kye

If you want to learn a thing or two, take the original images and then match everyones grades as close as you possibly can. If you can't work out what someone did, ask them and then try that. You will learn a bunch about what the knobs all do, but you'll also learn more about what you like and what 'works' according to your eye and preferences.

Yeah, and it gives you a few interesting little tweaks. For example, the 12-35mm f2.8 "professional" lens is equivalent to a 24-70 f5.6 on FF, which no-one would say was "professional", they'd say that f4 was borderline and f5.6 is WTF, but tonnes of people are running around saying "it's a 2.8 professional zoom" and the manufacturers sure aren't keen to point out it's not the same as a canon 24-70 2.8 zoom. In fact, it's not even as fast as the canon FF kit lens - EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6. Think about a smartphone - those lenses are often under f2, and yet there's no shallow-DOF to be found anywhere, which is why they're putting 1000 cameras on the back and blurring the photos in software. People often comment that my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95 is completely ridiculous, but they don't bat an eyelid when someone says they're looking for a 35mm F1.4 for FF, yet my Voigt is equivalent to a 35mm f1.9. Welcome to the crop factor party

10 is good. Probably what matters more than how many lenses are in your cupboard is how many lenses you're lugging around when on set. The less decisions on set the better, and the less time spent swapping between 40mm, 50mm, and 58mm lenses completely unnecessarily. And having 10 lenses that are very different is fine too - when I go to film my kids sports game I don't wonder if I should take the 8mm lens, I just take the sports ones and maybe a standard. Even if you had overlapping modern and vintage lenses the choice for a project wouldn't involve in you taking both sets.

If you want better low light than the GH5 then there aren't a lot of cameras to choose from. The GH5S and A7SII are two that come to mind, but you will sacrifice features if you swap to them. It depends on what features you're willing to lose. Work out what feature you're willing to lose to get better low light performance and that might help you decide. Sorry to hear your GH5 got stolen

All lenses are comparable in focal length, but because different sensors are different sizes then the FOV you get will differ with a given focal length. This might help: https://mmcalc.com

All the talk about B&W in the Lenses thread got me curious...

If we're allowing lenses with more than zero thickness then the Panasonic 14/2.5 isn't too bad a choice either.

True, although not having 'slow-motion' is something a lot of people understand. Although you're right that there is a more domestic (less action) market that wouldn't need it.

Good stuff. I was just thinking another still might be fun. A bit more of a classic retro look to match the sharpness and grain from the original.. I find this as well as the GH5 to be nicely organic looking

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.