webrunner5

44 minutes ago, Dan Wake said:

I wish to avoid aretacts... is 10 bit is enough for color grading and color correction/luts? or we need 12 bit? thanks a lot.

8 bit is enough if you expose correctly unless you are into heavy grading. 10 bit is plenty enough data than 95% of anyone but a feature film is going to need.

Don't get me wrong who doesn't want more, but 12 bit say 4.4.4 takes a lot of space to use, and Raw 14 bit is crazy a amount of space..The GH5 will

pretty much have all you need which is nice. Now the 60fps 4k will be only 8 bit. So that Might need a external recorder for that.

Pretty good description here. Pretty darn good specs, especially with the Apriil firmware update!

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/panasonics-new-gh5-compact-camera-4k-hdr-video-beast/

This one also interesting. http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/4/14145730/panasonic-gh5-fz80-gx850-compact-cameras-ces-2017

Maybe one of the better eye opening ones. https://***URL not allowed***/panasonic-gh5-hands-on-6k-anamorphic-video-4k-60p-180fps-fhd/

Well I would imagine in a few more generations someone, probably will be Sony, will make a consumer camera that IS almost what everyone here pleads to have.

The A7sII is really not that far off in reality. Build one with a S35 sensor, 6k, internal ND filter, better codec, little bigger body for a larger battery, and sensor cooling ability. They could have done  some of that with the A6500, but I think they wanted to save that for the A7 series.

We really are getting close to the real deal if only they would stop worrying about loosing sales on their top end stuff. Seems to me they would sell more of them at 3k dollars than the few they sell at 10k dollars. No one is ever going to give up on buying a real full size camcorder for serious work. so they will still have a base for that category of bodies.

6 minutes ago, jonpais said:

From what little I've seen, Sony's Slog on the A7R II looks crisper, Panasonic's Vlog looks like it retains more detail in the highlights. For those who shoot log, it would be great if Lumix users could get great looking 10 bit Vlog straight out of the camera. Guess we'll find out shortly.

I just wish the GH5 has a bit more DR, because the night scenes on the Sony really stand out because of the DR.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Ah, I think you misread what I said. I mean I doubt that the a7R mk3 and a7S mk3 (unless they don't come out until late 2017, or 2018) will both have 10bit *or* 4K 60fps, I expect Sony will have a bit more of a lag behind Panasonic just like Panasonic was first with the GH4 then took a little while for Sony to catch up. 

Three cameras... one per person for the close ups, plus a 3rd camera for the wide shot. 

I think between the GH5 and the Olympus EM1 mkII both with some damn good specs, I don't think Sony has much choice but to up their specs also pretty big time. Look how fast they came out with the A6500!

8 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Yeah, just most enthusiast and indie filmmakers do a lot of run 'n gun shooting and they don't particularly go and carry around lighting kits, so they are oh so tempted by the convenience of setting a camera to ISO6400/12800 and just go and shoot something in availlable light in pretty dodgy lowlight conditions. It's just easier to find and work with f/2.8 zooms (although with Sony you hardly have native ones of those, so you'll be adapting) than with super fast primes too (which you can't afford to pinch much to get a deeper depth of field/sharper image). Think that might need to be added to the equation. But you're so right, a camera such as the GH5 would be legit enough for just about anything serious. RED, ARRI, BMD wouldn't be much different in terms of shooting conditions and flexibility. So you can shoot like a pro, but be doing it on the fairly cheap. Just different cameras with different uses. I do wish I could set ISO3200/6400 not have a care in the world. But from the GH4 and Blackmagic we're kind of used to be limited to ISO800 and somehow making it work. And I guess now ISO1600/3200 might be fair game. I'd say that's perfectly managable, but it might not be quite there yet for those earlier mentioned group of people.

Yeah but with a speedbooster and some fast glass you gain a stop or 2 which equates to a step or 2 of ISO. So they are not as bad as it sounds like on paper LoL. But yeah they are no C300 or A7sII where that is not a problem at all. 18-35mm 1.8 Sigma gets to be sort of necessary with MFT cameras.

It looks like it is going to be hard to pass it up for 2 grand like it or not. Other than form factor what's not to like for the money.  Sony is going to have to pick up the pace on the A7 series because of this camera.

You don't get killer Low light, great DR, Form Factor, even great colors for basically entry level prices on a video camera yet in this day and age.  But in reality you can a make a feature film with this thing. Some fast lenses ,Speed Booster, good lighting, and the audio add on option, and away you go.

Well what ever happens, Happy New Year! May we all get a faster computer.

He is one of the best, highest paid photographers in the world now, doesn't Photoshop stuff, doesn't do HDR, and you say his stuff is meh. I guess I am finished on this thread.

Not counting he is telling you, for free, by watching both parts, how he pretty much does it. hmm...

28 minutes ago, dantheman said:

Show me, don't tell me. I still don't understand what makes your way so much better then all the others, like I said, I want to believe you but it would help a lot if you can show me an example of a weddingshoot (doesn't even have to be your own) that shows what you call progress.

 

 

28 minutes ago, dantheman said:

I have no clue where this video is from??

My work was no better than the average person, that is what I am trying to tell you. I was average and I know if they are using the same setup that i did 30, 40 years ago, ergo 3 flash rig, they are average also. It is what it is and was. Sure some of them are better than others but so was I at times. That is the ones you put on your website. No web when I worked, so you put a few 11x 17's in the front window to get traffic in the door. Same principle.

Jason Lanier is progress like him or not.  Put this in You Tube "are you a Picture Taker or Are You a Photographer? Part 1- LIVE presentation by Jason Lanier" and it is pretty alarming what he says. and I have said and it is true like it or not.

I can't link it for some reason. Lanier hate LoL?? The truth hurts at times. But you do what you got to do.

 

38 minutes ago, dantheman said:

It's not that I don't believe webrunner about the new light methods, as I don't have a photography background I obviously don't know what I am talking about, I can only tell what I see as a videographer working together with photographers. I can tell that some I have worked with are of a high end caliber, shooting for magazines in their own studio but doing weddings on the side. In their studio they use totally different light gear then they use on weddings but all of them, and I mean all, use a flash at weddings. 

To say that just because they use a flash their work must suck is nonsense, how can you even pass any judgment if you have not seen any photos?

 

 

Because I did it, thousands of others have done it with flash. It is not new. Been there done that. It will look just like everyone else that Does it. It is the EASY way out. And because it is the easy way 97% of the people do it that way, that is why!

Do you think flash was invented 5 years ago? Do you think there has not been masters at using them. Books by the thousands out on it! It is Old Hat! There is only so many ways you can use flash without it looking like flash. And you can't really make it Not look like flash, that is the point. Your daughters wedding looks just like her best friends wedding etc. etc.. Flash freezes the moment in an artificial way, not like in reality. It looks unnatural and guess what, it is even on film. It looks staged, and it is. You are limited to certain top shutter speeds,  limited f stops, etc..

I don't need to look at anyone's shots that use flash because I know just what it will look like. Seen plenty, that is how I leaned, and what I did too.. And I see plenty of the "lets get a paycheck and get the hell out of here" wedding stuff. Yeah you do a damn good job, but not a Great job. Hard to keep a Great pace up for decades like you have to do. So you take the easy way out, Flash, the old standby. Sad to see it is still prevalent in this day and age. But it puts food on the table.

2 hours ago, dantheman said:

Most of the photographers I work together with at weddings are professional, a few have been award winning for whatever that is worth but every single one of them uses either a flash on camera or has 2 separate flashes which they place separately or clamp onto something and which remotely are triggered from their camera, often they also use such an umbrella or whatever it's called. Now I don't have any experience shooting photos but when I look at some of their work, they certainly know what they are doing because their work is stunning. I"m not going to link to some of these photographers here but if you want I can send you a few links via pm so you can judge for yourself. 

And it will look just like what I did and others 30 years ago like I said. That WAS wedding Photography 101 40 years ago. On camera flash, 2 umbrella slaves. Accept we used Metz flashes, now they use Canon, Nikon ones. Progress...

And guess what I was like 97% of wedding portrait photographers that did the same thing and made a ok living doing it. I didn't stand out from the pack just like 97% of photographers do not now. It is the safe way to go, but you Never stand out that way. And you can in this day and age. There is a TON of neat stuff to use now, and you can have a 3, 4 man crew doing it and make handfulls of money doing it not just a living like I did and the 97% like me did.

We all had a Hassy, 3 lenses, a Rolleiflex TLR and 3 lenses, and 3 Metz flash units, and maybe our wife helping, and that was that. Food on the table..Maybe.

11 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

You are entitled to your opinion but most professional photographers will complete disagree with this!

 

I was a Professional Photographer for 17 years, my sole income in that time frame. I Know all about that shit, and I know that is old school stuff compared to what you have at your disposal now. Times change and that is why most photographers look just like most photographers. Only a few stand out, and a few make Big money. They don't do what they did 30 years ago is all I am saying.

You want to do the same old shit of a flash firing when the cake is cut, the bouquet is thrown, same crap walking down the isle well you will look like everyone else, even noobs can do that in this day and age. You have to use the newest, latest stuff to be ahead of the pack. Some of the crap I see shot the Bride might as well go around and gather pictures of the event from their Guests Cellphones and get a better modern rendition of the Wedding.

3 hours ago, dantheman said:

I thought webrunner was being sarcastic but I guess not? A high iso is not a replacement for using a flash for photography. 

I never said not to use lights, I said Flash is not the thing now that cheap LCD lighting and umbrellas, bounce natural light panels etc are available now. Flash is harsh light compared to variable LCDs now. 

Yes you do need to light for portraits from lots of different angles to get the effect you want, but flash is a thing of the past. LCD's you can see the effect in real time. not looking at a shot on a monitor and hoping it works with flash..

Now if you are doing stop motion stuff, well yeah you need strobe flash units to freeze the action. But that is a specialty, not the norm. And yes if you are a pro you are going to have a few flash units in your bag as a last hope run and gun thing, but it still looks 60ish when you do it that way.

Hell for video lighting and audio is more important than the camera taking part of. And naturally the script is top dog in the whole thing. It all has to come together to make it happen. And that is not easy. That is why pros make the big money, they have pros in each aspect of it making their part happen almost perfect.

Just think how nice it would be to go down to the local park you shoot at and have a 8 man crew handling all the lighting for you and a 5 man crew doing all the audio, and they are the best there is in Hollywood. Your life and movies would be one hell of a lot better LoL.

5 hours ago, dantheman said:

I had no idea that every single photographer I worked with the past 10 year got stuck in the 60's

And their work probably looks pretty muck alike then. Then, in the 60's, and now. Way too many better options now.

1 minute ago, mercer said:

I had the BMMCC and hated rigging it up... so I don't think I could handle rigging the BMCC. I also briefly had a Pocket a few months back, but I had a lemon and the thing overheated so much I could barely hold it. So I returned it. A few weeks back I looked at some of the footage and it looked better than anything I have ever shot. I also used it without any monitor with the Panny 12-35mm with OIS... I basically treated it like a point and shoot. This time I picked up a Nikon-BMPCC Speedbooster.

Ah I see. Yeah I think the Nikon Speedbooster is the way to go on a Pocket. Just too many good Nikon manual focus lenses around for peanuts to pass up. And they have out G lens Apture control adapters. I have one myself.

On 12/25/2016 at 1:53 PM, mercer said:

I've been testing a few cameras over the past month, with my last test being with the FZ2500... which I am definitely keeping... I love the 200mbps 1080p... even though most people don't recommend shooting with it. I never owned a GH4, but it seems like a mini GH4. Overall, I think the XC10 image was thicker with that 4:22 codec, but for the price I paid for the FZ2500, I like it better. In about a month I am going to get a BMPCC.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you do with the G85... if the IBIS is anything like the GX85, you should be a happy guy. 

I thought you were going to buy a BMCC MFT?? Not the BMPCC. I too am looking at a BMPCC to buy again.

BMCC is better output, just not much fun to rig and can't strip down to throw in a backpack, coatpocket.

3 hours ago, dantheman said:

For what it's worth, all high end wedding photographers I have worked with the past years have either Nikon or Canon, I have yet to see one that is using Sony, the past year it has been mainly canon 5DIII or 1Dx and in the Nikon camp the D750 seems to be very popular.  Also, none of them care about super high iso's, they all use a flash.

Man flash photos suck. That is pretty 60's looking.

18 minutes ago, sanveer said:

If ANY of these rumors are true, the GH5 is going to be one monster of a Mirrorless Camera. For Video alone it will be super camera. If it does good photos too, it would be great. As a video camera it may actual signal Panasonic offering some good and healthy competition to Sony, especially for people willing to soend in the ballpark of $1999 and above. Except low light it might have all other necessary tricks up its sleeve.

 

http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-additional-gh5-specs-180fps-225-focus-points/

Low light and DR are where it might still fall down, and that is sort of the 2 things we want the most in a Cine camera. Well Codec is up there also, so still not having too much hope on that being killer either.

But yes for the money it is going to offer probably more than ever before in a small package. I must admit probably not going to buy one, just too many of the things I want, including form factor, going to be missing. I really don't need 4k or 6k photos. if I wanted that I think I might go for the Oly EM1 mkII over the GH5. No way the focus speed or stabilazation on the GH5 is going to be better than the EM1 mkII. It will be better than the GH4.

But the GH5 will be a super camera even for the 2k cost. Nothing new is even close to it if specs come true. But there is some damn nice cameras used for that money, or a bit more I think I am more interested in, with a proven track record.

Yean truth be known Everyone ought to have a BMPCC, they really are that good. I guess we can't believe something that cheap can be what we really Need. Sad to say it probably is one of the top cine cameras we could ever afford. I had one, sold it, and still regret it. Probably never going to beat its output on my budget.

Well the OP has the same problem all us "Poor People" have. Well I guess even rich people have the same problem. No one camera does it all. I am now in the same boat. Sold a few cameras I had. Down to pretty much my G7 to scounge up money.

Thinking hard on a C100. And yes the Photos suck on it. 8mp. Yes no 4k, but I really don't need that, have a Panny G7 that does that. Crazy to sell it for what you can get for one. Every ones here has great ideas. Just not the perfect idea, and sad to say there isn't one. Best advice I can add. 

11 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

If you're fine with 1080p and the SLR form factor, the D750 is an excellent hybrid.

And it takes damn good stills, really good ones.

26 minutes ago, Stanley said:

 

At that rate I hate to think what Casey Neistat earns in a good week!

 

He earns at least 2 to 3 million a year, well at least he did! I have heard as much a 50k a week. Depends on how good blogs were. Not a set fee. Well it is, how many hits. The more the Merrier, and how long they are on it watching, ergo get to see even more adds.. It is someting like YouTube's CPM is reported to be on average $7.60, that means you get paid $7.60 for each 1,000 views. Depends who you are. Casey got more than that trust me per 1,000.

I liked it. Keep it up!

I have no clue why the original Ursa is still expensive as heck. Surely they are not selling a lot of them over the Mini?? I don't think the 4.6k one has been out 2 years? The Ursa Mini 4k maybe.

9 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

That camera is a 3.2K camera not a 4K camera.  It merely upscales to 4K.

 

The sensor is 3.4k. Not much of a stretch "pun intended" to go to 3.8k, but I stand corrected.

19 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that most Arri cameras are not capable of 4k resolution. 

I thought only the Alexa 65 is and only in special mode and that camera can only be rented for, what,  5k a day or up?

 

 

Go to site and open up "Best Overall Image Quality" section . http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/cameras/camera_details/alexa-xt/