just a matter of putting in the work, and being organised: shoot, take notes, evaluate the result, analyse the notes; or pick something I like from a film and try and shoot it, dozens and dozens of times if necessary; and I would also add in others like find tutorials grading sample footage that is available and try to follow along.
This methodology is excellent, but it makes sense to combine the work of making your own discoveries with the wisdom and knowledge of others, which is what this thread is.  Since starting this thread I have shot, edited, and graded two ~1 minute long short films (about my fish - a well lit and reliable subject!) and done two other camera tests where I'm filming the same thing only changing one parameter then comparing the results, so I'm pushing forwards and learning things each time.

Yeah, I changed my mind about he video. But I'm not saying whether I was being sarcastic before, so who knows what I'm thinking now

I brought the in-camera highlight curve down a bit on the lowly G7 which I thought helped highlight roll-off with the more fragile 8-bit image.
 

Back in the day lots of filmmakers would shoot on older-tech film stocks 'kuz they were cheaper than the less grainy stuff.  Or, they used older film stocks because it gave them a look they were going for.  Not much different from deciding what sensor to use now-a-days.
The thing is, technology advancement blew through the financial barrier about a decade ago.  At this point anyone that's deep into wrangling the best IQ out of something...is probably just doing it to wrangle the best IQ out of something.  There's literally about a hundred consumer cameras for under 1K that will allow a "Filmmaker" to go out and capture awesome footage.
Hell, to support a school's volunteer filmmaking club, I just bought a GH1's for $95 and a Pentax f2.8 prime lens set 18mm, 24mm, and 50mm for $50.  A laptop to edit 1080 footage can be had for, what, $250?  If that's not the doors wide open, what is?  Someone with skill in the craft could make that look not only fine, but exceptional.  It will never look AS GOOD as a better camera in a good craftsman's hands, but people don't watch narratives to pick at the technical details.  Accomplish the goals of good storytelling with decent cinematography and you're on your way.
Love new gear stuff, but there's so much else to concentrate on, just can't get excited about it anymore.
One more anecdote:  I'm on a film festival committee, one of our selected films was shot on the GH5, another on the Arri.  Hand to god, while I can certainly tell the difference, the IQ is such a non-factor it's ridiculous.  The lighting in the GH5 film was creative, the Arri film lighting was boring...

Thanks Marty, but I’m really just a writer who wants to film some of my own material. I definitely don’t have the confidence, or desire really, or time for that matter, to film someone else’s work. My goal is to be a competent enough operator, editor, and colorist that my films don’t look completely like amateur backyard films, while still keeping the spirit and DIY aspect of the run and gun filmmaking I grew up working on.
Are you thinking, Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure... oh wait that wasn’t in Black & White... lol. 
Pi?
Nice samples, the GX80/85 is a great camera for B&W. L.Monochrome really has a film look to it like it was designed. Any video samples?

I did a lot of crazy things back them. I was the first person in Ohio to ever own a IBM XT computer around 1982. It had a 4mb, yeah mb hard drive in it and 64k, yeah k of memory. I paid over 7,000 bucks for it. I was maybe the first person in the world two have to video monitors hooked up at the same time to a PC computer, maybe any type of computer.
I was trying to teach my daughter Digital Turtle Graphics and I wanted a Monochrome monitor for text, and a RGB color monitor for the graphics, running at the same time, to made it easier for her to learn. I had a degree in Computer Science at the time.
I called Digital Computers and they thought I was crazy, not going to happen, not possible. And then I called IBM and they said We Never ever thought about doing that. About 3 months later they wrote me a one off machine language program to make it happen. I had my picture and computer setup in their corporate newsletter, they gave me 500 dollars and a 600 dollar "six pack" I/O board for coming up with the idea. A few months later anyone could do it if they wanted to.
I also had a business called The Data Bank Company going at the same time. I was on the Web before there was a thing called the web. It was out of Phoenix, Arizona. Cost 250 dollars a month.  It was mostly just for Colleges. I was one of the few in the world that was on it as a regular person. I can't remember the name any more. I did research for court cases for lawyers.  I would download the data all night, I had a 300 baud modem with a 256k modem buffer on it.  And it print out using 3 Epson printers going 10 hours a day, I would wear out all 3 of them nearly each month!  used a 20# box of printer paper a day. Charged 60 bucks an hour back them. A ton of money in the early 80's. Worked out of my home part time. I was a BUSY bastard in those days. On the foreskin of technology as they say Lol.

Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday (no plot spoilers in my observations). This is a generally well-realized near-future sci-fi film, as many of the modern fully-funded Hollywood blockbusters are (this one is estimated as costing between $150-185 million depending on what you read). But it does seem somewhat formulaic, lacking any special distinction or energy. It pays homage to the advertising nightmare rainy city as before, and in the breakers yard wasteland goes for a more Mad Max vibe. But non of it has a truly unique knock-out experience as the earlier film managed with less advanced effects. Seeing Blade Runner in 1982 was nothing short of a cinematic revelation about what was possible, given the commitment of various art departments through sheer force of personality and vision. And since things have moved on so much now (the artistry of the CGI people is incredible), it does not give anything like a new version of that sense of wonder which jolted me in the eighties.
The sound design follows the trend of many modern action films in being set at a painfully high level - the sort of film in which just putting a drink down on a table sounds like a firecracker going off, and drawing on a cigarette briefly sounds like a bush fire. On this film, a gun shot was as loud as an huge explosion, taking me out of the story every time because of the discomfort. And this was more easy than it should have been, because the story itself felt confused to me and several times I found myself wondering how much longer the film was going on (never a good sign). Although the trailer gives the impression of a sophisticated fast-paced action thriller, in fact everything takes a long time, and is not particularly worth waiting for. Unfortunately it's not very sophisticated either, with uninspired dialogue. I did actually feel mildly bored, which surprised me - I didn't think they would make that mistake - because the overall drama remained cold and uninvolving. Non of the characters turned out to be anyone I could care for, compared to key scenes in the original, such as when Rachel starts playing a piano (and says: "I didn't know I could play."). With the original the audience felt like crying, in this new one some of the characters cry, but it doesn't ring true. It's a bit like watching a full-on romance movie in which it is obvious there is no chemistry between the two lead actors - all of the humans watching such a movie know it immediately: that these two people are only together because they have been badly cast in a movie. In the same way the new Blade Runner story continues with the theme of what it means to be human in a difficult future world of synthetic people, yet tells it with little show of the humanity which is supposed to be so important.
Seeing the original movie in the cinema was a life-changing experience, and I eagerly bought the VHS, then later many versions on DVD, etc-etc. It was a way of keeping in touch with a dream, but I have no interest in watching this one again - in any formats that may exist in the future. I opted to see the 2D version of the film because the movie was shot in 2D - ironically, the 3D version has been synthetically processed to give a 3D effect. It's not that I dislike this movie because I liked the original so much, my reaction would be the same if the original never existed. Because it's a disappointing movie in its own right, though obviously without knowing that I had to see it out of a slight hope there was something of the mesmerizing quality of Rachel's self-realization. But of course there is only one Sean Young.