kye

I have spoken about this at length one other forums and been convinced that the Alexa is simply a Linear capture and all the processing is in the LUT. Here is what happens when you under/over expose the Alexa and compensate for that exposure under the LUT: https://imgur.com/a/OGbI2To Result: identical looking images (apart from noise and clipping limits) Of course, the Alexa is a very high DR Linear capture device so I'm not criticising it at all. However, the FP is also a high-quality Linear capture device, and the fact that the ARRI colour magic is in the LUT means that we can all use it on our own footage if we can convert that footage back to Linear / LOG from whatever is recorded in-camera.

Sounds like you need to calibrate your monitor! Let's have an argument about what specification your monitor is, if it has a dedicated video output or is being polluted by your operating systems colour management, what calibration device you use and what software you paired with it, what options you chose for calibration, what the ambient lighting conditions are in your studio and what CRI and calibration the globes have, what colour the walls of your studio are - I mean did you even buy the special neutral colour paint???? No wonder it's all gone topsy-turvy for you!!! (In all seriousness, those things do matter, but making a film that isn't boring is still way more important....)

I've tried correcting skintones on hundreds? thousands? of shots of GH5 10-bit footage. I haven't tried breaking them or really pushing the grade specifically on them though. As I said, I'm not sure if 10-bit is enough or not, maybe not. I know that some of the ML users here have reported seeing not only differences between 10-bit and 12-bit RAW, but also between the 12 and 14 bit RAW, so that's more data to factor in. I guess mostly, I'd like to be given the option! ......and without having to build a whole rig around an external recorder 🙂

Agreed. Something that I think that doesn't get talked about much and isn't well understood is the relationship between resolution, bit-depth, and bitrate. To some extent they are linked and can, under some circumstances, offset the weaknesses in the others. I'd still like Prores 444 though, because it would give me downsampled 1080p with low levels of sharpening, high-enough but not unmanageable bit-rates and RAW-like bit-depth 🙂

I so wish that companies would put Prores 444 into their cameras as a 12-bit standard that is well supported... well, that they'd put Prores in their cameras at all, then 444 after that 🙂 Mind you, I have tried to break the 10-bit files from my GH5 and they've held up, so maybe there isn't much need for it? Not entirely sure on that one.

You're probably thinking of Prores RAW, which Resolve doesn't support. Normal prores has full support though. I've noticed that people online often say Prores when they mean Prores RAW and it's quite confusing as they're definitely not the same.

I think all crews will always be stretched. The crew might be stretched because they're all trying to do their own thing well and any spare time/resources is quickly put to doing something better or something more that wasn't originally included. The crew might be stretched because they're all trying to do as little as possible and therefore the task expands to fill the available time. The crew might be stretched because they're a smooth running operation who are coordinated and efficient through experience and discipline (which is no easy feat to implement). The way you can tell the difference is that on the first instance the results are greater than expected from the time and resources, the second is that the results aren't better than expected, and the last is that things seem relaxed and smooth and there are time and/or resources spare at the end. Absolutely. People concentrate on image image image and it's so short sighted. I talk a lot about dynamic range and stabilisation etc in my work and share nice images I've captured and people respond with the old GH5 is enough, but what they're not seeing are clip after clip after clip where I couldn't get my shit together in time and missed the moment, where the DR wasn't enough, where the stabilisation made it unusable, etc etc. Every usable clip on the card is better than every clip you can't use or didn't capture, and camera choice is huge in that equation.

I thought Gerald was the detailed spec guy? Like, he was the one who would find and mention all the bizarre and non-sensical cripple-hammer combinations, because he was the only one that had used the camera for more than a day before posting a review about it. But would you want his recommendations and conclusions? Definitely not - he's a technician not an artist. Film-making isn't about technical perfection, it's about the aesthetic. Geralds (and most internet technologists) favourite aesthetic is beige filters on a beige lens on a beige sensor with enormous resolution to reproduce the mind-numbing dullness of the whole affair. If you only read the internet, then this would be a delicious delicious image:

It's a good question why they don't add those modes. I've noticed on looking at the specifications sheets on sensors that have been shared over the years that often Sony (it's always Sony) will have a full-resolution readout of the sensor up to a certain frame rate (eg, 30p) and then a lower resolution at a higher rate (eg, 60p or 120p) but don't list any lower/faster modes than that. For example, they might list 6k60, 4k120, but not 1080p240 (which is actually half the number of pixels per second as 4k120). Let alone faster readouts for 720p or 480p. Obviously the tiny sensors for smartphones and the 1" ones like the RX100 (and GoPro?) etc do have those fast/lower-res modes, but maybe they just don't include them on larger sensors - not sure why.

Actually I think the image is overkill in resolution, and underkill in everything else. Just because the GX85 is smaller than most other cameras and just because it's got a better image than the competitors in a similar size / form-factor doesn't mean it's overkill. So many times people confuse being 'better than average' with being 'more than needed' and it's just not the case. Sure, you might have the smartest toddler in the world, but that doesn't mean they can lead the space program. Reality doesn't bend just because the standard of offerings is low!

I think the colour on that video was really good, and I actually think that the oversaturated grading shows how impressive the image from the camera must be in order to be able to be graded like that. Anyone who has tried to push a huge amount of saturation into some footage will know that it's a good way to reveal the weaknesses in the footage so the fact that the image held up to that is really a vote of confidence. I find it strange and a bit sad that mostly people can't separate the capabilities of a camera from the grading that is done to it. The Slashcam comparisons on YT show that most cameras look dull and understated when simply exposed properly and with the default manufacturers LUT on them, meaning that all the great looking videos we see are the effects of lighting and production design on set and colourist in post, of course all with the limitation of the capabilities of the camera. I think if you went through every camera thread on these forums you'd find one (or many) examples of "I don't like that grade on that video - the camera must be crap". It's like burning a steak and then blaming it on the cow.

[Edit: Thanks for your apology post - I wasn't offended and no harm done 🙂 ] I'm not sure why you and others keep running to the extremes. I never said the GH5 was great and neither did I say it was terrible. I'm actually very interested in a new camera once I'm back and travelling again, as the GH5 colour and low-light and DR are definitely showing signs of age and are actively limiting factors in me getting the most from the camera. In terms of trends or whatever, nowhere did I claim that was the first trend ever, so that's just a bizarre instance of you putting words in my mouth. As for 12 people liking it, um.... What a completely non-sensical comment considering that a few clicks show that video has 14.5 million views on YT, the song reached the top 100 charts around the world and the artist appeared on shows like Jimmy Fallon.

@PannySVHS's comment was "They went a bit overboard with grading, especially the red cloth of the suit is oversaturated" and @webrunner5 said while talking about the background colours "It is just a dull blob." Sure, no-one said they wanted accurate, but some kind of ideal middle ground is implied. You can't say that something is "too <something>" unless you're comparing it to something, and they didn't specify what that something was, just some sort of nice/desirable one-size-fits-all kind of idea. If there's no "right" way to do it, then there can't be any wrong way to do it, and therefore no criticisms. But that's not what was posted.....

Great stuff! This is what happens when more attention is paid to the non-camera things rather than the camera body 🙂 Especially good production design and hair/makeup. It must be really satisfying working with a team of talented people who are all bringing their different areas of expertise into the finished production!

The red being pushed up was a trend, IIRC it was made popular by this video: Outside of camera forums, no-one gives a shit about getting natural looking colour - they want colour that will do something for them - to support the aesthetic and vision of the film - to bring the film success and popularity so it reaches a good audience and makes the effort of making it worthwhile. We discuss cameras colour on these forums in some sort of strange parallel universe where making a camera neutral and accurate and nice is this kind of goal in itself, but it's really not. If you guys have a challenge with that level of pushing/pulling colours then you'll have a heart attack when you start watching movies and other music videos..... plus, you know, check out the terribly inaccurate colour on these little-known films that failed due to their poor colour.... What awfully inaccurate colours - I guess the cameras were rubbish! Looks like those were shot on Alexas - man must those cameras be overrated!

Nice! Anything is usable as long as it's aligned to the creative aesthetic. Footage from any camera can also be a disaster, regardless of how technically good it is, if it's not a good fit for the aesthetic.

Actually, something that apparently used to happen quite a lot but was kind of hidden by you tubers was that they used the Sony FF cameras in manual focus mode when vlogging because they didn't have flippy screens and couldn't be sure that the AF was getting them in focus. I saw it mentioned once in a video by Matti Haapoja and he laughed and said that everyone does it but doesn't talk about it and then had a passing dig at Sony about flippy screens. IIRC it was when the A7s2 was the best Sony camera that all the YT vloggers who jump brands all the time were using. The technique was that you held your arm straight out and bent your fingers up, held your camera at your chest and manually focused on your fingers. He showed it in the video. In terms of poor AF ruining video - yes it absolutely does. This "AF is necessary" sentiment is what is making people use AF when they shouldn't. Your comments about "Panasonic needs to give users AF" just makes me think that you don't know when to use the right mode for the job. I mean, AF is useful, but it's not the end of the world like the AF zealots make it out to be. The fact they can be useful doesn't mean they're not a complete PITA when they're compulsory when not wanted. It's like if a piece of kitchen equipment put strawberry sauce into everything it made, someone complaining about it, and then the rebuttal being that strawberry sauce can be useful. Sure, but get it out of my pizza dough! At this point it's like people are trying to cancel Panasonic because they're not skilled enough to work around a particular limitation that Panasonic has. I understand that it's a bit of a significant limitation, but cameras are chock full of limitations that we all have to work around all the time. It's like people have developed a fetish about it or something.

We have to be careful here. Comparing a GX85 to film and implying that the GX85 is better than film is simply flat out wrong. The GX85 is better than film in terms of: camera size resolution (for cameras of remotely the same size - 8mm or 16mm) artificial sharpness lower-noise Film is better than the GX85 in terms of: dynamic range / highlight rolloff colour natural rendering of details rolling shutter motion cadence film is "raw" - ie zero compression artefacts cinematic image rendering slow-motion (film can be as slow-motion as you like and doesn't decrease in quality) While the size of the GX85 is definitely a huge point (it's why I bought one), everything I care about in images is better with film.

No idea about FCPX.

Good thing it's not a Panasonic camera - otherwise people would be sharpening their knives ready to tear it apart....

I like him and his channel. I think what I really like about him is that he's a pragmatist who understands the end-to-end process and that the camera is not the limiting factor. If he was a little more up-front I think his message of "this camera is good enough" would turn into "this camera is not the limiting factor in your results - your lack of skill is" but of course he's too nice to say such a thing 🙂 The thinking is good, just because I don't agree with his conclusions doesn't mean I don't agree with his thinking - it's far more sound than the un-spoken thinking behind most other channels in the space!

As a GH5 user, I find the whole crop thing to be a highly bizarre topic that makes basically zero sense. When I hear everyone being all apologist about it, I just think you all have Stockholm Syndrome. When I look at my 17.5mm lens, I know it has a 35mm FF FOV. It has that FOV in 24p, 60p, 120p, in 4K, in 1080p, in 5K, in 3.3k, on Wednesday AND Fridays, when the Moon is in Aquarius and Pisces, and with absolutely no reliance on who has the majority of government in the lower chamber of whatever-the-f*ck-country I'm in. The GH5 does have crop modes though - they're FEATURES, not obstacles in a minefield that is different on every camera. The S35 and S16 crops are actually extremely useful on a mirrorless camera because of the lens choices that they open up. S16 especially as there are so few cameras that effectively do it. The GH5, which seems to be copping some heat here, does S16 in native 4K. I agree that it might not have a great feel, but it also doesn't get emotional and irrational and create random issues that will ruin your shoot 🙂 If you insist! You said it first, but I did the math and thought of it before I read your comment 🙂 I wouldn't believe anyone until you see a time-lapse shot of the camera in a temperature-controlled cabinet with a thermometer and a clock, where they keep replacing the battery and memory card until it overheats or they get bored. It's not that I don't think Canon can make a camera that manages heat, it's that we've seen we can't trust them not to lie to us about it.

As @Django said - you can't get colour like this without knowing how to properly expose and how to do at least basic colour work. These people are probably using a strong look LUT (it has that feel), but the saving grace for you is that they don't seem to really be that good at colour matching, so that seems to skew it in the direction of their look being more towards the LUT and less away from it being manually done in Resolve. A skilled colourist would probably be able to replicate this look in a few minutes by doing it manually. C-Log3 on your R6 is definitely the way to go, especially because you already have it and it's essentially free. When you're starting out in Resolve I suggest the following node tree to get you going: Node one: use this for manual adjustments to the clip like White Balance / exposure / contrast Node two: use an OFX plugin (which comes with Resolve) called Colour Space Transform (CST) and set it to Input of Canon C-Log 3 / Canon colour and output of Cineon gamma and rec709 colour Node three: use the one of the LUTs in the Film Emulation folder that come with Resolve - these all have different looks but you'll probably find one that you like enough to get you started (there are some Fuji film stock emulations in there you might like) Apply that node tree to every clip and then on each clip you need to adjust the first node so that each shot looks good. This process is called "grading under the LUT" and it's common to do things this way (pros do it this way) and unless you are manually exposing and lighting each shot (which you're not) then you'll need to adjust each shot separately to match. On that first node I'd suggest starting out with by adjusting the Contrast / Pivot / Offset / Temp / Tint / Saturation controls. These work as a set and should give you most of the control that you're looking for without being too complicated. The combination of the above technique (only using the controls I've mentioned) and your R6 in C-Log-3 is capable of creating world-class images, but will be limited to how well you are shooting the material. If you're not getting good results from that, work on your shooting (proper exposure and WB) and work on your technique. The internet is full of people selling you things, so they push the agenda that getting good results is complicated so that you'll buy the results from them instead of learning to do it yourself. This is BS. Getting good results is about mastering the fundamentals. Remember that 10,000 hour rule? Practice makes better.... Good luck.

In addition to previous comments, there's the potential for them to be doing something crazy that we haven't seen before... IIRC their original ALEV was revolutionary, so maybe this one will be as well. Maybe dual-layer or some other kind of change.

I thought the colour on that video was all over the place actually? Some shots green and faded, others with more contrast and more of the Canon reds. It all looked like Canon colours though, which you said you didn't like?