kye

If you had the Olympus 9mm f8 or 15mm f8 'body cap' lenses then it would be the same size and would have a lens on it! I know I'm kind of reaching for the extremes here, but for some specific types of stills photography those lenses are actually ideal as well as being very convenient and cheap too

OK, good point.. that makes sense. Action cameras are really a poor fit for home photography for most people so this is more an alternative to the tough/rugged point-n-shoots. In that case there's a gap in the lower end of the market for a smartphone camera in a rugged and waterproof case that's not several hundred dollars. Of course, if Canon are competing with smartphones, going from 4K60 and 1080p240 to 1080p30 sure is a come-down!!

@mercer I agree that having some extra low-light can make a difference. My Voigt 17.5mm is pretty rubbish at 0.95 (equivalent to 35mm F1.9) but I use it there a lot in low-light despite the softness and colour shifts. I really like the idea of having a 'hero' lens and then only having other lenses when that lens doesn't do it. At normal shooting distances you can often hit those 'middle' focal lengths by just taking a step or two forward or back, so I've spaced my set at 8mm, 17.5mm and 40mm - (16mm / 35mm / 80mm equivalents). I view the 8mm and 40mm lenses as specialty lenses that I only put on when the situation doesn't fit the main lens, so in a sense I just have one lens and a couple of specialty lenses for frequent specialist situations. I did an exercise a long time ago for my stills photography where I listed the different shooting scenarios I needed equipment for, then worked out what equipment was best for those situations. For example I discovered that if I'm shooting at night then I don't need a long lens, so although I do need a longer lens during the day, it doesn't have to be amazingly fast. Other things came out of that too, so I managed to save some money and equipment weight by thinking it through like that. I know you're more interested in narrative, so you may have a wider range of situations or aesthetics, but by combining it with those aesthetics you might find some combinations aren't required. For example, someone might only shoot a doco with vintage lenses and that might not require a very wide angle lens, and projects that did might all call for the modern look and now you don't need a vintage wide angle.

If you take a GoPro and extrapolate from there, these had better be closer to $20 than $99. It's like Leica or RED making an action camera!

I've noticed that having lenses at a 2x spacing seems to do the job for me, although I am cropping in post. It seems like there are two series in this pattern - the 16, 28, 50, 100, and the 18, 35, 70 progressions, and those that start with a lens from one of these tend to stick within it more than not, unless you end up with every lens and have them closer together. My experience so far has suggested that looking for a lens that is sharp at a given aperture is more realistic. I've found there are two kind of lenses - those that get sharp when stopped down about two-stops and those that are sharp wide open. The sharp-wide-open group are typically the same as the first but are about two stops slower when wide-open. There are exceptions of course, but when choosing between a lens that is 1.4 and fully sharp at 2.8 vs a 2.8 lens that's sharp wide-open I just see the 1.4 as being more useful, and comparing lenses of different aperture values when wide-open is kind of missing the point. The MFT lens comparison by Shane Hurlbutt with the Voigtlander vs Panasonic vs Olympus suffers from this problem. They compared the lenses at 2.8 and wide open, and that made it look like the F0.95 Voigtlander wasn't as good as the F1.7 Panasonic because the Voigt was softer at 0.95 than the Panny was at 1.7, but had he tested them at F1.7 the Voigt would have been almost at peak sharpness and would have slaughtered the Panny which was still two stops away from its sweet spot.

Interesting. I'd definitely raise that with Tiffen. Let us know how you go

...and when I say on the forefront, what I mean is they haven't implemented FHD 60p yet. Someone please tell me I somehow got this wrong? Seriously, there has to be something else to this.. really.

No no no no... RAW goes in, COOKED comes out!

Great stuff @leslie - keep us informed! Reading a thread like yours might be easier to get a summary than the P4K thread and it's zillion posts about if it really fits in your pocket or not ???

Everyone seemed to be in love with Cinelike-D before HLG was released, so I'm guessing that one. I haven't shot much with it myself though. Settings depends on what look you're going for I'd imagine.

Yeah, sounds like it was rendering proxies in the background. Your big load is the deflicker plugin. Most plugins work by doing something to one frame at a time, but this is one that has to analyse a bunch of them and I've noticed that it kills my machine too. A quick way to troubleshoot performance is to just play the timeline and watch the little FPS number above the viewer, and try turning on and off nodes and seeing where the load is. Often there are nodes that you can get dialled in, and then disable while you edit, then re-enable before you export. Resolve has a pretty complicated suite of performance optimising and caching functions, it's worth getting to know them so you can easily adjust things as you work to get the speed and the accuracy / quality you require at different stages of the editing process. For example: for editing you need speed so if you have compressed source footage then generating proxies will help, if you're doing dissolves or other effects then lowering the timeline resolution can help for image processing (not colour work) the load is in processing the footage so lowering the timeline resolution will help (as it has less pixels to compute) for colour grading you need high quality (and maybe not speed) so turn up the timeline resolution and just skip through the timeline, but if you need realtime playback then rendering cache on the timeline is the answer, but if you need high quality, realtime playback and can't wait for proxies to render then just hand your wallet over and someone will take care of it!

Actually, I think that it's a deeper issue. Just look at the terminology - "recovering highlights" is something that you do when things have gone brighter than white. This only makes sense if white has a shared definition, which it does if everyone is publishing in rec709. HLG is actually a delivery standard, so when someone shoots in HLG and are going to deliver in HLG then there is no recovery - if the camera clips the HLG file then that data is clipped. Same as if you shoot rec709 for delivery in rec709. If this guy was talking about filming in LOG then no-one would assume that he's delivering in LOG, so the conversation would be in the context of the default and standard delivery colour space / gamma. The point of HLG is that it's an alternative to rec709, and so now there is no default / standard / goes-without-saying reference point. Edit: coming from a camera, clipped HLG is the same as clipped 709.. that is some cameras may not actually be clipped because they might include super-whites in the output file, like I know the Canon cinema cameras do (as well as others I'm sure). Ah, I love the smell of confusion in the morning.

Yep. You use the Hue vs Hue to shift the yellows into the reds.

In Resolve I had this issue with my sunset time lapses and I found that the Hue vs Hue curve really helped. Obviously fixing it in-camera is better, but fixing it in post isn't that hard.

Definitely not a fair comparison, but they certainly both look really nice! The bokeh in the close-up shot is very nice.. and seems to be the anamorphic shape? I think you're slowly convincing yourself to go B&W! ???

Well, he makes no sense through most of that video but was absolutely right about one thing - when he said "I don't know the technicalities of what's actually going on". My understanding would be this: HLG includes the whole DR of the camera and the other profiles he tested don't FCPX is confusing him.. here's what I think is happening: FCPX takes the HLG file (which isn't clipping anything) and then converts it automatically to rec709, "clipping" it heavily but retaining that data in super-whites When he makes adjustments to lower the exposure those values above 100 get brought back into range He thinks that FCPX pushing the exposure beyond 100 somehow means the GH5 "clipped" (it didn't) He things that lowering the exposure in FCPX and getting the highlights back means you can somehow recover clipped highlights (you can't) If something is clipped then the values are lost (digital clipping is data loss) FCPX is "helping" by automatically doing things without asking you TL;DR - HLG has greater DR; exposing for HLG is different than rec709; FCPX is "helping" and confusing people; and this guy isn't the person to be listening to for this stuff.

Nice! I don't get it, but it's a cool aesthetic Made me think about that idea of having a virtual film club with some loose rules to encourage working fast to get something out and not getting too attached to making the end result perfect. I like the idea of having time limits on the stages of production and doing it all in one go. Something that could be done in an afternoon

Great video talking about HLG Talks about HLG acquisition, HLG delivery, backwards compatibility, grading, 709 conversions, exposure, HDR10, the HLG curve, cine gammas and commercial opportunities.

@BTM_Pix Belated congratulations on getting this app launched and out the door!! A lot easier said than done with technical projects like this!

I normally find that if you can run a short test to answer a question then that's normally the best way to do it. I have a GH5 and I'd run the test for you, but you should just do the test yourself and that way you get to choose the right scenario and look at the footage without internet compression Edit: quoted the wrong message first time around. fixed now

It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. When people ask about HLG they're often asking about delivering to HLG, so unfortunately it's ambiguous.

Cool. No, I haven't tried it. TBH I'm not really a gamer. This might seem strange for me to be looking at programming, but my ideas come from a place a bit different to how things are traditionally done. I've previously written complete 3D engines from scratch and so when I first contemplated getting into this I was essentially looking for a 3D VR polygon engine that I could just program, whereas these things are more like using the Doom level editor than actually coding something, which is kind of promising I think because that's not at all what I'm thinking of, so in a sense I'm likely to get different results and stand out from the crowd. Awesome, that's cool to hear. My first idea was more as a VR experience to generate the entire 3D environment using fractal mathematics, recursive algorithms and other techniques to generate alternative spaces that aren't designed to look like the real world. It seems silly to me to take computing power that can basically render whatever you want and then use it to just try and copy the real world. Anyway, once I've worked out how it works I'll probably just be creating and moving objects around with code and not really using the editor at all. I just have to work through their examples.. first step is to work out why their 3D game kit gets compiler errors. and when I say first step, I have to work out where I see those errors, then what they mean, then how to fix them

Thank goodness for that!

I have worked with GH5 HLG, and also found confusion out there. What are you trying to do?

If it doesn't cook in 10-bit then you should replace it with one that does.