Mark Romero 2

16 hours ago, kye said:

Kind of, as it'll meet some but not all of the criteria I laid out in the first few posts, but it's pretty darned expensive and so doesn't really require any "help" in being recognised for its strengths and advantages.

Of course, lenses are lenses and everything from the $10 lenses on eBay to the $100,000 lenses you can only rent but not buy still obey the laws of physics, operate under the same principles, and suffer from the same aberrations (to a greater or lesser extent).

LOL..  there's a trap for new players!

Another win for kit lenses - they always have coverage of the camera they're supplied with!!

Yeah, regarding the sigma lens given away with the s5, I guess for people who want to shoot 4K 60 / 50fps, it might make sense. I was shooting video on my 24-105 f/4 at 60p two days ago and realized just how much tighter 36mm is than 24mm when filming indoors. 

Forgot to ask: Does the Panasonic Lumix 24-105 f/4 that came with my S1 count as a "kit lens" since they were bundled together (this was before the launch of the 20-60 and the 50mm f/1.8, which are currently sold as a kit)?

New, it sells for $1,300. I like the lens a lot, but if I hadn't got a great deal on it in a kit, I am sure I would just be some vintage primes with it.

And speaking of kit lenses, Adorama has a kind of weird Panasonic S5 kit that is bundled with a FREE copy of... the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 lens (a $374 value), which sounds great until you realize the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 is an aps-c lens, not full frame  😕

https://www.adorama.com/pcs5.html

7 hours ago, Geoffrey said:

I have a more general basic question for those experienced in such things.

Watching live TV panel interviews the other day I was wondering how they do the thing where they cut between a wide shot of the interviewee and close up of the same person but with exactly the same angle of view. It looks like it is the same camera as the angle is identical and this is why it works, rather that being a jump cut (I mean it sort of is but does not jar). Is it some kind of auto zoom that can be clicked when desired or is it two cameras somehow positioned so the angle is the same, and the cuts are done by the director in the control room? 

It is a very simple, standard technique but it occurred to me I did not know how it is done and it would be a useful thing for me on a project I am working on right now.

If it is done live, I am guessing that it is two cameras positioned closely together. If it wasn't live, I would guess they were shooting in 6K or 8K and then in post just doing a zoom in to 4K or 1080p resolution.

Maybe there is a way to punch in from the board, but there isn't a way to punch in while recording on the S-series cameras.

35 minutes ago, lebigmac said:

L-mount glasses are still a bit of an invest. I've watched a ton of videos on the S5, and my impression is that it has a bit of an unpleasant highlight roll off and from what If have seen does have a more videoish look SOOC, compared to the A7iii and A7c - which share the same sensor with the S5, I guess.
On the other hand, at least here, prices for the body are far apart.
New with cashback:
S5 is € 1.390.-
A7iii is at € 1.550.-

A7iV is € 2800.-

So opting for the A7IV over the 24mp sensor would really be a bold move – is it worth the up to € 1500 extra and considering that it might be outpaced sooner than the A7iii was in its time, by models with less rolling shutter and better stabilization. 
 

Actually, I find the rolloff on the S1 / S5 quite pleasing. I don't have an a7 III (only aps-c sony cameras) but I feel 10-bit V-LOG in the S1 / S5 cameras is much better than in the Sony aps-c cameras I own. 

No one can predict the longevity of the a7 IV, but I would say that sony usually splits their price point in to one of three branches: basic cameras (the a7 III), high MP cameras (a7R III and a7R IV, for example) and fast readout cameras (a1, a9). Then there is the a7 S series of cameras.

So... I think if you want less rolling shutter, you are going to have to pay for one of the more expensive fast sensor cameras. Unless, there is some breakthrough to speed up the readout of the more affordable sensors.

19 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

A7IV? I wish. I have one on order LOL, but I'm in the US and we won't see them for another month. Right now its the a7III/a7sIII combo for me. All of your S5 points are great and honestly features I would like to see on Sony, though I get monitoring and false color with the Ninja which I don't mind rigging.

The latest Sony AF has been a game changer for me, I need glasses for anything within a few feet and its just made me so much faster, I almost never focus manually because I can't see further away with my glasses on. So I'm looking forward to the a7IV to better compliment the a7sIII - Sony's real time tracking never ceases to impress, its really, really good. The other upgrades are welcome too, and I really don't mind the 60p crop, even if I didn't have the a7sIII.

Cheers

Chris

Glad to hear the Sony's are working out for you. Hopefully you are staying safe and still having a good time.

18 hours ago, mercer said:

Are there any advantages/disadvantages to the S5's S35 mode? Is 4K 60p relegated to the S35 crop? Is it 10bit?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "relegated" here, but...

1) 50p /60p 4K is only available with the aps-c crop (no full frame 50p / 60p in 4K), and it is 10-bit, 4:2:0 Long GOP (same as with the S1)

2) You can still shoot 24p / 25p / 30p in aps-c (super35 mode) in 4K if you want (along with 50p and 60p). 

5 hours ago, lebigmac said:

Ibis is certainly big plus for the S5, although the cropped in electronic IS on the Sony seems to narrow that a bit.   

Yes.

And if one is willing to use the gyroscopic stabilization method, it is supposed to be great. But there seems to be a few compromises (using faster shutter speeds and you can't batch process clips unless you upgrade to the paid version of Sony Catalyst).

15 minutes ago, kye said:

The spirit of this is really that doing a "conversion" is impossible, my approach is laughably inaccurate, but there are still benefits to be had.  Both from learning along the way as well as getting something useful to use afterwards.

Well... hardly laughable in my humble opinion. Certainly a noble effort. I think it does move general understanding about this forward, and the fact that it is pretty much demonstrable is great, too. I remember seeing the Juan Melara tutorial "Re-creating the Linny LUT" and I was like, "I never want to shoot video ever again." I was basically lost within the first 10 seconds of that video (since removed from youtube).

3 hours ago, projectwoofer said:

I have the S1Alex Alexa conversion which I’m using with the S5 with great success. It’s for V-Log footage but includes conversions for HLG and CineD which I’m also using. So as much as I understand that it’s not the same camera, I’m currently experimenting with using the conversion on CineD footage from the GX85. I have not made many tests yet (let alone scientific ones!) but to my eyes the GX85 footage behaves in a similar way so the end result is pretty close. 

Would love to see some of your work using the S1Alex Alexa lut.

Also, are you grading in resolve? If so, what color management are you using?

Thanks for doing all the work, @kye

Probably the thing that is most surprising to me was looking at the scopes between the P2K and the Alexa. 

When I look at the skin tones, the P2K looks a lot more magenta and the Alexa a lot more green. So I thought the SATURATION levels would be much different than they are on the scopes (i.e., P2K have more saturated magenta, Alexa having more saturated greens).

But in the scopes, the main difference seems to be the P2K has magenta rotate more CCW and greens rotated more toward Cyan, while Alexa greens and magentas are more "true" and the yellow is really heavily saturated.

Unless i am missing something (I often do)...

Oh, and there is a luminance difference between the two captures, which leads into the other part of the equation, which is how bright or dark a profile captures a particular hue. If I understand correctly how the scopes work (and I probably don't), and how the human mind works (I definitely don't understand that) a color checker would show the same saturation levels even if the luminance levels varied somewhat, but the human eye might PERCEIVE more saturation in the darker level. 

I mention that because it is an old lightroom / photoshop trick that if you wanted to make a bright sky look more saturated, instead of going overboard saturating the blue channel, you would saturate some and then darken the blues to make it look like a deeper blue sky.

12 hours ago, kye said:

Higher saturation of all colours except yellow-greens (a hue I know I dislike) and mauve (a hue named after an old lady)

I don't own an a7 IV, but I do own an S5 and an S1, and at least the Panasonic 24-105 f/4 (the other lenses I own are adapted Canon EF and vintage Minolta MD lenses).

But I have been eyeing the a7 IV. I might be mistaken, but I think that @Trek of Joyhas one??? (Maybe he owns the a7S III instead of the a7 IV).

As an S5 / S1 owner, the things I envy about the a7 IV would be the lens selection and smaller size. And of course, the autofocus. If it had 4K 60fps in FULL FRAME I would be really tempted (although I already own several E Mount aps-c lenses that I could throw on the a7 IV when I want to shoot 4K 60fps in the crop sensor format).

There are some things that I would DEFINITELY miss that the S5 has though, namely:

waveforms
great IBIS
Ergonomics (even though the S5 is still a bit bigger / heavier than what I would prefer, and the S1 is DEFINITELY a beast).
Luminance spot meter

The other things I might POTENTIALLY miss would be like the ability to record in RAW externally, but I don't currently own any external recorders, so that might not be an issue for me personally.

Anyway, hope this helps you with your decision.

19 hours ago, herein2020 said:

What gimbal are you using and is it perfectly balanced and calibrated? I used to leave IS on with my GH5 and a wide angle lens but the warping seemed to end up in the footage at the worst possible time. It took a lot of fiddling with my gimbal settings to get the proper calibration to remove everything when IS is off and with the Ronin S I have to hit calibrate every time I put the camera on the gimbal or the micro jitters will be there. But, once the gimbal is perfectly dialed in, there's no warping or micro jitters.

The hardest part for me is remembering to turn it back on before shooting handheld or moving to a different type of stabilizer.

I am using the Weebill S. I think that technically the gimbal is strong enough, although it is a pretty hefty payload with the S5 + Canon EF-16-35 f/4 L and the MC-21.

It's also a bit difficult to dial in the stabilization. If I use the Auto-Tune feature of the gimbal (where it adjusts the motor strength automatically) then it tunes the motors TOO STRONG and the gimbal just vibrates on its own. (Just setting the gimbal down on a table with a tripod screwed in to the base and after about five seconds it just starts vibrating like crazy).

Yeah, it's a bummer that you can't set a function button to turn the IBIS on and off. With lenses that have stabilization, you can use the switch on the side of the lens. On the S1, it has two levers, and I think one can assign one of those levers to turn on and off IBIS quickly.

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

To avoid corner warping with wide angle lenses I have always turned off stabilization and used a gimbal for real estate. I did quite a bit of testing with both and found that with both lens and IBIS off and the camera mounted to a gimbal I got no warping as long as my gimbal technique was correct and the gimbal was properly calibrated.

Thanks. I have tried that but unfortunately for me I end up with a LOT of micro jitters whenever I turn off stabilization. It is "fixable" to a point with stabilization in resolve but as you know, when you shoot real estate video you are usually walking / sliding / panning so sometimes dialing in stabilization in post can be tricky.

11 hours ago, stephen said:

Yes Panasonic S5 + MC-21 works with Canon EF-S 10-18mm and switches automatically to APS-C mode. Auto focus and everything else works. Unfortunately you can't switch manually to Full Frame mode. It is well known fact that Canon EF-S 10-18mm covers full frame from 14 to 18 mm.  Corners are far from perfect on full frame, but for video we cut them anyway. Mine however is with modified mount, it can also be mounted on a full frame Canon body. Not sure if the original APS-C mount which protrudes out will be able to mount on MC-21.

It looks camera Panasonic S5 + MC-21 doesn't recognize EF-S 10-22 as APS-C lens and thinks it is Full Frame lens. Well then switch to APS-C mode manually (should be possible) and vignette will disappear.

Thank you for ithe input, @stephen

Regarding the EF-S 10-18mm lens. Can you tell if you are able to use the LENS stabilization for three axis stabilization and the body's IBIS for the other two? 

Meaning, when you turn on stabilization, is the lens stabilization working, too? Or is it JUST the body's IBIS that is working?

I ask because ultrawide angle lenses tend to have corner warping if using JUST the camera body's IBIS (when on a gimbal). 

But if the camera is using BOTH the stabilization from the lens and then two-axis stabilization from the body, then the warping is reduced.

(I have seen a lot of vlogs of people using the 20-60mm lens - which doesn't have stabilization - and the corner warping is really annoying.)

9 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

Canon R3 Final Review - YouTube

@ 6:26

 Jordan: "if you need tons of flexibility in post, this lets you record RAW video internally--"

and the example of the flexible grading you're able to do with the internal RAW looks like he did the example grade in 5s, he raised the shadows in the underexposed clip and upped the saturation but that's it. Lazy if you ask me. 

 

It's funny because when i was watching the video this morning I was thinking, "what a bad grade!" Sure, it is kind of a bland shot of a bland Alberta sunset but Jinkies, Scooby.

17 hours ago, herein2020 said:

MC-21,  but I do have one correction, my lens is the EF-S 10-22mm  not the EF-S 10-18mm. My  EF-S Sigma 18-35mm does work and I have one other crop sensor lens (can't remember the details on it) but that one worked as well. 

I only have 3 EF-S lenses but out of the 3, only the EF-S 10-22 did not work. Below is a picture of the problem with the EF-S 10-22mm mounted on the MC-21 with the S5. This is with the 10-22mm zoomed all the way in to 22mm. at the 10mm end it is way worse.

 

Thanks so much for the photo. Zoinks!!! So it looks like using the EF-S 10-22 on an MC-21 does not automatically switch the S5 in to aps-c mode the way it does with the EF-S 10-18. 

I am surprised though that there is so much vignette still after you zoom in. I say that because the Tamron 10-24 (another crop sensor lens) has only slight vignette once zoomed in to around 16mm. (Because it is made by Tamron, the MC-21 doesn't automatically go in to crop mode). 

11 hours ago, herein2020 said:

The Canon EF-S 10-18 does not work with the S5. You can see the barrel of the lens with that lens on the S5.

Thanks for the feedback. I am surprised about that. You are using the MC-21 adapter, right?

Or are you using the fotodiox or commlite adapter?

Is anyone using an ultrawide crop-sensor / aps-c lens on their S5 / S1 cameras for 4K 60p?

I have been looking at the Canon EF-S 10-18 as well as the tamron 10-24 VC lens, and just kind of wondering how well they work.

With ultra-wide lenses, I find it is important that the LENS stabilization works (and doesn't default to ONLY the camera's IBIS), since that will help eliminate corner warping when filming on a gimbal.

Any experience greatly appreciated.

@kye Amen.

@kye Thanks for the post. Certainly makes us look in the mirror.

For my real estate / architecture work, I like sharp(ish) lenses just because people are expecting to see detail.

But for people, I think that most of the kit zoom lenses are fine for 4K. Convenient, inexpensive, relatively-lightweight (so they balance well on a gimbal and are less tiring to use). I would have a bit of a problem with the variable aperture if I zoomed more during shooting, but I don't, so I don't worry about it too much.

One of the better kit zooms out there seems to be the Panasonic 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, which has minimal focus breathing. (Some people would note that Panasonic has minimal focus.)

Also, when youtubers say to get the "cinematic look" you need an ultra-shallow depth of field, I just want to punch them in the throat. These tend to be the same people who sell creative LUT packs that look like a dumpster fire.

@tupp Merci!!!

9 hours ago, tupp said:

Softness in lighting is a matter of degree between a point source and completely surrounding your subject with a smooth light source.  There is not definitive "soft light" and "hard light."

By the way, you can use a panel light in a soft box.

I am a little confused by this (Again, I come from a photography background, but I haven't seen anything to contradict this).

In terms of shadows, I understand that softness  "is a matter of degree between a point source and completely surrounding your subject with a smooth light source."

But wouldn't there still be a difference in specular highlights? I know that (in still photography) when a silver-lined umbrella is used, the specular highlights are stronger (more pronounced / more contrasty) than when a white-lined reflective umbrella is used. (And they are even more contrasty when using a non-bounced light.)

P.S. Wanted to say thank you again for your input in this conversation. 

9 hours ago, tupp said:

You call a diffuser a "scrim" -- do you have a background in still photography?

Yes!

9 hours ago, tupp said:

Generally, a Fresnel will be significantly less efficient than an open-face fixture.  A lot of the light is lost when it strikes the inside of the housing of the Fresnel fixture/attachment.

Thanks. Good to know. I certainly wasn't aware of that.

9 hours ago, tupp said:

An open-faced focusable source would be better and more efficient in this situation

Again, good to know. Thanks.

That raises two questions though:

1) When would you choose the Fresnel over an open-faced focusable source?

2) Can you give us an example of a (more-or-less affordable) open-faced focusable light (or modifier)?

2 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

Thanks Mark. In regards to points 1 & 3, and taking in to account Scotchtape's comments above, how would a fresnel compare to a bare COB (with a dish)? Would you not run in to the same issue Scotchtape mentions, that you need to back the Fresnel further from the wall or scrim in order to get an acceptable sized beam - resulting in more light loss than if you'd just put the bare COB closer to the bounce/scrim?

I think that when shooting through a scrim, you are correct. Moving the light far back enough to get an even spread is going to make the lights more or less equal, regardless if it is a fresnel or a cob with a dish. 

On the other hand, if you are actually shooting in a softbox, you are actually bouncing the light around so that the light can be closer to the diffusion material and still cover the entire area of the front diffusion.

Plus if the COB light is in an enclosed softbox, you won't have the spill that you would have from bouncing it off of a scrim. All that spill is just wasted light. I don't know the exact mathematics but I am pretty certain that when inside a softbox, the light that is bounced off the front diffusion material (and bounced around the softbox), eventually makes its way out to the subject, but at some reduced amount.

In terms of bouncing light off the wall or a ceiling, I guess that yes, you would have to back the fresnel or COB with dish further from the wall. This could be good or bad. If bouncing off a wall, you would probably want to use a COB with dish to get the light further away from the talent (and further from the mic) as you could move it closer to the wall than a fresnel.

When bouncing off a HIGH ceiling, it might be easier to use a fresnel because you wouldn't have to raise the light as high to achieve the same light spread. This would be applicable in a place with high ceilings. But in a place with low ceilings, the fresnel might be at a disadvantage as you might not be able to get it low enough to get the amount of spread you want.

Ideally, I think the best solution would be to get a COB light with an optional fresnel attachment.

Also, a disclaimer: all of my practical experience with fresnel lenses / attachments is from shooting flash photography with strobes. The AD-200 and other strobes I use allow for either a bare bulb or fresnel head on the same light, so the only variable is the actual head.