kye

Sorry to hear about your experience - hopefully someone on here can help you with some info. Some of the ecosystems for these cinema cameras can be pretty difficult to navigate sometimes. When RED users talk to each other it seems like they're speaking a foreign language!

When I was in the market for my GH5 I was seriously considering both the A73 and an Olympus camera. I can't remember which Olympus model it was, but it was the direct competitor to the GH5. The equation basically boiled down to this: GH5 - poor AF, great codecs including 10-bit, very good stabilisation Oly - limited to 8-bit, excellent stabilisation (better than the GH5) A73 - great AF, limited to 8-bit codecs I don't remember if the Oly had PDAF - I don't think I even knew that at the time. Later on I learned that they had it (thanks to @Dave Maze on YT) and it was one of the best kept secrets - no-one was talking about it. Anyway, I realised that it came down to AF vs stabilisation vs codecs. I used one of my existing camera setups to try to learn manual focusing, and discovered that not only was it much simpler than I thought, but I actually preferred the experience (not silently screaming in my head as I watched the camera screw up my shot) and most importantly I learned that I preferred the more human feel of MF - including the mistakes and imperfections. So that ruled out the A73, because AF was it's main feature, and left the Olympus and the GH5. I eventually decided that the 10-bit internal and higher-quality codecs were more important to me than the edge on stabilisation that the Oly had, and went with the GH5. I've often wondered why there was no love for Olympus as the quality of the footage was there (I watched a LOT of it while I was evaluating cameras) but I think it was more that no-one knew about it. The GH5 was famous (10-bit! 400Mbps! ALL-I! etc) and infamous ("Panasonic AF has ruined my life!" "I want to kill myself!!" etc), but no-one even mentioned Olympus - not for their strengths or weaknesses.

Noam Kroll just posted a new blog post comparing Prores vs h265 on the iPhone which makes interesting reading. Some aspects of the comparison are specific to the iPhone, but others apply more widely. https://noamkroll.com/filmic-pro-log-vs-prores-sample-images-test-results/ Incidentally, Noam is an example of someone who prefers shooting high-quality HD rather than lower-quality 4K or more because of the associated aesthetic, as well as practical considerations. His blog is excellent and contains lots of articles discussing various aspects of film-making. In todays internet landscape I find that he's a rare glimpse of working film-makers who are balancing aesthetic and practicalities to get the overall best results from a film-making perspective.

Great camera test - I'm a big fan of testing stuff by taking video of my family and editing it up into a finished video so you can keep it as a memory. Colour and images look really good. I also use crop modes on my setup (GH5) which can be a little softer due to the limited resolution on vintage lenses - I find that adding a bit more sharpening can help to even out the shots.

You'll have to have a word with the talent then!!

It is a blanket statement, but it's my experience. I've heard it frequently mentioned from others too. I shoot on the 200Mbps 10-bit ALL-I 1080p mode on my GH5 and it cuts really nicely, so the ALL-I definitely makes a difference, but it's not just the editing performance that I've heard pros say they appreciate, it's the aesthetic too. I am also glad it's starting to appear in more and more low-priced cameras.

I think the GH6 will have to be impressive to be a success. In this sense, it will have to really beat the FF offerings, which have caught up and overtaken the GH5. Unfortunately, people want things like you mentioned, which are better delivered by FF. The advantages of MFT are many, but you're just not interested in them. You want features that are better delivered by a larger sensor (47MP), are easier to deliver in a larger body (ND), are well catered for in the common sensors (PDAF), and you're willing to have something almost the size of an S1H, which is absolutely enormous compared to MFT. I wonder how much Sony have chosen not to develop innovative MFT sensors in order to drive people to FF where they can easily compete? It's a smart strategy.

I've heard some editors say that the trend of having more cuts is just lazy film-making. I can't remember where or I'd link it. The rationale was that cutting creates visual change, and makes things seem like they're moving and exciting. I think frequent cutting is used a lot in fight scenes. The example I saw was comparing a fight scene that had lots of cuts (can't remember where it was) with a fight scene from one of the original Bourne trilogy where Matt Damon fights a guy in Morocco (?) and it had a lot less cuts but was still really brutal. When you looked at the two scenes one after the other, the scene with more cuts actually had less action and less innovative camera angles and cinematography. Basically they were trying to pump up a weak scene by having you constantly trying to re-orient yourself and not notice that the content wasn't that exciting. If you're curious, there's a fascinating effect by having extremely long shots that seems different to normal cinema. I remember in particular that both Russian Ark and Roma had. Like it was a different kind of cinema, at least after it'd been a while since the previous cut. IIRC Roma had a few sections of relatively normal cutting with some hugely long shots.

I just assume that all content these days is steamed, so to clarify: I find triple-h26x compression (h26x in-camera, h26x export from NLE, and h26x streaming compression) to be harsh, compared with double-h26x compression (Prores in-camera, h26x export from NLE, and h26x streaming compression) The acquisition compression matters more than the export and streaming compression as often it's in a flat format, so any digital nasties get amplified with all the processing (adding contrast and saturation, sharpening, etc). Prores was designed as a professional digital intermediary, and the implementations in cameras will have been honed over many years to be as visually optimised as possible. The bitrates will also have been selected to be generous, as professional video environments aren't so worried about a 10 or 20% increase in file sizes if that's going to mean a difference in quality. The H263/4/5/6 standards were designed specifically for lower bitrates: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding The overall aesthetic quality of h26x family is secondary to bitrates, because unlike a post-production house, Netflix or Prime might get bankrupted by a 20% increase in their total storage, processing, streaming infrastructure and data costs.

Still at it, but now looking at TV episodes. In contrast to the short YT films, here's the analysis from a 40 minute TV episode: Almost 2000 cuts! The way this works is that you're analysing a clip BEFORE adding it to the media pool, and when you add all the clips into the media pool you can't change the start and end points. So during the analysis process you can further cut up these clips as they appear on the timeline, but you can't join some together. I'm not going to review these manually, and there will be false-positives (it thinks the arrival of a lens flare or other motion is a cut) and false-negatives (a jump cut that isn't too visually different) so there is no threshold that will get them all right. As such, I take a cautious approach and set the threshold high, so it misses real cuts but doesn't cut up shots on big movement. This way, if I'm analysing a part of the timeline I can further cut it up manually, but I won't be stuck with cuts that shouldn't be there. This approach creates about 1000 cuts, which is about a cut every 2.4 seconds. Not too far off really. Then I can start sorting and in the parts where I want to see every cut I can manually refine at that point.

Also, I'd imagine you'll probably really like FilmConvert. I've spent a lot of time learning colour grading and I value doing things manually to deliberately build my skills, but if all I was interested in was getting a good result I'd just buy one of those packages like FilmConvert or Dehancer etc and be done with it. I wouldn't recommend them to everyone, as film-emulations aren't the only look so they're kind-of a one-trick pony, but if you like the look then they're definitely the fastest way to get from SOOC to done.

If you're using a strong look like a film emulation then it's worth noting that the preferred approach for colourists is to apply the look and then grade the clips with the look applied.. "grading under the LUT". This will prevent you from having to make two primaries passes, and will save you from adjusting things that are visible without the look but aren't with it. If you're skeptical, grab a bunch of clips and time yourself doing both methods, you might be surprised.

I think the challenge in the MFT space is the limitations of the sensor. The GH5 and P4K basically took all the modes the sensor was capable of and enabled them, the GH5 compressed and the P4K in RAW. If the best MFT sensors are limited to (for example) full-readout 60p and FHD 240p, have dual native ISO, X stops of DR, and a rolling shutter then you can't make a camera that exceeds these specs, so the best you can do is give good codecs and features and make it reliable and in a good form-factor. To be really significant, the GH6 will have to do something groundbreaking, which would require an innovative sensor or crazy processing of some kind. Still, a camera that combined the best specs and features of the GH5 and P4K would be pretty good and probably get my money. Yeah, those codecs are particularly weak. Is Olympus known for improving the codecs in firmware upgrades after the fact, like Panasonic did with the GH5?

Indeed! It's a fair point too, because for our purposes (where we'd use the camera rather than just mounting it and walking away) we need a rig that's usable so it's the rig size that matters rather than the box itself. For that the Komodo is actually a fascinating form-factor and brilliant in a few ways, mostly because of the built-in screen which can be used with a MF-style viewfinder: So you just add a couple of batteries, media, a loupe, a lens, ND and then you're off! The BMMCC obviously didn't have a screen so that made a rig essential and depending on how you rigged it basically tripled the size of it.

Ah, well RAW is RAW, so in that case they're directly comparable. For the compressed version you'd really need to do a visual inspection because 540Mbps isn't an amazingly high-bitrate for 8K. The uncompressed data rate for 8K 10-bit 4:4:4 (after debayering) is about 25,000Mbps, so 540Mbps is only 2.2%, whereas for reference the Prores HQ data rate is about 9% of uncompressed. Prores is visually different to h264 and h265, which both seem more aggressive and digital looking than Prores to me, so the 540Mbps might look considerably worse than a still from a Prores HQ file. Still, the proof is in the pudding so you'd have to actually look. A good way to preview it is to put it 1:1 on a larger monitor and then gradually move away from it until you can't see the pixels anymore. Then you can work out how large the image would be when printed that size and how far back you had to move, then scale that to how close people would stand and you'll get a rough indication of the upper limit on size.

All else being equal that's true, but it'll depend on the compression, which apart from RAW and Prores is typically very high. A 100Mbps 8K frame won't be as good as a RAW 4K frame.

The weight for the Takumar wasn't from a completely reliable source (you don't really find specifications sheets for vintage lenses straight in google) and I wasn't sure of the version either. Takumar do strange things with their versioning - "Super Takumar" and "S-M-C" and "SMC" are all different IIRC, and who knows if it varied from year to year either. Lots of things lost to time around these points in history I think. I have plenty of way heavier things, so I'm with you in terms of things being heavy. If it was heaviest setup of only camera, lens, and adapter, I might give you a run for your money - the GH5 and something like the M42 SB and 200mm F4 Minolta would be right up there. Or others. I have several vintage lenses past 200mm I think 🙂

Pixel peeing here, but it looks quite compressed: Is that compression from the original file or the compression to upload the still? My understanding of wedding photography is that the occasional couple will drop real money to get a large print of the best image of the day to hang in their house - maybe 24"x36" or more. Does that still happen? If so, that's the worst-case they'd have to stand up to, probably being viewed from about the same distance away as its larger dimension. I do really like the idea of grabbing a still from a video, especially if you're a single shooter. I've played with printing out stills from video and my recollection was that bitrate mattered a lot more than resolution, at least for modest sized prints.

My recommendation is to invest a bit of time, and if you're making money then it's an investment, and put in a bit of work. Here's what I would suggest: Go through a few weddings and pull a selection of the type of shots you typically get onto a single timeline. ie, some day, some night, some close-ups of different skintones, some high-key, some low, some with super-saturated colours, etc Put an adjustment layer (or something you can colour grade in) over the top of all the clips Duplicate that timeline and grade it using every method you can imagine....... try every LUT you can get your hands on - even if they're obviously "wrong" (eg, try the ARRI 709 LUT, the Canon one, etc etc). FilmConvert (and it's competitors) typically have free trial versions you can use, in those try every film stock emulation. Etc etc. For each copy of the timeline you make: Apply the LUT / simulation Adjust the overall contrast to suit your footage (different LUTs and stocks will have different contrasts) Adjust any clips that need to be adjusted individually (some LUTs or stocks can do odd things on the occasional shot) (optional: add a caption to the grade with the basic info like what LUT or simulation, then export the first frame from each clip as a still) Once you've done that, sleep on it so you have fresh eyes. Bring in some grades you love - either previous ones you've done yourself or reference materials, and compare all the shots you graded and see what you see This is a lot of work, yes, maybe a couple of days if you try a few packages like FilmConvert and Dehancer and others. But you'll do it once, and then you can answer the question of what look/looks you like, save them as power grades (or presets or whatever) and apply them whenever you want. Plus, you'll have a library of looks that you can show to potential customers, you can review for inspiration, etc etc. I've done tests like this and found that the old saying is right - "do it right, do it once".

My impression of the OG Alexa is that the sensor is 10 years old, which will make it likely to be less efficient compared to todays sensor tech (as a decade of tech development has done wonders for things like this, regardless at how good ARRI are at making anything), and the camera also does a ton of processing to the image in-camera. This is likely to be relatively easy to implement the alrogythms on a newer more powerful and power-efficient chip, but it's still processing that isn't done in other cameras. If they were going to make a small mountable package with an ALEV sensor in it then it would have to be smaller than the ALEXA Mini, which is larger than the FX6, definitely, but isn't ridiculously larger... Considering the age of the tech, it might just not be possible to get it small enough, get reasonable battery life, and also keep it cool. Your comments about ARRI upgrading their S35 line first also makes sense. Sadly!

According to google, the takumar is 228g and the Nikon 1 is 383g. Its tough to use older non-plastic stuff, especially things like Takumars that were built super solidly and from high-quality materials.

I'll assume you're talking to me.. I haven't started yet either, as you say we're waiting for the rules. I do have a few ideas though. I'll give you a some hints.... 285g, 193g and 83g. One of them even includes a rig and external monitor.

Maybe you just setup the camera and it monitors the scene, shooting for the edit.....

I thought they'd stagnated a few models ago when the Karma was recalled. But their EIS seems to have prolonged their attraction a few models more. I'm not really sure where they would go now with the normal Hero line. "Here's another camera the same size and shape and basic features as the last one. Please drop another $500. Thanks...." Umm, no... That would be awesome, assuming it was small enough to use in the way we currently use hybrids. A box with Prores and even an original ALEV sensor would be a spectacular upgrade to basically anything currently available now. The sensor might be a bit power hungry though..

Who knows. The section of the market we're referring to is basically crash/vehicle/drone cameras and the smallest and cheaper ones contains: random offerings of BM from the early 2010s the first Zcam a lens manufacturer - Sigma FP a camera company founded so surfers could take selfies - GoPro And cameras with a slightly larger form factor and price tag also include: the more recent Zcam offerings and, more recently, RED The fact that these cameras are all so radically different, and yet have all been used in feature films for almost the same purpose, shows that the segment isn't well catered for at all. In perhaps the only context this would ever happen in, I think the possibilities in the space of tiny cinema-quality cameras are offerings from GoPro, BM, and ARRI. GoPro recently teased that they'll be making "specialised cameras" - whatever the absolute hell that means. ARRI might follow RED and make a tiny camera at the bottom of their range. BMs smallest current camera is now the P4K, which is, in almost any context, huge, so if they wanted anything smaller than that, then they'd be a good candidate. Of course, most BM folks like to rig up their cameras to either make them easier and more practical to use, to look "more pro bruh", or both, so how knows - maybe they won't bother with small.