kye

Absolutely.. sound design is massively important, and we can tell that because Silent Movies are not common, but Blind Movies (aka, music) is a $17B industry!! But, to be a bit less tongue-in-cheek, it's a hell of a lot harder to make people cry or jump around (dance) with a silent film than with music

Here it is: Summary is that you can't simulate it perfectly, but you can probably do a passable job in certain controlled situations. The more I see from this camera the more tempted I am to just buy one too! I told myself I'd wait for the Pocket 2, and Canon and Nikon FF Mirrorless unicorns, but it's very tempting!!

I quite like the look of the Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter, and thought that I could simulate the effect in Resolve. (This conversation started in another thread but I think it deserves its own) My theory was that if you can simulate it in post then it's more flexible, so you can mix it in to taste, and its also cheaper, applies to all your lenses, can be applied to historic footage, etc.. Here's the video showing what these filters do thanks to @heart0less I've had an attempt and I'm now convinced that a completely accurate simulation is not possible. To explain why, here's an unmodified screen grab: and here's the waveform of that shot: Here are the reasons you can't do a completely accurate emulation: The Tiffen doesn't "clip". The flare from the light globe is much brighter than the flare from the hair light on the blond lady, but in the "no filter" waveform you will note that these have very similar values because the globe is clipped. Also, the flare from the globe is coloured, which presumably is from the tint of the globe, however because the waveform is clipped that colour information is lost. The Tiffen has a very wide flare pattern and will include lights outside the field of view. There don't appear to be any flares from off-camera lights in the above shot, however we can tell that the Tiffen has a very wide pattern because the level of the dark background is raised for almost the entire width of the frame but the exposure seems to be the same (by comparing the levels of the grey cards at the left of the shot). If you are using this filter and it is being hit with sunlight from any angle I think you'll get the influence of that everywhere in the shot, because although it might be very off-angle the sun is practically an infinitely bright light. However, I think we can probably make a passable attempt that might work in some situations. Here's the original of lady #1: and my simulation: Lady #2: Same simulation as above applied to lady #2: The logic of this preset is this: The Tiffen has a non-linear rolloff, so I have simulated it using blurs of two different sizes, one smaller size applied to the Highlights and a larger one applied to the Mids and Shadows. If I really wanted to get serious about it I might try converting to a Log colour space and doing the blur in there before converting back to REC709, but that's something for another day. I think that preset looks pretty good for both of these shots, but unfortunately, if we apply that preset to the main shot then we see that it definitely isn't suitable for all shots: If I play with the levels and add a third blur that is highlights only and is even smaller radius then we get a better result, but it highlights the issues I mentioned earlier: If you're going to try and use this effect in post then I would suggest a number of things: Shoot in Log and don't clip any highlights from any colour channel If you move the camera don't have any lighting going in and out of the frame (because the effect will start and stop when it does which will look very un-natural) Experiment with applying the effect before you convert from log to any other colour space (after all, a Tiffen filter gets applied before the conversion) Experiment with different blur types - I used Gaussian Blur in the above, but maybe other types will look nicer? The Mids and Shadows processing chain is the kind of "beauty" element, and the Highlights processing chain is the "flares" element, so you can mix these to your taste I hope that is useful, and that Tiffen don't object to me using clips from their video!!

Yes, I noticed that and have already opened a YT search for reviews! I think I've looked at it previously and concluded that I could get a similar effect in post, but I never actually did an A/B. I think I might grab a few examples of with/without shots and see what Resolve can do to simulate the effect. There's a lovely plugin called Glow that does a similar thing (I believe). If I have any progress I'll share it, as doing things in post is more flexible (and cheaper!!).

Thanks! Those videos are lovely. The more I look at footage the more I think that there's something about the way cameras handle highlights that I am sensitive to, the shot at 1:40 in the A7III video (the light bulb in the background) was very nice. I'm looking forward to the A7III finding its way into the hands of the masters who know how to make it truly shine and we can get more examples of its potential. In a sense if it can shoot Slog to match their cinema cameras then the rest is in capturing and grading well.

It would have been good if he quoted a percentage figure for how much faster the i9 was - those bar graphs all looked quite consistent at about 10-20% faster with the i9.

Is that ML records the focal length, or Canon records the focal length and ML displays it to you? I was hoping to get it for clips from the XC10 as well as my 700D.

Is there any way to tell what focal length a zoom lens was at from looking at your footage? EXIF data? any other tricks? I shoot with zooms and would like to know what focal lengths ended up in the final edit. (and no, I don't have logs or anything - I shoot completely unplanned home and travel videos, most of the time I'm just trying to capture and anticipate whatever is going on). I suspect the answer is no, but maybe someone will surprise me and make my day? ???

Nice video.. lens flares and colours look really good. But the content! All test videos should be so entertaining!!

That video is wonderful.. any camera in the hands of a skilled operator is a good camera. This is precisely my problem - good camera unskilled operator lol ??? I see the Moment guys always using counterweights and that anamorphic adapter looks pretty sizeable, so my guess would be yes to counterweights. Even if it was powerful enough, you'd save a lot of battery life by having the weight relatively balanced to begin with, although the battery life on these things is pretty amazing now.

Time to get into post sound too?

The Black Magic cameras all seem to share a similar look and feel with how they handle light. It is very nice, almost like they have put a diffuser over the sun. There seems to be nothing harsh about the image. What is it about their cameras that creates this effect? Is it the DR? Colour science? High bitrate (either prores or raw)? I really want to own a camera that has this look but my style of film-making relies heavily on stabilisation, zoom lenses, etc so they're just not the right tool for the job. Nice video - I particularly like the fun / different editing style!

Low contrast looks sure can look gorgeous - one of my favourites is Peaky Blinders on Netflix. It just looks spectacular!

For those of you who shoot (or are connoisseurs of) beautiful travel films, what types of movement do you prefer them to contain? I recently binge-watched a couple of hours of BMPCC travel films and I noticed that the vibe was quite distinctive, partly because the lack of stabilisation meant that most shots were static. What mix of freeform movement vs controlled movements (pans / tilts) vs static shots do people think suits the genre the most? I shoot mostly travel / home videos and the vibe I'm going for is kind of like the nicest version of real-life - in the same way that you'd take holiday photos using the best light / best angles / nicest smiles to create the warmest memories.

One thing I noticed about YT microphone reviews (from people who don't know much about audio) is that they tend to be judging the EQ of the microphone instead of the quality of the sound overall. I'd hear a microphone and think it would be fine with a bit of EQ and then the person would say something like "it sounds thin and hollow - not even usable!" and I'd just roll my eyes. @IronFilm is this something you also see across lots of reviews? In a way it's like filming in RAW and then saying the camera footage looks "too grey - not even usable!!".

In a way that's a side effect of the large aperture lenses - those things are so fat it's more like the lens is squishing your fingers against the grip instead of the other way around!!

@wolf33d interesting information - thanks. The internet isn't keen to tell you the weaknesses of various products! In terms of the size, I'm sure that lots of accessories are (or will be) available for making the camera bigger - if only there were accessories available for making a camera smaller and lighter!! Then I might buy a C700 and as many accessories as it takes to make it the size of an RX100 ???

Nice video, especially the funny bits from Grandma! I did a bunch of research before I ended up with RVMP+ and the TAKSTAR SGC-598 and Pixel MC-50 seemed to get positive reviews, and at $40 or less are HUGELY cheaper than the Rode or the Azden. However the reason I went with the Rode was that those two mics are quite large and I'm trying to fly under the radar with my setup, so that matters to me. I'd watch a bunch of reviews to see if there's a reason to pay more than $40...

My understanding is that you're right, in that it doesn't really matter if you have a disk speed of 2X your bitrates, or 10X your bitrates, however I have a thought. Fast drives tend to be SSD instead of physical drives, and one thing about physical drives is their poor latency performance, which does have an impact to performance. So, if the drives in question are different technologies then perhaps it's not the straight read-speed but other differences?

This is a good intro to the structure of proxies and caches in Resolve - it's from v12 but the overall structure is likely to be similar if not exactly the same in 15. There's also a google doc of the diagram: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1pbBbA4I2q3RZYrOSELPXgfdzp0X6B9OngVimTeSmbuo/edit Resolve is a complicated beast. I had to watch a few tutorials on manual Online / Offline editing workflows to find one that worked, especially considering my proxy files were slightly different filenames (extensions were different than proxies) but this was one of the ones I watched and might give an idea about the logic involved.

Definitely done in post. Yet another example of when a capture resolution / format should be much higher than the output format.

Hi All, As someone who shoots 305MBit 4K and edits on a 2016 MBP with Resolve, there's one thing you should all keep in mind about Resolve performance. Resolve has several in-built features for caching and rendering, some are manual and some are automatic, and they can be used in any combination you like (ie, you can use all of them at the same time if you choose to). However, for editing 4K footage on a low powered machine they may simply not be enough, which is why some people use an Online / Offline workflow that they manage manually. This manual online / offline workflow is complicated, takes some time to get working and understand, but it works really well. I personally transcode my own proxy footage using "Prores Proxy" at 720p and edit with that - timelines with this footage play flawlessly forwards and backwards at more than 60p with no lag and editing is a breeze. This is with effects disabled of course. As Resolve is an NLE, a colour correction suite, a professional sound mixing and mastering suite, and is now a VFX suite, we have to be clear with our language around these things. I can EDIT whatever resolution footage I like because I use proxies. My proxy workflow doesn't help with mixing lots of audio tracks though. Nor will it help if you want to do precise colour or VFX work. You may be able to do simpler VFX work at a lower resolution and then just bump up the resolution when rendering out, but you may not, depending on your specific situation. Resolve is great in that you can have a 1080 timeline, you can edit 720p proxy footage on it, viewing it at a range of resolutions while you do so, then you can swap back to the 4K source footage and then render out at whatever resolution you like - all from that same 1080 timeline. In this way, you can do non-critical things at lower resolutions and get the performance benefits, but not limit the quality of the final output. So when someone says "I edit 4K footage in Resolve" the first step is understanding what they are talking about SPECIFICALLY. When people say that I just automatically change it in my head to say "I use Resolve with 4K footage in some unspecified way for some unspecified purpose" and then go from there. I hope this helps. K.

Has anyone shot anything really impressive with the A7III yet? I did a big comparison of the 'look' of the BMPCC vs the A73 by binging on BMPCC travel films for 2-3 hours and then trying to binge on A7III films, but the only real observation I made was that A7III owners can't edit for sh*t! The only A7III videos I've seen that aren't terrible are these.. Matti Haapoja (he had focus issues - I think from not using the right focus modes) Christian Mate Grab:

I agree with previous comments about this not being value for money. This is a new space and early adopters will pay heavily for the privilege - either navigating software limitations and customisations as @Don Kotlos mentioned, or by buying plug-in solutions that aren't great value from a power:dollar perspective. For those unfamiliar with the eGPU space, this is a pretty good resource (this link is for Mac, but the site covers everything): https://egpu.io/setup-guide-external-graphics-card-mac/ Totally agree. Basically everything is more expensive for laptops - just look at the prices for the BM external monitor cards for PCI vs USB.... The 4K PCI card is $199, but I think the Ultrastudio 4K is the cheapest external 4K converter and it's $995! I think the only reason not to have a desktop computer for editing is that laptops are portable. Obviously if you're a pro working from an office (with controlled lighting etc) then this isn't an argument that applies, but if you're like me and edits on the move, or even someone that doesn't want to run two computers (and manage all the syncing that requires) then a laptop is the only option. Travel film-makers, YT creators with demanding publish-schedules, etc are in this situation. I read that more and more producers and directors want a colourist on set to provide feedback on the 'look' of footage, so flexibility might be worth something. Or, if you're at the lower-end of the market and using Resolve as your all-in-one (I hear the Media Management features are excellent for ingesting footage) but can only afford one computer then a laptop might also be a compromise that makes sense. I'm waiting for the support for multiple eGPUs to take off, and then it won't matter what the computer is because you'll be plugging in 4 or 6 of them and having a real-time render farm. Resolve should be well suited for this as I hear it's more reliant on GPU than CPU, and if they're partnering with Apple that might give them access to the MacOS bits that might need to change there too. Plus, the ability to sell multiple eGPUs to each person would be a huge deal.