kye

Well, he gets 10 points for shock value. But so does every Apple iPhone marketing campaign.. I think comparing it to a RAW photo is an excellent comparison. Imagine I showed you that you can shoot a raw image really dark and then I can bring up the levels in post and it looks fine, well, that's one thing. Imagine then that I said you never need to adjust exposure - that would mean that if you used it in the way that a normal photographer used it then you'd be fine, but that's not what I said, I said never.. which wouldn't actually work in some situations. 32-bit recording is probably really great, and the noise of the preamps in it is probably very low, but I suspect there are limits and although it's just not very likely that someone will hit them, that's still a very big difference to them not actually being there, which is what he implied. The legal disclaimer for that claim would be very long and have much fine print to go along with it.

And then it wouldn't be so bad when you accidentally put your foot in your mouth!

One quick hack to turn ANY cinema camera into a low-light MONSTER!!!!!1

And with an MFT mount to boot! Fantastic if you want to adapt manual lenses.

Ah, yes, OIS is fine I agree about using a fisheye and reframing, and also that the 180 shutter is less of a rule than perhaps it used to be. In fact, I have been watching the latest season of Peaky Blinders (great show BTW - fantastic in pretty much every way) but there was a scene where a ceiling fan was operating and the fan blades were appearing about every 90 degrees of their rotation with no visible motion blur, so even that level of production seems like it didn't stick to the 180 shutter, for one shot at least, which I thought was interesting Dave mentioned a price range in the Kinotika video, but it didn't sound like it was confirmed yet, and I think the Sharp guy in the Cinema5d video said they hadn't decided.

Stabilisation in post only works with very short shutter speeds, so goodbye 180 shutter! Sure, you can stabilise slow shutter clips, but the motion-blur that occurs during the frame makes the image just have instantaneous blur turrets syndrome, which is probably more distracting than mild camera movement. If you want to use a slower shutter then you need OIS or IBIS to stabilise during each frame being exposed and then you can stabilise in post. That's my approach to how I shoot handheld with my GH5 and stabilising in Resolve.

Great video - thanks! I, too, am a fan of negative rights

I can understand that. Only relatively recently was Resolve a colour grading tool you would round-trip to, which is a concept that took some getting used to, let alone knowing how to actually troubleshoot the process and get it to work properly. Now Resolve has become something equally confusing - it does everything! So on a journey from being difficult to understand because it was too technical, to now being something that is difficult to understand because if you're a FCPX or PP user it sounds like it's too good to be true!

There's an interesting thing here in Australia where there's a type of business called Sole Trader, which means you can trade as an individual. You don't need to register a business name or anything. It's kind of like how you can get a job, which is essentially a business deal, and reflects the fact that you as a person are a legal entity. Back in the day the company that controlled the .com.au domain had a rule that you could only register a domain name that reflected your business name (to prevent domain squatting) and my dad applied for his name (in the format firstnamelastname.com.au) and was refused, but appealed on the basis that you can trade under that name, and ended up with the domain name on that basis. Australia does require quite a lot of occupations to be registered and qualified, and I think the basic idea is that it protects consumers from buying services from people that don't know what they're doing. I think it's probably a bit overdone now, as there are restrictions on occupations that don't seem to be so dangerous, and there are likely all sorts of certification rackets too, but in the sense that it protects consumers there is a good idea behind the principle. There's a fundamental problem with 'freedom!' as a goal, because not all freedoms are compatible. The right to live in safety requires that other people do not have the right to kill, rape, rob, or otherwise hurt my possessions or myself. A society where people are freed from all rules is anarchy, not nirvana.

This question comes up a lot. Here's an answer I prepared earlier..... please excuse the first paragraph (it was directed at the post I was replying to, not your post). In terms of people actually doing it, everyone who shoots 4K and publishes 1080 is doing it.

Resolve is still routinely absent from conversations about video editing options. I still see film-making you tubers making PP vs FCPX videos and not even mentioning Resolve. I think it's a combination of commercial interests, a dated mindset, lack of awareness of what non-indy film-making is like, and new thing overload where there are so many new cameras / audio devices / lighting products / YouTube algorithm updates / social media marketing branding promotional everythings that following new editing packages just never makes their priority list. That's ok.. when they finally catch on we can all say "we've been here for years - where have you been??"

This is a great addition, and possibly is a nod to how FCPX/PP users might operate. One thing I always thought was a bit clunky was if you had two cameras/lenses which needed to be matched, and two scenes which needed to be graded differently (eg, day scene then night scene). In a sense you can now grade the clips in the Colour page to colour match and put in Adjustment Clips for different scenes and one across the whole timeline as a final grade. Absolutely. It kind of delivers on the "editing revolution" promise, the UI improvements requests, the people wanting to work without BM hardware, etc. I am noticing a trend within Resolve now of having the 'easy/fast' way to do something and the 'slower/powerful' way. I first noticed it with the stabiliser when they created the one-touch version but kept the old one with the more features, but it's now there for editing too. I suspect BM is chasing both ends of the video production market: Making a feature with UMP, external audio, heaps of clips with slates, large editing team with collaboration and multiple simultaneous users and industry leading grading facilities, frame.io integration, etc etc etc Making a fast-turn around piece with P4K, internal audio, single person post-production on a laptop in the field in the new Cut page, grade with the auto-match feature and a LUT, put in a Fusion title and end sequence and upload straight to YT Obviously most people will be somewhere in-between, but making something that works for both ends of the spectrum is a real challenge and they seem to be doing a pretty good job at it.

Yes - that's a better way of saying it!

I have a GH5 and I shoot home and travel videos in available light and I must say that having a 0.95 lens really makes a huge difference. I just turned off all the lights so the room was only lit by the monitor and at f0.95 in HLG the 400 base ISO and 1/50th shutter is almost as bright as my vision. I'd love an extra stop or so, but in terms of practicality being able to shoot whatever people can see is a good reference point for low-light performance. The P4K should be a bit closer to that limit.

I agree - bringing people into their ecosystem is likely to be their long-term vision. Amazon and Apple realised this long ago. Lots of profit to be made from taking the Hotel California style of customer relationship, where "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" It works for religion too, by excommunicating people who want to leave you raise the price of switching above what most people are willing to tolerate..

I'd be quite excited by an update to their stabilisation engine. I shoot hand-held almost exclusively, and the combination of the GH5 IBIS and Resolve stabilisation does a great job already, but I suspect that the stabilisation engine has far more potential than the current interface allows. I'd especially like the ability to control zoom/pan/tilt/roll independently, for example if I do a hand-held horizontal pan I want to eliminate rotation and tilt completely but smooth the pan motion only a little so it keeps a steadier pace. Unfortunately you can't currently do this (or I haven't worked out how yet!) because you can't have stabilisation occurring in more than one node in series - at least the last time I checked each node you try and stabilise does its analysis on the unprocessed file, sort of ignoring the previous nodes that should already have been applied. Using an external monitor without their cards would also be lovely, but considering they essentially have a captive audience I'm not sure how likely that is!

I've been following Resolves progress as an industry standard editor since v12.5 and my impression is that if you're a professional editor it has some ways to go still before it would fully replace FCPX or PP. I'm not a professional editor so I don't really see the shortcomings myself, but I've gathered that impression from reading articles or comments from people who are working on films with large teams and huge budgets. I believe the sticking points were certain editing features / modes that it's either missing or hasn't fully implemented yet. As I said, I didn't understand what they were or why you might want them, but I got the impression they were for people who use a whole keyboards worth of keyboard shortcuts without even looking, and the other theme I noticed is that Resolve isn't as great for projects with huge amounts of footage like feature-length docs or high shooting-ratio features. To this end, the banner saying "The revolution in editing starts..." may indicate that they've done a gap-analysis of editing features between Resolve and PP/FCPX and just implemented everything they found. I guess the other way it might be interpreted is that instead of 'editing' meaning the edit page, they actually mean the entire post-production process (which I think is more how smaller productions and studios might use the word) in which case it could refer to them leading the charge in having a one-stop-shop that does media management, editing, VFX, sound design / mixing / mastering, and delivery. In this sense it would be more like an Apple marketing campaign where "everything is new.... yet again, again" means something that looks identical to the last one and people talking about tiny tweaks (OMG, the notch!!). Certainly an interesting space and it will be existing to see what they are bringing us for very early birthday/xmas present this year I think it's a very interesting comment from Andrew about a "pro" P4K having IBIS. This is literally the opposite of what Panasonic did when they took the GH5, made it 'pro' and took IBIS out because the pros use external stabilisers and rigs. I genuinely have no idea what BM would do, but in my head the choice between the GH5 and P4K wasn't a choice between cameras, it was a choice between fundamentally different types of cameras. Of course, BM have a very solid cinema lineup between the P4K and UMP, especially with the UMP update, and perhaps a tiny screen-less Micro-styled version would complete that range. Should they have done their market analysis and thought 'lets have a second line where we jump the hybrid/cine line boundary to compete with video-side of the GH5/A7III/XT3' then that would be fascinating. It would be the same logic of Panasonic with the GH5 and GH5s and a P4K that was oriented around the hand-held single-operator segment would truly be a thing to behold, but I suspect it's unlikely as BM have started in the cine world and although they have come down in price, they haven't come anywhere near the mass-market as a GH5 competitor.

I suspect you're right. I have seen product pipelines before and was surprised at how long a lead-time they require. IIRC one example I saw was that a company had a development time that was 4 or 5 times the length of their release cycle, so you had 4, 5 or maybe even 6 products in different stages of development simultaneously. This approach suggests that the incremental and advanced models in development simultaneously concept is quite likely. We're at an interesting time right now where the Sony A7S3, GH6, and others are due very soon but have no place in the lineup, because for them to provide any substantial improvement to their predecessors will mean they leap over sections of the lineup of cameras above them. Of course, one aspect to this is that we shouldn't really compare a DSLR form-factor camera with a cinema-camera form factor as they're not really for the same purpose. Yes they're both cameras, but they're for different end-users to use in different ways in different situations. I'm surprised that people are surprised about 8K: Sharp has a prototype we have the sensors the data-rates are only double 4K60 and processor speed doubles every 1.5-2 years and it's been more than that since the GH5 was released P4K has the media solutions with sufficient data rates and is a third the price of a top-end camera the TVs are coming and the Japanese are pushing the whole thing as a world-wide technology PR stunt for the Olympics...

Apart from the update @BrunoCH mentioned, I recommend you overcome your lack of calibration by keeping the demo videos of the ARRI and Canon cinema cameras handy and comparing your grade to clips in those videos. I specifically mention these two brands because both are known for their excellent colour science, but have very different approaches to skin tones and other aspects so it kind of gives you a couple of data points that you can place your grade anywhere between and it'll be fine. Also, demo videos are their finest example of footage and will have been graded to perfection from a high-end colourist so you can be sure that the quality is there and you're safe using them as a reference. One could theoretically download them, pull them into Resolve, find great frames and capture stills so that there is a range of reference images right inside Resolve only a few clicks away at any point, but copyright issues obviously prevent anyone from doing that Nodes is definitely a different way of thinking and takes some work to understand, but the advantage is that nodes can do things you cannot do with layers, or cannot do easily (depending on the software) so it's worth the effort to work through it to get familiar with them. I agree that the database method only suits a particular way of working, and I haven't found a way around it. I don't know how they would change this but I can see how it would be useful - once again I think this is a hang-over from Resolve being an industry-leading tool scaled down to software-only rather than a PC tool scaled up to have industry-leading functionality.

You probably already know this but there are present keyboard shortcuts for people used to the other NLEs that might be useful. Not saying there aren't other significant differences, but every bit helps..

Have you noticed differences in style between different cultures or countries? In a sense these videos are in the universal language of visuals and audio, although the music YouTubers I follow have shown me that there are still interesting differences in music between cultures. I'm curious to hear what differences or preferences might exist, especially because I'm not attuned enough to see them myself if I watch foreign content.

I have read magazines and followed people on forums across several industries and there is a point that each business-owner reaches at some point in their career which will decide if they go on to be successful or to struggle and perhaps close up shop. That point is where they are worth more than the majority of available budgets and they either take the view that some clients aren't worth working for, or they go negative and complain about budgets but muddle through. Those who choose the first approach take the path of charging a healthy amount for their work but also focusing on customer service and quality of work, and are respected in-turn by their clients. These people normally make that decision blind, that is they decide not to take the under-budget work even through they have no confidence that they will be able to win enough work to stay in business, and they often reflect back saying they don't know why they were worried and that they've built a client-base of good clients who appreciate their work and the value they bring. In a contracting or rapidly changing industry this decision becomes more important as it's the people that don't value themselves and go negative that end up going out of business. Work hard, do your best, but value yourself.... We teach the world how to treat us by how we treat ourselves.

You forgot Mojo!! I agree. Comparing a Corolla to a Ferrari requires some accommodation of pricing. I like the "X vs Alexa" because it serves as a good reference for the state of the art. It also does some small good to educate people that are new to this space and think that their $3k camera setup should be the best in the world. I also like that it (can) spawn some interesting conversations around various cameras having strengths and weaknesses. A cellphone is a lot more 'professional' a camera when the shot required is wide angle and in plenty of light with deep DOF, for example. That knowledge is useful to those people who respond to the "$100k movie camera" clickbait titles. We could definitely do with more nuanced debate around things though, sadly it seems that the world has become more polarised and succumbed to more black-or-white thinking now that globalisation is really kicking in. Watching on a phone is actually more meaningful than you might think. The differences between 1:1 RAW and 12:1 RAW are visible, even through YT compression which must be hundreds-to-one, which tells you something about the nature of compression and signal processing through a signal path. It's the same with resolution, although most phones are 1080p displays now. Besides, most camera tests are completely useless at worst, or just a reflection of how well they were graded. Content and story loose neither dynamic range nor resolution when viewed on a phone...

Not too much but definitely at the upper end of that genre. Considering it's already been raised, I wonder what your impressions are (as someone who pushing this genre) of the future of this style of film making? Some say it's innovative and entertaining, and others say that it's using fireworks to replace story (as I would suggest many Hollywood action films are guilty of) and the associated kick-back from this style of film-making, as well as the Vlog style from Casey Neistat / Peter McKinnon where the lesser practitioners rely on B-roll over content. Is this style still evolving? or has it peaked? What's next?

Nice work!!