Jump to content

Jim Giberti

Members
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jim Giberti last won the day on March 20

Jim Giberti had the most liked content!

About Jim Giberti

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Have used Q5 exclusively on a dozen or so commercial projects to date. Did extensive testing of all flavors of Braw. Q5 is amazing and over 40 minutes on a simple Sandisk SD card.
  2. Just to keep information accurate: BM didn't remove the functionality of raw or a omit a Braw panel. The raw panel is still the first pane in the Color section of Resolve. You still have full control over everything from white balance to ISO there once you select "Clip" as your option - as always. Highlight Recovery is now in the Primaries second page Like every program, as the fuctionality of the technology evolves the program evolves with it. Braw is great because it's faster and smaller than CDNG but with all of the post control.
  3. Braw is brilliant. But you can mangle it in post like any codec if you make bad decisions. It was obvious from the first time I tried it that the extended video LUT was useless with too much contrast and poor highlight handling. So I never used it. I graded a piece last week using nothing but primaries. Exposing well in Braw gives you amazing latitude and control in Resolve.
  4. That's the most depressing thing I've read in a long time.
  5. Yeah, this can't be overstated. All of the critical differences mentioned in discussions are in blown up stills. Actual running footage, let alone footage compressed for broadcast and web delivery, is simply indistinguisable to a viewer. Period. I did a blind test with a few people at different times in the studio the other day and the responses were exactly what I expected - "What difference am I supposed to see...they all look the same" kind of stuff. What people should be talking about is how "organic" and "film like" Braw and Gen 4 processed in Resolve actually look. It's sort of the Holy Grail that so many people have been looking for. 4k, raw, detail, file size, smooth roll off in shadows and highlights, deep accurate colors, ease of editing. The only people still debating the issue aren't the ones shooting with the new cameras and codecs. The debate is over for all of them/us.
  6. After testing for a couple of days, we're Q5 all the time. Shot a film with it last week and yes, in the new Resolve, it is as fast - even faster than ProRes w/ FCPX. I was in the field w/ a MP skimming through a twenty minute timeline, every clip w/ a LUT and a grade. It's amazingly fast. So much so that as a small shop w/ 3 FCPX stations I really never expected to integrate resolve. After 1 week shooting braw and working with it in Resolve, I'll never shot ProRes or edit in FCPX again. A couple of producers had mentioned to me that they didn't see the "magic" from the new cam until they shot in braw and processed it in Resolve and I have to agree. It isn't just the file size and the ease of editing and grading - it's where the full potential of Gen4 and the new cam IQ comes together.
  7. It's all metadata and yes, the UI and menus are brilliantly simple and complete. You can get anywhere and adjust just about anything with a simple screen tap or button push.
  8. The difference in noise is there...if you look closely and more obvious in 12:1 and 8:1 Been doing a bit of testing at all codecs in detailed scenes - doing people today. Bottom line so far: As far as actual deliverables for broadcast and web and any practical distribution - the final compression for delivery will negate any differences from Q0 to ProRes HQ. Frank Glencairn just did a great article on just that. BM has done such a good jog implimenting ProRes in the new P4k that it's remarkably (indistinguishably) similar to the new highest Braw flavor - Q0. The in camera debayering is handled similarly and it shows. Aside from the larger file size, we're sticking with our ProRes HQ to FCPX work stations for simplicity with no IQ compromise. It's all good no matter which approach you choose. No end viewer will ever see the difference on screen.
  9. If the battery quits, you lose the file - the same with the new firmware. One of the reasons it's only worth using original Canons - better life and the only accurate readout.
  10. Here's what we use in ours and how, so it's all I can attest to but I can attest that they work perfectly. Everything we produce is for TV or web. We shoot everything in UHD and edit and output in 1080P for distribution. When the first camera arrived we stuck this SanDisk card in that we had several of from our old Pockets - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1282965-REG/sandisk_sdsdxxg_064g_gn4in_extremepro_sdhc_64gb.html?sts=pi We've shot with them exclusively for a few months - terrabytes worth of footage - without issue. You'll get 11 minutes of ProRes HQ UHD 24P per card for about $20 each. Now go and have fun
  11. ProRes HQ is great on the P4K. BM is using an enhanced debayering vs previous cams. The image is absolutely great and if you nail your WB, there's no real practical need to shoot with anything else. It's also nice to shoot to simple San Disk Extreme SD cards for everything.
  12. For people looking to maintain the convenience factor of the P4K - with the new update, original Canon batteries, which is all we're using with our cams, are lasting an hour+, with accurate readout. We just shot concert scenes for new film - a typical long day of production (of course not continuous) - and with sensible management both cameras used only two batteries each. I don't think most people, except shooting events, would need anything other than 3-5 Canon LP-E6Ns for a given production day. I had just ordered a few more so that each camera had 6 in the kit. They're inexpensive, small/convenient and professional gear. I've got LPs in our stills kits (5Ds) that are going strong after 5+ years of rugged use.
  13. I have no idea what you're talking about or why...goofy? This is an amazing camera in the opinion of the pros using it - even with some initial issues that i've spoken to with BM and on the official porum. We have all of those cameras and others. We've already produced several projects with the P4ks, TV and films - a couple with them only. I'm offering my experience - what are you offering other than angry, foul language about things you've read on a general forum? You'll note I even put a little smiley face on my criticism of the vid. Go smoke a bowl of something and chill out a little. Life is too short to be this angry about stuff you're not involved with. Seriously.
  14. Regarding the person who produced the video about returning his P4K in favor of his Micro - from a straight shooting experience, he needs to have his head examined We've got a lot of cameras, mostly BM, and a couple of Micros, whose images I love. In fact I wrote at one tome that if BM would take the Micro cinema sensor and put into a real camera body I would buy them for three times their cost. The Micro is the most disfunctional camera you can shoot. A simple menu change takes forever in any environment. Tiny unrecognizable buttons on tiny stripped down senor box - but what a sensor and color science. And it's that way by design. It's supposed to be a drone or special use crash cam for TV/cinema production - not an actual shooters cam. The P4K is the exact reverse of that - perhaps the easiest small camera to use on set or in the field - a brilliant camera as far as shooting goes. And the idea that upressing the Micro footage in Resolve is better than shooting 4K/UHD on the P4K is a real head scratcher. Just spend some time learning how to optimize the image at aquisition and then how to work with the amazingly maleable image to get the look you want. It took very little time shooting and working in post to get the image to look like the original Pocket or Micro etc. You can't make any of the previous BM cameras (except the UMP) look like the P4K but you can easily do the reverse if you want to learn how.
  15. Have you picked up a set of handles for the Zhiyun? They work really well...make it a much more balanced gimbal to work with.
×
×
  • Create New...