kye

Some screenshots from Pandemic time in 2020. Just ProRes HQ files and sigma 18-35. 

Yeah, I think they just got lost in the shuffle of on-line PR.  The dark horse.  I always liked 'em and wondered why videographers seemed to ignore the brand.  My guess is a mix of slightly not the latest-greatest specs and lackluster marketing.

I'm considering Olympus MFT setup now that Panasonic has announced the GH6 will have DfD. I'm looking for a lightweight crop sensor landscape photo / video hybrid for an ultralight pack. The OM-1 will have DCI 4K, 10-bit, good color, PDAF, astro tracking, pixelshift, and world class IBIS. I'm not convinced OM systems is in it for the long haul, but if the OM-1 is anything like previous Olympus cameras it will provide value for years to come.
Panasonic is bleeding out because they don't have good AF. I don't see it stopping.

I'm currently testing the new OM System OM-1 and all I can say right now is to expect some pretty great video features, some of which exceed the GH5 (no idea yet about the upcoming GH6).
Olympus IBIS has always been the best in the industry. Still is. OM System has done a great job with this camera. I am thoroughly impressed (but I hate the name "OM System").

Shot and edited over this past weekend. Been wanting to test out the Canon 35mm f2 IS and see whether or not it would be good for shooting on the M, especially with regards to image stabilization while shooting hand held.

Mixed it up with 3x crop to get an additional 100mm+ focal length for tight detail shots.

Shot 1080p MLV RAW
ISO 100 throughout
Aperture kept between f2-4

Cranked up shutter speed to adjust for exposure as needed.
 

Actually, it's a bit of both...
The reality is, it's their wedding day, not our shoot, but the more we can make it a collaboration, the better the chances at capture are.
I try and educate my clients in this regard and with a discrete subtext that I have a reputation to uphold so would rather not try to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear if I can avoid it, as ultimately, it will always be a pigs ear, just a slightly better pigs ear...but this is secondary to their day. There is a middle ground but we need to be on the same wave length in advance otherwise it's mainly reaction over action.
Some clients...most actually, get this. Or can be sufficiently educated to get it.
Others though, the princesses (and princes) are the worst to produce anything for as they are usually acting like manic mental cases all day long...and if that's how you act, that's what it looks like in the video!
 
 
 

Well yeah like I said ProRes ensures minimum "pro" requirements, that's what makes it a popular pro standard VS h26x which has no rules. Editors/VFX don't like common h26x files because its hard to know/guarantee the encoding/bitrate settings. 
That is why Canon developed XF-AVC format ensuring high bitrate 10-bit 4:2:2 or Sony XAVC-I ensuring Intra 10-bit 4:2:2.
ProRes 444 also goes beyond h26x max settings with 12-bit 4:4:4 making it the highest quality lossy file after RAW/ProRes RAW.

Well I should be able to have it! 😜
Most anyway...
OK, the size/weight could stay as that doesn't really bother me.
The sensor is already in the S1R. Does 4k, but in 8 bit only.
Internal ND already exists in several cameras, for stills and video including the Fuji X100, since the F, if not previously?
The decent/reliable AF has to be phase probably...
The full frame/zero crop is processing power or something isn't it?
Not very far off really, ie, it's all doable in 2022 I'd have thought?
Then just make a shrunk down version for the 4/3rders and we'll all be happy 🥰
 

Also, I'd imagine you'll probably really like FilmConvert.
I've spent a lot of time learning colour grading and I value doing things manually to deliberately build my skills, but if all I was interested in was getting a good result I'd just buy one of those packages like FilmConvert or Dehancer etc and be done with it.
I wouldn't recommend them to everyone, as film-emulations aren't the only look so they're kind-of a one-trick pony, but if you like the look then they're definitely the fastest way to get from SOOC to done.

If you're using a strong look like a film emulation then it's worth noting that the preferred approach for colourists is to apply the look and then grade the clips with the look applied..  "grading under the LUT".  This will prevent you from having to make two primaries passes, and will save you from adjusting things that are visible without the look but aren't with it.
If you're skeptical, grab a bunch of clips and time yourself doing both methods, you might be surprised.

I think you know a lot.
For most hybrid shooters, an a7 IV at $2,500 is going to be a lot more appealing than an m43 camera at around $2,500 unless the GH6 is absolutely freakin' bananas.

I think the challenge in the MFT space is the limitations of the sensor.
The GH5 and P4K basically took all the modes the sensor was capable of and enabled them, the GH5 compressed and the P4K in RAW.  
If the best MFT sensors are limited to (for example) full-readout 60p and FHD 240p, have dual native ISO, X stops of DR, and a rolling shutter then you can't make a camera that exceeds these specs, so the best you can do is give good codecs and features and make it reliable and in a good form-factor.
To be really significant, the GH6 will have to do something groundbreaking, which would require an innovative sensor or crazy processing of some kind.  
Still, a camera that combined the best specs and features of the GH5 and P4K would be pretty good and probably get my money.
Yeah, those codecs are particularly weak.  Is Olympus known for improving the codecs in firmware upgrades after the fact, like Panasonic did with the GH5?

Indeed!
It's a fair point too, because for our purposes (where we'd use the camera rather than just mounting it and walking away) we need a rig that's usable so it's the rig size that matters rather than the box itself.
For that the Komodo is actually a fascinating form-factor and brilliant in a few ways, mostly because of the built-in screen which can be used with a MF-style viewfinder:
So you just add a couple of batteries, media, a loupe, a lens, ND and then you're off!
The BMMCC obviously didn't have a screen so that made a rig essential and depending on how you rigged it basically tripled the size of it.

Had a play, liked it.
Bought it, got a completely different result 🤪
I don't dislike the completely different result but with the free trial, I was using it on a layer on top of gamut LUT corrected log.
After purchasing and installing the specific camera profile, it didn't need the gamut LUT correction but worked instead on the 'raw' log footage.
I'll have to play some more...

The OM-1 video specs seem underwhelming to even the GH5/G9.  The 120fps 12-bit RAW DCI looks to be only available through the HDMI output.

FC has a free trial I wasn't aware of so I'll give that a whirl and see what happens.
 

Now I know your not talking about me…
I did buy some kitchen scales a little while back  I could weigh  my setup but i’d be over three hundred I reckon with the Nikon 1, adapter and takumar smc 17mm.

Wow, Kye. I have no idea how you're achieving the second two. If we're basing this on weight, then those numbers are going to be tough to beat! One of the guidelines I'm setting for myself is that I can't buy anything new just for this challenge. I have at least a dozen cameras cameras already and don't need any more. But nothing I have is that tiny. I can't wait to see how you're doing it.

I started offering video on top of photography some 15+ years ago on the basis I never knew what type of muppet would show up 😉
To be fair, not all videographers were muppets, but few were compatible shall we say...
So yes, totally in house ever since other than the 3 clients since who have breached contract, 2 of which were fine, thwe other, muppet. On the day, the couple hated him from quite early on and by the end of the day... (and don't ask about afterwards...).
I've tested at 4k and 6k and 4k was better from the S1H.
Motion blur is the biggest issue with 50 or 100fps shutter speeds...
But I reckon I could get away with doing zero photography on the day and just producing screen grabs from 4k footage. I don't think a single person would ever know.
I will test that theory soon, perhaps this year even, but the simple fact is I enjoy photography. I am as much photographer as I am filmmaker so why would I want to not actually take pics? Otherwise I just become a technician.
Anyway, what was this thread about?
Aesthetics.
To keep it on topic, I'm going to be exploring the aesthetics of 4k screen grabs this year...

Maaaaaybe once ARRI has released a handful of cameras with their new 4K S35 tech, they might release an extra mini camera with the "old" sensor, like the current Arri Mini but even smaller. 

Sorry... I think you are contradicting your own thesis statement here... 'ignorance is bliss...'
I don't understand why these discussions always devolve into condescension? Plus, I haven't read anywhere, in this thread, where people are complaining about tech moving forward. That would be a futile complaint. With that, at what point, do we as consumers, tell Canon, Sony, et al...  that we don't want higher resolution? Give us ProRes, give us true 14+ stops of DR, give us better color depth. Is 8K enough? DO we need 12K... 16... 20K? Most of these companies haven't even given us very good 1080p yet.
For some reason there's this belief that higher resolution = technological evolution when it's fairly obvious that Arri has proven that resolution is probably the least important factor in image quality.
Sorry, I was discussing two different things there and should have separated my thoughts more clearly. What I meant was that I find it really depressing that the trend is to create images/videos that look like they were shot on an iPhone. For those projects, it seems a camcorder would be a better choice than a FF stills camera that shoots 8K video.
My other comment was just a reaction to the idea that shooting on an iPhone in Portrait mode seems to be a modern concept so I find it surprising that these young kids are interested in analogue photography.
Anyway, nice images

ok ok  i figured it out.... Mururoa atoll. Because that bad boy would have made some waves 😎 

No no no...  the OTHER French New Wave 😉 

Editing might be, perhaps, one of the only things in film-making where you can't buy results.  Writing might be another one.
With editing, if you have equipment good enough to edit, then the only difference between a blah edit and a spectacular edit is the skill of the editor.
In terms of classic movies, while editing on film was obviously not as easy as an NLE, they had most of the tools at their disposal.  Even if you're just limited to making a simple cut, most edits would not be diminished by this restriction.  The ability to dissolve, either fading to black or white or cross dissolving, gives more expressive freedom, but it's not a hugely common technique.  ie, it's used very very rarely compared to the straight cut.  The addition of the NLE feature to gradually crop a shot can allow the fine-tuning of match-cuts, which I notice in older film films are sometimes not quite aligned and so it diminishes the effect.  However, the match cut is even rarer still, making the availability to match framing almost, but not quite, irrelevant.
When I was choosing which NLE to go with, FCPX, PP, or Resolve, I realised I needed very powerful colour grading functionality, including stabilisation, but only very basic editing functionality.  I find this to be true now, even more than then.  I haven't used anything except a straight cut or the odd dissolve in any serious way in any of the dozens of videos I've edited.  Resolves ability to do fancy things is going up and up, and my desire to use anything fancy at all is going down and down and down.

We're all talking about aesthetics.  
We're talking about aesthetics when we talk about the "look", but we're talking about it when we talk about specifications too.  
A debate rages about what is "enough" resolution, "enough" sharpness, "nicer" bokeh... what is "cinematic"...  what is "visible"...  what is "practical".  
This thread is a reality check against the warped concepts that stills photographers and their camera-club specifications-obsessions have given us.  Because, for the most part, better objective measurements are mostly worse subjectively.  It's our imperfections that creates our humanity, and it's analog imperfection that creates emotional images.
Baseline
First, let's establish a baseline.  Here are some test images from ARRI that are designed to showcase the technology, not a creative aesthetic.


Note the super-clean image, lack of almost all lens-distortions (except wide angle distortion on the wide lens, which is actually super-wide at 12mm).  If you were there, this might be what it actually looked like.
Those were grabs from a 4K YouTube upload, but lots of trailers aren't uploaded in 4K, so here is a still from 1080p Youtube video that ARRI uploaded in 2010.

Now, without further ado....
The Aesthetic - The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina



These are obviously very distorted, and I chose frames that were especially so.  This should instantly disavow you of the idea that somehow Netflix demands "pristine" images - these are filthy as hell, but this is appropriate to the subject matter, which is about witchcraft, the occult, demons, and literally, hell.
Whenever I hear someone say "oh I can't believe how terrible that lens is - look at the edge softness" I just laugh.  The person may as well be saying "not only don't I have a clue about film-making, but my eyes also don't work either..  please ignore everything else I say from now on".  
The Aesthetic - Sex Education




A show with a deliberately vintage vibe, the look is suitably vintage, with some pretty wicked CA.  One thing that's interesting is the last shot, which was either a drone with a vintage lens on it, or it was doctored in post, because it has pretty severe CA - look at the bottom right of the frame above the Netflix logo.  Also note how nothing looks sharp - the first image should have had something in-focus, but softness of this level is deliberate because once again, the last shot is a deep-focus shot with a stopped-down aperture and should be super-sharp but isn't.
The Aesthetic - No Time To Die




Some shots are softer than others, but note the amazing barrel distortion and edge softness on the middle two shots.  In case you missed it, here's the star of this $400M movie in a pivotal scene from the movie:

Are there lenses that could have made this shot more "accurate"?  Sure - just scroll up to the ARRI shots which look pristine (and they're ZOOMS!).  This was deliberate and is consistent with the emotion and narrative.  The Aesthetic.
The Aesthetic - The Witcher




Sharp when it wants to be, oversharp too - see the second image, but with anamorphic bokeh for the look.  Ironically, a fantasy story of witchcraft and monsters, using cleaner more modern looking glass.  The complete opposite approach of Sabrina.  
Note on the second-last image the vertical anamorphic bokeh, and then look at the last image and note the "swirl" in the bokeh.  I doubt this was accidental.
The Aesthetic - You


Sharp and clean when it wants to be, and other times, really not.  Appropriate for the subject matter.
The Aesthetic - Squid Game

Clean, sharp but not too sharp, neutral colour palette, but note the vertical lines on the edges of the frame aren't straight?  Subtle, and perhaps not deliberate, but picture it in your mind if they didn't flare out..  it makes a difference, deliberate or not.
The Aesthetic - Bridgerton 



Clean, spherical, basically distortion free, but sharp?  No.  Go look at that Witcher closeup again for some contrast.
The Aesthetic - The Crown




Clean and relatively distortion free, but lots of diffusion, haze, and low-contrast when required.  The Crown is a masterpiece of the visuals matching the emotional narrative of the story, which is made extra difficult as the story is set in reality, and the emotional tone is so muted that had lesser people been involved in making it any subtleties may well have simply been bland rather than subtle but deep.
The Aesthetic - Mindhunter

Perhaps the most interesting example here.  After looking at the previous images the above might seem completely unremarkable, except that this look was created in post.  
and I mean, completely in post:

More here: https://filmmakermagazine.com/103768-dp-erik-messerschmidt-on-shooting-netflixs-mindhunter-with-a-custom-red-xenograph/#.YftoaC8RrOQ
and here: https://thefincheranalyst.com/tag/red-xenomorph/ (there's a great video outlining the lens emulations in post in this one).
That's enough for now.  Hopefully now you can appreciate that "perfectly clean" optically is actually only perfect for "perfectly clean" moments in your videos.  Sure, if you're out there doing corporate day in and day out then it might seem like "clean" is the right way, or if you're in advertising or travel where neutral reigns, but when it comes to emotion, it's about choosing the best imperfections to suit the desired aesthetic.