bunk

That's a joy to grade. Thanks for sharing!

 

Still a slight difference ...with some more effort I could get them probably closer. Sony keeps up just fine but I admit the footage is very thin.

some small adjustment  (to the sony footage ?) and you can't keep them apart.

some small adjustment  (to the sony footage ?) and you can't keep them apart.

Still a slight difference ...with some more effort I could get them probably closer. Sony keeps up just fine but I admit the footage is very thin.

Still a slight difference ...with some more effort I could get them probably closer. Sony keeps up just fine but I admit the footage is very thin.

some small adjustment  (to the sony footage ?) and you can't keep them apart.

A7s II, C300 II, 1DX II.
motivation: lipstick of 2 an 3 have the same color. 3 best detail.

A7s II, C300 II, 1DX II.
motivation: lipstick of 2 an 3 have the same color. 3 best detail.

"Ouch"... Im sorry but if you thought that was suposed to offend I appologize. But I stand by my statement. Lots of nice videos are shot on c100, 5D, a7sii, NX1, etc. And no one watches them with the nose to the screen. You dont have to agree.
Plus, there is also the 4:2:2 YUV. 
Doubt they would let me "hang onto" it, thats not how these things work
(I wish..  )

A 360 camera allows you to play google maps in your own place. Google maps uses static footage (photos), the 360 camera records moving pictures. If you use four cameras yourself and stitch the footage together you get the same effect. Problem is you need something to project it on. Either it will be projected on a 3D cylinder in your computer and you can rotate a 3D camera within the cylinder ( the google maps way) or you need a special build theater to project the footage. some years back Peter Pan was performed in London on stage and the complete theater was enclosed by a 360 screen on which animated environments -rendered in a 3D program- were projected.
VR is basicly the same as a modern video game. The environment is created in a 3D program and imported into an engine that lets you navigate through that environment. The environment is rendered on the fly. And that is the reason you can remove 'reality' from virtual as it looks very artificial. Current computers and graphic cards are not fast enough to render reality in real time. But at least it's kind of "3D" ( you're still fooled with projected textures).
Oh and there is no such thing as a 3D movie or a 3D tv. That is stereoscopic we talk about and it has nothing to do with 3D. There are 3D movies but only because they were made with 3D programs, think of 'ToyStory' or 'Horton hears a who'. Also most fx shot are done in 3D programs nowadays. The footage from 3D programs is as flat as the footage coming from your camera and nothing in the world can change that ...at least not in the years to come.

Either way. Slaves exist because of an unregulated market is trying to maximize profit.
Thats no secret. Im not saying its good or bad.
Im just clarifying since I often see people online use the word communism to describe the downside of successful capitalism.

Thanks for sharing. I like the BMPCC footage better as it easier to handle and is way more neutral.

It's funny, you guys represent The Camera Store, and have an in-built bias, let alone reason to maintain a good relationship with Sony...
 
... So the fact you are one of my most trusted reviewers speaks volumes to the hard work you put into your content, and by constantly being fair and consumer minded with your reviews, you have, despite those in-built percieved bias', always "been on my side" when it comes to making a purchase - the respect you get in the community is well earned, and long lasting because I have experienced enough products you have reviewed to know that you have always been absolutely upfront with a products shortcomings. Also, the fact you go through a products shortcomings without pouring vinegar on the product, which may work well for others who don't need that specific feature or can work around it makes you guys an absolute pleasure to watch!

Of course it looks corps like. Would have been the same with every camera. The shot was “exposed” for the background and then Yuryev steps in (in full shade).
Not to best condition to test skin tones. If you want to see some less corps like skin (and not use masks) you will have to blow the sky.
Still not perfect but looks a little healthier.

Sorry but that is poor grading. There is no banding in the footage. There is noise and macroblocking when pushed too much, but I'm surpriced how good it actually holds up for 8 bit.


 

I ended up using my CineD-to-Vlog setting in DaVinci. I think it is close to what Balazer is doing, but without going to an ACER-like colorspace.
Gives a lot of control ...especially to Close-up shot was way easier to grade then using an inverted curve in AE. Attached the DaVinci setting for whio is interested.


I don't think the .drx is needed ...but just in case.
mercer_grade_1.3.1.dpx
mercer_grade_1.3.1.drx
If you are serious about grading drop anything you use now and go for DaVinci ....it's really that good.
 
Cheers.

I don't think CineD is your enemy. If I were you I would use the basic settings and only reduce Sharpness and Noise Reduction.
And invert it's (profile)curve during grading. Here i only adjusted the color and LiftGammaGain a bit.

This is what happens when the curve is applied.

...that, or use Balazers LUTs.

I think its a bit of a generation thing.
A guy I have working with me is 10 years younger than me (im 33).
Both me and him are movie fans, we both saw H8 in 70mm.
Both of us use analog film for our stills. I use medium format and he shoots large format and is getting into wet prints.
We share similar tastes in other vintage stuff, we like the same movies, video games, etc.
But we differ on one subject. He loves the look of Loord of the rings, CGI, 48fps, sharp sharp images etc.
I like practical effects, film, 24p etc.

And when we argue about it, its clear to me that we simply don't see the same thing. When I point at the bear in the new dicaprio movie and say "look how fake" he just scratches his head. He has no idea what Im on about.
When I used Jurassic Park as an example of practical vs cgi, he thinks they look equally good.

He is simply used to it. That's what movies have looked like all his life. He doesn't remember the pre digital era.
Another example is dubbing. When Im in Germany I think, "how can they watch this, I mean its so badly done its comical?".
Then I ask a german friend, "What do you mean, its in perfect synk and the voice matches spot on, no one could ever tell the difference".
They are used to it.
Ok, totally off topic from the Weapon. But a thought
On topic,
It looked stellar but Im not blown away. URSA 4.6k, Dragon, Weapon, Tomato, Tomaato.
 

Ebrahim Saadawi showed his method to grade Slog footage in the Sony A6300 thread. In this case Slog 2 footage.
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/19110-sony-a6300-4k/?do=findComment&comment=131104
Ebrahinm used a random S-curve. I think by doing so he missed a change to better grade his footage. If you delog your footage with the curve used to created the footage you get way better results, I think.
Imho this not only works for Log footage but for every profile from your camera. For some reason that is beyond me you have to rotate the curves from the “normal” profiles 180 degrees to make this methode work. Except for the GH4 (thanks to Balazer) it’s pretty hard to find info on those curves. So that’s kind of a problem. But info on the Log curves can be found everywhere.
Back to the Slog-2 footage. The picture below shows it graded in DaVinci. The node 01 correspondents with the curve 01, etc.
Last node [01] is the delog node but is the one you start with, kind of backwards.

I attached the .dpx file so you can test it out in DaVinci your self. Not sure if you need the .drx
slog2_example_2.1.1.dpx
slog2_example_2.1.1.drx
I would like to hear from others how they grade there (log)footage or is it something you leave to the LUTs?

Ebrahim Saadawi showed his method to grade Slog footage in the Sony A6300 thread. In this case Slog 2 footage.
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/19110-sony-a6300-4k/?do=findComment&comment=131104
Ebrahinm used a random S-curve. I think by doing so he missed a change to better grade his footage. If you delog your footage with the curve used to created the footage you get way better results, I think.
Imho this not only works for Log footage but for every profile from your camera. For some reason that is beyond me you have to rotate the curves from the “normal” profiles 180 degrees to make this methode work. Except for the GH4 (thanks to Balazer) it’s pretty hard to find info on those curves. So that’s kind of a problem. But info on the Log curves can be found everywhere.
Back to the Slog-2 footage. The picture below shows it graded in DaVinci. The node 01 correspondents with the curve 01, etc.
Last node [01] is the delog node but is the one you start with, kind of backwards.

I attached the .dpx file so you can test it out in DaVinci your self. Not sure if you need the .drx
slog2_example_2.1.1.dpx
slog2_example_2.1.1.drx
I would like to hear from others how they grade there (log)footage or is it something you leave to the LUTs?

Well, for the next time maybe... Success with the feature

Way better. One last thing about the sub titles. Currently they are too big. They are as big as the credits. If they are 12 make them 8 or maybe even 6. Also don't use bold, unless you need to accentuate something.
 
Also make sure you don't have to scan a line. You should be able to pick it up without "reading". Thus short sentences or two lines.
A

​
It effects close range as well, way more for that matter.
Here is an example
I have a lens turbo EF to m43. I use vintage lenses, mostly Contax Yashica (thanks Andy) To fit them to the lens turbo they need an adapter ring. I adjusted the Lens turbo so the Yashica lenses hit infinity without overshoot.
Then I found a Yashica Auto Yashinon zoom1:3.5 45-115mm. It’s a M42 mount. It connects with an adapter ring to the EF lens turbo.
Focus between 115 and 45 were completely off. So I checked if I could improve that by adjusting the lens turbo element. It’s not a real parfocal lens (I think), but it is now as close to parfocal as I can get it.
If I now connect my C/Y they slightly overshoot when set to infinity …I couldn’t care less as the zoom lens suddenly is way easier to handle as everything stays in “focus” throughout the zoom range.
Non of these lenses have an original EF mount, all adapterrings differ so to make it stick to one lensturbo/speedbooster you will have to make choices.
Metabones advice is for varivocal lenses. From my understanding the Sigma 18-35 is a parfocal lens. And I think it’s your lens to go, so if I were you, I would make sure it behaves parfocal on the adapter …even if that means other lenses will suffer from it.

I like it very much. No doubt I would have given the same answer if I had choosen the VA or the Q7+ as it's my first recorder ever. They all record 10 bit prores  up to HQ and beyond (E5/E7 (4444XQ), 7Q+(raw)). I'm planning to combine my footage with my 3D work, hence I choose for a recorder that can deliver 4K in 10 bit Prores ...but for anything else I would be happy with the 'UHD Down Convert' from the GH4 ...it's that good and saves a lot of space . Talking about space I really like the concept of the mSata speed drives on the Pix-E's, they are great, no hassle what so ever, just like a normal usb thumb drive, only faster.
Oh and you don't have to use the monitor, you can just use it as a recorder. The Pix-E's let you create and save profiles. I made one with a black screen. Attache a luggage strap to one of the mounts and hang it around your neck/shoulder like a bag. HDMI cable to the camera and no one notices the differences ...for low profile shooting.
Btw 1080 straight from the GH4 to any recorder is not a good idea, very soft compared to 4K or UHD DownConvert.