kye

@deezidLike  kye, I am a great fan of the HD image from the GH5, liking the nice 4K as well. It is a bit too sharp ooc but also high resolving. I must admit, VLog L can produce blotchyness on certain skintones under harsh conditions when graded towards a colorful cinematic look.
You have been a fan of the 10bit 150Mbit codec and its image on the S1. So not that much anymore? Neither of the S1H 400mbit prowess? How comes your change of mind? I am pretty impressed by the former. Just having troubles with it in green enviroments with harsh light. But who doesn´t with any camera. 🙂
Looking forward to some GH6 beauty coming from your hands. How does it compare to the other 10bit 422 codecs? How is your general opinion on those? Prores update for many other resolution and modes coming soon! Many questions, I know.:)
 
 
cheers

Oh, don't get me wrong, a 360 camera is a spectacular tool for capturing moments that cannot be predicted.  I want one and would use it extensively, except that the quality just doesn't justify it.
For me, my experience of shooting is a combination of how good the equipment is and the results I will get from it.  The GH5 is a reliable camera with easy-to-use functions that creates a great image (when paired with the right lenses) and it's a pleasure to use, but it cannot guarantee that I will capture the right framing while I am recording, and it absolutely cannot give me two (or more) camera angles from the same moment in time.
A 360 camera can give me every camera angle simultaneously.  If I am walking down a street I am recording everyone doing everything at every moment.  If I was to walk down a street and exchange greetings with a passerby or shop-keeper or turn a corner and see a wonderful view, I can capture the view looking forwards as well as the view of myself looking back.  I can capture the person talking and the person listening and the reaction shots.  I can capture it all.
.......but at the quality that I will be capturing all of this footage, it would be demoralising.  Walking around knowing you're capturing everything in "old budget smartphone" quality would just make me feel shitty.  It's like going to a buffet and all the food is terrible but you can eat as much as you want.  360 cameras are capturing every shot at a quality that doesn't make me want to use any in my final video.
I mean, look at this shot, from Brandon Lee (who is in the Insta360 promo video itself) in his paid sponsored video for it:

and here's his face:

With image quality like that, my experience is better to shoot with an action camera that is only capturing a quarter of the action in a scene, but the shots are all much nicer and I feel like I'm capturing usable footage.
I mean, we have the P4K which was released in 2018 that wrote 1088Mbps to a card and now we have this camera at about 60% of the price and it's limited to 120Mbps.  It's not the resolution that's the problem - it's the bitrate.  This camera is more crippled than almost any Canon camera has ever been!
It's sensor will be about smartphone quality, which if you look at the image that they're able to make when shooting RAW stills, you'll know that they're nothing like the above image quality, so it won't be the sensors - it's the processing and codec.  

That's true, although the wider you make the shot, the higher the quality but also the more specialised it becomes.  For example, if you cropped at 90degrees it would be a standard wide angle view which has almost unlimited applications but is almost unusable, but if you don't crop at all then you're getting 6K 120Mbps in all its glory but the shot is literally unusable for anything at all.
The problem is that for any real use you'll need the quality to be above a certain threshold and the crop associated with that is only usable in a tiny tiny percentage of applications.
To give you a comparison, an action camera might have a 100Mbps 4K image and a 15mm FF equivalent lens.  For a 360 camera to replicate that it would need to be a 1,500Mbps 12,000K image.  
When I film with my GH5 in 200Mbps 10-bit 422 1080p and my Sony X3000 in 4K 100Mbps I think the action camera looks poor in comparison and I have to really treat it nicely in post to try and elevate it from the cheap/nasty/brittle image that it has.  A 6K 120Mbps 360 camera cannot possibly hope to compete against that.
I mean, I'm filming with my GF3 and its 1080p 17Mbps, which is still more bitrate and resolution than the 360 camera has at a 15mm FF equivalent crop.  This brand new 360 action camera when cropped to anything remotely sensible can't compete with a budget MFT camera from 2011.
Oh, I never said this was a "meh" update.  It's taking something that is woefully inadequate and taking it to merely being quite inadequate - a huge improvement no doubt.  But just because a kid improves their math test scores doesn't mean that they deserve to pass.

Umm....  well, in regards to the lighting, what he's referring to is the fact that these cowboys are sitting around a fire, supposedly at night, but for some reason they are being lit by a white single-point sharp light-source that makes their fire look like a dull-semi-glowing object.
Look at this frame:

It looks like exactly what it is: cowboys sitting around a fire lit by several kilowatts of flood-lights from just off camera.
but yes, the sound is a little scratchy!  Calling @IronFilm !!!

Oh, don't get me wrong, a 360 camera is a spectacular tool for capturing moments that cannot be predicted.  I want one and would use it extensively, except that the quality just doesn't justify it.
For me, my experience of shooting is a combination of how good the equipment is and the results I will get from it.  The GH5 is a reliable camera with easy-to-use functions that creates a great image (when paired with the right lenses) and it's a pleasure to use, but it cannot guarantee that I will capture the right framing while I am recording, and it absolutely cannot give me two (or more) camera angles from the same moment in time.
A 360 camera can give me every camera angle simultaneously.  If I am walking down a street I am recording everyone doing everything at every moment.  If I was to walk down a street and exchange greetings with a passerby or shop-keeper or turn a corner and see a wonderful view, I can capture the view looking forwards as well as the view of myself looking back.  I can capture the person talking and the person listening and the reaction shots.  I can capture it all.
.......but at the quality that I will be capturing all of this footage, it would be demoralising.  Walking around knowing you're capturing everything in "old budget smartphone" quality would just make me feel shitty.  It's like going to a buffet and all the food is terrible but you can eat as much as you want.  360 cameras are capturing every shot at a quality that doesn't make me want to use any in my final video.
I mean, look at this shot, from Brandon Lee (who is in the Insta360 promo video itself) in his paid sponsored video for it:

and here's his face:

With image quality like that, my experience is better to shoot with an action camera that is only capturing a quarter of the action in a scene, but the shots are all much nicer and I feel like I'm capturing usable footage.
I mean, we have the P4K which was released in 2018 that wrote 1088Mbps to a card and now we have this camera at about 60% of the price and it's limited to 120Mbps.  It's not the resolution that's the problem - it's the bitrate.  This camera is more crippled than almost any Canon camera has ever been!
It's sensor will be about smartphone quality, which if you look at the image that they're able to make when shooting RAW stills, you'll know that they're nothing like the above image quality, so it won't be the sensors - it's the processing and codec.  

Great to hear your feedback on the GH6 and Prores implementation.  I simply cannot imagine a phrase more lovely than "the image basically looks like RAW".

Great to hear your feedback on the GH6 and Prores implementation.  I simply cannot imagine a phrase more lovely than "the image basically looks like RAW".

If the A7s3 came with the processing of the FX6 and at least some of its video-related features, there would be no more reason to get any Panasonic nor Blackmagic camera let alone the FX6 at all. 😄

The GH4 was so hard to deal with, shot internally in 8 Bit V-Log L, the banding was insane.
Did some selective debanding on some areas to fix it. I wish I had an external recorder back then. 
The GH5 after was much cleaner but was way oversharpened, had ghosting issues caused by heavy temporal filtering (fixed in mid 2017 via firmware) and seemed to have less DR to me, still kept it until the Pocket 4K came out which was later ruined with BRAW and its quite heavy spatial filtering and sharpening, my original P4K sadly died and had to be replaced with a model that didn't support earlier firmwares. 😭

Since then I've been using the Pocket 6K and later S1H with external BRAW are okish, the higher resolution compensates for the heavy filtering to a certain degree. My new GH6 outperforms both when it comes to texture with its internal ProRes recording, the image basically looks like RAW, almost unfiltered. I love it and used it as my A-camera on my last shoot. 🙂

How on earth do we get our hands on that GH13 that Hitler sold to Stalin?!?!?!?!?  

Yeah, for me at least, the lighting anomaly really took away from the gravitas of the scene itself as this was the moment in the narrative where Mr. Taggart fully realised the extent of the indiscipline amongst his charges that would ultimately undermine his goal of driving the citizens of Rock Ridge away from their homes.
In fact, Mel Brook's original reference for the scene was "Fractious Actions Rattle Taggart" which was abbreviated and became the erroneous name by which the scene is now widely referred to.

Umm....  well, in regards to the lighting, what he's referring to is the fact that these cowboys are sitting around a fire, supposedly at night, but for some reason they are being lit by a white single-point sharp light-source that makes their fire look like a dull-semi-glowing object.
Look at this frame:

It looks like exactly what it is: cowboys sitting around a fire lit by several kilowatts of flood-lights from just off camera.
but yes, the sound is a little scratchy!  Calling @IronFilm !!!

Disappointing and barely improved from previous models (or at all??)
Once again, people fail to understand what is actually going on here.  The problem with 360 cameras was always that by the time you crop to a FOV that doesn't look like you're on massive amounts of drugs, the image starts to fall apart with lack of resolution and compression (poor bitrate).
When you crop into the image, this 120Mbps 6144x3072@25/24fps in 360 degrees equates to:
15mm lens on FF (100.4 deg Horizontally) 1713x723 resolution (16:9) at 7.9Mbps
18mm lens on FF (90 deg Horizontally) 1536x648 resolution (16:9) at 6.3Mbps 
24mm lens on FF (73.7 deg Horizontally) 1258x530 resolution (16:9) at 4.24Mbps
Realistically, the 120Mbps is the limit, not the resolution.  A 1.2K image wouldn't be so bad in the context of a nicely graded edit if it was more than 4Mbps...  I'm waiting for a 400Mbps model - that would take that 24mm crop to something approaching 'real' camera territory (15Mbps or so).
The challenge is that these are often used in situations where things are moving a lot and really stressing the codec.

Agreed. I’ve loved focusing on things like lighting and color grading. Composition. Things that actually make a difference to your image. So much on YT is gear reviews of expensive cameras, as I’ve said before we are at an image quality threshold, so all we can do is get better ourselves. I find there is a great mixture on this forum; we can all have fun geeking out about the next new camera or RAW codec, but then we will all turn around, reminisce about an old Gh1 or F3, and talk about lighting/color grading practice, with a dose of anamorphic lenses thrown in. Great forum, I wish it had as much traction as it used to get. I also miss Andrew’s constant articles of the past. 

Certainly if Mel Brooks had had access to the Alexa 35 he might have lit scene this in a moodier way.
 

Feature films with decent budgets often have the most resources for a colourist compared to other types of productions (eg, reality tv shows, documentaries, other types of tv shows).  
As I'm sure you're aware, there are aspects of the image that can be adjusted in post and aspects that must be done in-camera.  This means that the colour and contrast differences that can be adjusted in post might be left to the colourist, whereas the lenses might be chosen for the characteristics that must be captured in-camera.
I'm in a number of social media groups about vintage lenses and these are full of cinematographers building sets and modding / servicing them for cine use (and often for rental) and these guys still care a great deal about matching.  It's common for someone building a set to take years and buy several copies of each focal length in the series and then choose the best / sharpest / best matching ones and then sell the rest.  
It's also worth mentioning that in big budget features the colour will be heavily stylised in post anyway, so matching things becomes a much smaller task in the overall amount of things to be done, whereas if you're keeping a very neutral look and operating on a tight budget then matching would be of much higher importance (or should be!).

I find that a curve with a nice rolloff in post can give a nice highlight transition without too much fuss - it does raise the brightness of the highlights though, so you can either have brighter image or one with more contrast, but if you're willing to do that then I find it's not too much of a challenge. 
Another trick that is easy enough is to desaturate the highest luma values.  It seems like the most common issues with poor highlight rolloffs is the channels clipping at different points and there being banding of colours around the edges (eg, like the sun going through rings of yellow at sunset or cyan if transitioning from a blue sky).  This desaturation can often deal with these in a very organic and neat way.
Combine the two approaches (curve and desaturation) and you can get quite good results from even poor footage I've found.
Is that what ARRI is saying in the link?

The chart is actually a little bit misleading - there weren't three films shot on A7 cameras.  Of the 49 feature films that premiered at Cannes, three of them used an A7 camera within their camera lineup.  Of course, the A7 might only have contributed a single shot to the film to be included.
The list is:
 

I love learning things that are true, and are useful.

That's true, although the wider you make the shot, the higher the quality but also the more specialised it becomes.  For example, if you cropped at 90degrees it would be a standard wide angle view which has almost unlimited applications but is almost unusable, but if you don't crop at all then you're getting 6K 120Mbps in all its glory but the shot is literally unusable for anything at all.
The problem is that for any real use you'll need the quality to be above a certain threshold and the crop associated with that is only usable in a tiny tiny percentage of applications.
To give you a comparison, an action camera might have a 100Mbps 4K image and a 15mm FF equivalent lens.  For a 360 camera to replicate that it would need to be a 1,500Mbps 12,000K image.  
When I film with my GH5 in 200Mbps 10-bit 422 1080p and my Sony X3000 in 4K 100Mbps I think the action camera looks poor in comparison and I have to really treat it nicely in post to try and elevate it from the cheap/nasty/brittle image that it has.  A 6K 120Mbps 360 camera cannot possibly hope to compete against that.
I mean, I'm filming with my GF3 and its 1080p 17Mbps, which is still more bitrate and resolution than the 360 camera has at a 15mm FF equivalent crop.  This brand new 360 action camera when cropped to anything remotely sensible can't compete with a budget MFT camera from 2011.
Oh, I never said this was a "meh" update.  It's taking something that is woefully inadequate and taking it to merely being quite inadequate - a huge improvement no doubt.  But just because a kid improves their math test scores doesn't mean that they deserve to pass.

Yeah, I saw some footage comparing the ALEXA Mini with the 35 filming an open fire and the Mini clipped on the flames but the 35 managed to capture them without clipping.  Needless to say, the cinematographer was pretty excited about it, as it meant that they no longer had to choose between exposing for the skintones or the highlights, and people sitting around a camp fire is a relatively common scene I think.

My guess is that every scene doesn't need to be color matched... the story, the look, the mood, the emotions... different colors invokes different moods and emotions... I think they discuss this and story board it - color and style should be discussed here, the colorist has to give his input here too and the cinematographer needs to choose wisely to match that...

@webrunner5 Wow!
Is bonkers how dirt cheap the equipment from yesteryear has become. 

Well, I just bought a Panasonic GH2 from Adorama in good condition with battery and charger for $109.00. Hot Damn.

That's true, although the wider you make the shot, the higher the quality but also the more specialised it becomes.  For example, if you cropped at 90degrees it would be a standard wide angle view which has almost unlimited applications but is almost unusable, but if you don't crop at all then you're getting 6K 120Mbps in all its glory but the shot is literally unusable for anything at all.
The problem is that for any real use you'll need the quality to be above a certain threshold and the crop associated with that is only usable in a tiny tiny percentage of applications.
To give you a comparison, an action camera might have a 100Mbps 4K image and a 15mm FF equivalent lens.  For a 360 camera to replicate that it would need to be a 1,500Mbps 12,000K image.  
When I film with my GH5 in 200Mbps 10-bit 422 1080p and my Sony X3000 in 4K 100Mbps I think the action camera looks poor in comparison and I have to really treat it nicely in post to try and elevate it from the cheap/nasty/brittle image that it has.  A 6K 120Mbps 360 camera cannot possibly hope to compete against that.
I mean, I'm filming with my GF3 and its 1080p 17Mbps, which is still more bitrate and resolution than the 360 camera has at a 15mm FF equivalent crop.  This brand new 360 action camera when cropped to anything remotely sensible can't compete with a budget MFT camera from 2011.
Oh, I never said this was a "meh" update.  It's taking something that is woefully inadequate and taking it to merely being quite inadequate - a huge improvement no doubt.  But just because a kid improves their math test scores doesn't mean that they deserve to pass.

1. This is not a Jack of all trades.
2.
Indeed. So they're very useful if well used. They're speciality cameras.
3.
Who is he? ; ) LOL The only experts I am aware to be considered like that are a couple of 360 nerds, I guess and yes, we cannot dream too much yet but at least make it still usable under certain variables:
And here's another one to prove why despite the current tech limitations, this is more than a meh upgrade obviously for those who have 3 cameras of them as myself now going one step further: