kye

Now THAT is how to shoot a camera test!! Bravo!

When did you switch to the simpler workflow? To me, the colours look basically the same as previous shots you've posted, so if you've changed workflows during that time I didn't notice any difference so you're matching relatively well

This board is a little more hip-and-shoulder than other places, so strong opinions are kind of the norm here. They do spark disagreements sometimes too. However, this forum has been through a number of discussions about the merits of free-speech vs political correctness and (IMHO) the general tone of those conversations was that open and honest opinions were more valuable than keeping nice with everyone. Be that for better or worse! In terms of the style of that video, it is a very strong style of editing, one which we know the internet took up heavily and is now a cliche, and for many without much talent is a crutch and people churn out videos with impressive transitions instead of making useful content. You may also not be aware, but many of the people on here are older, who came from broadcast or ENG where the bells and whistles weren't even available. I don't know how young you are, but there is a huge range of tastes, much moreso than the 20-something "professionals" who think that The Matrix is classic cinema, and haven't watched a foreign or B&W film in their lives. Besides, @webrunner5 is just grumpy sometimes

I meant that it looks really good That's an expression that my dad always used to use when something exceeded his standards or expectations - like if you hired a car but swapped your Toyota for a Lexus and asked if that would be ok. I guess it doesn't translate well ?

In terms of what you can try to improve the clips you've already shot, here are some thoughts. Try using the stabiliser to smooth out the pan a little. The stabiliser will crop into the image, but if you're only wanting to stabilise a slightly jerky pan then it shouldn't have to crop much at all to really help. Here's a useful video: If you're really seeing compression artefacts then you can attempt to hide them by adding a small amount of blur to smooth them over and then adding a small amount of sharpening after that to match the look with your other shots. This is a pretty nasty thing to do to your footage and if you add too much of this treatment it will look like very low quality footage, but if you add a tiny tiny bit of this then it might improve things a small amount. I'd suggest using the OFX plugin called something like Soften and Sharpen which allows you to soften/sharpen small/medium/large textures individually, so you can do it all in one place and just turn it on/off to check if you're making things better or worse Nice work on plowing through a paid gig - hopefully the first of many?

Looks like retro film, both in the good ways with the bokeh and rendering and the bad ones with the highlight flaring. Not bad for $20! Nice work What do you think of the image? Looks just fine to me

The output files are certainly starting to look like film, that's for sure!

I asked the pro colourists if I should ETTR with the 10-bit footage on the GH5 and they said it wasn't necessary and it would be better to expose as normal. I thought that people used ETTR to get better signal:noise in 8-bit, so anything 10-bit or more should be fine. Although, the exposure video from Filmmaker IQ wasn't talking about ETTR as much as adjusting where the DR was around your middle-grey. It would be interesting for someone to do some tests with setting skin-tone by exposure levels at the various ISOs and seeing how the different shots grade in Resolve.

*cough* proxies *cough* An 8K reference monitor will be crushingly expensive, just like every other genuine reference monitor out there. Here's a thread where professional colourists discuss reference monitors that might prove interesting to everyone here.... https://lowepost.com/forums/topic/467-budget-grading-monitors/ We are all playing in the very shallow end when it comes to grading (and our wallets are very grateful..) 8K is a resolution to shoot in, to do VFX in, and to export in. It's not a resolution to edit in, or grade in.

Photography is completely different to video.. If I still did stills (ha ha) then I'd be shooting my 700D and loving it, but for video, well, it was so disappointing that it inspired me to go 4K.

Canon cameras have a lot of things going for them in both the image and non-image departments - from things like colour science and DPAF, to reliability, and to ergonomics and lens selection. Sometimes the internet can overlook non-image considerations like reliability and ergonomics and be caught up in a frenzy of just wanting pure specs like stupidly high resolution, enormous bitrates, and radical over-sharpening. This forum tries not to get caught up in specs-only discussions (although we do sometimes), and we have a healthy respect for the softer cinema-like rendering of film, the lower resolutions from ARRI and pre-4K cinema cameras, but mostly we draw the line at the barely-720p fuzziness that Canon passes off as it's 1080p files. Partly it's because the image from Canon is so lacking in comparison to other offerings at similar price points (or even getting used equipment at half or a third their price points), and partly because through Magic Lantern we've seen what the hardware is capable of producing, and yet Canon continues to protect it's cinema line-up by not wringing the best out of its existing hardware architectures. A lot of people on here started shooting video on Canon DSLRs and have migrated through frustration to the other brands because the image quality just didn't meet minimum standards. In terms of being nice, you won't find people here being nice all the time... however you will find that most people here are forthright with their opinions but are mostly sincere and want to help. Welcome!

AF on the GH5 has always had problems, but testing AF reliably is almost impossible too, as you can never perfectly replicate the same subject framing, movement, lighting, noise patters, etc. If you had water damage in the camera then I think it would be really obvious, with it trying to focus all over the place or not doing anything at all. I'd get out and shoot stuff and see how you go

Well, there are exceptions of course

That's kind of the challenge isn't it. We see people doing small budget fast turn-around projects like news reporting or micro-docs and doing a great job but these people are often too busy to talk about gear or just don't care about nerdy things, so we don't know what they're using or get their impressions. Also, these people often have a really solid understanding of the fundamentals like exposure and controlling DR with excellent lighting, etc, and so for them most cameras with pro features are really the same because they can get great results with almost anything. We see people doing small budget fast turn-around projects from nerds who like to talk gear, but most of the time they don't do a good job so their output isn't really demonstrating the potential. And finally, we talk to people who are doing higher quality larger budget productions where we could really see what the potential of the equipment is, but things don't air for ages, so even if the person is willing to talk about gear and techniques etc we have to wait ages before the end result is broadcast and we can see things for ourselves (like John Brawley for example). These people are often late adopters too, so they'll wait a year to pick up a camera, then after production it will be another year before the footage sees the light of day. In a sense, the only chances we really have are the amateur YouTubers who have an interest in high-quality film-making to buy the latest gear and talk about it, who have the money from their full-time job to travel and point their camera at interesting things, and who have the time to do more than just slap on a LUT and upload.

Excellent points. People often discuss camera bodies in isolation without thinking about lenses or media, or often talk about those things as a single rig without thinking about those who have multiple camera setups, or those who talk about multiple camera setups often do so without taking into account that they're running a business and have to make money etc. Having three matched cameras also guarantees things like compatibility of batteries, lenses, media, and then in post things like exposure / DR / bit depth as well as technical aspects like compatibility of file formats, etc.

Yan, your sensor and images look fine to me. @webrunner5 is right about exposure, the advice I got from the professional colourists was to just expose normally. I really like grain in b&w too. Which made things good for street photography because you typically set the camera to MF, pre-focus at maybe 1.5m, then have a slower aperture to get a bit of depth of field, and you still want to have a fast shutter, which means you use auto-ISO to expose and that means you get noise unless you're in bright sunlight.

I'd recommend the other videos from John on that same channel too. Thorough, well researched, clearly explained, and is one of the very few film-making channels that remembers that there were films before the year 2000.

I doubt it would be. How does the image look from it now?

Having a million secondaries is totally fine as long as each of them gets you closer to where you want to be. Unfortunately, for people like me, after a certain point I'm really just making things worse!

Just saw this video and thought it would be useful for those with Dual ISO cameras like BMPCC4K, GH5S, etc.. Includes how Dual ISO works, impacts on DR, and how to expose - really great content from John Hess.

The best way is to avoid getting condensation on the camera at all. The best way is to keep the camera in a bag and let everything come up to temperature over a 5-20 minute period. If you have the camera exposed when you make the transition, it's unlikely that much condensation has happened inside the camera, unless you take the lens off, so don't do that. If you are going from cold to warm/humid and need to use the camera quickly then I would suggest changing the lens before the transition and then de-fogging the camera by gently blowing air on it with a blower, but not enough to create drops of water from the fog. Don't blow on them yourself - lungs make air humid and will make the fog worse.

IIRC Juan Melara said that he likes LogC because it's closest to the cineon log curve. Having codecs that have knees in their luminance response makes them very difficult to work with unless you convert them and iron those knees out, otherwise by changing anything you're essentially compressing on one side of the knee and expanding on the other with every adjustment. Absolutely. This is why I recommend against YT wannabe colourists. I think of grading a bit like golf. You start a long way away from where you want to be, so the first adjustment is large, but crude. Each further adjustment should be progressively more refined and get you closer to where you want to be. Ultimately, you want each adjustment to get you much closer to the hole. In golf, you see people hitting the ball and sometimes it's further away from the hole after they hit it than it was before they hit it. This is the same for the amateurs on YT - you see them make adjustment after adjustment and each one improves something but creates almost as many problems as it solves. One of the guys at LiftGammaGain said that you know someone is clueless when they adjust something in a node that they have already adjusted in a previous node. I really believe that - if you later on adjust something you already adjusted, then it means you didn't do it right in the first place. This is a broad statement and there are exceptions where technically it's not true, but the principle still stands. I think this is why when we spend ages doing complicated grades we often just make matters worse, instead of approaching the end result - it's because we're just not good enough at each adjustment.

Yeah, fair enough. The difference between 444 and 422 is real but small, especially since our vision does edge detection based on luminance not hue, so having less resolution for colour information isn't as noticed as luma resolution. Ultimately the best setup would be a setup that took the full sensor readout, debayered it, downscaled it to 1080, then saved it in a HQ or uncompressed codec. That would give the best image possible with the benefits of the smaller file sizes. Imagine if the next models of hybrids plus external recorders could read 8K resolution and save it to Prores 4444 12-bit. 4444 UHD has the same bitrate as RAW 1080, and 4444 HD has slightly less bitrate than RAW 720. That would mean that for the same file sizes you'd get basically the cleanest and highest resolution possible, smooth-like-butter editing, affordable media, and have a rig that was still quite portable - especially if they made the external recorder available in the Atomos Ninja Star form-factor! Ah, dreaming

Remember that the only way to get 1080 444 is to read the sensor at 4K and downres. ML RAW is great because it's RAW, but 4K RAW would be better, even for publishing in 1080.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. It's definitely a hard question to answer, that's for sure!