Benjamin Hilton

I went to an S1 from my GH5s, actually I still use both. The S1 has been amazing image and low light wise, although the slow motion is a bit aggravating. The GH5 could do really good down sampled HD, meaning the 1080p60 was really good. The S1 doesn't do HD very well, so you are kind of stuck with the cropped 4k60, which isn't as bad as I thought it would be, just have to be selective with what lenses I use. Other than that I don't have any complaints, the image is a huge step up from the GH5 for sure!

Yeah, totally agree with this. It seems to me that about 12 or so stops of dynamic range is needed if you want a high end look in bright environments. More is always nice, but not really necessary. Like you said, there isn't much of a point always being able to see out of the window. Less than 12 stops can definitely be doable, but seems to always be kind of frustrating, always just clipping out something I wanted to see. That was one of the huge things I noticed in the S1 coming from a GH5. I suddenly realized all most all of my documentary scenes weren't clipping any information I actually wanted. Anytime it clipped it was something I'd expect to be clipped, the sun etc. Pretty crazy stuff!

I played around with it a bit on some S1 and GH5 footage, liking the colors a whole lot so far. I think the contrast could use some more work though, to take advantage of the dynamic range a bit more. Tends to clip pretty fast

Both of those are great options, or the SmallHD Focus. Been using that one for quite a while and really like it.

What is your budget and prefered size?

So I get the whole bit depth argument, but have some questions for you Sony users on the practical side. I come from Panasonic cameras where there is a massive difference visually from 8bit to 10bit when shooting log. The 8-bit has splotchy blocks of magenta in places, and just seems way less clean. Do the 8-10bit comparisons on the a7siii mean that: A) The a7siii 10bit codec isn't a big improvement over let's say the a7iii's 8bit codec in log? B) The 8 and 10bit codecs on the a7siii are both improved quite a bit compared to the a7iii and such?

Any suggestions as to what would help?

Hey there, I am running a small home studio with several different weekly shows using Rode Procaster mics. For one of the shows we just started (two person conversation), aesthetically it would look better to use lavs instead of the Procasters. I tried setting up with my Countryman b3s, but because of the room acoustics and phasing of two mics it's sounding pretty bad. The room is fairly decent acoustically, decent enough to sound great with the Procasters. Other than completely sound proofing the room, is there anything I can do to get better audio with lavs? Wondering if a cardioid lav or something would work better. It should be possible since they use lavs in news rooms conversations and it sounds pretty good, couldn't imagine their studios are super acoustically dead either.

I have the old Glidecam HD2000, not recommended with a smaller camera setup. Something more like this would probably work fairly well though: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1398457-REG/glidecam_glhdpro_hd_pro_hand_held_stabilizer.html

Both gimbals and steadicams have their place for sure, very different purposes and looks with some crossover. I directed a TV show were we had to follow around hosts and guests doing things for hours at a time, never would have worked with a steadicam, but was great with a gimbal setup on a backpack arm system. But on the other side, steadicams and get a specific look that gimbals really can't...just depends if you want hyper smooth planned shots (steadicam) or more reliability for longer periods (good gimbal setup) If you are going for a Glidecam or something for your xt3 though, make sure you get one that will work with a smaller camera. A lot of the older ones are intended for heavier setups and won't really work for what you want.

I'm pretty sure the setup from Sony's video is just that, the initial setup for choosing framerate. (the same thing you have to do on a mirrorless camera) Once you have that loaded all you have to do is push the S&Q mode then the record button to be shooting your high frame rate. I don't see the clunkiness here but maybe I'm missing something. Seems to be about the same as most mirrorless cameras, maybe faster since they actually have a dedicated S&Q mode. To do that on my GH5 would take a dive into the menus to select basically those same options as on the FX6, only I have slow motion assigned to a custom function, basically like the S&Q mode. I do really really wish manufacturers would start giving us built in NDs on mirrorless cameras though, seems to simple to do comparatively and so incredibly helpful.

Have you given the GH5 or 5S a try? I think it would fit into your workflow very well personally, it has for mine for the last several years. Usability is very very nice with minimal rigging or accessories needed. The battery life is very good as well.

Yeah, totally😂 I also wonder if using a polarizing filter to take the reflections out of the skintone and such would help with the look, I know Shane Hurlbut did that for one of his period movies, gave a similar kind of look

I actually think this is pretty close, would you mind sharing your grading process for this?

So I've been watching this TV show recently, and I would love to figure out how to replicate this specific look. Kind of a muted, but still saturated look, with soft highlights and really rich creamy shadows, and the skin has kind of a brown cast but still looks natural. I've been trying and trying and still can't get anywhere close. Are any of you able to do it? I know it's partially lighting, lensing and such, but I feel like I should be able to get at least close. These three screenshots are from the show: And here's a sample frame I have been working on, just Panasonic V-log converted to C-log with the WB balanced: And this is the closest I have been able to get to that look, which still isn't very close...