kye

On 2/24/2026 at 12:47 AM, squink said:

 

Hi! I just stumbled upon this thread and thought I'd share an OKLab conversion DCTL I wrote about a year ago. It;s written as a header file to be included in any other DCTL you may need it for. It supports conversion from ACES, Davinci Wide and Rec.709/sRGB. 

OKLab_Transform.h:

#line 2

#ifndef ENCODING_ENUMS_DEFINED_IN_UI
enum Encoding
{
    gAcc,
    gAcct,
    gDWI,
    gLIN,
    g709,
    gSRGB
};
#endif
#ifndef COLORSPACE_ENUMS_DEFINED_IN_UI
enum ColorSpace
{
    cACES0,
    cACES1,
    cDWG,
    c709
};
#endif

// =============================================================
// Util
// =============================================================
// =============================================================

__DEVICE__ float powCf(float base, float exp)
{
    return _copysignf(_powf(_fabs(base), exp), base);
}

__DEVICE__ float3 VecMatMul3x3(const float3 m[3], float3 v)
{
    float3 r;
    r.x = m[0].x * v.x + m[0].y * v.y + m[0].z * v.z;
    r.y = m[1].x * v.x + m[1].y * v.y + m[1].z * v.z;
    r.z = m[2].x * v.x + m[2].y * v.y + m[2].z * v.z;
    return r;
}

// =============================================================
// Matrices
// =============================================================
// =============================================================

// These matrices are the concatenated forms of (colorspace -> XYZ -> OKlms)
// or, XYZToLMS @ ColorspaceToXYZ and, XYZToColorspace @ LMSToXYZ
// original matrices are included as comments at the bottom of this script

// ACES (AP0)
// ==============================

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_ACES0_LMS[3] =
{
    {0.90454662f,   0.26349909f,    -0.15602258f    },
    {0.35107161f,   0.6766934f,     -0.03056591f    },
    {0.13684644f,   0.19250255f,     0.62038067f    }
};

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_LMS_ACES0[3] =
{
    {1.2881401f,    -0.58554348f,   0.29511118f     },
    {-0.67171287f,  1.76268516f,    -0.08208556f    },
    {-0.0757131f,   -0.41779486f,   1.57228749f     }
};

// ACES (AP1)
// ==============================

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_ACES1_LMS[3] =
{
    {0.64173446f,   0.35314498f,    0.0171437f      },
    {0.27463463f,   0.63099904f,    0.09156544f     },
    {0.10036508f,   0.18723743f,    0.66212716f     }
};

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_LMS_ACES1[3] =
{
    {2.04479741f,   -1.17697875f,   0.10982058f     },
    {-0.88115384f,  2.15979229f,    -0.27586256f    },
    {-0.06077576f,  -0.43234352f,   1.57164623f     }
};

// ITU BT.709
// ==============================

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_709_LMS[3] =
{
    { 0.4122214708f, 0.5363325363f, 0.0514459929f    },
	{ 0.2119034982f, 0.6806995451f, 0.1073969566f    },
	{ 0.0883024619f, 0.2817188376f, 0.6299787005f    }
};

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_LMS_709[3] =
{
    {  4.0767416621f,  -3.3077115913f,   0.2309699292f   },
    { -1.2684380046f,   2.6097574011f,  -0.3413193965f   },
    { -0.0041960863f,  -0.7034186147f,   1.7076147010f   }
};

// Davinci Wide
// ==============================

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_DWG_LMS[3] =
{
    { 0.68570951f,  0.45574409f, -0.14156279f },
    { 0.27427422f,  0.81179945f, -0.08604675f },
    { 0.04351009f,  0.15072461f,  0.80624495f }
};

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_LMS_DWG[3] =
{
    {  1.8836253f,  -1.09713301f, 0.21364045f },
    { -0.63460063f,  1.57752473f, 0.05693684f },
    {  0.01698397f, -0.23570436f, 1.21814431f }
};

// OKLab <-> Cone Response
// ==============================

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_LMS_LAB[3] =
{
    { 0.2104542553f,  0.7936177850f, -0.0040720468f },
    { 1.9779984951f, -2.4285922050f,  0.4505937099f },
    { 0.0259040371f,  0.7827717662f, -0.8086757660f }
};

__CONSTANT__ float3 mat_LAB_LMS[3] =
{
    { 1.0f,  0.3963377774f,  0.2158037573f },
    { 1.0f, -0.1055613458f, -0.0638541728f },
    { 1.0f, -0.0894841775f, -1.2914855480f }
};

// =============================================================
// Transfer Functions
// =============================================================
// =============================================================

// ACEScc
// ==============================

__DEVICE__ float ACEScc_DecodeBase(float v, float a, float b, float upperClampThreshold, float lowerDecodeThreshold, float two_m16)
{
    float out = v;
    if (v >= upperClampThreshold)
        out = 65504.0f;
    else if (v < lowerDecodeThreshold)
        out = (_exp2f(v * b - a) - two_m16) * 2.0f;
    else
        out = _exp2f(v * b - a);
    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 ACEScc_Decode(float3 in)
{
    const float two_m16 = _exp2f(-16.0f);
    const float a = 9.72f;
    const float b = 17.52f;

    const float lowerDecodeThreshold = (a - 15.0f) / b;
    const float upperClampThreshold = (_log2f(65504.0f) + a) / b;

    float3 out = in;

    out.x = ACEScc_DecodeBase(out.x, a, b, upperClampThreshold, lowerDecodeThreshold, two_m16);
    out.y = ACEScc_DecodeBase(out.y, a, b, upperClampThreshold, lowerDecodeThreshold, two_m16);
    out.z = ACEScc_DecodeBase(out.z, a, b, upperClampThreshold, lowerDecodeThreshold, two_m16);

    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float ACEScc_EncodeBase(float v, float a, float b, float negConstant, float two_m15, float two_m16)
{
    float out;
    if (v < 0.0f)
        out = negConstant;
    else if (v < two_m15)
        out = (_log2f(two_m16 + v * 0.5f) + a) / b;
    else
        out = (_log2f(v) + a) / b;
    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 ACEScc_Encode(float3 in)
{
    const float two_m16 = _exp2f(-16.0f);
    const float two_m15 = _exp2f(-15.0f);
    const float a = 9.72f;
    const float b = 17.52f;

    const float negConstant = (_log2f(two_m16) + a) / b;

    float3 out = in;

    out.x = ACEScc_EncodeBase(out.x, a, b, negConstant, two_m15, two_m16);
    out.y = ACEScc_EncodeBase(out.y, a, b, negConstant, two_m15, two_m16);
    out.z = ACEScc_EncodeBase(out.z, a, b, negConstant, two_m15, two_m16);

    return out;
}

// ACEScct
// ==============================

__DEVICE__ float3 ACEScct_Encode(float3 in)
{
    const float a = 9.72f;
    const float b = 17.52f;

    const float X_BRK = 0.0078125f;
    const float A = 10.5402377416545f;
    const float B = 0.0729055341958355f;

    float3 out;

    out.x = (in.x <= X_BRK) ? (A * in.x + B) : ((_log2f(in.x) + a) / b);
    out.y = (in.y <= X_BRK) ? (A * in.y + B) : ((_log2f(in.y) + a) / b);
    out.z = (in.z <= X_BRK) ? (A * in.z + B) : ((_log2f(in.z) + a) / b);

    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 ACEScct_Decode(float3 in)
{
    const float a = 9.72f;
    const float b = 17.52f;

    const float Y_BRK = 0.155251141552511f;
    const float A = 10.5402377416545f;
    const float B = 0.0729055341958355f;

    float3 out = in;

    out.x = (in.x > Y_BRK) ? _exp2f(in.x * b - a) : ((in.x - B) / A);
    out.y = (in.y > Y_BRK) ? _exp2f(in.y * b - a) : ((in.y - B) / A);
    out.z = (in.z > Y_BRK) ? _exp2f(in.z * b - a) : ((in.z - B) / A);

    return out;
}

// Davinci Intermediate
// ==============================

__DEVICE__ float3 DWI_Decode(float3 in)
{
    float3 out = in;

    float a = 0.0075;
    float b = 7.0;
    float c = 0.07329248;
    float m = 10.44426855;
    float log_cut = 0.02740668;

    out.x = in.x > log_cut ? powCf(2.0f, (in.x / c) - b) - a : in.x / m;
    out.y = in.y > log_cut ? powCf(2.0f, (in.y / c) - b) - a : in.y / m;
    out.z = in.z > log_cut ? powCf(2.0f, (in.z / c) - b) - a : in.z / m;

    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 DWI_Encode(float3 in)
{
    float3 out = in;

    float a = 0.0075;
    float b = 7.0;
    float c = 0.07329248;
    float m = 10.44426855;
    float lin_cut = 0.00262409;

    out.x = in.x > lin_cut ? (_log2f(in.x + a) + b) * c : in.x * m;
    out.y = in.y > lin_cut ? (_log2f(in.y + a) + b) * c : in.y * m;
    out.z = in.z > lin_cut ? (_log2f(in.z + a) + b) * c : in.z * m;

    return out;
}

// ITU BT.709
// ==============================

__DEVICE__ float3 BT709_Decode(float3 in)
{
    float3 out = in;

    out.x = out.x < 0.081f ? out.x / 4.5f : powCf((out.x + 0.099f) / 1.099f, 1.0f / 0.45f);
    out.y = out.y < 0.081f ? out.y / 4.5f : powCf((out.y + 0.099f) / 1.099f, 1.0f / 0.45f);
    out.z = out.z < 0.081f ? out.z / 4.5f : powCf((out.z + 0.099f) / 1.099f, 1.0f / 0.45f);

    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 BT709_Encode(float3 in)
{
    float3 out = in;

    out.x = out.x < 0.018 ? out.x * 4.5f : 1.099f * powCf(out.x, 0.45f) - 0.099f;
    out.y = out.y < 0.018 ? out.y * 4.5f : 1.099f * powCf(out.y, 0.45f) - 0.099f;
    out.z = out.z < 0.018 ? out.z * 4.5f : 1.099f * powCf(out.z, 0.45f) - 0.099f;

    return out;
}

// sRGB
// ==============================

__DEVICE__ float3 sRGB_Decode(float3 in)
{
    float3 out = in;

    out.x = out.x < 0.04045 ? out.x / 12.92f : powCf((out.x + 0.055f) / 1.055f, 2.4f);
    out.y = out.y < 0.04045 ? out.y / 12.92f : powCf((out.y + 0.055f) / 1.055f, 2.4f);
    out.z = out.z < 0.04045 ? out.z / 12.92f : powCf((out.z + 0.055f) / 1.055f, 2.4f);

    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 sRGB_Encode(float3 in)
{
    float3 out = in;

    out.x = out.x < 0.0031308 ? out.x * 12.92f : 1.055f * powCf(out.x, 1.0f / 2.4f) - 0.055f;
    out.y = out.y < 0.0031308 ? out.y * 12.92f : 1.055f * powCf(out.y, 1.0f / 2.4f) - 0.055f;
    out.z = out.z < 0.0031308 ? out.z * 12.92f : 1.055f * powCf(out.z, 1.0f / 2.4f) - 0.055f;

    return out;
}

// =============================================================
// Convert
// =============================================================
// =============================================================

__DEVICE__ float3 Decode(float3 in, int tFunction)
{
    float3 out = in;
    switch (tFunction)
    {
        case gAcc:
            out = ACEScc_Decode(in);
            break;
        case gAcct:
            out = ACEScct_Decode(in);
            break;
        case gDWI:
            out = DWI_Decode(in);
            break;
        case g709:
            out = BT709_Decode(in);
            break;
        case gSRGB:
            out = sRGB_Decode(in);
            break;
    }
    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 Encode(float3 in, int tFunction)
{
    float3 out = in;
    switch (tFunction)
    {
        case gAcc:
            out = ACEScc_Encode(in);
            break;
        case gAcct:
            out = ACEScct_Encode(in);
            break;
        case gDWI:
            out = DWI_Encode(in);
            break;
        case g709:
            out = BT709_Encode(in);
            break;
        case gSRGB:
            out = sRGB_Encode(in);
            break;
    }
    return out;
}

__DEVICE__ float3 OKLab_OKLCh(float3 lab)
{
    float C = _hypotf(lab.y, lab.z);
    float h = _atan2f(lab.z, lab.y);
    return make_float3(lab.x, C, h);
}

__DEVICE__ float3 OKLCh_OKLab(float3 lch)
{
    float a = lch.y * cosf(lch.z);
    float b = lch.y * sinf(lch.z);
    return make_float3(lch.x, a, b);
}

__DEVICE__ float3 RGB_OKLab(float3 rgb, int colorspace)
{
    const float3* mat;
    switch (colorspace)
    {
        case cACES0:
            mat = mat_ACES0_LMS;
            break;
        case cACES1:
            mat = mat_ACES1_LMS;
            break;
        case cDWG:
            mat = mat_DWG_LMS;
            break;
        case c709:
            mat = mat_709_LMS;
            break;
    }

    float3 lms = VecMatMul3x3(mat, rgb);

    float3 lms_;
    lms_.x = cbrt(lms.x);
    lms_.y = cbrt(lms.y);
    lms_.z = cbrt(lms.z);

    return VecMatMul3x3(mat_LMS_LAB, lms_);
}

__DEVICE__ float3 OKLab_RGB(float3 lab, int colorspace)
{
    const float3* mat;
    switch (colorspace)
    {
        case cACES0:
            mat = mat_LMS_ACES0;
            break;
        case cACES1:
            mat = mat_LMS_ACES1;
            break;
        case cDWG:
            mat = mat_LMS_DWG;
            break;
        case c709:
            mat = mat_LMS_709;
            break;
    }

    float3 lms = VecMatMul3x3(mat_LAB_LMS, lab);

    lms.x = powCf(lms.x, 3.0f);
    lms.y = powCf(lms.y, 3.0f);
    lms.z = powCf(lms.z, 3.0f);

    return VecMatMul3x3(mat, lms);
}

__DEVICE__ float3 RGB_OkLCh(float3 rgb, int colorspace)
{
    float3 lab = RGB_OKLab(rgb, colorspace);
    return OKLab_OKLCh(lab);
}

__DEVICE__ float3 OKLCh_RGB(float3 lch, int colorspace)
{
    float3 lab = OKLCh_OKLab(lch);
    return OKLab_RGB(lab, colorspace);
}

// =============================================================
// Ref Matrices
// =============================================================
// =============================================================

// DWG -> XYZ
    //  0.70062239,  0.14877482,   0.10105872
    //  0.27411851,  0.87363190,  -0.14775041
    // -0.09896291, -0.13789533,   1.32591599

// XYZ -> DWG
    //   1.51667204, -0.28147805, -0.14696363
    //  -0.46491710,  1.25142378,  0.17488461
    //   0.06484905,  0.10913934,  0.76141462

// 709 -> XYZ
    //  0.4123908,   0.35758434,    0.18048079
    //  0.21263901,  0.71516868,    0.07219232
    //  0.01933082,  0.11919478,    0.95053215

// XYZ -> 709
    //  3.24096994, -1.53738318,    -0.49861076
    // -0.96924364,  1.8759675,      0.04155506
    //  0.05563008, -0.20397696 ,    1.05697151

// XYZ -> LMS
    // 0.8189330101, 0.3618667424, -0.1288597137
    // 0.0329845436, 0.9293118715,  0.0361456387
    // 0.0482003018, 0.2643662691,  0.6338517070

// LMS -> XYZ
    //   1.22701385, -0.55779998,  0.28125615
    //  -0.04058018,  1.11225687, -0.07167668
    //  -0.07638128, -0.42148198,  1.58616322

Using it another DCTL looks something like this:
 

#line 2

#define ENCODING_ENUMS_DEFINED_IN_UI
#define COLORSPACE_ENUMS_DEFINED_IN_UI
#include "OKLab_Transforms.h"

DEFINE_UI_PARAMS(p_InCSpace, Input Color Space, DCTLUI_COMBO_BOX, 2, {cACES0, cACES1, cDWG, c709}, {ACES (AP0), ACES (AP1), Davinci Wide Gamut, Rec.709 / sRGB / BT.1886});
DEFINE_UI_PARAMS(p_InGamma, Input Gamma, DCTLUI_COMBO_BOX, 2, {gAcc, gAcct, gDWI, gLIN, g709, gSRGB}, {ACEScc, ACEScct, Davinci Intermediate, Linear, Rec.709, sRGB});

__DEVICE__ float3 transform(int p_Width, int p_Height, int p_X, int p_Y, float p_R, float p_G, float p_B)
{
    float3 in = make_float3(p_R, p_G, p_B);
    float3 out = in;

    // Convert to OKLCh:
    float3 linear = Decode(in, p_InGamma);
    float3 oklch = RGB_OkLCh(linear, p_InCSpace);

    // Convert back:
    linear = OKLCh_RGB(oklch, p_InCSpace);
    out = Encode(linear, p_InGamma);

    return out;
}

 

This is awesome - thanks for sharing!

What kind of DCTLs are you writing?

Doh - forgot to list the 9mm F1.7 lens.  That's the ultra-wide I'll be taking too.

So the total count is one body, 5 lenses, my phone with vND.

I was slightly conflicted about the "wide-angle night cinema" slot. The SB+50/1.4 is equivalent to a 71mm F2.0 on FF, so having something wider seems an obvious thing but I'm just not sure if I would use it.  

I've mentioned the 12-35mm F2.8 as my night walk-around lens, and when combined with the GH7 low-light capability it's a fine combination, but it's not crazy fast/bright and isn't the best "cinema" option around.

The things I considered were:

• my TTartsans 17mm F1.4, which is small and light and despite being soft wide-open is probably quite cinematic
• my 14mm F2.5 which is small and light but is bettered by the 12-35mm on flexibility grounds being a zoom
• my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, which is a great performer but is quite heavy
• my c-mount 12.5mm F1.9, which is similar FOV when you crop in to its S16 image circle
• my 9mm F1.7 combined with the GH7 cropping, which is fast but sacrifices resolution and doesn't have the DOF advantages of other options (although I am already taking it)
• SB + 28mm F2.8 combos, but it's hard to get a reasonable quality 28mm F2.8 in M42 mount and it's not that fast anyway

I opted to take the 12-35mm (which I sort-of take as a backup lens to the 14-140mm zoom) but if I do end up wanting a wider fast lens for night cinema, I think I might just bite the bullet and get the PanaLeica 15mm F1.7 as it'll be light and have AF and be sharper than I could ever want.

I looked at the reviews of a bunch of budget F1.4 or faster lenses around the 14-20mm mark but I'd never be sure if it was as sharp as I'd like, and spending money to get something that isn't that much faster than my 17/1.4 or that much lighter than my 17.5/0.95 seems silly.  MFT is the wrong format for ultra-fast wide lenses, and I already have lots of options for something I might not use, so the whole thing might end up being academic anyway.

Getting prepped for my next trip and have further refined my setup.

This trip is a quick trip to China, but it's also a test case for a trip I'm taking later in the year to Europe where the packing approach will be minimalism.  Unlike the way I like to travel in Asia, the Europe trip will involve changing accommodation every few days, so packing and unpacking and hauling bags around will be much more of a pain, so I'll try and travel really minimally.
As such, my approach for this trip is "when in doubt, don't take it" and see what I actually use.

So the setup for this trip is:

• GH7
• 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 zoom, which I use during the day at F5.6 which means my 1-5 stop vND is enough
• 12-35mm F2.8 zoom, which is a great walk-around lens after dark
• Takumar 50mm F1.4 with M42-MFT Speedbooster (with bokeh insert) for "night cinema"
• iPhone 17 Pro setup (Neewer phone filter mount, K&F 1-9 stop vND, MagSafe Popsocket)

The GH7 and zooms are self-explanatory, so here's the 50mm F1.4 setup.

I have played around with "inserts" and ended up with a pretty extreme design, so this is a test to see if the vertical edges are too strong a look for me.
It's made from the sticky part of the post-it note, and a layer of sticky tape over the top to keep it a bit more together.  It sits between the speed booster and the lens, and I won't use the speed booster for any other lenses while travelling so this  will stay in there and protected, so doesn't need to be that robust.

It's a strong look in some situations and quite "painterly" in others, so I'll be curious how it goes.

For my iPhone 17 Pro, it's a phone most of the time and a camera only as a backup, so I searched for a setup that would:

• Protect my phone from drops (I dropped it on the last trip and the screen shattered, despite it being in an Apple case - the only one available at the time...  sigh)
• Still be right-sized for getting in and out of pockets etc
• Have a vND solution for when I want to shoot and use 180 shutter

I'll spare everyone from the rant about the options out there (everyone wants you to buy into their "ecosystem" now) so I ended up with the Otterbox Defender Series Pro case, which makes the iPhone feel even larger than it did in the Apple case (which doesn't seem possible but is true), but seems very robust.

The vND is the Neewer phone filter mount, which sort-of clips onto the phone (It's designed to screw onto and clamp the phone but you're clamping against the screen, so I wouldn't tighten it that much).  It's designed for a naked iPhone, so I had to modify it (and the Otterbox case) slightly where it interfered with the Otterbox case to get it to sit a bit flatter.  It still doesn't sit flush, but it goes on and seems to be fine.  I haven't got around to actually taking it out to shoot with it, so that remains to be seen.

I paired it with the K&F 1-9 stop vND, which boasts 18 layers etc, but doesn't claim to be a "True Colour" one like the 1-5 stop ones do.  It doesn't have hard stops and I think it still gives the X at the max amount, but I'll see how I go.  Not having an aperture sure sucks considering you're not really losing having shallow DOF.  

That is all combined with the MagSafe Popsocket as a safeguard.  I've used the adhesive popsockets before and they're great for giving a much better grip on the phone, but I wasn't sure how strongly the MagSafe would be.  The Otterbox claims to have magnets in it that strengthen the MagSafe connection, and this might be true.  It feels quite sturdy actually, and I tested it to require 1.75kg of force to pull off, compared to the 1.45kg of force it took to pull it off my naked iPhone 12 mini.  No idea what strength a naked iPhone 17 Pro MagSafe connection would have, but it's not terrible.

Lots of compromises involved, but it's really my backup camera, and the Otterbox case is very grippy, so I'll see how I go.

On 2/26/2026 at 11:08 PM, John Matthews said:

Lumix has involved themselves in gimmicks for some time now. Anyone remember OZO Audio on the G100? What about DFD Focus "technology"; and somehow, the Olympus cameras without PDAF (like the E-M10 iii, iv) did much better in CAF. At least this on-camera mic seems like an actual product, but I'm just not sure how useful it is since it's a rather large device taking up you hot shoe. I think I'll pass for that reason alone. Just give us 32bit with ANY mic internally, not a whole contraption on top.

Come on John...  everyone knows that anyone who wants better footage than a smartphone can provide is 100% totally fine with a camera the size of a microwave oven that looks like a Borg prototype!

Being slightly serious though, it's easy to criticise, but as someone who wants flexibility and better sound options, this is FAR better than the previous options, so it's a welcome addition in my eyes.  The worst enemy of progress is criticising everything that isn't perfect in every conceivable way.

Panasonic just released a new on-camera mic.  Looks like an excellent option for events etc where you want something small or something really flexible.

I've watched a few YT showcases and for me, the best features are:

• It gives you 32-bit without having to have the external mic preamp box (and then adding microphones to that, making it larger again)
• It's small, much smaller than an on-camera shotgun mic
• You can quickly swap between modes
• (I assume?) it's powered by the camera
• It unlocks the ability to record >2 channels of audio into the files (one person said you can record left/right/mono/mono-20dB as a combo, and left/right/left-20dB/right-20dB as a different combo)

It's definitely not magic and the laws of physics still apply.

There don't seem to be any really good on-location stress tests posted yet, but there's a few examples.

Media Division did an in-kitchen test to compare it to in-camera mics and lav and a DJI clip-on, and also applied a bit of AI voice isolation too to see how far you can push it:

Dustin did some good tests including walking a 360 around the camera in each mode, which showed how directional it is, which seems pretty impressive.  He also compared it to the Sennheiser MKE440.

This shows the different modes out in nature:

This is probably a complete revolution for a number of niche uses.  Content creators would be one, where they're recording in noisy environments but still staying relatively close to the camera where physics will be helping them.  Another is where the flexibility really helps, like shooting events where getting pristine audio isn't an absolute must but working super-quickly is more important and perhaps the 32-bit would really come into its own.

This reminds me of how people used to talk about Panasonic when the GH4 and GH5 were around and people were saying that Panasonic just listened to people and then implemented the features that people would use rather than trying to be flashy and grab headlines.  This will be an invisible workhorse for lots and lots of people.

13 hours ago, Cosimo said:

Just scored this Petit Cinevision 1.5x baby anamorphic 

Nice!

What formats and focal lengths is it compatible with?  and what camera and taking lens combos are you planning to use with it?

16 hours ago, empedocles said:

No, I have a GH5s, but I'd like to upgrade, as I need PDAF among other things.

My take on the situation is that I'm super-happy with the GH7.  It basically does everything I want, and apart from having ultra-sharp ultra-shallow DOF, pretty much does most things that FF does.  It does low-light very well, and is only behind the low-light from FF cameras because they have gotten crazy good.

9 hours ago, empedocles said:

Then it qualifies ("EOSHD’s official observations on the camera market for 2025, new vs used"). 

There are so many options these days it's hard to know which way to go. Would you pick up a G9ii over a GH7?

I went with the GH7 as I'm video-first and need the heat management etc.  The G9ii is an incredible camera though.  There's a whole thread about it here: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/90374-panasonic-g9-mark-ii-i-was-wrong/

Do you have either one?

7 hours ago, empedocles said:

Just wondering: why is there no mention of the GH7? (€ 1600 on MPB)

It was released in mid-2024 🙂 

Definitely a strong camera though.  I expect mine to be useful for many years, and TBH, I haven't felt jealous over a new camera release since buying it.  

For anyone interested in understanding a bit more about the relationship between technical measurements and aesthetic experiences, this video is very interesting.

Perhaps the challenge is that many people believe there's a golden zone of sharpness where it's softer than clinical glass, but sharper than poor performance vintage glass, but as there's very little qualitative data it's hard to know how a lens performs.

The video gives a non-technical primer on MTF charts, and discusses what potential uses there are for different levels of performance, culminating in this chart.  I particularly like this approach because the thinking is well beyond "good vs bad" lenses and takes the much more mature approach of "the right tool for the job".  This is an example of this kind of thinking from the video:

Recommended viewing if you want to go beyond "I like this lens" and "I don't like that lens"!

13 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

My own tried and tested formula for determining if prices are getting out of hand is how much of an, erm, “rounding error” occurs when relaying the price I’ve paid for something to the wife.

When it comes to cameras, it would be a base level of 10%.

If I bought a new camera nowadays it would more likely be in the 20-25% area.

The area where my perception of price escalation is most piqued though is  in the price of first party lenses as much as it is cameras.

I find it incredible that people talk about switching bodies / systems all the time without really considering the wider ecosystem of lenses and accessories.  Hell, I've stayed within the MFT system and whenever I get a new MFT body there are still all these extras that I end up being surprised about and inflate the price by 10-15%.  If I was re-buying lenses then it would double/triple/quadruple the cost.

I have no idea what the economics of lenses are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the camera body is now a loss-leader and the lenses where all the profit is.

10 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Makes me feel we haven’t gotten amazing IQ leaps in the last 5 yrs…I mean heck the fx3 sensor in the a7siii also came out 5 yrs ago and I don’t see any “superior” lowlight cams on the market. Only “comparable”. For example a c50 will hold its own against the a7siii. But it’s not better. Or worse. Just a 5 year newer camera. 

Well, we've gotten drastically better pixels, but because everyone has been screaming incoherently about wanting sharper images the manufacturers took the higher performance and kept the same overall image performance but made the pixels smaller so there's more of them.

Everyone said they wanted a camera that could match the 2.5K Alexa, but because there were more people screaming for resolution than screaming for quality the industry took it's improvements and gave us mediocre 4K cameras, then more improvements and we got good but not great 5K downsampling cameras, then more improvements and we got quite good 6K cameras, and since then the flagship bodies have given us 8K / 12K / 17K cameras with pixels that are close to rivalling the 2.5K Alexa.

So ARRI released the Alexa 35, and now there's a 4K ARRI camera that absolutely smashes the 8K / 12K / 17K flagship cameras.

It's a complete myth that cameras aren't getting better.  They're getting better by leaps and bounds, but almost all those gains have been "spent" on smaller pixels / higher resolution.  If that hadn't been the case, you'd probably have had every other feature you've ever wanted by now.

5 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

@kye

I don’t disagree with the basic market argument, and I’m not suggesting cameras are a necessity or a right. What I was pointing to is less about entitlement and more about cultural tone. Markets can function correctly and still feel disconnected from the lived reality of a lot of people right now.

Also i’m not arguing companies shouldn’t sell high end gear, only questioning whether the pace and intensity of constant releases and marketing still feels aligned with the broader moment we’re in. This is an observation about fatigue and context, not about price controls or obligations.

Good points.

The way I see it is there's a toxic feedback loop of consumerism, hype, marketing, and release cycles.  The skepticism and criticisms around this is justified, but the forgotten ingredient in this whole picture is us - the people paying attention.

Without us, the whole thing falls flat.

I would suggest the uncomfortable truth is that the people caught up in the drama of it are either making money from it (manufacturers, dealers, influencers, etc) or are desperately trying to buy their way into making nicer images.
I will be the first to admit I did this.  I tried to buy gorgeous images by swallowing the myth that Canon colour science was the answer, then that 4K was the answer, then that shallow DOF was the answer.  The truth was that even if someone handed me an Alexa LF I'd still have made awful looking images.

Sure, there are people making great work and want to upgrade their equipment from time to time and dip into the chaos briefly, but once they've made their decision and bought something that works for them, they tune out again.  These people are spending their time on lighting tutorials, getting better at pre-production and planning, learning how to improve their edits, etc.  They're not watching reviews and talking online about the colour subsampling of the 120p modes of the latest 12 cameras that are rumoured to come out in the next 17 minutes.

My advice to you is this - if you feel like this then take a break from the industry and try and remember why you got into this in the first place.  I'll bet it wasn't because you found a deep love for reading spec sheets!

4 hours ago, Django said:

 

@kye

Thanks for the thoughtful take, two solid points.

On the first one: I don’t really have emotional attachment to camera bodies anymore. They’re just tools that either help me get the shot or get in the way. Lenses are the emotional part for me (the rendering, the character, the way they feel when I look through them), but the body is basically a computer with a mount and some buttons.

That said, ergonomics and UI matter hugely. If I’m constantly fighting menus, fumbling controls under pressure, or the grip feels wrong after 20 minutes, my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set. I’ve shot with cameras that technically should be fine but never clicked with my hands or brain. The day always feels harder and the results flatter. So if the C50’s cine OS with shutter angle, proper exposure tools and XLR top handle let me stay in flow instead of menu-diving or second-guessing, that’s worth a lot more than specs on paper.

Reliability is primal too. A body that fails on set (AF hunting in low light, overheating mid-interview, battery dying unexpectedly, corrupted file, flicker issues, or weird grading artifacts) is a disaster, especially solo. I’ve had shoots go sideways because of exactly that. So even if a camera is technically capable, if it can’t be trusted in the field for hours, it’s not a tool, it’s a liability.

On stabilization: I’m with you. I’m not chasing perfectly locked-down gimbal shots or overcooked EIS. I actually like natural camera movement, it feels alive and human. The stuff that kills the vibe for me is the micro-jitters and tiny breathing shakes on small-body cameras. Those little floating tremors look nervous and amateurish. Big intentional camera motion (shoulder rig sway, handheld energy) can be beautiful and add to the scene, but those small unintentional artifacts from inadequate stabilization are just distracting.

That’s why Gyroflow plus shooting with EIS off (or Standard only when needed) feels like the sweet spot. I get to keep the organic handheld character I like, but I can surgically remove the annoying micro-shake in post without turning everything into a locked-down special effect. If a shot is so dynamic that even that isn’t enough, I’ll reach for a gimbal or shoulder rig anyway. But for 80 to 90 percent of the lifestyle, interview and observational stuff I’m shooting, I’ll be on sticks with handheld B-roll. 

Appreciate the nudge. It’s always good to be reminded that mood, flow and reliability matter more than specs.

"my mood tanks and it bleeds into the set" is a great way to express what I was thinking.  I might have to steal your wording!

I've had cameras I've loved to use and ones I always felt like I was struggling against, and it's definitely something that can be difficult to quantify.  I suspect it's that we each have a range of priorities and preferences, and after getting used to the equipment and learning how it impacts the whole pipeline from planning through delivery and perhaps even into repeat business, the feeling we get is perhaps representative of how well it aligns with our individual preferences.  It's easy to compare specs and pixel pee images, but there are lots of things that can be a complete PITA that don't show up on the brochures or technical tests.

When reading your original post it felt like you want to go with the C50 and are trying to talk yourself into it / justify it.  One thing that I think is underrated is the idea of the quiet workhorse.  A camera that is a professional tool, does what you need without fuss, and doesn't have a lot of fanfare.  For me that was the GH5 (although the colour science and AF weren't great) and now the GH7.  These sorts of cameras don't grab headlines, but the fact that they're quiet workhorses rather than outlandish divas means you're able to move past the tech and concentrate on what you're shooting and the quality of the work.  Canon have a very solid reputation in this regard - there's a reason they ruled the doc space for decades.

One other thought..  if you don't have one already, consider buying a nice matte box.  It'll help to stabilise the rig and will also make you look more impressive to clients!

4 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

I think I may not have explained myself clearly, so I want to reset what I was actually getting at.

This isn’t about whether people need new cameras, or whether older cameras are still capable. I agree they are. It’s also not about blaming any one company or getting political. What I’m really reacting to is the disconnect in tone.

Right now, a lot of people are dealing with very real financial pressure in day to day life. Food, housing, healthcare, basic stability. Against that backdrop, the pace and intensity of constant product releases and marketing across the camera industry (and other industries) feels a bit detached from how many people are actually living.

I’m not saying companies should stop innovating, and I’m not saying people are wrong for buying new gear if they can afford it. I’m just questioning whether the relentless “next thing, next thing, next thing” approach still matches the moment we’re in.

Even for those of us who aren’t buying, it can create a kind of fatigue just being surrounded by it, especially when most modern cameras are already more than capable for professional work. So the question I was trying to raise is less “should anyone upgrade?” and more “does this constant push still make sense culturally and economically right now?” That’s all I was aiming to explore.

I think you've been looking at the camera industry too long.

We operate in a marketplace where people offer goods and services and if people want to purchase them they do, and if not, they don't.  There are reasons why Governments might incentivise or subsidise various industries or products or behaviours, but I don't think any of these apply to cameras.  The only other situation that is an exception is if something starts to become a necessity, like clean water or reliable electricity supply, and more recently now internet access is getting into this territory.  When this happens then efforts might need to be made to ensure that these things are accessible.

I very much doubt anyone is arguing that high-end mirrorless cameras are a human right, in which case they should just be traded like all goods, where they're subject to the laws of demand and supply.

You can't get your house painted for $50 because paint and labour costs more than that.  You can't buy a car for $9 because no-one has worked out how to make them for anything remotely like that price.  You can't buy a super-car for $10000 because the market has valued them significantly above that.

20 hours ago, Django said:

Hey everyone,

You know me. I’ve been agonizing over my next camera the entire year of 2025. Countless threads, rental tests, ecosystem debates… I've got a shortlist but I’m still somewhat undecided in February 2026.

Now a proper ongoing gig has landed: high-end lifestyle / product / mini-doc content for a well-known outlet. All solo run&gun: fast stories, Reels, interviews, close-up product detail, lifestyle vignettes, multi-platform deliverables (horizontal main cuts + vertical social + still assets). No crew, just me moving fast in boutiques, ateliers and interiors.

Current shortlist :

Canon EOS C50 (€3,500 ) Pros that keep winning me over after testing:

7K open-gate 3:2 + simultaneous 16:9 / 9:16 dual record to different cards = massive time-saver for vertical/horizontal from one take.

Dual zoom rockers (body + XLR handle) smooth variable-speed creeps and fast punch-ins on primes felt magical.

Built-in fan = no thermal anxiety on longer takes. Cine OS: frame guides for every ratio, false color/waveforms/zebras, shutter angle, base ISO switches.

Gyro data + Gyroflow covers stabilization so well that lack of IBIS isn’t a big issue. C-Log2 grading is easy and beautiful, plus Wide DR mode (I’ve missed that since my C100/C200 days).

Pro mini cine cam body look perception is important in my field; you can charge more with something that screams serious filmmaker.

Cons: Body+lens investment hurts minimum RF 24/1.8 Macro IS STM (~€500) + RF 45/1.2 STM (€500) = €4500 total. Closed RF glass. EIS only (electronic), so very dynamic handheld shots rely on technique or light post-stab.

Canon EOS R6 Mark III (€2,899) Pros: IBIS for aggressive handheld run-and-gun. Built-in EVF (huge for bright interiors/outdoors). Mechanical shutter + flash sync for occasional stills. 7K open-gate 3:2 for post-cropping multi-ratio. Same C-Log2 grading ease and fast hybrid menu/dial switching.

Cons: No simultaneous multi-format dual recording all multi-ratio work is post-crop only. No 7K downsampled digital zoom (FHD only). No built-in fan thermal limits in demanding long takes (30–60 min in 4K/7K high-bitrate). No XLR handle or mounting points out of box. Consumer-looking body doesn't have the pro mini cine cam vibe.

Sony FX3 (€3,500 ) I already have Zeiss Batis primes, so zero lens spend. IBIS, low-light is proven, and it’s the safe solo workhorse everyone knows.

But in 2026 it feels dated: Still capped at 4K internal (no 6K/7K future-proofing). No open-gate all multi-ratio work is post-crop from 4K (quality hit). No RAW for high-end stuff. No EVF. 12MP stills. Spending serious money on a 5-year-old body feels like questionable investment math, especially considering an FX3 mk2 will drop later this year.

Sony FX2 (€2,500) Despite its controversial usage of the old A7IV sensor, it's a real nice body thanks to its unique tilt EVF that I absolutely love. Also a proper hybrid. Its already gone down in price a little bit but like the above FX3 it feels silly investing in a cam with outdated tech and specs.

Nikon ZR €2,200. Cheapest option. I could adapt my Sony glass. Internal R3D RAW is appealing for high-end grading. Big, beautiful display is the main draw.

Main cons: R3D RAW means huge files. H.265 codec applies quite heavy noise reduction that turns into “mush”. No open-gate. Basic controls. No EVF, no mech shutter. Ecosystem still feels young for run-and-gun reliability on a high-profile gig

I’m leaning hard toward the C50 right now. The open-gate + simultaneous dual-ratio recording + rocker zoom control feel tailor made for the exact multi-platform content I’ll be shooting. C-Log2 grading is easy and beautiful, Wide DR mode brings back what I loved on my old C100/C200 days, and Gyroflow + EIS covers stabilization perfectly for my style. Cine menu and exposure tools also feel like a step up for product polish. RAW and anamorphic support for potential high-end stuff. The handling with the excellent top handle makes it feel like an evolved FX3.

It's a hefty investment although I should recoup fast once I start getting paid.

Yes I'm purposely omitting Lumix, a forum favourite I know but I just don't gel with either bodies or lens choice.

Appreciate any real-world takes from people who may have used above gear and/or deliver this kind of content. Thanks in advance.

Two thoughts from me.

If you close your eyes and imagine each scenario, how do each of them make you feel?
What is never really talked about is that if you feel like you're having to argue or strong-arm your equipment then you'll be in a bad mood, which isn't conducive to a happy set, getting good creative outputs, or just enjoying your life.  I think people dismiss this, but if you're directing the talent then this can really matter - people can tell if you're in a good mood or distracted or frustrated etc and people tend to take things personally so your frustrations with the rig can just as easily be interpreted by others that you're not happy with their efforts.
The odd little image technical niggle here or there won't make nearly as much difference as enjoying what you do vs not.

When it comes to IBIS vs Giroflow vs EIS etc, it's worth questioning if more stabilisation is better.  For the "very dynamic handheld shots" having a bit more camera motion might even be a good thing if it is the right kind of motion.  Big budget productions have chosen to run with shoulder-mounted large camera rigs and the camera shake was pleasing and added to the energy of the scene.  Small amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically awful if they're the artefacts from inadequate OIS + IBIS + EIS stabilisation, whereas much more significant amounts of camera shake can be aesthetically benign if coming from a heavier rig without IBIS or OIS.

If more stabilisation is better, maybe it would be better overall to have a physical solution that can be used for those shots?

Even if there aren't good options for those things, maybe the results would be better if those shots were just avoided somehow?  In todays age of social media and shorts etc, having large camera moves that are completely stable is basically a special effect, and maybe there are other special effects that can be done in post that are just as effective but are much easier to shoot?

13 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Sadly sold the G9II. I realized I need good high ISO performance, and seems PDAF is disabled at real high ISOs. I scored a canon r6 for $929 and other than the overheating it’s great. And I can live wijt the overheating for how I shoot. IBIS can genuinely compete with LUMIX by having DIS on standard and using adobe’s warp stabilizer, somehow warp stabilizer absolutely thrives at stabilizing the type of leftover shakiness and artifacts of canon’s IBIS + DIS combo. Very consistently stable without warpy artifacts. Great high ISO performance. Lovely image in CLOG3. 
 

I did like the G9II. Its image was great. Best Ibis I’ve ever used. Very comfortable.  Just realized I need better high ISO performance. Yes I could have gotten a super fast zoom like the sigma 18-35 1.8/speedbooster or Panasonic 10-25mm 1.7. But sometimes I REALLY need to push things at weddings or concerts, shooting at ISOs like 25,600. That’s beyond what the Gh7/G9II can handle. 

Good to hear you got a solution that works for your (very challenging) shooting requirements - that's what truly matters!

Low-light is now the current limitation for the high-end MFT line-up.  The GH7 sacrifices having a dual-base-ISO in favour of having the dual-readouts and the DR boost that architecture gives.

I shoot uncontrolled external locations in available light, which means low-light performance is a consideration for me too, but the GH7s performance is enough for my needs.

I suspect the low-light capabilities of MFT would be described as "Very Good to Excellent", but the latest FF cameras now have low-light capabilities that would be described as "Absolutely Incredible" and so MFT lags by comparison.  You can't cheat the laws of physics!

It wasn't that long ago that cameras weren't really usable above ISO 1600 or 3200, so things have advanced very quickly.  Suggesting that you "need" to shooting weddings at ISO 25,600 would have been considered a joke and saying you were serious would have started arguments and gotten you banned as a troll!
Personally I think the "if todays cameras can't do it then you don't need it" is a silly perspective, because it implies that there aren't any new situations or circumstances that are worth recording, and obviously that's just plain ridiculous.

I wonder how the GH7 compares to the original A7S.  The difference might be smaller than you'd think.

I remember a quote from around the time that Facebook started having issues with people passing away - "in 80 years there will be 800 million dead people on Facebook".  

People don't really think about social media channels having an end, and so when they do people are often confused.  It would be great if there was specific functionality for such things, like automatically turning off comments to all videos etc, but we haven't really worked through the related issues as a society yet so there isn't really a common understanding of what we even want to have happen when people move on.

13 hours ago, SMGJohn said:

Micro Four Thirds is probably not gonna exist in the near future duo to exceptionally poor sales since both Matsushita and OM Group has decided to deinvest, OM-Systems might maintain a lineup for a few years although I am interested in what they will do now that the TowerJazz 20 megapixel photography sensor is getting more difficult to buy in bulk since the 12 day war. Less sales also means higher price for buying fewer sensors, guess they will be forced to take industrial Four Thirds sensors and adapting them to MFT mount. 

I have used medium format for aurora pictures just as a funny test, but gotta say, I did not enjoy how shallow depth of field even on a wide lens once you crank the aperture wide open.

On MFT its much easier to maintain deep depth even with F1.2. Also with MFT you can use Metabones adapter to push physics to its limits, Canon 50mm F1.2 with the Ultra x0.64 XL will essentially give you 64mm F0.8 - it does however perform more like T1.4 however in terms of light transmission when measured accurately - Both the Lumix G9 and G9II basically perform the same in photography, the G9M2 however is an absolute THE best hybrid camera money can buy, everything is very reliable, its got the best video codecs - people praise Sony but their video codecs are absolute garbage and limited choices, Fujifilm still struggles with autofocus specially on their older lenses with the stepping motors.

Canon are all heavy, limited glass the Canon R7 and Canon R8 are well priced but suffers from slow sensors and the R8 has no IBIS, the R7 IBIS is mediocre but better than Nikon by miles. At least Canon APS-C has Sigma.

Rumours of professional APS-C cameras from all the main characters will probably kill off the MFT cameras in terms of competitiveness, APS-C lenses are not super big compared to MFT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MFT has been dead for decades now - everyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last 10 years knows this.

What people don't know is that due to a quirk in quantum physics and the way that time works, MFT was actually dead before it was invented.

This means that my GH7 and GX85 and OG BMPCC and BMMCC never existed, don't exist, and when MFT finally "dies" somehow will disappear from my house.

I bet you even think the earth is round...   some people are just too much!

9 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Definitely. I did a brief comparison of a VLOG frame and shooting the same in flat with ISO lowered, I used the same node tree I did with my Nikon z6 8 bit flat and was able to get color and highlight rolloff real close. 

Nice!

The other thing to consider when testing ISO and noise in the final image is the delivery part of the pipeline.  If I shot in two different modes and then processed them differently in my NLE, I might be able to tell the difference between them in my NLE.

But no-one except you is watching your footage in your NLE, so you'll be exporting it, probably to h264 or h265, and you might not be able to tell the difference between them at this point.

If you're going to be uploading them to a streaming service, then that service will decompress, process (NR, sharpening, who knows what else) and then brutally re-compress it.

Lots of things are visible in the NLE and are completely gone or mangled beyond recognition in the final export or stream.

2 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Certainly agree I took a bit of time to test some stuff out yesterday evening. I do switch my picture profile from VLOG to FLAT I can lower my ISO from 5,000 to 1,000. Gotta do further test though on my ultimate thoughts on the autofocus. 

Just make sure you're testing the options in the full image pipeline, so comparing finished 709 grades.  So many people only test one part of the pipeline and ignore the rest.

4 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

Curious how you find the gh7 autofocus fares at the higher IsoS

I haven't really experimented much with the AF on the GH7 as I'm used to the AF on the GX85 etc, and I tend to use manual lenses in lower light.  

AF is very difficult to test as well, and @Davide DB has posted before about how lens-dependent it can be too.

Maybe there are AF tests online?  Playing peekaboo with your camera seems a popular camera reviewer pastime!

I'm not sure how this would translate, but my GH7 does far better when I raise the ISO to get a proper exposure in-camera vs shooting under exposed and raising the exposure in post.  For some reason the shadows are quite noisy, even at native ISOs.  This is shooting in C4K Prores so it's not a codec issue.

20 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Some first impressions of the G9II; finally starting to shoot with it but will have my first very demanding shoot this weekend.  I did some filming at a worship conference early this week.

Image is thick and grades well.  Lowlight is clean up to 3200 ISO and gets very noisy very fast.  So far I shot on the super efficient mp4 4k 72mbps.  When really pushing ISO at 6400 and 12,800 image seems to soften.  This might not happen once I try the all-i codecs that have substantially higher bitrates.

One thing I noticed, this camera has hybrid PDAF and Contrast-detect AF.  At high ISOs the PDAF seems to turn off or become severely reduced...i start to get autofocus pulsing and it is not as responsive.  It is not HORRIBLE and is still likely better than a gh5, but its not the snappy reliable PDAF that this camera normally operates at.  I need to do more extensive testing, btu it seems up to around ISO 2500 or 3200 you can expect good AF performance, but seems to worsen from there.

I will be shooting a big concert-style christian event this weekened and the venue has lots of contrasty DMX lighting which looks beautiful but is def a lower light scenereo.  I am toying with shooting in CineD V2 in lowlight.  What seems to happen is when I shoot in a flat 709 PP, I can lower my ISO and get a comparable exposure.  I know that LOG needs a higher ISO in lowlight bc its capturing a much wider dynamic range...and once you grade LOG if its exposed well the noise differences vanish.  But with CINEd V2 i can lower my ISO probably 1 to 1 1/2 stops and get a good exposure.  Im thinking in terms of how the sensor behaves, it would allow me to more frequently keep the ISO at below 3200 which in tern means keeping good autofocus performance since it seems to again worsen above 3200 ISO.  I am also thinking that since the picture profile will be more contrasty, if i need to crank my ISO ever the autofocus would be better because it is analyzing a more contrasty image.  I think it will still grade well; it is still going to be 10 bit and i suppose the extra V-LOG DR is not terribly necessary in low light.  Plus, the codec is still 10 bit so colors should manage well; i would run the footage through the same node tree i used for Nikon Z6 Flat 8 bit, which basically is modified CSTs in/out of Davinci Wide gamut with modifications to artificlaly smooth highlight rolloff.

Just a note to say that it would probably be worth doing some tests ahead of the event.

Situations like this involve many variables and most often people don't consider all of them because they don't do any methodical tests.  You are assuming that the AF will work differently between different picture profiles, but I would suggest the AF would be operating on the image before the picture profile is applied, so it shouldn't matter...  but, once again, you should test this to confirm.

Another thing to consider is if you can push the shutter angle to 270 degrees or even 360 degrees.  If it's a worship setting then making the footage seem a bit more surreal might be appropriate, and you can get another half or full-stop of exposure this way.

You should also test NR in post - it's not ideal but it might give a better result overall considering none of your scenarios are operating in the cameras ideal operating range.  I've done a lot of shooting with cameras at/beyond their capabilities and when you're pushing things you're trading off the drawbacks of each strategy.

40 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

Also the crop zoom function is so cool. Turns my little DJI 15mm 1.7 into a 30-40mm FF equiv. Just wish I could map the crop zoom to the lenses focus wheel when in af

Digital zoom is definitely an underrated feature of these higher resolution cameras.

On my GH5 I used the 2x punch-in on my 17.5mm F0.95 to get 35mm and 70mm FOVs, and on my GX85 I used it with the 14mm F2.5 pancake lens to get 31mm and 62mm FOVs in a pocketable form-factor.

The crop function on the GH7 is different and a bit more restrictive.  You get continuous zooming, but only to the point where the resolution you've chosen is at/near 1:1 crop into the sensor.  So, if you've got the 14mm lens on there and you're shooting in C4K, you enable the feature and it pops up a box on the screen saying "14mm" and you can zoom in more and more by pushing or holding a button and it goes from 14 - 15 -16 - 17mm, but it won't let you go further.  If you're in 1080p mode then it goes from 14mm to 38mm.
Conveniently, if you disable the mode then it goes back to 14mm but if you re-enable it then it goes back to whatever zoom you were at previously, so it's easy to set a zoom level you like and then jump in and out of that FOV.

My testing didn't indicate any IQ issues with it, in 24p mode anyway, so I think it's probably downscaling from a full sensor read-out.

Not only is it really good for getting more FOVs from primes, but it's also great in extending the long end of your zooms too.

On 1/6/2026 at 2:26 AM, Jahleh said:

Appreciate the long reply and blunt reply start to my own blunt message before😀 Part of the reason my HDR grades are looking better to me might be explained by Macbook Pro having so good HDR display and accurate display color space P3-ST 2084 for grading in Rec.2020 ST2084 1000 nits timeline in Resolve.

For SDR it has been a bit of a shit show in macOS, whether to use Rec.709-A, Rec.709 (Scene) or just Rec.709 gamma 2.4, and then wonder whether to set the MacBooks display to default Apple XDR Display (P3-1600 nits) or to HDTV Video (BT.709-BT.1886) which should be Rec.709 gamma 2.4 I believe, but makes the display much darker. 

My advice is to forget about "accuracy".  I've been down the rabbit-hole of calibration and discovered it's actually a mine-field not a rabbit hole, and there's a reason that there are professionals who do this full-time - the tools are structured in a way that deliberately prevents people from being able to do it themselves.

But, even more importantly, it doesn't matter.  You might get a perfect calibration, but as soon as your image is on any other display in the entire world then it will be wrong, and wrong by far more than you'd think was acceptable.  Colourists typically make their clients view the image in the colour studio and refuse to accept colour notes when viewed on any other device, and the ones that do remote work will setup and courier an iPad Pro to the client and then only accept notes from the client when viewed on the device the colourist shipped them.

It's not even that the devices out there aren't calibrated, or even that manufacturers now ship things with motion smoothing and other hijinx on by default, it's that even the streaming architecture doesn't all have proper colour management built in so the images transmitted through the wires aren't even tagged and interpreted correctly.

On 1/6/2026 at 2:26 AM, Jahleh said:

The other part could very well be what you wrote, that squeezing the cameras DR into the display space DR is not easy. From Canon 550D up to GH5 4k 8 bit Rec.709 I remember grading felt easier, image looked as good or bad as it was shot, as there was not much room to correct it. But from GH5 5k 10bit H.265 HLG onwards things have gotten more complicated, as you have more room to try to do different things to the image.

Here's an experiment for you.

Take your LOG camera and shoot a low-DR scene and a high-DR scene in both LOG and a 709 profile.  Use the default 709 colour profile without any modifications.

Then in post take the LOG shot and try and match both shots to their respective 709 images manually using only normal grading tools (not plugins or LUTs).
Then try and just grade each of the LOG shots to just look nice, using only normal tools.

If your high-DR scene involves actually having the sun in-frame, try a bunch of different methods to convert to 709.  Manufacturers LUT, film emulation plugins, LUTs in Resolve, CST into other camera spaces and use their manufacturers LUTs etc.

On 1/6/2026 at 2:26 AM, Jahleh said:

Sorry about giving the impression of using the headlamps only as they were intended, in the head. Usually we have two headlamps rigged to trees to softly light the whole point of interest area from two angles. A third one used as an ambient light for the background is even better and can generate some moody backgrounds, instead of complete darkness. The amount of light in the headlamps is adjustable too, as too brightly lit subjects won’t look any good. In grading it can be then decided whether to black out the background completely and give more focus to the subject.

Gotcha.  I guess the only improvement is to go with more light sources but have them dimmer, or to turn up the light sources and have them further away.  The inverse-square law is what is giving you the DR issues.

On 1/6/2026 at 2:26 AM, Jahleh said:

In that context shooting NRaw has worked pretty well, overexpose below clipping point and bring it down in post, maybe lift the shadows a bit and include NR. The GH7 should have somewhat similar DR than Z6iii and ZR, but for some unknown reason my grading skills can't get as good results. Of course it's also GH7 H.265 vs NRaw or R3D. In normal, less challenging scenario, there is not that big of a difference between GH7 and NRaw, but the difference is there, nevertheless.

That's like comparing two cars, but one is stuck in first gear.  Compare N-RAW with Prores RAW (or at least Prores HQ) on the GH7.

I'm not saying it'll be as good, but at least it'll be a logical comparison, and your pipeline will be similar so your grading techniques will be applicable to both and be less of a variable in the equation.

On 1/6/2026 at 2:26 AM, Jahleh said:

I’ve actually downloaded that book back in the day when you brought up the subject in another thread. Just scrolled through 1st half of it again. Very interesting subject. I wonder if more camera forum people were into HiFI and big display technology too (not just monitors), would it make people more interested from where the look their end results, be it video or photos. 

People interested in technology are not interested in human perception.  

Almost everyone interested in "accuracy" will either avoid such a book out of principle, or will die of shock while reading it.  The impression that I was left with after I read it was that it's amazing that we can see at all, and that the way we think about the technology (megapixels, sharpness, brightness, saturation, etc) is so far away from how we see that asking "how many megapixels is the human eye" is sort-of like asking "What does loud purple smell like?".

Did you get to the chapter about HDR?  I thought it was more towards the end, but could be wrong.

On 1/6/2026 at 2:26 AM, Jahleh said:

To my eyes very bright HDR videos, that most people nowadays post straight from their phones to social media just burn the eye balls out. Bluntly put it looks like shit. I have had a proper 4k (not UHD) HDR projector about 6 years (contrast ratio about 40 000:1 and it uses tone mapping for HDR)), watched good amount of SDR and HDR movies, series and own content on it, and to my eyes well graded HDR always has more information than well graded SDR and is more pleasing to the eyes to watch. This is also something I try to pursue with my gradings, as 99,9% is for my own use, viewed on the big screen, or on the worst case scenario on the tiny 65" OLED. Before the good HDR projector I had many cheap SDR projectors (contrast ratio about 2000:1 at best) and grading SDR for them was easy, as you could not see shit in the shadows anyway because of the projector contrast limitations.

Yes - the HDR videos on social media look like rubbish and feel like you're staring into the headlights of a car.

This is all for completely predictable and explainable reasons..  which are all in the colour book.

I mentioned before that the colour pipelines are all broken and don't preserve and interpret the colour space tags on videos properly, but if you think that's bad (which it is) then you'd have a heart attack if you knew how dodgy/patchy/broken it is for HDR colour spaces.

I don't know how much you know about the Apple Gamma Shift issue (you spoke about it before but I don't know if you actually understand it deeply enough) but I watched a great ~1hr walk-through of the issue and in the end the conclusion is that because the device doesn't know enough about the viewing conditions under which the video is being watched, the idea of displaying an image with any degree of fidelity is impossible, and the gamma shift issue is a product of that problem.

Happy to dig up that video if you're curious.  Every other video I've seen on the subject covered less than half of the information involved.