Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Towd

  1. 12 hours ago, ntblowz said:

    C5D test the DR on S1

    with HLG it got 12.2 stops, Cine-D got 10.8 stops, so hopefully with full vlog it get 14dr






    Maybe I'm a noob, but it doesn't look to me like the leftmost square for the S1 was exposed as brightly as all the other test examples.  If exposure had been pushed another stop or more, the dark end and noise floor maybe have fared better.

    Did they not want it to beat the Ursa?  Conspiracy theorists want to know...   But seriously, I'm curious if anyone has experience with these test charts.

    [EDIT]  I checked their waveform plots for the S1 and Ursa, and they look similar for the left box, so it may just be grading anomaly, but I'm still suspicious....  😄

  2. 3 hours ago, DBounce said:

    You do know The Hurt Locker was shot on film right?

    Of course.  It was also shot on 16mm and not full frame.  That was kind of my point.

    Everything is a trade off.  Yes, there are varying levels rolling shutter on different cameras.  Yes you can get away with some things with moderate rolling shutter.  Yes, you can drop your resolution and improve rolling shutter performance.

    All the mental gymnastics aside, I'm just pointing out that if you are shooting on a camera with large amounts of rolling shutter, you are going to need to modify your shooting style, limit a subject's motion, or possibly make image quality sacrifices.  You can also just stick your head in the sand and pretend rolling shutter is not a crappy artifact because you've spotted it in something you saw on Netflix. 

    I'm not trying to discount the controlled camera motion crowd, the neighborhood walkabout cinematographer, the sleeping cat aficionado, or the Youtube vlogger (although they could really benefit from low rolling shutter).  There are a lot of valid styles and subjects.  I just think that ignoring it is a real issue in many scenarios and a tell tale sign of a cheap camera is a myopic viewpoint.

  3. 15 hours ago, thephoenix said:

    so i am thinking two options:

    - i shoot on a white background but it will not be large enough and will have to expand it on fusion. has anyone done that before ?

    - i shoot on green background and do chromakey to add a white background i have in my photo files.

    I think there are possible pitfalls to both options that can be solved, but it depends on how you prefer approaching it.

    By shooting on a white background and then expanding it in post, you'll have the benefit of not having to pull a key on your subject.  The trick will be to match your extended background to the foreground element you shot.  I'd personally do this with a soft "garbage mask".  You'll want to frame your foreground subject with enough room so that they obviously don't get cut off by your framing, but you'll also want to leave yourself some room around them for this soft matte.  This will fix any crease between the foreground and background you mentioned above.

    You should be able to do this in just about any editing package and it doesn't require Fusion.  I've done soft masks in Premiere and Resolve successfully.  Just use a lot of edge feathering on the mask and place the foreground on a layer above the background.  Cut the mask around your subject and use at least a few hundred pixels of feathering-- maybe more depending on the resolution.  The tricky part depending on your comfort level with grading will be to bring your background element into a similar range to your foreground so that the transition is nearly invisible.  How close your foreground and expanded background are to each other exposure-wise or visually will also be a factor.  If you are just blowing things out to all white, this should be pretty simple though.  You could then potentially just bring in a bit of a vignette on top after matching the foreground and background.

    [edit]:  I should point out you'll need to have enough of your white background surrounding the subject for this soft transition area of the matte.  If the white background is too tight around your actor, you wont have room for this soft mask to transition to the background smoothly.

    The second option of pulling a key can also yield really nice results, but it will also depend a lot on the camera you use, the quality of your greenscreen and how uniformly lit it is, and possibly your comfort pulling keys.  However with this solution you can just drop in your new background and call it done.  No real matching between foreground and background exposure.  The only downside, is that this solution will always have a some subtle edge degradation where you pulled the key.  But it can be practically invisible.

    In both cases just be sure you give yourself enough framing on your subject for the final composition, so you don't suddenly realize you don't have legs on your actor when you pull the camera out in the comp.  🤣

  4. Have fun shooting something in this style on a camera with a lot of rolling shutter:

    In my opinion it is one of the most creatively limiting artifacts in low budget cameras.  Just about everything else can be worked around from limited dynamic range, to depth of field, to iffy "color science".  But when something forces you to shoot in a certain style, it's very limiting creatively. 

    It also can't really be fixed in post, and it's hell on VFX as well.  There is a reason pro cinema cameras all have extremely low rolling shutter.

  5. @DBounceI agree, it would be nice for them to keep the costs under control for these smaller sensor offerings.  Although if the GH6 has better IBIS and some form of internal raw recording, I'd probably spring upwards of $3k for one.  😁

    Of all the cameras released in the last six months, the Fuji XT3 looked like the most interesting to me.  But now that I've become a huge fan of IBIS on these small cameras, it didn't tick all the boxes for me in a way that made me want to try it.  I'm very curious to see what they offer in an X-H2 model though.   However, by the time it comes out, the GH6 may be just around the corner.

    Also, based on your experience and some other stuff I've read, I'm a little wary of Fuji's build quality.  Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic all make bomb proof cameras.


  6. 3 minutes ago, DBounce said:

    @Towd I still believe the end days of M43 are drawing nearer. Look at Olympus's latest entry. Also the GH line will seemingly be taking a back seat to the newer S-line. At least it should given that the new S-line is Panasonics new flagship. 

    Well, Olympus seems to be focusing on stills.  But the S1 doesn't seem to offer up much competition to Panasonic's two year old GH5 in regard to video.  So, saying the GH5 is taking a back seat feels premature.  Especially when Panasonic has said the S1 would not be focused on video, and now we've seen the specs that confirm that.

    I understand a lot of people love the full frame look and want to use it.  Personally, I've shot some projects with full frame sensors back in the 5D mII days, and found it a huge PITA in post.  Maybe as autofocus improves it'll find some use for me again.

    I personally just find so many downsides to it right now-- from slow read out speeds, to bad rolling shutter, to crop sensor recording, to difficulty nailing focus.  Just my observations and experience.

  7. 22 minutes ago, KC Kelly said:

    I'm waiting to see if the S1 gets the full V-log.  Even if you have to pay extra for it.  It would also be nice to have better timecode than the GH-5s.  I don't have a problem with keeping a TC sync on it all the time.  S35 compatibility mode would also be great.

    My understanding was that V-Log L was the same mapping as V-Log on the Varicam, but with less dynamic range.  Panasonic's GH5 V-Log  LUT seems to be interchangeable with the regular Varicam LUT.

    Are people just hoping for more dynamic range out of the V-log mapping on the S1?  My impression has always been that V-log L was just marketing gimmickry to help separate the Varicam from the GH5 and emphasize the lower dynamic range on Panasonic's prosumer camera.

  8. So now that all the major manufacturers have released their full frame offerings, is it safe to assume that the calls for the early demise of micro 4/3rds have been been greatly exaggerated?

    The GH5 was my first Panasonic camera, mostly due to the 10 bit internal recording, but the class leading IBIS and incredible versatility won me over.  I see some complaints about it, but from my experience the warpy edge thing is much more controlled than on any of the full frame offerings.  Sony IBIS and the GH5 are not even comparable.

    I almost wonder if the people suffering from bad IBIS on the GH5 were using adapted lenses without properly setting the focal length before shooting.  The only time it ever got me, was when I accidentally forgot to disable it on a tripod shot in heavy wind and the sensor would compensate for wind gusts.  It's not perfect, but it I've found it dare I say "game changing" with regard to grabbing shots that wouldn't even be possible without a gimbal or heavy rig.

  9. 3 hours ago, kye said:

    Do you aspire to the "more is more" style of Michael Bay, or the wealth of Michael Bay?

    Either one is fine - no judgements from me - just curious if the style is the goal, or a means to an end.

    Haha, may we all make Michael Bay money some day in our career.

    But I posted the Michael Bay example maybe to be a little provocative to the art house crowd.  Saying you hate Bay is a bit like saying you hate Trump-- it's always a safe response.  (Please nobody attack me.  I promise I didn't vote for the guy.  I'm just saying...)

    Seriously though, I find that I look for "Bayhem" when I'm editing a project.  Is there a shot with more parallax in the foreground?  Or a shot with more motion?  Maybe a whip pan or some other movement.  Those are the shots I seem to gravitate to, so I think that the Bayhem style is something that I'm looking for.  I certainly can't recreate the complexity of some of his shots.  Just that panning background on a telephoto lens with a circular dolly track that he does is technically very hard to recreate on a rushed shoot.  (I've tried with limited success.)  But, I think when even Werner Herzog is acknowledging the style, there is something there worth studying.

  10. 3 hours ago, kye said:

    In terms of being too sharp, I'm curing that with lenses - like many people do.  Although if you're delivering in 1080 I'm not sure how much that really matters, I haven't done much testing to see, and for me it doesn't matter that much for my projects.

    Just as an FYI, I used to shoot Nikon for stills, so my lens collection is primarily old Nikon glass.  Even when delivering at 1080p, I've found I need to defocus my GH5 footage to match the softness of footage coming out of Red cameras.  Once that that sharpness creeps into the image, it seems to hang on even after the downrez.

    I think I read a while back that some users like Sage only shoot in 1080p with their GH5 for the more cinematic image.  Being the maximalist that I am, I can't seem to let myself do that when 4k and 5k are available formats.  But yeah, GH5 footage is REALLY sharp compared to other cameras I've matched it to.

  11. I'm always pushing to cut one more frame from a shot while still telling the story, or adding something else into a frame to heighten visual interest.  Maybe I fear the ability of the modern audience to click away, check their email, or start browsing the web.  I find whenever I'm watching a film and a character stares wistfully off into the sunset, I'm going to the timebar to check how much more of the film is left.  I really don't want that to happen on any of my work, so I'm constantly fighting it.

    I don't know if that is a style, but it's something I'm constantly aware of while cutting a project.

    Love it or hate it, this guy seems to have figured out a formula that's made him quite wealthy.  Maybe that is what I aspire to...  😉

    BTW, I love how the narrator relates the style with layers of condescension.  Props to him for recognizing the style and breaking it down, but I doubt Bay is too stupid to really know what he is doing.

  12. I really like shooting with the 5k "open gate" format on the GH5.  I find it to to be practically indistinguishable to the eye from the 4k 422 mode even when I zoom in and pixel peep a shot.  You can then drop it on a 4k timeline as a center extraction which allows some panning and stabilization possibilities.  This also allows you to deliver in C4k or UHD if you are just out collecting B-Roll that may be used in a variety of projects.  All that said, I find that the vast majority of the time, I'm still delivering 1080p as a final video format.  But the 5k full frame feels the most future proof down the line.  It'll probably upres to 8k pretty well if we're ever delivering that format in 10 years.  GH5 footage is so sharp-- really too sharp!   I've matched it with 5k and 6k Red footage in projects, and find I have to always use a small amount of the defocus filter on it in post so it is not so crisp.  This is with the GH5's sharpness set to the lowest settings.

    As far as extreme grading, I typically always shoot V-LOG and run my footage through Neat Video first so the 420 vs 422 has not made much of a difference.  I got into this habit while salvaging 5D mark II footage as it really helps the gradability of 8-bit.

    One thing you will notice is that you lose the Ex Tele Converter zoom functionality in 5k, but you can still punch in in post on the image, so the versatility is still there.  Maybe if I was shooting something that I knew was going to be shot entirely with the Ex Tele Converter, I'd just shoot in 4k 422 for the extra chroma sampling, but that's never come up for me.

    The one place where I do find the 4k 422 better is in green screen extraction.  The 422 pulls a finer edge.  Where any time I've had to pull a key on 420 footage, I'm left with a 1 pixel outline on my initial matte edge from the chroma sub sampling even after running it through Neat Video.  You can erode the mask to fix the edge, but then you loose fine hair detail, etc.  I have tested the two modes and both are quite usable compared to some old DSLR 420 8 bit footage, but the 422 is marginally nicer.  Obviously an external recorder for green screen footage would be ideal, but in a pinch I've found the 4k 422 recorded internally to give really nice results-- especially for a 2k delivery.  And I don't have or use an external recorder with my GH5.

    Obviously, if you are doing an elaborate green screen shoot, use a pro camera with 444 uncompressed color output, but I sometimes just need to shoot a quick element for a composite and the GH5 in 4k 422 works just fine. 

    For my needs GH5 is just a great little workhorse to get footage to support a larger production or to generate high quality footage for any quick small budget or personal project.  I love that I can just throw the camera in a bag without external monitors, gimbals, or other crap and shoot high quality footage from such a tiny form factor.  There really is nothing else like it.


    9 hours ago, TurboRat said:

    Yeah the Full Frame cameras are better in Low Light. What do you think are the advantages of GH5s aside from the flip screen and the small lenses?

    A7III has ibis though (not as good as GH5) so I think that's a better choice

    5 hours ago, kye said:

    10-bit is a pretty big advantage of the GH5 over the Sonys.

    The GH5 and GH5s typically give less heat and more reliable operation than the Sonys.  There's also longer battery life, less rolling shutter, and more high speed frame rates combined with better data rates and codecs.

  14. 11 minutes ago, @yan_berthemy_photography said:


    Another question @Towd  :) , when I want to slow down the speed of the 60fps footage, do I interpret the footage to 24fps or do I click on speed/duration and change it to 50% ? which one provides the smoothest look?

    In Premiere, I think both solutions will give you the same end result.  I typically leave the import camera settings alone and just set the playback speed on the timeline.  So for 60fps footage, it would be 40% for 24fps.   Any time you are doing this, you want to be sure your time interpolation is set to "frame sampling" rather than "frame blending".

    Just another caveat, some cameras can record at one speed but set playback for another speed.  (Red cameras do this.)  So in those cases the footage will already be slowed down on a 24fps timeline, and if you want it to play back at normal speed you have to speed it up.

  15. 15 minutes ago, @yan_berthemy_photography said:

    Doing this will ruin my footage, this will make too much motion blur when we slow 360 degree shutter speed footage.


    I think I'll keep 180 shutter angle for 60fps for 24fps timeline and C4K 24fps 180 shutter angle.


    Thanks a lot @Towd , appreciating your help.

    You are correct, if you are just going to run the footage shot at 60fps slowed down onto a 24fps timeline and you want to play back every frame, 180 is the best choice.  I was describing a technique for shooting at 48fps or 60fps and then playing it back at normal speed on a 24fps timeline where every other frame is dropped, but with the option of ramping into slow motion.

    You seem to just be interested in running the footage as only slow motion, so in that case 180 degree is probably going to give you the most natural result.  I've done a lot of work with high speed stuff shot at 96 and 120 fps, and we've found shooting with a 360 degree shutter helps reduce strobing when the footage is ramped to normal speed.  So, I was just throwing that out there.  But it is really only a concern if you are going to drop frames to play it at "normal" speed.

    Didn't mean to stir up confusion.😀

  16. If you are shooting at 60fps and know that you are going to be putting the footage on a 24fps timeline and running it at 40% speed so it plays at a "normal" speed, wouldn't it make more sense to shoot at at 360 degree shutter angle so your footage ends up at least close to 180 degree?  360 * .40 = 144 shutter angle

    Also, if you want exactly a 180 shutter angle, but want the option of going to slow motion without using software in post, you could shoot at 48fps with a 360 degree shutter and slow by 50%.  This would remove every other frame in your timeline and give you exactly a 180 degree shutter angle.

    Granted these solutions will give you a 360 shutter angle when you go slow motion, but if the vast majority of your footage is going to be normal speed, it would keep the shutter angle more natural for the majority of your footage.  Slow motion is also a non-standard look, so having a 360 shutter angle on the slow motion sections is probably less of an issue than having a 90 or 72 degree shutter angle on you normal footage ( which is what happens if you run 48 and 60 fps footage shot with a 180 degree shutter angle on a 24fps timeline).

    Am I missing something here?

  17. 5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

    That was specifically mentioned in the notes of the video by the uploader, that he had some stuck pixels but that is because he had a very early pre production model. So this is of no great concern to me. 


    There is a lot I like in what I'm seeing with this camera.  And the skin tones look pretty solid in torchlight and daylight.   Hopefully the rolling shutter isn't too bad even if it takes going to the crop mode to control it.

    I just absolutely hate dealing with stuck pixels.  So hopefully you are right and it will be fixed for the final release.  Just something that really popped out to me even if it was being shot at high ISOs.  I may wait until I see some more tests before pulling the trigger.  But nice to see some Z6 footage.

  18. 11 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

    I'm sure you guys can grade better, but I loved the footage



    That's some impressive looking footage, but there looked to be some serious stuck white pixels in the night shots.  I hope they get that ironed out in the final version.   It's such a PITA to have to kill those in a lot of shots.  Giving me flashbacks from the 5DmkII.

  19. Parting with my Digital Bolex.  Currently listed on E-Bay here: https://www.ebay.com/itm/323299120393?_trksid=p2471758.m4704

    I've really enjoyed this camera, but not using it nearly enough of late.  Hopefully someone else will enjoy it as much as I have.

    Includes the following accessories:

    Body Cap

    Power Cables

    USB 3 cable

    Tripod mount / trigger cover

    Pistol Grip and hand strap

    Protective weather resistant rubber skin

    Shark Fin Hood

    Nikon to C-mount adapter



  20. 5 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

    My lut is specifically designed to emulate the colour offered by Magic Lantern RAW, debayered by ACR, with the Cinelog DCP profile applied. The Panasonic lut is not.

    My bad Hyalinejim.   I was not trying to specifically reply to you.   I think you should get post of the month for your work here, and you obviously know what you are doing.

    I just see a lot of replies from people who seem to be looking for help at finding a starting place when working with V-Log.

    So, what I meant was that the Arri LUT generator is nice for getting near Rec 709 and playing around with rolloffs, but its not going to be as precise as Panasonic's LUT for getting to Rec.709 on a GH5.

  21. I never see anyone mention this, but Panasonic actually has a Varicam LUT that can be applied to properly convert V-Log footage to Rec. 709.  I think its a really nice starting place for grading footage, and it will properly transform V-Log into the Rec. 709 colorspace.   I see a lot of people grade by just applying custom S-curves or contrast to their Log footage with great results, but I'm a big fan of getting your camera data into the proper color space.  I think its especially helpful for people new to color grading, since it gets them into a more recognizable starting place.

    The Arri LUT generator tool is also pretty cool especially for generating LUTs with soft roll-offs for shadows and highlights,. Your starting place is a bit off I think compared to Panasonic's LUT, but it's totally workable.

    They're both free and worth checking out:



    For those interested, Camera Labs put out some really nice ungraded footage to test these LUTs in their review of the GH5.


  22. 2 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

    That is a pretty good way to replicate it but it's not the same. Even the author admits such. A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens.

    I don't want to derail the discussion about the GH5, but I hate seeing bad information out in the world, and just have to correct this.

    For all intents and purposes, as long as the focal plane of the camera is in an identical place in the world between shots with different focal lengths, the effect is mathematically identical to a crop from a larger FOV to a smaller one.  In other words you can animate a crop on an image to recreate the effect of a zoom with a lens.

    The only things that could possibly be different would be characteristics of the different lenses, such as pin cushion or barrel distortion throughout the zoom.  Of course there are going to be varying resolving differences depending on the technique used.  For example a digital zoom is going to reduce pixel resolution,  but an optical zoom is going to be affected by any resolving differences of the lens at different focal lengths.   That said, if you took a theoretically "perfect pinhole lens" and performed a zoom it would be identical to to a crop on an image with infinite resolution.

    I've run into so many photographers who don't get this, but I think it's an important bit of information to keep in the back of your head while out shooting--  you can crop in on an image and  it will have the same basic effect as putting a longer lens on your camera.  What's neat about the GH5 is that trick doesn't seem to have much effect on the detail in the image, so it really effectively gives you two lenses which is very cool.

    Just as a side note, that Jaws effect is achieved by combining a move through the environment combined with a zoom or crop in to keep the subject in the same scale in the frame.  The key to the effect is that the camera is moving and not in the same spot from the beginning to the end of the shot, so you are getting the parallax of moving the camera.  In fact even before digital, they used to do the effect using optical printers in the same way in which we can crop a shot today.

  23. It sounds like the G7 is the flavor of the month here on EOSHD, but just be really sure that you are okay with the limited dynamic range of the panasonic cameras.  Personally, I have yet to see anything that has blown me away from Panasonic's prosumer line.   I'm not a blackmagic guy, but in your price range if the best image possible is something that is important to you, they may be your best choice.

  24. In my opinion a big downside to shooting 4k in the prosumer price range is the rolling shutter is typically much worse when compared 2k/HD.  I personally find rolling shutter to be one of the most annoying aspects to shooting on cmos sensors.

    While nice to have, resolution probably falls somewhere after accurate colors, good dynamic range, bit depth/image fidelity, and a lack of difficult to repair artifacts such as rolling shutter, moire, or aliasing.

    Limited resolution really doesn't matter much to me and can be flattering in a lot of situations.

  • Create New...