Blue Fox

Some of you saw my skin tone comparison with the GX85 and GH4 that I uploaded last week and most people seem to prefer the ungraded image from the GX85 . That's fine with me as both grades were a little off. But I obviously had to take a closer look to see if I agreed. I suspected that youtube is doing something with the colors when I upload in 4K and it seems I was right. I uploaded a 1080p version and made a side by side comparison. For some reason youtube seems to add magenta when uploading in 4K. The result is that the ungraded footage of GX85 looks better and the graded image (which was a little too much in the first place) looks a lot worse. 
Has anyone else noticed this and is there a way to avoid it? 
4K is on the left and 1080p on the right. 

Those are indeed visible differences for as 'ideal' a test as is physically possible since a very high quality zoom lens was used on the same camera (cropping in post after changing settings to simulate an APS-C crop). Since the differences are very subtle, the aesthetic quality boost may be lost on the general public, in the same way as fine food and alcohol, can be etc. Were the Hateful 8 and The Revenant better movies being shot on the ARRI 65? Did they make more money because of the large format camera used? (smaller format cameras were also used). The answers to both questions is probably not significantly. With effectively unlimited budgets, why not shoot on the 'best'? The relative cost of the larger format camera is insignificant to the film's budget. However using the pinnacle-best gear makes the directors and DPs happy, and that counts for something.
Using the DOF simulator, I noticed the circle of confusion and other parameters weren't exactly the same between formats. While FOV and DOF will be nearly identical, subtle things as noted such as blur transition region stretching can be analyzed by tracing individual light rays- photons. My crop test was not perfect, however there is a way to study this without worrying about issues of optics or lenses: computer simulation via ray tracing. This could be used to create graphs showing the increase in blur transition regions based on the sensor size. If it's a real effect, the results could be presented to optical designers such as Caldwell to show a possible market for a MF to FF focal reducer. If not by Caldwell, perhaps someone else in HK or CN.
Someone with the desire and free time could explore ray tracing to create renders showing any advantages to larger sensor sizes using Blender (free): https://www.blender.org/features/cycles/ . Since this is a controversial subject, showing these kinds of results could help visually explain effects previously difficult to put into words. I need to get back to working on improving content and storytelling- more important than tech!
 
 

Did a sky shot yesterday evening as was recommended by fuzzy
Internal Vector (Contrast pushed up)

 
External Vector (Contrast pushed up)

 
Internal Screenshot

 
External Screenshot

One of the biggest issues with sharing great content is that it's much harder to do now on social media because the platforms have been monetised. You need an "advertising" budget so you can pay to boost posts that would otherwise not be seen by the majority of your followers and others. 
Alongside all the random clips of women slapping their ass, gifs, auto-play drunk people videos, cheesy meme's etc... the content you share gets over-saturated by all the other bollocks around it. Social media is SO distracting that when you are trying to find something useful, you end up going off on this great tangent where you end up watching a funny cats compilation instead. This is because we are bombarded by endless bollocks and the good content gets covered in shit. 
When I first started my video business, Facebook was a massive client stream for me. Everyone could see my content and I got bookings. I even had a weird fan club. Since the platform has become monetised... the only people that see my videos now is my mother. SEO is so over-saturated it's hardly worth bothering with on a limited budget, so I've had to reinvent my entire plan COMPLETELY just so I can adapt to this crazy online world. I have to be MUCH MORE than just a video producer. You have to be on top of everything. And most of it isn't even online - it's what you do in person. 
EOSHD has always been great place to post and read stuff. I've always had the ideas and drive to create. But I remember forcing myself to learn about as much video techie stuff as possible, and read forum posts over and over thinking "what on earth is this 10 bit 422 thing people are on about?" Second nature now.
You can evolve the platform of EOSHD for sure. I'd definitely work on your shooters guides and LUTs and make an online store or something, with relevant articles and the forum. Get different members around the globe to make a themed video using the latest mirrorless camera, with your shooters guides and LUTS... put it together as one video and promote it. Make your video community as one that works together to create stuff FOR the video community. Allow users to upload their own tips/techniques/LUTS... create an online bible of everything you need for every enthusiast camera and the best lenses/devices. Every enthusiast camera has it's own EOSHD store and user resource!! Does that make sense? 
I wouldn't be afraid of making money the commercial way from EOSHD. Fuck it. There's no harm in it. You are spending your time helping the video community and you should be rewarded financially for your hard work. No need for gear adverts. Just yourself asking for money for your material. Like you do now but on STEROIDS. 
I would also re-brand. In all due respect, I think the name EOSHD and the logo now looks rather dated. I know shitloads of logo and brand designers, if you ever feel you need it.  

I'm very happy with EOSHD being about gear, it's good to specialise and to have a niche to focus on. I love the tech, always will. From my own experience, I'm just not sure how much real value can be had from online articles about the art of filmmaking, it's something you're best off learning by actually doing it rather than reading about it. NoFilmSchool built a mainstream audience that transcended the gear community by mentioning Kubrick and PT Anderson a lot in clickbate headlines - the content was ALWAYS stolen and by someone else - the aggregation of material in a massive way. Poor original content creators make nothing from exposure at all whilst the aggregators gobble up ALL the traffic and sell ads around it, in the case of NFS they even had US venture capitalists funding huge online advertising campaigns, expert SEO and very very large social media followings acquired the non-organic way, I don't even consider them as competition to EOSHD any more, they are something different and I'd never go to them for camera advice or for a singular voice. The whole site may as well be computer generated.
Despite my temporary loss of appetite for blogging and the need to get some inspiration back in my filmmaking by moving out of Berlin, EOSHD is very strong at the moment, the forum has never been busier, the cameras have never been better and the visitor numbers are still as good as ever. Don't forget, we were first or one of the very first blogs to capture the community. That's why it was such a shame that the cat man Philip Bloom stopped blogging, I really miss his longer posts outside all the social media stuff. I didn't go back to the site at all when he stopped (apart from his very occasional reviews) because his forum didn't pull me in like it does here, there's still plenty to read on EOSHD when I am away. I think the forum could go on the front page actually with the best topics in the sidebar. It's a superb resource!
The internet has changed though. People's reading habits and viewing habits are changing. Some movie trailers even now have 8 second trailers for the trailer, because of Facebook.
There is definitely a race to the bottom going on in the content world.
There's going to be some big victims too.
First one might be Twitter.... it now has such a low engagement per post because the feed is a mess and each tweet it like a grain of sand in the beach, significant stuff is so easy to miss on there, even whole conversations. Personally I won't be focussing much on that from now on. I think Twitter is going to get sidelined by a lot of people and will eventually be superseded by an alternative.
Facebook is a monster, it will continue to hoover up half the entire internet and make it worse. Already there are very active camera discussion groups on there... why people would use them over a proper forum I have no idea... it's so viral though because of the newsfeed and sharing element. The danger is that Facebook ends up siphoning off a ton of traffic from the better independent sites and selling ads around them, just like NoFilmSchool does, as the main 'go to' source for discussions and news
Philip Bloom is now much bigger on social media than he is on his blog... in fact blogs are being hoovered up by YouTube and Facebook. He has a massively high profile on Facebook and Instagram with very regular posts and I only ever update the EOSHD Facebook page when there's a new blog post - I think that needs to change. There's a ton of stuff I'm doing behind the scenes which could go on social media but I'm not enough of a narcissist to really take it to the next level
So if forums will be superseded by Facebook groups and blogs superseded by YouTube channels and Facebook and news aggregators, it will be a real loss for the internet because there won't be a motivation for anyone to create long-form original content any more or proper communities like this one, it will ALL be about 8 second trailers for trailers, gimmicks, clickbate headlines and trolling. Very sad direction for the internet in my opinion.
The thing I am most proud of over the past 5 years of EOSHD are the regular readers and the EOSHD Shooter's Guides. I get a bundle of inspiration from people and I try to put some back into the pool too.
I will get my inspiration back soon enough and EOSHD will have a bigger presence on YouTube and Facebook and Instagram.
Thanks to those in the thread who have posted messages of support! Means a lot and really does get the fire burning again.

Ciao,

I just bought a rig for my GH4 and Micro Cinema: https://www.movofilms.be/movofilms-professional-camera-support-kit.html 

Great cage with rod, follow focus etc... for a bargain price in my opinon.
I'm more then happy about it (and the customer care is awesome, very friendly and skilled): I need some gear ring belt for my CY Zeiss lenses and I'm searching something that will not ruin the lenses and that could work with the follow focus.

Are the belt universal? Have you some tips for some nice belts?

Thank you very much!

Check out the RX10 II. It gets knocked by some people but after picking one up for a 2nd slo mo camera, I've been really impressed with it as an all in one tool. We primarily shoot Canon and BM cameras and have never been a fan of Sony clors but love their tech, so I got one with low expectations and thought I might just use it as the 2nd slo mo cam and then shelve it.
I'm glad I didn't. Instead I spent a couple of days tweaking to create a solid PP and after a lot of testing I've ended up with a very solid s-log gamma/cinema color setup that gets consistently great results at 1 to 1 1/2 stop over, converted w/ Filmconvert, FJ Asst.
Here's the positives that you probably already know:
Maybe the best 1080 120p around
Great 24p 4k when exposed and colored right.
Almost ridiclulous 24 - 200 mm 2.8 glass 
Very customizable interface.
Same great evf as the 7RII
I got this for $900 open box from B&H and while I won't use it on commercial work, It's almost silly how cheap it is for what you can do with it.
I did some close up model tests with it in the studio Friday and asked two peole in my shop what it was shot on, C300, BMCC or a Sony. Neither thought the skin tone and depth could have been sony and they were blown away, as was I, that it was shot on the RX.
I looked at a ton of footage online and assumed it just wasn't going to be more than a specialty thing, but, not surprisingly it turned out that 99% of the people putting up footage really aren't very good at working with the codec, log footage and grading. 
FWIW, we start shooting on two docs tomorrow but I've choosen not to put this in either kit because I haven't tried to intercut the foootage yet and because it's only been a few days of testing. But I'll be surprised, given how fast I've progressed the look this week, that I won't pair it with a new A7S II as a small two camera setup.
I could share some tests privately.

If you aren't going to grade it, I would use neutral -1 +1 -1 or -1 0 -1.
The sharpness variable depends a bit on the lens. With the 16-50 E kit lens, I've to turn the sharpness down to -3 to avoid halos when sharpening in post. It seems that the radius of the in-camera sharpening is too large. It's a shame you can't adjust it. But with some careful sharpening in post, most of the halo problems can be 'repaired'. It also depends on the scene: if there's a lot of detail I prefer not to turn down the in-camera sharpening too much (so I use -1) as otherwise the detail gets lost in the codec. But I think simple edges and details get best resolved (without halos) with sharpness -3 and then a lot of deconvolution sharpening afterwards. But this also sharpens all the codec artifacts/damage... so not perfect for scenes with movement.
In general the neutral -3 -1 -1 (aka Philip Bloom?) setting tens to work very well but it indeed looks a bit dull ungraded. However in most occasions I don't (yet) do too much hocus pocus with the colors so I set the saturation to 0 (or +1). This gives slightly less colored codec artifacts in post. Sometimes I set DRO to +5. This retains a lot of DR in the shadows!
For higher ISOs, you might want to use a higher sharpness value as the noise reduction can't be turned off and blurs the footage.
The sharpness value can be easily set by first bumping contrast, saturation and sharpness to +3 and then zooming in to 1:1 in video mode. If there are too much halos, decrease the sharpness value and check again.
During daylight neutral -3 +1 -1 looks very flat (at least, the luma channel) but for a theater recording or other scenes with a lot of DR it may look great even ungraded (at least, on a screen with a high contrast ratio :)).
You can also try neutral 0 +1 -1 with DRO 2 or so.
If you want to try achieve a 'special' look, you might want to try the 'portrait' or 'autumn leaves' settings. For the rest, make sure you get the WB just right (AWB messes it up sometimes). For slightly warmer, a bit Nikon-like colors you can put the color square (WB fine tuning) one or two steps to magenta and then set the kelvin value.
Take this with a grain of salt, I'm also still learning :).
 

The reason is that dvxuser has to many subforums. Ive seen it again and again. To many subforums kills forums. 
Most people, me included, only visit one section of a forum. I'm one of the biggest Blackmagic nerds online and have visited the Blackmagic section of Eoshd less than 10 times. On bmcuser 90% only checks into the general discussion. 
Have as many sub forums as you like, doesn't matter to me. But I suggest checking with experts first. I know I wouldn't bluntly create sections on a clients forum without analyzing if there are numbers to support it. 
Its not a decision to be made based on 10 regulars thinking its a great idea. Ask the hundreds of visitors that lurk, they are equally important.

Personally I have stopped doing that. I leave the contrast alone as well. Gives me better results than "fake log".

A petition is something with significant public backing that you're going to present to someone to get your way and not theirs.
Hacking is more of a community and collaborative effort. I don't see how a petition helps there. Besides, hacks are created out of limitations in a certain line-up. You weren't happy with the GH2 quality? Well tough luck, there wasn't anything better. Want a better Canon? Well, there's the 1D C... btw CHDK goes way back before all of that (it was already happening on general consumer level)! Want a better Nikon? Well, there wasn't much better than the D5300... now there seems to be. NX1 is already representing the Samsung flagship and there's no chance of anything better within the system: hack away! But if you want something better than the G7, we take present day Panasonic and we can get the GH4, soon GH5, an upgrade at reasonable costs. That's segmentation that just works! Besides Panasonic likes to hear out people and implement features they agree they'd like the users to have, rather than having the users tinkering around with their cameras. By now I think it's pretty much air tight to get into, but who knows, with the remote app you could unlock V-LOG L, what's to say there aren't more exploits? Well, judging the userbase I'd say if it was possible, we'd already know about it. I just don't think it's worth forcing time and energy, maybe even funds into it, when you can just buy a better Panasonic camera??! I also generally think the need for better quality is way less than back in the 5DmkII/550D/T2i ML and GH2 days (and you'd have a significant jump up in quality back then as to marginal improvements you could make now).

This matches my experience recording C100 with Ninja 2. I was using DNxHD 220x which is 10-bit, and was thinking "is this somehow filling in the extra bits?!" But it isn't, the output is 8-bit, it's just having so much more data really helps.

Latest version includes telnet, which is great for exploring how the camera works. I really hope Sony doesn't crack down on this system in future firmware versions, but unfortunately they probably will.

First sony hack unlocks time limit and language selection
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/216902#Comment_216902
The hack works with an app. 

Yeah, but you end up with 8 different sets, 8x8, 64 

I think HFR 3d is just more crap because the headsets hurt your eyes.  
VR is an entirely new artform.  I just shot a commercial in VR using the Nokia OZO - I'm a believing in VR technology as long as it doesn't cause eye strain.  It feels like the early days of film.  I just wish it was only 270 degrees - having to look behind you is awkward.
But all this 3d stuff - just seems like the cinema trying to compete.  I saw Avatar in 3d and it blew me away, but I also saw a bunch of other films in 3d and was less than impressed.
It's the same old argument - it's content that matters and finding directors who can utilize this to an advantage, vs the gimmick of it all.

Those who DON'T enjoy 3D are often vocal about it.  But, there are thousands more that love 3D and are looking forward to the advancement of movie tech from 100 year old frame rates.  3D still sells very big (or it would have stopped years ago) so it will continue and probably grow.  FINALLY more big names are all over HFR.  It's coming.  Evolve or go extinct.

The common wisdom is that LOG profiles are best for well-lit situations with lots of DR, and punchier picture profiles work better in low light where you have less room to push without boosting noise.

This is one of those - lets see what this looks like.  After all "life" goes by faster then 24fps.

Shooting in Iceland at sunset is officially cheating

hi guys. that's my quick little travel piece about a train in yangon. yes, the d16 is not the perfect camera (and I didn't even update the firmware then) but, like many people, you use different cameras or techniques for different purposes. I'm still amazed this thing exists, it fits in a large pocket, and it's simply a joy to use. the post production is a bit of a hassle but the images are magic. so take what you will..

I'd love to get back into this soon.
I've started a thread for people to post regular summaries of the latest progress regarding the hack, since it can be time consuming to read so many posts in the dedicated forum for it, to get a general impression of where things are at. So guys, hit me with the latest news....

It's not quite differently for each object - your brain can correct zones differently, but it's not great at it, and things like hormone levels can affect it greatly, a simple fight or flight state can turn your vision black and white in some zones!
Definately think twice, depending on your sensitivity to WB issues, it's not really reliable, and it sounds like you are sensitive to them
Try to get it perfect for you in camera, especially with 8bits, but don't expect everyone else to see perfect for you as perfect for them! Even when you're trying to shoot a realistic scene colourwise, you're still making artistic decisions, especially with the limitations of technology and some people just have slightly different expectations of correct WB.
It's definately worth investing in a colour card with fleshtone panels on it to play with, set up a few scenes, lit different ways with the card in it, so you can see and get a feel for how your camera handles your white balance adjustments - experience and practice is the real key

Thank you very much for your post, DayRaven. I really appreciate your time and helpful input.
I like your ROYGBIV example. So to conclude I would say:
- I shouldn't (always) believe my eyes, because brains take into account multiple light sources (screen - scene - ...) in one scene and correct them all, differently for each object.
- thus the 'color matching' method I used is complete nonsense and I should not use it anymore (or at least think twice before using it).
- it's not a big problem when my wb isn't 100% perfect, I should just go for a good look in post.

Imagine you have a card that is a theoritical perfect white. Any visible wavelength which strikes the card is reflected, none are absorbed.
The sunshine has only a few wavelengths missing or reduced, so let's say photons with wavelengths R-O-Y-G-B-I-V (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo & Violet) leave the sun.
They then strike our atmosphere. As we know, by looking, the atmosphere scatters blue more than red, but at noon, the sun passes relatively little atmosphere before hitting your eyes, so at noon, the full compliment of ROYGBIV hits your card and bounces into your camera
Now, it's nighttime. Very little light from the sun is around, so you switch on your lights at home. These lights are incandescent, or maybe an energy saver bulb made to replicate the yellow light incandecsents produce .The light is giving out red, orange, yellow and green in equal proportions to the sun, but it isn't producing as much blue, indigo and violet. Thus we can write that it gives out ROYGbiv.
You bring your theoretical card indoors, turn on the lights and it reflects ROYGbiv. Less of the "cooler colours".
You look at the card. Our brains are very clever, it automatically balances the picture, you know the card is supposed to be white, so your brain makes it white. Out of the corner of your eye, you see someone walk past your window. They look blue, the whole world looks blue, an anonamly of this automatic white balance.
We point the camera at our card. Our camera is in manual mode and is not so clever, it sees, bouncing off the card ROYGbiv. If you had put a yellow card in front of it in the noon sun, it would have also seen ROYGbiv bouncing from it. As our camera is in manual mode, it does not understand the context of the picture. It has no cultural reference or memory of this card being white, it displays it as yellow because it sees less biv and more ROYG.
Fortunately, our camera has an adjustment, so we can set a temperature. Skip the part where the scale we use is derived from black body radiation, just know, we can set our camera to be more sensitive to blue or red, and we tell it how sensitive to be to either with a scale measured in kelvin.
We know our indoors light is producing a temperature of 2800K, so when we set our camera to that, our white card looks white again.
However, when we take it back out into the noon sun the next day, our camera setting is telling it to be especially sensitive to blues (because our bulb was producing few blues), so our image looks blue. We dial it back up to 5600K and at this point, it is balancing the sensitivity of blues and reds equally. The image looks correct again.
-----
I know you know most of that, but it's important to understand that the reality is, there are wavelengths of light missing, our brains compensate for that but the sensor of the camers shows what is really there. When this gets passed to the processors for processing, a white balances is applied, this is part and parcel of turning electronic voltages into colours. When you look at the screen on the camera, your white balanced eye sees the output of the monitor, and your brain is both clever enough to not confuse what you see on screen with the real object and stupid enough to try to WB to that in the section of your vision that the screen occupies. Badly. Also, the screen being yet another light source with it's own colour temperature just adds to the brains problems. As you have noticed, this is not reliable and, if you spend a long time looking through a viewfinder, the output of that eye is adjusted to compensate, similarly, if you ask people who have watched a movie with a strong colour cast throughout, they often didn't notice it because their eyes adjusted after a few minutes. That doesn't mean that you will be able to balance them to each other though - theoretically yes, if you can hold attention rigidly on both objects simultaneously without anything else moving in your field of view, but the reality is, this is an impossible thing to work towards.
Basically, don't trust what you see, your brain is working against you by trying to work for you!
As for the best method, well, the most accurate is to have a good lightmeter and a grey card, and use it religiously, every shot. The most convienient is to stick it in auto wb. You can greycard your camera and use it's inbuilt metering system, you can adjust the WB only when the lighting changes drastically. I expect there are more methods, these are the ones that work for me, depending on how important quality is, how quick I need to be etc. And, yes, the whole point of a grey card is to give your camera a surface with no colouration of it's own to bounce every wavelength accurately to be metered - it's trying to be our theoretically perfect card. They can be suprisingly expensive, but as we've learnt, we can't trust our eyes when they tell us that the piece of paper we are using is white - it may be slightly yellow, it may be slightly blue, even if we see it as the purest white and that's going to screw us over by a couple of hundred K.
Don't try to go for reality either, for starters, actual reality looks terrible and none of us can see it, secondly, we all develop our internal WB differently, with variation depending on our genes and our upbringing, and reality for us changes constantly over time as well as our brain constantly adjusts. Go for what looks good to you on the day.