kye

Definitely agree..  especially considering that if you really want to push the image around, you can convert it to LOG and make changes and then convert it back again.

I don't know if I have any cameras that record in 8-bit at this point, but I can certainly poke around a little.  Worst case, I could go even lower-fi and just shoot it on the PXL-2000.

Very cool! I'm so glad you are keeping this thread alive. One of my first interchangeable lens cameras was the eos-m and I loved that camera. The last time I used it, almost 10 years ago, was when I tested Magic Lanter on it... I did test the raw but it was pretty abysmal back then... so I was more interested in the bitrate bump.
 
Shortly afterwards, my camera path led me through BM and into my 5D iii, so the the eos-m just sat in the closet for years.
A couple years ago I was thinking I'd take it out and mess with it again. Hadn't really thought about using it in years, so I grabbed it from the closet, charged one of my old batteries and pushed the on button... and nothing. I just figured it died... so back into the closet it went.
I recently realized it may need a card with ML boot flag (or whatever it's called) on it. I ordered some new batteries and I'm going to figure out which cards are good for the new builds and cross my fingers.
Anyway @QuickHitRecord thanks again for keeping this topic alive. No disrespect to the other forum members, but basic camera chat about new releases is fun and all, but the reason I started posting on EOS HD was because of posts like this.

Went for a walk this morning. I was able to make a short video:
Sorry for the music. Everything is hand-held. Shot it at various frame rates. Most everthing shot in GoPro Log 2 (the slow-mo shots are in Natural) and plopped into a timeline for cutting and added FilmConvert with the GoPro Mission 1 Pro and GoPro Log 2 profile. No grain was applied. Anyway, you'll get an idea of the colors, electronic stab, etc.
I also wanted to say that I was able to update the ILS to the GoPro Labs firmware and use a QR code for putting a super-helpful histogram (better than the Lumix one on the GX800).

A few more thoughts on the ILS...
Here's a 4k shot of my balcony solar panels. I really thought I could make some moiré with this. Not the case, at least not in the 4:3 4k mode. Everything is hand-held with the E-stab on.

For DR in GoPro Log2, it seems to be living up to their claims 14 stops.

When it does clip, this is what it looks like:

Personally, I can live with this. I have a FilmConvert Hazy plugin to smoothen out some of that harshness on the clouds:

This was all done rather quickly and could have been better, I'm sure.
Here, I cranked up the shadows just to see what it would look like.

I might run it up against my S9 just because I'm curious.

Damn. After playing with the 7artisan 10mm, this camera looks so good. The electronic IBIS is working wonderfully and you don't hear any audio weirdness like with normal IBIS sometimes. The colors when you put the Log into FilmConvert are great IMO.


About the 10mm, it's not perfect. For starters, there was quite a bit of play in the mount. I fixed it with a little electrical tape. However, it's super easy to focus and quite fun. The image seems quite sharp too.

I'm at a point where I ALMOST see no point in shooting log profiles. There are a few good ones, but most require more grading after a utility LUT is applied and/or creates scenarios where everybody's footage looks pretty much exactly the same.
So if you're just slapping on a LUT and calling it a day, for 9 out of 10 shots, you could just use a standard rec709 picture profile and get similar results.
With the advent of 10bit video, in recent years, most standard picture profiles look even better than they ever have with thicker color and near perfect skintones. Sure there are instances when you may need the extra stop or two of dynamic range a Log profile offers, or a specific LUT gets you a relatively quick look by shooting Log, but again... 9 out of 10 times, a slightly tweaked Rec709 picture profile will end up looking better and get you there so much easier without worrying about CSTs and color pipelines... especially since damn near ever Log profile is just trying to emulate Arri LogC which in turn was designed to emulate film.
Speaking of, I have the Arri LogC3 software key on my GH6 and it's pretty good... better than vLog but it's still noisy as hell with ugly chroma noise in the midtones and shadows so I recently went back to CineLikeD and V and I am back to making a couple contrast and saturation adjustments and being happy with it. I'm sure there is a slight hit in DR, but nothing so drastic that I'm surprised or wish I shot in Log instead.
So Log is cool, I'm glad it's available, but it's fairly unnecessary in most situations and can cause a bigger headache.

Great to hear it's working for you.  I've long suggested that the cheap Chinese lenses are a lot like the high-end vintage lenses from the SLR film camera days - both had simpler optical designs and simpler coatings.  The only challenge is how good the lens is wide open, but if it's enough for your application then you're all good!
Same for me.
I have saved power grades for each camera that convert from camera colour space to Davincis log space, and a few Timeline power grades that apply a few variations of film emulations.  I just pull all the footage into a timeline, apply the power grades, and then adjust exposure on any clips that need it (I use ETTR so this is normal for me) and mostly I'm good.  The wider DR of the GH7 and iPhone 17 Pro means that the images are less crunched and therefore respond nicely to a film emulation contrast curve and so need a lot less fussing than the GH5 ones did.
I standardised on 58mm filters as that's the largest size that fits most of my lenses.  Actually about two thirds of my lenses have that size natively and for the ones I use a lot that don't have that I bought dedicated step-up rings and just have them permanently attached.  
I have a K&F Concept True Color Variable ND2-32 (1-5 Stops) as my main vND and recently bought a NiSi IR ND8 (3-Stop) fixed ND to stack on it if the 5 stops of the K&F aren't enough (5 stops is enough for full-sun at F5.6 but wider apertures than that will require more).  I wanted to just buy a nice 5-9 stop one but I have a Tiffen? 4-stop filter and when I paired that with the 1-5 stop I got all kinds of IR pollution on the iPhone, so I knew that anything more than 5 stops needed IR filtration too, and I couldn't find anything that had it.
I had to buy an 82mm one for the front of my Sirui anamorphic adapter, but got a cheaper Neewer 1-5 stop which seems to work ok, although that one I only shot at night and colour fidelity is less important for that stuff.
I also bought a few lower-quality 1-9 stop vNDs in specific sizes for when I wanted to keep the lenses as small as possible, so I got a 46mm one for the 14mm F2.5 pancake lens which lives on my GX85, and a 40.5mm one for the 17mm F1.4, which I had thought might be a good low-light lens for the tiny GX85 Super-16 setup but I haven't shot anything with that combo yet.
Funny how people end up with similar solutions!

I actually kinda like it. Don't think it needs it, but you could easily add some sprocket holes to one side and some hair/dust/grain and I think it would pass for a bad digital 8mm film look... the micro shakes just adds to it.
 
Could use those shots as transitions in your edits.

There's a counter-culture online of (young) people shooting with early digicams etc, and the way they talk about it is that they're going for an alternative aesthetic to the clean modern digital look that's now in every smartphone and has become the 'default' look.
Personally, I've been pushing how small a video camera can be, and it has brought me to the same place - deliberately choosing very poor video quality.  
I've been using the Kodak Charmera for travel, which is the size of a construction-workers thumb, because it's so small no-one really takes it seriously when shooting in public, and also because it doesn't attract thieves etc (unlike a large ILC or new smartphone).  But I'm also resurrecting my old Lumix point-n-shoot for roughly the same reasons.
I've started to think of the Charmera as a sort-of modern Super-8 camera - a much smaller and lower quality camera for amateurs.  If you apply some film emulation then it can take away some(!) of the digital nasties but I'm guessing some people will prefer the unmodified low-quality digital look.  In a sense it's a 'worst of both worlds' situation as it clips like digital but also has the low resolution of film while simultaneously looking sharp and harsh - applying the film emulation rectifies some of these issues to create a hybrid with some limitations of both looks.
Here are some stills, both ungraded and also graded with a modified version of my Super16 film emulation, and some sample footage to get a sense of the motion (it's truly terrible).  However, the more I use this camera and look at the footage the more it grows on me.  I can't say I like it, but as I get used to the look it strikes me more as a look rather than deficiency.








Here's a warts-n-all montage of some shots I took.  I was mostly walking around while rolling, but at 45mm FOV with no stabilisation it's pretty jittery anyway considering it weighs about 30g / 1oz so has almost no weight to prevent micro-jitters.  If this was a real edit I'd smooth over a lot of the rough edges like sound pops and clicks etc, but this is a realistic look at how it performs.  The issues do lend it a certain charm (like in the name!) I think, and it's the imperfections that give something character, so logically this must have a lot of it!
I'm still constantly thinking about how to get better results from it, but being so small it's hard to modify the setup at all without drastically diluting its biggest advantage - the size.
Anyone else experimenting in the very shallow end of image quality?

A current experimental build for the EOS-M that I am working on. My goal is to turn the M into the only camera that offers crop modes in all of the major motion picture film formats.

Interested!

Super cool.
The only thing that I don’t like is the lack of stability, so I guess I like ‘the look’ more than anything.
I’d never use any ‘retro’ camera myself, but I like the concept and idea of it.
Keep pushing Kye!

It seems sharp enough for me, easily resolving a 4k image. Remember, I'm only using the sweet spot of that lens. Others have notice vignetting, and corner softness- not the case when using just a fraction of the image circle. However, I notice back-lit subject will have a strong chromatic aberration (purple) at f/1.4, but it goes away at f/2.8. It flares a little too- a bonus for me. The usability is absolutely great though.
Thanks. Yes, I really don't have too much time to fuss around with the files- make it look good to my eye and then off to the next one. I just do a few exposure adjustments.
I got a whole new set of ND filters. The reason being that I haven't had much luck by using VND's on small/pixel dense sensors. Bad things happened when I put my VND on my old camcorder. In the end, I'm going for 55mm and using step-up rings to get there. Why 55mm? Most of my Konica glass uses that with only a few exceptions. Anyway, I got the K&F Nano-x ND4, 8, 64, and 1000 set. They should do the job and still manage decent quality from a 50MP sensor.

Nice images.  Once you get files beyond a certain quality then the film emulation can do the rest.
How are you finding the 17mm F1.4?  Sharp enough wide open for you?
In terms of filter threads, you can get filter-thread-adapters in that size.  I bought a tiny vND for mine, which was really cheap because of the small amount of glass required!

I get that could be an issue, but for my use, being able to use modern lenses would've been advantageous. Putting a GoPro style camera into tight spots with some of the small M43 lenses would've been really, really nice for my work, especially with the slow mo capabilities. I'm not trying to use vintage lenses for sports, or soften the image, ya know, but I'd love to be able to put a tiny camera behind the backboard of a basketball hoop or attach it to the ring post of a professional wrestling ring and get footage that doesn't have that action camera look.

I'm expecting some of this older Chinese glass to not be up to the crazy sharpness of the newer glass. For wide lenses, it's rather tricky with this camera. Sure, you could get the Laowa 6 or 7.5mm, but at that point, you might as well get another GoPro Mission 1 Pro, offering a second setup that is waterproof, etc. That's why I'm going more for the cheap stuff. I'll see this weekend if I can live with the softness of the 17mm f/1.4. Personally, I don't need the 1.4 unless in a pinch, but I'm secretly hoping that this lens can decently resolve 4k at 1.4 in the middle sweet spot of the lens. Anyway, I already have the S9 with the Laowa 28mm f/1.2 (my favorite lens of all-time). Two days ago, I was able to film a hedgehog eating at f/1.2 and 12000 ISO- the footage was so clean.
Will do this weekend. Super-busy right now with teaching high-schoolers English though. :-)
I'm really stoked about having smaller setups. Panasonic used to give us that in the past, but I think they've moved on; then they'll realize that had it right to begin with but it's too late (always late to the party). The whole setup with the 10, 17, and 25 with the body will be about 750g- that matters, especially considering the frame rates, codecs, and battery life.

I only ever pay attention to what is visible when I apply my entire image pipeline, so I didn't know offhand, but I just shot some test clips and viewing them straight out of camera I don't really see aliasing.  I do see some artefacts in the 4x mode that are hard to describe, a bit of noise (and perhaps some processing artefacts on the noise?) but definitely not aliasing, even when I shot hard edges and rotated the camera slowly to try and reveal any aliasing.  The 4x mode is soft, obviously because it's sampling a small area of the sensor and then upscaling it to 4K, so maybe that smooths over things perhaps.
I could do a 8-bit challenge...  maybe we should make it interesting and limit the entries to 720p or something just to add a spin.  I'd be tempted to enter the Charmera.  To say that it's 8-bit is perhaps the understatement of the year!

Yes, and I think that the right situation for it is the combination of when you want a small camera and you want to shoot impromptu things.  If you're shooting in controlled environments then a larger camera probably makes more sense, which was sort-of my point, and probably not explained that well.
I agree about it being a new category, it sort of feels like that to me in a way too.
Cameras are all about combinations of features, and this one has some feature combinations that haven't really come together before.
I can recommend the Laowa 7.5mm F2, it's really sharp, but not cheap.  It's probably not the right choice now as there have been wider lenses brought out in recent times, but as a reference the Laowa is a great performer.
I suspect that we're probably better off without it having AF.  I suspect that (in the parallel universe where they did give it AF) the AF they gave it would have been pretty rubbish and also because it got AF it probably wouldn't have gotten any/many good MF features, so neither pathway would have been particularly useful.  
Back in the days before PDAF subject detection was really a thing I remember spending quite a lot of time half-hitting the shutter and then asking the camera "why did you focus on the background?!?!?".  The problem then, as well as the problem now, is that when there are multiple things to focus on, the robots are choosing which one and often falling on their faces.  I shoot MFT at F5.6 and at F2.5 on PDAF and CDAF models and it's great and focuses incredibly fast all the time, but only because either the DOF is so large that everything is in focus or I'm simply focusing on on the middle of the image.
I have the TTartisans 17/1.4 and it's small and light and cheap, but wide open it's more of a "character lens" rather than a sharp one.  It's good for emulating the softness of film in-camera, if you know what I mean!
I also have the 50mm 1.2 and it's a bit better than the 17mm IMHO, but neither of them are high-end glass.
Share some images with us if you're able!

The things that impress me most about this camera are the frame rates and processing. In addition, it’s so damn small and light. I purchased it, and it’ll be here tomorrow.
I’ve seen both super positive and super negative opinions about it, but it really does feel like a new category. I have a few assumptions about it, though: I think it will be a stellar performer when it comes to moiré and rolling shutter. It’s also going to be pricey to get wide, sharp lenses for it.
That’s why I plan on using it with my S9. I feel like they could complement each other well. I’ll definitely be playing around with it over the next few days.

If your use case is with C mount Super 16 lenses, "a bunch of lenses" might fit in a coat pocket.  The tripod can also be an insanely light tripod or even something like a Manfrotto MP-3.
 

GoPro ILS vs BMPCC OG...  not a completely scientific test, but lots of shots in different scenes, so a good real-world comparison.
 

This highly-cherry-picked reel appeared in my feed.  The image quality looks pretty impressive, so when the stars align the potential images from this thing are very nice.
I guess the question for me is how many situations would the ILS be the right camera choice for?  For example if you're going to pack a bunch of lenses, a tripod, and rig it up with filters, then go somewhere to shoot, setup your gear and potentially direct the scene in front of the camera, using a larger and more capable camera wouldn't make much difference to the logistics but could give advantages in DR and usability etc.
For example, the ILS body is roughly 90mm x 60mm x 45mm, very similar to the Lumix GM1 which is 100mm x 55mm x 30mm.  Small for sure, but by the time you add all the lenses and all the rigging, it's not like your camera bag is that much lighter.
Does anyone know what the stabilisation is like with third-party lenses?  Like, is it the same as the normal GoPros with their own wide lenses? or is it poor / hit-n-miss?

GoPro ILS vs BMPCC OG...  not a completely scientific test, but lots of shots in different scenes, so a good real-world comparison.
 

Thinking of it as a Super-16 FILM camera represents an incredible opportunity when combined with the high-resolution sensor - zooming in post.
My experiments with emulating S16 film showed that even a moderate amount of blur applied in post hides a huge amount of detail in the image.  This means you can crop into the source image significantly and the blur will hide it.
For example:
If you were to put a 12mm lens on it, then you'd get a ~35mm FOV at 6K, which you then blur.
If you were to put a 12mm lens on it, then crop 2x you'd get a ~70mm FOV at 3K, which you then blur and the blur hides the zoom in post.
If you were to put a 12mm lens on it, then crop 3x you'd get a ~100mm FOV at 2K, which you then blur and the blur hides the zoom in post.
Depending on how much blur you applied (if you were going for a vintage 16mm look or a more modern 16mm stock emulation) I suspect you could zoom up to 4-6x in post before the digital nasties started being visible through the emulation.  I don't know what kind of digital zoom the camera offers, but if it allows it then you could frame in-camera and not be throwing away bitrate when you crop in post.
This gives two advantages:
1) It turns any prime into a zoom, perhaps even a 4-5x zoom - much more than the 2-3x fast zooms like 18-35 etc
2) if you crop in post then you can apply additional stabilisation, making it feel a lot larger than the tiny camera it is
I suspect that mostly this advice will fall on deaf ears, as people are drastically afraid of softening their images, like they'll be punished in the afterlife for it.  When I saw Goodfellas in the cinema on 35mm film projection, it looked like somewhere between 720p and SD - and that was a 35mm feature film!!  The amount of blur to accurately reproduce even a semi-ballpark 16mm film emulation is beyond most modern thinking, but if you can wrap your head around the concept then the ILS can become a drastically useful camera.