kye

Does anyone have any advice about using Focus Peaking on the GH5 with vintage lenses? If I set it to Low then it isn't accurate enough, and if I set it to High then I think the lens is too soft for it to think anything is in focus, so it's not much help. Any other focus assists I can use in-camera? I know this is something that a good external display would help with, but it would make my setup too big so I'm stuck with the in-camera features.

I guess that would be the question if everyone shot on a film set. Which is part of the reason for these discussions - old timers who assume you're shooting on a set and can control the lighting and whatever, and then the unwashed rabble that have barged their way into the industry and film in their homes, parks, in the street, doing so in many cases with no plan, no control over the settings, perhaps no knowledge of what the settings mean, and unless they have a floppy screen they even film without even looking. It's no wonder people don't understand why some features they don't need would be useful to someone else. I agree that it's time to break the old rules. We're getting there. If the current trends continue, the only step required in making a great video will be saying "Hey Siri, can you make a cinematic film of Spot playing with his ball in the backyard, and make it have happy music" and then just stand back and watch as the drones all spring to life, film from all the angles with AI-Dog-eyeAF, then dock and download the footage where Siri will edit and grade it, and then ask you where she should upload the video.

Thanks, that's good to know. I guess it makes sense as ETC doesn't have any downscaling to hide the noise, and those 1080 pixels are larger than those 4K ones when looking at the output files. All the more reason to have fast primes! I'm driven to fast primes anyway because the zooms are slower on crop sensors so getting that depth and separation is harder.

This is very similar to my thinking and good to hear you had positive results. I shoot travel and family videos, and while not the same as weddings, they share a lot in common, especially getting the shot the first time and not directing or getting in the way too much. I'm just putting my lens kit together for my new GH5 and figured that I needed a super-wide to capture those "wow" scenic moments, a tele for tight shots and a 35 / 50mm walk-around lens for the middle 80% of shots. I'm tossing up which lens that will end up being, but with the ETC mode a 35mm / 49mm equivalent lens gives the two most useful focal lengths without having to change lenses all the time. Just brilliant! I haven't played with the digital zoom on the GH5 yet, but when I was considering an A7III I looked at the digital zoom from it and it was perfectly usable up to about 1.5X (and not good beyond that) so there might be a bit more flexibility in there for us. Depending on what format you're delivering in, and what codec you're using, cropping in post might also be an option.

I've tested the cards I have with and without each of my adapters and didn't find any difference but that was only up to the speed of the Samsung EVO which was my fastest micro card. If the adapter has dirty contacts then that might make a difference perhaps? Some adapters could also be cheaply made.

Given sufficient quality, which is less than people think as @webrunner5 says, a video camera can be viewed as 25 fps burst mode (or even 50/60 fps) stills camera. Why bother with trying to nail 'the decisive moment' when you can find that moment in post and extract a still. You can say that is lazy, or you can say that it's using the technology to get better results, but you can't deny that it can work.

That guy is me (in shooting travel videos anyway) and after not getting the stabilisation I wanted in some shots I bought a Gorillapod 5K (the largest one) and a phone gimbal for wide shots, but ended up not taking them out anywhere as my camera setup was already large enough for people to at funny around me, even in tourist spots. At one location I noticed a guy with a tiny camcorder and a monopod and geez, the guy might have had a camera the size of a kit lens but the monopod made him stand out like nothing else! I try and get shots of travel legs to use as scene change shots and I normally just get them with my iPhone, but even that attracts attention in train stations and the like, with people staring at the camera and making me wonder how much attention I'm getting from security and the like. I go to a lot of spots where that's not even true anymore, but that's probably just coincidence. IIRC @jonpais has said that in Vietnam people don't care, so I guess it varies from place to place. Plus the new challenge of grown men with cameras around kids being automatically judged means that I basically can't record anywhere that people swim, many angles in parks, etc. Thanks, but I read that as many people tend to agree that all people are too lazy. I admire that you're willing to put in effort into your posts, but you're not quite there in getting across what you mean. This is a common problem because people assume that everyone reading their messages has the same background, context, tastes, clients, or mood as they do, which obviously is a barrier to proper communication. I think being "cinematic" is a fad, and that most people who attempt it aren't aware of the technical aspects that go into it. So basically it's a lack of education. Like most people who buy and expensive DSLR and expect that professional looking images will just collect on the memory card if they point the camera in the general direction of the subject and spray-and-pray on full-auto. The other huge aspect of these discussions is that new camera features enable new genres of film-making. There are people who earn a living shooting skydiving films. If someone wanted to make those 100 years ago it might not have been possible because the cameras were too heavy, or whatever, and there they would have been jumping up and down about how light-weight cameras are critical, and all the people who made films on tripods at locations where trucks could drive to would have been saying "film-makers are so lazy right now". Anyone who has a camera more modern than an original Bolex with 1950's quality film stock is: too cheap to pay for film, too lazy to get film developed, too impatient to wait for it to be developed and sent back, too fancy to use basic edits, too amateurish to sync sound in post, too lazy to get lighting to ensure the DR isn't too wide, too fake to write a good story without relying on VFX, green screens, or, you-know, COLOUR. etc etc.. The above list looks completely ridiculous to most of us now because we've come to see the benefits of things like in-camera audio, and the flexibility (and cost savings) of higher DR cameras, but when someone who makes tripod films with sets and controlled lighting says that someone making wedding films, adventure films, travel films, doesn't need the new features, then that's EXACTLY what they sound like to the people who use and value those features.

If you're going to talk "general term" then you should be specific with your language - try saying things like "Most people are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod" instead of saying "People are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod". I tend to think of myself as a person, so naturally I included myself in the statement you made, which was about "people" and not "most people". I'm personally pretty sick of other people on this forum telling me what I do and don't need on my shoots based upon what they do and don't need on theirs. If you're going to come in and use language that applies to "people" without acknowledging that some people / situations / projects don't fit your statements, then yeah, you're going to piss me off (and look like an arrogant asshole to everyone who has ever had needs that were outside your sweeping statements). The phrase "IBIS" is literally in the title of this thread. I would appreciate you listing a few ways for me to get a slider shot in that situation. Either I learn something, or you learn something. Either way I hold you accountable for your sweeping and half-baked statements. I write my posts with consideration and admit when I'm wrong, I'd encourage you to do the same. I love it when people trot this old chestnut. It's a crutch. Sometimes the only tool for the job is the only tool for the job. No, but you are the one making black and white statements about "People are too lazy to carry a tripod or monopod". I get it, there's lots of hyperbole and polarised thinking, but unfortunately you've offered up some here as well. This seems to be a case of "he that dost protest too much".

You don't get it. Please explain to me how I am being lazy in the below situation, and how if I worked harder, I would be able to get a slider shot without bars in the foreground if I had more equipment. By using my IS and shooting hand-held I was able to get a slider shot, something that was appropriate for the film I was making. I guess you are too stupid to understand that situations like this exist, and that other people shoot in them.

I have heard that SDs could be better (more reliable perhaps?) because they've got better heat dissipation. I'm not sure how true that is, but it makes sense. Otherwise I'm not sure what other differences there would be. I've just bought a Sandisk Extreme Pro for my GH5 to use in the 400Mbit mode, but will keep my Samsung EVO Micro in the second slot as a second card in case I run out of space on the first, or in case the first one dies when I'm travelling and can't replace it easily. My Samsung only tests at something like 20-30MB/s for me so I'd have to scale back to the 150Mbit mode, but from what I've seen there is only minimal difference between the two modes and the 150Mbit mode looks pretty good to my eyes

Your comment has lead me to think a bit more about slow-motion. The below isn't directed at you, just inspired by you I think the topic of slow-motion is an interesting one. I agree that it is over-used and especially over-used in camera tests and on YouTube where people are failing over each other to try and make their footage more cinematic instead of making it more creative / useful / interesting / etc. I have my camera setup with three modes - one is 25p, one is 50p, and one is 180p. I don't think of them like that though, I think of them for the aesthetic that they will give to the footage they will create. I shoot home videos, and my goal is to make a video file with the aesthetic of fond memories. This means things can be slightly warmer, softer, nicer, more flattering, and less real than reality actually is. Also, because the brain doesn't process memories in linear time (think of memories of loved ones, a toddler running around, someone giving someone a hug, etc.. you can easily slow these down in your minds eye, in fact, often we slow and almost stop memories, like they're not a continuous stream of perception but little bubbles of moments) so speed and slow motion in my work are far more flexible, and far more compatible than most other genres. I think of 25p as reality. "Here's what happened". Shots like this are about content alone, where the emotion isn't going to dominate. I can slow these down in post but it's not as good. I think of 50p as flexible. I can slow it down to half speed or play it back at normal speed. Normal speed will look like video, which I'm fine with, and slow-motion is slow and slightly dreamy but doesn't look fake. Hollywood uses 50p for the shots when emotions are at the forefront, there is action, and they have music instead of real-life sound (eg, someone is sad and they're running away from their troubles, someone is happy and things are great, etc). It's kind of makes fast motion gentle but doesn't look like a special effect. I think of 180p as a special effect. It's very obvious as a special effect, and even with modern cameras you lose quality so should only use this on things where you want that effect - it's not a flexible mode. For me this would be for very fast action and because a 3s shot in the edit will represent less than half a second of real-life it's about moments, rather than a sequence of events. I think of this as almost like 'moving photographs'. This is where we think of things like a kid running and making all the birds take off, and a photographer would get the shot with the kid running, smiling and the birds going everywhere, in this mode we can use the same moment but we can savour that 0.4 of a second over several seconds in the final edit, along with nice music. I'll reiterate that most people over-use it, and we should be critical of it being over-used, but the criticism shouldn't be that it's not needed, the criticism should be that it's being applied where it is not aesthetically useful to do so. While this isn't as dramatic as taking the opposite stance of 'always/never' thinking, it's actually more cutting because we're not criticising the use of a camera feature, we're criticising the offenders ability to know how to make art, which is ultimately the most significant criticism that can be made I think.

I agree with most of the above, but the thinking is wrong. Is super slow-motion required in 2018? Not if you're shooting a doco, but yes if you're shooting a hair or shampoo commercial. Is IBIS required in 2018? Not if you have the time, space and permission to take a stabiliser of some kind and set it up, yes if you're shooting in situations where a tripod/monopod/shoulder-rig/gimbal/etc isn't allowed or isn't practical. Is 4K required in 2018? Not if you're shooting for a client that doesn't mandate it, yes if they do (eg, Netflix). Is RAW required in 2018? Not if the requirements of your scene will be sufficiently captured in a more compressed coded, yes if you need the flexibility or resolution in post (eg, green screening) Is AF required in 2018? Not if you have the ability to manually focus sufficiently on set to track the subject in your images, yes if you don't. Is extreme high ISO performance required in 2018? Not if you are shooting a bright enough subject, or have the ability to light them sufficiently, yes if neither of these is true. Anyone can ask the question of ANY parameter within photography and find examples of both yes and no, depending on the project. ANY DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS BEGINS WITH THE CONTENT TO BE CREATED. CAMERAS ARE TOOLS FOR A JOB. EACH JOB IS DIFFERENT. Anyone who thinks they can generalise is too stupid to understand that other people shoot different projects, using different techniques, in different circumstances.

Nice! That's quite a collection!

Very nice work. I found myself looking at the style and editing and ignoring the IQ. The style seemed kind of light and excited in a kind of gentle and playful way. I think that was due to the smooth but hand-held camera movement, faster cuts, and lots of short macro shots. It was a very long way from the very formal aesthetic of slower orchestral music with slow slider shots that you often see! It was almost like he was interested in lots of things and ran around filming all the awesome stuff and then just cut it together. I shoot home and travel videos for my family, but I love looking at weddings because they're about capturing what happens with a minimum of staging things, plus they're trying to make things look happy and joyful, rather than accurate or neutral, which is the same for personal work of loved ones.

Lenses and crop factors and speed boosters can be complicated.. if you have questions then just ask What lenses do you have? In terms of them "holding up to 4K" I think that's probably not a problem, here's why. Firstly, 4K video is 8MP, which for a photography lens (which these will all be) isn't that high a resolution. Secondly, lots of people think that 4K is about getting super sharp images, but not everyone actually likes those super sharp images, and frequently people find that sharp images look "digital" and softer images look more "cinematic". Film has been pretty soft for the majority of cinematic history, and even more recently when film was of higher quality it doesn't look sharp, so soft can be a nice aesthetic. I think the BMPCC4K will prove to be an excellent camera, and already the images look pleasant and most importantly, it doesn't seem to have the digital over-sharpened look of cheaper digital video, so I think it will look nice with whatever lenses you put on it. My personal view is that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on resolution, but think of it in terms of image quality. For example, the 1080 from Canon DSLRs is no match for the 1080 in the C100 despite being of similar resolution and bit-rate (actually the DSLRs have a slightly higher bit-rate). Most 4K cameras don't match the image quality of the original BMPCC despite it "only" shooting 1080. In this sense, the BMPCC4K can be viewed as having high image quality and then just think that it will do a good job of capturing whatever the lens gives it. If a lens is a little soft then you will still benefit from capturing it with a camera that has high image quality, right? Then, once you've chosen a set of lenses, work out the most important part of the equation - what to put in front of the camera.