kye

One article says the EIS crop factor is 1.25, so I think that makes the widest a 22.5mm - wider than 24mm but really not by much. Not really a good vlogging setup. It's a tough one for compact vlogging if you want wider than 20mm and stabilised. The X3000 action camera has gimbal-like OIS built-in but doesn't zoom or have crazy slow-motion, but on the other hand its fixed focus means no more AF debates - it's the only type of focus system that is actually reliable.

We were talking about options for avoiding the "clay" skin-tones which the non-RAW codecs provide. The only way to do that is to either shoot RAW or output RAW to something that won't degrade the skin-tones. Yeah, sometimes more isn't better. Sometimes it's a PITA actually.

Interesting, if slightly repetitive, article on portable post-suite.. https://ymcinema.com/2022/01/20/building-your-editing-grading-suite-in-a-hotel-room/ This is something I'm moving towards gradually as I upgrade and upgrade equipment. My goal is to have a portable setup that could do solo-shooter projects at a professional level. I travel with a carry-on and single checked suitcase, and this would have to contain my cameras/lenses, clothes/toiletries/etc, as well as the post-suite. I typically travel for 3-6 weeks at a time, shooting and editing and releasing videos while "in the field", and stay in hotels, air-bnbs, etc. Currently my portable setup is designed to include: GH5, GX85, 4-5 lenses, Rode VMP+ MBP with Resolve BM UltraStudio Monitor 3G (Thunderbolt to HDMI controlled by Resolve)* BM Speed Editor Beatstep music synthesizer with Beatstep Resolve Edition hack from Tachyon Post Portable HDMI monitor** X-Rite i1Display Pro calibration probe Platform*** * = about to order this ** = will order this when I get to travel again *** = currently investigating options on this The combination of the BM UltraStudio Monitor 3G and portable HDMI monitor will enable Resolve to bypass the operating system colour management and resolution/frame-rate controls and give an accurate representation of the video. I include the calibration probe in case I want to use the TV in the accommodation as the external monitor. This would be dependent on the layout and ergonomics of the location, but would be useful to include and isn't that big or heavy. The "Platform" is something that is unlikely to be relevant for others, but is useful to me. I like to sit next to my wife on a couch or recliner and edit while she watches TV or is on her phone or computer. This means that I have the setup on my lap, and in order to have a flat surface for the controllers and also to ensure that there's gaps for airflow from the vents in the laptop, I use a flat surface of some kind. I currently use a bamboo cutting board, but this would likely be too heavy to travel with, so I'm contemplating other options like balsa wood, aircraft aluminium, or maybe a thin ply of some kind. The other thing that I might include is an ultra-high CRI calibrated 6500K light-globe or two. These mean that the light in the environment can be controlled to have a neutral colour temperature and tint and not provide a non-neutral reference for the rest of the room surrounding the display. I like the Beatstep Resolve Edition but it's not perfect and I'd be curious if BM released a basic colour grading console that was comparably sized to the Speed Editor. As seen in the article above, the Micro Panel is huge compared to a laptop and Speed Editor combo, and really doesn't need to be, as something that was the size of a full-size keyboard would be sufficient to hold 3/4 trackballs, a row of knobs and some buttons. Is anyone else looking at more portable solutions?

Looks like this approach might be catching on....

According to https://www.canonrumors.com/here-are-some-canon-eos-r5-c-specifications/ the rates for 8K (therefore uncropped) are: In terms of Prores and what is visible, Prores HQ in 1080p is ~180Mbps and was used on feature films that screened in theatres, so could be argued to be 'sufficient' in terms of bitrate, but if we 'play it safe' and use a 4K flavour, then we could record externally to flavours like: ProRes 422 (UHD) - 471Mbps ProRes 422 LT (UHD) - 328Mbps ProRes 422 Proxy (UHD) - 145Mbps Of course, this would require the camera to output 8K and the recorder to support that and downscale appropriately. Obviously if you need the full 8K then just go with that, but if you were filming for hours and hours, say you were interviewing people for a documentary, then having more reasonable bitrates but still non-plastic skintones would be a good thing to have.

Sounds like shooting RAW is the solution then. It's a pity, as RAW makes you have huge file sizes or dramatic sensor crops, but it's better than nothing I guess. Maybe you could also go old-school and partner these with an external recorder that does a high-end Prores variation? The manufacturers know that resolution above 2K is borderline invisible - the problem is the consumer market which is uneducated and thinks that MORE = BETTER. Just look at threads like this and see how many people are asking about the quality of the 2K codecs and modes....... none. But every time there's a new camera oh boy are people interested to know if there's a 2% difference in something that makes zero difference whatsoever. There's a phrase in business 'what gets measured gets managed' and resolution gets measured and image quality most certainly does not.

I disagree that it's the same. Firstly, the human eye has limits, and depending on a range of factors those are somewhere between 2K and 4K. Most of the time publishing in anything over 4K will be a complete and utter waste of time, with exceptions being things like Omni, which are super rare. The downsampling argument is reasonable but the GH5 downsamples from 5K to 4K, and has been doing so since 2017, and there are very serious diminishing returns that kick in for this. Downsampling 8K to 4K would not have much advantage over downsampling 6K to 4K for example. VFX is fine, but how many productions were saying "we need 8K RAW for VFX but somehow couldn't just rent an UMP12K" or "we shoot VFX on so many productions that it's commercially viable to buy a R5C, but we couldn't justify buying a UMP12K". I totally understand that there are lots of shooters who would like the form-factor of a R5C and wouldn't be able to use a UMP12K, but these users are not heavy VFX users. It's a different audience. VR is a completely different beast and this is where resolution really does matter (because that 2K limit to human vision is over a narrow FOV) but anyone filming VR isn't using a R5C to do it. They're using a dedicated VR camera like the Insta360 Pro 2, which means no messing around with lenses, sensor plane alignments, inter-eye distance calibration, etc etc etc. Fast forward a bit and think about the statement "we need 24K because it's the year 2030" and see how ridiculous that is. Therefore there's a point at which mostly we have enough resolution for most things on most cameras. That point is now in our rear-view mirror...

You might be right about the next race being frame rates, but sadly there's not a lot of creative space left there either. The way I see it is: 24/25/30p = normal. Some might distinguish between 24/25 and 30p, but it's subtle 50/60p = emotional. Motion looks the way that it looks when we experience heightened states of emotion and "time slows down" 120p = special effect. Motion looks like a special effect, with things hanging in mid-air artificially, ripples moving through objects surreally, etc. It's potentially only useful creatively to simulate extreme drug use or be used outright as a special effect for the spectacle of it. >120p is the same as 120p only some things happen faster and you have to slow them down more, but the aesthetic is the same. I'm not saying there is no benefit to, say, 500fps or 1000fps over 120p, but the times you'd need it are few, and the look is the same as 120p, so it's not anything "new".

Are you noticing this look from the RAW as well? If not, it's rather odd and indicates perhaps excessive NR perhaps? If it is in the RAW then that's even more strange and I really would know where that would be coming from...

Note that the video is 3 years old 🙂

It would be amateur hour if he was making a film, sure, but he's a reviewer, so stress testing the camera is the name of the game. A review where they put the camera on a tripod, put on a low-quality lens, and film a stationary low-DR scene would be of basically zero value to anyone. The purpose of testing a camera is to push it to, and past, its limits, so that the viewers can see what those limits are and align them to their own needs. One thing that I really think is missing from the camera tests is a stabilisation testing setup. If someone built a rig that was mechanically controlled to vibrate the camera across a range of frequencies at a range of amplitudes, and that were repeatable and therefore comparable, and put a bunch of cameras and lenses on it, then we'd be able to see how the cameras / lenses compare and then we wouldn't be trying to work out if that person has steadier hands than we do, or if they've had lots of coffee that day, or if it was cold, or if they were walking on a smooth or uneven surface, or what their blood sugar is like, etc.. Depending on the shutter angle you use, you could just record RAW and do a screen grab. Even compressed 4K stills can be high quality, enough for printing magazine size anyway, so that's an option worth considering. It also means you don't have to be Henri Cartier Bresson on the shutter button.

Well, it's not my challenge, so I'm not the official adjudicator, but pretty sure that fame and glory is the reward...

It depends on how you're using the camera. I love the EVF / IBIS combo for vintage lenses on my GH5 but shooting low angles doesn't lend itself to using the EVF and high angles would require dozens of radical leg extension surgeries to enable me to use the EVF! In-camera Electronic IS is handicapped compared to EIS done in post, because the camera can't predict future motion so easily but NLEs can easily do so. With RAW files there isn't really any advantage to using the in-camera EIS so in that situation you can do a better job in-post, which if you have time to do it will always be a better option. Plus if you're recording in 8K (or as I call it, ridiculous-o-vision) you can process the living bejeebers out of it and it'll still look fine once you downsample to 4K and run it through the YT hammer-the-shit-out-of-it compression and processing.

The form-factor and external power requirements will make it less attractive to productions that can afford a cinema camera like a C200 or C300, and the lack of IBIS will make it less attractive to low-budget single-shooters. That leaves it targeting this strange middle-ground that manufacturers seem to be trying to understand. Personally I think the "step in the right direction" sentiment is short-sighted. Compare the R5c with the 5Dmk2 - a 17 year difference. The problems that the 5D2 had haven't been fully fixed by basically any Canon camera since. The "progress" being made has been on things that no-one needs, and the sacrifices made are the things that have always been desirable. I get that we all have different requirements, and things like AF vs MF and RAW vs compressed etc are dependent on the situation, but try and make an argument that 8K60 is more important than, well, anything....

Technically the question was "wider than 12mm". It sounds pedantic, but for me 12mm isn't wide enough for landscapes and architecture, and it's also not wide enough for comfortable vlogging either as you have to hold your arm out basically straight to get a neutral composition.

R5c finally explained.... Now I understand.

Now is a good time to watch a few lighting videos and try the various techniques on your little test setup. First thing that comes to mind is putting up a bounce as fill.

OMFG is right. I'd say "what the f* did I just watch" but I only made it to 2:27s. I haven't seen acting that bad in a looooong time. Then I thought, "did Canon give a pre-production model to some random influencers and this is what they posted?". Nope. CanonUSA official YT channel. *facepalm*

If they just stopped crippling their cameras then they could make a few models, make them cheaply with large volumes and price them to sell in volume because we'd all buy them. Of course, back here in reality...

This take suggests that it's a professional stills camera with a cinema camera basically thrown in for free. That's one way to look at it. The other way is that Canon have been half-crippling and selling their hybrid stills/cinema cameras as only stills cameras and the market has finally pushed them to stop doing it. Of course, we know the potential of the hardware was always there because of Magic Lantern, but wouldn't have otherwise. I'm really looking forward to the GH6. Panasonics ethos seems to be "give the customer the most functionality from the hardware that they're paying for" and Canons ethos seems to be "give the customer the least functionality from the hardware that they'll still pay for".

Vintage lenses are really for films/cinema, rather than commercial videography work. It's a different product for different audiences who have different preferences, thus the use of different equipment and techniques.

Are you referring to the retirement of the BM Micro Cinema Camera? That got mentioned here. Were there other models that got discontinued too?

I suspect that low budget productions haven't been using vintage glass for long due to not having access to such high-spec cameras for long. Back in the 8mm 16mm SD digital days there wasn't enough resolution or bitrate to be able to tell the subtle difference between various lenses and to counter the softer renderings having as sharp a lens as you could get was a good strategy. At that time large productions were using 35mm which could render lens differences. Then came the HD days, but once again, the codecs on affordable cameras were pretty low until the OG BMPCC came along and we got access to RAW 1080p and 4K compressed, but most were still obsessed by sharpness and hadn't snapped out of their infatuation yet and come to their senses. Now we have RAW 4K or more and compressed 6K or more almost in our pockets and some are starting to snap out of resolution mania and remember we're trying to evoke emotions, not showcase our equipment.

The investment is encouraging, although I have heard that the last thing a company does before shuttering is do a massive advertising blast as a final effort. Let's hope it's a larger strategy and not one from desperation, although renaming the company doesn't seem to make sense in a short-term context, so here's hoping!