Jonesy Jones

Have you seen the images Luke has been posting? Go look through the Middle Path thread for the 6K image of the robot. There is no lack of detail. In fact I'd say the opposite is true. Also, it will cost $2500. Is that a hefty premium? Blackmagic is working on a smaller bodied 4K camera. But they are running into physics troubles, that I assume they'll eventually solve, probably by NAB. They've said as much.

The first cut of my feature Luggage was 50 minutes. The story itself felt off, as did the duration. So I wrote in 6 dialogue scenes that were easy to shoot, actually helped the story substantially, and got us to 80 minutes, which is the shortest you really want for a feature. Right now I'm working on a couple different screenplays. For one of them I'm tossing around the idea of making it into a mini series of four to six 45 minute 'chapters'. There are a few ways to market those. One of which is to slap the first two together to make a 90 minute piece that I could show in a theater.

I find a ton of inspiration in the work of some photographers, and I think it'd be great if we could all share some of our favorite. A couple ground rules: It would be great if photographers with a distinct style or technique were shared. And even a short something about them or what you find so unique and inspiring. Please include a link to their site, portfolio, or Instagram page. That small bit of work on your part would be a huge timesaver on our part. I'll start: Is it safe to say that Yousef Karsh is the greatest portrait photographer ever? Well he's certainly photographed the most iconic personalities of all time. Even though it is B&W, there is still a very classic cinematic feel to it. Tonal contrast master. I can't put my finger on why, but Deakin's work feels similar. Is it a classic use of soft light and shadows? I don't know what I'm talking about technically speaking but they resemble each other to me. Michael Muller's work is cinematic too, or is it just because he photographs movie stars? He loves the whole dual side light thing. I love that too. He's not afraid to sometimes let a subjects hair or clothes disappear into the background. He also loves the strange triangle or square eye light thing. I'm not such a big fan. His studio work is awesome, but so are the field shots. His shots tell great stories. (As I look at these photos I can't help but think to myself how full of themselves all these stars must be.) Eli Rezkallah's use of color contrast and affinity is worth looking at. I wouldn't be interested in this personally unless it was for something commercial. In which case it would be a blast. I am going to include Sandro Giordano's Instagram page only because it is so strikingly niche and distinct. If you are ever in the mood to reinvent yourself in a way that totally stands out, Sandro's work is a reminder that capitalizing and committing to a simple idea can work in this regard. In other words, creating memorable images might not be as difficult as it seems.

What content are you finding in UHD? If you wanted classics like, say, The Godfather, or Jaws, or Shawshank, are they printing these in UHD? Also, are you concerned about HDR. Does a SDR 4K movie look good on an HDR display?

Really good input Ethan. Thanks a ton. EDIT: One thing to note is that the 4K content on iTunes is streaming only, no download. Which is kind of ridiculous since the vast majority of people don't have the bandwidth to support 4K streaming. Not to mention we are living in times of uncertainty about bandwidth, which is much of the reason I am hoping to wean myself from constantly streaming content.

Is your iMac solid state? If not, I would make it one. OWC sells kits to do this. It's not hard at all. The SSD drive that you use does not need to be purchased from OWC, so you can just get one as large and fast as you want, and then just buy the kit from OWC. I did this to my iMac, probably about the same age as yours, and it flies like the wind. It's going to cost you a couple hundo depending on the size of the SSD you get, but it is so worth it.

Don, I am very interested in using CineForm. I agree about not using proprietary stuff (this is why I won't really ever go with FCPX). I followed the links you shared and read them, but I am not tech savvy enough to do whatever that second link was describing. I have Adobe Cloud. Is there a simple way for me to get and use CineForm on a Mac? EDIT: Never mind Don, I figured it out. For those also interested, look for "GoPro CineForm" in the drop down menu and not just CineForm. Here's a link from Adobe on the matter.

X-Files is actually exactly one of the shows I'm looking to buy. And great point. Even though I've heard 35mm equates to 4K res, I wonder how noticeable the difference would be. You're missing the point Jon. We're slaves to Netflix. Since becoming a subscriber it almost seems like if it isn't on Netflix... it doesn't exist. And every few months I can always pay for a month or 2 of Netflix and binge watch whatever I've missed.

First let me say that it is my goal to soon wean myself from Netflix and build up my own library of digital content. The hit to my data consumption is growing and since much of what I watch is reruns, I might as well just own it. My question though is, should I begin buying readily available HD content now, or should I wait until it starts to become available in 4K? (Or how about 4K HDR?) I own neither a 4K TV, nor anything HDR, but I expect that'll change at some point soonish. So I couldn't even tell you how big a difference it is viewing 4K content on a 4K TV vs. HD content on a 4K display. Is it noticeable? Worth getting the 4K source material? How about watching SDR content on an HDR display? These different deliverables are great for TV manufacturers but horrible for content creators as I believe my exact question and dilemma is stalling the purchasing for consumers the world over. So how about it? What should I do?

I keep checking in on this thread for more real world examples of your conversion tool. Instead the thread has turned into an anamorphic discussion. Just a thought, maybe your website could have a "Gallery" page for such examples. Folks could send you screen grabs or links to videos. I'd check it often.

This question is for anyone, but I am tagging @mercer and @Oliver Daniel since they have both brought it up numerous times recently. What is dual ISO? Or what are you or others referring to when you say dual ISO? Because it could mean a couple things as far as I know. The first meaning, that I've heard is when the camera shoots simultaneously at two different ISO's and later they are combined to create an image with higher DR. I heard somewhere that @Neumann Films actually used this sometime ago with Magic Lantern or whatever. Which would make him a good candidate to use the new GH5BS if dual ISO is in fact the new 'thing' and if that is the definition of dual ISO. But to my understanding it would not give better low light, though it would create higher DR. The second meaning of dual ISO that I am aware of is dual 'Native' ISO, and this is actually what Panasonic has a history of doing with both the Varicam and EVA1. It allows the user to choose a higher, or lower, ISO as it's cleanest widest latitude setting. So the new GH5 could have 2 native ISO's, say one at 400 and another at 2500, or whatever. This, to my knowledge, would do nothing for greater DR, though it would definitely help low light since a cleaner image could be had at higher ISO's. Honestly, I would think the latter would be the most likely feature because of Panasonics recent use of it. Luke has definitely given clues that this camera is better in low light, though we see no evidence of it "seeing in the dark" as some of the Sony's do. So this would fit right in line with the images we've been seeing. However, to my understanding, this would give no benefit to DR. One thing I've noticed is that all of the images we've seen from Luke are high DR scenes or 'lower' light scenes... all being very clean and detailed and from what I can see, definitely improved DR, which the current GH5 could benefit from. So maybe there is an improvement to DR with dual Native ISO, but I don't understand how. Someone more technical than I could really help. Thanks.

Boy that would be horrible. Let's hope not. Hollywood is nearly incapable of producing watchable content these days.

Luke has never once, not even one time, shown a pattern for trying to throw us off. In fact he has always done the opposite. In this case I really think he wants to tell us, but can't. I even asked him a couple pages ago and he responded in the same. Luke is not trying to throw us off. Everything he posts is on point. But like you said, we will see in a bit. By the way, we don't even know if January 8 is the date for the announcement. Panasonic has still yet to officially say one word about this new camera.

Even though I have no inside information or have no idea what Panasonic is going to announce, I am going to boldly stick with the numbers. Luke is posting images with resolution IDENTICAL to the current GH5. So the camera he is shooting with either has the same sensor or new version of same sensor. I think the difference is going to be an enhanced Venus Engine processor, similar or better to the one the G9 got. Which enhanced codec compression, DR, highlights, noise, low light, etc. Luke's camera is NOT a low light beast, or at least he has shown no evidence of it yet. I just think the new camera is a GH5, but better.

This is not going to happen. The new camera has the same sensor as current GH5.

Did you take that screenshot? That is much clearer than what I was able to render. Well, I bought the auto focus thing too. Good catch on both accounts. Is it possible the screen is larger? I don't think so, but was hoping. It looks identical other than that red ring.

No. I'm almost certain it was shot in ALL-I 3328 x 2496, which with 2x anamorphic is 6648 x 2496. Download this image and see. 3840x1440 is just Luke experimenting with UHD.

This is obviously not a 35mm anamorphic lens, but is a 35mm lens, shot in the same ALL-I anamorphic mode as Luke's stuff. The horizontal fov will obviously be different, but the vertical should be the same. Shot 30 inches from the subject on GH5. His head is probably bigger. But if Luke's camera had an s35 sensor in it, wouldn't his vertical fov be noticeably greater than mine?

i Could not sAy aNything specific about Your pOsts, Until you sTop bEing so eLLusive. Until thiS, was LIterally sure I KnEw. now, noT so mucH. It iS getting annoying. @Neumann Films

So here, Luke says he knows nothing about RAW coming to the GH5. Just a couple pages ago Luke plainly says he does not like DNG and prefers Prores or codecs like whats in the GH5 currently. What processing or cards would be necessary to even add RAW? If you watch Luke's bts vlog on youtube you'll never see an external recorder, so that's not it. If this new cam has RAW, Luke is being a horrible ambassador. Guys, is it reasonable to assume the new cam does NOT have RAW capabilities? Can we stop that talk? We know that there is a new camera, and we can probably assume it is going to cost $2500 (see my long post here at Nov 23). Personally, I'm confident the new cam will be based on the same sensor or a new version of the same sensor, or a new sensor with same resolution specs. Here is my reasoning. There could also be a firmware upgrade for current GH5 owners, heck, maybe even some sort of upgrade path for current GH5 owners, but either of those things is purely speculation. If I'm right about the sensor, then there is no EVA1 sensor in this camera, or another s35 sensor. A bigger sensor, in my opinion, would be a much bigger announcement and basically a whole new product line. It would be odd for Luke to start that discussion in an old GH5 thread. Guys, can assume the new feature is not sensor sized based? If so, then Luke's recent image post is not regarding larger sensor, DOF or RAW. That leaves us with the image itself. If you read Luke's post here, I think Luke cryptically suggested (pay attention to the italics) that this camera will be better in low light. Is this also a hint to the infamous dual ISO? Similarly, Luke here used italics to possibly hint that there is something regarding the "shoulders". He clearly stated he was shooting at T1.9. Even on m43 with that much light at T1.9, you're going to get clipping on a white coat like the actor is wearing. Now, there is something on the end of the lens. It could be ND? That would remedy the clipping. Regardless, I have consistently noticed superb exposure in high DR situations. Like with this image for instance. Also, all the images he's posted look so rich and clean compared to my GH5 images. I obviously can't say for certain, but something about the images themselves seem improved. Luke started a new vlog right at the beginning of all this called "The BEST Vlog EVER." Notice his use of capitals. Is this a clue that this cam has an improved Vlog codec? Lastly, the screen grab I posted and @mechanicalEYE re-posted here clearly has a different auto-focus button set up. Even though the Casey Neistat photos are suspect, I think they are extremely compelling. Luke has also mentioned that different ambassadors highlight different features. I think there is improved autofocus with this cam. So... I think the following is a reasonable conclusion at this point. There is a new camera. It will cost $2500 (possible firmware update for current GH5 owners). It will have improved low light, DR, vlog, and autofocus, with perhaps some other video centric features. There is not RAW, or a bigger or completely different sensor.

Does dual ISO have something to do with color temp/WB? I thought it was an exposure thing. Ok Luke. Here's the thing. If I were trying to upload an image and it wouldn't let me, I would either... Think to myself, "Oh well. It wasn't really that important." Then I'd go on about my day.... OR Think to myself, "Oh wait. It doesn't accept tif files." Then I'd convert it to jpeg. And post it. What I would never do is realize that it didn't accept tif files, and then post that it doesn't accept tif files -- knowing full well that I could simply convert to jpeg. The fact that you realized the forum didn't accept tifs and randomly posted that fact doesn't make any sense. I know you did eventually convert to jpeg and post, but the first series of actions just doesn't add up, especially when you say there is "no hidden meaning!" Come on man. You're killing us.

Wait. How did you get that from Luke's image? It was a well lit scene. Most of the images he's shared were from well exposed settings. Even the night shots weren't shots that require an ultra lowlight camera.

Yes. This is what I have been saying. There is, I think, something else to this footage other than an Arri lens. To me the skin and detail look stunning. The DOF is also razor thin.

I dunno. I'm just wondering why you'd post something like that.

Obviously Luke knows how to post photos here. @Neumann Films does this mean the new cam shoots in tif sequences?