kye

I've "discussed" things with him before in other threads, and all he did was keep moving the goalposts to avoid being wrong, so I just cut to the chase in this thread. In terms of the video... meh. It looks like a GoPro. A video signal that's been over-noise-reduced, over-sharpened, over-compressed, then "graded" and uploaded to YT. I'm not saying it would be perfect if it wasn't so compressed, but the RAW video from the smartphones I've seen looked like deep-DOF RAW video from any competent RAW-shooting camera, and this footage looks absolutely nothing like that RAW footage does. The fact that those smartphones have a similar sized and spec'd sensor tells me the GoPro look isn't the sensor, which only leaves the processing. The poster deliberately tries to go for the video look, and the GoPro does it wonderfully. Others, including myself, prefer the look of more expensive cameras, and this doesn't look even remotely close.

Yes, as @gt3rs says, the least they could have done is mount both to a $10 flash bracket, but they didn't. I believe there's a way to test the stabilisation of cameras such that you can repeat the same test and (shock horror) actually compare the stabilisation characteristics of various cameras. Of course, no-one does it, and sites that have the technical rigour don't have the budget and those with the budget (e.g. Undone, etc) don't have the technical rigour, so we're left with whatever random tests are haphazardly done online by random folks. Do you shoot 180 shutter, or go for a shorter exposure? If it's the latter then gyro data might also be of some help if either of them record it and if it's important enough to you. I suspect that even if you do shoot a 180 shutter, if you were able to stabilise in post at a low strength then you might not notice that the motion blur doesn't exactly match up with the image movement. I haven't tried it, but I suspect that reducing image movement by a decent amount, maybe half, might not be visible. I'd be curious to see a test of that, but I don't have a camera that records gyro data.

+1 for actually trying one in real life. In terms of stabilisation, there aren't any specifications that tell you anything worth knowing, you have to actually try the individual implementations to see how well they work. If you are going to try one in real life and stabilisation is of particular interest, make sure to take the relevant lenses so you can include how good or not their OIS is, and take into account their relative focal lengths, etc.

I'd be happy to talk about these things. In terms of ChatGPT, it is predictive-text on steroids with no understanding of reality or logic or anything else other than parroting the internet back to us, therefore it is probably a better bet than most online replies!

I've played your game before... if I say I see mush then you blame YT compression and you claim victory, if I say I don't see it then you claim victory. No thanks, I'm interested in film-making, not whatever mind-games you like to play.

I would have thought that a hobbyist is as likely to shoot long takes in hot conditions as anyone else. Pros would do it because they're covering an event, and hobbyists would do it because they haven't yet heard of "shooting for the edit" and so tend to just wave it around indefinitely, potentially with a stream-of-consciousness narration to go along with it. One of the users who is most likely to want a nice camera with reliable AF is that person that insists on filming everything all the time. I'm sure we remember these people from the handy-cam days, and human behaviour hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that they're filming the kids swimming in the pool, the family on the beach in Greece, the tour on the boat through the islands of Ha Long Bay, the summer BBQ birthday party, etc etc.

Absolutely. I don't shoot long clips, and even if I did, I'm only going to end up pulling <5s sections into the timeline, so that makes a big difference. The AWB / auto-exposure can always change during a 2-5s shot, sometimes significantly, and I've had to deal with that in post too. I was introduced to the whole situation when trying to grade one of the first pieces of video I ever recorded - a single shot of my wife carrying my daughters birthday cake from the kitchen to the dining table, candles lit, with everyone singing. Turns out that kitchen and dining area had radically different lighting that wasn't visible to the naked eye, and I'd filmed it with my Canon 700D which applied a super-strong colour profile, and the AWB was really slow to react so the first 5s or so of everyone at the dining table was akin to one of the most "creative" picture profiles you might imagine. I should see if I can find that clip and give it another go. I think I spent over a dozen hours in Resolve trying to work out WTF was happening! It's all so situational, and we all shoot/edit/grade in such different ways, it really is an individual thing. Tying it back to the concept of contrast and saturation and the idea that increasing these is like playing the game on the most difficult setting, shooting in poor lighting and having to deal with these AWB issues in post has also pushed me to really get to the bottom of how to do it properly. Of course, I didn't have to deliver acceptable results in the meantime, so that's something to take into consideration too 🙂

I use AWB exclusively, as I'm completely crap at remembering to set it when conditions change and it doing the WB is going to be closer to correct than me forgetting to update it. It does mean you need to WB every shot, and I must admit that it took me many years to work out how to do that properly so that it evenly impacts the whole image rather than just making the shadows/mids/highlights all different colours and ruining the image. Now I've managed to work out how to get the colour management setup properly it's all good and things work as you'd expect in post. As I tend to shoot in situations where the lighting is rubbish with poor quality LEDs (often with differing colour temperatures all mixed together!) I need to adjust WB in most shots anyway, so it's something that would be part of my workflow either way, but there's no right answer and so it's just whatever you prefer and find gives you the best results.

I should also have mentioned that there's a school of thought in film-making that you leave your camera at a fixed WB, normally something like 5500K, and so during the day will look slightly blue and evenings will look slightly warm. The rationale is that this is how we experience reality, and also if you're shooting in a more documentary style, then having the time of day reflected in the images is also a visual queue that adds authenticity, because the WB of every shot is contextually relevant.

As long as you're not clipping anything (DR or saturation) then it's mostly better to push up the contrast and saturation in-camera because then in post you're not pulling the bits apart by adding contrast and sat. However, that's an "all-else-being-equal" type of statement because your camera will likely be doing things like saturation compression etc, especially in the profiles like Cine-V. In the end, the proof is in the pudding, so I suggest just taking some test shots at each of the settings and see what you see and draw conclusions from that. Perhaps the biggest problem with cameras and talking about them online is that there are so many tradeoffs that it's practically impossible to discuss something and take all of them into account. That 4K vs 1080p thread from a few years ago really highlighted that for me - decisions like that impact the image all the way through the pipeline and you need to understand the whole lot to really understand what is actually being discussed. Doing your own tests shortcuts all the variables, but only for your own situation and tastes.

88-90 degrees is only hot if you live in the global north where it snows in the winter. The only reason that manufacturers aren't concerned about things like this is they're making cameras for the richest countries, which are all freezing. The majority of the worlds population live in places where 90 degrees is so mild it's laughable. My sister lives in Edinburgh, and her summer is like our winter.

In "88-90 degrees".... hahahahaha.... that's not even that hot!

It depends on if there is any information in those extra pixels, or just a higher resolution output of mush from the anaemic bitrate and extreme over-processing. Early 8K smartphones had about the same amount of image detail as a 2K Alexa. This is why bitrate matters - if you care about images rather than specs that is.

Lovely to hear from you and read your posts.... as usual!

Yeah, this isn't making any sense. I think you're confused about how EIS actually works, although the RS considerations make sense and would be relevant. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. The EIS on the Canon wasn't very good and I was surprised. I don't really care though, so carry on!

Nope, I just googled it and found the tables listing 120Mbps. I'll revise my estimate... GoPro21 has 20K video and their super-legit-pro firmware will only allow 350Mbps. And still has less resolution than a 2.8K Alexa shooting Prores.

Knowing GoPro, it would be 8K, but still limited to 120Mbps. Fast forward to 2035 and the GoPro21 is released with the headline feature of 20K video.... at 180Mbps.

My impression of those discussions was that it was hard for any meaningful discussions to be had because replies are so short and you're never sure who is replying to who. There's a phrase in social-media startups for having too much content in your feed, it's called "drinking from the firehose". It's mostly regarded as a bad thing and indicates that something has gone wrong in how the system is configured or designed, or if done deliberately it's kind of regarded as an extreme thing to do. Discord feels like drinking from the firehose to me. Is this your experience of it?

I disagree about audiophile communities, which I was part of for a couple of decades from the mid-90s on. The parallels I see are: Blind-belief is the default perspective for most of the people involved - those who believe that specs are what matters vs those who think that aesthetics are the only thing that matters - and neither side is willing to reach across the chasm so communication is rare Fanaticism is common - which could be to some subset of specifications or one particular manufacturer who can never do any wrong Doing things yourself is almost always deemed impossible and the very few people doing it are frequently hassled by the people telling them that it can't be done The default mindset is that price = performance - this is emphasised in both directions Egoists pour money into the most expensive products and then show them off online for attention Micro-details will get a 50-page thread where people argue about things, but discussion about music (which is the whole point of the whole damned thing) rarely gets more than casual engagement Where I see EOSHD as being somewhat different is that people here can often see across both sides of the tech vs aesthetics debate. I was in a pocket of audiophiles who doing high-end DIY and meeting physically and who also knew that both specifications and aesthetics mattered, so I'm aware they exist, but we were unicorns and this mindset was virtually unknown online. To me the above tendencies are a natural and predictable outcome based on human psychological weakness and a consumer culture. Thinking is hard, the topics are enormously complex (involving physics, analog and digital electronics, human sensory organs, psychology, and artistic preferences and tastes), there are vested interests everywhere, and humans have a deep desire to feel like they are safe and that the world isn't chaos, so we tend to cling to pre-defined theories of the world despite being presented with evidence to the contrary.

That makes sense but has nothing to do with sensor size, it's lens FOV. Shutter speed also makes sense, but only so much that the edges can be detected easily, which would have been easy on that test clip of the guy as he was crisply in focus and contrasting sharply with the background.

Speaking of what high-end images actually look like, here are some 8K scans of IMAX 5-perf from Oppenheimer. https://dam.gettyimages.com/universal/oppenheimer The files with filenames like GF-number seem to be 3K, but the other ones seem to be 8K TIFF files - 133Mb each! How do they look? Strong colours, often strong contrast, not sharp.... like cinema.

I've seen people say things like this before, but it never made any sense. Digital image stabilisation is a data processing operation done by a chip - you give it a stream of digital video and it does it's thing and gives you a modified stream of digital video. It wouldn't matter if the source of the video was a GoPro or an array of telescopes the size of the entire planet - it's data crunching.

I noticed he said that, but to me it makes little sense. 1) He said the shot looks like a tripod shot, yet it clearly has handheld motion 2) The shot he shows has both IOS and DIS enabled, and although he doesn't give a comparison on the 35mm, the other shots comparing different modes showed no real difference between the OIS only and OIS+DIS shots 3) Your conclusions about needing a gimbal may apply to your work and to the R5, but don't necessarily apply to the wider film-making environment. The IBIS on the GH5 has a 'Locked' mode which really does look like a tripod, but the non-locked mode is much more reminiscent of a handheld heavy cinema camera to my eye, having movement but no jitter. When you add a lens with OIS to get IBIS+OIS in what Panasonic call Dual-IS, the result is somewhere between a handheld heavy cinema camera and a gimbal, and can be very effective in harsh conditions, or can provide gimbal-like results in easier ones. What surprises me is the poor performance of the DIS on that guys clips. GoPros, for example, are DIS-only and are gimbal-like, so it is possible to get very high performance. Perhaps Canon have implemented a very limited crop, or similar?

Specifications sell products to people who don't know how to judge something for themselves.

What a strange result - the Digital IS looks like it hasn't applied any stabilisation at all! I'd almost be looking to see what results other people have found - maybe that guy had a bad unit or screwed up somehow. I'm not really a fan of Digital IS, but it's better than that surely...?