kye

This is an interesting image showing many different frames:

Actually, I think that number is wrong, those do look a little dark for this scene. This article has some useful information: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/how-to-use-false-color-nail-skin-tone-exposure/ That shows that skin is in the 48-52 IRE level. This one is a bit more difficult because it's a lot more contrasty: But those levels really change if the image is high key like this one: or low key like this one: and this one has no skin tone - only shadows and highlights: I just make things look right. I wouldn't be too afraid of contrast either - Hollywood isn't afraid to absolutely crank it right up. I'd suggest pulling together a collection of reference images from skilled colourists

The approach of skipping FF and having APS-C and Medium Format is an interesting one. Just wait a decade when everyone wants Medium Format video and all the FF companies will be behind the 8-ball and Fuji will have been there with lenses for a decade! I have no idea how much of this video is due to it being a MF camera and how much is colour science, but it looks just great to my eyes:

Totally agree, and to take this one step further, I've discovered that in life people tend to project an image of who they want to be rather than who they are. People who project confidence are typically very insecure, people who project wealth tend to be spending all their money on showing off and are broke, those who are showing off how happy they are (eg, instagram) are typically miserable. I saw a documentary on what life is like for most billionaires and it's pretty awful actually - they can't trust anyone because people are after their money, they have these huge houses but are constantly renovating them to try and one-up their other billionaire friends, and spend most of their time driving fancy cars and drinking expensive champagne wishing they had some real friends. So @kaylee, when you're looking at friends who are married and having kids and feeling that you're missing something, your friends are being torn apart by trying to have careers as well as families, pay their mortgages, not strangle their kids after the 4th sleepless night with the baby crying and the toddler drawing all over the good couch with their favourite lipstick that isn't made anymore, and wishing they could just live in a small town with their dog and get to have a bit of glitz and glam of the film world. I'm out here in the suburbs surrounded by lots of broken people who are now single parents because their relationships failed and when their kids phone gets hacked and their nudes are posted to other kids and they're getting bullied and coming home in tears and don't know WTF to do. Never compare your insides with someone elses outsides.

Haha.. you're welcome! I think that's the whole idea of these lenses - apart from being more expensive than a body cap there is no other disadvantage but it means you always have a lens on the camera, meaning you're one step closer to the whole "the best camera is the one you have with you" kind of "always be ready to shoot" philosophy. Considering that I shoot home videos I always try to have my camera setup and ready to turn on and shoot in case something funny or interesting happens. Every now and then I will be running through the house to grab the camera and turning it on as I run back through the house to film something interesting. I also especially like the idea that the lenses aren't great and aren't fast, so they force you to concentrate on having great composition, angles, lighting, and genuine content, kind of giving you a bit of immunity to the "shallow-DOF slow-motion music-video eye-candy b-roll-seqeunce of meaningless-crap" genre of film-making. Having a slow and low-resolution lens attached to a Raw camera like the P4K combined with the added emphasis of content over empty aesthetics should result in some great and very organic looking images. I look forward to seeing some footage when you've had a chance to play with it some

Sure! Firstly, I'll preface this by saying that I'm not an expert, and also that grading is subjective, so there's no right or wrong - only right or wrong for the project you're doing. Comparing my still with your two grades Your first grade: My grade: Your second grade: Here's what I'm seeing: The hue of the skin tones seems fine and matches across all three grades I look for skin tones in that middle-ground between yellow and pink and it's there I also look for a variation in hue because skin colour varies across different areas of the face and yours also has that It's the contrast of the skin tones is where they differ In my example the skin has far less contrast than on both of yours, I'm looking at how bright the lighter areas are compared to the darker areas. This also contributes to yours having slightly more saturation in skin tones too. Your second grade is much better in terms of exposure, with the first one being too bright and losing skin texture. I think you're meant to put skin tones at a certain gamma level (40 IRE?) and your second one is much better than your first, although both yours second and mine might both still be a bit light. I am constantly surprised by how dark skin tones are in professional situations. Looking at the wider image of your second grade vs my first grade Yours has slightly more overall contrast than mine with black and white points a bit more pushed apart Probably the main difference is in the contrast of the mid-tones where mine has less contrast, giving mine a more vintage feel The distribution of saturation is different too, mine looks to have more saturation in the mid-tones (look at the red/brown in the wood) but that might be because those items are lighter in mine and from a mathematical perspective they might be similar, however, the most saturation areas of yours seem to me more saturated than the most saturated areas of mine, for example the red light on the far left or the red umbrella directly above his head. However, the saturation of the other colours appears to be similar, look at the green lights or the coloured tassels hanging above the shrine. IIRC I might have deliberately played with the reds, and I definitely did a Sat vs Sat to boost saturation of mildly saturated tones without also boosting the more heavily saturated tones. Overall WB is very similar and you don't appear to have tinted the shadows or highlights. In terms of taste, I prefer mine as it is more flattering and a bit more vintage, but I suspect that if we were physically there yours might be more accurate with the level of contrast. Mine kind of looks 'nicer', both in skin tones (contrast on skin tones isn't flattering) as well as the overall look - the world that yours is from looks like a harsher and less friendly place to live. Hope that helps?

I'll test that theory.. here are some old pics from a less than stellar technical setup (photos, not frame grabs). IIRC these are all Panasonic GF3 and the 14-42 3.5-5.6 kit lens, with the camera probably on full-auto. The first three were taken blind out the window of moving vehicles. Nice... Have you considered Film Convert? I've never used it but I suspect it might be a possibility to get the kind of look you want with the fewest controls to mess with.

Absolutely.. BTS isn't mandatory

LOL. I filmed mine on my phone... you know, just saying

Nice. Simple and well executed

Ok, here's my first effort. Filmed on a iPhone, audio recorded on iPhone headphones supplied with iPhone, editing, voice-over and grading done in Resolve. I've never done a voice-over before, so a big chunk of my time was spent figuring out how to do it, and then trying to work out how to make Resolve do it, including reading tutorials etc. I even came up with the idea for it in the three hour window, so that's cool too. ah crap. Just realised mine is way longer than 1 minute! oh well.

Nice film Ha! Ringleader... lol.

No. Just kidding.. Sure. But only because you asked so nicely! ???

Nice! After every project it's good to think about what worked, what didn't work, and what you might do differently next time. Join us over in the 3 Hour 1 Minute film challenge thread

First attempt is a fail, time to start again I think. This isn't an easy task. This is where I got to. The scopes tell the story pretty nicely - these are with only a CST applied: One is direct sun, the other all shade. One has lots of saturated objects in it, the other has almost none. There are some heavy and complicated green/magenta shifts going on, and I suspect that the hue of reflected light is also different.

Let's up the ante... Challenge #3 - colour match the first two images. You are done when you could cut from one to the other in the same scene.

Yes, it does. IIRC it's also in the menu setting for stabilisation too, so you can set it there as well. I just turn the camera off then on again to change it

My dad watches heaps of 4K from free-to-air digital TV. Most highly produced and legacy content isn't 4K (or even 1080) but all the major sports broadcasts (and some TV studio shows) are 4K. By upgrading the cameras in large sports complexes and the bigger TV studios they will upgrade a significant percentage of the broadcasts without having to buy that many fancy new cameras because these will be used to film high-ratings content.

This is the official start (and maybe quick death!) of the...... 3 Hour 1 Minute Film Challenge!!!1 The rules: You setup, shoot, edit, and upload a film in a single 3-hour period - no gaps, once you start the timer you can't stop it again The final film must be 1 minute or less If your finished film looks too good then others can challenge you about the 3-hour time limit and you must explain yourself to keep your reputation in tact There are no prizes, no timeframes, and no judging Everyone that makes a film and publishes it is a winner, people that don't try are losers, and people that try but fail should learn from their mistakes and just try again There are no more rules FAQ: Can I plan things in advance? Yes. What limits are there for budget, cast size, crew size, and number of otters making cameos? None. Why are you doing this? Why not? No, really.. why? We learn by trying new things, finishing and sharing them. Too many people obsess over tiny things and never get anything done. This challenge is designed to combat that. What advice do you have? You can be an extra special winner if you: Publish in 720p - equipment shouldn't matter and if your film looks dull in 720 then 4K will not save you Try new things and experiment - think of this as going to the gym for film-makers where you can push yourself to learn and if it fails then who cares (it was only 3 hours right?) Encourage others by being helpful and supportive Have cameos from otters Film a timelapse as a BTS so others can see how you did it - an action camera is a good choice for this* (* if you wear it on your person, please remember to turn it off when you visit the bathroom) Invite friends over to help Focus on having fun and enjoying the process (having so much fun you didn't finish the film in time is also a kind of winning) Call your mother (after you've hit upload) It sounds like fun but I don't know where to start? Set a timer for 1-hour, plan the video, when the timer runs out, reset it and shoot, when the timer runs out, reset it for 45 minutes and edit, when the timer runs out hit export, then upload. Then have lunch, put in a fresh battery and SD card, then start the timer again.... I look forward to seeing the first films posted below in about 3 hours time.

Holy crap - THANK YOU for sharing this! I've also had that problem and wasn't sure why the frame rate was locked as soon as you pull media into a project. I normally noticed early on in a project when I was still pulling in assets, and had to start again and re-do the media gathering, but this will absolutely save that time and effort (and annoyance!).

Any time you can share footage, I'm keen to see some! Enjoy your travels

I did, the post was kind of satirical, and in a way I was kind of just poking fun at Canon. I get that it's a prototype and I get that it's about having some PR and it's about the image not the camera, but RED made an 8K camera in 2016 so it kind of seems that Canon is a little out of step. Had they announced a new 8K camera then that would have made sense in a marketplace where there are other products already available, but showing footage from a prototype camera would only make sense if it was the first 8K images available, which clearly it's not. It just seems to me that they are kind of acting like they're the only show in town, which might make sense to people who are heavily invested in that system and aren't paying attention to the wider context, but to those who are looking at the whole field it kind of just looks strange. Almost like someone who is "faking it to make it" except that Canon had already made it but are slipping and now then talking like this just looks like they're kind of not-self-aware.

I'd suggest HLG might be the better choice and like @thebrothersthre3 is suggesting, maybe the answer is to work out how to deal with it in post. I use HLG for everything on my GH5 and it's great. One thing with it though is that it seems to look better when you convert to 709 with a proper converter instead of trying to do it manually.

Yes, 17.5mm is the longest you want then. Probably the biggest criteria you have are that you want it to be small and you want it to be MF. Typically the MF lenses are SLR lenses and that means they'll need a converter, which makes them significantly larger than the native MFT lenses, which will be small but probably lack MF. The Panasonic 14/2.5 has a MF fly-by-wire ring but it's basically useless. I tried to use it and it's cheap and plasticy feeling, but seem to do a reasonable job. If these things are important to you then I'd suggest getting your hands on some before purchasing, or at least buy used and then you can re-sell them without a big loss if they don't work for you.