kye

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!

In a sense I disagree with you. I would say that getting the colours you want by making changes in post is grading, regardless of how you do it. There was a discussion on LiftGammaGain forums about colour grading vs colour correction and their opinion was that they are the same thing, because colour work is just doing what is necessary. They talk a lot about just adjusting contrast and the colour primaries from the colour chart and that if it was shot and lit properly then this is enough to get great results. After watching a bunch of YT wannabe colourists taking log footage and screwing with it via all sorts of manual methods I then found the pros and they talk about using ACES, Resolve Colour Management, Colour Space Transforms in software or LUT form, and then making simple adjustments to correct for shot-to-shot variance and they're done. They don't care about being fancy - they care about how efficient they can be with their workflows. Getting the job done quickly means a higher hourly rate or extra time to really lift the project and deliver a higher quality result. Of course, it's different if you're colouring a low budget documentary or a high budget Hollywood blockbuster, but the 'leg work' of the process is the same in terms of matching shots, removing anything distracting (like strong colours in the background or whatever).

LOL! I read an interesting book called Visions by Michio Kaku and one of the things he talked about was where we are in our evolution as a civilisation. According to The Kardashev scale, which is a system to categorise civilisations: Michio Kaku argued that we are actually a Type 0 civilisation going through the rough transition to become a Type 1 civilisation. He said that everything you read about in the newspaper and all the significant aspects of the news are related to this process. He mentioned things like the internet being a Type 1 civilisation telephone and data network, globalisation as being a Type 1 civilisation economic forum, etc. This creates enormous change within society, especially considering the difference between how culturally isolated the pre-baby boomer and baby boomer generations were growing up and how completely not isolated they are now from a large spectrum of languages, cultures, religions, and races. Growing up, everyone looked like them, talked like them, valued what they valued, etc. When things change too fast people resist and want to wind back the clock, which is what has caused things like Brexit, the rise of nationalist political parties, ISIS, etc. Those who are old enough will remember that terrorists didn't used to be called terrorists - they used to mainly be called 'separatists' because they were people wanting to remain separate - to not mix with other people who were different/inferior to them. In short, we're being forced to learn to get along, and most people don't like it and want to just make the people they don't like go away. Personally, the UK has a special place in my heart because they made a nice place to live by stealing wealth from other countries, and are now shocked (SHOCKED!!) that those people want to move to the UK and enjoy it too.

Yes, consolidation, not consolation! 8K at 120p.... and we're sitting around talking about if 8K 30p is possible!! That's amazing. but one thing that I think you're wrong about..... instead of accepting defeat instead you should work on your levitation skills ???

Cool. Sadly, there are a lot of people running around thinking the 12-35 f2.8 is the same as a 24-70 f2.8 Canon L lens. I run my GH5 with the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 on by default, an SLR Magic 8mm f4 for getting those 'wow' landscapes or interior shots, and am still working out my options for the 80-120mm equivalent length (in the running are a few 50/55/58mm lenses from Minolta, Pentax, and Helios), and also the options for sports lenses. On my trip I used the 17.5mm maybe 80% of the time, the 8mm maybe 10% and the 58mm the other 10% of the time. The right trio of lenses and you're ready to just work and get shots, it's great when the gear gets out of the way like that.

That is very interesting indeed! I didn't think about the TC giving a lens a larger image circle. Do all TC's do that? I would imagine that some of them might obscure the image circle due to other elements of their physical design, but maybe not?

That's true, but I think it's not familiarity with the camera that's the weak point. Imagine two kinds of reviews.. the first just says things about the camera, the second about what that really means. Type 1 review: "The GH5 has X stops of DR. It has 10-bit internal recording." Type 2 review: "The X stops of DR combined with the 10-bit internal recording means that if I shoot this building against the sky I can bring up the shadows in post to get this image here, exposing the building correctly and not blowing out the sky - here's the same image from my control camera and you can see the noise from the 8-bit means the shot is ruined. This means that if you're shooting outdoors there is enough latitude for shots of this nature, such as documentary work on location. This is a real differentiator for those who would typically use an XYZ model camera for this type of shooting". How many reviews of the GH5 showed what shots the GH5 could get that the other cameras couldn't get? A reviewer can tell me the specs and I haven't got the faintest idea what that means to me in real life. If I was trying to figure out which was the better camera for high DR work I'd be screwed if I only got given the stats - shadow recovery depends on ISO noise, bit-depth, codec, bit-rate, DR, and colour space - try getting two cameras with different sets of specs and trading all those things off against each other. Not to mention if the noise looks nasty or lovely in character. That's why we have reviewers!! How many reviews of the BM Micro showed us that do to its size and image quality it would be useful in filming a TV drama like John Brawley showed us he'd done in shooting The Resident? How many reviews of the C100 explained the practical benefits of having a high-quality and low-bitrate codec in terms that compared to other cameras? Let's imagine you're getting a similar quality image from two cameras, but one is lower bitrate and more expensive. At the current HDD prices, how long do you have to record for until the more expensive camera pays for the difference because of the reduced file sizes? No-one gives us that kind of information! Most reviewers are only one step away from just getting Siri to read us the spec sheets, giving us an unedited monologue about how they liked the packaging, and putting music and their branding package on it before hitting publish. I can understand why the working cinematographers don't elaborate on what they're looking for in a sensor / lens / filter or how it matters to the production because they're really in their own space creating content for other working cinematographers. It's a pity though, because there are people like me who are lurking and trying to learn but don't know that a lens with X optical attribute is good for scenes of type Y lit with lights of type Z. Sure, I'm not in the market for either of those $100k lens kits, but I'd like to learn the links between equipment and end-result, especially from those who really have depth in that knowledge and experience.

Interesting results - thanks all who took the poll so far, if you haven't, please do Currently, these seem to be the trends: People seem to think that colour grading is an important part of the process of making a film (it's useful or magic) The majority of people go beyond using a LUT into more custom adjustments, and also want to get better results The minority who basically only use a LUT are more happy with their results than wanting better results The vast majority believe that you don't need Resolve level grading software My theory (that caused me to create this poll) was that getting a great grade is more about using the simple controls well, rather than having all the tools in the world. I wondered if I should try and 'prove' that by exploring some grades using only basic tools and sharing them here. It looks like lots of people want to get better results, but there are also lots of grading tutorials out there and I'm not sure if people are watching them or not. I can imagine that we're all wanting to get better results from every aspect of our film-making, but it's a matter of time and energy, rather than availability of information or resources. Is there interest in seeing before-and-after grading examples that also show the adjustments made to create the grade? Would that be useful?

Ah, that might explain the complicated looking microphones it has..

Brexit sure is a fascinating thing to watch. I know it's not in-keeping with the level of content on this thread, but there's a pretty good coverage and explanation of it on this channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSMqateX8OA2s1wsOR2EgJA I'm not sure how biased their analysis is, but they explain the logic and options of the situation pretty clearly, you know, if you're into that sort of thing

I'm wondering if the protector is special in some way due to the holographic display (that's right isn't it? holographic?). If that's the case then I can understand $40, and the problem lies with either the RED marketing team for not explaining that, or the fanbois who didn't know about it or explain it properly. Or it could be price gouging and zealotry. I'm not ruling that out either ? edit: send us pictures when the roses arrive in your drive

Much of what you say makes sense, but I disagree with some of it. Are you aware that shooting the 12-35 f2.8 at 25mm f2.8 isn't the same as shooting a 50mm f2.8 on FF? 25mm f2.8 on MFT is the same as 50mm f5.6 on FF. To get the same DOF on MFT as you get from FF 50mm f1.2 would require something like 25mm f0.6, which I don't think even exists. This is a handy tool for comparing equivalent focal lengths and apertures: https://mmcalc.com This is a handy tool for comparing DOF: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html I also disagree that f2.8 on MFT will be enough light. Late last year I did a couple of trips with my GH5, shooting in ambient light conditions, sometimes at night (eg, streetlights and shop windows), with my Voigtlander 17.5mm 0.95, and I found two things: f0.95 was needed to reduce noise in the image, and f0.95 wasn't as crazy shallow DOF as you'd think. This is an image I have shared previously, and I think you would agree that it's not a crazy shallow DOF shot - but this was absolutely at f0.95. In terms of what the OP needs to film a building at night with tall ceilings only lit by candles, is probably more than what I needed when filming my family in being lit by street-lights, shop windows, and Christmas lights. I don't know if the GH5 with fast lenses will even be enough - they might shoot it and be left with a very noisy image that suffers in quality after sufficient noise-reduction has been applied. If they want to get any shots where their lenses aren't fully open then they're in trouble with the GH5 too, although how many of these shots they'd need is dependent on the situation and their shooting style. At least with the A7Sii they'd have some wiggle-room in between having too shallow DOF and having too much noise in the final image. It's an extreme recommendation to make, but it's an extreme situation too.

I agree. Camera comparisons can be useful when you're researching what to buy, but there isn't a lot of content around how a certain specification or feature will help you to make a finished product, which is ultimately what matters. I think there are four levels of review: Useless reviews where you learn nothing about the camera (beyond the specs) Good reviews where you get a sense of what the camera can offer to a real shoot Great reviews where you learn about film-making as well as what the camera is capable of Most YT commentary is in the first category, there are a smattering of the second, and the occasional flash of the third. I think it's mostly the reviewers fault, because mostly they either don't know anything about film-making so can't link camera features to real productions, or assume that you already know everything about film-making and don't have to link camera features to real productions. The former are the YT vlogger wannabes and the latter are the working cinematographers who often publish their camera / lens / lighting tests for you to decipher yourself.

The biggest challenge for me was the edges of the frame being kind of out-of-focus in a way my eyes didn't like, so I'm not sure I like that lens wide open. Of course, if that's the biggest criticism then it's doing well, considering that on YT we watch content from multi-thousand dollar cameras shot in 10-bit (or more), shot in RAW, shot in 4K, etc... then it's punching well above it's weight!!

@BTM_Pix Great post - thanks for taking the time to type all that The consolation makes sense, both from an economics perspective as well as an efficiency perspective (which are related under the assumption that a perfect market optimises efficiency) and the subsequent exclusivity and price hikes also make sense from a profit and power-broking perspective. I was once part of a business that ran an online store of sorts, and the system provided an easy way to gather competitive pricing for the clients, and they were surprised when the system provided better prices than their "special deals" with suppliers (who knew they were the only people quoting), and then after some time our business went under because the main client tried to eliminate the fixed per-order cost that we charged by going back to the "special arrangements" they were being promised by the suppliers behind our backs. Capitalism is a strange thing when you understand how far from a perfect market we actually have. In terms of the images suffering, I can see competing priorities. Having wide angles for the TV audience to follow the ball and stay oriented with who has the ball and who is open for passes etc, having simultaneous coverage and detail for the virtual umpire to make decisions on, and having the right angle and framing for the killer photo are definitely things that aren't 100% overlapping. 8K will help to crop in to wider shots for stills, but there are still fundamental conflicts because no matter how much you crop in to this angle: you can't get this angle: In a sense that decision isn't one I'm forced to make personally as my only choice at my kids games is to sit down or stand up, but if I'm shooting for video then I'll still want images that are a lot wider than the portrait shots, and without multiple cameras it's a tradeoff between resolution for stills, wide enough shots for video, and simply being too cropped in and losing track of the action or players. It's also a tradeoff in terms of having a nicer image with a larger aperture vs losing focus and missing a moment, or having a shorter shutter speed for images vs 180 shutter for nicer movement, etc.

Wow - the Fujinon and Leica are expensive! Although the Contax looks interesting, I'll have to read more about it. One thing I don't know is what part of the vintage look I'm interested in. I suspect I'm interested in the rendering being a bit softer, but I'm not sure if this is just lowering the sharpening in-camera, or if this is something I need to get from the lens. I have a Minolta and a Super Takumar on their way so I should be able to compare those to the Helios and Voigtlander and start to get a feel for what I like and don't like about the image. It is appealing to have a zoom that does 35-109mm equivalent but f3-3.5 is still quite slow, and with primes I have the ETC mode which gives good flexibility without having to change lenses. Yes, I suspect the default process-everything settings on TVs is a big issue as well. The guys at LiftGammaGain are always struggling with these things, because they deliver a grade to their client who then watches it on some random TV and then calls them in the middle of the night to tell them the film looks all f*cked up without realising it's grandmas TV and not the grade.

Does that lens cover the m43 sensor? I looked up that mount and found the image circle was 11mm diagonally, which was a lot less than m43, but it looks like I missed something...? Ah, yes, that's a bit better. The other image was a bit worse as it had the parallel lines from the handrail that stood out, but the lines at the waterline are less distracting. TBH I'm not sure how much that stuff matters when you're watching a moving image, and there's probably also an element of it not mattering if you can direct and hold people's attention - "if people notice continuity problems then your film sucks" type thing

Excellent points. In a sense I've been lucky as apart from 2 disposable film cameras (IIRC) I've only shot on digital. I've also been careful / lucky enough to still have all the files, and they're backed up too, on a disconnected drive so a reduced risk of ransomware. The only thing I don't have is an offsite backup, which is probably something I should get around to doing. There are also overlooked backups these days, with things like facebook and YT having been steadily fed the highlights of life, assuming you use those things. The wife and I have plans for some photo walls in the house but life has been absolutely insane over the last 3 years so we've not gotten around to it yet.