kye

Look great! I think the lighting and colour is particularly good. In fact, it doesn't look like video at all, which is something that very few people are able to do these days, even if they're trying to make something cinematic.

Technology really is wonderful, I'd just rather they use it for better pixels rather than having so many of them. However, I'll bet that they'll take the doubling of light gathering and just use it to deliver more pixels of the same quality we have them at now.

I don't know why I read the headlines any more. This isn't the first time I've misinterpreted one that turned out to include a completely false statement of fact. Maybe somewhere in the back of my mind I thought technical discussions on a forum such as this would have the slightest modicum of filtration from the "post truth" reality the rest of the world now seems to live in. I guess not! *sigh*

I had a closer look at the picture, and yeah, it's not what I thought. Funnily enough, I thought "dual layer" meant two layers. No. Those words in the tweet are complete bullshit. There is already two (or more) layers, and they're making it three (or more), but it's still a single sensor. They've been gradually taking things that were taking up real estate on the front of the sensor (and therefore blocking light) and putting them behind the photo site for years. This is an incremental upgrade that some numpty decided was the ultimate breakthrough and somehow none of the previous ones mattered or count in this "FIRST DUAL LAYER" spasm they posted. I thought the implication that 'one became two' implied a second photodiode under the first, presumably with the ability to be operated independently. Sadly, no.

I disagree - it will benefit all camera types. This is because the second layer is in the same area of the sensor, and could be used to capture at a different amount of gain, which could then be used to extend the dynamic range of every pixel. Imagine a Sony sensor where it could have identical performance but use a second layer to extend DR by many stops...

My GH5 says....

As magnifying glasses, camera phones are very useful, yes..

Well, one thing is for sure - the eye is absolutely not 576Mp!

Haha, I drop into the S5 thread on page 38 and find someone talking about Panasonic AF with adapted lenses... it certainly sounded like complaining 🙂 We should have a swear jar for when people start sentences with "If X made a camera with ...... " All I think when someone says that is why stop there? If you're going to make statements completely disconnected with reality then you may as well say "If Apple made a camera that supported apps, but had a FF sensor and Alexa DR and Colour Science and Phantom frame rates and it was the size of a GoPro and have it pair with the iPhone for social media and streaming and cost $12, I'd definitely buy it". 😆😆😆

1080p EVF? It would give you another point of contact too, so steadier shots and camera movement. If you didn't want the Canon Cripple Hammer or the Sony Tax then just give up - if you want something done right then do it yourself.

Some nice lenses in there... As a ~100% video shooter, and one who is aspiring to make images that look like cinema and not at all like professional spec-driven videographers, I find that I'm narrowing in more and more on lenses that are high resolution but not sharp. I'm still trying to understand what it is and how to get it, but I'm gradually making progress. My latest purchase is a Tokina RMC 28-70 f3.5-4.5 M42 to mate with my GX85 and m42 SB. That will make it a 44-109mm equivalent. I'm planning to use it as an experimental walk-around zoom, and am hoping for a softer rendition with large complex flares. I've found that my GF3 is too soft with any lens except the 12-35/2.8, the GX85 is too sharp (even on 1080p timelines) unless it's got a lens with some softening on it, and the GH5 in 200Mbps 1080p ALL-I mode is pretty darn neutral and the files are strong enough to grade however you like them. I also have a number of vintage 50mm lenses, and have more in transit, so am planning on a head-to-head with them too. Currently my Helios 58mm F2 copies are the clear winners, with their soft and almost painterly rendering. My interest in the 28-70 is getting something with a similar rendering.

I'm not familiar with either of these, but to me it's about the control wheel. Everything else is secondary.

Addendum, I got my keypad working with some custom software to enable macros and it's a great compliment to the Speed Editor.. Post here:

WINNING! TLDR; The combo of a eBay keypad and the USB Overdrive utility (for Mac) is a winner with Resolve, and likely other NLEs too. Longer version.... My portable editing setup now includes the BM Speed Editor, the Beatstep controller and Beatstep Resolve Edition software, and now this little custom keypad. The keypad and USBOverdrive allows macros, so you hit one key and it sends the computer a string of keyboard commands. In combination with the keyboard shortcuts in your NLE, you can make it do pretty cool stuff. In the Cut page, the Speed Editor works in a certain way which creates limitations, and Resolve has a few bugs (in my version at least) that also limit things. I have set keys that highlight the current clip, trim start/end to playhead, then unselect all clips. Or similar but splitting the clip. Or similar but ripple deleting the clip. These are mostly workarounds to the peculiarities of Resolve and the Cut page and Speed Editor, but I think it's an excellent addition to using it. I can navigate using the wheel on the Speed Editor, hit a key and trigger a macro, and then fine-tune on the Speed Editor if further refinement is required, and then keep going. I had some, let's say, distracting, workarounds that I had to do in order to perform these functions involving not only having to take my hands off the controller, but also triggering my frustration with BM at not building things in more flexible ways, which really took me out of the zone!

I'd suggest that you investigate controller options for FCPX. I say this because: You tried Resolve before and it didn't take The Speed Editor is designed for the Cut page, and while certain things work in the Edit page a lot (most?) functions don't work there, or don't work in the way you'd predict / want The Cut page seems to do rather odd things sometimes (maybe this will be fixed in future versions, but I'll believe it when I see it) I have a love/annoyance relationship with Resolve and with BM. On the one hand, the power of the colour page is unquestionable and the sheer quantity of features in the other pages is undeniable. On the other hand, BM are a very take-it-or-leave-it company: they have a way they expect you to work and even though they could alter features to let you work a different way they keep the features so they work their way and make zero sense any other way they are a hardware company first and "cripple" Resolve to push you down the path of buying their hardware they are focused on the big studios and the "little guys" are the poor cousin who isn't well catered for I'm starting to really get acquainted with the controller and my work workflows and editing style now and I'm actually contemplating starting to hack together a controller setup of my own to "bypass" some of the Resolve restrictions. Specifically, Resolve has a number of UI features that can't be assigned to Keyboard Shortcuts, or are usable in one page but not the other (eg, Cut page vs Edit page). I'm pondering if it's worth my time to look into developing custom macros or whatever to get around these.

People who buy petrol definitely include a subset that would riot in the streets. I'm not sure if the same can be said for anamorphic lens owners! I'm once again reminded of the saying "what the market can bear".. it's not what the market would like, it's what the market can bear. ie, it's the absolute edge of whatever you can get away with!

Zero focus anamorphic is the easiest number of focuses (can that word be a noun?) but sadly the GoPro is definitely letting the side down in that combo! It really depends on how you're using it. If you're shooting a thing and then offloading that footage immediately before needing to shoot again then it's fine. That's how most people use cameras, but not how most people use their phones, which seem to gradually just store more and more footage and photos as they take them over time. People like anamorphic for different reasons, but just like anything, you should focus on what you value and let others do the same. So in that sense, if you like the look, then 1.15 might be fine. I don't really care for anamorphic flares myself, but am attracted by the stretched bokeh as I find it gives a slightly surreal feeling having the background blurred more vertically than horizontally. It's another factor in getting more depth and background separation. For that reason I'd prefer a 2X anamorphic setup that didn't have the horizontal flares, but to each their own, as they say. I have been monitoring my bank accounts and noticed that you weren't depositing large sums of money into them. Come to think of it, it seems that NO ONE is doing that. Can you return bank accounts as well as crystal balls? 🙂

More playing around.... CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI Alexa / LogC -> ARRI Alexa LUT (worse match) CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI LogC -> Fujifilm 3513DI LUT (worse match) CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI LogC -> Kodak 2383 LUT (worse match) CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI LogC -> Kodak 2393 LUT (worse match) I also tried a bunch of CST / LUT combinations, but none yielded any promise.

"Version 3" Started again, and used a few global tools to get closer, before employing the selective tools. I also backed away from accuracy to get the "spirit" rather than an absolute match. I smoothed out the grade, trying to ensure it didn't break the image, like the last one did. Here's that grade applied to some real footage. At first I thought that maybe there was some luma vs sat action going on, so I used a node in HSL mode and using the channel mixer I tried mixing in the luma channel to the sat, and vice-versa, but neither generated anything useful. Then I tried using a YUV node, which made it into the final grade. YUV is a strange colour space, where the U and V stretch the vectorscope in two directions, and the Alexa is skewed a little towards amplifying one of those directions. This is a great transformation as it is applied to the whole colour space and therefore does not break the image. Then I applied another colour warper: This time paying careful attention to smooth out the transitions. After the last one breaking the image, I also wondered if I needed to desaturate the transition into pure white, but it turned out that it wasn't necessary. This is pretty subtle stuff, and I'm not really sure if anyone would bother with it TBH. I'm happy to share it if anyone is interested, generating a LUT is very easy. Really, it's a testament to how good the Panasonic colour profiles are to begin with, considering that in comparison to straight "correct" 709 they're both massively far away from that.

Does anyone have any tips for securely mounting the GX85 to a tripod? The screw is right at the front of the body, and if I put a tripod plate with a thin rubberised layer on it, the plate just tips up and the plate doesn't get tight, so the camera can rotate loose on the screw. From the manual, the screw is #40: I'd really like to use it with my Peak Design Camera Clip, but that requires a strong mount for the camera. Thanks!

Since my last post in this thread, I now own the Speed Editor for Resolve and am loving it. My earlier statement proved to be correct - the critical feature is the scroll wheel. However, I think there are three main reasons to consider a control surface, depending on what you're doing and what NLE you have. Navigating using the scroll wheel The scroll wheel is super intuitive to use when editing, and for this purpose I think the ergonomics are important. The Speed Editor (BMSE) wheel is heavy and has momentum, so I find that I use it a lot by flicking it and having it spin on its own accord. This means that you can have almost frame-level accuracy and yet be able to quickly navigate the timeline at the same time. A wheel that was just a clicky-control would be far less useful in this sense I think. Editing using the scroll wheel Probably the killer feature of the SE is the ability to hold down a button (eg, to control the out point of a clip) and move the wheel to adjust it. The SE allows you to control in points, out points, allows you to slip clips, to roll edit points, etc, all by holing down a button and scrolling using the wheel. It also has other things like being able to control the size of the viewing window, once again, by holding it down and using the wheel to adjust it. This method of working is super intuitive and a really slick feature. Editing using the buttons The SE has buttons that access functions that you can't map to keyboard keys. This is a bit of a cheat from BM, but its there, so isn't to be discounted. I would evaluate your options above based on those criteria, as they're the ones that really provide the value of a control surface, in my experience.

Great stuff! Lots of attention to detail here, and great casting on the "Walter" actor!! Thanks for posting, I really enjoyed it 🙂

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!!

I'm not optimistic about a Chinese company creating a Prores recorder. For a start, Prores is licensed, and secondly, the collective "wisdom" (ie, mass delusion) is that the h256 and RAW codecs are the future and that Prores is the past and is no good. Thirdly, one of the advantages of Prores was that it was a great intermediate codec for editing, but now computers are getting more powerful and so that's less of a concern for things like 4K footage, which the new Macs will eat for breakfast before they've even woken up. I also like the screen on the GX85, the tilting arrangement is the same as on the XC10, which has some of the nicest ergonomics in any camera ever made I suspect. It's great for shooting, but less good for selfies, obviously. I'm curious to hear about how these lenses pair with PDAF, although I suspect that they'll be brilliant. The focusing speed of these is some of the fastest available, and paired with a camera that can reliably direct it that should be a winning combination. Great stuff! Both the music and the visuals.. I've written electronic music on and off since 1992 and appreciate the mix. In terms of the visuals, I'd suggest watching your WB - in some shots the prevalence of green had pushed the neutral colour of the tree trunks towards magenta. However, instead of correcting that, I'd suggest actually going the other way and accentuating it. The music suggests a very "other worldly" feel, and it paired wonderfully with a couple of slightly abstract shots (I'm thinking particularly of the shots taken down low with the flowers in silhouette and the town in the background slightly overexposed). This use of overexposure and pushing the colour balance slightly off is used frequently in movies for places with harsh conditions like deserts or when the sun is too strong etc. The Chronicles of Riddick comes to mind. Also, it looks like you shifted to another more vintage lens when the light was getting lower? or you opened up the aperture, revealing more character. That also lends itself to the altered state vibe too. You could even experiment with blurring the edges of the frame slightly and creating your own slight vintage feel. Keep it up and don't be afraid to push the envelope!