kye

Obviously you have to get the exposure in the ballpark - what get clipped stays clipped, but you don't have to worry about tiny amounts of flickering. You'll still need to have some kind of auto-exposure to compensate for the light changing. Day-to-night time lapses are really difficult to do well!

It's also worth mentioning that there's a plugin in Resolve that can smooth exposure changes between frames in time lapses. It might be the deflicker one, but I can't remember. I've used it and it worked well, so you don't need to get everything completely perfect in-camera.

h265 is about half the size as equivalent quality h264. So this is equivalent to 400mbps h264.

The resolution doesn't really matter, what kills 360 is the bitrate. If you're cropping into this for a wide angle shot then you'll be taking a 90degree crop, which is 1/4 of the width and let's assume 1/2.5 the height (just for ease of maths). This means that you're using 10% of the total pixels, and 10% of the total bitrate. If the source is 8K then you'll have a 2k crop. Not bad. The problem is that if that 8K was 100mbps, your 2k image will be 10mbps, which is just awful. If the source was 4k but was raw, you'd have a 1k crop, but it would be raw. Which would be the nicer image? 1k raw or 2k 10mbps? Its the bitrate that kills these things, not the resolution.

Wow. It really could be. 8K is great, but I think it's the low bandwidth and bit-depth that have limited other cameras. 200mbps h265 is *very* promising in this regard. This will be one to watch - let's hope that it delivers and that it's easy to use. So many products have the tech spec but the app won't work or makes no sense, etc..

This is the internet. I'm not sure that trust is compatible! (it never was anywhere else either, because the problem with trust is human beings, but never mind that.....)

Yes. Lots of people have issues. See this thread: For me, I have to download Vimeo videos to watch them, so if someone embeds a video and I can't get the "share" URL then I rarely even bother. In my downloading software I can download the full video in 4K in 25% of the duration of the video, but if I try to play it in 4K it stops every 5-10s and buffers for up to a minute. The download test shows that Vimeo has 2-4 times the required bandwidth, I have 2-4 times the bandwidth, but it still can't play. As far as I'm concerned, that's the technical equivalent of not being able to get drunk in a distillery.

Absolutely, subject distance dominates DoF, which is why macro is the only way to get bokeh with a phone. Cool teaser! The aerial shots are particularly impressive - the shots looking down on the plane were really good. I'm thinking you had access to a second light plane from the same organisation? I'm not aware of the performance of the top drones but this seems beyond the reach of those things? I didn't spot any traces of a limited budget or constraints, so that's well done. I see the f0.95 a lot more in this cut. It seemed a little much to me, but that could be because I was looking for it, so who knows - at this point in the conversation any neutral perspective on DoF is completely gone! I'm absolutely with you on DoF and low-light both being advantages of the Voigtlanders (and other lenses this fast) - it's a look that I don't particularly mind, but can be compensated for. It's also relatively easy to degrade a shot in post to match this look, so if you want to stop down sometimes but still get a uniform look then that's possible. Here's a shot from another thread about degrading a modern look to a vintage one. Original side-by-side: Matching Samyang to Lomo: It's not perfect but in an edit it wouldn't be that noticeable, especially as you wouldn't be seeing both at the same time, and also the shot/angle would be different. Interesting about running a 360 degree shutter. It makes sense that if you've got some other factors pushing you into the 'video' look that you compensate by 'overdoing it' on another variable to bring the look back into balance for what you want. Fascinating. His shots appear to be perfectly matched. @Nikkor what are you seeing in the images in the second link? (you have to scroll down a bit). I see subtle differences in the look, but can't tell if they're because the actor is posed differently. I was anticipating doing a test using a still-life to match the images exactly.

Just watched this and it's hilarious, well done! ???

I'm actually a bit conflicted about the GH6. I want it to be great so that it lifts the standard of the industry, but I want it to be mediocre so that I'm not tempted to upgrade! Ironically, no new camera has actually tempted me in any serious way, so it would have to be something truly special.

The first half looked good. Pity it's on Vimeo and is therefore unwatchable

I did some comparisons with the XC10 between the 300mbps 4Kp25 with 50% time-stretch and the ~50mbps 1080p50 and the 4K timestretch killed the 1080 due to bitrate alone, but the GH5 has much better 1080 so i’m not sure. I’ll have to do some tests, but TBH I’ve shot the last couple of trips using only 25p and I didn’t really find any moments when I wished I’d filmed in 60p or 120p. I’m not really a fan of the trendy travel films that are all about special effects without content, and for my own work i’m really just trying to get a sense of what actually happened. The emotional experience of travelling with kids is very different to the feeling of these hyper-produced videos where every shot is a speed-ramp gimbal shot, so it’s more a case of what is right for the project for me. Of course, I might be missing something and not know it, which is why I push myself to try other techniques and explore the potential in features of the equipment. I think there’s a lot of value in learning another genre and then bringing that experience and skill set back to your normal work to be better able to realise your vision. The more you know and all that...

Just watched the trailer and firstly, great looking film, well done! In terms of the look of f0.95, yes it completely suits. It’s funny because I tried it and it made no sense whatsoever in most shots, but then i’m watching your trailer expecting to have the same reaction and it looked completely appropriate. I think the difference is the subject matter. I film my family while travelling and so every people shot is really an environmental portrait because they’re about us being in a particular place. When you’re crafting compositions it’s much more about the subject of the shot, so the relationship between the subject and the surroundings are different, or at least this relationship is portrayed differently through a different approach to compositions. This is very interesting to me, thanks for the prompt to think about it more

I’m still trying to work out when to use the slow-motion modes TBH. I used to shoot 25p a mixture of 60p but have since taken on board @Mako Sports rationale of shooting 25p when something needs sound and 120p otherwise. Of course this mainly applies to sports, but the rationale about needing sound or not seems to have some logic to it. Since then I haven’t worked out how to decide between 4K60, 1080p120, and 1080p60 (which IIRC is 10-bit). These are of course in combination to Resolve and the post-processing that it has, including high-quality upscaling and time-stretching (optical flow and AI) algorithms. What a time to be alive though - having to choose between time-stretching 4K60 to get 4K120 or up-resing 1080p120 or time-stretching and up-resing 1080p60 but getting 10-bit. Just have to think through what I value more and what situations I would use each mode in.

Yes, high ISO performance would be spectacular, which is what I said. I would actually quite like HLG to be available in 60p too. Matching a mixture of HLG and Cine-D footage in grading is an extra step I don't particularly enjoy.

What's interesting to me is that I actually don't really care that much for most of the above improvements.. The dual-gain would be fantastic and the hinge/articulated screen would be nice, but the rest are a bit meh. I would like internal NDs though, that would be sweet.

Anything outdoors on a sunny day should do the trick...

My thoughts go back to those scifi books that talked about enabling your black ice before jacking into the matrix....

I find that the tele lens on the iPhone is no match for the 70-210 F4 and 2x TC on my GH5.

Speaking as one of the spam bots myself (see above) this makes sense, and as a bot who didn't post any spam links, I did always wonder WTH we were doing!

Link is broken.. ?

Great stuff. I wonder if now there will emerge spambots that betray other spambots in order to deflect suspicion elsewhere.... the AI arms race will be a fascinating thing to watch over the next decade or so.

My brain didn't un-melt yesterday, so didn't shoot any pics, however I did remember that I shot some comparison pics between the two setups previously: I remember I did have to move the camera between shots as the two lenses weren't exactly the same FOV, however just for discussion these two are an example of a 40mm and a 55mm+SB. I'm not seeing any differences to write home about, but maybe this isn't a good enough test. I would also encourage everyone to stop talking about perspective. Perspective isn't relevant unless you want to go wide with a shallow DoF. If you do want to go wider than what you can do with the 10mm f0.95 Voigtlander MFT lens, or the Sigma 14mm F1.8 + 0.64x SB combo on S35, or the Sigma 14mm F1.8 or Sigma 20mm f1.4 on FF, then that's great and good luck to you, but if that is what we're talking about here then the LF look doesn't apply with non-wide shots, or non-crazy-shallow-DoF shots. There are also a steady stream of f0.95 primes starting to appear for various formats, and at reasonable prices, so the shallow DoF / longer focal lengths combo should have options. If you are having a problem with the prices then just think about how much an LF camera costs, splash water on your face to recover, then come back to this conversation. I'm not sure about you guys, but when I first got my Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 lens I shot it wide open quite a lot, and what I worked out was that if you shoot it like this the look you get isn't the "high-end large format big budget cinema" look, it's the "there's something wrong with my eyes - help - I can't see properly" look. So, either the LF look is wide with shallow DoF, and that's fine (and I can ignore it because I don't care) or there is something else going on, in which case, talking about perspective is just confusing everyone and stopping us from figuring out if there is anything else to the large format look.

I've seen that happen on set - it's no joke! Luckily there was no-one under the light when it sprayed glass powder over half the bar we were shooting in.

Read through a few pages and my brain is already melted. Not from the technical aspects involved, but in trying to understand what people are actually saying. I think that part of the problem is that so many variables are at play that a proper conversation can't be had because people aren't communicating the full picture and are changing multiple variables at the same time. Even the animated gif in the thumbnail thread (showing the Canon camera and shallow DoF) clearly shows that the camera position has changed, which is hopeless - you can't compare the size of the bokeh if you're moving the camera around. All the talk of 'getting closer' in these articles and comments indicates that at least some people are talking about the difference between close/wide and far/tele shots, which is a completely different topic to standing in the same place and comparing setups that have the same FOV and DoF: a small sensor camera/lens setup a large sensor camera/lens setup, and a small sensor camera / large sensor lens with speed booster IIRC I have 55mm, 40mm lenses at home, plus a 0.71x SB for the 55mm, so should be able to do a comparison (55mm x 0.71 = 39mm). I'll see if my brain recovers enough throughout the day to be able to do a test when I get home.