kye

I'm not sure that anyone here uses the BM output devices.. I looked at buying one a while ago and posted a specific question on the BM forums and no-one relied there either. I suspect the people who know aren't on the forums talking about it Are you delivering in 4K 10-bit? If so then I understand your question. If not then maybe you edit in 1080/10 and then when reviewing the final project maybe switch to 4K/8 ? I have no idea how easy it is to switch, so that might not be a viable solution. In terms of editing, I was thinking that 1080 should be sufficient, and you can always zoom in to get a temporary view of the extra pixels. I was going to configure my setup so that the computer connected to the monitor via the DisplayPort input and the BM output device connected to the monitor via HDMI, and then I'd be able to change what the monitor did by just changing inputs. Of course, this would mean that when you've got the monitor in 4K mode being driven by the computer directly it wouldn't be colour managed by BM so the accuracy may be off.

Not sure what happened to your video (I watched it, it was funny!) but if you make 99 more that are all different to each other you'll be off to a good start

You're right - Resolve doesn't give a rats ass which monitor you are using - unless you're using one of the BM output devices the official line from BM is that Resolve can't be reliably colour calibrated as the OS and other things can't be relied upon not to screw the colours up. With their output hardware they have full control and can guarantee the reliability and quality and IIRC have the calibration integrated into Resolve. I've tried, but it's not a pleasant experience as it's not that flexible. Resolve lets you use two monitors but the functionality is a PITA because the way you want it setup (with one monitor as a controller and the other with the preview window on it) isn't really supported, because (you guessed it) they expect you to use one of their output devices and use that as your preview monitor.

Yeah, that swap had some great long-term benefits: You could listen to CDs in your car Plus, as a special bonus, you'd be happy with how they sounded in your car because the CDs would make your high-end hifi setup at home sound as good as the stereo in your car

I'm still trying to work out the best workflow for me. Photoshop has a nice batch processing function that can convert images but it only offers JPG, PSD or TIFF. I tried the TIFFs but it turned my 23Mb RAW files into 180Mb TIFF files, so that's not practical. I haven't tried JPG yet but I'm afraid that the amount I push things around in post (considering that I often do very high DR sequences like sunsets) that the images will break under heavy grading. I tried Lightroom and the DNG images it can create are great because they have the right bit-depth but are half the size of the RAW images, but it keeps wanting to "help" me and doing random shit like moving my files to some random location on some hard drive I didn't want. I should search for a simple utility that just converts all images in a folder to DNGs or something like that. I just did a test with the GH5 by shooting an image in RAW + JPG and the RAW was great but the JPG had the highlights clipped. I swear, whoever thought the best way to save a JPG was to just hack the top off the dynamic range should be taken out the back and shot for crimes against humanity. Seriously, if not for the hassle it causes then for the damage to the environment for all the extra storage space required when a full-DR JPG would have been sufficient. If photoshop can include the full DR of a RAW image in a JPG then there's no excuse for deliberately programming a camera to not do it. FFS. Here's a first cut of the sequence from last night. Lots of finicky editing - I had two copies of the same clip crossfading from one to the other so I graded one for the start and one for the peak colour, plus a bunch of tweaks to remove foreground distractions and a tricky edge-detect mask to get rid of the nasty CA on the hard edges. This was with images converted in LR so the IQ was there and Resolve handles DNG files just beautifully - thanks to RAW cameras shooting DNG sequences they even appear as a single clip in the media editor I'm sure a skilled colourist could make this look a lot better...

What editing package are you using? I'm still figuring out that workflow too for Resolve and the GH5. Current problem is that Resolve doesn't understand the RAW image format from the GH5, so I either convert them or shoot JPG and I haven't tested if JPG has reduced DR like it does in some cameras. One thing I do remember is that because cameras are often not 100% accurate with their shutter speed the images might be slightly different exposures, so you have to use a de-flicker plugin in post to even it out.

If you shoot them with still images then you can Ken Burns in post, but yeah, animating a time-lapse can look great. At a wedding wouldn't you also be using your gimbal for normal speed footage?

Yeah, it can be interesting to watch the sequence back and be surprised because there was more going on than what was apparent when you looked at it at normal speed

I do.. in fact I am right now

A Hollywood blockbuster grade just for fun..

Just reading an article on lowepost about colour grading for Peaky Blinders and they had this to say: Link is behind a paywall, but here it is if you're a member: https://lowepost.com/color-grading/case-studies/peaky-blinders-r9/ One of the things I like about the GH5 is that it has a bit of grain and it looks like film, rather than looking artificial. Obviously it depends on what look you're going for, but if you want a super-clean modern look then you need to be carefully lighting your scene so that there aren't any bright highlights and then using ETTR and then doing heavy grading in post. Alternatively you could just apply some noise reduction in post and clean it up that way. $2k for a GH5 is a lot of money, but in video camera terms, it's not even the price of a single high-quality lens, so you have to manage your expectations

I've had two pivotal moments in my colour grading. The first was a Lightroom video where a guy edited a photo of a little Italian town with the sunset in the background. It looked OK, but nothing special. He did the usual curves and saturation and a graduated filter to bring the sunset down but what really brought it to life and made it look magical was he put very yellow power windows on all the little ornate street lights, and faked a candle on all the tables with people sitting on them, and did other local adjustments. In the end it looked like the best romantic little town in Italy fantasy anyone has ever had. I'd never seen anyone use 50-100 local adjustments in LR before so it was a new approach for me. The second experience was when I was looking at what editing package to go for, and as I was evaluating them finding out that Resolve could do the same local adjustments but it could track them for movement. Basically a light-bulb went off and I realised that Resolve was LR for video. After seeing that, PP and FCPX didn't stand a chance and I realised that in the way you darken and lighten things in photo editing to control the composition and the viewers attention in a photo could also be applied to video. If only he was shining a torch up from under his chin... ".........and then they heard a scraping sound coming from the empty cupboard!!"

I tried to get into birding, and setup a bird bath in my backyard, but unfortunately there isn't a lot of tree cover where I live (due to housing development and the overall location) so nothing visited and I pretty much gave up. Also, birding from sitting on my back patio sounds attractive but having to actually go anywhere for it is a lot less so

Great response everyone, interesting to see what people do with the same clip @KnightsFan @heart0less the setup for a colour grading suite is very particular, from memory: Colour calibrated display (of course!) No daylight - completely artificial lighting Neutral coloured walls Nothing bright behind the operator (so no reflections in monitor) nothing next to the monitor - you have to be able to see the walls around the monitor A light behind the monitor creating a kind of halo around the monitor Wait for the lights to stabilise before grading The light behind the monitor combined with the neutral coloured wall gives you a constant grey reference when grading so your eyes don't adjust to your grade. You spend thousands on this setup, then hours and hours grading properly, then the client goes and looks at the result on their grandmothers 15 year old TV and goes ballistic on the phone to you that you've screwed up the grade and you have to educate them that every display is different and there's nothing you can do about it, but somehow it was still worth the money to grade it professionally anyway. I just compared Resolve to the exported JPG in Preview (Mac) to Safari to Chrome and Resolve had darker black levels, Preview and Safari matched, and Chrome had the lightest blacks, so was furthest from Resolve. Of course, all of this is system, monitor and colour profile dependent. Basically, it's a nightmare, and welcome to the world of colour grading. Your computer should be smart enough to have separate colour profiles for each monitor, so I'm not sure your logic is correct? Regardless, I get the impression that basically the pros calibrate their reference monitor and then just expect that everything else will look different and just deal with it. Interesting side-note - Resolve is designed to work with the BM output devices and they include their own colour management and calibration functionality for that setup. One of the reasons they don't have the best UI for grading on your system monitor is that they say you can't properly guarantee you can calibrate it because the OS gets in the way etc, and they have absolute control over their devices in a way that they don't have over the system monitor. There may be a bit of "buy more of our products" but it's an interesting thing.

Then head on over - the first image is up, and people have been busy!

Yeah, plus all the "other" stuff like knowing where to point it, etc.

LOL. yeah, I know! Seriously, read that thread on reduser, it's got heaps of info all the way through. IIRC there were at least three companies (or brands?) involved, Helios, Tair, and Jupiter. I believe they were made across multiple factories over the time, so it's more complicated than just the three. That guy made a set with all three, but they have a lot of lenses that overlap, for example there are both Helios 44 (58mm f2) and Helios 77 (50mm f1.8), as well as Tair-11A (135mm F2.8) and Jupiter-11A (135mm F4), so there are many options. The USSR was an entire other isolated economy during that time.

There is. The Russians didn't just hang around drinking vodka during the Cold War http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?152436-Russian-Soviet-USSR-Lens-Survival-Guide and here are some samples from the set: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNtAbAeqHYSKyOnPbE-3AuIxzmeVFZCbWCspWF1jCuvHBihhbHbMULc5rMa1xtdBA?key=YWd5QW1tYm5OOERoeHpBSHg1TlJiUEptOGVKSmNB

Sounds about right being students. Sports is an exception, but everyone knows that the 'pro' bodies are bought by amateurs trying to get pro results, and the real pros use older/mid-tier equipment because they know what it is that makes pro images, and they know it's not having the latest tech

oh noes!!! no rush, it's cool ???

I agree. I see three different 'levels' of determinism in virtual worlds. The first is where you have no control because everything is pre-planned (like watching a film). The third is where the player has total control and whatever happens happens, and the world is generated completely by algorithms and probabilities. The second is a hybrid, like you're in a virtual world that has certain rules but at a specific point you will transition into a different phase with different rules, kind of like going through the acts in a film. Games typically exist in the second type where they have seasons, or specific items you have to find or monsters to conquer or whatever to drive the plot forwards. I'm just gearing up for VR development and am thinking about this stuff a lot recently. I think VR (and then AR) has a huge future and I want to be part of that. I've consistently been disappointed with what computers can do vs what developers actually build, so I'm basically going to try and create the things that I want someone else to do.

Anyone feel like taking our own advice and making a bunch of >1 minute films? It would support Zach, but it would also be a bit of fun. I'm in if others are.

Punchy! It really makes the subject and the writing pop. Nice What kind of film / genre / mood would you use such a grade for?

I had to read your post about three times because I have been having exactly the same thought and my brain was assuming that I'd written the above statement and you were somehow quoting me! In fact, the whole big lens shootout I just did was to get a 70-80mm equivalent lens on my GH5. I'd mostly gone a different way and was trying 35-40mm lenses without a SB, but one of my goals was low light performance and the 50-60+SB combination gives an extra stop of light without narrowing the DoF which is useful. In the end I went with the Konica 40mm f1.8 because it was fast, had good contrast and had very little distortion around the edges of the frame when wide open. I prefer it to the Helios+SB combination even though that is one stop brighter because the Helios has such soft/smeared edges wide open, and the SB makes it worse (because the Helios is sharp in the middle but gets worse towards the outer edges). To go brighter again would require the 50/1.4+SB combination you're chasing, and that combo would match the brightness of my 17.5mm f0.95 main lens which would be great. There are a ton of fast 50mm lenses. I don't know if you saw this link I posted earlier to a big 50mm comparison? http://hispan.hu/50mm-lens-test/ It's in Hungarian, but the pictures pretty much speak for themselves and it's a very comprehensive test. It's interesting you didn't like the revuenon, as that was one of the better performers in that test, especially at edge sharpness, although I didn't care for the "bubble" bokeh as I think it's too distracting for use except as a kind of special effects lens, or unless you can carefully control the background and eliminate any specular highlights or sharp edges. Good luck on your quest, your problem is the sheer number of options, which takes work but at least you will end up with something good at the end. There are worse problems to have! Keep us updated Interesting. I did wonder about that. IIRC you didn't used to be able to, so maybe they changed it. That's really cool.

I've gone to my usual spots and didn't find anything, except an entry saying that that lens is m42 mount, which the pictures in the ebay ad clearly show it is not. If you're dead set on that lens then maybe looking for an adapter to go to something else, that you can then adapt to EF? I couldn't find any info on that lens mount, so no idea on flange distances. Probably the better question is why choose an obscure lens mount to buy a 55/1.4 that isn't that cheap. Plenty more accessible lenses and lens mounts in the sea..