kye

2 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Very much enjoyed the look of the Canon CN-Es (same glass as the Ls with better QC, coatings, and housings) on Helium for a recent short I gaffed. Attempted a more raw, naturalistic feeling look than I generally do, and I'm pretty happy with the results. Grabs are from ungraded Rec.709 proxies.

Nice looking images, but wow are those lenses expensive!!

I understand the advantages of cinema primes and how they can pay for themselves on a big shoot, but yeah, you'd really want the images to be super nice!

2 hours ago, TurboRat said:

Yeah the Full Frame cameras are better in Low Light. What do you think are the advantages of GH5s aside from the flip screen and the small lenses?

A7III has ibis though (not as good as GH5) so I think that's a better choice

10-bit is a pretty big advantage of the GH5 over the Sonys.

+1 for what @mercer said.

I played with ML on my 700D and found the workflow with MLVApp to be quite straight-forward.

But.. ML isn't for everyone.  Some things to consider are:

• ML isn't one thing.  It's a modular software system with different versions across different camera models.  Each of those versions can contain features that are fully-tested and bullet-proof, but may also have features that are cutting-edge with limited testing or even bleeding-edge with zero testing.  Depending on what features you use, there may be risks of errors or bugs, or in the bleeding-edge stuff, potentially crashes and loss of footage.  There has been some buzz around ML killing SD cards or other hardware, but the reality is that this has happened in very few instances and isn't really something you should be concerned about.
• The higher-resolution RAW functionality is still quite new, although lower resolutions are pretty well developed now, so there's the risk of bugs.
• There is no manual, and it's pretty technical.  In most companies you have product development teams who work out what customers want, and designers who will tell the developers how to make things easy to use, and support teams who deal with customer enquiries and write manuals.  ML only has developers, and forums.  On the forums there are users who help each-other and developers who answer questions when they get time, but if you're in the threads about the cutting-edge or bleeding edge stuff, you'll find that a large percentage of the conversation is developers speaking in machine code to each other.  You can ask questions and sometimes you'll get answers, but sometimes you won't and maybe searching will help but maybe it won't.
• It moves pretty fast.  Certainly faster than the third-party resources such as YT videos or blog posts can keep up with.  Often if you're looking for help with something you will find a how-to and you'll follow it through but get to a point where it no longer works because they changed something and the tutorial uses a menu option that doesn't exist anymore or whatever.  You have to kind of work things out for yourself sometimes.

I love ML, I think it's great and I wish them every success.  But it is a very different experience to the standard firmware that comes in any consumer camera.

The end results speak for themselves!  Nice work

It's funny how people talk about the GH5, and GH5S and P4K in similar terms, to me the GH5 is in a different class of cameras because it has IBIS.  It might seem to be just another spec, but for anyone who needs to get usable hand-held shots it's practically the king.  That's why I bought one over the A7III, P4K, GH5S, EOS-R, Fuji XH-1, etc.  If I'd not needed IBIS then I would have been ordering the P4K like a shot.

The 'look' of high-quality older cameras is an interesting thing, and I know that @mercer and @webrunner5 have an eye for it.  I think I do as well, having ranked the cameras in the 2012 Zacuto Camera Challenge in descending order of price as a blind test, but I'm not sure what part of the look it is that I'm attuned to.  
I suspect that one aspect people often get attached to is that it doesn't look as real as modern cameras.  I've noticed that modern cameras and modern TVs look more real somehow, and to my eyes that hasn't been a good thing.  Watching TV soaps on the odd occasion I visit someone and the TV is on I am struck by how much it looks like normal people in a room rather than TV stars in a fictional world.  When previously you might have watched a show you're not familiar with for five minutes and come away with questions about the story or characters, now I'm left with impressions about how makeup needs to improve and the whole thing looks like a home video despite being shot professionally.  
I suspect that this comparison to how cinema used to look is simply one that younger generations just don't have, so they can't be using it as their benchmark.  I once read an article saying that the music you listen to at 14 years old is the music that you will like forever because at that age your stage of development and hormones and whatever make the things in your life at that time kind of baked-in, so they stay with you.  If you were 14 and mostly watching TV at home and going to the movies in a digital projection setup with THX everything, then that surreal and magical aesthetic of film just wouldn't be in your experience.

In terms of 10-bit or more workflows, look to the ML thread.  I shot test clips at 10, 12 and 14 bit RAW and compared them and decided that I could barely tell the difference between 10 and 12 bits.  ML aficionados with an eye for colour claimed 14-bits was the way to go, but acknowledged that 12-bits was almost as good and that shooting 14 was mostly because it was there and didn't cost them anything.  The difference between 8-bit from my XC10 and 10-bit from my GH5 is huge, 10-bit RAW would be better again due to the lack of compression, but I think 12-bit RAW or 14-bit RAW really aren't going to excite many people in a practical kind of way.

Lastly, @thebrothersthre3 the reputation of MFT matters to Panasonic.  If they don't reassure their MFT customers, the uncertainty might lead to some people switch to FF that would have stayed in MFT, which then would mean less customers for the GH6, devaluing the system and potentially causing a feedback loop that devalues the system.  Technology devalues in camera bodies, sure, but lens systems devalue at a different rate.  If you don't think that people care what their equipment is worth, have a read in the XC10 thread, and see how many people liked the camera and the image but sold it saying they couldn't keep an investment in a camera that was falling in value.

8 hours ago, noone said:

Dissolving bearings is not fun but it is also not that common either.       I am just saying it DOES happen.       Even with it, the FD 85 1.2 L is one of my favourite legacy lenses (along with the other FD L lenses I have had).         Much better than the regular lenses from all system I have had generally.     There really is something for having those aspherical elements in early primes and most others didn't (Nikon did in the Noct and look at the cult following and cult prices they go for).   Canon had a couple of L zooms with aspherical elements too that are supposedly good as well

I have so much more to learn!

8 hours ago, noone said:

As for a cheap 40mm lens that works great on M43, don't overlook the Canon EF 40 2.8 STM used on a non focal reducer AF adapter.       I used it on a GX7 with Kipon adapter and the AF (for AFS anyway) was virtually native.

I've gone to a completely manual focus lens lineup now.  AF-S would be great, but I need to be able to pull focus manually and fly-by-wire just doesn't cut it for me anymore.  In a sense, I'm using vintage lenses as an affordable alternative to cinema primes.  I'm even a bit annoyed when a lens doesn't have click-less aperture adjustments!

It sounds like marketing BS to keep people excited about m43.

It's nice that they're implying there will be a GH6, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them still having an MFT line in 5-10 years.

7 hours ago, leeys said:

It's a strange realm to fight though; you'd think they'd do something more consumer focused.

Nah, go big or go home.

and a consumer 8K m43 camera is definitely going big.  

Just ask yourself WWCD? (what would Canon do?) and then do the opposite!!

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Nah, you only need a flight of stairs.

Did you see what they did in the modern revival about Daleks and stairs?  It was quite an amusing moment..

24 minutes ago, thephoenix said:

 stop complaining and buy yourslef a proper photo camera !!"? loved that

Yeah, I know!

Some criticisms just need to answered by telling the people to get a grip ???

1 hour ago, FoxAdriano said:

Ok, thanks. Out of curiosity: if I use Resolve, is there an integrated filter like Neat Video so that I can do without buying the plugins for Edius 9?

The paid version has both spatial and temporal noise reduction. I am pretty sure the temporal NR isn't in the free version but the spatial one might be.

There's a bunch of plugins with the free version and a whole bunch more with the paid one. Plus everything that's in Fusion which seems to be enormously complicated and thorough.

2 hours ago, noone said:

FD lenses can be great but be careful.    Some of them have issues with dissolving bearings and a get very loose throw.

Now there's a terrifying combination of words I've never heard before!!

In other news, I just managed to score a good deal on a Lomo T-43 40mm f4 lens.  At ~$5 including shipping you really can't complain that it doesn't have focus controls or even a mount that you can buy adapters for, so you have to make your own.

On my GH5 it'll be 80mm equivalent, and will be competing with my much more expensive 55mm 1.8 Super Takumar and 0.7x focal reducer combination, but in a sense this might be more fun.  My plan is to do some free-lens tests and then if it's worth investing in I'll adapt it with the ~$25 for the helicoid adapter, mount adapter, and glue that you need

It might be useful to have such a small lens for 80mm - in situations where you want to keep the setup light-weight or compact.

5 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

Yes, it was never intended to be so random. It got off topic after page one and never recovered; I drop in from time to time, to gaze upon the chaos lol

Oh yes, sorry - forgot you're the OP for a second there!

I could argue that starting a thread here is inviting the random and that you should have known, but I'll let you off with a warning this time, but don't let me catch you doing the same thing next time and claiming it wasn't intended!!  ???

11 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

Such a Frankenstein thread, how does someone kill a monster they accidently created? 

Accidentally?

28 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Speaking about AI LoL. I saw on 60 minutes, a TV show here once a week, that the best known Chinese AI Engineer in China, Kai-Fu Lee, said in 15 to 20 years AI will displace 40% of the work force in the world! 40%. Yikes.

Yes.

Of course, if you think of AI as the automation of thinking, then it fits with robotics, which is the automation of doing.  Then you can understand what AI will do by looking at what robotics has done.  Robotics has provided three main impacts: it replaced some jobs outright, it de-skilled some other jobs, and it means the owners of the machine get more of the profits.  This is reflected in the current trends of there being some unemployment, but considerably more under-employment where skilled workers are forced to work unskilled jobs for less money.

The rise of AI will have pretty much the same impacts, but it will do it to intellectually repetitive tasks instead of physically repetitive tasks.  We're going to cause an enormous shift in the workforce and that's where the arguments for basic income are coming from.  There's been a steady reduction in the number of hours worked per capita over the last 50 years (IIRC - it's multiple decades anyway) due to banning child labour, the 40-hour week, and other social changes, so automation and AI are just continuations of this trend.  

In the longterm, we're just not going to have enough jobs, so we need to work out how to cope with this.

4 hours ago, User said:

Kids can be fun and playful, and if it were me, I set up a few huge monitors around your main living area that are tuned and triggered by phrases like "how is that rude" and when triggered play random Kafka quotes. Here are a few that seem to fit:

You are free, and that is why you are lost.

So long as you have food in your mouth, you have solved all questions for the time being.

One of the first signs of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die.

As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.

A book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us.

From a certain point onward there is no longer any turning back. That is the point that must be reached.

In the fight between you and the world, back the world.

That is hilarious!

Just what I needed first thing in the morning - a good chuckle

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Sounds like some really fucked up hidden mode you've discovered on the Alexa there.

LOL.

During my uni days I had one of those long conversations that ended up following logical tangents to illogical places, and we ended up designing a sarcastic and borderline-abusive artificially intelligent personal assistant.  It would be shaped like a key fob and it would do everything a PA would do, basically like a smart-phone minus the social media.  During the early parts of the conversation the design was helpful, it would take notes, make appointments by talking directly with other AIPAs, order goods, etc.  Then we figured that the market would eventually be saturated with competing products and that's where the sarcasm would come in - as a differentiator.

Things like:
"Am I busy next Thursday evening?"   "Yes, you are.......   I don't know why you bother, but sure"
"What about Friday night?"   "I'm confident you can fritter that away somehow"
"Make an appointment for dinner with Suzy Friday night"   "Hope springs eternal"
"What am I doing after that?"   "Regret...  Self-loathing..."

But you're right, we can get started now on the current technology ???
 

1 hour ago, kaylee said:

i cant think of one political figure, outspoken celebrity, or random idiot in the media who fits that description over here~! 

Isn't that because most people who might entertain that thought combination are too afraid to voice it, and those that do have their megaphones taken away?

6 minutes ago, salim said:

ever since the Godfather starting shot every filmmaker wants to have this subtle zoom movement. But I've been wondering if you're shooting 4k (possibly with Atomos RAW they're talking about maybe higher than 4k) wouldn't make the production work easier if you just have a fixed tripod shot and then do this movement it in software? 

Maybe you go from 4K resolution to 3.8 or 3.5K and upscale to 4k. Would many people notice the change in image resolution? 

 

The tradeoff is maybe quicker and simpler setup and much cheaper production. 

Cropping in and panning / tilting / Ken Burns-ing is a digital simulation of a fixed position camera movement, like a fluid-head on a tripod.  The difference is that you don't get the depth effects of the foreground moving differently to the background.  If there's a movement towards or away from the subject then you also get a change in how out-of-focus the background is.

2 hours ago, DBounce said:

So our Edelkrone Motion kit with the new HeadPlus unit arrived. I figured it would be a great chance to have a quick play with it to see how the Nikon Z6 handles on it. I like this smaller form factor for this setup. It keeps it pretty light. I used the 24-70mm F4 on this shoot. The whole systems was very easy to setup and use. I plan to use this setup regualarly. So I will be in a good position to gauge reliability. Anywhoddles... here is the video. Feel free to comment:

Nice work!  Those movements are complex and really interesting.

I don't know your style or what you're trying to achieve creatively but this could really add to the right project.  The key is to practice and get to terms with the feel it creates and then use it on the right projects.  It reminds me of this video that was posted recently about hand-holding and camera movements, especially the combining of multiple shots into a single moving shot.

Also, films with "one take" like Russian Ark where the film includes all the normal shots of a film like close-ups, mid-shots, wides, etc but does so in a single fluid movement.

Obviously this isn't as extreme with your setup, but that is a whole aesthetic and would really contribute to the right projects.

Also remember that you're comparing footage from those cameras through the compression of YT or Vimeo, unless you download the 4.6Gb file of the video @HockeyFan12 shared above.

This may or may not be relevant depending on how your project will be distributed and broadcast.

5 hours ago, User said:

Social justice warriors and half baked journalists love this approach... not that IronFilm is either as far as I know.
But just for fun, I'm reminded of an insightful and often hilarious interview with Jordan Peterson by Kathy Newman that makes light of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

It's just one of the cornucopia of ways to avoid a real debate or discussion.  Unfortunately, most people either don't know enough about how to debate properly or don't care enough about doing it properly, so most conversations are just riddled with dirty tactics and are almost completely devoid of genuine logical arguments.

Here's an interesting list that contains 71 intellectually dishonest tactics: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics
But there are simpler tactics that are also very common.  A great one is shifting the burden of proof.  My kids do this all the time and its difficult not to fall for it.  They are rude and sarcastic, you call them out about being rude, they deny being rude and instead of justifying that statement they ask "how is that rude" and try to set the context that if you can't prove it then they weren't being rude.  Of course, if you fall for the trap and try to provide reasons they just disagree without any argument or proof, and of course they're never going to admit it, so you're flogging a dead horse.  I don't think I saw it in the list of 71 tactics in that article.

Amusingly, the author of the above says there are only two intellectually honest tactics:

Quote

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Why not just put the ef to Fuji adapter on the Fuji, and the ef to MFT adapter on the bmpcc4k, then just treat them like they're ef mount cameras?

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I'm referring to armed resistance. 

Maybe you missed the other 90% of my posts where I was also talking about armed resistance?

I mean, you can avoid a real conversation by quoting a small fraction of what I said and then reply only to that if you'd like, but don't think I, or anyone else, wouldn't notice

7 hours ago, majoraxis said:

1.  I want better quality 4K!
vs
2.  I want 8k any way you can give it to me!

In a sense I think this is a mostly useless conversation.

The value in the conversation is people learning about how other people shoot and the technical aspects of the situation, but I doubt that anything we say here will influence what we're actually given.  In a sense, there are only two markets.  

There is the cinema market who want things like high bitrate codecs / prores capture / RAW, and consumers who want resolution and manageable file sizes.  As more and more people are making video professionally and the tech advances there are a few manufacturers who concentrate on providing higher quality capture to non-cinema market segments.  Mostly this is Panasonic with the GH line, BlackMagic with the Pocket 4k, and now Atomos as a bolt-on solution.

Even if you want higher quality 4K, and for some reason you're not willing to get it via the Pocket 4K or external recording, 8K consumer codecs are actually a good way to get it.

8K is good because:

• Compressed 4K is lower quality than compressed 8K given the same bitrate (I have done tests and encoding the same material at the same bitrate and 1080 > 720 > SD)
• 4K displays are true 4K but 4K cameras are only true 1080 after debayering..  to get true 4K after debayering requires an 8K sensor
• Even if the bitrate for your 8K camera is low, for scenes where things don't move much (eg, people sitting and talking) the IQ will be quite good
• Even if we're talking 8K on a small sensor, if you use enough light then at base ISO your 8K image will be very nice.  This might mean spending more on lighting, but it's not that great an investment and having more lighting is probably a useful thing to have anyway.  If you're shooting in natural light then it'll be free.  We use ND filters all the time because we have too much light!
• Downscaling 8K to 4K is a great noise-reduction technique and will be completely free, and won't have any of the strange effects of "smart" NR algorithms

8K will mean you need a more powerful computer, but if you're shooting 4K at higher bitrates and/or doing much grading in post you already need to use proxies to edit and grade anyway, so it might take a bit longer to render proxies and export but that's perhaps the only price you'll pay.

8 hours ago, mercer said:

Yeah, this is honestly one of my problems with Micro 4/3... it’s neither here nor there if you need/want to use vintage or fast lenses. 

I'm learning that MFT is actually both here and there..  Getting fast wide lenses without paying a fortune seems to be really difficult, but on the other hand the longer lenses are cheap, fast and plentiful.

One thing I didn't realise is that longer lenses have a much shallower DoF than wider lenses, even at the same aperture.  This means that if I want to match longer lenses to shorter ones, then a 50mm f2 lens can easily match the same DoF and with a SB be an 70mm or without a 100mm.  

I also did a quick test and found that my 17.5mm f0.95 needed 1/50 but my 58mm f2.8 on a 0.7x SB only needed 1/200 for the same scene.  I'm not sure if this extra light gathering is normal of if I stuffed something up, so I'd be keen to hear from other people on this..   

It's also pretty easy to get seriously long focal lengths if you're into wildlife or sports photography.

The other major advantage of adapting is that you can pick whatever lens from whatever system, so in a sense all the battles between the manufacturers about pushing under-featured bodies to people already invested in your lens system is completely irrelevant.  Yeah, if you spend a couple of hundred on a SB then you're kind of invested, but if you're looking at adapting lenses at the longer end then you can just buy a $15 adapter for each lens and forget about which system they come from.

8 hours ago, mercer said:

The Soviets weren’t known for their quality control

I was looking at a page the other day talking about the Helios 58mm lenses, and was saying that the model number is in the format of Helios 44-X where X is the resolution of the lens.  I assume they made them and then graded them before marking them, but anyway, 7 is meant to be the highest resolution.  They then had a little table of some of the different models that they'd tested with things like light transmission and resolution.  The Helios 44-7 scored lower on the resolution test than the lower graded models.  I found that quite amusing

All this talk of vintage lenses is dangerous for me...  I already bought a Pentax Super Takumar 55mm F1.8 M42 that I didn't need but was really curious about!  Every time I look there are interesting lenses that tempt me ???

1 hour ago, loloniek said:

I just wanted to share with you my latest music video shot on Ursa and Pocket 4k + Zeiss Cp3 + Black ProMist (how Can i embed a video here : ) ? )

https://vimeo.com/309293561

Nice work.  I really liked the atmosphere and colours, the Tiffen matched really nicely with the smoke too.  The closing shot from inside the control room was a very nice touch too!