Neufeldt

I've taken a similar approach to my travels in having multiple setups as backups.  Considering that although my trips are holidays, they're similar in that we're away from major cities with electronics stores, we have tight schedules that aren't flexible, and I won't want to repeat the same one for lost footage so it's a now-or-never kind of thing.
I went through my whole setup looking for single points of failure and eliminating them.  I have multiples of every item and can, at a pinch, have anything fail and still continue shooting.  The only weakness of the setup was that my backup body wasn't that great.
Also, because I had backups of everything I essentially have duplicate setups, and so can film things from multiple angles if I choose to.
I disagree.  IBIS can reduce and even eliminate hand-shake to create smoother and even locked-off shots, whereas global shutter means that whatever movement is there isn't removed, it's just far less objectionable.  Also, IBIS on wide lenses can combine with lens distortion and RS to create wobbling that global shutter does not introduce.
So IBIS and GS both have strengths and weaknesses, but aren't equivalent.  They're different tools for different jobs.

I joke. Mostly...
It just seems that lately, some folks want and expect the moon on a stick, but also, camera companies have been letting us down to a degree.
Most of the Fuji issues seem to be because it's IBIS is not as good as a gimbal.
Panasonic gave a lot, except it seems autofocus.
Sigma gave us fantastic image quality, modularity and size, but left out pretty much everything else.
First gen Canon had some weird specs.
First gen Nikon less so, but still some issues.
Olympus decided to go to one of those special clinics in Switzerland.
Sony have...well Sony have not been doing anything for some time and hope we don't notice their horrid little body.
Now Canon announce the 'grail cameras' (cue heavenly light and organ music) but it turns out they hoped no one would notice they become hot, switch off and have a little lie down for a while.
It all depends on your useage of course.
I don't think the limitations of the R5 or R6 would affect me at all and so both will undoubtedly be great hybrids.
Same goes for the rest above except the Sigma which would be far too frustrating for my needs as much as I want to love it, but I could probably swing the Z6 (it's successor sounds luke warm to some but sounds near perfect to me) and I know I could make the XT4 work.
But I can see why some feel frustrated. I'm a bit frustrated myself with all of them because with them all there's a degree of, "why the fuck did you not just...??!!"

I don't really have an issue with limited times as long as I have another body. It's the cooling down time and limited recording time afterwards that's the real kicker. A ten minute cool down to get 3 minutes recording isn't great.

The other part of HEVC decoding is that it's not a simple question of whether your GPU supports it. Last year I upgraded my CPU from an i7 4770 to a Ryzen 3600. My GPU remained the same, and yet my HEVC decoding performance in Resolve jumped from barely usable to really smooth. This was editing the same exact project with the same exact files on the same version of Resolve studio. I don't know if it was the CPU, the new motherboard/chipset, whether Resolve just doesn't like 7-year-old systems, or what--but it's certainly false that the GPU is the only factor, even on GPU accelerated performance in Resolve.

Interesting article, thanks!
I can definitely say that I've had to manually shim, rebuild, or otherwise adjust a number of vintage lenses. This becomes problematic depending how many different bodies and adapters you want to use the lens on, though. If the adapter has optics (speedboosters), they often can be adjusted.
Since I'm dealing with dramatically smaller volumes of gear than Lens Rentals, I'm doing all of this purely by hand and by eye, so I really don't know any of the measurements or which piece of gear is out of spec - I'm just making it all focus correctly (hard-stop manual focus lenses stop at infinity), starting with one setup that works as a reference and just matching everything to it.

Interesting article, thanks!
I can definitely say that I've had to manually shim, rebuild, or otherwise adjust a number of vintage lenses. This becomes problematic depending how many different bodies and adapters you want to use the lens on, though. If the adapter has optics (speedboosters), they often can be adjusted.
Since I'm dealing with dramatically smaller volumes of gear than Lens Rentals, I'm doing all of this purely by hand and by eye, so I really don't know any of the measurements or which piece of gear is out of spec - I'm just making it all focus correctly (hard-stop manual focus lenses stop at infinity), starting with one setup that works as a reference and just matching everything to it.

A few things:
 
ADC in this camera is linear, so no funny business with Log encoding or anything like that.
96db of dynamic range is an audio standard. The video/photo equivalent would be 48db (a stop is either 3db or 6db, power or amplitude).
IIRC N-bit ADCs have DR = 6.021N + 1.763dB (audio), or 3.021N + 1.007dB, so a 12-bit ADC = 74dB/37dB or 12.333 stops of dynamic range.
The sensor is 12-bit readout of ~6K photosites in a Bayer array.. When this is tested at 4K we have significantly more than 12 bits of readout per measured pixel. 8-bit 4k IS 10-bit 1080p, etc.

A few things:
 
ADC in this camera is linear, so no funny business with Log encoding or anything like that.
96db of dynamic range is an audio standard. The video/photo equivalent would be 48db (a stop is either 3db or 6db, power or amplitude).
IIRC N-bit ADCs have DR = 6.021N + 1.763dB (audio), or 3.021N + 1.007dB, so a 12-bit ADC = 74dB/37dB or 12.333 stops of dynamic range.
The sensor is 12-bit readout of ~6K photosites in a Bayer array.. When this is tested at 4K we have significantly more than 12 bits of readout per measured pixel. 8-bit 4k IS 10-bit 1080p, etc.

Please explain/articulate what you mean by more!
 
The believe that 8bit is better, is confirmation bias tricking your mind.

The various color profiles (ignoring v-logl for a moment) by nature don't change the amount of color that ends up in the footage, they change how the the color captured by the sensor is transformed. A given color is made brighter or darker, shifted towards red or green etc.
 
Your eyes can't even discern the difference between two similar shades of 8 bit color, let alone 10 bit. You can verify this your self, by going into any 8 bit editor, like paint, or photoshop, etc. Draw a big box on the screen, and fillet it with one color say pure red (255,0,0). Mask of half the box so it stays pure red, and then make the other un-masked side (254,0,0). You will not be able to tell the difference between the 2 shades. keep dropping down from 254, to 253, 252 etc until you are sure you can see the line where the color changes.

If you can tell the difference between 245 and 255 then you need a 10 shade spread to see a color difference. Now you need to realize that in 10 bit that becomes a 40 shade spread. Your ability to discern the difference gets worse with age, and it can also be skewed for a given color if you have any kind of color blindness.
Dynamic range is a similar affair, the gh5 sensor is capable of a little over 12 stops at base iso. Your eyes are only capable of 10 stops, and again it can get worse with age and various medical conditions.
 

Your getting beat up because you analysis reads as someone who has a serious lack of understanding about bit depth, chroma sub sampling, and their benefits or lack of, when it comes to video production. it a similar thing when it comes to codecs.

Right out of any camera 10 bit isn't inherently better than 8 bit, 4:2:2 isn't better than 4:2:0 either. Higher bit depths and higher chroma sub-sampling are only really beneficial if you are going to push the footage around in post. higher bit depth and chroma sub-sampling can be pushed farther before the footage falls apart. This is important when it comes to major motion pictures and the like, because what comes out of the camera is usually drastically different to what ends up on the screen. 

Codecs are the same, Noe one codec is inherently better than another by default. Prores or dnxhr isn't better than h.264. or h.265, or any of the other million codecs out there. They each have their pros and cons, and what is best is very situation specific.



 
It sounds like you are confusing dynamic range with bit depth.

@tihon84 Using a gray card is ideal. You'll want the gray card to reflect the key light
Lenses with non-neutral grayscales will essentially 'shift' balance slightly throughout the grayscale. This is to be expected; its part of the 'character' of the lens
A gray card will avoid complications of a white paper (tint/transparency). When it comes to minor adjustments of white balance, using the post WB tools (eyedropper/tint/temp) works very well (Its ideal to make sure that white balance is generally correct on set)

"I am pleased to announce GHa V2, the reference grade update. For the last six months (since original release), I have been building a new version of the conversion from the ground up, to achieve a new standard of precision and smoothness (silk gradients).
The changes in V2:
- 25x the Number of Color Samples (25k Per Camera)
- Custom Coded C++ Color Engine (Smooth Interpolation)
- Alexa On Hand (For Repeated Iteration)
- Corrected Lens Distortion of Original Conversion
- Smarter Handling of of Exposure Placement to Maximize DR (both Emotive Color and LogC)
- Cine-D Support (and Improved [PRE]s)
- Premiere Pro Specific [PRE]s (for VLog & Others)
- Improved Documentation"
Here is the new PDF
Emotion II (Updated to V2)
(Edge/Explorer or Safari recommended for most accurate color; Chrome/Opera Ok; Avoid Firefox)

Great work man!
Can't wait to try out the Cine D conversion. Was avoiding 60p for many reasons until now (1080p60 10 bit is oversharpened, UHD60p 8 bit in V-Log is almost as messy as GH4 8 Bit V-log was...)

Thanks Jeremy!
On their own, as a conversion to VLog, they are really accurate. Looking at the point cloud throughout the color space, they're near perfect.
But it is my impression that Vlog is superior for locking in skintone nuances and absolute smoothness. This is essentially because combining two really intricate conversions magnifies translation error. This doesn't apply to the simpler PREs (i.e. Premiere 10bit VLog and ProRes), because of their uniformity.

Thanks deezid! The stars of the show are the main conversions, which are really, really accurate (and smooth). Huge leap for Tungsten.
Luma for Daylight is placed very differently; it will result in a lot more effective highlight range when exposed for V2.
Thanks tihon84; its just good ole' V-Log (and only Daylight Main V2 applied). The scene was very striking, with late day sun pouring into the little yellow room, overlooking the sea.

Hey dxotic, you should have an email from me
Exposure placement for Day V2 is quite different; this is how I described it to David L'Abbée:
"Before, clean range was being rolled off into the noise floor with Daylight; this wasn't very smart. Now, range is allotted to the highlights, which allows more meaningful DR when exposed for V2. For V1 footage, you can place the luma per page 8, and slightly increase saturation to compensate"
Hehe, because I'm crazy! I got it to make this conversion perfect, because that was a much better proposition than trying to measure it on borrowed time (which is basically what limited the fidelity of V1). I did upwards of twenty measurement redo's for V2, all told. tweaking the approach along the way. This was critical, as the first V2 run through was really far off of what was needed for the code to ingest
Also, it is the most unwieldy thing. Its got minimal kit needed to run (no battery, Frankenstein hdmi monitor, etc.); its a heavy computer with wires, in 2k. The GH5 with IBIS allows me to shoot in my particular style, which is all about motion
Also, per my promise to you a few months ago, here are the raw side-by-sides:
Daylight Alexa & GH5 Raw Footage
Tungsten Alexa & GH5 Raw Footage
(Use DaVinci Resolve for these - accurate Arri ProRes)

"How do you define dynamic range?" is the question that underlies and undermines most of these discussions. We could measure it as the difference between maximum signal and the point at which signal:noise reaches 1:1 (how DXOMark measures RAW still dynamic range). We could decide that 1:1 is too noisy, and that "usable" dynamic range starts at 8:1 meaning 3 fewer stops of dynamic range. We could measure from any signal at all, adding one or more stops of dynamic range relative to the 1:1 reading. We could weight RGB in various ways, perhaps considering the beginning of dynamic range to be when any one channel starts to have signal and then terminating only when all three channnels are saturated (this gives the highest possible rating).
 
The ARRI linked pdf only tested out to 11.75 stops and didn't find dynamic range limitations, if I'm reading it correctly. It didn't test for the limits.

Congratulations, you have just received my first downvote, and probably only downvote... something I swore I would never do because I really don’t find them productive and I believe they only create animosity... which is the exact opposite reason for visiting this forum.
But I honestly don’t know what to say about your recent posts, Jon? I’m thinking that maybe you have some personal issues going on in your life because you used to be one of the most friendly, jovial, and helpful members of this forum. But now you are full of such vitriol, and vindictive behavior. I sincerely apologize for bringing this up publicly, but this is getting out of hand now.
In this specific instance, you were asking DBounce for his review of the lenses, but then when you heard HIS honest impression, you went on full out attack mode... to the point of calling him a liar with ulterior motives?!?!
C’mon man it’s just camera stuff, it’s not worth having a stroke over. 

I feel even ignoring the BMPCC4K release we're still creeping near to the "beginning of the end", with cameras such as the Panasonic GH5S. (arguably some people could even say that happened years ago with the GH2/5Dmk3/etc)

Just like in the stills world, if you've got a D800 then you really can't fault the sensor performance. Instead it is all about usability/ergonomics/wifi/AF/IBIS/etc.. improvements that have came in since then, but the days of peering at test charts for of say a D300 vs D700 vs 5Dmk2 vs 50D vs etc are "over". The sensor performance from any affordable stills ILC released today in 2018 is going to be good enough, and you're better off worrying about "everything else" that it implements. 

My point is I think that day is not too far off for the video world with these affordable cameras as well, and likes of a GH5S/BMPCC4K are hinting at that day is nearing closer. 
 

I imagine for people trying to shoot with 4K on the BMPCC4K with an ultra frugal budget, that their shooting style will have a lot of similarities to the way RED ONE folks shoot (for those who don't have the SSD module, or only have a limited number of gigs on it). At least until CFast prices fall further. 

What they'll do is for the tripod shots they'll use their USB-C (just like RED ONEs using their RED-DRIVE for tripod shots) but then switch over to using their CFast card when handheld (again, just like how RED ONE owners would then switch over to CF or SSD when then going handheld). 

Just want to say the LUTs are great. It's interesting how different GHa is from the GHaLogC-ARRIAlexaLogCRec709 pairing.
Thoughts on a more neutral LUT with basically just the highlight rolloff (no longer having oversaturated and color shifted highlight transition is wonderful), or should I just use the Leeming LUT?
One note for anyone else using Resolve on a non-cinema wide-gamut hardware-LUT display (not specific to this conversion at all, just in general for color grading): Accurate color absolutely requires the usage of a flat system ICC profile, a monitor-loaded LUT, and a 3D LUT in Resolve (3D Color Viewer LUT) as Resolve does not appear to be ICC aware in any way, shape, or form. This isn't particularly noticeable with SOOC footage, but Log footage run through a LUT (let alone complete color grading) is pretty painful otherwise.

You think Red copied it from Panasonic?