kye

I have just re-read all your posts in this thread. Your expectation is that you're combining digital stabilisation with OIS, but you don't mention it - you just keep talking about digital stabilisation without talking about the whole picture. This eliminates a huge number of people using either vintage lenses, cinema lenses, or third party lenses. Let's review your comments. I've bolded the relevant sections. Digital stabilisation mentioned without mentioning OIS. Then @Video Hummus posts an OIS + digital stabilisation test but only mentions digital stabilisation: In a sense, yes, it might be the future. Perhaps as manufacturers try to lock everyone in to buying their expensive OIS lenses and lock out older glass through their normal anti-competitive behaviour. Typical for Canon and their cripple hammer - perhaps the only IP they don't make you pay for. "More stable footage without the need for a fast shutter". I'll help you expand this statement..... "More stable footage without the need for a fast shutter but absolutely needing to use OIS lenses lest your footage look like you are having a seizure of some kind" Yes, yes it should* (Note, this requires the OIS used in the test. Hopefully this fine-print will protect me from misleading people that the things I didn't mention aren't actually needed. Wow this is cool, I can imply things without mentioning them!) Also, you can film a high-end TV show on a potato* (Note, you also need millions of dollars, a professional writer, preproduction consultants, production done by a large studio with dozens of staff on set and in the production office, millions of dollars of equipment and facilities, and engaging multiple post-production houses to edit, grade, mix, and master the show. See - now my statement is totally true, I just failed to explicitly mention these things but I'm totally sure that no-one would be mislead by my original statement) You mean that test that involved OIS? Did you know you can film a high-end TV show on a potato? It's definitely true and I'm definitely not misleading anyone by leaving any information out of that statement. You didn't write that one replaces the other? Maybe that's true. I also never wrote that you can film a professional looking TV show on a potato. Check it. I never said that exact combination of words. Do you know what straw-man argument is? You mean the one with OIS? ....with an OIS lens. ....if you use an OIS lens.

Well, we don't know that yet. For all we know they could have developed some killer sensor in secret and it might have just kept the 5K resolution from the GH5 but have 5k500, 4k750 and 2k1200 fps or something. It might have a Dual Gain (not dual ISO) architecture like the Alexa sensor and output 14-bit LOG with huge dynamic range. It might pull some other rabbit from the hat. Who knows. MFT certainly isn't suited to the resolution race due to the pixel size required, so maybe they'll go huge in some other way?

Yes, the layout absolutely matters. The Beatstep Resolve Edition comes in different resolutions and you have to use the right one. When you start it up it does an initialisation routine that resets the layout and puts Resolve into Full Screen mode. I don't find it that much of an imposition but if you'd moved the windows around (in the Colour page) a lot then that might be an issue for you perhaps. Depending on your screen resolution you might not be able to adjust the Colour page that much though. I run Resolve in three ways: on my laptop using only the laptop display, so viewing the clips/timeline in the GUI on my laptop using only my UHD panel, so viewing the clips/timeline in the GUI on my laptop using an external monitor as a "Clean Feed" and only using the GUI for controlling things I heartily recommend the latter "Clean Feed" option if you have an external monitor you can use. It's how you set things up if you have a BM hardware device (which I have just ordered and would recommend) but you can also do it with just a normal dual monitor setup through the menus - I think it's called something like "Clean Feed" - but you just choose which monitor it goes to. It's a great way of working. It's a tricky one as these things are absolutely worthwhile if you're billing your time, but hard to justify if it's only a hobby. As there isn't one controller that does Editing and Colour it seems like the more controllers you get the more you're forced into the studio system way of working where each "page" in Resolve is done separately, rather than jumping around as I tend to do while I'm exploring and shaping the material.

I suspect that engaging those magnets takes a reasonable power draw. Fine for a few seconds but it might be more than the battery is even capable of outputting. There are lots of circuits that take huge power for a short burst and so they charge a capacitor prior to the operation and then the capacitor provides the burst. Even if they didn't do that, it might halve or quarter the battery life of the whole camera.

You cannot un-blur an image. This seems to be the fundamental thing that you're getting stuck on. There are billions of dollars waiting for the company that can process an image and restore detail. Law enforcement would be using it the way it's shown in the movies, but it's just not possible. Digital stabilisation occurs AFTER the blurry frame has already been acquired. and if that frame is blurred, there is no way to un-blur it. It doesn't matter if the digital stabilisation is being done in-camera, in Resolve, in-country, or in-cognito, the only place this is possible is in-fantasyland. You have simply read one post of mine and forgotten the context of this discussion. Go back and read it again if you want to understand what I was talking about. The ProAV used OIS. OIS is similar to IBIS in that it stabilises during the exposure. I've only been talking about Digital Stabilisation ONLY in these comparisons. Here is the video again - you seem to have mis-read the title. Plenty of people are using lenses without OIS, which is why IBIS is a useful feature. In the test video I did all the motion in the shots was relatively consistent, so the frame blurring was moderate. If you're walking or doing something with large sudden movements then those frames would be particularly blurred, so maybe that's what you're seeing? Maybe you're seeing something else. I remember the A6300 and A6500 had IBIS problems where the IBIS would jitter about and even go haywire and flick up and down at full-speed, almost threatening to tear themselves apart. I think they fixed it with a firmware update. The other elephant in the room here is that a lot of people have gotten used to the video look and the look of poor colours. There also seems to be a huge number of Canon fans who treat Canon colours and looks as the pinnacle, so when you say there's a problem they cannot understand it because Canon is literally the definition (in their minds) of what is good. If you bring up the image from an Alexa then they just dismiss you because all expensive cameras are in a parallel universe and therefore do not apply. Never mind that the 'standard' has gotten worse or should show some problems - that's simply not possible, and how dare you to even suggest it. I have been talking this whole time about comparing digital stabilisation ONLY to using some form of OIS or IBIS. That's what my test showed. Plenty of people shoot with lenses that don't have OIS, which is why the lack of IBIS matters. I'm not aware of any camera that has IBIS and a sensor lock feature? Maybe it's difficult to implement? In terms of producing cameras with both, I think the film world is far larger than it looks, and by only hanging in forums with mostly videographers and amateurs it can seem like our needs are common but I suspect they're not. I suspect the vast majority of people would either shoot locked down, or if they needed hand-held stabilisation would just use a gimbal or steadicam. I am on a number of forums and lists etc that are mostly populated by industry pros and from their perspective a wedding or corporate videographer is about as professional as a 12-year old who streams Minecraft. Their definition of professional (and therefore who cameras are made for) is people working within the studio system, where shoots are on sets with many people and heaps of equipment, different companies will be handling production and post-production, and they're all essentially specialists in a huge production-line of content. The reason I mention this is because when manufacturers want to talk with customers to understand their products, they don't talk to someone who is a solo-shooter, they talk to Roger Deakins, or Walter Murch, or <insert member of the ACS or other professional association here>. Those people might not have even HEARD of IBIS.

Regardless of how you implement it, there are two fundamental principles: it happens after the frame has been exposed you can't un-blur an image Therefore, IBIS / OIS = frames not so blurry, Digital IS = frames hella blurry

It shifts, scales, and rotates each frame to make them line up. That's it. It's probably simpler than the exposure triangle.

Yes. Interesting solution. It's another example of where there's hardware and software that control the mouse and keyboard to operate Resolve. You can see it when he adjusts the power-window - the mouse is skipping around. It's based on ControllerMate, which is one of the pieces of software that the Beatstep Resolve Edition also uses. If you were interested I'd suggest doing a price comparison between the two options as they seem broadly similar in price, although the functionality of the Beatstep looks to be significantly more expanded.

You know, I'm really looking forward to someone talking about the shutter speed on the R5C. I mean, how does it work? I know that the numbers are similar to other cameras, but I don't want to make any comparisons that get different results. You've really opened my eyes about that, I mean when you take the exact same technology and take it from one device to another how can we really be sure that the fundamental principles will be the same? Does a shorter shutter speed give a darker image, like on every other camera ever made, or is it different, maybe it gives a lighter image? Maybe the colours start to go strange? Maybe people who are happy get brighter? How does the rotation of the earth factor in? I wouldn't want to make a comparison that will give different results all around. and what about ISO? Are higher numbers better? Does it go up and down? Maybe the even numbers are good? Once again, every other camera ever made works in the same way, but can we really compare? I mean, what do we know about anything anyway? None of us has ever used an R5C. Maybe the images are from another camera and it's a hoax? How can we know it really exists? How can we know anything? Are you real? Am I even real?

Here is the GX85 compared to the ZV-1 The camera is bigger but not by much, and the sensor is significantly larger. If you put a small lens on it then it wouldn't be that big. Here it is with the 12-32mm kit lens. Obviously the ZV-1 or a point-and-shoot would be smaller and easier to use, but you said you wanted better low-light and I'm not really sure how much better it would really be. I appreciate having a camera that's fast to use, but in reality it's about how prepared you are, how familiar you are with the camera, and how good you are at planning and anticipating things rather than reacting. I shoot travel with a GH5 using manual lenses and I can be holding the camera in my hand by my waist, see something, turn it on while bringing it up to my eye, manually focus while adjusting composition, and be recording in only a few seconds. I've changed my process to actually hit record before I have focused the lens so that the first frame in focus will be in the file and usable in the edit. If you're using this thing as a b-camera then I'm imagining: You have another camera that you're setting up At least one of these is on a tripod (you're not holding both at the same time I'm assuming) Adding a few extra seconds to the process of hitting record on your second camera doesn't sound like it's really that big a deal? A GoPro is fixed focus, auto-everything. A GX85 with a manual lens could be set to a specific distance and taped in place, and the camera itself can be set to auto-everything. Both would require you to turn them on and hit record. Maybe the GoPro does it in one button press and maybe the GX85 requires you to turn the knob and then hit the record button, but I can't imagine that's somehow going to make any significant difference. Sadly, most "what camera" questions don't have a good answer because there is no camera that meets peoples requirements, so it's about understanding what you're doing enough to understand which criteria matters least and must be sacrificed in order to have any options at all. I could be wrong, but it seems like this might be the situation you're facing here.

Thanks. I was pretty sure that I was explaining it ok. Maybe the reactions to a relatively straight-forward topic has revealed how Canon manages to sell its crippled cameras? Bizarre. I am literally speechless.

I think there are really two paths forward, the addition of mind-bending specs or just doing a solid upgrade and rounding out the whole package. The A7S3 did the latter - it didn't up the resolution or any major features but just became a better all-around package. I'd be happy with a GH6 that was a GH5 with the weaknesses remedied. The GH5 was a workhorse with some weaknesses so I guess we'll see.

I'm also a bit confused as to what "similar sized" means, because a GoPro and ZV don't seem that similar to me...

I think the answer to your question is probably that there is no camera that meets your requirements. Any camera that is "something similar, in term of size" to a GoPro will have a small sensor and therefore poor low-light performance. If you want better low-light performance from a larger sensor then that means that the depth of field will be shallower, which means that you'll have to focus the lens, which I thought violated your "fast use" criteria. I don't really see the problem of having an interchangeable lens - you can simply install a lens and then never take it off. Almost every camera with a significantly larger sensor will have an interchangeable lens. Cameras with larger sensors that don't have interchangeable lenses will likely have zoom lenses with very large zoom ranges, making them physically much larger and giving shallower depth of field which makes them require focusing from shot to shot.

IBIS = blur reduction, Digital Stabilisation only = no blur reduction

The digital stabilisation was done in Resolve, which has better digital stabilisation than ANY camera will EVER have, because Resolve can see into the future and cameras can't. IBIS / OIS stabilises DURING the exposure of each frame, digital stabilisation does not and therefore the frames will have motion blur. I don't understand how you could watch that comparison and still genuinely think that one can replace the other. I'm sorry if this is rude, but I just literally can't understand how you could see it and not understand it. The IBIS means that the frames are all sharp, the digital stabilisation has frames that are blurry as all hell. I shoot very unstable handheld footage all the time and stabilise digitally in post and this whole thing has been obvious to me from basically day one.

Well done everyone... you inspired me to shoot a little test to show why Digital Stabilisation can't replace OIS / IBIS. @Emanuel - this is the video that should end the debate. Digital stabilisation can be great, but only if there is very little motion and only if you have short shutter speeds. I'd encourage everyone to realise that Digital Stabilisation is just DIFFERENT to OIS or IBIS. It's a different tool for a different job. I often use digital stabilisation on my IBIS footage and it can work really well. Hopefully this clears things up?

I'm not aware of any way to check focus while recording, and the GH5 is my main camera. If you used an external monitor then it would be a standard feature on all those I'd imagine, although if it was an external recorder then you'd have to look at the functionality of that device. It's really dependent on how you shoot. In terms of the GH6, who knows. The precedent set by the GH3,4, and 5 was that it leapfrogged the competition and really stood out. I'm not really sure how the GH6 could do that against the current crop of cameras, but maybe they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat.

Interesting. Does what you describe above still apply for ML RAW files "developed" with the Arri LogC to 709 LUT in third party ML applications, or exported as CinemaDNGs and processed in the Resolve Raw Panel? Or just when developing them with Adobe products?

@BTM_Pix Got it working and it doesn't do anything in the Cut and Edit pages - just in the Colour page. Bummer. I'll have to re-think my workflow. Currently my workflow is to pull selects into a timeline and rearrange appropriately to make an assembly, then duplicate the timeline and add music and cut ruthlessly, touching up shots I like as I go. Then I'll continue cutting and refining, and at some point I'll go across to the Colour page and do a "proper" colour session where I do primaries and secondaries etc. The advantage of that is that approach is that I only colour grade the shots that survive a couple of passes, and I only really go to town on the Colour of shots that are basically in the final edit. The downside is that it involves lots of trips to and from the Colour page during the editing process, which means I have to change from the Speed Editor to the mouse and keyboard and back again. The alternative would be to do a colour pass on all the footage in the assembly, but it would result in lots of work for shots that get culled early. It's interesting that the officially supported panels have the same Colour-page-only limitation as the Beatstep. I also noticed that the Printer Lights don't work in the Cut or Edit pages either. Hmmm.

This is very interesting actually. I know you mentioned it before but now I understand my workflow better. The use-case for this is that when I'm editing I want to be able to do basic colour adjustments to correct WB and exposure but without having to swap controllers and without having to swap from the Speed Editor in the Cut page to using the mouse/keyboard in the Colour page. The only functions that Resolve provides for shortcut keys are the Printer Lights keys, which don't really suit the way I work as they're Offset based which is designed for Log and not 709. Do you happen to know if a controller app like Tangent-Vs can adjust the LGG wheels while Resolve is in the Cut or Edit pages?

Yes. For editing, I now have the BM Speed Editor: It is BM official product and has a bunch of features that can't be done with any other hardware. These are actually quite useful and make editing a really intuitive process. For colour grading I have the Arturia Beatstep, and the Beatstep Resolve Edition software: The Beatstep device itself is a music production synthesiser and has absolutely nothing to do with Resolve or video editing at all. The Beatstep Resolve Edition is a suite of software that assembles several different pieces of software to essentially "hack" the controller so that it works with Resolve. It isn't supported at all by BM and controls Resolve by faking mouse movements and keystrokes so basically Resolve thinks you're just moving the mouse and typing super fast. It has a huge amount of functionality built-in but is a little clunky to use in some instances. Don't get me wrong, you could absolutely use this professionally, and I've been in contact with the developer and he's mentioned that its used by many professional colourists and from my experience with it I would suggest that is very likely to be true. I've been able to rip through timelines and perform basic corrections to match shots and apply grades and it's quite straightforward to average 10s per shot, even if the shots are from different cameras. The Beatstep Resolve Edition doesn't provide any editing features and the buttons aren't the right kind of buttons for that (they're touch-sensitive pads designed for music making) so I'd prefer clicky keyboard type buttons for editing anyway. In Resolve, I see that there's basically four "levels" of control: Devices where you can assign a key on the device to a shortcut in Resolve This is the case with many third-party devices, but you'll be limited to what functions Resolve will let you map to a keyboard shortcut. Devices and custom utilities where you can assign a key on the device to run a sequence of events on the computer like multiple keypresses or mouse movements etc These are hit and miss and difficult to use and I've downloaded a few and uninstalled them almost immediately because they don't do what I want them to do. Note that Apple products and some third-party products aren't recognised by these apps as Apple doesn't let third-party apps capture keystrokes, probably a security mechanism Setups like the Beatstep + Beatstep Resolve Edition where there's custom hardware and software that control the mouse and keyboard to operate Resolve. Beatstep + Beatstep Resolve Edition is the only one I'm aware of, which makes sense because it's months/years of work to code something like this Dedicated BM hardware This can do things that none of the above can do because the device is seamlessly integrated into Resolve. Note that on the Speed Editor the custom utilities that can change keyboard shortcuts etc can't see the Speed Editor and Resolve itself also doesn't let you re-map any of the keys on the Speed Editor. There are threads on the BM forums of people asking / complain about this. The main thing is that the Speed Editor has 9 dedicated keys for multi-cam use and they can't be used for anything else, so if you don't do multi-cam then they're completely useless to you, even though there are other things that would be really great if they were mapped to the device Resolve is a bit like Apple in the sense that it's a closed eco-system and they don't really support third-party devices that much and on their devices it's their way or the highway essentially.

A better question would be "is there enough room in the hearts of the Canon executives for all of that". Spoiler alert, the short answer is NO. The longer answer is "hahahaha.. you're kidding right? Shut up stupid customer and just be thankful for whatever we give you, and remember that when talking about our products you're only allowed to talk about the resolution and the colour science - every other comment is banned"

Can you say a bit more about what focal length / FOV you are looking for, and what you're trying to film? A GoPro has a very wide-angle lens, is fixed focus, and a very small sensor, which gives a very deep depth of field. To get significantly better low-light performance you will need to get a camera with a larger sensor, but that means that you will have shallower depth-of-field when you keep the aperture of the lens opened up which is needed for good low-light performance. There might be a sweet-spot with an MFT camera and something like the TTartisan 7.5mm F2 lens, which should have relatively deep depth-of-field when wide-open and could be focused to be around 2m/12ft away, but it really depends on what you're shooting. Having a fast and wide lens is a real challenge.

1Gbps is fine for 8K RAW, but if you were shooting a documentary with literally hundreds (maybe even 1000+) hours of footage, halving the bitrate is a significant thing and can make a huge difference. The way that documentaries are going now you need to have a build-up and climax, which works for things like athletes preparing for a competition, or some other kind of fixed deadline, but it's very common for people shooting a documentary to not have an end-date. These situations are very difficult to finance as there's no guarantee of having a good climax or even of having a story where anything happens. Shooting is normally done with the DoP essentially "on call" and the subjects reach out when anything specific is happening and the DoP drops what they're doing and goes to shoot. For this reason it's common for the DoP to own all their own gear (you can't rent a camera or lenses on one-hours notice in the middle of the night) and so these are often self-funded, and can take years to film. This situation is actually quite a likely one for something like the R5C, where a DoP would own something like this and rent more expensive gear for bigger projects, but would rent out this and their own set of (likely vintage) lenses with them when hired on smaller budget productions. In this sense, having a "medium" bitrate that's still Netflix-approved would matter more for a camera like this than a cheaper hybrid or more expensive cinema camera. Canon are well regarded for the colour science of their skin-tones, but they are absolutely NOT well regarded for the quality of their compressed codecs on their hybrid cameras. That's what we're talking about here. I see ML RAW frame grabs from a 5D3 regularly (thanks to @mercer) and when shot properly and graded with a simple LUT the skin-tones should remind you of an Alexa. If you're not going "wow" then something horrible has happened to the image. Think about all the you tubers who are shooting 4K with Canon FF cameras - when was the last time you looked at one of their videos and thought "holy cr*p those colours are AMAZING"....? Never? Exactly.... Ummm..... how? Digital stabilisation can line up the frames with each other, but OIS / IBIS actually stabilises DURING THE EXPOSURE OF EACH FRAME. If you have ANY motion blur in ANY frame then it's there forever and digital stabilisation can't do a single thing about it. Even worse though, is that once the digital stabilisation has worked its magic, the shot looks smooth but there will be random blurring of frames without any corresponding change to the overall shot. In other words, digital stabilisation without having very short shutter speeds will look worse than no stabilisation at all.