tomsemiterrific

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

May I ask what your sharpening and noise reduction settings were in camera?

I used settings for the Standard pic. profile. Contrast -2, Sharpening -2, NR -5, Sat 0

They come from Caleb Pike from DSLR Video Shooter. They are his "out of the camera" settings when he wants to do little to no adjustment in post.

There are Pic. profiles that are lower noise--so I was trying to show a worse case situation.

In the second video I tried to set  up a second candle on the floor to light the background to show the separation of subject to background. The zoom lens was only extended to about 24mms, and you can still see how blurring of the background there was.

6 hours ago, Micah Mahaffey said:

The Rolling shutter is near identical from what I can see with the naked eye. But there is a 2x crop mode on the a6300 in 4k that cuts its rolling shutter in half and that's amazing! But honestly rolling shutter is irrelevant once loaded with ProDad Mercalli 4 -CMOS Fixr. Its essentially like having a global shutter in most cases. Also I tested iso 8000 just to see how it'd look and handle. I actually darkened the footage quite a bit in post! The room looked nicely lit and bright before I darkened it all about 3 times of the original in post. On the NX1 you'd be looking at messy footage at anything above 1600 iso and even then it wasn't ideal. I couldn't have used just a phone light as a rim with an NX1. Also the NX1 i did love to shoot with! I just for whatever reasons feel that the Sony works better for me. Maybe its the way how on the Nx1 you had to get into the video mode or something but basically i feel more comfortable holding an a6300 and just shooting, Except for the record button lol, being a t3i user has got me used to some things. I will be releasing a test here soon showing how easy it is to remove the effects of rolling shutter. Which can be done with several programs and plug ins. 

 

That'd be great to see! You should try it out!  I don't currently own a speed booster but am looking at getting a lens turbo here soon to achieve that full frame look. Just to clarify though, I did stop my lenses down because it was actually blowing out in some shots at iso 8000 (Darkened about 60% in post) and I was using a cell phone light and some very very very dim Christmas lights outside, and obviously my monitor. On my T3i using 1.4 lenses i could achieve the same look if I was using actual lights. The footage here was twice as bright as my eye saw it. I think its possible to achieve the same look, but I can easily make this footage 3 times brighter without introducing any noise right in post because that's how bright the original footage actually is!  

Here's test no. 1--pretty self-explanatory

7 hours ago, Micah Mahaffey said:

The Rolling shutter is near identical from what I can see with the naked eye. But there is a 2x crop mode on the a6300 in 4k that cuts its rolling shutter in half and that's amazing! But honestly rolling shutter is irrelevant once loaded with ProDad Mercalli 4 -CMOS Fixr. Its essentially like having a global shutter in most cases. Also I tested iso 8000 just to see how it'd look and handle. I actually darkened the footage quite a bit in post! The room looked nicely lit and bright before I darkened it all about 3 times of the original in post. On the NX1 you'd be looking at messy footage at anything above 1600 iso and even then it wasn't ideal. I couldn't have used just a phone light as a rim with an NX1. Also the NX1 i did love to shoot with! I just for whatever reasons feel that the Sony works better for me. Maybe its the way how on the Nx1 you had to get into the video mode or something but basically i feel more comfortable holding an a6300 and just shooting, Except for the record button lol, being a t3i user has got me used to some things. I will be releasing a test here soon showing how easy it is to remove the effects of rolling shutter. Which can be done with several programs and plug ins. 

 

That'd be great to see! You should try it out!  I don't currently own a speed booster but am looking at getting a lens turbo here soon to achieve that full frame look. Just to clarify though, I did stop my lenses down because it was actually blowing out in some shots at iso 8000 (Darkened about 60% in post) and I was using a cell phone light and some very very very dim Christmas lights outside, and obviously my monitor. On my T3i using 1.4 lenses i could achieve the same look if I was using actual lights. The footage here was twice as bright as my eye saw it. I think its possible to achieve the same look, but I can easily make this footage 3 times brighter without introducing any noise right in post because that's how bright the original footage actually is!  

Here's a second test with a candle

10 hours ago, Micah Mahaffey said:

It was actually a buddy of mines, we invested in different things together at the time and he ended up moving away so I went back to my t3i for a little while. 

I no longer have the Nx1 because of the answer above, buuut In my opnion after using the A6300 for the past 2 weeks I can already say in my opinion that its a superior camera and produces a much more cinematic image once loaded with Pro Color and S-log 2 and 3. Its motion, its non over sharpened look, low light capability (HUGE IMPROVEMENT that I didn't think id love so much) the increase in dynamic range with I did know id love! I also feel like it can be pushed a lot more with grading and not having to transcode footage is a dream and works a lot better with my workflow. But I mean, I do miss the longer battery life and longer record times/smaller file sizes. The Nx1 screen was easier to focus with as well if I was just eye balling it. The rolling shutter is about the same, but on the a6300 it has a 2x crop mode that basically gets rid of the rolling shutter in 4k, Ultimately operating the a300 reminds me a lot of how it felt to operate my t3i without the awesome swivel screen while i do feel the nx1 had some minor bugs and operating it just wasn't as enjoyable to me. Although I still love that camera and would totally shoot on it again!! I do think the A6300 is ultimately better. Also on a side note, the NX1 has a default noise reduction and I believe it causes lots of banding on footage and it gives the nx1 this sort of post processed look, while the a6300 has fine grain that separates the 8 bit compression really nicely.  Hope that answered your question. 

 

Now here's my first test on the a6300 shot at iso 8000 (Which couldn't be done on the NX1) 

 

I may be wrong, but I'm quite sure this scene could easily be done, with better color on the G85 with the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Metabones EF to MFT speed booster. I use that combination constantly in low light, shoot extremely clean images and never move the ISO above 400. The speed booster gives an almost full-frame image and drops the f-stop to f 1.1--and the Sigma's manual focus is amazing. To compound it all, the five axis internal stabilization on the G85 does a wonderful job.

2 hours ago, Bizz said:

Yep, but sometimes you get that wobbling effect like it was stabilized with warp stabilizer (when E-Stabilization is activated). 

Don't know about warp stabilizer....but have you updated your firmware past 1.0? Stabilization was crap until I updated. I don't think you can get 1.1 any more, but just a few days ago they introduced 1.2, which included 1.1--so no biggie.  Anyway I updated and it made a enormous difference.

1 hour ago, Bizz said:

Nice! In some shots you used E-Stabilization right?

I had all stabilization methods on. It's really amazing to have the in-camera stabilization for the FD lenses with a speed booster.

Put his short video together. All hand held using third party lenses, metabones speed booster, and FD speed booster, shot in low light situations near sunset, holding ISO to 200 in every clip.

13 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Panasonic g80 natural picture profile test.

I must say since I've been back shooting with Panasonic cameras there are a lot to appreciate about them. Very reliable across the board and now the noise issue that plagued the GH4 has been fixed ! The motion cadence can be improved but it is not noticeable and its probably a LONG GOP thing. Even though im big on ETTR or slightly over exposing I quickly noticed why people complain about ugly color on the camera. The top of the Panasonic gamma curves loses saturation and color accuracy FAST ! It's best to underexpose using the in camera metering by -1 to -2/3 of a stop. This puts the majority of the image into the midtone area (which Panasonic sensors,picture profiles and h.264 compression seems to favor).

Downscaling to 1080 from 4k and I can't tell you I've even noticed much grain in the image and when I do see it it has a nice pattern to it. Still working on better settings for the cam but so far so good

I'm finding the same thing, and all the shooting I do under exposing minus 2/3 or thereabouts the color is much fuller and richer. Over exposure makes the colors look washed out, and it's hard to recoup it in post.

Shot this today at Penn farm---inside Cedar Hill, Texas St. Park. The farm was a working farm for over a century. I want to get some better shots--maybe in using a tripod, but this is just a quick set of images, all hand held all relying entirely on the 5 axis stabilization. I shot it using the metabones EF-MFT speed booster with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 zoom. Of course, I used a variable ND filter, and kept most shots below 2.4...but many are at F 1.1.

All shots are manual focus---difficult hand held, but possible. I shot this with a custom pic profile with sharpening all the way down, contrast all the way down, and sat. -2. No LUT-- I hand graded the footage just to correct exposure, increase dynamic range a bit and saturation. Very little was done beyond that. I wanted to try to preserve a natural look.

Let me know what you think.

16 hours ago, mercer said:

Yeah but, when it's right it looks so cool. Daniel Peters' videos look great. I have a theory that there are 2 or 3 looks that Sony cameras excell at... unfortunately I am incapable of reproducing those looks...

So I am learning to settle for crunchy contrast and nuclear waste green.

I agree. I see Sony videos that look good, but I've never been able to replicate them, and I've never gotten good results with S-Log--LUT after LUT SUCKS.

When I have been able to get something that wasn't horrible it took a ridiculous amount of time.  It's just not worth the grief and time. I'll take Canon color and Canon log every day and twice on Sunday. Yes, Canon cost and niggardly, balkanized features are maddening, but the time you save in achieving a good look and great looking skin tones---well, it's hard to put a price on satisfying results without tearing your hair out.

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

I'm a pretty good colorist, except for the red, green and blue channels... I suck at those. 

After years of working with Sony I finally realized you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

4 hours ago, mercer said:

Nice job with this. I recently started messing around with the basic color board in FCPX and I am really enjoying the ability to adjust Saturation separately in the highs, mids and lows. And then some simple curves or telecine wheels adjustment in Color Finale makes for a simple workflow... of course I've been shooting a lot in slog2 and slog3 lately, so that becomes a different beast and beyond my skill set. 

I hate working with S-Log. The only thing worse than Sony color is Sony Log. In contrast, Canon Log is wonderful to work with...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

7 hours ago, Orangenz said:

At the moment all we have is a sentence from Matt Fraser saying he tried it for the vlog context and it locked on solidly. Not long now!

Well, the G85 locked on to the face and to one eye--and seemed like it worked well, but then I noticed after a minute or so the camera tended to want to "jump" or hunt. I didn't move off the face, but you could definitely see it want to jump in the movement of the background. The only solution I know? Shoot in manual and use a higher F-stop---and don't weave if you're the presenter.

How is it Panasonic, which is a very inventive company, cannot create reliable face focus that does not hunt three years after the 70D and 80D!?! 

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

I would be dumbfounded if the GH5 is able to maintain focus for all of two minutes in a talking head shot in AF.

Checked out Baltimore--lovely, expressive shots. Thanks for recommending it.I see what you mean by over sharpening and the nice, soft visual effect....definitely more filmic and less video-like. By the way in shooting outside how well do you find the AWB works?

30 minutes ago, jonpais said:

it's subjective of course, but I think the shots in your video would benefit from less sharpening in post. I seldom add any sharpening, but if I do, it's only maybe 1 or 1.5 in FCP. Your images would look sharp enough without any additional sharpening I'm guessing.

If you check out Iamoui's beautiful Baltimore video, you'll see that in this clip, he carefully avoids shooting in situations where he's got to sacrifice either important shadow or highlight detail. 

I think you may have a good point about over sharpening. I usually sharpen at around 2.0 or 2.5.  It depends. If I'm shooting a close up I don't sharpen much at all. If the person is further away, waist or below, then I will sharpen more.  In the big establishing shots or landscapes I'll tend to sharpen to prevent the details looking muddy.

On another subject I just got a G85---and I like the image it produces a lot. But as a blogging camera the AF hunts! Disappointing. Canon is SO much better---XC15, 70 and 80D---I sure hope the GH5 is better at holding AF in talking head shots.

And thanks I'll definitely check out Lamoui's video.

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

Hi Tom - are you adding sharpening in post? Also, if what you are after is a cinematic look, I would try to avoid such harsh lighting conditions.. Here's an image (not same camera) with sharpening turned all the way down in camera, none added in post, shot at around 11:00am, which is far from ideal for a good image. The in-camera sharpening is still obtrusive to my eyes.

When you say Harsh lighting conditions what are you referring to--the screen shots or the video I posted--and yes, I turn sharpening off completely when shooting and only ad light sharpening to images in post (2.5 in FCPX). But I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.

18 hours ago, Orangenz said:

There's maybe a couple of shots that seem off, like the two people, but the rest nail it. Every shot with just the eos lut look red. How are you getting rid of the red tint?

Good question. In Color Finale Pro you can reduce the three color channels separately. I lower the red channel, but some footage did not seem to need it.

27 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

I think your one gets it right for this shot. CG makes it look too dark and turns her skin brown.

I agree---it looked quite under exposed.

Yes, I also agree about the "Trump orange" of the lady's hair. I think this LUT can work well in many cases for an easy basis for a grade. But your point is something that frustrates me: the red cast. Reducing the red doesn't really remove the cast it only tones it down, which seems to defeat the purpose if warmth in skin tones is what you want. Of course, that could all be graded out with masks, etc., but why? Isn't one of the purposes of a LUT to save time in grading?

That said the LUT worked really well in the general landscape shots. And I like how the LUT actually does expand the dynamic range and helps you recoup some of the lost highs.  

I saturated much of it more than I usually might.

I think the grading I did of my daughter was hasty---the shot was taken in weird light, a mix of shadow and late evening sun...using auto WB. I was trying to get a "worst case" scenario. I also wanted to try out the metabones speed booster and my Canon lenses, and it worked great. You don't even have the sense you're shooting with an adapter, and my Canon F 4.0 zooms transform into F 2.5 zooms with stabilization.

I understand the G85 has internal stabilization....so that will give my zooms dual stabilization. Pretty friggin' awesome.

13 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Well, out of camera is quite workable; I'd say that. But, you could get there yourself with perhaps a little nicer results...

* The Original

*A quick 'n rough Cinegain fix

* Your result

Instead of Canon warmth, the last one has that blueish pinkish vibe of the EOSHD LUT. Skin & lips look unnatural to me. I only really liked the results at nighttime, perhaps it's due to the warmth of incandescent lights. But you know, different people different taste and all. I just like it a little more subtle.

I think your critique is valid in this clip--and is probably due to my grading. CF enables you to do a lot with reds/yellows. The image to too blue IMO. But what about the couple I shot later and the landscapes?

16 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Well, out of camera is quite workable; I'd say that. But, you could get there yourself with perhaps a little nicer results...

* The Original

*A quick 'n rough Cinegain fix

* Your result

Instead of Canon warmth, the last one has that blueish pinkish vibe of the EOSHD LUT. Skin & lips look unnatural to me. I only really liked the results at nighttime, perhaps it's due to the warmth of incandescent lights. But you know, different people different taste and all. I just like it a little more subtle.

I think your critique is valid in this clip--and is probably due to my grading. CF enables you to do a lot with reds/yellows. The image too blue IMO. I was trying to be very conservative in grading it.  

But what about the couple I shot later and the landscapes?

It's not that you can't get good results otherwise, it's the steps are so quick and easy using the LUT, as I tried to show in the three steps I demonstrated several times in the footage.

Here are some clips I did with my wife's G7 Lumix. I used the settings for Standard pic profile Andrew recommended, and used the Pro Color LUT with grading. 
Let me know what you think.

Any suggestions about shooting these cams hand held in sunlight. Is there a decent cover for the LCD? Yes, the EVF is okay, but I just hate using it.

19 minutes ago, jonpais said:

 Here is the link to the downloadable footage.  If you watch the video below at YouTube, you will find the link to the LUTs in the description.

 

Great. I had seen the other video, but not this. I really like the explanation. I'll probably end up getting this once I get the GH5.

2 hours ago, markr041 said:

Here is a low-light video using the GX85 and the classic 20mm f1.7 Lumix lens. This gives a hint of the performance of the GH5 not using VLog L:

 

Thanks, Mark. That looks pretty darn good on a first look. If I get the GH5 I can see I'll be using Canon lenses with a metabones speed booster. I have a Canon 35mm 1.4 that should do pretty well in low light, taking the result the video you shared here as a standard. I think that should be a 1.0 lens with the speed booster. Plus, I have some good Canon zooms that should be great with the in-body 5 axis stability.  My wife has a G7. I think I'll order the Metabones EF to MFT and test it on her G7. 

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

I'm pretty sure Mr. Neumann avoided shooting at higher than ISO 1600, and in the woods scenes, he underexposed and lifted the shadows in post. If you want a general idea of the low light capability of the GH5, the closest thing we have at the moment are tests of the GX80/85 and G80/85. Personally, I'd never shoot higher than ISO 1600 with those cameras, but some members here say ISO 6400 is usable. I would have a look at them yourself and decide. Mr. Neumann shared his Vlog files, so I'm assuming he shot everything in log. His package of LUTs looks great by the way. 

Great information. Where would I find Neumann's footage and LUT package??
Now that you bring it up I have to say I have tended to expose LOG to the right, lifting up the lows into the lower part of the mids. Actually, I've done that to eliminate noise in the darker parts of the image. Do you see a problem with that in V-Log (I've never shot V-log)?

3 hours ago, jonpais said:

I wouldn't say Panasonic's colors are horrid - just 'meh'?.

That was my experience when I owned the GH4. But at that time I didn't know about shooting in LOG, had never done it, and I'm sure I didn't get the best out of the camera. At that time I'd shot Sony camcorders of various types over a period of 7 years and only had the Sony to compare with the GH4. Seeing and working with both the only thing I could say was I liked the Panasonic color better---but neither one knocked me out.

15 minutes ago, dantheman said:

Probably at the same time when pigs can fly, you just need to be patient. Why not focus on what is available today, hoping for things that might never happen will only frustrate you. If I understand you right, you have a 1DX mk II, XC-15 and C300 Mk II? Why would you even consider getting a GH5?

That's a very good question. I'll answer it this way. IF the XC-15 were good in low-light I would not dream of using the GH5. But, doing run and gun, sometimes you've got to have a camera good in lower light--I'm not talking about pitch dark, or approximating the A7sII, but good enough in low light, with the right lenses,etc, to come out with low light video like Griffin produced in his GH5 video he did for Panasonic. The five axis stabilization and low light possibilities make it far superior to the XC-15 in that regard. The XC-15 only has a 1 inch sensor and the most open f-stop is 2.8. I find any ISO above 1600 is really pushing it.

Now, I owned a GH4 and it was not very good in low light. But from the results Griffin Hammond gets it's clear to me the GH5 will be a great improvement. Yes, I could use the 1DX mk II in many instances, but the lack of low-light stabilized lenses, and the weight of the lenses and other things preclude it from being a stealthy, run and gun cam. But it IS fantastic.  That said I tried to do a handheld shoot on the 1DX with a Tamron 15-30 constant 2.8 stabilized and put my left shoulder out of commission for about three weeks. MAN, that sucker was heavy. But it worked great.

I'm just trying to get the best tool for the job, and as the market looks now, in sum, the GH5, at least on paper, looks to be the pick of the litter. Make sense?

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Could you please take a second and find the link where Andrew Reid says that Panasonic has horrid color before we go any further with this?

Well, I didn't say he said it was horrid. I said he said something like that. In his recent review of the G85 he said this:
"I didn’t expect to like it when it came out. On paper and on the shelf it looks a bit boring. There’s Panasonic’s colour science, which is dreadful and a bit like what Sony do. Nothing like a Canon."

So, there you have it. He called Panasonic's color science "dreadful." Now, we can debate the weight of these words, but neither "horrid" nor "dreadful" are what anyone would call complementary. Nicht Wahr?

This is a post for ANDREW REID---or anyone else who cares to comment.

I recall in a recent article of yours on eoshd.com you said something to the effect that that Panasonic has horrid color, analogous to Sony. That may not be the adjective you used, but it was something quite analogous.

A statement like this compels me to ask:
1. If you think that about Panasonic color why are you interested in buying the GH5?---Especially since you have pretty much rejected the feature rich Sony mirrorless cams for pretty much the same reason--poor color.

2. Are you interested because you think Panasonic's color science will see an improvement with the GH5? Or because you think you can get what you want with V-Log is post processing?

I'm not trying to do a "gotcha" in asking this. I am seriously interested in the GH5, but agree with you 100% on Sony color and the over all "look." So, in buying the GH5 I don't want to buy another Sony I'm unhappy with just for other features...and a lighter set up (which I would love).

The footage I see from Griffin looks fine, yet very little information is forthcoming from him about how he achieved the end result---just how much post production did it take? Did he shoot this in V-log, if so what LUTs did he use, etc. So, right now I'm on the fence. I really love the Canon color--and the EOSHD C-Log works a treat with the 1DX mk II. I love the color of the XC-15 and how well it matches the C300 Mk II. Cameras come and go, but this trio stays with me.

Should I buy the GH5 for run and gun?? Or is there ever hope that Canon will put out a proper mirrorless that is feature rich---such as an XC-15 with three levels of ND, an APS-C sensor, internal stabilization, and interchangeable EF and EF-S lenses? Or will Hell freeze over before that happens?

Enquiring minds want to know.