kye

Merry Christmas and welcome back! I am all for content of making the most of cameras around the $2000 mark, and of lenses and all the other fun things that a camera needs to work well and create great images. Great to hear you've managed to find the spark again 🙂

I think the 2012 reference might be to the sensor, which IIRC is the same as the OG BMPCC, which was announced/released in 2012. Great stuff about the 18-90, although it's a pretty darn long lens with the crop factor! I've got a Tokina RMC 28-70 3.5-4.5 on the way which will fit my m42 speed booster, making it about as wide, but it's mainly for my GX85. I did a deep dive on walk-around vintage zooms but found that coverage at the wide end is the challenge and that nothing really hit the mark for me and how I shoot. At least, not enough to justify spending the $1000 or so I'd need to buy a Canon or Angenieux or whatever else cine zoom in good enough condition that it would hold its value.

I think we're mixing a bunch of things together here. I don't question that cell phones have had a huge impact on the camera industry, that much is clear with the "falling off a cliff" charts of camera sales. I also realise that your comment was probably made relatively casually, and maybe I took it a little too literally, which may not be the spirit with which it was intended, but just to clarify, the comment I was speaking to was: The two key elements of this that I took here were "all of our jobs". The articles you linked to featured two significant points. The first was that there was a huge decline in sales, and the second was that these companies / products / industry segments were enormously profitable. The math of this is that profit is money earned from sales that isn't spent on jobs. Also, being high-technology, the amount of money spent on sophisticated equipment is huge in comparison to the amount spent on wages of workers. The entire concept of the production line is based on the idea that the machines do the work and the people do the things around the machines. I see the jobs that we're talking about falling into a number of categories: those that might increase in demand, those that stay steady, and those that are likely to decline. Jobs that will decline are pretty straight forwards and obvious, being people who work on the production line of all the different products now effectively merged, R&D across the many companies now reduced to the main manufacturers, designers for all the different products, and the associated corporate jobs that sit in every company. Jobs that will likely not decline as they have nothing to do with the price of a camera but are related to the number of productions include a vast array of things like producers, directors, production design, grip, sound, editing and post. I have grouped the "stays the same" and "increased demand" together because I think it's very difficult to understand the impact of wider trends. You also linked to an article showing that the going rate for wedding videographer is much reduced. I am happy to admit that a reduced total cost for services will translate to less people being able to make a living (therefore losing jobs), however it won't be proportional as the reduced equipment costs will have been passed on to the customer, along with the reduced time for editing and post production, etc. I don't know where you're based, maybe the US or UK, but globally the market for something like wedding videography is likely to be exploding. From the wikipedia page on Middle Class: I realise you said "all of our jobs", and I'd acknowledge that not many of us are doing projects in the Punjab or Shaanxi, so maybe that point is besides your original comment, but it does speak to the wider theme of the impact of cell phones on the entire job market for professional moving image creation. My point about cell phones driving demand for video is probably not easily quantifiable, but I would suggest that it is also undeniable. Back in the days when equipment was expensive and not accessible by the average consumer, the only way that person would ever see themselves on video was either via a handycam or if they managed to do something newsworthy and got themselves on TV. I had access to a video camera for intermittent periods from about 1986 onwards, and the idea of recording myself was completely foreign - there was no expectation that I should appear on video. Now, the consumption of media that features normal people has exploded. There are more TV stations and movie production companies than ever, for sure (boosting demand for all the production-related jobs, not the camera-production ones) but the explosion in content has been of people pointing cameras at people who aren't famous or trying to be famous. The idea that I would film myself doing something now isn't so alien, because it's normalised. Perhaps the biggest element in this whole equation, I think, is that of change. Every period of upheaval is both a crisis and an opportunity - but only for people who either weren't attached to the old ways of doing things or who can change to adapt to the new opportunities. The entire domestic drone market is one such opportunity, just to name one. Change is hard, though. Really hard. Lots of people don't make it, kind of hard. I think this is where the statements of impending doom comes from, like the kind I smelled in your "taking all of our jobs" comment. Maybe it wasn't intended to be taken as literal, and maybe you feel that I'm picking on you (which I'm not, but I am posting this to try and make a point, which is that one-sided statements like this don't really help anyone and don't add to a conversation, whereas nuanced comments do) but I think it's obviously false. We have at least one person on these forums who won't be unemployed as they do sound, which no amount of DR can substitute for getting a boom mic close to someones mouth or telling the AC that the generator needs to be further away from the set. There are others here too where it's really obvious that no amount of camera tech will impact them. Am I saying change is good? No. Am I saying change is bad? No. What I am saying though, is that regardless of if your statement is true or not (taken literally it's not and taken figuratively it probably still isn't) it's not useful. Change is hard and people who don't want to change, can't afford to change, or don't have the ability to change (for whatever reasons, of which there are a great many very valid reasons out there) will be having a very very bad time. If this is you then I would encourage you to reach out for help, and rather than phrasing your pain as "we're all screwed", instead rephrase is as a request for support or comradeship. If this isn't you, then think about the impact your comment has on other people. This is, sadly, a matter of life and death for some people, and think about how you feel about your contributions to this, very grave topic. So yeah, that's my piece, happy to go on talking about these mythical 30 stops of DR phones that you're dreaming about, but please, rather than adding to the dumbing down and negative spiralling nature of internet discourse, I'd encourage you to go the other way.

I absolutely completely disagree with this, with one caveat. Firstly, to provide some context, I have a background in computing and am very optimistic about how good the tech will become, however, I don't think it will get that good that quickly. The caveat is that technology will gradually nibble away at the bottom-end of the market. In this case, cell phones will gradually have better and better image quality and will more and more replace having a "better" camera. Essentially, this just means that it's cheaper to get the same image quality. But, since when did having a cheaper camera "take jobs"? Cameras are spectacularly better than they have ever been, but there are probably more people making their living as professionals who contribute to video creation than ever before, and this is even if you don't count social media influencers and you tubers. I'm talking about more and more people doing corporate, weddings, events, advertising / marketing / PR, etc. In fact, the improvement in the screen of the cell phone has probably created more jobs than the camera has killed because the total time watching video content for the average person is through the roof because of mobile. Everyone knows that the best camera in the hands of the worst operator looks awful, and that doesn't even account for lighting, set dressing, hair, makeup, etc... let alone writing, story, acting, etc.

Look great! I think the lighting and colour is particularly good. In fact, it doesn't look like video at all, which is something that very few people are able to do these days, even if they're trying to make something cinematic.

Technology really is wonderful, I'd just rather they use it for better pixels rather than having so many of them. However, I'll bet that they'll take the doubling of light gathering and just use it to deliver more pixels of the same quality we have them at now.

I don't know why I read the headlines any more. This isn't the first time I've misinterpreted one that turned out to include a completely false statement of fact. Maybe somewhere in the back of my mind I thought technical discussions on a forum such as this would have the slightest modicum of filtration from the "post truth" reality the rest of the world now seems to live in. I guess not! *sigh*

I had a closer look at the picture, and yeah, it's not what I thought. Funnily enough, I thought "dual layer" meant two layers. No. Those words in the tweet are complete bullshit. There is already two (or more) layers, and they're making it three (or more), but it's still a single sensor. They've been gradually taking things that were taking up real estate on the front of the sensor (and therefore blocking light) and putting them behind the photo site for years. This is an incremental upgrade that some numpty decided was the ultimate breakthrough and somehow none of the previous ones mattered or count in this "FIRST DUAL LAYER" spasm they posted. I thought the implication that 'one became two' implied a second photodiode under the first, presumably with the ability to be operated independently. Sadly, no.

I disagree - it will benefit all camera types. This is because the second layer is in the same area of the sensor, and could be used to capture at a different amount of gain, which could then be used to extend the dynamic range of every pixel. Imagine a Sony sensor where it could have identical performance but use a second layer to extend DR by many stops...

My GH5 says....

As magnifying glasses, camera phones are very useful, yes..

Well, one thing is for sure - the eye is absolutely not 576Mp!

Haha, I drop into the S5 thread on page 38 and find someone talking about Panasonic AF with adapted lenses... it certainly sounded like complaining 🙂 We should have a swear jar for when people start sentences with "If X made a camera with ...... " All I think when someone says that is why stop there? If you're going to make statements completely disconnected with reality then you may as well say "If Apple made a camera that supported apps, but had a FF sensor and Alexa DR and Colour Science and Phantom frame rates and it was the size of a GoPro and have it pair with the iPhone for social media and streaming and cost $12, I'd definitely buy it". 😆😆😆

1080p EVF? It would give you another point of contact too, so steadier shots and camera movement. If you didn't want the Canon Cripple Hammer or the Sony Tax then just give up - if you want something done right then do it yourself.

Some nice lenses in there... As a ~100% video shooter, and one who is aspiring to make images that look like cinema and not at all like professional spec-driven videographers, I find that I'm narrowing in more and more on lenses that are high resolution but not sharp. I'm still trying to understand what it is and how to get it, but I'm gradually making progress. My latest purchase is a Tokina RMC 28-70 f3.5-4.5 M42 to mate with my GX85 and m42 SB. That will make it a 44-109mm equivalent. I'm planning to use it as an experimental walk-around zoom, and am hoping for a softer rendition with large complex flares. I've found that my GF3 is too soft with any lens except the 12-35/2.8, the GX85 is too sharp (even on 1080p timelines) unless it's got a lens with some softening on it, and the GH5 in 200Mbps 1080p ALL-I mode is pretty darn neutral and the files are strong enough to grade however you like them. I also have a number of vintage 50mm lenses, and have more in transit, so am planning on a head-to-head with them too. Currently my Helios 58mm F2 copies are the clear winners, with their soft and almost painterly rendering. My interest in the 28-70 is getting something with a similar rendering.

I'm not familiar with either of these, but to me it's about the control wheel. Everything else is secondary.

Addendum, I got my keypad working with some custom software to enable macros and it's a great compliment to the Speed Editor.. Post here:

WINNING! TLDR; The combo of a eBay keypad and the USB Overdrive utility (for Mac) is a winner with Resolve, and likely other NLEs too. Longer version.... My portable editing setup now includes the BM Speed Editor, the Beatstep controller and Beatstep Resolve Edition software, and now this little custom keypad. The keypad and USBOverdrive allows macros, so you hit one key and it sends the computer a string of keyboard commands. In combination with the keyboard shortcuts in your NLE, you can make it do pretty cool stuff. In the Cut page, the Speed Editor works in a certain way which creates limitations, and Resolve has a few bugs (in my version at least) that also limit things. I have set keys that highlight the current clip, trim start/end to playhead, then unselect all clips. Or similar but splitting the clip. Or similar but ripple deleting the clip. These are mostly workarounds to the peculiarities of Resolve and the Cut page and Speed Editor, but I think it's an excellent addition to using it. I can navigate using the wheel on the Speed Editor, hit a key and trigger a macro, and then fine-tune on the Speed Editor if further refinement is required, and then keep going. I had some, let's say, distracting, workarounds that I had to do in order to perform these functions involving not only having to take my hands off the controller, but also triggering my frustration with BM at not building things in more flexible ways, which really took me out of the zone!

I'd suggest that you investigate controller options for FCPX. I say this because: You tried Resolve before and it didn't take The Speed Editor is designed for the Cut page, and while certain things work in the Edit page a lot (most?) functions don't work there, or don't work in the way you'd predict / want The Cut page seems to do rather odd things sometimes (maybe this will be fixed in future versions, but I'll believe it when I see it) I have a love/annoyance relationship with Resolve and with BM. On the one hand, the power of the colour page is unquestionable and the sheer quantity of features in the other pages is undeniable. On the other hand, BM are a very take-it-or-leave-it company: they have a way they expect you to work and even though they could alter features to let you work a different way they keep the features so they work their way and make zero sense any other way they are a hardware company first and "cripple" Resolve to push you down the path of buying their hardware they are focused on the big studios and the "little guys" are the poor cousin who isn't well catered for I'm starting to really get acquainted with the controller and my work workflows and editing style now and I'm actually contemplating starting to hack together a controller setup of my own to "bypass" some of the Resolve restrictions. Specifically, Resolve has a number of UI features that can't be assigned to Keyboard Shortcuts, or are usable in one page but not the other (eg, Cut page vs Edit page). I'm pondering if it's worth my time to look into developing custom macros or whatever to get around these.

People who buy petrol definitely include a subset that would riot in the streets. I'm not sure if the same can be said for anamorphic lens owners! I'm once again reminded of the saying "what the market can bear".. it's not what the market would like, it's what the market can bear. ie, it's the absolute edge of whatever you can get away with!

Zero focus anamorphic is the easiest number of focuses (can that word be a noun?) but sadly the GoPro is definitely letting the side down in that combo! It really depends on how you're using it. If you're shooting a thing and then offloading that footage immediately before needing to shoot again then it's fine. That's how most people use cameras, but not how most people use their phones, which seem to gradually just store more and more footage and photos as they take them over time. People like anamorphic for different reasons, but just like anything, you should focus on what you value and let others do the same. So in that sense, if you like the look, then 1.15 might be fine. I don't really care for anamorphic flares myself, but am attracted by the stretched bokeh as I find it gives a slightly surreal feeling having the background blurred more vertically than horizontally. It's another factor in getting more depth and background separation. For that reason I'd prefer a 2X anamorphic setup that didn't have the horizontal flares, but to each their own, as they say. I have been monitoring my bank accounts and noticed that you weren't depositing large sums of money into them. Come to think of it, it seems that NO ONE is doing that. Can you return bank accounts as well as crystal balls? 🙂

More playing around.... CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI Alexa / LogC -> ARRI Alexa LUT (worse match) CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI LogC -> Fujifilm 3513DI LUT (worse match) CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI LogC -> Kodak 2383 LUT (worse match) CineD -> CST 709 to ARRI LogC -> Kodak 2393 LUT (worse match) I also tried a bunch of CST / LUT combinations, but none yielded any promise.

"Version 3" Started again, and used a few global tools to get closer, before employing the selective tools. I also backed away from accuracy to get the "spirit" rather than an absolute match. I smoothed out the grade, trying to ensure it didn't break the image, like the last one did. Here's that grade applied to some real footage. At first I thought that maybe there was some luma vs sat action going on, so I used a node in HSL mode and using the channel mixer I tried mixing in the luma channel to the sat, and vice-versa, but neither generated anything useful. Then I tried using a YUV node, which made it into the final grade. YUV is a strange colour space, where the U and V stretch the vectorscope in two directions, and the Alexa is skewed a little towards amplifying one of those directions. This is a great transformation as it is applied to the whole colour space and therefore does not break the image. Then I applied another colour warper: This time paying careful attention to smooth out the transitions. After the last one breaking the image, I also wondered if I needed to desaturate the transition into pure white, but it turned out that it wasn't necessary. This is pretty subtle stuff, and I'm not really sure if anyone would bother with it TBH. I'm happy to share it if anyone is interested, generating a LUT is very easy. Really, it's a testament to how good the Panasonic colour profiles are to begin with, considering that in comparison to straight "correct" 709 they're both massively far away from that.

Does anyone have any tips for securely mounting the GX85 to a tripod? The screw is right at the front of the body, and if I put a tripod plate with a thin rubberised layer on it, the plate just tips up and the plate doesn't get tight, so the camera can rotate loose on the screw. From the manual, the screw is #40: I'd really like to use it with my Peak Design Camera Clip, but that requires a strong mount for the camera. Thanks!