Grimor

Use a crane/Jib for indoor.
Drone is dangerous so close to your actress and you will get lot of wind, sound , dust and maybe blood on your take.
Outside whatever drone with tiltable 3axis gimbal will do the job.

Use a crane/Jib for indoor.
Drone is dangerous so close to your actress and you will get lot of wind, sound , dust and maybe blood on your take.
Outside whatever drone with tiltable 3axis gimbal will do the job.

@BTM_Pix discovery of how to unlock Cinelike-D on the GX85 was one of the most valuable contribuitions ever on this forum.

Anyone guess what might be going on here then?
 

I would love to see Panasonics new sensor make it’s way into the GH6... that would be ground breaking. I think the way the GH5S implements the Starvis IMX294 is not ideal. This dual ISO business clearly has merits, but the idea of capturing both high and low ISO at once and combining them in real time to create a HDR video is more appealing to me. I wonder if this could be enabled in firmware? After all, this is what the sensor was originally designed to do. Instead Panasonic chose to disable this dual capture mode and use them independently... which while somewhat useful, is actually bastardizing the sensor. 

Low light test.
You can see fine detail on shadows...

Is tricky to give advice without knowing your budget range, but here are some suggestions I'd give:

Varicam LT: arguably "the best" camera right now (short of an Arri 65 or Sony F65 etc... those truly ridiculous priced ones!). Yes, even better than say the usual Arri Alexa. Plus, you can pick up an EVA1 or GH5S as a great B cam for the Varicam!

Sony F5 / F55: the F5 is going very cheap these days secondhand, is packed with more features perhaps than any other camera at this price point.  (and you're F3 could stick around as a lovely B cam for its "free" price! ha)

Sony FS7: basically is a "baby F5", very similar in picture quality, & capable of 4K 60fps 10bit as well. But lacking many of the extra bonuses you might see on the F5, such as TC or genlock, but you said you don't care about those anyway. 

URSA Mini Pro: best bang for buck of all of these that I'm mentioning! (unless you get an absolute bargain for an F5, which I've seen occasionally them go for FS7 secondhand prices) The URSA Mini Pro is a lovely evolution forward from the URSA Mini 4.6K (which is itself a *lot* better than its brother the URSA Mini 4K, so don't get those two mixed up when reading reviews!)

Kinefinity Terra 4K: gives the URSA Mini Pro a hard run for "value for money", coming close behind. Has an eND option with the Kinemount with EF lenses. (also can do PL lenses, but I don't know of an eND for PL, however I imagine with PL lenses you'd be more ok with using a mattebox as well) 

EVA1: the most compact 4K 10bit on the market! Super lightweight for a camera with those specs plus S35 + NDs + TC + SDI + etc... and you've got the option between EF or PL with a third party accessories. 

Ones I would *NOT* consider  (but you might, but probably won't... as you're stuck with EF *or* PL, not both! But all the cameras I mentioned above, at a minimum, can switch between EF and PL):

Canon C200: lacks a middle codec, you only have the extremes of 8bit or raw!!
C300 mk2: overpriced (although, its price has massively come down since launch. So not so crazy to pick it now)
 

Low light test.
You can see fine detail on shadows...

Trying to fix various misunderstandings I experienced while posting my findings about LOG gamma profiles last year, I'm starting at the beginning--Camera RAW.  Most of you probably know all this already, but if you have 25 minutes to kill, or just want something to put you to sleep.  I've done a video on RAW.  I hope to do others, taking someone all the way up from RAW to video LOG.  As I do these, I learn a lot too.  There is plenty about video LOG that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.  Anyway, here is part one
 

I did a lot of crazy things back them. I was the first person in Ohio to ever own a IBM XT computer around 1982. It had a 4mb, yeah mb hard drive in it and 64k, yeah k of memory. I paid over 7,000 bucks for it. I was maybe the first person in the world two have to video monitors hooked up at the same time to a PC computer, maybe any type of computer.
I was trying to teach my daughter Digital Turtle Graphics and I wanted a Monochrome monitor for text, and a RGB color monitor for the graphics, running at the same time, to made it easier for her to learn. I had a degree in Computer Science at the time.
I called Digital Computers and they thought I was crazy, not going to happen, not possible. And then I called IBM and they said We Never ever thought about doing that. About 3 months later they wrote me a one off machine language program to make it happen. I had my picture and computer setup in their corporate newsletter, they gave me 500 dollars and a 600 dollar "six pack" I/O board for coming up with the idea. A few months later anyone could do it if they wanted to.
I also had a business called The Data Bank Company going at the same time. I was on the Web before there was a thing called the web. It was out of Phoenix, Arizona. Cost 250 dollars a month.  It was mostly just for Colleges. I was one of the few in the world that was on it as a regular person. I can't remember the name any more. I did research for court cases for lawyers.  I would download the data all night, I had a 300 baud modem with a 256k modem buffer on it.  And it print out using 3 Epson printers going 10 hours a day, I would wear out all 3 of them nearly each month!  used a 20# box of printer paper a day. Charged 60 bucks an hour back them. A ton of money in the early 80's. Worked out of my home part time. I was a BUSY bastard in those days. On the foreskin of technology as they say Lol.

"Well bigger pixels with same count would be bigger sensor". ahh, you can only put so many pixels on a sensor. If you have a "bigger sensor"  those same sized pixels would not fill up a larger sensor. So you would have smaller "wells" to capture light with. Pixels Have to cover the entire sensor. The more you have the Smaller they have to be.
Hell maybe we are saying the same thing, but there is no way in heck you can have unbelievable low light using a sensor with say 50mb on a FF sensor.. Unless it is a MF sensor with HUGE sensors. And that is why MF cameras are so good. Large pixels per sq inch to gather more light..
One of the best older low light Cine cameras is a Sony F3. It only had like a 3.4 mp sensor in it. It is so the pixels, pixel pitch, can be huge to gather more light. And 2mp is all you need for 1080p anyways.
Hell when I got in Broadcast TV the top of the line Sony 3 Tube Cine 2/3 cameras had less than 1mp total because they were only 480i. And they weighed over 20 pounds. And before we could use them the techs had to turn them on at least an hour before we could even shoot them to "Warm" them up to be stable. And after that they had techs that checked them for correct color balance before we could  go out and shoot them in the field. They only did like 550 lines of resolution. Just Sony Beta. They cost about $100,000.00 a camera with deck..
When the first 2/3 CCD Sony Cine Cameras we had came in they did 720p @24fps and they had 1mp total. Anything above 24p was interlaced video, not true intra p footage. They weighed around 18 pounds or a bit less. They would do like 750 lines of resolution. That was Sony Beta SP. They cost about 75 to $80,000.00 a camera with deck..
Man how things have changed specs wise, but I bet the cost are damn near as much in real dollars as then. It was CRAZY ASS money to have a TV station back them. Millions and Millions of dollars, and that was insane crazy money back in the late 70's.
I remember the President of the company coming in once, , nearly pulling his hair out LoL, asking did we Really need another new switcher that cost nearly 1 million dollars to replace our old one!! I remember also the pedestal tripod for the main news camera on the floor cost 65,000 bucks alone. With the camera , box lens, and tripod it was close to $250,000.00. And we has 3 of those, 2 of them when I worked there were older though. Crazy stuff. I can't imagine what it cost TV stations to switch to Digital from Analog TV!!!! You just can't go into it a little at a time, it had to be all or nothing!
Old memories from a old guy LoL.
My one daughter in California still has 2 Sony 2/3 3 CCD cameras and recording decks, tripods, chargers, etc at her house I had in the 80"s I bought. She majored in Creative Writing at the time to help with the dialog. I was one of first people I knew in Ohio that was doing freelance broadcast video Ads for local people back them. Crazy times. I had more business than I could do part time at the time. I had very good credit at the time LoL.
You know even now is a good time to do local business Ads for people to help pay off your gear and hone your skills. Same opportunity now as then. It will never go away. People have to advertise. And they think you are God until you hand them the bill Lol. I have seen grown men nearly faint, Heh. The more takes the more money is a good thing to stress LoL.

Hey Aanamorphic shooters!,
You're all invited to Anamorphic on a Budget in Amsterdam. Here we all can meet, network and of course show each other's anamorphic sets. The event will take place on Friday December 15th 18:00 - 21:00 at Zamenhofstraat 108 unit 201 at the camera rental Budgetcam Amsterdam.
The GH5's are set up, Red scarlet-W, Varicam LT and the Ursa mini pro, so that we can test all our vintage lenses on beautiful focus charts for fun. Budgetcam provides hospitality. Access is free of charge. You can RSVP at http://bit.ly/2AnFVO2 or via tomas@budgetcam.nl!
Bring your own anamorphic sets!
Thanks Tito Ferradans and Tim Moichido!

Hmm, instead of cinemascope we need a catchy name for real vertical videos. Maybe vertiscope, hmm nonono we need better. Maybe GravityWell cause it's so deep.
Or Astrospect as it will reach the stars if you film the horizon. Oh Oh Oh, Highroller to get that analog connection to film.

BTM is 1 month offline from this comunity.
Hope he is OK, and only working hard on his projects.

Hello everyone, let me tell you the story of how I got the cheapest single focus solution. And how it compares to the Rectilux HCDNA (results a the end of the post)
Last month, I found this anamorphic adapter on ebay :

It was cheap, and looked like a weird anamorphic projection lens using prisms. So I bought it (Gear Acquisition Syndrome :D).
Then I took it apart to clean it, and noticed it consisted of two prisms (for the anamorphic part) and some kind of focussing solution in the front.

So I 3D printed an adapter for it (around 5GBP printed at a local shop) and tried it. And of course it confirmed to be a single focus solution !
So I had to test it ! Here are the results compared to the hardcore DNA :
Taking lens : Super Takumar MC 105mm f/2.8
Camera : Canon 50D
Anamorphic lens : Schneider Cinelux
Single Focus Solution : Rectilux HCDNA vs GB-Kalee Small Anamorphic (front part)
(Same grade applied to all shots)

Here is a picture of the setup :
 
Of course, the GB-Kalee is less convenient : 
- Minimum focus distance around 1.8m
- Smaller element diameter (would work better with smaller anamorphic)
- More difficult to focus (as my copy of this adapter is quite beaten up)
- Needs a mounting solution for both back and front as there is no filters. (But the HCDNA is similar here are the threads are not standard size)
So, What do you think ? 
I personally think this GB-Kalee needs a rehousing !

I'm still in audio purgatory.  My experience so far.  Spending TIME experimenting/configuring a $25 Takstar mini-boom and $25 wired lav is better than MONEY spent on an expensive Rode NTG1.  Environmental considerations FAR OUTWEIGH mic quality.  For example, I set up my NTG1 in my office and was getting super audio.  I then went to a friend's, similar sized room, but the audio came out horribly because my friend's room echoed a lot. (Yes, I listened on headphones but didn't hear it).    I didn't have the experience/expertise to either get the mic closer or ditch it for a $25 lav.
Therefore, I'm going to make a counter-intuitive suggestion.  DO NOT GET a good mic first.  Get a Takstar and Lav (or similar) and experiment trying to get good audio with each, writing down your findings, etc.    Learning environment and levels has done the best for me.  AND AND AND, working with post audio processing.  Premiere has some amazing tools now "Essential Audio" that gives one a good idea of what's possible.  
Once you get all that sorted out, then shop for an expensive mic based on what you COULDN'T do with your cheap mics.  That's what I'm doing now.  The problem with an expensive mic is that unless you have all variations (boom, super cardoid, lav, wireless, etc.) you end up forcing whatever good mic you have into situations a cheaper solution would be better for.  Again, I should have ditched the NTG1 for a cheap wired lav at my friend's place.
BTW, the difference between my Takstar and Rode is VERY slight.  I can only hear it because I'm listening for it.  NO NORMAL person would notice a difference if I switched mics during the video.  The bigger difference is the unbalanced mic could be wired up longer and has less risk of interference.  
Well, that's where I'm at!

So... I'm in The Netherlands visiting my parents... they've got a new Samsung UHD HDR tv. The screen was absolutely awful to look at. Factory settings of course. Full brightness. Full contrast. Samsung colors... way too vivid, Chernobyl Barbie skintones, things blown out and crushed down... So, I went into the settings, changed it from Dynamic or whatevs to HDR, just curious what it would do, went to expert settings, changed things around so that it would actually look good, natural and not as eye straining as it had been before. My dad: 'ah, ok, sure, I guess... whatever'. Mom comes in after work 'what the hell happened to the tv?', I'm expecting her to be struck by the newfound beauty and quality of the screen... 'it's like I'm looking through a frosted milkbottle, it's horrible'. Wow... they're completely ruined by watching crap (bright, vivid, blown, crushed) all the time (same people that don't dim their phones at night). Not only don't they know any better, they do not even want any better. I'm baffled and ashamed to be quite honest.

Probably because the only benefits are those.

itsa whatta yer calling delaminations innit
itsa what yer happenin when you droppa der ananorfink lens when yer usin a cheaps campa clampa
it drops or knocks der metal reverbs true der tubei housing init 
it sens shocka wave inder glasses matrix a delaminating occurins in der complex cemented doublets init
it impact seperation damages from poor owner abusings
  slapping  banging opticals violent likes init
like harvey weistein knockin on yer hotel doors at night creatin waves of tesla ocillations vibrations
it looks bad doctor bones maybe terminulls
ask for a refunds quick likes

Here's some tips, based on my experience with the sharpness tweak:
I'm not sure if this is the case with every lens, but with mine, it was possible to adjust the sharpness without even removing the brass tabs.
Just by loosening all 6 screws, but leaving the tabs in place, it created enough rotational play in the front optic for me to fine-tune the sharpness. This is because the holes in the brass tabs are ever so slightly bigger than the screws, so you have a little room for rotation.  For me it was just enough. 
Once you find the sweet spot, simply re-tighten the screws.  No glue needed.  Be careful that the act of re-tightneing the screws doesn't nudge the optic. This took me a little while to get right.  Once everything is tight, check the image again to make sure it's still sharp.
As Tito says in his video, it's easiest to judge the sharpness using a long lens at (or near) infinity, and stopped down to 4 or 5.6.  In my case,  I could never get a sharp image with the Kowa and taking lens at infinity.  I had to focus both lenses slightly less than infinity to get a super sharp image. 
This is very important, especially if you are using a single-focus solution.  Don't blindly trust the infinity marks on your Kowa or your taking lens.  You might be able to get a MUCH sharper image by adjusting them slightly under infinity.  I'm sure this will vary from lens to lens.
Hopefully this helps!
 

Richard, what do you think you're doing trying to bring rationality into a discussion that's basically turned into 'I'm more of a professional than you' contest. 

Ok but this means nothing in terms of actual sales.
The top 10 on b&h shows 8 DSLRs and two compacts.
On Amazon under "Photo/Video" its still of course film (instax, keeps Fuji afloat) on almost all top spots. First digital interchangeable lens camera is a DSLR.
If I look at "digital cameras" on Amazon its mostly DSLRs and compacts in the top 50.
When I look at one of swedens bigger retailers the GH5 isnt on the list. And its not a price thing. There are several higher priced cameras at the top.
The guy at my local store says Fuji is selling nicely. Not like Canikon but still alot. Panasonic isn't as popular. And sadly Olympus is a tough sales for them.
Ive never seen a GH5 used by a video crew, TV-team, pro photographer or even by a tourist.
So saying that the GH5 is cutting sales from dedicated video cameras like the c100, FS7, etc doesn't ring true to me.
In fact, when reading Sony and Panasonics financial reports its pretty obvious they are loosing money on their cameras. If they where selling like hot cakes they might have broken even. Fuji isn't making much either since their film sales finance their digital camera losses.
But rumors says that Sony is releasing their first proper and uncensored financial report next year. Then we will know if they are doing better these days.
My guess is that they still loose money on every mirrorless interchangeable lens camera they sell.

@IronFilm wish I was 19, best age ever!!
unfortunately in a small country with huge financial difficulties there aren't so many well paid jobs.
e.g I see a lot of people working in modeling videos and real estate, which do not exist all in my country, no one is doing this professionally in the sense that happens in other countries. So 2 sources of income less!
Reality is different between most of us, this is one world, but is based in un-equality!

Maybe outside light colour not matching with man lighting.