austinchimp

People can't be creative while they're working? Or efficient when they're not?
Wedding and event shooters aspire to pro cams because they're sick of fiddling with NDs and tiny batteries and rolling shutter and too-big or too-small codecs. The time lost dicking around with these things doesn't make anyone more creative, it only endangers their paycheck/career, AND loses them creative opportunities.
There are plenty of subjects and shooting styles that lend themselves perfectly to photo cams and their slower, fiddlier workflow... and there are plenty that don't, even past weddings and events. And this is a separate issue from creativity and freedom vs. efficiency and appearances. Someone can be completely creative whilst shooting fast-paced or high-pressure situations- at least they can if they have the time to.
I do definitely agree that the IQ gap is so much smaller nowadays that this is a much blurrier argument than it was a few years ago. A7sII, GH5, etc vs. FS5/7, C200, etc is certainly a smaller gap than 7D vs. C300, or whatever other matchup from 4-10 years ago. Smaller price gap too.
The lack of IBIS in pro bodies is also definitely adding to the blur.

Maybe you should just be happy with one camera Andrew

Here is the LUT for colour correction only - the V-Log gamma remains unchanged. This should be first in your post pipeline.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFcVdtSXhRdmJvalE
 

No, but if you own the VSCO film 04 pack you can try to convert the Provia 400x for Canon profile to a lut. Then add it after my GH5 to ML lut, add curves and saturation and you should get a very similar look.
You can convert ACR or Lightroom presets to luts by using the awesome IWLTBAP lut generator. Open a HALD in ACR or LR, apply a preset. Convert to PNG and bring in to IWLTBAP.

Made with several grading layer in Assimilate Scratch, trying to match accurate colors and preserve as much as possible midtones and mild roll-of highlights. V-log indeed has pretty nice DR scope.



 

 
 
 

Yes, the GH5 is second.
 
For sure, the 5D files have much more malleability than 10bit VLog. You can really go to town on Magic Lantern RAW - it's a much thicker file. It's almost pristine (except for ugly shadow noise).
 
But I think that it is actually a testament to the GH5 that I can do that. And what I've presented here is only the realisation of my preferences. The point that I want to make is that the 10bit 422 files are robust enough to undergo a fair bit of colour correction / grading. To me, the VLog coming from the camera is a "raw" material with massive potential, as the (properly) RAW footage from the 5D3 is a beginning, and not an end in itself. In the main GH5 thread you mentioned that there was a range of quality in the posted videos for the GH5, from video-ish to something more satisfactory. Believe me, if Magic Lantern RAW was accessible to the same kinds of users - and in the same numbers - as the GH5, you'd see a hell of a lot of bad 5D3 ML videos.
 
Exactly. You need 12 nodes or 20 minutes work to match this with that. But when the groundwork is done, you're in business. Today I made a nice lut that combines the Canon-like colour with a Lightroom film emulation preset. I loaded this into the camera as a monitoring lut and exposed until it looked good in the viewfinder. Came back and slapped the lut on and each shot was perfect. It took as long as it does to Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.... with maybe a small WB and curves adjustment beforehand This is the look that I'm into at the moment. In a year's time I might be into something different.










 

Big time!
 

Can you export it as a LUT and share it as well? 
When & if Panasonic allows baked-in LUTs, it would make this really useful. 

Haven't been there for a while but you might try the Media Markt shop if you have a car to drive to it.

+100...before I became interested in the GH5 I did not even know what a Vlogger was?...but is it sensible to buy a complex camera that one knows anything  about and after 2 or 3 days rushing a review of a feature good or bad out there, because you're trying to get your piece of bullshit out there, before the next guy's...did this even exist 4  or 5 years ago....and how does it help the film making community....what it will do though, is make money for one guy ( who's business it is to attract more followers, be it blasting a product that they had no business making a public statement about in the first place) and for the people who actually want to create something (not sell their under informed opinions)....what it does for them?...It will stifle innovation on the part of companies like Panasonic, because why should you put professional features in a camera at great cost to your company, only for it to land up in the hands of a bunch of whiners....no wonder a Andrew is getting sick of this...I'm personally mystified that he's had the discipline to last as long as he has....

Funny to see a 100 pages discussion from which is 80% about Autofocus. At the same time, hundreds of video's are posted but none of them contain any production value. 90% is just baby- / cat- / house- / foreground flowers in focus / neighberhood video's.
Also telling is that nowadays many vloggers buying a GH5 for their work. It's funny and weird to see how the video market has changed from a majority of professional camera users, to 90% hobbyists, vloggers and rich people buying this cam to play with for a while before never touching it again.
Sorry, but i can't help the feeling of feeling slightly bad for all these spoiled little brats. If you can't or won't produce anything of visual value with this camera, then please don't judge it for it's AF capabilities. I have never used AF for video nor while I ever, and I'm not saying nobody may not or shouldn't, I am just pointing out what a bunch of whiners film makers have become.
We used to use gear which was highly impractical and inefficient and made the best out of it to satisfy our clients. Now we're shooting 4k in slow motion footage of our cat which moves away from us all the time or towards us, and complain that this stupid 2000 euro camera can't even hold the damn cat in focus.
This is not a complaint about EOSHD, where the percentage of sensible professionals is still pretty high, but about all the stuff I've seen lately on Youtube, Facebook and forums about this AF-talk combined with their cat- and garden video's.
As soon as I will finish some professional shoots with the GH5, I will report back here. Until then, I'm gonna leave the discussions up to you. Happy shooting.

Seems like we're both on a similar career path. Interesting to hear your thoughts on photography. It's something i do professionally more these days while my personal projects have dropped off. I can see photography offering me more personal enjoyment outside of work than video making for sure.
When you make videos every day for a living it sure can wear you down and take the fun out of it.

As a young journalist/producer I almost immediately after school drifted into Radio- and TV-production of entertainment, sports or news.
I was a decent writer but didn't have the patience. Im more of an creative director that don't want to spend time doing stuff that I can tell/hire someone else to do. I want full control over projects
Any aspirations of fiction and "movies" I had started to fade since I preferred a faster and more "real" medium.
Within a few years I had drifted more and stopped making short films all together.

My personal video work became documentary and my work left the journalistic side and went into communication, public relations and advertising in a governmental agency.
Currently switching jobs again after almost eight years to work public relations, communication and marketing for one single company in the private sector (its a huge company). There I will get to spend enough time making videos that I don't think I will keep it up as a hobby much longer. Other than some youtube and family stuff.

But during this whole time my interest for still photography has really grown.
Now its almost all I think about.
I think the reason is the challenge. To take a situation that you would normally capture with 3-5min of video, audio, grading, angles, movement, slow-motion, effects, music, dialog, and so on.
To capture all that in one single frame.
Click!

I see photographers telling the longest and most engaging stories, really moving me, with just one frame.

I still see myself as just a beginner in still photography after some 20 years, 3 of which Ive taken it more seriously. I don't think most of my images tell much of a story at all. And thats why I like it. There is so much to explore and learn. I guess Ive found the ultimate medium for my type of person who wants a quick fix but still have endless possibilities. 
 

All the attention on AF makes me wonder if this does not have something to do with the 24P revolution on the DVX100 and boom..."film look" and then DSLR's and M4/3's and real affordability for everyone achieving an image not that far off from S35 mm film cameras and suddenly everyone's a DP....overnight!....except they're not!...it took years of learning to change and clean lenses...switching magazines and checking gates after changing over each film mag...pulling focus, and then operating....and only a select few went on to become DOP's in a fairly large industry...but everyone went through the process of LEARNING how to work properly with the various aspects of the tasks the 4 to 5 people it took to just operate that camera had to be familiar with!...and now we are suddenly in point and shoot mode...and image be damned...if the  DP ( tongue in cheek here!!!)...can't just point his camera at the desired subject and singlehandedly pull of Scorsese's several minute take in Goodfellas...well WTF Panasonic!!...what were your engineers thinking...clearly they were not thinking about the most important aspect to many about this camera which is AF!...the good news of course is for a few hundred $s the camera you want is out there... you can by an older Canon DSLR that will AF seamlessly and get down to the business of making your own dream projects...so all is not lost after all!!!

It's basically adding lots of saturation, then contrast using curves (find a proper black value using the waveform!), shifting the hues (bright green a bit to yellow, yellow a bit to orange, orange slightly to red, red a bit to magenta), desaturating shadows and highlights, desaturating bright oranges (helps for skintones as well), pushing gray or low saturation mid and dark tones (not black though, leave dark skin color the way it is!) to teal a bit, adding a bit of grain.

That's it basically. :D 

Andrew is in the throes of New Camera Mania (™) and it won't wear off for the GH5 until a new "pretty good" prosumer camera is released that has a lot of shortcomings but produces a decent image. 

There is always going to be an improved camera further down the pike. If you ask me, Panasonic have come out with yet more wife material but that won't stop Sony unleashing a strumpet that will seduce many. It won't be as reliable as the GH5 but will definitely turn heads and get people salivating.
 

The A99II every time. For me, the lack of an EVF makes the 1DXII a non-starter. The touch-focus is really, really good, however, and that overcomes a lot. But it's just not my style of shooting. Also, those files sizes are a bit ridiculous on the Canon.

Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take.
Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later.
Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story.
But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting.
In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness.
Take from that what you will.
 

Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take.
Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later.
Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story.
But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting.
In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness.
Take from that what you will.
 

Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take.
Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later.
Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story.
But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting.
In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness.
Take from that what you will.
 

I wondered what others thought of combining EOS-HD C-Log with Highlight Tone Priority (D+) on the 1DX Mark ii?
I have been testing it in very low light (with highlights in the scene) and the Highlight Tone Priority (D+) recovers a considerable amount in the highlights, that are overexposed with the D+ turned off.  There is a little more noise in the shadows, but not a huge amount.

I gotta say, I'm not sure if it's the Log emulation or Andrew's LUTs (probably the latter) but it really looks like the net effect here is converting Canon color to something that looks more Sony-ish: low-contrast & desaturated (because you can't make the 8-bit flat colors 'pop', and odd brick-color skintones (def the lut). 

I filmed this video with the a7s (original) with the EOSHD V2 a6500 color settings.
 

I would hope you're aware that the reasons why your video isn't good has almost nothing to do with the camera or the settings. 
Based on your OP, I'm not sure you're the type of person that understands that. 
Is that honest enough for you?
Basically, you have no shooting or editing chops. Luckily, learning how to have a foundation of shooting and editing skills is easy. 
Who the hell cares about skin tone, color, or slightly underexposed footage when there's no watchable content to begin with?
Would you rather hear a novice play "chopsticks" on a Stienway grand piano or hear Franz Liszt do something with a Casio?
First, don't give a damn about the nuances of what your camera can do. Put it on one setting and forget about it. You need to concentrate on composition and montage shooting. 
Heres the shortcut to learn how to do that:
Basically, find a video of the exact same subject matter that you like. 
Now, watch it shot by shot. 
Storyboard what you see on a bunch of paper.
Take these pieces of paper to your next shoot.
Get the shots you've drawn on those pages. Think about what the original shooter had to do to get the shots in the first place.  Where he had to be, why he got low, or high, or close to capture those shots.  Try to think like he did.  Emulate that.
Once you've captured all the shots on the paper, start over and shoot all the shots again.  
Once you've captured all the shots on the paper, start over and shoot all the shots yet again. 
Okay.
Now go into your editor. 
Lay down the example video you liked on your timeline.
Put your "copy" shots right above the shots from that video.
There you go.
After you do that (and probably fail at it) you might start to see what's actually required to craft a watchable video.
Learn.  Enjoy the process of shooting interesting frames and building an edit.
Once you know that, start worrying about the other stuff. 
Cameras are just a damn tool.  It's like a hammer. If you're not skilled enough to drive a nail, it doesn't matter a bit what kind of hammer  you're using.
 

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"