hyalinejim

Additional video from slashcam.de, GH5 internal V-Log 10bit versus 8bit

Martin Wallgren's short ad for a Danish barber, shot in V Log internal, available light: The focus is off on a lot of shots but the video does show that internal V-Log is very usable indeed. Thanks for this. Google translate is funny: I'm using that one! Here's their comparison of 8bit (left) v 10bit (right), contrast stress test:

Next time you're about to "lol" and "LYFAO" at people on the internet (and in real life) that are civilly attempting to clarify your misconceptions, it would be better for all concerned if you took the time to ask yourself, "Well, do I really know what I think I know?". This is good advice for everybody, me included, so don't take it personally.

I vote for @Aghori Tantrik Baba

Some nice work here in mixed light and low light

Well, sorry, but you're not correct on this. If the camera position is the same on both cases (actually position of the entrance pupil) then perspective will be the same on both cameras. Field of view may differ depending on focal length and sensor size. Maximum field of view will be limited by the image circle size. Try sitting in a chair and staring straight ahead. Now try to change the perspective of the scene in front of you. You can't do this without moving your position, or moving the position of objects in the scene. Neither can a camera.

All yeses so far!!! No, that's not possible. The only thing that influences perspective is subject distance. If the image circle is smaller or larger you get less or more vignetting, respectively, for a given format. Perspective doesn't change, not even if you add an anamorphic adapter. You're probably misunderstanding the term "perspective" - it has to do with the spatial relationship between objects in the scene. It can only be altered by moving objects, or moving the camera.

- It's undecided yet whether the anamorphic mode will have the option to desqueeze or not - The "6K" 24p anamorphic update due in the summer will use the full width and height of the sensor at a resolution of approx. 5000 x 4000 in h265 (although not 400Mbps h265, it will be a lower bitrate) So, assuming that the h265 implementation is better than 150Mbps h264 IPB and/or 400mbps h264 All-I, this could be a great option for those who want to shoot V-Log internally without chroma smearing artifacts... as long as you're willing to shoot 4:3 and crop top and bottom when using a non-anamorphic lens. The Panasonic rep in that interview knows his stuff. It's a pity the blogger isn't a little bit more up to speed on the Cinema5D controversy as this would have been a great opportunity to get an insight into Panasonic's take on the issue.

Ah, I understand what you mean about highlights. But how does it differ on the C100 when a channel is blown?

This sums up the post-fact world we are currently living in beautifully! No, but you'll more easily see the half tone pattern if you fill your field of view with it. Or, to put it another away it captures less ink. I don't know why you're getting into this analogy as what you're getting at relates to the explanation of why smaller sensors tend to be noisier. I don't think anyone has suggested that exposure changes with sensor size. Well, it's not confusing or meaningless to me and to others who understand the principle of equivalence. I use it to calculate what focal length and aperture will be required to match field of view and depth of field when moving from one format to another. For that reason alone, it's worth developing a coherent understanding of it. @tupp all those small differences in your AB comparison are of course accounted for by the things that you mention, entrance pupil distance, diffraction, etc. etc. These factors don't enter into equivalence calculations, nor do they contradict them. Their effect is so minimal as to be altogether invisible to the average viewer, despite their dramatic apparence to you. Relative to the changes in image wrought by changing focal length, aperture, or sensor size, their effect is negligible. Equivalence is theoretically sound and empirically verifiable. I would encourage dissenters to investigate it more closely and carefully. What does it predict? Do the results match the predictions?

AF is snappy enough. Watch when the dancer ducks below frame and pops back up. Focus shifts to the background and then back to her quite quickly. Towards the end the movement increases and she gets closer to the camera. Rather than having AF constantly on, which I can't really envisage using, I presume there's some function whereby you can press a button to search for AF, and once you hit it you let it go and AF stops? And does touchscreen AF work like this?

Here's a screengrab of an ISO200 chart shot in daylight balanced lighting I found at this link: http://www.drewmoe.com/digitalnoise.shtml Here's a shot I took of a chart in sunlight on a 5D3. Brought it into ACR, applied Cinelog C profile, brought it into Rec709 After Effects and exported as RGB TIFF: I brought them in to Photoshop and blurred both shots to eliminate noise and masked off the squares. I placed Cinelog behind Arri and used a quick curves adjustment to match the exposure using the bottom squares (because the Arri shots had a Rec709 lut applied and the Cinelog is still in Cineon gamma). This is the result, Arri is the set on top and 5D3 ML Cinelog C is the set underneath: It's not an exact match, but it's not bad considering these are shots from 2 different cameras from 2 totally different shoots... and also when you consider the price difference. I'd love to get both cameras side by side to shoot the same chart at the same time.

http://www.cinelogdcp.com/cinelogc-connects/ It's for transcoding DNGs to Log masters. It gives you a Cineon-like gamma curve in Alexa Wide Gamut colour space. Interestingly, I shot an X Rite chart on 5D3 and the values matched uncannily closely with Alexa chart shots I found online. I'll try to dig them out.

Cinelog for MLRAW will give you Arri-like colour. Just sayin'!

This video just in, Panasonic rep says "they no longer crop the sensor - it's the full width" Slashcam are now saying in their comments thread Not sure if that refers to the crop question. Source is here https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashcam.de%2Fartikel%2FTest%2FPanasonic-GH5-Sensor-Verhalten---Aufloesung--Slowmo--Rolling-Shutter-.html&edit-text=&act=url And in another video (I think that these guys are the Hairy Bikers of the camera world)... Nice feature for event shooters and run & gun: auto ISO seems to compensate for non-constant aperture in the 12-60 2.8-4

If it goes down to minus eleven I'll be happy

You're not making sense, Jon. From an epistemological point of view if it's unacceptable, as you claim, for people other than you to make inferences regarding a camera they haven't used it must logically be unacceptable for you to make statements about another camera that you haven't used. I'm not being nasty here. Putting feelings and emotion aside, this is rationality. Edit: And you're right, I do actually have nothing useful to offer here in terms of a Fuji - Panasonic comparison. This is just a point of order.

Well then, don't be condescending.

I did. From what you've seen of: Please use logic.

Well, by the same token unless you've shot with the GH5

Well, they do say: So their software is flagging those lower stops as below their chosen noise threshold and this happens earlier than in the other cameras in the comparison. However, as has been pointed out, we don't know what the implications of various types of NR would be across these cameras. Does anyone know if the Fuji has heavy NR going on in F-Log? It's also worth noting that some tests have shown 10bit to be noisier than 8bit on the GH5. But aside from that, give me noise over noise reduction any day of the week, please, and let me deal with it in post. Furthermore (!) the noise on the GH5 is a really nice grainy luma noise. I have no problem with it in the samples I've seen. Although there is temporal NR with ghosting artifacts at higher ISOs (Emmanuel Pampuri's night shots, the girl eating outside the bistro): With regard to the chroma smearing, it hasn't been an issue for me in the 24p VLog samples. Yes, I can see it even in Pampuri's beautiful flower girl's lovely nose. But no-one in a million years is ever going to spot that, even in a cinema, I think. However, there is an egregious example of it in Neumann's wonderful 180fps footage: Uncropped: Cropped 100%: Now, this you would probably spot on your phone while relaxing on the beach at noon as it's there frame after frame after frame. But this is 180fps. I think V-Log, even in its current incarnation on the GH5, is going to be totally workable at 24p. For higher frame rates, however, you might want to switch to another profile - I'm thinking of Leeming Lut One for Cine D, or EOSHD Pro Colour for whatever settings you're supposed to use for that. Also, let's not forget the possibilities of the Like 709 profile which we've heard very little about thus far. Will it be contrasty, or will it be like Wide DR on the Canon C series - a sensible compromise between dynamic range and full range levels. And finally, even if 400Mbps All-I is not enough to kill the nasties in V-Log, the 200Mbps All-I for HD surely will, at effectively double the bitrate per pixel. I know I'm likely to be shooting in HD for a lot of jobs anyway.

I agree about noise, DR, sharpness but not about colour - the RAW file is malleable and limited more by the user than its inherent colour information. Whatever you can get out of a CR2 on the 5D3, you can achieve with ML DNGs. I'm not sure what you're referring to in relation to highlight saturation and ACR. I don't hear photographers complaining about this. In any case, I normally gently roll off the saturation from the midtones to the highlights. Is this what you're talking about here: How can you avoid chroma clipping? If a channel is blown, it's blown. Maybe C-Log is doing an in-camera saturation roll off in the highs. If so, you can just do this yourself in post for MLRAW. Don't get me wrong, I think that the CX00 cameras overall are better cameras. However, there are some things they just can't do (at least the ones without RAW). I'm working on a piece at the moment which has a very slow and subtle 60 second film fade up from total blackness, by differently keyframing gain and gamma. It is perfectly smooth with zero banding. I couldn't get a slow, banding free fade like that with the internal codec on the C series cameras, and I doubt I'd get it perfect from the external ProRes. I know that's an extreme example, but I regularly find myself pushing MLRAW footage into territory that would be impossible with a lesser codec,and I'm extremely grateful for it. And this is one area where 5D3 ML kicks ass in the sub three grand price bracket.

You saved the best for last. Beautiful colours! Did you use an Impulz lut here?

BRAINWAVE: Wouldn't it be great to have an option to bake in a lut internally? The GH5 can already do a view assist lut - it's not inconceivable that this could be sent to SD card, essentially making the picture profiles of the camera infinitely customisable. Does anyone have the number for Mr. Panasonic?

The C100 / C300 1080p image will be sharper than the 5D3 ML is at its native 1080 (I'm disregarding the high resolution crop modes because the preview is too slow to work with) and there is a small amount of aliasing. However, the range of looks you can get from the RAW footage is great.