deezid

32 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Yes, 10 bit log, and it supports luts.

Pretty *insertprofanityhere* insane! Sounds great

I wonder if the LOG is recorded into a 10 bit codec as well. Would made it a nice B-Cam for underwater e.g...

Searching for a new phone anyway, and this one looks great. Looking forward to the WRGB-W Oled display and ESS Sabre DAC.

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

You absolutely need a HDR display to view HDR footage... otherwise it looks too dark and desaturated.

As well as cut off highlights

8 hours ago, Emanuel said:

 

Really nice how clean it is, especially in the shadows.

What kind of magic sauce is Panasonic using in their HLG mode??

I have to say, since the GH5, Panasonic definitely comes close to Canon. Sometimes it is even better than that showing no evidence of a strange brownish color cast.

@Andrew Reid

Thanks so much for the source files!
Tried to match V-log vs. HLG.
I have to say I'm really impressed by HLG for REC709 output (Matched using ACES colorspace in Davinci Resolve, works great, not perfect though).

Since HLG makes use of the full range, there seems to be way more color depth to play with. The result is way more texture in low contrast fine detail and interestingly less noise in shadows as well as (to me) an even better color science!


Here's the download to a graded version (Clip01 V-Log, Clip02 and 03 HLG, both outputted to REC709):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ctkb5tej5756pbr/vlog_vs_hlg.mp4?dl=0

1 hour ago, DBounce said:

We should rename this thread to "Actually, you can make the GH5 do slow-motion"

woah

just worked on some older FS7 Cine EL/ S-Log 3 Footage I did, to see how it matches to GH5 footage in ACES colorspace: Quite good, but...
Videoish as hell

Totally overprocessed. No fine detail. Unsharp mask artifacts galore and lots of colorful noise. But unlike the GH5 no fine grain, more like Canon splotchy noise. Ugh


Why did I ever complain about the GH5? lol

WTH

Go with the GH5 and keep the lens (or better invest into Sigma 18-35/50-100 lenses and an EF-Speedbooster for cleaner/sharper images and more range).

The GH5 is easily usable up to ISO3200 (or 4000) unless underexposed in both Video and Photo if sharpening and NR are turned down to -5.

I agree with @JordanWright about the 3 stops less lowlight capability. But a clean and usable F1.2 aperture easiliy compensates for that.
ISO3200 (4000) Limit on the GH5 vs. ISO25600 on the A7s2
F1.2 vs. F4.0 basically. Not too bad. Try to focus using anything faster than F2.8 on a Fullformat camera... lol

And the GH5 will show more fine grain with lots of fine detail (10 Bit codec) while the A7s2 will look washed out at high Isos with bubbling appearing starting from ISO12800 when underexposed and ISO25600 when properly exposed.

Forget about using Canon cameras if you concerned about low light or even Video AND low light.
ISO800 is the max for an APS-C style Canon and 1600 for the 5D MKIV and 3200 for the 5D MKIII using Magic Lantern. The GH5 will still show way more detail at ISO3200.

And probably won't change the fact that the C200 doesn't resolve any more than HD resolution in "4K" MP4 mode either...
If you want proper high quality 4K, record in RAW or switch to a GH5 lol...

The Sigma 18-35 is an incredible lens and makes the GH5 much more usable in low light conditions!

On 7/25/2017 at 2:52 AM, Hene1 said:

 I find V-Log unusable colorwise and I don't see a big difference between 10 bit and 8 bit footage.

hmm ok, whatever.
We are basically talking about a consumer codec with REC709 space limited to 10 stops max vs. a professional tool with a 10 bit codec, ACES enabled workflow using V-log, no banding, no macroblocking and an almost perfect noise texture here (sharpening and nr at -5, 10 bit codec).

Highlights look terrible indeed. Red channel clips, footage is overexposed (which makes it look cleaner). Case closed.

2 hours ago, Inazuma said:

I'm in the mood for pointless arguments.

I think I know the difference between digital sharpening, aliasing and real resolution.

And no one here is saying the NX1 has a garbage image just because of digital sharpening.

It's just, the camera would have so much more potential, if there wasn't the crazy internal processing.
The resolution is there, but fine low contrast detail gets smudged by heavy noise reduction and high contrast enhanced by strong sharpening. Very digital looking sadly.

Real detail:
RED Helium, ARRI 65, Sony F65
They all have perfect 4K with no aliasing and even worse sharpening nor noise reduction artifacts, since they don't use any.

*not sure about the RED Helium though, some Noise Reduction in shadows I think since there's not much detail, the RED Epic was way more detailed in shadow areas. But no visible sharpening.

11 hours ago, tugela said:

It is not oversharpened. It has higher resolution than most other 4K cameras due to the oversampled sensor.

People call it "oversharpened" because they are conditioned by cameras with poor resolution into thinking that is what it is supposed to look like, but actually those cameras just have poor resolution.

yh... RED Helium, Sony F65 and ARRI 65 have poor resulotion then. lol

nope.
The NX1 is just extremely oversharpened, even at -10.
Professional cameras don't suffer from that problem. But most consumers are conditioned by manufacturers that oversharpening means detail, it does not.

5 hours ago, pintowar said:

Do you recommend always activate the Smart Range + ??
In all the recordings?

Want to know as well
Really consider it for a shoot now (with lots of diffusion though, lol)

On 8/5/2017 at 11:52 AM, cantsin said:

Clearly, the M31 LUT. It will go down in media history books of the 2010s as a similar abomination of taste as, say, this was the abomination of 1980s video making taste:

Oh yeah, to go back to 2010s bad taste, also add
- f0.95 Bokeh (where a person's eyes are in focus but the nose is blurred-out);
- pointless anamorphic flares;
- pointless slider shots;
- fake light leak transitions;
- people shooting flowers in their backyard in macro shots;
- Hans Zimmer symphonic movie scores copied and pasted on the macro shots of the backyard flowers.
- 1 minute opening credits for 3 minute YouTube videos that otherwise consists of slider shots of backyard flowers shot with f0.95, anamorphic Bokeh & flares with fake light leak transitions - with everything being graded with the M31 LUT and a lifted Hans Zimmer movie score as the soundtrack.

What was that??
Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1000x?
I literally can't. 

6 minutes ago, Asmundma said:

Take a look at RED webpages, a lot of films are shoot with RED Cameras. So I guess, if you really are professional, RAW is the thing. Those who are not there yet, are still on the 8 or 10 bit track.  Soon you can head over to Apple Store and buy a RED Raven.

Always great to not have to deal with internal processing. The most stunning example is the FS700. Internal: Crap, External: Actually still quite amazing.
Even on new cameras like the FS7/5, C200/300MKII the RAW is way better. Only cameras where there is no visible difference between RAW and compressed are the Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro or 4.6k or the Varicam LT/35. 

4 hours ago, Marco Tecno said:

It's not artificial sharpening. It's the sensor which is incredible.

Even at -10 it's way too oversharpened. RED Helium looks 10 times better with even higher resolution 4k thanks to no sharpening.

Here are some examples 
https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Erste-Schaerfe-Charts-der-Samsung-NX1---Starker-4K-Konkurrent---Aus-dem-Messlabor.html#Aus_d (german)

Basically, with a strong diffusion filter or softer lens, the NX1 does wonderful UHD, since the oversharpening algorithm doesn't know what to do.

Really interesting, sounds worth a try. Maybe with some diffusion in front of the lens to lower the heavy internal sharpening.

Just received mine with the Sigma 50-100 (the 18-35 didn't arrive yet...) and Tiffen Black Diffusion FX filters.
I'm really impressed.
 

Download the Original file to see how organic this camera actually looks
Sorry for the shakiness, just shot out of hand after gym, using no lights at all.

3 hours ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I don't mean to be a smart ass, but I just have to ask. Can anyone tell me why my iPhone has much better auto focus and face follow focus than my GH5?

Is there any excuse for how crappy the autofocus is on this long awaited camera? Who cares how good the stabilization is if the image won't focus???

Anyone. Panasonic, are you listening. How do you feel being embarrassed by the iPhone and other phones, and by the three year old a6000 and the 70D???

Yh even the ARRI Alexa and Red Helium get serviced by an iPhone. Why would anyone buy a RED Helium or ARRI Alexa then??

Am thinking about using the Fuji X-T2 instead of the GH5 for a small feature film production.

What I figured out so far is:

• External F-LOG is beautiful, it doesn't even show any processing artifacts, 8 bit doesn't seem to be a big problem while grading.
• Colors using internal simulations are breathtaking. Astia looks amazing and using shadows/highlights at -2 the DR looks quite adequate.

Open questions:

• Internal sharpening can be set to -4, which seems absolutely ok to me (way better sharpening algorithm than the GH5), but the strong noise reduction is worrying me, lot's of fine low contrast detail is lost. Is there a noise reduction setting for Video as well? If so, I would love to see a 4K example with Classic Chrome or ProNeg, -2 highlights/shadows, -4 sharpening/noisereduction. 
• Is it possible to set shutter to 180 degrees or 1/48?
• Which lenses would you guys recommend? I think I'm going for the Kit and the 23mm and 50mm F2.0.
• How is the battery life with the original battery?

The GH5 would be, since it's oversampling from 5k, but the processing limits its performance.
The best you can probably get is the FS5 with external RAW, it's flawless.

3 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Does Natural really have nicer color and rolloff? Because in my tests, Natural has a strong reddish cast and harsh contrast when compared to Cinelike D... just wondering.

On the GH5 it does have way more natural, cooler reds, warmer greens, basically very Canon like without the magenta cast, while Cinelike D pulls everything towards orange and yellows to green.
The rolloff is way better, no harsh clipping at all, especially noticeable with white clothing, walls etc, but it looses some detail in highlights due to that. 

51 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

I say expose for 90 - 95% zebras. That upper range of cinelike d is tricky. The highlight roll off color channel clipping in the 90-100 range is so sudden and ugly

I agree. Terrible tbh.
I would rather have up to 1 stop less dynamic range, but great (not quite Fuji like) color and a nice rolloff using the Natural profile (0 -5 -5 -2 0)

41 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Calibration is not usually necessary with the Crane. 

Before it took like 10-20 seconds for the roll axis to stabilize after panning right, now it is more like 1-2 seconds.