kye

As a fan of colour grading, I'm the first one to promote the idea that the footage SOOC is like a film negative - it's yet to be developed in post. However, while there are some things you can adjust in post to improve the cameras colour science, like WB or hue shifts (which people get triggered about all the time), you can't (without AI) make the footage higher quality. The richness of 5D ML 14-bit RAW can't be created out of the 8-bit 709 images from my GX85 (believe me - I've been trying for years!). BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT.... without lighting this is a BS pointless discussion. (and without anything interesting to point the camera at, lighting is polishing a turd) .....((and without a story to tell, glorious compositions won't even keep me awake)).....

I just watched the OM-1 vs G9ii IBIS only comparison and although the OM-1 looks better stabilised than the G9ii the majority of the time, there are places where it's the other way around, so goodness knows what the different settings were. However, I've experienced the difference between IBIS only and Dual IS on both my GH5 and GX85, and the different is night and day - potentially enough to make the G9ii the clear winner. If you're doubtful, think about the difference between having no stabilisation at all and adding OIS - that's the kind of difference it is. The G9ii might also have the extra mode the GH5 has where it removes all motion, which is enormously more stabilising than the normal IBIS mode, so that would be my preference in this situation. In terms of him doing the test and not telling us because he doesn't want to embarrass anyone, well, you might be interested to know there's lots of things about aliens that the government hasn't been telling us either...

Just looked through the video, he didn't compare Oly IBIS to Penny Dual IS, so you can't judge from the video how good each one is. The reason this is relevant is that Olympus puts IBIS in their cameras but doesn't put OIS in their lenses, so a native Oly system only has IBIS but a native Panny system has Dual IS.

Was the Panny using IBIS and OIS in its Dual IS mode?

Every time I see a blind camera test, I am looking at the colours. It's not something I decided to do, or have to focus on, it's what I naturally find myself looking at. Especially skin-tones. All the blind tests I've done, where I've done them blind, taken notes, and then scored and ranked the cameras, before looking at the results to see what was what, I correctly chose things in descending order of price. There was one test where I put the Alexa lower than cheaper cameras, but it had a strange green tint to it that the other cameras didn't have, so I suspect something was wrong with the test. The colour and texture of skin tones is about 40% of the grade I think. Drastically under-rated, and barely discussed with any depth.

It was like you were reading my mind as I was reading. The other thing that people often forget is that film is a creative medium. I know it's heresy and I'll flame myself after posting this, but it matters because if you're zooming while filming then your choice of compositions and even choices in how you move the camera etc will be made on the basis of what you see in the frame. People forget that the tech influences the operator, and the operator controls the camera and also influences the crew and even the cast (if they're grumpy or happy enough), and those things are far more relevant to the actual end product than any technical whatever that might exist as a counter-argument.

Wow.. "I was there" wasn't a reply I expected! What else can you tell us about the shoot? Anything that looks that crazy on film has got to have some stories that go with it!

That doesn't look good to me at all... It had the blur bursts, warping, also towards the end wasn't stabilised well with sort of jumpy and floaty motion. Getting it right in-camera still matters for now, until AI can sort out this issue too.

A FF box-cam would make a lot of sense as a crash-cam, for drones, or for mounting in odd locations etc. It would have FF, good DR, good low-light, thermal management fans, and potentially the ARRI LogC curve / Prores RAW in it. L-mount primes can be quite compact, and the camera body itself would probably be smaller than the GH7 as well!

Yeah, now they've got the license, they might be able to release it for other cameras perhaps. One thing that comes to mind is that GH7 has IBIS, which isn't so good if you want a crash cam or something where there will be significant vibration (which was the purpose of the GH5S) but all Panny cameras now have it, don't they?

Another GH7 + LogC and ARRI discussion.. TLDR; Brady used the combo on two narrative projects, they matched up nicely in post (but not perfectly), and he sees it as a great option for a B-cam to an Alexa if you didn't have the budget for two Alexas. There's some side-by-sides in the video, including graded to match and also not.

No knowledge with that camera, but if the focus selection AI just randomly changes modes on you, it sounds like there might be a problem. As a standard troubleshooting step, maybe try resetting the camera to default settings, and upgrade to the latest firmware for your S5 and each of your lenses too.

I'm continually amazed at how much energy goes into pixel peeing at 4K or higher, and yet the high-end productions deliberately blur un-sharpen the footage. Compare that video with the reference footage from real projects and the difference is obvious. The visibility of 1080p vs 4K vs 6K is a debate that won't ever die, but the visibility of 6K 4:4:4 vs 6K 4:2:0 will be absolutely zero once it's been put onto a 4K timeline, un-sharpened to an aesthetically pleasing amount, exported and uploaded to a streaming service, and then heavily processed and brutally compressed before streaming to the end user. Unless people are literally doing green-screen work or VFX, putting money into lens sharpness or 6K+ resolutions is just paying to look less high-end, not more.

I am wondering if sharpness might have something to do with it for me. As a reference, what do you think about this?

Same impression for me during the opening few scenes in Trigger Warning which is new on Netflix. The VFX shots were very budget, but the footage had a real video look to them. It was shot on real equipment so I'm also not sure what it was. Also, the trailer on YT looks much better than the early parts of the film. I had noticed this "ingredient X" appearing on random things previously, and tried to ignore it because once you learn to see something you can't un-see it, and I was pretty sure that my preferred cameras wouldn't look good in this regard, but now I've seen it to the degree I can't ignore it, so I've reluctantly started investigating.

For artists... it could win many Oscars and Academy Awards. For technicians... well, just keep reading this thread to find out.

See - the question was wrong from the start!

People that make cinematic videos on YT that cut my eyes have clearly never been to the cinema. The difference might as well be iPhone 4 and Alexa. If you can't see that your jagged harsh digital and clinical cinematic video has nothing in common with cinema, then the level of blindness is almost complete. The deeper into this I go, the more I realise that not only are most answers online wrong, but the questions don't even make sense. Asking "what is the resolution of film?" makes little more sense than asking "how many bananas are in sadness?"... and the discussion is nonsensical right from the start.

Modern "cinematic" videos cut my eyeballs, but actual cinema doesn't. Please don't cut my eyeballs.

Riiiight.. so you're not a critic, you're a recovering addict! I gather this is yours then? It's.... A vibe.

When you are in any mode (that I've tried) the camera is taking the full width of the sensor and downscaling it to the output resolution you have chosen (assuming you're not using the full open gate mode which obviously doesn't need scaling). The horizontal FOV is the same regardless of the output mode. If you engage the 2x or 4x mode, it will crop into the sensor by 2x or 4x, then scale that to the output resolution. These crops are independent of the output mode. If you engage the ETC mode, it takes a crop of the sensor that is the same size as the mode you have selected, so the crop is a 1:1 crop with no down or upsampling and is obviously dependent on the mode you have chosen. Cropping 1:1 in ETC mode when you're in a 4K mode into the ~5.2K sensor gives a total crop factor of 2.7, which is pretty close to the 2.88 crop factor of Super16. The ETC crop of FHD is double that, and close to the crop factor of Super8. +1 I think if you do it well then you either look like a you're covering an action sport or selling fast food ads, and if you do it poorly you look like an influencer. Really neither of these lend themselves to the wedding vibe..

Sure does! Both in 29.97p and 23.98p (which is probably 23.976).

I tested a bunch of modes and was really impressed that the only times it cropped in were when you explicitly told it to do so (the ETC and 2x and 4x digital zooms) and everything else was downsampled. That even included things like the FHD 60p mode in 2x digital crop - it was still downsampling from an area half the width of the sensor ( ~2.5K ) down to the FHD output resolution. It made all the modes I tested really high quality. I still read about the hodge-podge of gotchas and limitations on current generations of cameras and just shake my head.

How odd, I just checked and the GH5 3.3K 4:3 mode and it's the same horizontal FOV as the 16:9 modes, so downsampled not cropped.

Just fired up my GH5 and it has 3328x2496 at 59.94p, so I'd be surprised if the GH5ii, GH5S, GH6 and GH7 didn't have at least one >30p mode in open gate..