Jim Giberti

No, you only need to be stupid in a factual, dictionary defined sense of the word.

The ultimate answer to the rhetorical question, "what could go wrong?"
 
 

The ultimate answer to the rhetorical question, "what could go wrong?"
 
 

No, you only need to be stupid in a factual, dictionary defined sense of the word.

I find the best use is with a simple metabones dumb adapter giving a relative 35-70mm on the P4K.
That's a very practical range for a lens, with this IQ and speed especially.

It doesn't seem possible that people can be this stupid or racist or hateful or mysoginistic or delusional or cowardly enough to believe and follow this mentally ill fool.
So you're so clever...and all grown up almost too.

Please don't blame that delusion on Boomers. Many of us created a lot of the things and people that make the world a good place. Some are as succeptible to propganda and poor discernment just as people your age...whatever that age is.
 
Smart piece Andrew.
 
 
Thinking about that is not thinking.

Please don't blame that delusion on Boomers. Many of us created a lot of the things and people that make the world a good place. Some are as succeptible to propganda and poor discernment just as people your age...whatever that age is.
 
Smart piece Andrew.
 
 
Thinking about that is not thinking.

Please don't blame that delusion on Boomers. Many of us created a lot of the things and people that make the world a good place. Some are as succeptible to propganda and poor discernment just as people your age...whatever that age is.
 
Smart piece Andrew.
 
 
Thinking about that is not thinking.

Just a quick thought on this. I think you may find that shooting in 4k in Braw 5Q for 1080 delivery is the sweetspot.
It's an optimum workflow in that the files sizes are very small for both acquisition and working in post/Resolve.
Downresing to 1080 in Resolve will give you the best HD image and you don't have to worry about iso because all of that can be adjusted in post shooting Braw.
It's really liberating to focus on the creative knowing that you have the control to optimize everything from iso and exposure to white balance after the fact. Just shoot with a viewing LUT so you know you're getting what you want in real time and it comes together really quickly in color and edit.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's the most depressing thing I've read in a long time.

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.