kye

This conversation is essentially a symptom of a rapidly converging industry. A cinema camera was designed to be used on a large set with multiple operators and in a highly modular configuration with external everything. They cost $100k+ weighed a ton and everyone was happy. A home video camera that could fit in your pocket was designed to be used by one person, was fully self-contained, and would run all day on a battery. They shot low quality 480p / 720p / 1080p, and everyone was happy. A DSLR was designed to have interchangeable lenses, take nice photos, be used by a single user, and need accessories, filters, spare batteries, etc. They cost $1k-$3k and everyone was happy. Convergence #1: The DSLR revolution The DSLR revolution began when the video functions of the home video camera got put into the DSLR camera. All of a sudden video people were using DSLRs and enjoying the interchangeable lenses. It meant that they had to fluff around with extra batteries and other accessories, but this was accepted as a necessary price to pay because you could get video with blurry-backgrounds, and that was like real cinema, so hooray! People lamented that DSLRs didn't implement video functionality perfectly, which was often an overhang of the still image history of the DSLR, and wanted to have the best of the home video camera world they had come from, and the cinema camera world they looked longingly at from afar (with rose tinted glasses). Completely spoiled, they moaned endlessly about the dreaded crop factor, the recording time limits, and the overheating. Convergence #2: The cinema camera revolution Advances in technology started to put cinema cameras within reach of the spoiled DSLR revolutionaries, and the heavy poor low-light multi-operator modular cameras started appearing at sizes, weights, and price-points that resembled DSLRs. The "we want it all, we want it now" DSLR revolutionaries embraced the high image quality, ease of use, and simplicity of design of these new cameras, however they skipped straight over the fact that the industry had chopped of a zero off the price of these products and they lamented that they were modular, requiring rigging, external power, filters, whined that they weren't industry-leading in low-light performance, and some even criticised them for not being able to take still images. Convergence #3: The smartphone revolution Eventually, smartphones with vast arrays of individual camera/lens modules driven by AI engines replaced all but the most specialised cameras. The camera forums heaved with devastated punters ranting incoherently that manufacturers reduce the cost of these technological marvels to $1.

I once saw someone give a mobile flip-phone a 1-star rating because they didn't like the ringtones it came with. Just because people do something doesn't make it sensible. You can go on comparing the past with the future all you like, but I fail to see how its relevant or even useful. If you're looking to answer the question "Should I buy an S1 or get in my time machine and go back to when the GH5 was launched and buy one of those? They were the same price at launch" then I think you've missed the point of what the potential of a time machine is

Nah, but they have all the musicians, artists, free thinkers, and interesting people, so you can just hang with them instead of watching them on TV

But the original price isn't what people are paying these days. Tech always devalues, otherwise people who are talking about laptop computers would be comparing them to the original computers with valves in them that took up entire floors of buildings and cost millions of dollars in money from back then, which is obviously a stupid comparison because the tech has advanced and gotten cheaper.

If only that was true! I had a brief look, but didn't have time to go through all of them. My first impression though, was that his grading didn't seem to look much good. I know there's taste involved and there's no such thing as 'wrong' but it didn't make me want to listen to what he had to say. Juan Melara on the other hand......

If you haven't tried it already, maybe the 6K anamorphic mode might work better for you? It uses h265 instead of h264, and has way less sharpening (or maybe none? not sure). I don't know what you mean about it giving us "wide open wide shots" or that it can't give "mid cowboy" shots. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about sensor size - it's just about using the right lenses. You're right about it not being a low-light king, but I've found the answer to that to be using fast lenses. I know that by using large aperture settings makes focusing more difficult, but with my 17.5mm at f0.95 or my 40mm at f1.8 the camera can see about the same as I can at its base ISO. The GH5 isn't actually so far back, it's more that we're spoiled, but also you have to take the cost into account, comparing a GH5 to S1 without taking price into account is like comparing the S1 to an Alexa - an academic but not-so-useful exercise. He did. Unfortunately he also brought a lot of conflict and animosity into the conversation as well. My personal opinion of Jon is that deep down he's a good guy - he helped me out with lots of info via PMs in the past. I'd encourage you to get in touch with him if you feel so inclined.

Cameras convert ideas, planning, setup, teamwork, passion, skill, practice, attitude, and luck into files on a hard-drive. Then editing software converts vision, taste, timing, essence, persistence, and files on the hard drive into a finished film. This is why a great camera makes no improvement to a bad situation, and a bad camera takes only a small amount away from a lot of hard work and dedication.

@thephoenix that is absolutely fantastic! I retime things quite a bit, and optical flow is great, but it doesn't do a good job when there is movement in the background, but this new SpeedWarp mode is really great. The video the guy uses is actually a really good test and shows the weaknesses in both the approaches. DR just keeps getting better and better!!

Nice stills. I've heard people have a lot of love for that lens, and it sure would be a convenient one to carry around for simple shoots. You better hurry up and finish that film, or pretty soon we'll have all watched it frame by frame in this thread! ???

I believe that what is being referred to is "super whites" where the output signal is above the white point by default, but can be brought back as the data is in the file. The XC10 does this. I suspect that if you're recording in prores then the conversion that happens may clip those super whites and they wouldn't be recoverable. I could be wrong, but I've seen super whites myself, and this clipping behaviour is very similar to the way that still images are processed with RAW / JPG files.

This is more popular than you'd imagine, although different people see this to varying degrees too. I recently noticed a shot with a low shutter angle in Peaky Blinders which is a very high production-value show, so although I have no idea what caused them to do that, it was even present there. I'm not sure how much this will help you though, as changing light conditions will still necessitate either AWB, or worse, WB corrections in post.

Actually, yes - I really liked this too - I forgot to comment on it. The strange ringing you get from loud sounds was done perfectly - "sound as headspace" was nailed completely!

I have an idea. If you can get a sample unit to me then we can work together to work out how to connect it to a live stream of stock market prices....

Awesome stuff! Lots of respect from me too. For just shooting it with what you had, for finishing it, and for uploading it. Only those who have done this will appreciate what an achievement that is!! In terms of my feedback, I really liked the different coloured lighting setups / grades. I didn't really understand the 322, but it seems to fit the whole other-worldly theme, and there's lost of cool stuff I don't get so it's probably just me Again, well done!

I watched that, and I also watched the one he referenced from the other channel (because I'm on Mac) and I noticed that they had different approaches to managing the database. Process completed and 16b1 works for me.. MBP 2016 13inch running OSX 10.13.6

It is good, although the footage is so mushy. In a sense an action camera is an over-capture device because you're probably going to crop into it in post, either through re-framing or stabilisation or de-fishing or a combination thereof. I read an article from the guy who shot the girls snorkelling section of the Hero3 demo video, which was fascinating. It took them a day to understand the camera needed crap-tonnes of light and needed to be set to mostly manual (which was limited for this model). The next day sorted out which profiles were the best and the limits of the slow-motion mode, and how to grade things. The third day was a test shoot day to work on framing and operator technique and refine the grading, then the last two days were shooting a crap-load and hoping to get a shot that looked good, framing and waves were good, and there happened to be the exact right lighting that makes it look good. It was a shoot where they were stretching every single variable to the absolute maximum to shoot the demo video. The reality is that there's no way in hell that the average person can make anything like the demo videos, and most pros would have difficulty too. I wish I could find it again (I've looked unsuccessfully several times) because it shows what it takes to truly get the best out of a camera. I think better sensors in newer models help, getting enough light into these things is a huge factor in good image quality. The above was shot in ProTune but I am not that sure there's much advantage over the standard mode TBH (at least for this model). I did a series of tests with different modes last night in controlled conditions and setting it to the non-protune mode where it grades and sharpens the image seemed to produce a slightly nicer image than I could manage in Resolve with a decent degree of trying. I'm thinking of the X3000 because it's got nice 4K and because the OIS eliminates movement during the exposure, which helps with RS wobble as well as in lower light. I actually think that the form factor is well suited if you have a mic on it. The GoPro is strange because it's wide and shallow, yet any directional mic will be narrow and deep, so having a Rode Video Micro style microphone would probably work much better with the X3000 than a GoPro. I've also been tossing up a 360 camera, but by the time you try and crop in, the picture falls apart. IIRC a 28mm lens is something like a 90degree horizontal angle. If your 360 camera is 4K and you crop to a 90 degree angle then you're getting under 720p resolution and throwing away 94% of the bitrate, so a 100mbps 4K file becomes 6mbps 1000 x 560. 6K resolution isn't that much better.... 6mbps is not a good look! I also need underwater, and for the price of having to point the camera, I think the extra IQ is worth it. When we get 20K 360 cameras then we'll be set, but until then

I think I read somewhere that the first computers with storage were programmed to store all a users information in a database, but they had to move to a file system because it made things easier to exchange with other people, which was a use they hadn't fully realised would be so important. I can understand there's a push to make mobile operating systems more like computers, but unfortunately there's also a push to make computers more like tablets, which is an awful step backwards for lots of users. To be honest, I'm pretty dismayed at how modern computers can calculate zillions of instructions per second, and graphics cards that can render millions of polygons per second and we use them to display the same interface that was invented in 1973 by Xerox Park with the Alto: Tablet operating systems are the first real innovation since then, and they made functionality simpler, but worse for doing actual work. It's shameful really.

Filmed this yesterday: Some thoughts: It's both a camera test but also a real video - if you're going to go through the whole process then why not get a nice memento out of it I've realised that I'm comfortable with the point-my-camera-at-things style of film-making, but my videos are about my family so should also include me, so this is a test to try and get better at that This was shot with my positively geriatric GoPro Hero3 and was kind of a test at using it as a selfie camera It's shaky as hell, and if you apply strong stabilisation in post it becomes wobble-vision.. I plan to replace it with the Sony action camera which has OIS It was convenient, small, and easy to get a variety of shots with, so I think the form-factor is good 2.7k mode isn't great, the Sony in 4K would be much improved

I think I might. After watching that video and working out it'll be months before we see the full release. Plus I shot a short video yesterday and that was quite fun, so I have a bit more energy for editing again I think

Oh, interesting. How do you.... oh, hang on. I look forward with anticipation of the official launch of your new YT channel... CatRidesMan ???

...and the people using Canon for video is a drop in the ocean of Canon photographers. ......and the people using Canon for stills is a drop in the ocean of photographers. ..........and the photography market is a drop in the ocean of the electronics market. ..............and...... ???

@UncleBobsPhotography @Shirozina I think it depends on what level of lighting variety there will be between shots, the tolerance the OP is willing to take in the final edit, and the level of time, skill, and software capability available for colour matching in post. I've spent a lot of time trying to match different cameras in post (made more difficult than this situation because my cameras also had different colour science and were pretty bad quality cameras) and I've found that it can be really difficult to get acceptable matching, even if you half know what you're doing in grading. Obviously ND filters vary far less than entirely different cameras, but the differences I couldn't overcome were so large that they'd be completely unusable in most commercial settings, so for the OP the difference of NDs might be practically relevant. The fact they're asking about how to do a test, and that their approach is detailed and seems sound would also indicate they might be creating a higher quality product where there is less room for variations. I could be wrong of course - we all obsess over tiny little details that don't much matter in the grand scheme of things (like cameras, colour science, etc!) ???

Throwing stones is good I can't comment on the P4K, but I'm in m43 land with my GH5 and I think your summary is about right. FF lenses adapt really well for the longer focal lengths but getting fast/wide/both lenses is the challenge. In case you're not familiar with the options: Voigtlander make an excellent series of f0.95 lenses These come in 10, 17.5, 25, and 42.5mm lengths, which are the equivalents of FF 20mm/1.9, 35mm/1.9, 50mm/1.9, and 85mm/1.9. They're gorgeous to use, and the aperture ring can be adjusted to de-click. I only have experience with the 17.5mm one, which is soft at 0.95 but is almost fully crisp at f2.8 (FF f5.6 equivalent) and for some reason has a strange colour shift at 0.95 that cleans up by 1.4 I use the SLR Magic 8mm F4 (equivalent to a 16mm F8) that is optically good but not great, but ergonomically is a pig because it's designed for drones not a human user. There is a Laowa 7.5mm f2 which is more expensive, but seems to be good optically and is designed for human use, and it popular with vloggers due to the 15mm equivalent FOV. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 on Metabones adapter is popular and optically and ergonomically nice too, although it's heavier than the M43 lenses. In a sense, I think your criticisms aren't so much that the P4K image isn't great, but rather that the competition is actually really good.. I think we're spending more and more time being overly critical and nit-picky, or making genuine and practically relevant criticisms about cameras that are outputting a level of quality but are a fraction of what equivalent cameras used to cost

I was just thinking about how long this might take. Some googling revealed that v15 was released April, had 8 beta versions, and was fully released in August. Version 14 beta 1 was released in April and came out of beta in September, so 4 or 5 months for the last two releases. Both these had entirely new products spliced into Resolve, whereas the Cut page is a different view on existing features, with some extra smarts in the background, so should be far less of a programming challenge. I have no idea how many beta versions and how long it will take, but I'd suggest that although it's probably less than the 4-5 months of previous versions, BM aren't afraid to take their time and release lots of beta versions before considering it ready for 'real use'. I say 'real use' because I think that there are lots of seriously high-end people using it for big budget projects who would wait for the final release and wouldn't even think about using a beta version. Of course, PP seems to be buggy as hell and that's got its fair share of VIP users, so who knows. I am wondering if I should just backup my database and install it The Cut page is seriously tempting.

It's probably worth mentioning that a tablet can be really good if you're filming yourself and you use the tablet to control the camera. Some cameras have excellent remote control apps or browser-based apps with touch-to-focus and all the aperture/SS/ISO/etc settings.