kidzrevil

@kidzrevil
Great video...You really have a specific, unique own style of shooting and grading. Just some questions:
A. It seems, the shots were mostly handheld? If so, you have quite steady hands...
B. You still own the A7S, or have you sold it?
C. Do / did you generally like the A7S (IQ, ergonomics, handling, general feeling, etc.)? (I've read in your video posting, you didn't like the in-camera sharpening...)

The guy joins the forum, looking for pointers to clips that in the forums' users' opinions are cinematic-looking and he gets greeted like that by one of the moderators. Wow - I bet he'll be recommending EOSHD to his pals as a real friendly and helpful place.

To my eyes, my G6 HD appears to have more resolution than my GX85s HD, with less aliasing and artificial sharpness on the same settings.
Started to dialing sharpness down from -2 to -5.
Also, from one experience, I got the impression that electronic native lenses might involve some automatic processing to the image.
One note on this, in the GH5 thread someone stated about some native lenses that they produce an artificial outline around oof shapes, sharp edges like cut out pieces, so to say.
The native lens I shot with back then was the 14-45mm. It was a two cam setup of my and my collegues G6, one mounted to the 14-45, the other one with a boosted 28mm FD.
Both lenses were very hard to match in post, even though they were on the same settings. So, maybe some native lenses are key to even more artificial sharpening and rendering
because of additional processing.

Can't believe how 'robust' the 4.2.2 10bit files are - even in V-LOG they are virtually unbreakable (Blue skies remain banding free) even with very heavy adjustments. Coming from a Sony A7s and A7r2 where skies band without any processing this is nothing short of a miracle how Panasonic have done this with a 150mbs codec. Still prefer Cinelike-D for most scenes unless they contain huge contrast ranges as the highlight roll-off is smoother and light shades have more tonal detail.

@kidzrevil
Here is a quick screengrab from a 4.2.0 8bit 4K video done with a Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1 4 at F8.0. No color correction, no grading in post - only natural light (shot between golden and blue hour in Frankfurt - as I just wanted to capture the characteristics of the NX1 + Otus. The A6500 is also TOP NOTCH with the Otus on it when shooting architecture, etc. When shooting people, the A6500 is very "special" with the Otus on it, it will take some testing to get the right balance in regard to skin structure...
I know, you are very picky with the look of your videos, especially with skin tones and structure. The A6500 looks great with 35mm 1.8 Nikon + Pro mist, when it comes to skin tonality and structure. You have to treat it very carefully, when it comes to WB! 
I wouldn't worry about 4.2.0|8bit....
*Please consider, that's my personal POV. I never shot IMAX cinema theater films and will never do it....I am simply a visual story teller...
 

@kidzrevil
My mom owns a A6500 and I shoot video with it. GREAT dynamic range and imaging (great for portrait photography too)...But - in my eyes - a love & hate camera. Great for decent street shootings, but still very small - even my mom (about 1,63m high and small hands) has the best feeling only with an additional grip. Menus are a pain and if you want to shoot longer takes, put the hot shoe protection down, open the flash and put the LCD away from the camera - if not, it could probably overheat (warning). It dims when shooting 4K, so on a sunny day, it will get hard to shoot....
But still, I use it for street photography and for 4K footage (street shooting) and low light....great to use with the 35mm 1.8 (OSS) and 12mm 2.0 Samyang/Rokinon (manual). With the 18-105 4.0, you will get almost all you need, considering that the 50mm 1.8 OSS can be bought now for about 250,- Euro...
Great to usew with adapted lenses, I could imagine that some fast Nikon primes could be your taste, as they give this camera some great characteristics...
I call this device "my little piece of plastic garbage" - as I love solid, reliable cameras I could beat to death...But sttill, it's very special and a wonderful piece of technology. My POV: NO ONE will complain about 4.2.0 8bit, excepting you mostly need 4.2.2 10bit or even RAW for heavy grading or simply for your personal post processing pleasure...

@Cinegain
Hmm...I have to contradict: ONLY some people do it - mostly self proclaimed "cinematographers", copying "cinematic look" from other test video posters. More than 99 percent of users who buy modern cameras are still very happy with their choice...People needing 100% cinematic look just out of a camera and maximum of control and maleability, work witk RAW cameras, as they know, even a 4.2.2 10bit is only a compromise and - in the hands of a good filmmaker & capable colour grader - will never touch the IQ level of RAW footage.
In my eyes, over 90% of "test footage" is simply massacred footage...Trying to get a "quick & dirty" cinematic look with bad lighting, no clue of what one is doing (simply trying to copy settings of other clueless amateurs, workflows and dumbly buying LUT packages) doesn't lead to good results. but it's simply awkward. Better to use the camera with original settings and profiles...
Most of today's cameras (completely independent of manufactures name) have a good resolution (excepting Canon's ancient 720p BS) in 1080p and 4K. But obviously people CAN'T or don't want to handle high resolution (4K+), so they "go vintage": the post-world-war-2-720p mushy Canon BS...And declare it as "cinematic". But - as said - this is only a minority and the claim is a completely irrelevant myth. A vast majority of todays audience 
simply doens't care about such called cinematic look simply uses small smartphones/tablet screens and so subtle color grading and 4K & Co don't matter at all using bigger screens (PC, TV) LOVE high resolution and high contrast footage (HDR) "Tarantino in 2 minutes" is quite hard to achieve...So the few guys "begging for high-res and keep hammering down footage has to be sharp and detailed" should put their money in RAW devices, as noone cares really about their excessive requirements for a under 2.000 USD camera...People wanting to do real cinematography should raise money for some serious artistic and technical education, a serious RAW camera, a truck full of lighting, some good actors, directing and postproduction knowledge etc., etc....At the end of the day, most of us are ambitionned enthusiasts/amateurs or small business filmmakers without time and budget to produce great Hollywood cinematography - and that's completely OK. Some of us should just stop miming the 100 million $ Hollywood producer...
There is clearly a big discrepancy between pretense and reality out there...Nothing to get worried about, just try to do your best and have fun...

If that's the case, it's a misconception. Buying a speedbooster can be a rational decision. It allows you to buy better glass for less money. It allows you to capture comparatively more light without smaller DoF. Think about it.
People reliably choose the image with shallower depth of field. Not necessarily because the bokeh is nice, but because the selective focus clearly signals that the shot has had an intention. If you follow this path, you never needed to care about set design, framing and all the other arts. Just buy a full frame camera and a 0.95 lens and blur everything!

Although the RS isn't good at all, on the 6500, the 5-axis IBIS really tames it if you are not doing fast pans and walking. 

Amazing! Its incredible the image you can get out of your G85. 

Testing out a simple ML Raw workflow from some test shots I did with the Canon 35mm f/2. The first one is a "vintage" look using an Impulz LUT.

Raw is a different thing entirely to 10bit 4:2:2.
 
Raw is just the 1s and 0s from the sensor. Everything else like bit depth, sampling, debayering, compression, encoding, comes later.
 
So 10bit 4:2:2 does not have mailability close to a raw photo actually.
 
The advantages of recording to a high bitrate is that the image doesn't break up when the movement or scene gets too complex for the codec. Also a finer more film-like noise grain is maintained.
 
However the stuff you can do with raw like changing the white balance entirely in post as if doing it in camera with no side effects, you cannot do with even the best RGB / YUV codec in 10bit 4:2:2, like ProRes.

Hey Kidz, nice looking footage as always! You wrote that you prefer black satin over black pro mist because it flares a lot. What would be the "equivalent" black satin of the black pro mist 1/8? Satin 1?

I might have to get one of those satin filters.

But 8bit IS itself lossy data compression.
Look at the difference between 8bit raw and 14bit raw in terms of dynamic range.
10bit is very important as an acquisition format
If your capture format is 8bit from the sensor to the card then you are losing dynamic range.
The only reason an 8bit JPEG works is because all the image processing is done in 14bit and the sensor is 14bit
As a delivery format on our screens, 8bit works ok (although there is a reason HDR displays need 10bit)... but the capture can benefit from 10bit and higher... for more dynamic range, less compression and better colour.
The reason so many people can't tell the difference between 8bit and 10bit is they are both so heavily compressed or hacked down on cameras like the FS5.

10 bit won't give you a dynamic range improvement - 8 or 10 bit is the output file bit depth. A camera can have a 14+ stop DR and output this into an 8 bit jpeg image that will look very good - anybody who is working with in stills with RAW capture can tell you this esp if they have a good MF digital back which are even 16 bit capture and you can create absolutely stunning 8bit output files full of subtle graduations in tone and colour that you can only dream of with a DSLR. 8 bit is absolutely fine as an output file .................as long as you nail everything in camera and your cameras internal processing engine isn't compressing the hell out of the image and throwing away image data which unfortunately with internal codecs which are designed for broadcast and not storage it certainly is. Massive lossy data compression is the enemy we are up against - 8 vs 10 bit output is a red herring IMO. The ML RAW hack simply removes this obstacle and the benefits are clear to see. 

Ok I take on the challenge.
I'll shoot 10bit GH5 and compare it to 8bit GH4
And I'll shoot some more 10bit RAW on the 5D Mark III and compare it to 8bit 4K on the Sony cameras.
I thought Blackmagic already showed that 10bit was superior... Problem was maybe their sensors were a bit behind, so shadows were a bit noisier and so on, compared to an A7S or the like.

There's a lot of misinformation out there because there's a lot of fake 10bit.
The whole camera, colour processing, colour profiles, image pipeline and codec need to be built around 10bit for it to be an advantage, like on the GH5, or in raw on the 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern (where the colour profiles and image processing is done in POST, bypassing the camera's 8bit processing limitations).
The 10bit GH5 Rec.709 image is night and day better than the GH4 10bit HDMI output.
And don't get me started on 8bit "uncompressed" HDMI... It is compressed as hell! No point in recording it. Especially not as 10bit ProRes.

I will be uploading some of the original ProRes clips and Cinema DNGs. They amount you can push them in post without them falling apart is incredible.

Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 in M mount. Not exactly vintage but they sometimes pop up used for $400 or even less.

Here are a few more screengrabs from my film. The first one is with the Canon 24-70mm f/4...
 

And the second is with the Canon 35mm f/2...
 

Haha, in the first one, the actor looks like he is shaking his head that I am posting these grabs... lol.

Hey Nikkor, it's a suspense thriller about a man who comes home after spending some time in a mental hospital. The familiar people and places begin to dislodge hauntingly, faint memories of his dead girlfriend but the visions seem real and vengeful. 
It's kind of a mixture between a classic English ghost story and Japanese horror. 

Thanks. No diffusion or filters. I bought these lenses back when I had the bmpcc  and I love the look they give, and i'm glad they work (for the most part) on the G7 (some extra cropping is needed for the 12.5mm). The Cosmicar 12.5mm is especially sharp. They're small, but not the smallest c-mount lenses I've owned. Both are made of metal and actually handle nicely. I definitely want to come up with a short film to shoot wit these lenses. I'm thinking maybe a love story, kind of like the s16 flashback sequences in Blue Valentine.

Facebook post... Nikon Speedbooster .71x -> Nippon Kogaku h auto 50mm f2 -> Kowa 8z -> CineD 4k 4:3 50p 8bit

Kern-Paillard Yvar AR 26mm f/1.9 c-mount Bolex lens on the Panasonic G7 (shot wide open):


Lovely little lens.