Jonesy Jones

Give the like counter a little tappy tap.

Yes. Buy once, you will have free upgrades to future releases.

That would be sweet. Particularly seeing this on skin. Jon, could you help me with the math? So, let's say I have 28mm lens. Then I use a metabones .64x speed booster. That lens is now a 17.92mm, lets round up to 18mm. Then I double for the GH5 crop, and it's 35mm equiv is 36mm. Then with ETC, it is 36x1.4=50. So the 35mm equiv of a 28mm lens on a GH5 with .64x speed booster with ETC enabled is roughly 50mm. Is my math correct?

Man, this camera keeps getting better. And it's embarrassing I didn't know this already. Wow. Thanks bro. Got to be honest, the FX2 looks a little much.

This would be great. But if it's too much hassle don't worry about it. I think I'm going to order a few and run some tests. Jon, what is ETC? I like that look too. However, with the GH5 it goes beyond that to sharpening that looks videoish. I am hoping that these filters help take the edge off a tad, but leave the detail. I'm not sure what the GH5 has going on under the hood, but my impression is that in order to avoid noise and moire they process the image in less than ideal ways.

Tough to say. There's all the peripheral stuff you could point to like ND's and IBIS and size and so on. But image quality alone the UMPro obviously wins. But I will say that when I pulled out the GH5 for the first time I thought to myself, this looks nearly identical to how this would look if I were shooting with the UMPro. On further review I'd say the GH5 is 80-90% of the UMPro. My hope is that with filters, correct v log exposure, the right lut and better post, I can mitigate some of that last 10-20%.

No. Sold it. I loved the image though. But downscaling to the awesome but less expensive GH5 was the way to go for me.

I can tell you for certain that the UMPro does not suffer from FPN, unless you do something overly extreme in post. At first I thought I noticed FPN in the camera monitor. Upon playback it was clean as clean.

jcs has started a very civilized discussion, and thus far everyone has followed suit. Spinning people's statements is not helpful and will eventually lead to a locked thread. Regarding the rest of your post, there are too many rabbit trails there. Maybe we'll get there eventually. But I don't know. If someone can't admit/assume/acknowledge that we are alive, then the discussion is pretty much over.

I know the exact software you are referring to. Looked interesting when I saw it. But I'm looking for something before post. Right now I use Filmconvert which helps de-digitize a bit. Yes. Good stuff. Exactly the kind of leads I was looking for. I'll check out his videos. I'm in an area with such bad service that I haven't been able to watch those at the moment. but will later today. I remember that thread. Did you end up liking the low con filters? Or did you go a different direction? No. But I can recognize it. I was actually hoping you'd jump into the thread with this exact suggestion. I only know about this filter because of you. However, could you point me to a video that used that filter? Other than the Tiffen one.

This is what I meant by game of ignorance. And since yes, you are alive. And since yes, you will die. The stakes are high. It seems foolish to jeopardize both of those playing a game of ignorance.

Are you alive? Yes or No?

A race to the bottom. Everyone is in a competition to get noticed by talking, posting, preaching etc. Doing. No one is doing that anymore.

I've got the GH5 and Lumix 12-35. Love it. But we all know there is a distinct video look, and I'd like to minimize it. I'd start with the lens, but right now I just can't afford that (unless I go with inexpensive FD lenses?). I have 0 first hand experience with the filters I'm looking into. Promist. Low con. Digital diffusion. I'm obviously going for something less digital and more filmic, whatever that means. Maybe I should just buy a bunch and test and return the ones I don't like. Could you point me in the right direction?

This is exactly what I mean jcs. The stakes are too high to be playing this game of ignorance.

I have the Lumix 12-35 v1 and love the dual IS. That said, I also have the Sigma 18-35 (Nikon mount) and the single IBIS is great too. Personally I think you could go handheld with either, but that depends on the level of stability you're after. Also, the 18-35 is huge. I mean, not really, but it feels oddly heavy on the camera. Totally usable, but something to consider. Also, what Don said about the IBIS focal length thing is very annoying. I've heard the Canon version with the correct Speedbooster can solve this issue, but I don't know first hand. The Lumix is not without quirks either though. The focus by wire is not ideal. I've heard it's better on the Oly, but then you're not getting Dual IS. Having had this camera now for a bit, I think I would look for vintage prime glass and/or add some filtration to the front to reduce the sharpness and digital look. I'm looking into this now but just completely tapped out financially. The 18-35 with electronic communication speed booster does seem tempting, but it really starts to take away from the charm of the camera. Here's a totally just for fun short I just shot with the GH5 and 12-35. All handheld except very first shot. For me this was a test to see how much the size of the GH5 and the IBIS could speed up my shooting and perhaps even make me more creative. I really think those 2 things are liberating. I was able to shoot this in 1 hour. Now I just have to figure out how to expose v-log.

You're missing the point. 'When' you and I die is uncertain. 'That' we will die is certain. Like I said before, the stakes are very high.

Where are the other promo videos? There are 2 others, but haven't seen them yet.

I don't mean to disrespect your opinion, because I definitely respect it, but you said the same thing about the UM46 motion. I owned that cam for a while, honestly, it produced the best footage I've ever shot or edited personally. EDIT: Not trying to call you out or anything like that Oliver. I'm only suggesting that our first, limited impressions may not be super accurate. And I'm hoping yours aren't. I'd like this camera to be great. The more I watch the above, the more I like it. To each his own though. These are just my first initial impressions.

To my still immature eye the colors are fabulous. Skin and, whatever, look awesome. What I am discovering is that the feel we generally like has to do with flaws, not with perfection. My favorite singers and bands are not flawless. They have just the right amount of imperfections. Same with art. And maybe same with the quality of film that we attribute cinematic. Perhaps the EVA1 is just a little too good. Maybe its our job to introduce imperfections using lenses, filters, lighting, set, post and CC, etc. Or maybe that's nonsense. Perhaps recording raw externally will help? As is, the EVA1 out of the box is beautiful and tremendously useful for commercial and doc use. I'd love to see what adding some less pristine elements does to the footage.

The truth is that in 50 to 60 years, most likely sooner, both you and I will be dead. The stakes are high.

JCS, I love and appreciate the tone of your posts and threads. I have yet to be "triggered" by anything you've said in this thread, or any other that I can remember. Regarding truth and fallacies, these are very definitive. They are not mushy or hazy. Sure, it may be difficult at times to find, know, or understand the truth, but that is not the fault of truth. Likewise, fallacies are always fallacies if they are in fact fallacious.

Is that true? Regardless, paradox and logical fallacies are different. Fallacies are untrue by definition.

@jcs, so what I'm about to say could come across antagonistic, I don't mean it that way. Just my observations and I am phrasing them best as I can. Quite a few times you suggest that neither you, nor anyone else really know anything. If I have understood you correctly, then these are self-defeating statements. Basically you are saying, 'we don't know anything, and I know this for sure.' That's self-defeating, erroneous logic. You seem convinced that everything you say, and apparently even Buddha, could be an illusion. Then why continue to preach? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you regarding kindness and humility and love. But to even claim these as good is an assertion of truth. And to practice them requires even more truth. We need truth to even converse. Truth is essential.

Yes. This is true. And for many centuries before and after that period, the EXACT OPPOSITE was true. Not to mention that Christianity teaches absolutely nothing of putting someone to death for not converting. To my understanding many many people have borrowed the appearance of Christianity to do unspeakable evil including murder. But not only is this NOT a tenant of Christianity, Christ taught the exact opposite. (Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, pray for those who despise you, etc). My only point is that while your history is most likely accurate, history's antagonists have often inappropriately borrowed the name of Christ to do bad stuff that history has then unfairly clumped with Christ. I'm also not suggesting you were saying otherwise. I'm just adding it more as a 'for the record' kind of thing.