deezid

4 hours ago, Vladimir said:

try to calibrate better

Could work. Mine works better than ever before, after calibration. Had some Roll axis problems before, now they're gone.

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Thanks, Grimor. The screen grab above is from the BMD Video Assist, 1080p, ProRes 4:2:2. I shot at ISO 400, SOOC. I was shooting with the Olympus 75mm f/1.8. Below is a comparison between the 4K from the G85 (top) and the 1080p file from the Video Assist (bottom). Again, ISO 400, SOOC. Incidentally, I just made a split screen clip of the two files below on a 1080p timeline, exported it and uploaded it to YouTube. YT compression just kills 1080p, so if you're planning on using a video sharing website, I'd go with 4K.

Edit: I send 4K to the Video Assist. Sorry, I didn't understand the question at first.  

Looks like the Recorder does some light grading lol
The posterization and banding in dark areas is problematic though.

3 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

Just shot an ad for a bank using the GH5 and SLR 2x anamorphic 50mm prime. This is pretty much my go-to combo right now outside of the Ursa + Sigma Cines.

 

Love it so far. Maybe just make the right side a bit dark, then it would be perfect.

Pictures look impressive.
Seems like no strong sharpening and nr are used. Tons of detail.

If it's too noisy (I think it looks really organic) you can still apply NR.

@jonpais

I'm currently changing my workflow to ACES in davinci resolve.

One of the benefits is a finer black level separation. So I can still crush blacks without satisfying too many details and strange gamma changes. I love it!

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Weirdly, I find the first video utterly remarkable. And in the third video, I am struggling to find the blown highlights... well maybe a few inconsequential highlights are blown, but shooting in mid to late afternoon sun in the middle of the woods is not an easy task, so the occasional blown highlight to see the subject's face is a fair trade off if you ask me.

As far as crushed blacks... I just see some clean blacks, I wouldn't call them crushed. Film recognizes black. The idea that blacks need to be lifted is really for a pseudo faded film look that became popular with digital video to take away the inherent video look a lot of consumer cameras deliver. But I also like that faded film look as well.

The real star in these videos, well the first and third, is the color separation and tonality and the highlight rolloff... in my opinion.

I don't see anything which can't be done with a GH5 or even 4 (external V-Log) in these clips tbh.

Crushed blacks are almost standard in every movie since the beginning of cinema and honestly - I like it.

The Highlightrolloff in the third clip isn't that great, her skins turns yellow in some scenes with direct sunlight.

Choose the GH5. Buy V-Log as well.

Turn down sharpening and NR to -5.
Add some blur to the footage.

It will still show way more detail than the Micro and almost no artifacts (even in 1080p).

44 minutes ago, rndmtsk said:

Oh damn. Gonna come at you with this: Not crushed at all on my P3 monitor. But I can tell a difference in black levels on your logo and the background (scaled box clearly visible in full screen... hard to spot on this screenshot tho). I say don't listen about the suit, but get that logo sorted 

Also, hey look it's Mount Bonnell. How'd you get it so empty?

Ohhh, that's bad.
Nvm, will be fixed in the Vimeo version...

Yh, that was Mount Bonnell in Austin.
Went there at 5:30AM lol.

3 hours ago, dbp said:

I'm surprised at how defensive some people are about the blacks.

At first we were wondering if it was on purpose or a camera trait. Turns out it's the former, no biggie. Not like everyone's going to agree on creative factors. No different than music, art direction, editing style or anything else. 

I also don't understand why it's weird to analyze the image qualities of the GH5 in this instance, given the thread title. If it was, "hey what do you think of my movie", that's one thing. But the thread title specifically mentions the cinematic qualities of the GH5. Of course that's what we're gonna discuss! 

But we get the too cool for school crowd who scoff at paying attention to the very details the thread invites us to talk about.

Forums are strange sometimes. 

Since cinematic is quite different from oversharpened/denoised and realistic colors but skintones with red channel clipping (yellowish highlights) anyway...

55 minutes ago, JazzBox said:

Great work! I love the concept and the cinematography!
On my iMac the shadows are not crushed with Gamma 1.8, they become crushed with Gamma 2.2.

I just buy the GH5 (I come from GH4 and G7), it is great but I have to shoot a little to appreciate more the V-LogL.

Some questions if it is possible:

- How did you move the camera (for instance at 00:35)? Gimbal, steadycam?
- How did you rack focus with those lenses (the scene from 2:12 to 2:15 i.e.)?
- How did you shot (or make the VFX) at 1:23?
- How do you expose the V-LogL?
- Is the Mavic a good all-round drone to buy? I'm thinking to buy it but I'm not a pilot, so I hope it it quite easy to operate it. I tried a Phantom 3 Advanced and a Youneec and the latter was a lot more filmic and flat, but the Mavic seems very good!

Thank you very much!

  

 

- Every movement shot was done using a gimbal (besides the drone shots)
- I pulled focus on camera(the Zhiyun crane is pretty sturdy, lol)
- That was shot on a kitchen table with green fabric as well as on the kitchen floor
- Using the integrated lut, exposed until skintones looked good (most of the shots are slightly underexposed)
- I only like the easy operation. The codec is terrible and you can either decide between way too oversharpened or blurred footage. Color science using D-Log isn't bad though...

interesting screenshot. Doesn't look like that here (not on the TV, nor my calibrated REC709 screen, nor my iPad, nor my Galaxy S8 etc...).

Seems like your videoplayback levels are wrong (check your gpu settings, change to REC709 or 16-235) or try another browser.

It is definitely not crushed.

Interesting enough, it looks crushed after being uploaded here, lol...

The choice of "crushed" shadows (not really crushed, check waveform, but strong compression and pulled down to 0-3 IRE range) was an artistic one to achieve a very vibrant, dark and colorful look.

5 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Since this work looks great already what would be improved exactly by using a different camera?  Maybe extra stops of DR or better color in some respects, but what would that really accomplish?

Lensing, composition, cinematic craft are strong already in this example.

Not being snarky here, truly interested at how images these days could be "3 times" better?

Certainly cameras can have more IQ over others, but to what end?  Would images in this sort of narrative be all that much discernible?  

(Unless you're doing some wild grade with RAW for more extreme  effects)

Aren't we to the point where it all looks good if you know what you're doing?

I honestly would love to work with a Varicam LT instead, or a GH5 with the Varicam sensor and processing, lol...
A bigger camera would limit me in many situations, but would be a great option for a way bigger budget (with assistance, another operator etc...).

3 times better wouldn't be the case, some images would profit (way better color science, better DR, better lowlight, no noisereduction nor sharpening etc...) others would be worse (this camera is just big and heavy and would therefore limit my work I guess).

I didn't have any worries about doing extreme colorgrading on the internal 10 bit GH5 footage, grades like butter without introducing any artifacts. The codec is just great and miles better than my GH4/V-Log experience tbh.

13 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

For anyone looking for a cheap 4K travel camera with a 30x zoom (!) that can have cinelike d then I can confirm that it can indeed be done for the Panasonic TZ80 

And if you are travelling through Stansted airport then if you go to the Dixons tax free shop then ask to buy the demo one as I've just been there and left it already enabled on C3 for you

 

Well they say 4k or 18MP. 
But the lens doesn't seem to resolve any more than 1-2MP...

3 hours ago, Superka said:

canon has more DR and less noise, no metabones needed. I don't trust Paasonic skin tones at all. Canons 150mbit/s is perfectly good for me. Canon is so much better, that's really no contest.

You never saw Varicam skintones I guess?

1 hour ago, Dimitris Stasinos said:

So you are saying that compression causes footage to look like "home made" and uncompressed raw data emulates film better? Not trying to argue here but to my eyes the main reason that gh5 looks "videoy" is it's limited DR and some compression artifacts that i personally consider as acceptable. What blew my mind on early C200 footage is DR, and i don't care about numbers & stops, that image clearly exceeds many standards. I think that EVA1 won't look like GH5 because due to it's sensor size and 5.7K>4K downscale it will employ different encoding algorithms, taken from the Varicam family and DR will wishfully be close to Varicams.

You can attach it to an external recorder and record ProRes 444, it will look the same.
The problem is the "enhanced" processing of the GH5 and there's no way to bypass it. You can only try to minimize the symptoms.

And look at the Digital Bolex (Quite Low DR and small sensor). Beautiful and cinematic, thanks to great color science and the lack of processing. You can even convert it to 10 bit H264 and it will stay beautiful.

The main reasons for the kinda videoish amateur look are:
- strong sharpening (even at -5)
- lens corrections (only with native lenses though)
- noise reduction (even at -5)
- red channel clipping (even in V-log)
- green/magenta blocks (even recording in ProRes 444, though harder to make visible)

The Varicam has exactly 0 of these issues.
(Actually the GH5 does a very similar downsampling from 5.4k to 4k, I hope that's not a bad indicator...)

1 hour ago, jcs said:

The latest C300 II firmware has an option to completely disable NR, and thus no more ghosting/artifacts. I've always liked Varicam footage, however I'll need to review this video in more detail when I have time. In a quick scan I didn't see where the V35 looked significantly better (on a technical or aesthetic level)- which time segments did you see this? I'm confident if I had both cameras at the same time (we have C300 II) I could make them match pretty well (I think even the GH5 Vlog can be filmic with a little post work). The big issue for us for these cameras is AF and native EF lenses (EVA1 has native support but no video AF (yet?)). For non-scripted shooting especially without a (great) AC to pull focus, DPAF-level AF is super useful. If the shots aren't in focus, especially in 4K, nothing else matters. We considered getting an Alexa Mini, which is arguably superior to all these cameras, except it doesn't have AF (and when kitted up it's pretty big and complicated).

Dynamic Range:
The shot with the flower (shadow areas) and especially the shot with the vertical light (C300 MKII really struggles here, at least one stop less, both bright and shadow areas look bad)

Color:
Every shot to me. Reds look way better on the Varicam (reds are very difficult on the GH5/GH4 though, turn into yellow quite fast before they clip, greens are kinda nuclear on the GH5 as well and beautiful on varicams, I really hope the Vgamut claim is true)

4 hours ago, j.f.r. said:

100% Fact you have no idea what you are talking about.......

 

C200 looks like video (especially when that is it;s intended market), GH5 I would say in-between and more cinematic now using anamorphic mode with lenses. Panasonic Varicam LT resembles film and if this new camera will provide the same image it will be amazing and one of the best cameras at this price range in the market. I easily put Varicam footage right next to Amira and in many situations much better when shooting at higher iso's

Sorry to hurt your feelings.
The GH5 looks like homevideo unless you filter it a lot in production and post production.

If the EVA1 looks like the GH5 I will buy the C200 with it's unprocessed RAW codec, which won't look like video since it's unprocessed.
If the EVA1 looks like the Varicam LT/35/HS I will buy the EVA1, since the Varicam LT/35/HS look like organic film since their lack of internal processing like sharpening, NR and what so ever, and of course it's 10 bit internal codec which will make editing and storage easy. And I agree, if this is the case, no manufacturer, not even Blackmagic, can compete.

1 hour ago, Zak Forsman said:

I've been searching for Varicam vs C300 comparison videos to get a sample of how the EVA1 and C200 might compare. Will say this. *IF* Panasonic can pack the EVA1 with their Varicam color science, and maintain 14 or 15 stops of DR, I'd choose that over the C200. Like Mercer, I love shooting RAW, but I'm fortunate that I've got an Odyssey 7Q+ already and am sure that with Mitch Gross involved, Convergent Design is one of the first companies that will have an update to capture the EVA1's RAW output. But more important than that to me are color and dynamic range, and I'm keeping my fingers firmly crossed that Panasonic will deliver.

 

 

You can easily see the ugly processing the C300 MKII does in the ungraded footage.
The Varicam looks like organic film while the C300 MKII looks cheap and processed (the original C300 was way more filmic). The C200 will provide internal RAW, which hopefully will be unprocessed. I see no issue here honestly. And we still don't know how many parts of GH5 technology the EVA1 will be made of. I honestly hope, none.

After watching the full comparison I can say:
- Canon color science doesn't even come close
- DR on Varicam as well as highlight rolloff is amazing, shadows are way cleaner, the C300 MKII looks almost like the GH5 in highlights...
- Ghosting and electronic grain on the C300 MKII in dark and low contrast areas.
 

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

The grading isn't your... cup of tea? Or literally isn't your work, but you do grade Varicam footage professionally?

I just don't like it. Very inconsistent skintones and nuclear greens were a big problem in 13 Reasons Why.
Other shows even looked videoish.

But based on the the RAW MXF footage you can download everywhere, it's not the camera's fault.

Tried to colorgrade some footage (quick and dirty) from the Varicam LT:

Just now, mercer said:

We just finished that Netflix show... 13 Reasons Why and I will say it looked very organic with good colors. If the EVA has half of that LT look it will be a beaut. 

Actually didn't like the look in any of Netflix's Varicam shot shows. The color grading isn't mine.

But you can download varicam MXF files everywhere, they're lovely and look wonderful after grading.

7 minutes ago, jcs said:

What's the RS on the EVA1 (or did I miss a global shutter announcement?  )? If the C200's RS is the same or better than the C300 II, that will be basically very little RS (C300 II is 6ms).

Wonder if ML RAW prompted Canon to put RAW in the C200...

Maybe that's why I love the C300 MKII motion cadence so much. :D

13 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

Oo you're going to buy one? What are you kicking out of the nest?

My old GH4 finally. GH5 doesn't really impress me. Too videoish. 
If EVA looks like Varicam (organic film), that will be mine.

Just now, Alt Shoo said:

 

Yes I believe it will be high end because Panasonic kept referring to the Varicam for footage when they spoke about features the EVA will have once they fine tune it. 

Yh, that was quite promising.
Let's hope they don't add any of the "advanced" GH5 processing. lol

5 minutes ago, dbp said:

I think it looks better than a smartphone, but I do know what you mean. It's solid, just as the GH4 was solid, and many other cameras are pretty good at this point. It's a tier of image quality that's usable, but not high end. It's been done and it's hard to get overly excited about. 

I would not want to dump that kinda money on camera unless it really brought me closer to the high end, and was a noticeable improvement over the GH4/5 and A7S's of the world. 

 

 

Both the GH4 and GH5 need lot's of filtering (diffusion filters and post blur actually) so they don't look like cheap video anymore.
The Varicam on the other side looks amazing without any filtering. Like an ARRI Alexa.

I mean the Varicam is very close to ARRI Alexa, while the GH5 footage online reminds me of my smartphone... (not kidding)

4 minutes ago, dbp said:

This camera sounds like a winner to me, especially if it ends up having the Varicam look. Love the size too!

I'll take two of these if it has the real Varicam (LT) look. That would be amazing.
If footage looks like shot with a GH5 (processed, homevideo like) I buy the C200 instead.

15 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Varicam sensor and a decent 4k 50p 10 bit codec would be enough for a lot of folk. The 10 bit is a given considering the gh5 has it - fingers crossed for the sensor 

If they don't use any of the ugly processing (sharpening, nr, ghosting) from the GH5, I'm all in.
Obviously Canon RAW won't have any of these flaws.