kye

Absolutely. Any shot you took is better than every shot you didn't. I also rate ergonomics pretty highly in equipment as I think it frees up the emotional energy we would spend being annoyed and allows us to better get into the zone and be more creative, improving composition and the other things that no amount of bit-depth or bit-rate can compensate for

What do you miss and what made you change? In all my camera researching I came across very little of the Olympus cameras, and after Dave Altizer reviewed their more recent flagship it seems like they have some great cameras but no-one is talking about them. Some people were trying to get me to go Olympus but I went the GH5 because of the 10-bit internal, which is pretty hard to beat for flexibility in post.

True. @Geoff CB One of the things that I see quite often in grading workflows is the "find anything distracting in the shot and neutralise it" step. In this case maybe a power window that desaturates the orange to match the overall orange tone and something that shifts the blue towards green to match that tone and also desaturates it so that it doesn't stand out.. Of course, here we are harshly judging a couple of shots you might have just done a very quick grade on!

The Pentax Q has a pretty gnarly crop-factor.. and probably needs all the help it can get with fast lenses for low light exposure!

I guess I should have clarified that an MFT + fast lens setup is cheaper than a FF + prime setup. It's the FF mania that makes that platform more expensive overall. Once again, there are many many variables, and we are not considering them, but on the whole those other variables total up to be much more significant in the choice of platform than just low light, with the exception of extreme low-light where you need the FF option. We can disappear down the rabbit hole of FF vs MFT, but we've all been there and done that. Instead, my point was that MFT can be a good option with its own advantages which FF has not yet matched/surpassed for all users with all sets of requirements.

A real-world review of the Panasonic G7 from a film-maker (as opposed to an equipment reviewer): Plus you can see actual narrative work from it on his channel too.

One thing that is interesting is that they didn't cover the effects of sensor size on DoF vs exposure value. For example my Voigtlander f0.95 MFT lenses are faster than something like a f1.2 FF lens, and they are if we're talking exposure value where they're brighter, but they're not if we're talking about shallow DoF where they have the same DoF as a FF F2 lens. This gives a very interesting advantage for my GH5 which is that I can shoot in low light conditions where an F1 exposure value is required (especially considering the GH5 isn't dual-ISO and not that great in low-light) but I only have to focus with a DoF equivalent to an F2 lens, which is far more manageable in practical terms. The video spends time talking about the limitations of how to work with such a shallow DoF and most of the time it's a liability in terms of limiting actors movements, having to film things backwards in order to nail focus, etc. Yes, the OOF areas give it a surreal and very interesting aesthetic, but in the context of getting usable exposure in a low-light scenario a smaller sensor is better. Also, the price of the f0.95 MFT lenses is a fraction of the price of F1 or faster FF lenses, they're smaller, lighter, etc etc. If you wanted to do extreme low-light shooting today I think that you have to go the Sony FF + prime lens route and use the high ISO performance of the camera, but if you only need low-light and not extreme low-light then a modern MFT camera with a F0.95 lens can also be a practical choice. My GH5 + f0.95 lens combination can see better in low-light than I can, and I have much better night vision than most other people.

A few thoughts: I shoot my GH5 on auto-ISO and on aperture-priority mode (which varies the shutter) but what @Video Hummus says is true and you will get un-natural looking motion in some situations if you do that. You would be better off shooting more manually as he has suggested. I suspect the problem you are having with the clip you linked to is the colour? You mentioned that "there is an incredible sun and red earth" and the footage does look quite yellow. If you can post a still image with the colours you would like to match this clip to then I can give you some advice about how to match the colours I shoot in available light and sometimes there are difficult lighting conditions that require some work in post to adjust for. The clip you posted looks like the white balance may be off, which could be caused by many things, like the sun shining through smoke in the air, etc. Learning to adjust white balance in post on clips shot in difficult lighting is a skill that is much much harder than it seems and took me a long time to get good at it.

Great video by one of Andrews favourite YT channels: It's 50 minutes, but when it ended I was so entertained I thought it would only have been half-way through and I would have loved for them to go deeper still. Great stuff, and answered many many questions people have, and many of the questions people don't know enough to ask! The sample footage from the f0.7 lens was particularly interesting.

I thought it was cool. TBH I can barely watch equipment reviews any more as I find them too formulaic and too dull. Yours are on the better end of that spectrum, along with presenters like Kai W who keeps things light and entertaining. I'm coming from a different perspective. I'm not 'in love' with the anamorphic look and I find it to be much more hype than substance. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely salivate over gorgeous images, Peaky Blinders, The Crown, The Expanse etc all look spectacular. Then when lens reviews come out and they rave about this anamorphic look, followed by minutes of talking-head footage not shot with the lens that may as well be them reading the spec sheet, then 20s of derivative B-roll with the lens that whispers "anamorphic look" while simultaneously screaming "EITHER I DIDN'T GET PAID ENOUGH TO SHOOT NICE LOOKING FOOTAGE OR I DON'T KNOW HOW". These videos are basically useless because: I can read the spec sheet for myself thank you The amateur home b-roll of un-lit, un-composed, barely-graded footage does nothing to show me the potential of the lens What I liked about this video is that it wasn't the above, it had a go of making something, it held my attention for the whole video, it showed off the anamorphic look far more than most other "I accidentally hit record" sample footage in other reviews. Your videos where you've gone out and shot at sunset or at night are both visually nice and also useful, most don't even make that much effort. Could it have been better? Sure. Could it have been worse? Yes - at least he did something. The name of the channel is "Make Art Now" and it was art - most reviews are the minimum requirements for a pay check. It's art. I can tell because he tried something and some people didn't like it. TBH, that's something that's sorely lacking from YouTube camera discussions.

I suspect it's pretty unique to there, and probably to Silicone Valley (and maybe a few other pockets too). I don't imagine it's like that here in Australia either. It does make sense from a risk perspective though, when you're making an investment the rider who has ridden a horse but fell off badly might still be a better rider than someone who has never ridden before.

It was. Integrity is hard to find and he seems to have it in spades. It's well known in start-up businesses that not every idea works and not every business can sustain itself, and this is taken into account. After having built a business that lasted 9 years there will be a lot of people who will see that achievement and it will help him in the next company he wants to start. Someone who has gone bankrupt once has learned one more lesson about what not to do than someone who has never tried, or has just been lucky.

Pick two or three of those focal lengths and buy quality lenses instead of trying to buy 9 cheap and poor quality ones. Then go film something. Even better yet, buy one really nice lens, then go film things and never look back and never take it off your camera.

I've seen a number of the higher production quality "shows" record the stream from their camera so they get the benefits of being able to do something live, but then get a much higher quality image for when the final thing is published. Obviously that requires transfer of files, editing to replace the compressed version, but it certainly creates a nicer finished product. I don't know what tech they used to do it, but it sure is obvious when they do!

How do you find the Micro vs the P4K in the new 2.6K mode? The new 2.6k mode gives a similar crop factor and many were wondering if the new mode would give the organic look of the Micro and P2K. I picked up a Micro earlier this year myself, and the images certainly are nice, although as @BTM_Pix said, the footage is RAW, but so is the shooting experience!

I think a bunch of people might be a little surprised that the film-makers that feel this the least will be the people who create content in their own home studios. This means YouTube, but also people that create paid content such as courses and other in-house productions behind paywalls. Film-making was a team sport until it wasn't. People might also learn how to get decent audio and video of themselves, although judging from this mornings virtual team meeting in my corporate day-job, maybe not....

Well, this is impressive.. Not many anamorphics make me want the anamorphic look, but this one was a little different. Great video.

Choosing and setting up cameras is possibly the easy part, it's the uploading, distribution and use of the footage that will be challenging. This is for a few reasons: If you're recording a decent amount then the files will be large (an hour of footage is likely to be 25Gb+ from each camera) That can be reduced by compressing the footage at your end before uploading, but that's a lot of exporting so will take hours of render time on any reasonably priced computer Did you want the different angles of the footage to be used in a synchronised way? ie, someone looking at themselves from multiple angles. If so, they will have to find and synchronise the footage themselves, or you will have to do it before uploading. Either way it's a bit of work to align them. On the plus side, if they are only looking at the footage to study their form or for their personal improvement then the angles and lighting and stuff won't matter so much, whereas for the normal way that people shoot (where they want it to look spectacular) then that involves all kinds of other aspects that aren't required of reference footage.

Fantastic! Not only did the sock-reveal hit the beat perfectly, but the fact it stayed serious only extended the enjoyment. The ending was predictable (did you consider the puppet killing the guy?), but it was very well executed. Bravo!

Faster yes... lots of people make similar comments about films in this vein too!

Oh, I don't know... I think it depends on the operator: https://lithub.com/the-painting-that-took-22-years-to-finish/

I love that the BTS is a painting. Oil on canvas has the longest exposure time of any visual medium available I think..

That's quite impressive and certainly shows where the tech can go. Do you know of systems that will work with multiple angles and switch automatically? The Mevo seems good for a plug-n-play home or gaming setup but especially with its 1080p sensor isn't good enough for anything more than that. Something that can have a few HDMI inputs, or even has a few of those integrated cameras that talk to each other would be very interesting.

How are you guys feeling about live switching vs editing? I'm not a very experienced editor by and means, but I know enough to get the impression that live-switching (real-time editing) is a different skillset than editing in an NLE. Also continuity editing multiple angles of the same scene is different to something like a narrative where you might be skipping around a bit in time, so that's another factor.