kye

@KnightsFan is right, but to re-emphasise, this isn't a hardware problem.

When you're rendering video, it doesn't need to happen in real-time.  I frequently export projects at anything down to 1 frame-per-second, and the HDD, CPU, GPU, etc all just chug along at whatever speeds they can manage and eventually the export is complete.  YouTubers often talk about rendering out their 10-minute videos taking an hour.

17 hours ago, User said:

Thank you Shirozina. To your point on banding, I had also done a quick test at one point with ProRes HQ and found it to be near identical to the original. Small differences started creeping in with ProRes and moreso ProRes LT. Didn't think to checking banding. Never made it to 4444 territory... seems it seems crazy to have to hike it up like this to hang onto those subtle gradations. Are there other codecs that can do things better?
My limited understanding on transcoding from a highly compressed (mpeg2, h.264, avchd, etc) 8bit file to a larger 10 bit (ProRes) file sort of had me thinking that most, if not all, of the original file info would be retained within the confines of that more robust codec... and so there would be even less chance of banding. Lossy, I guess not.

Somewhere way out there in all this, I still try to remember that this stuff is somehow connected to story and storytelling Thanks again folks.

People tend to transcode to Prores HQ or DNxHD HQX files as proxy media, often depending on what platform they're on (PCs can't make Prores files IIRC), but my research didn't turn up any differences in quality between the two formats, so use whichever you like.

If you want way too much information about proxy formats, here you go....

• https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/15/choose-the-right-codec/
• https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/

The second link shows the bitrates of the various codecs and you'll see that Prores HQ and DNxHD HQX are very similar, but note that DNxHD HQ is 8-bit vs DNxHD HQX is 10-bit, and this will likely make a difference so is worth checking if you go the DNxHD route.

With all things, when you make a compressed copy of something you only degrade the quality.  However with high quality codecs like these the degradation will be minimal and likely not a factor in the end result.  As you say, this is about story and storytelling, and I think that the ability to edit with smooth playback will add more to the storytelling than the very slight degradation of the image will detract from it.

11 hours ago, buggz said:

Is there anything inherently wrong with generating/saving a new DB per project?

Not that I know of.  IIRC Resolve has some built-in tools for backing up databases and otherwise managing them, but creating one per project seems like a neat and tidy kind of approach.  I'd suggest a bit of googling to just check it's not got some unknown issues - Resolve can be a bit like that sometimes.

11 hours ago, buggz said:

I was thinking of copying the data from the camera to the internal stripped SSD drives, and creating all the project directories using these drive paths.

This way, I only have to copy the backed up project data back to the SSds and not get the dreaded media offline errors.

Wanting to use the fastest drives, while not getting the media offline errors when the project isn't on the current external drive.

This process makes sense.  Copying the whole card/cards to the SSD array, editing it there (likely with directories for music, SFX, exports and other project files), and then backing up that whole directory structure to your archive drives when you're done seems good.

If you want to revisit the project once it's been moved from SSD array is actually not that hard, as Resolve has a great function for relinking source media.  If you go to the media pool, highlight all of your offline clips, right-click and choose the option Re-link Source Media (or similar) it will ask you which directory to look in.  If you point it to your source project directory it can look through the whole directory structure and find all the files.  I use this function all the time and it works really well.  If you just needed to render out a new export, or make a couple of small changes to the grade or whatever then you may find that working off the slow archive drives is quite functional.

One thing I'm not clear on (and am still working out for myself) is the pros and cons of archiving completed projects.  My current approach has been to delete the optimised media and render cache files (via the Playback? menu in Resolve) and then renaming the project "ARCHIVED <project name>" in the database so I know I've deleted them.  Otherwise you gradually fill your SSDs with cache files (stored in a non-human-readable directory structure), like I did.  This means I have a database with all my past projects in it and can revisit them whenever I want to, re-linking to the source media as I described above.

However, Resolves project archiving feature might be better for you.  It appears that it copies/moves (?) the whole project, all the source media, optimised media and render cache files to a drive.  From reading the section "Archiving and Restoring Projects" on or around page 76 of the Resolve Manual it seems like the directory structure is non-human-readable and to re-access the project you'd have to restore the project, probably copying/moving all the media once again, which is a large overhead.
If that's true it would also be a PITA if you wanted to look at the source media from that project (eg, if you were making a showreel) or quickly re-export with slightly different settings. 

I shoot home and travel videos of my family, so I copy all my footage to a directory structure based on a /YEAR/YYYY-MM-DD <event or location>/ naming convention, which contains all the video and photos I take with any of my cameras, and I often want to include footage in multiple projects, for example a trip video, a year-in-review video, etc.  So having my footage all locked away by Resolve in archives wouldn't suit how I work.

I've re-written this post a few times as I fact-checked and learned more during writing it so hopefully that makes sense! ???

On 1/4/2019 at 9:30 PM, anonim said:

 

On 1/4/2019 at 11:15 PM, anonim said:

Interesting different (reverse) acquisition approach

 

 

So many good cameras out there..  When I watched the GH5s vs P4K video I was more impacted by the slight changes in focus between the two cameras instead of the cameras themselves, which is in the skill department not the equipment department.  

I remember someone (@kidzrevil perhaps?) speaking about the Resolve Super Scale feature and how great it is, so that's something that might breathe new life into lower-resolution footage.  More info: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/resolve-15-super-scale-feature/

In terms of using slow-motion, I would suggest it's a new genre of film-making.  Like all genres it will have fans and critics.  Personally, I agree with @mercer around testing a camera by actually making a short film.  That way, not only do you test the equipment by using it how you would on a real project, but you also get a real short film at the end of it, which is what all this fussing with cameras is ultimately for, right? ?

3 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

Yeah as i expected haha. Also if you talking about american football - field is only 10 yards longer. 

Australian Rules Football..  Wikipedia says that fields are "typically 135–185 metres long goal-to-goal and 110–155 metres wide" but I don't think he's on the full-sized field just yet.  It's amusing that there isn't a standard size too - hooray for being Australian and basically not giving a sh*t about anything! ???

2 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

You want a better lens than the 55-250 but for the 1\3 of its price?

There is a problematic in your logic!

I like the Canon nano lenses, believe they are some of the greatest deals in photography, ever. The 70-300 is really good and really cheap for what it is. 

The new 70-200 4f is great also, but another league (especially moneywise).

I'm seeing lenses like the Nikkor AI-S 100-300 f5.6, Tamron 80-250 f3.8-4.5, Canon FD 75-200 f4.5, Vivitar 75-205mm f3.8, etc that I can get for under $100 including shipping.  

The problem is that I don't know which are good and which are lemons, and considering that I can basically adapt any lens mount, I have a huge number of lenses to choose from.  Today all lenses are optically excellent, but back in the day they weren't, so you can end up with something with nasty CA, isn't sharp (which matters as I'm seriously zooming in to its FOV).

21 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

Not Jon, although... he took his rage to youtube comments ?

Wow..  did he?  I guess he'd probably be pretty bland on YT considering the extreme toxicity there!

I just looked up how big a lacrosse field is, and our football fields here are quite a bit larger, so that would factor in too.

2 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

if you need more overall reach, like more than a 100 400 or 70 300mm equiv. Your best bet is to go with tele primes. 

Hang on, a 200mm lens is enough, because with the 1.4x crop of the ETC mode and the 2x crop of MFT sensor size, a 200mm lens will have the same FOV as a 560mm lens on a FF camera.

There are a bunch of lenses in the 70-200mm or 100-300mm range that look good.

2 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

I shoot sports Pro all the way down to youth Lacrosse. 600 is going to be way to long and a total pain to pull focus at, even if you stop down to F8. 

When I was shooting with my Canon 700D and 55-250mm lens I used it in the Magic Lantern crop mode which turned it into a 264-1200mm equivalent lens.  The 1200mm took waist-up portrait shots from the other side of the field and I got a few really nice shots like that, so that was the most zoom I would want.  With a 600mm equivalent lens I'll be able to get 1200mm in 1080 by cropping into the 4K from the GH5.

The 55-250 was a total pain to pull focus with because it is a cheap plastic lens and had a bit of play in the focus ring which made small smooth adjustments very difficult.  Any half-decent manual lens should be 1000% nicer to use in that regard.

I want a lens to shoot my kids sports games.  I will be using it with the GH5, which has IBIS, ETC crop mode, and (paired with a non-speedboosting adapter) the MFT 2x crop factor.  I'm therefore thinking a fully-manual vintage lens could fit the bill.

From shooting previously I've found that 600mm equivalent is enough reach, so if that's with the ETC mode, then the lens only has to be up to 200mm.  A zoom would be really handy.  My preferences are for a lens that has good IQ, is nice to use, has MF the right way, and has a longer zoom range.  I can probably extend into the $100-200 range if there's something really nice, but cheaper is better

What lenses should I be looking at?

5 hours ago, wolf33d said:

 

A7S II + canon FD 35mm 40$ lens. No IBIS, no AF, with Sony colors that people can't live with, no 4K. 

Cool video.

I know that 4K / colour science / AF / etc are not required for film-making, and I know that you also know that.  

It kinda makes me question though... I thought that most people here know that too.  Do you think that there are lots of people on this board that don't understand these things?  We all get excited by the tech, but when it comes to the art I thought we all calmed down a bit and regained perspective.

50 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

It is not the same. They are talking R, G, B stuff. It is still pretty impressive looking though one though either way, especially at night..

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3064390

Cool.  So, 3680 dots <is about> 1.2MP <is about> 1240x990 resolution (assuming a 5:4 aspect ratio).  I just wondered because the viewfinders in the video I posted were 720p and 1080p and I wondered how the GH5 compared.  He said that there was a slight difference between 720 and 1080, but that 720 was ample.

I must say that the viewfinder is very nice, especially when you put on fast and high quality glass

Also, a question...

The Panasonic quotes the GH5 EVF as having "3,680k dots" but does this mean 3.6MPixels, or is it counting the RGB lights in a pixel separately (which would mean it's about 1.2MPixels)?

I don't know about "affordable" but this might be helpful?

Shooting 4K and downscaling in post is a pretty good way of getting high quality 1080p, and it may record in a higher bitrate too.

I have done image quality comparisons of different resolutions given the same file size, and you're normally better off with the higher resolution, so even if the camera shoots the same bitrate for 1080 and 4K, you'd still be better with the 4K file.

1 hour ago, Shirozina said:

Why are you transcoding? You will loose image quality for a start and Resolve has various methods like Proxies, Optimised media and render cache to enable you to work with easier codecs in the timeline and then render the final result from the original source footage so you don't loose quality.

Great question..   I assumed @User was just using Resolve to generate media for use in some other software, but maybe that's not true?

23 minutes ago, Abbas Ali said:

Thanks again for your valuable insights @kye - I've went ahead and ordered the GX85- newegg had it with the 12-32 lens for around $400 which is not a LOT of money in case it doesn't work out and I could probably sell it for a little less.

I have fairly steady hands and with a back that goes around the neck, I'm hoping I could capture just using my hands. I've also ordered the Yelangu L4 that @BTM_Pix has posted. If it has steady wheels, I should be able to get some good rotating and slide shots. All of the gear should (hopefully) arrive in two weeks!

Cool!  Let us know how you go when you've had a chance to test it all

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

You can always just use a $20 adapter. 

True, but only for longer focal lengths.  

If you're looking for a lens in the 100mm+ equivalent range then 50mm f1.8 lenses are great and cheap, and longer and slightly slower lenses are (almost literally) a dime a dozen.
If you're looking for lenses in the range of, say, 50-100mm equivalent then you can get things like 28mm or 35mm FF lenses, but they're either cheap and slow or expensive and fast.
If you're looking for lenses around 35mm equivalent then there are lots of 18mm APSC lenses around but you have the same cheap and slow or expensive and fast problem.
And if you're looking for lenses under 35mm equivalent then you're basically screwed with a 2X crop on adapted lenses as 8mm or 14mm lenses are more expensive, and if you want 8mm and non-fisheye then it's time to sell a kidney!

On 12/31/2018 at 12:11 AM, Ehetyz said:

Pairing the Pocket 4K with some good vintage glass is pretty blissful. There's been a lot of talk about how it looks more digital and modern than the previous BMD cameras - and yeah sure, I guess it's not as organic and grainy as the 2,5K. But throw on some c-mount glass or a speedbooster and old Pentax stuff and the camera sings. Haven't used it with this kind of setup on a production yet, (it's playing second fiddle to the Ursa Mini and been on a gimbal on about half a dozen shoots now) but I'm just having a lot of fun taking it on a walk and just taking some throwaway nature shots. It's something I used to do back when I used the 5DMK2 regularly, and I'm happy it has revitalized that habit again.

This was taken with the speedbooster and a Pentax 35/2.3 M42 lens on a cool winter afternoon. One of my favourites due to the very distinctive, oil painting-kinda way it renders out of focus areas and the transition between them and in-focus areas.

Nice looking image.  I'm doing the same thing with my GH5 and adapting lenses - using the GH5 10-bit mode to get the colour depth (not quite like RAW, but better than 8-bit) and the lenses to render the scene in a non-clinical way.  I've got a couple of Helios lenses, and I have both SB and non-SB adapters for it.

One thing to note is that modern lenses can be used as "semi-vintage" lenses too, if you use them wide-open or completely stopped-down, as this will normally soften the image significantly and is one of the things that people like about some vintage lenses.  You can also 'cheat' a bit with them and use a bokeh modifier on the front of the lens to change the shape of the bokeh from the normal shape to something a bit more interesting.  I suspect that if you have a 3D rather than 2D bokeh modifier then you can get different shaped bokeh in different parts of the frame, the way vintage lenses do, but I'll have to test this.  It depends on what you're interested in.

10 hours ago, Django said:

Finally when the Vari ND adapter will become available.. well that could just be a game changer.

I agree, and have said so previously.  It's already available (the Sony FS5, FS7ii, etc) but will be great when it trickles down the product lines into our hands.

Being able to set shutter angle and aperture (which are creative controls) and then control exposure with ND and ISO (which are exposure controls and not creative controls) will be a huge step forward.  Also, setting auto-ND and auto-ISO will allow those of us who shoot in faster run-n-gun situations to keep away from very short shutter speeds.

This is the kind of feature that will be significant enough for people to change systems.

8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I am not sure if a speedbooster is a must have. 

It's not.  There are many native m43 lenses available.

However, I think that adapting lenses with a SB is a valid and popular choice for economic reasons:

• FF lenses are often cheaper than their native counterparts (when you remember to convert the aperture!), and APSC/FF offers fast zooms that aren't available natively either
• People often already own lenses, so there's a convenience factor
• There is also the question about how much value your investment in lenses will retain over time, as at the moment it seems like everyone is going FF and it remains to be seen if this is a fad or if m43 will die, or if it will survive but get left behind as a lesser format

Of course, adapting a $100 nifty-fifty by buying a $650 speed booster is a false-economy so you'd have to have quite a few cheaper FF lenses to recover the cost of the speed booster.

There is also the option to adapt vintage lenses to get a desirable aesthetic to potentially offset the "lack of soul" that some people perceive in todays nearly-perfect lenses.  This is art, after all.

On 12/31/2018 at 12:13 PM, Abbas Ali said:

Thanks for your valuable feedback. I agree with you on gimbals- I have a DJI Osmo Mobile and recently got the Osmo Pocket and while they're great for stabilizing in fast moving scenarios or when the object you're shooting is far, they don't handle nearby, objects with slow hand movements that well- I can easily see the wobble/wave in the video. That's the reason I'm not much interested in a gimbal as it's not for the type of work I want it for,

The reason I would like to get something more portable is because I tend to travel once a month for such events and ideally, would love to just have my camera with me and maybe an extendable monopod that doesn't take much space or will weigh me down. But then, won't the monopod restrict me from getting a good shot panning around the product or closing in on it, or a reveal shot, etc.?

4K would be nice to have but a higher frame rate at 1080p is a requirement. Someone where I live is selling a G85 with 14-42 lens and a Zhiyun Gimbal Stabilizer for $800 in total. On the other hand, I can get the GX85 with a 12-32 lens for about half that much. Is the G85 that much better?

Let's be clear about our terminology.  

When we talk about panning, tilting, or rolling shots, we are talking about shots where the camera stays in the same place but rotates.  Eg, a panning shot is where the camera starts by looking left, and then rotates to point to the right.  These shots are best accomplished with a tripod where the camera will be held still and the fluid head will provide a smooth rotation.  

When we talk about dolly shots or crane shots, we are talking about the camera physically moving, and it may or may not be rotating at the same time.  These shots have that great parallax effect where the foreground moves faster than the background and you can do reveals and create nice depth.  These are created by sliders, camera cranes, and dollys.

If you want to up your production value, then the typical setup is a tripod and a slider.  The tripod gives you flexibility to position the camera and get the right angles, and then by attaching the slider to the top of the tripod you can get movement that will be steady without it bouncing around or whatever.  If you mount the slider left-right then you get sideways sliding shots, if you mount it forwards-backwards you can get push-in or pull-out shots, and if you mount it so it's got some up-down travel then you can get some crane-style shots.  
Some sliders have a wheel to control the movement, some have a flywheel, and some are motorised, and these are all mechanisms to try and smooth the speed of travel.  What this setup will not give you is stabilised rotation.  If you mount a fluid-head between the slider and the camera then you can move the camera on the slider and also pan/tilt the camera at the same time, but this requires skill and a steady hand.

Monopods can offer panning and tilting shots, and can also do push-ins or pull-outs if you have a fluid-head and a steady hand.

Also worth mentioning is table-top devices that give you either a sliding action, or a combination of sliding and panning, so you can go around a product.  These are covered in the video previously posted by @BTM_Pix which I've quoted below.

Your next step is to be clear about what you want: is it to move the camera? is it to rotate the camera?  if you want a combination of those moves, then which combinations do you want?  Only then can you think about what options are available and what you should get.  

These things are typical of film-making in the sense that: they add production value, you get the quality level you pay for, and the more flexible the setup the bigger and heavier it is and the longer it takes to setup and pack-down.

On 12/31/2018 at 7:22 PM, BTM_Pix said:

If it is purely for product shots then I think you might want to consider a couple of cheap and cheerful non-camera items that might get you where you need to be irrespective of the particular camera that you shoot with.

First up if you were looking for 360 views of the product would be a simple motorised turntable such as this one. There are numerous ones like this on Amazon for under £30.

If you wanted to go for something to keep the product still but move the camera around it then you might want to consider the GripGear MovieMaker 2 set.

It is a combination of motorised multi-speed slider and lifter, panning head and skate dolly with remote control that can support up to 750g cameras and is usually available for just over £100.

The versatility it offers is great and as long as you aren't expecting to put heavy loads on it then it performs really well and is certainly a lot of bang for the buck.

This is a video of it against the five times more expensive Edelkrone unit and whilst it is obviously not as sophisticated it doesn't disgrace itself in terms of performance.

If you wanted just the motorised skater dolly part of the GripGear then for around £50 you might consider the newer versions of the Yelangu/Andoer L4. 

The original version was quite a neat little product but the new version has the advantage of remote control and adjustable speed.

As with the GripGear dolly you adjust the axles to control the arc that it travels on around the product but you can also straighten them to do a straight line and can also mount it on a regular slider.

 

As I say, with those options, the question of which camera to choose becomes less of an issue as they will enable you to get product shots with nice production values even from a smartphone.

If I was looking for a camera to go with these purely for product photography then I think I might be inclined to go for something like a Panasonic LX100 as it is the right sort of size/weight to best utilise them, has a great built in lens and whilst it lacks IBIS, its stabilisation will be more than adequate as it is mounted on the slider/dolly. It can also do 60fps in 1080 which will be useful when shooting longer shots of smaller objects etc

It can also of course be remote controlled (including the zoom) from the Panasonic app which will be a boon for setup.

Now that the mark II of the LX100 is out, the original version is popping up used at around £300 so with something like that and the GripGear set you are getting a lot of capability for £400.

1 hour ago, Nikkor said:

I only sort of like the nikkor 50 1.2 at night. I wish I had the money to buy the noct 58 1.2

Wow - cool image.  

People over-use shallow DoF and then everyone gets critical of anyone who uses shallow DoF, but when used in an artistically relevant way it is a valuable technique, as this image shows.  Both the fog and the shallow DoF really contribute to the beauty and kind of suffocating feel this has.

Cool you found it.  I have lots of those moments!

Also, if you don't want to edit the clips but just want to convert all of them to Prores, then the Media Management tool under the File menu (when the Media page is selected) is a great tool.  It can also export the things only on the timeline too, either the whole clips that appear on the timeline, or the same but also trimming the clips on the timeline and optionally adding extra frames to the start/end of each clip for flexibility in editing later on.

DaVinci Resolve has heaps of functionality for converting between different colour profiles / gammas and is free, but you'll have to work out what the names of the colour / gamma spaces that you used are, not just the model numbers of the cameras.  

Alternatively, there is a LUT calculator that might have the profiles you're interested in: https://cameramanben.github.io/LUTCalc/LUTCalc/index.html

Of course, the best approach is to not use a LUT at all, and use some kind of proper transformation that doesn't do a destructive transformation.  You don't mention what software you're using, and that might help.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

A better question to ask would be "is there going to be a GH8??"

And can we afford the disk space and memory card requirements of the All-I codec??

2 hours ago, Thpriest said:

I have got used to High focus peaking with the view finder although if it's a very long shoot I sometimes have to switch eyes! 

I think I'm moving in that direction too.  Maybe I should change my preset configuration to High focus peaking and see how I like it