sina_html

I think all of us are looking for such a dream camera

I usually deal with this situation, a lot of clients want a version for social networks. I've made 5 minute videos under 20 MB a lot.
I use Handbrake to re-encode a high quality master from Premiere, my check list goes like this:
1. lowering the resolution of the image to 720p or even 480p
2. making the sound mono and lowering the bit-rate as much as possible depending on the content.
3. In Handbrake, there are two encoding modes, constant quality and specified bit-rate, with constant bit-rate, you can specify the size of the output file quite accurately but constant quality mode is more efficient so I use it and experiment with different setting until I get the required file size.
4. there is constant and variable frame rate options but I haven't experimented with them and don't know how much do they affect the file size or how reliable a variable frame rate file can be.
5. encoder levels and standards may need to meet a certain requirement depending on the platform that you are going to use the video on.
 
Another way that comes to my mind is to upload your video to Vimeo and then download one of the lower quality re-encoder version that meets your file size requirements.

I usually deal with this situation, a lot of clients want a version for social networks. I've made 5 minute videos under 20 MB a lot.
I use Handbrake to re-encode a high quality master from Premiere, my check list goes like this:
1. lowering the resolution of the image to 720p or even 480p
2. making the sound mono and lowering the bit-rate as much as possible depending on the content.
3. In Handbrake, there are two encoding modes, constant quality and specified bit-rate, with constant bit-rate, you can specify the size of the output file quite accurately but constant quality mode is more efficient so I use it and experiment with different setting until I get the required file size.
4. there is constant and variable frame rate options but I haven't experimented with them and don't know how much do they affect the file size or how reliable a variable frame rate file can be.
5. encoder levels and standards may need to meet a certain requirement depending on the platform that you are going to use the video on.
 
Another way that comes to my mind is to upload your video to Vimeo and then download one of the lower quality re-encoder version that meets your file size requirements.

Hello,
What is your favorite DVD authoring software?
I'm on a PC and use Cyberlink Power Director 16.
Can't really say it's my favorite, as I haven't tried any others, shrug, but it seems to work okay.
Just wanting know others experiences.
Thanks!

I could maybe post the fusion file if anyone wants it.
The method is pretty simple, start by making a saturation map, detect edges on that so sharp change in saturation make up the bright parts and no change becomes black.
Blur that slightly and convert to apha channel.. Use that to blend a desaturated version with the original.
That way any sharp color transisions (like fringes) gets dialed down while the overall color remains unchanged. Slow change also remains unaffected, but depends on edge size.
The same technique can also be used to bring a busy area down a notch

In Premiere, select your clip in the timeline (or an adjustment layer above it if you work that way) and then go to the "Lumetri color" panel and in "basic correction" category, there is a "input LUT" dropdown, open it and select brows, find your cube file and select it. you are done. 
Also I recommend trying FilmConvert, with proper profiles of course.
In my very limited experience with log footage, if you want to have accurate colors, you need to "transform" colors from whatever color space the log footage is using to your viewing or output format and it is properly done by the use of a manufacture provided formula (color transform matrix, LUT, IDT, ...) and eyeballing it is not really accurate. I'll be glad to hear more experienced members opinion on this matter.

Quick update here: I had projects to shoot so I returned the Kipon adapter and managed to get my hands on a Metabones SB Ultra which works flawlessly. I did send an email to Kipon and asked about the compatibility issue to which they responded that they'll fix it in FW eventually. I can't confirm nor deny whether it works with the 1.1 FW in the GH5 or not as I don't have the adapter anymore. 
So for anyone looking for answers it's inconclusive! I'd recommend keeping an eye on Kipon's update logs and try the adapter in-store if possible to see if IBIS and everything else works as intended with the adapter before purchasing it. Metabones is pricey but it works, which is more important if one is doing client work on a regular basis.

I previously had the same feeling about Sony Slog 2. But recently I realized that the problem was my workflow not slog2.
Here is my recent experience, testing A7R2 in slog-2 with Adobe premiere witch gave me good looking (not necessarily accurate) colors:
- first I applied a color transform matrix to convert sgammut to rec 709. take a look at this post:
- then I tried to add contrast and saturation with lumetri color. I was Kind of happy with the results but then I tried applying Adobe's Slog 2 SL LUT (in lumetri effect, basic corrections) and found out that it game me better results and I no longer needed to manualy add saturation, just contrast.
So in a nutshell: Apply channel mixer effect > Apply S-log 2 SL lut > Add contrast.
I also tried Resolve, first i applied Resolve's own Sony S-log 2 to Rec 709 1D LUT (from nodes panel) then found that I need to bring down the Gain quite significantly (I dont know why it happens) and then added a little bit of saturation and it gave me comparable result with premiere workflow.
I was aslo recording both internally and externally to a shogun, I found that shogun files needed a data range adjustment before starting the above workflow. you can read about this adjustments in here: https://***URL not allowed***/fix-crushed-blacks-on-sony-a7s-and-a7s-ii-external-recordings/

Hey fellow GH5 owners!
When my pre-ordered GH5 arrived I was very sad to find out that my Metabones adapter was delayed for two whole weeks, they seem to be a rarity in Sweden atm. I called around to different retailers in Stockholm and found a place that had the Kipon Baveyes focal reducer in stock so I opted for it. Some initial impressions below and one big question - you won't believe what it is! #clickbait
So, the biggest caveat first: I can't get the stabilization to work with the focal reducer paired with a Sigma 18-35mm. The option for stabilization is greyed out in the menus. I've fiddled with different system frequencies, VFR on/off, stills mode, movie mode etc with no luck. Any tips? Latest firmware is installed in the adapter as well
Now the fun adapter stuff in no particular order (I've only had the 18-35 on the GH5 so far, will test with Tamron 35/1.8, Canon 24-105/4 mk1, Canon 24-70/2.8 mk2 today and see what happens)
AF for stills works surprisingly well with the 18-35, quick and accurate 0 problems with zooming, focusing etc (none of the notorious camera freeze that one gets from zooming with the MB adapter) Aperture control works flawlessly, albeit the display shows f1.7 as the lowest f-stop, I guess this is the adapter not translating the data to include focal reduction The adapter has a slight wiggle to it on the camera side (1-2mm), lens mount is sturdy with no play whatsoever The adapter is fully metal which is nice I've been using MB adapters for so long that I really appreciate using a different adapter. Just placebo, but hey! Happy to answer/investigate questions about the adapters integration with the GH5.
For ultra clarity I'll repeat the big question at hand: I can't get the IBIS to work with the Kipon adapter, tips? Give me your cameratelligence!

The adapter works fine in all other regards. No freezing while zooming, AF works fine for stills, aperture changes work flawlessly. Only caveat I've encountered is that the lowest f-stop the GH5 will show is 1.7 when it should be 1.2 or 1.3

I'll do that

Actually with the help of Photoshop, you can really cover all the basic stuff in premiere. you can animate position, scale, rotation, opacity etc... and can even add motion blur with the help of transform effect. 

It just occurred to me, with the ability to shoot 60 fps in 4K, would be too crazy to think about HDR video in 4k 30p? something like RED's HDRx.

It just occurred to me, with the ability to shoot 60 fps in 4K, would be too crazy to think about HDR video in 4k 30p? something like RED's HDRx.

I got my GH4 from amazon.co.uk and it can switch without problems I don't think that pana will block this in GH5.

In my eye, what separates a proper cinema camera and cinema look from my own work (with an eos M) are these:
resolution: not to be confused with sharpness, looking at images from a black magic camera, even at 1080p, I can clearly see how much detail they resolve, were my camera needs to do sharpening instead, to give the illusion of detail. and that "sharpening" is something that I think gives away the video look. Of course sharpening is used often in cinema, take a look at tomorrow land for example, but I'm sure those effect are done in more advanced and complex manners that what my camera does. A few month back, I downloaded some sample file from RED and was actually surprised how soft the 5k and 6k footage looked at 100 percent, but it looked more "filmic" and "cinematic" anyway... and no aliasing and moire of course.
having a lot of dynamic range doesn't hurt but I think one can work around a limited dynamic range... The other thing is color and tonality, this is again were cinema cameras can manage to store as much information as possible so the end product is richer in terms of color.
and all the other thing that you yourself mentioned.... lighting, set designing, camera movement, lenses... and a good story.
as for transforming a video look into a more filmic look... I think the basic rules are use as less in camera sharpness as possible, expose properly and try to manage the dynamic range and avoid shooting with a high contrast picture profile to get a flatter look which some argue that itself looks more cinematic, and plugins like film convert can actually give you a more filmic, I personally like the grain they produce and use it whenever i denoise my footage. but please be subtle when using any kind of effect or lut. 
think about composition and move your camera properly... for practice, study your favorite movie or music video or... and pay attention to every aspect of the image that you see and like, from color and contrast to camera angel and movement and framing and etc.
sorry for the long post...

In my eye, what separates a proper cinema camera and cinema look from my own work (with an eos M) are these:
resolution: not to be confused with sharpness, looking at images from a black magic camera, even at 1080p, I can clearly see how much detail they resolve, were my camera needs to do sharpening instead, to give the illusion of detail. and that "sharpening" is something that I think gives away the video look. Of course sharpening is used often in cinema, take a look at tomorrow land for example, but I'm sure those effect are done in more advanced and complex manners that what my camera does. A few month back, I downloaded some sample file from RED and was actually surprised how soft the 5k and 6k footage looked at 100 percent, but it looked more "filmic" and "cinematic" anyway... and no aliasing and moire of course.
having a lot of dynamic range doesn't hurt but I think one can work around a limited dynamic range... The other thing is color and tonality, this is again were cinema cameras can manage to store as much information as possible so the end product is richer in terms of color.
and all the other thing that you yourself mentioned.... lighting, set designing, camera movement, lenses... and a good story.
as for transforming a video look into a more filmic look... I think the basic rules are use as less in camera sharpness as possible, expose properly and try to manage the dynamic range and avoid shooting with a high contrast picture profile to get a flatter look which some argue that itself looks more cinematic, and plugins like film convert can actually give you a more filmic, I personally like the grain they produce and use it whenever i denoise my footage. but please be subtle when using any kind of effect or lut. 
think about composition and move your camera properly... for practice, study your favorite movie or music video or... and pay attention to every aspect of the image that you see and like, from color and contrast to camera angel and movement and framing and etc.
sorry for the long post...