kye

YT is a very strange place indeed. Recently I found a YT channel that uses exclusively primitive CGI footage and artificially-generated robot voices (I suspect deliberately made worse) and yet it is far far far too funny to not be humanly generated. Here is one video I recommend: I also recommend the Queen's Gambit Defence video too - longer but worth it. If this is AI, it's not all bad!

Yeah, I'd love to get a few files and have a play! Which pockets do you see as B-cams? Definitely curious about that. I think the FP would probably be the best candidate as a B-cam, as it's FF giving it the best lens selection, the sensor and colour seems super capable of capturing a wide DR and gamut, and the codecs are definitely up to the challenge. While I didn't follow all the details that you guys were talking about in the FP thread I think that matching it in Resolve should actually be relatively easy if the right conversions are done. If you have any shots from the Alexa and FP that you can share I'd be curious about how easy they are to match.

Or adjust ISO. Most cameras ISO is good enough when only adjusted within a few stops of native that it is better than a cheaper VND.

Ah, ok, good stuff. I've watched a bunch of these camera tests, especially the more serious blind ones, and I've found that there's really no way to do these comparisons properly. I've seen examples where setting the WB to the same values across different brands didn't result in the same colour balance at all, making me think that a custom WB would be better. Then people apply different LUTs in post rather than doing what you have done in matching the image pipelines. Then people don't match properly in post, applying manual adjustments shot-to-shot and pulling skin tone keys if necessary. But real projects are likely to have a bit of a look applied, unless it's a straight-up and very low budget production that can't afford any time in post (the "commercial look" that looks neutral but super clean is actually quite a processed look and is quite heavily coloured). BUT, at this point it's not really a camera test.. I suspect these issues only really apply to someone working at your "tier" in the industry, and I don't envy you at all in this regard. What I mean is that someone working at a lower tier would just buy more cameras and match them all - having a couple of GH5s or A7S2s is affordable and commercially reasonable, negating the need to match cameras. Anyone working on a higher "tier" would rent equipment and simply match brands that way, or hire a colourist and it would be matched by them. It seems to me it's the owner/operators who are doing their own low-budget jobs where they're trying to match their own camera (which they're charging out to the client) to the camera of a fellow owner/operator (who is also being charged out to the client) who are faced with this. Logic suggests that you just rent a matching camera, but I do get that helping out colleagues is critical to business as helping each other out is needed to stay in business and grow.

Good video - easily in the top 10% of camera YT - subbed and looking forward to future episodes! In terms of the cameras, the Komodo didn't get embarrassed by the Classic, which is a tall order indeed. The giveaway for me, which is as usual, was the green/magenta balance on skintones. On some images that balance was different across various elements of the frame (e.g DR comparison when standing - 5:40), but when it was more closely matched (eg, the choir) it was only really the skin-tones that made it noticeable. It makes me wonder if a tiny adjustment to the Gamma would have closed the gap, or even pulling a soft key for skin-tones and making that adjustment. I'd also be curious to see if putting them both under the same LUT would match them better too? Assuming you can convert them both from Linear to the same Log, make any exposure adjustments, then put them through the same 709 conversion. I've found that the more of an image pipeline that two clips share, the more they'll match, and I'm used to matching things like a GH5 and an iPhone 🙂

Yeah, that would be spectacular!

Isn't the Vlog on the GH5 V-LogL or some other non-proper form of V-Log? I was never really that straight on that profile. I do remember people were saying the GH6 had proper V-Log so it was compatible with the LUTs from the proper Panasonic Cinema Cameras?

Obviously I haven't tried it, but I would have thought that pushing the same button multiple times was easier than having to use multiple controls. I just checked on my GH5 and the sequence is: find custom function button with finger 3 clicks to engage the 2x (or 2 clicks to go back to 1x) hit shutter button (either half-press to quit zoom menu or full-press to quit menu and start recording) I have my digital zoom button mapped to the FN2 custom button, which is the upper-most button on the RHS of the screen which allows me to hit it with the base of my thumb while still holding the weight of the camera with that hand and without removing my index finger from the shutter button, so that doesn't require any navigation during the whole operation. In uncertain moments I can also move my thumb there pre-emptively as there isn't anywhere else that it would need to be, so it's essentially a near-zero-movement operation, which I don't really think is possible with many / any of the other controls on the camera, depending on how you're holding it. That process also doesn't require any visual attention and doesn't interfere with your left hand so I could potentially engage the 2x zoom while also composing and manually focusing the shot at the same time. Of course, that speed difference probably doesn't matter to everyone as much as it does for me, who quite often gets two or three usable frames from a moment because I was too slow. It's probably also not so much of a difference if you're operating other aspects of the camera manually too, meaning you'd have to move your hands between buttons regardless of this function.

Here's the update announcement: https://www.panasonic.com/global/consumer/lumix/firmware_update.html

The S16 crop of the OG BMPCC / BMMCC is 2.88x compared to FF, so 1.5x on MFT is a little tighter (3.0) but pretty close. IIRC the 4K 1:1 crop on GH5 was a 1.4x on MFT which was 2.8, so a little wider, but still very comparable, and at 4K also quite croppable compared to a native FHD S16 sensor. In terms of trying to simulate a 2x digital crop your method above seems logical but is quite cumbersome, unfortunately. The method I was thinking of was simply having a second mode that was 4K in 1:1 mode and then I'd just crop in post to whatever crop I needed, as having a 2x crop was never an exact requirement for me, but as you pointed out, both require 4K. I do wonder if Panasonic might add it in a future upgrade perhaps. I can imagine that it wouldn't have been a high priority for the initial release, which I think was motivated to get the headline features out as soon as possible, and the second firmware, which I think was motivated to get Prores for 4K and 1080p modes out. It would be great to see it added in the next firmware update, that's for sure!! In fact, maybe a variable digital zoom might be possible? Everyone knows that one of the best uses for high resolution cameras is cropping into the image, which was always deemed as cropping in post, but why not be cropping in-camera? Sony has ClearImage Zoom, which is quite impressive, a competitor would be great.

I have heard from the colourists that there are strong cultural differences relating to colour that play a heavy role in how colour grading is done in other cultures. My recollection of the specifics was such that what the west would consider 'acceptable' wouldn't overlap with what other cultures would suggest was 'normal'. Totally agree. and just to confirm - the GH6 doesn't have a 2x zoom function? I have literally bought lenses around that function, so that's a big deal for me.

Absolutely. Camera discussions mostly ignore the broader workflow, which is a shame.

Great stuff - keen to hear your impressions 🙂

Well, it's rather strange that he did a WB without having the LUTs / conversions in place, because there's no guarantee that whatever flavour of log it's shot in will be neutral, but in general yes, that's a better workflow. Waqas is one of the reliable colourists on YT, but he tends to overcomplicate things for views and to get people to buy his course. Still, the method in this video is reasonable. But you should be able to get great looking footage if you: know your camera and how to shoot and get the most from it (years of use) know how to grade it in the way that gives you the look you like most keep it simple

Bingo! Enjoy. To be fair, there's lots of things they're attributing to the sensor size that aren't related to it at all (eg, extra resolution) but in the ARRI and high-end cinema line-up they are only offered by cameras with larger sensors, so there is validity to what some of them are saying. So while some of it is purely aesthetic, some of it is simply false attribution, but are real factors.

Yet another example of someone who doesn't know how to colour. If you were going to match the cameras, then why not use a CST to LOG and then use the same LUT. Colour management tools exist, and have done for many years, this is literally what they're for and is literally the point of the video and he doesn't use them.

Yeah, there's absolutely no way that I'd use anything from ARRI, even if I could afford them, they're still too big for what I shoot (home videos and travel). I am also aware that sensor size, AF, and IBIS aren't critical features for most people. In terms of why people don't apply the normal hype factors to higher end cameras, I suspect it's just that the users are mostly mutually exclusive. If someone was on a production where they were looking for things like FF and AF then they'd probably just get a different camera - I think there are options out there. I really see that there's pretty minimal overlap between the world of professional sets where equipment is hired and there are lots of people on the production who all do things in the standard way, and the solo-operators who haven't worked on professional sets and don't know why things are done the way they're done. It's worth noting that even within professional circles things like FF fetish still exists. I recently watched an industry video with interviews of lots of cinematographers and it was clip after clip of people fawning over the magic that a larger sensor gives you with the odd clip of Steve Yedlin in there saying that there is no difference and that optics just don't work like that. It was hilarious, but was almost embarrassing. That made me laugh! Yes, that's true.

IIRC you've said in the past that the Alexa needed multiple people to really operate it (or at least that it wasn't a good fit for solo operators) - I remember reading somewhere in the ARRI marketing that they wanted the 35 to be an all-around camera good for all kinds of work. Do you think its design supports that? Would this be usable for a solo operator?

I find this an excellent resource on codecs: https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/compare-50-intermediate-codecs/ It lists 1080p 422 (not HQ) as 117Mbps (for 24p) and HQ as 176Mbps, so maybe they're not that far off? It's also worth noting that I've done a bunch of bitrate tests on Prores (from ffmpeg) and the bitrates are approximate and depend on source material. Electric is definitely a vibe - that's for sure! While I'm not a personal fan of that grading, I do think this goes in the realm of personal choice so I wouldn't criticise it. One thing that is worth noting is that getting a clean and highly saturated image is quite hard and when you push the saturation on most cameras the image starts to reveal rather odd characteristics. If you've never tried it, learning to grade with high saturation and high contrast is definitely worthwhile because it's grading on a higher difficulty level and is likely to surface issues that can be hidden with low saturation footage. It's well known that B&W makes all cameras look good, so this is the opposite.

Art is art and everything is valid and simply a matter of taste. Absolutely. If you were here posting your own work and saying that you like what you're doing, then that would be great. The problem is that you've come on the forums asking the wrong questions and then disagreeing when people tell you things you don't like or don't align to this phoney world view that you have inherited from YT. The question "what camera should I buy to get results like this" is basically the same as saying "what camera can I buy that will mean I don't have to know what I'm doing or understand what entire departments do on a film set". You may as well ask what time purple smells like rain - it would make about the same amount of sense. This is my final attempt at giving you advice.... film is hard and you can't buy skill. I know you don't want to hear this, but, basically, suck it up. Pretending it's not true just means your skill building process is delayed further, and it sounds like you've already wasted many years already.

If I offered you a snack from a tray, but first I told you that a significant proportion of them were poisoned and would make you sick, would you eat one? or not risk it? You're right that there's good info on YT, but the problem is that the only way you can tell the difference is if you already know what is right and what is mis-information, financial bias, over-simplification, or information that is correct but not useful. Certainly I shouldn't have to tell this forum the level of content creators whose vested interests are better not consumed at all - in colourist terms the level of information is dramatically worse when you're talking about non-pros. I think watching YT camera and colourist videos put me back at least a year in terms of time wasted confusing myself and time spent un-learning things that were never right to begin with, but I drank up because I didn't know how to tell the difference.

I'm confused - someone that has done something professionally for decades isn't the best choice and a millennial with a laptop is? There are lots of films shot in less-than-ideal conditions you know, and any very seasoned colourist will have colour corrected more projects in those situations that the laptop YT colourist will have graded any type of project. Back in the days of film, it was common to shoot a very low-budget film on the remainders of film reels that had been bought for a movie or TV show but never used. Sometimes you could buy these cheap from a studio for example. The problem is that when it came time to edit your film, you had reels of film that were different brands, ages, processes, and had been treated differently (the roll that went out into the desert for a month shooting a Bedouin doco won't be as well cared for as one that was always kept in a fridge in a studio). Obviously these colourists wouldn't be able to make the film a visual masterpiece, especially considering the project had a low budget to begin with and they were probably only brought in when the cut was deemed unwatchable due to all the colour casts etc. So someone who has experience doing this kind of work, and maybe archival restoration and other challenging work, doesn't know as much about grading than someone who waves a camera around and grades on a laptop? Well, ok, if I insist. I am that person. I shoot uncontrolled scenes, in available lighting, and grade on a MBP. You will now value my advice and wisdom more than a colourist with 50 years of experience. Go back and re-read all my comments and take in the incredible wisdom I have given you. What if the thing you're learning is wrong? Here, let me teach you some things... the camera is the only thing that matters in film-making FF is the only sensor size worth shooting on in 2022 getting the highest resolution sensor is the way to choose between cameras getting the sharpest lenses is the most important thing in choosing lenses Wow - what a gift I have just given you!

Oh, I was wrong! Now they shoot RAW, there's literally no difference between a smartphone and a Alexa 65. Wow - good thing you guys are here to correct me. *shakes head* In terms of the RAW output from the phone, they look great and really have that RAW look with a natural amount of sharpness. I really think that bitrate and processing are the biggest Achilles heel of phones and consumer cameras, so effectively removing that is a great step in the right direction.

YT isn't one thing. It goes all the way from zero planning or budget to individual episodes that take literally months or years to make. YT is exactly the same as Netflix or Prime or any other VOD website, it just has a different revenue model (advertising not exclusively membership). The biggest YT channels have a higher budget than almost all larger budget TV shows. The same people that watch Netflix and Prime watch YT - why would their preferences change? They don't take their eyeballs out when they change browser tabs. I'm talking about image quality. I put a fast prime on my GH5 and go shoot at night and get perfectly usable shots when an iPhone can't even acquire focus - this is an actual example. People who love FF talk about it having a more graceful transition to the out-of-focus areas. The out-of-focus areas on a smartphone look like they've been drawn onto the video with the blur tool by a toddler. There is literally no comparison. I own a camera because of its image quality, not because it can check the stock market prices.

Another thing that's fascinating, and completely invisible, is that the way that cameras are used between YT and professional sets is fundamentally and completely different. Ironically, the professional process where a camera is properly exposed and white-balanced makes everything really simple and straight-forward in post, not only being super easy to grade an enormous amount of content to look consistent and also amazing. This is compared to the haphazard way that YT and other solo film-makers operate with WB and exposure all over the place, meaning so much extra work is required in post. The first time I heard a professional colourist take me through their process was a revelation because it made the whole thing radically simple, and with a properly shot feature a colourist can set everything up properly and have everything just fall into place with only minor tweaks required. One senior colourist mentioned that they like to have a viewing with the Director a few days after they have received the footage - this is when colour grading a feature with literally thousands of individual shots. You simply cannot do that if things aren't done in a standardised and repeatable way. Of course, that standard way also makes sure that each image is captured at the absolute sweet-spot of the camera/codec so not only are the results consistent but they're of the highest quality. For each hour you spend watching YT videos on film-making, you're going to need to spend another two hours later on un-learning the complete crap that they've been feeding you.