kye

@Amro Othman yes, the differences in those two images are significant, for lens tint at least. One thing I would caution on is that colour shifts can often occur in camera (or in colour profiles / conversions when processing in post). I have tried replicating colour science across cameras on many occasions and it is very common to process different luminance values in different ways. For example, the old orange/teal grade pushes mids and highlights warmer and shadows cooler, but also many film-look processes desaturate extreme highlights and shadows to create clean and blacks. The list of common processing tricks goes on and on. To indicate how prevalent it is, someone did a colour accuracy comparison and Sony cameras were the most accurate and yet many other brands with less accurate colours are perceived to have nicer colours, so effectively, distortion of colour accuracy is not only common but desirable by the market. Doing a direct comparison with identical exposure would be very interesting to see.

I saw the image above and thought how nice an image it was, then clicked through to the post and saw it was a Minolta 55/1.7 and thought it was even better, then I read the cost.... these old lenses really are something! Nice images

The GH5 shoots 4K 10-bit 422 h265 and 6K 10-bit 420 h265. I also use a laptop for this purpose, despite having a GH5 and shooting the above mentioned h265 modes.... I feel your pain.

Yeah. I've noticed a pattern of cinematographers saying that they got the mini to do a few action shots or whatever and then in doing testing they discovered the mini was really great and ended up using it for the whole production. These comments made me wonder why you wouldn't just do that as kind of a default, and only go for a larger model if there was a specific reason.

Is this file format a new format? I got in touch with BM about getting better performance with playing 10-bit 5K h265 files from the GH5 and they said that AMD hardware acceleration for h265 was newly implemented (at that time) and may not have been optimised yet, so maybe there is further optimisation that might be done?

Yeah, to me the main price is the size and form-factor, not the $$$$, but it depends on what you shoot.

I was going to say that the reviews I saw of the a73 said it had as good low light performance as the a7s2, but I guess if you're going external then they're not equivalent.

There's definitely a use-case for having a camera to capture a signal as evidence, but I'd suggest that one with a wireless connection that is continuously uploading would also be handy. People that do the wrong thing aren't afraid to confiscate the evidence of it. What's that saying... once you've crossed the line it's hard not to go all the way.

You didn't, I was just having a little fun while also making a point. I think that the RAW vs compressed comparison doesn't align with still images at all because of the way that compressed stills handle DR. Compressed stills clip the DR of the camera, which is why many people shoot RAW. Personally I think that's blindingly stupid when it's just as easy to make a JPG from the whole DR of the RAW image, like any free image editor can do but somehow cameras costing thousands of dollars can't do. If shooting log h264/h265 cut off a couple of stops of DR then we'd all be lusting over RAW and having t-shirts printed about it as well, but thankfully, we're not.

That reminds me of (IIRC) National Geographic which doesn't permit any manipulation of the content of an image. To verify this you would submit your final images (with all the cool colour grading, cropping, etc you did) and also the RAW file and they would compare the RAW file with the edit to ensure you didn't photoshop out powerlines or whatever. It makes sense that the edited version would be the one published but the RAW capture would be retained to prove the content of the output. I definitely agree that digital video will gradually descend into fakery, in much the same way that photography has done with things like Mariah Carey being photoshopped to basically be a different person. The only difference between still images and video is processing power, and things like Resolves Face Refinement is just the beginning. It's interesting to use film as the proof, although if digital is the source then the manipulation could be done before printing to the film, so tech like @KnightsFan mentions would be required.

I have no idea what you're talking about... I was once waiting for some friends outside a movie theatre and a couple of people walked in carrying something that looked very heavy, and after walking over to the front desk and very carefully setting it down they had a quick chat with the staff before leaving again. A couple of the rather young staff then tried to lift the object, but one girl wasn't strong enough to lift her end, so got someone else to come and help carry it inside. Bored and curious, I went and asked the staff what the box was, and it was a roll of projection film being delivered for a movie that was about to be released. I remember it being about 1m tall, 1m wide, and about 30cm thick, with very sturdy looking handles on each side.

Many years ago there was this thing called FILM. It came in rolls that only lasted for MINUTES. You paid to buy it and paid again to develop it. It wasn't even REUSABLE. Madness!! But seriously, if you're having a hard time with RAW file sizes then RAW isn't for you. In fact, RAW isn't for most of the people on this forum. A blind test comparing RAW to Prores would pretty quickly show that compressed formats are good enough for almost everything.

As affordable cameras continually raise the high-waterline on bit-rates, are we getting to the point where the cost of media necessitates bringing back some of the frugality of film? I crunched some very rough numbers, and the cost of SSD is about 10% of the cost of 16mm film for 4K30 in 3:1 RAW, which will be more like 40% of the cost for 8K, but that's re-usable so it's not that direct a comparison. Of course, CFast and other media is more expensive, but you can dump footage to a cheaper storage medium every few hours on set, so that's relatively re-usable too. How are you folks shooting 4K RAW or 6K RAW and salivating over 8K RAW approaching your media management?

Cool article. One part that stood out to me was "During my initial tests I found that the Meike primes performed better optically in almost all areas." That's quite encouraging as the Veydras was optically excellent.

I'm happy to upload a couple of random C-Log shots from my XC10 if anyone is interested....

Nice work on your edit. The image holds up quite well, and the music was definitely a good choice

Thank you. That's probably the best source of high-quality colour grading reference images yet posted online!

I suspect they're the same too, but my point was that I couldn't find any evidence either way. It does make sense though, considering the various commercial aspects and the timeline. Ah, good point. They were for MFT mount, but that doesn't mean the optical design isn't compatible with a larger flange distance or with larger sensors. Other brands like Rokinon make the same lenses in MFT and DSLR mounts, essentially just adding a spacer the same way a dumb adapter is just a spacer. This is the 85mm Veydra: The coloured parts are the MFT sensor and the grey is the extra size of a S35 sensor, so that optical design appears to cover S35 relatively well. The other focal lengths aren't as high performance but they seem to cover it. This is a comparison between a Zeiss and the Veydra: Note that the Zeiss is graphed over a FF sensor (the X axis goes to 20) whereas the Veyrda is only S35 (X axis goes to 14). However, of note is that the Zeiss has degrading performance out to 10 (MFT sensor size) but then stays a lot more constant out to FF, and is of sufficient performance that these are actually used on FF sensors by real cinematographers. Extrapolating this principle, the Veydra may or may not have performance beyond the S35 sensor, so it may cover FF? The other Veydra focal lengths have significantly worse performance at the edges of the S35 sensor, so aren't as likely to cover FF, or at least with any quality: Regardless, the S35 Meiki lenses may have the same optical formulas, although the FF ones probably don't.

Hahaha, yes, that's true lol. When I was looking at them some time ago the theory was that they were the same designs, but I couldn't find any real comparisons where someone had both of them and shot the same scene or compared them directly. Maybe there has been some new stuff since though?

Have YOU ever had corner shadows?? I don't think so!! IF you ever did then you'd understand the IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENT to get AS MUCH advice AS POSSIBLE!!! This is a COMPLETELY NATURAL RESPONSE!!! THE HUMANITY!!!!!1!!!1!!

I still see focus issues regularly on youtube channels that feature vlogging type content. Sure, we have DPAF and PDAF, but if the camera decides to do a beautifully-smooth speed-controlled phase-detect focus-pull to the wrong f*cking thing, then it's still a wasted shot. Watch some of the reviews of the new Sony vlogging camera to see people talking about how it has a new focus mode that is far better for things like product shots, and remember that when someone says that a new product is better then it means that the old one had issues that they wanted to be fixed. Luckily, if you're holding the camera while filming yourself, manual focus combined with an aperture setting that isn't too ridiculous can fix those focus issues! Besides, at this point if you're a vlogger who only cares about content and want the filming process to essentially leave you alone, then there are many smaller sensor cameras to just crank out content. The vloggers that want to have larger sensors and larger apertures are also somewhat likely to be interested in the MF aesthetic.

That is super cool!! I'm really looking forward to seeing you get this up and running It makes sense now why you said you'd be mounting the sensor onto the lens. In this sense, maybe your mounting method could be to mount the mount to an adjustable setup, so you can easily and accurately adjust the sensor to the right flange distance. Ie, if you put a couple of nuts on the opposite side of the board to the sensor, then had the thing mount onto some bolts, then by rotating either the nuts or the bolts (depending on how you built it) then you could screw the sensor closer or further away to lock it in. This could be a relatively easy way to have a secure mount that is easy to get exact infinity focus on. Do you know how good the RAW signal is? If it's a half-decent sensor and the RAW is RAW then it should be pretty close to the RAW from any other camera with a half-decent sensor.

I've looked at the filter range (although I haven't actually shot with one) and thought that they all seemed quite strong. Maybe it was that the sample images all have direct light-sources in them. Anyway, depending on the shot I would have thought that you'd want the freedom to add more or less to kind of balance out the look. Especially if you're using a lens wide-open as well as closing it down, which can provide a wide range of contrast and resolution. In this sense, getting a 1/8 might be a good investment as if you later added a 1/4 then you could use 0, 1/8, 1/4, or 3/8, making it a very flexible setup.

I think if we're talking about guerrilla film making then it could also be Han Dheld.

Yes, how to remain unscathed after it is released is the challenge, and Banksy did come to mind when I was reading your post. I guess there's a few options: Use your real name, go under the radar while filming then risk the fallout after it is released Use a production company / name and don't put your real name in the credits - they might still find out who you are but you can always deny it while people you know and film circles can "all know it's you" Use a production company / name and take measures to ensure that no-one can trace it to you, knowing that ultimately the fame and glory associated with that name will not get added to your own Obviously I don't know Banksy, but my completely uneducated guess would be that he/she/they would suggest that you create the alter-ego with as close to zero links to yourself as possible, and use that anonymity to pursue as honest and uninhibited an agenda as you can, and take payment from the work in terms of reward for authenticity and contribution to humanity. Of course, Banksy is also very likely a hugely successful individual independently of their Banksy persona, so they don't need the money or fame, whereas I'm sure you probably could do with a bit more of that (unless you're secretly a famous rich person hanging out here talking about consumer cameras for some reason!). Of course, there's always bitcoin....