kye

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.

These are very different cameras. What type of shooting do you do and what kind of videos do you make? Maybe some more info would help point out any weaknesses or things to watch for.

So, let me see if I caught everything there: It's an 8K camera that can't record 8K Canon don't even have an external 8K recorder They made an 8K video but we can't watch it in 8K A YouTuber with a RED posted an 8K video on YT over two years ago, but Canon hasn't worked out how to do it yet? Did I miss anything?

Cool videos! Really nice colours and movement. Not sure about Cine-D vs Vlog but why not just shoot a test and try both modes, lit only by your LED light? Pulling the footage into NLE should answer most of your questions?

Doh! What focal length would suit you best? Many favour the 24-28mm equivalent, although the 35mm equivalent is my favourite, and the 50mm equivalent is popular too. I have the 14mm Panasonic and it's not too bad, and very compact.

I'd keep my eye on it but wait. Every new model seems to get better by quite a lot, and Insta seems to be the DJI of 360 cameras so they're the ones to watch. You're right that 4K isn't enough for 360 degrees, and they're not going to up the bitrate much beyond the 100mbps, at least for the two-lens consumer versions. That's why I say to wait for the 8K versions. It's highly promising new tech, but it's just not quite there yet for the kind of quality that people on this forum demand as a minimum standard.

I thought you got good at running by watching those "exercise motivation" videos on YT? Tell me you're not tired just watching that...

Yeah. The more 3D stuff I watch, the more I think you have to be reeeeeealy careful if you move the camera! Can you put a USB into it when it's mounted? If so, you'd likely be using it with a pole mounted in its blind spot so you could potentially just coil a USB cable up the pole? Log on 8-bit low bitrate consumer camera doesn't sound that promising... Great! Another product that will only work in countries that are so cold all you do in winter is sit inside wanting to kill yourself and then when it's barely above freezing everyone strips off naked in parks and old people and babies die because the temperature got all the way up to the temperature we run our refrigerators at.

Cool. So make those changes to yours and then compare them again, then fix that, etc etc.. Post when it's as close as you can get it

Open up each still in a browser window and swap back-and-forth and tell me what you see. List as many differences as you can. This is actually a great exercise in learning how to see

These are very nice. One of the main challenges I see with this LUT pack is in the variation of skin tones. Many images posted have skin tones where there are areas of skin that are obviously yellow and others that are obviously pink, or where the skin tone is completely pink and there is nothing towards the orange side of that spectrum. I will be the first to admit that I'm not a keen judge of colour, but to me good skin tones seem to sit in the ambiguous area between the "why is that person yellow? are they sick?" and "why is that person pink? are they sick?" tonal ranges. Some examples show colour in both of these areas and I suspect that its to do with excessive saturation in the final grade. I've messed around with these LUTs on my own footage across a number of different shoots and it does push the skin tones quite far towards the magenta, but when I look at Alexa footage it doesn't seem to be graded with that level of push, so I think controlling that aspect of the colour is an important part of grading this material (and I suspect also when grading Alexa files, simple because of how well the LUT pack matches the Alexa, unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of playing with Alexa footage myself). To this end I find a lot of benefit in using hue adjustments to ensure that the hues in skin tones are contained within that sweet spot between yellow and pink. I'm curious to hear what other people's views on this are, maybe it's a personal taste thing?

Im confused, is it "backpacking cats" or "back packing cats"?

I just operate under the concept that you choose your base frame rate and carefully match it to shooting normal speed clips, but when shooting slow-motion you just conform it properly and it kind of doesn't matter in a way. For example, if you're on a 25fps timeline and you shoot 50p slow-motion then it will conform to 50% of real speed, but if you shoot 60p it will conform to 40% of real speed. I'm not really sure there would be that many situations where a 50% speed shot is required and a 40% speed shot wouldn't also be acceptable. In that sense I kind of view 50p and 60p as being the same,.

Interesting discussion, but we need to be careful we don't deviate from what actually matters, which is how the image looks to people. @amanieux is correct that there is lossless and lossy, but there is no real 'visually lossless' category, unless they saved space by removing the metadata or something, but that's basically pointless. It's more accurate to talk about how much visual loss is caused by how much compression. For example, mp3s are very highly compressed (down to single digit percentages) but the perceived sound quality remains a lot higher than the file sizes because they're very smart about what information they're removing, and have chosen to remove the things that humans are least sensitive to. In visual terms there are equivalents to this and certain changes do a lot more perceived 'damage' to an image than others. For example, if you took a video signal and made every pixel 2% brighter then we basically wouldn't notice and no-one would complain. But if you made every pixel 2% brighter, but only on every second frame, it would flicker like mad and would be a total shit-show, despite the video quality actually having half as much total error. Obviously this is a ridiculous example, but when we compress video we are essentially doing two things, one is that we are choosing how much total deviation there will be (all else being equal, more compression = more deviation from the source material) and we are choosing where and how that deviation will be allocated, both in the frame and across frames. When you heavily compress an image you often find horrific blocking artefacts in plain shadow areas, and also on flat surfaces next to edges. This is due to how the image is compressed and which algorithms are used to do so. It's less obvious today since the compression in JPG and MPG has kind of taken over, but those of us who recall comparing images from a GIF file that only had a small number of colours but could do flat surfaces and edges perfectly with a JPG image that could do many more colours but flat surfaces and edges abysmally will know what I mean. It's kind of like when we talk about ISO performance of a new camera - one reviewer says "ISO 1000 is the limit" and the next person says "ISO 6400 is totally usable" and we're really none the wiser because all we know is that they have different tolerances for noise in their images. In video we do have some standard measurements, like Signal-to-noise, but unfortunately that's difficult to calculate, and due to perception not being purely mathematical it's also not a reliable predictor of how good something looks. In a sense, what we should have is a standard test of what percentage of people could tell the difference between the source and a compressed version over a range of delays between the images. That would give us something like "compression example 1 was visibly different to 80% of people over a 1 second gap and only 30% of people over a 40s gap, whereas compression example 2 was visibly different to 60% of people over a 1 second gap and only 10% of people over a 30s gap" and that would be useful when compared with other things like file sizes etc. Unfortunately, I don't know about such a standard test, and even if there is, no-one seems to be doing it.

Hell, even just reading out select sentences from this thread would be funny. It would sound like crazy people all standing around blabbering about kind of the same stuff but kind of not. It would even have quite a crescendo when you get to this post here and it reveals what you did and what they've just watched.

In addition to @Towd's good advice, I'd suggest bookmarking the demo videos from the big cameras as colour reference standards. eg, the video from ARRI for the LF, the Canon C300, some of the Sony ones, Panasonic EVO, etc. These videos are demoing the camera and to show off the camera they spend a truckload on a grade to make it look great, but they're not trying to show 'a look', they're trying to show the camera in as neutral a way as possible. If you swap back and forth from your grade to these demo videos then you'll have a good reliable reference to make sure your eyes aren't going too far from a neutral position. You can even use the demo videos as references to find images from nice films (film trailers for example) that you can collect to for a 'look book' of reference styles to reference. All these references will help you to not run away with yourself, provide inspiration from reliable sources, but also partly make up for a lack of a proper calibrated colour grading setup. I don't know about the various copyright infringements involved, but (in theory!!!) you could download those reference videos from YT with a video downloader, then pull still images from them in your NLE, and save them into a folder that you've bookmarked in your NLE so you can just pull them up at any point during grading for a quick reference. You know, in theory...

Thanks! I feel like I got more value than I paid for ??? One of the things I noticed in my lens tests was that when I was comparing lenses with slightly different focal lengths at the same aperture the slight difference in DOF due to the slight aperture size actually made quite a bit of difference in 3D pop, even at something like f5.6 (which is F11 in FF terms). In some sense there really isn't an alternative to faster glass. LOL, maybe. Although when I was looking for comparisons I kept finding them in various places but what surprised me was that even with the right keywords google wasn't that good at unearthing them. I wouldn't be too worried about how much we're impacting the global marketplace here in this thread