solovetski

Today we had an early xmas lunch (to avoid the conflicting invitations on the 25th) and I shot it with the GX85 and 12-35mm F2.8.  Shooting was really fast and not under ideal conditions (massive window which is often backlighting people) but it did a great job.
Here are a few random stills, SOOC - zero editing.  




Standard colour profile, with -5 Contrast / Sharpening / NR and 0 Saturation.  People often lower saturation in-camera but I  push my grades to have lots of saturation so I prefer to have the camera do the 8-bit conversion and compression on stronger saturated colours so that I'm not boosting up a weak colour signal in-post.
When I grade it I'll be softening it up, fine-tuning the colours and adding some colour grading secret-sauce but for a someone shooting a family gathering with an 8-bit camera while also being part of the festivities, the images really speak for themselves.

This was tonights project.  Just for fun...  
 

Love this!  I am coming to the same conclusion as I shoot in 8-bit rec709 more and more.  And I find that having a color managed workflow helps a lot; the image is quite flexible when conformed to Davinci Wide Gamut; responds a lot like LOG does.  And if my exposure and white balance aren't too off, the grading experience is great.

8-bit rec709 profiles are much more flexible in post than you might think.  I'm not saying they're as good as an Alexa or whatever, but they're a million miles better than people give them credit for.
Here's a latitude and WB torture test of the GX85, in the standard profile (8-bit rec709) customised to have reduced contrast but normal saturation.  
For each of the below, the left image is the properly exposed reference image, the middle one is the graded image, and the one on the right is the image SOOC.
Exposure latitude test - +3 stops:

Exposure latitude test - +2 stops:

Exposure latitude test - +1 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -1 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -2 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -3 stops:

Exposure latitude test - -4 stops:

Exposure latitude test - warm:

Exposure latitude test - cool:

Exposure latitude test - magenta:

Exposure latitude test - green (as far as it would go!):

Notes on the testing method:
GX85 shot in manual mode on cloudy day Exposure varied by changing lens aperture WB varied by changing colour temp and tint Tools used in Resolve were mostly Lift/Gamma/Gain, saturation, and some had a bit of Shadows/Mids/Highlights Notes on the results:
If it's clipped then it's clipped, there's no getting around that If you've shot a whole sequence in the wrong WB then shoot a test chart replicating the error, spend some time on the correction, then apply to all the shots... a bit of work but worth it to rescue a days shooting If you've shot on auto-exposure / auto-WB and want to correct the small errors then this is easily possible - it won't have gotten it nearly as wrong as what I have shown above Most cameras shooting in rec709 will do funky stuff to colours depending on their luma value as part of the look of the profile, so when you over/under expose and then pull things back the hues and saturation levels will have shifted around in odd ways compared to a normal exposure, but if it's a real shoot then you most likely won't have many dominant hues in the image and you only have to correct the ones that are in the frame and distracting, so the above is far more work than normal shooting would be  The days of needing RAW or even LOG to change exposure or WB in post are gone, and although the rec709 profiles often have lower DR than log profiles, they're much better than you think.
If anyone wants me to post full-sized versions with titles so you can flick back and forth then just let me know.
Happy shooting!

As I'm quite interested in getting a 4K laser projector, that Sony VPL-GTZ380 mentioned earlier piqued my interest so I might have a look into that as it could.....hang on...let me google it.....christ on a fucking bike.
I mean, seriously, genuinely well played for being able to afford to buy that but christ on a fucking bike.
 

I will be using the Sony VPL-GTZ380 in the presentation when pleading my case to the wife regarding the €2100 LG Cinebeam that I've got my eye on.
"Listen, it could be a lot worse love".

Are you sure?  I'm going to have to think about that for a couple of weeks and I'll get back to you then.

Do you know what else is outdated? Manual focus. It's so slow, man, it drives me nuts! This is 2023, not 1923! My iPhone can focus faster than any ALEXA, so what's up with that? Autofocus is true cinema and anyone telling you otherwise is just trying to keep their job as a focus puller or living in the past. Engineers are with me, let's go!
 

Like @mercer has said, this is ridiculous.
There's two people in this thread who are making post after post about how 24p is old and wrong etc, and then there's the entire industry spending trillions of dollars a year shooting films and who have access to any camera they want and could shoot in any frame rate they liked, and yet they select 24p.
So, who is right?  Two internet keyboard warriors, or the entire worlds entertainment industry?
Please.
We did a survey, and you didn't win this "debate".

Hello to all EOShd members. I haven't been here much this year, but I consider this forum to be my second home. This year has been hard personally (divorce with young children) but we must continue in life with good spirits. So like every year (and it's been 6 now) I link you to my police Christmas greeting:
In the tech side it is Sony FX6 in UHD mode at 100fps (S&Q) and S-log, Hi Base Iso. Rokinon lenses. 
I hope you like it and I send you a hug.
Adiós Amigos!! 

Yeah this argument keeps coming back but there is never any evidence to support it. 
 
With technology as time progresses most things do improve. 
 
Bit depth. Resolution.
There’s an assumption that faster must be better.
But audiences continue to prefer 24
 

My son is 15 and plays a ton of video games. We watched "Gemini Man" a year or so ago on 4K UHD disc at both 60p and 24p. He thought the 60p looked like a video game, not a movie, and preferred the 24p version. I doubt he's the only young person who feels this way. My point is that saying 24p is for older folks because they are used to it is too simplistic an argument and simply not correct. 

This needs to be 16mm

8K 24P in the rain:
Dark day, suggests 8K 24P when walking with the camera will not look very good at night without the special lowlight stabilization setting.

Making houses with wood was also based on limitations in other construction materials at the time, as they were either hard to supply or supplied expensively. Today there is almost no limitations and concrete is cheap, but wood is still prefered because its environment friendly. Just because something is old, it doesn't mean it will be replaced with the new. 24p became a standard because it was the cheapest way to do motion picture. But it also replicates dreaming. I don't know about you by my dreams look like anything other than what I see on ESPN.

The display format and venue also matter. Oppenheimer doesn't look dated in the IMAX theatre in 24p. Looks incredible, to old and new generations alike. So to say 24p is outdated is just a blanket statement really. And equally, to say 60p isn't cinematic is also a blanket statement. It can be.... All depends on a lot else, other than just frame rate.

30p is TV and YouTube
60p and 120hz are for gaming
24p is for cinema and film.
This is not an opinion.
The subjective part of it is what one's definition of 'cinematic' is.
Is the big dome at Vegas cinematic, probably is. Sitting in there, with panoramic vision, amazing,
But it is simulating reality.
Cinema is not restricted to just simulating reality, it can also simulate emotions and dreams. And for that you need 24p.

He does.
I applaud Markus for the work he does and the passion that he brings, trying to beat back the horde of Youtube-Bros who promote camera worship and the followers who segue this into the idea of camera specs above all else.
But there's a progression that occurs:
At first, people see great work and the cool tools and assume that the tools make the great work - TOOLS ARE EVERYTHING Then, people get some good tools and the work doesn't magically get better.  They are disillusioned - TOOLS DON'T MATTER Then they develop their skills, hone their craft, and gradually understand that both matter, and that the picture is a nuanced one.  TOOLS DON'T MATTER (BUT STILL DO) This is the same for specs - they are everything, they are nothing, then they matter a bit but aren't everything.
By the time you get to the third phase, you start to see a few things:
Some things matter a LOT, but only in some situations, and don't matter at all in others Some things matter a bit, in most situations Some things matter a lot to some people, but less to others, depending on their taste Film-making is an enormously subtle art.  Try replicating a particular look from a specific film/show/scene and you'll find that getting the major things right will get you part of the way, but to close the gap you will need to work on dozens of things, hundreds maybe.  
The purpose of any finished work is to communicate something to the audience.  For this, the aesthetic always matters.  Even if the content is purely to communicate information, if you shoot a college-looking-bro delivering the lines sitting on a couch drinking a brew filmed with a phone from someone lying on the floor, well, it's not going to seem like reliable or trustworthy information, unless it's about how many beers were had at the party last night (and even then...).  The same exact words delivered by someone in a suit sitting at a desk with a longer lens on a tripod and nice lighting will usually elicit a very different response (sometimes one of trust, and sometimes a reaction of mis-trust, but different all the same).  A person wearing glasses and a lab coat standing in front of science-ish stuff in a lab is also different.
Humans are emotional animals, and we feel first and think second.  There isn't any form of video content that isn't impacted by the aesthetic choices made in the production of the video.
Some might be so small that they don't seem relevant, but they'll still be there in the mix.

I didn't realise you had access to every camera.  I realise now that this makes every statement you make correct!
I'll learn my place eventually....

If I am allowed to chim in, I would love a powersaving solution like the m1 tech in a windows laptop.
What would be an equivalent to a M1 Max Macbook, with lowish powerdraw and same performance in Resolve for editing, grading and rendering?

Equivalent in Windows-land?  It doesn't really exist.  12th/13th generation Intel has much better performance per watt than 11th generation, but the built-in GPU isn't anywhere near the performance of M1 so you'd need something with a dedicated GPU which won't be low power.  If I'm guessing I'd say that an i7-12700 or i7-13700 with the laptop version of an RTX 4060 should be about similar to the performance of an M1 Max while plugged into the wall, but with the caveat that the Windows laptop will pull more power and be noisier (fans to remove the heat from using so much power).

However, the second you unplug the laptop from the wall, the performance and battery life of the Windows system will be substantially worse than the M1 Max.

You can find Windows laptops with more raw power than even the highest-end M3 Max - and desktops even more so, but the cost is that the power usage will be a lot higher.  I'm too lazy to go look now, but I'd bet that an RTX 4090 all by itself uses more power at full load than an entire M3 Max laptop, including the screen.  😃

I have been spending too much money on equipment in recent years, and WAY too much time researching it. I really don't need anything else in terms of kit. What I do need is to replace my wardrobe and make some repairs to my home and my vehicle. Also, I'd like to spend more time producing passion projects.

So, I'm making a commitment that I will not buy any new gear between November 30th, 2023 and November 29th, 2024 (got to give myself the option to take advantage of Black Friday deals). If I need a specialty piece of gear, I will rent it.

The exceptions are expendables and direct replacements, should anything I'm using break down.

I've never done this before and I'm posting this to help keep myself accountable.

My Priorities for Panasonic:
1) Release a VERY SMALL M43 camera body with PDAF and full-sensor readout in 4k NOW!
2) Release a GH7 with variable ND and PDAF.
3) Release a high-end video camera with variable ND and PDAF for L mount.
4) Release a pancake (28mm or 40mm or both) lens for L mount.

For reference, here are both cameras. Same lens and same camera settings. The C70, shooting Canon Raw Lite, is first and the R1MX is second. They weren't hard to match.
It's so close that I wonder why I am bothering with the cumbersome R1MX. But once I see the moving images, I'm reminded of why I go through the trouble.


 
 

I definitely enjoy the lighter lens after trying out Sony this year, but unfortunately the people I colab with definitely prefer the Canon colour 100% of the time.. the most recent one was shooting for this DJ from Canada where he used Komodo for Spain shoot and Sony for Oz shoots, and we shoot C70 RAW for him here in NZ, he said the Sony was really hard to get nicer colour vs Red or the Canon after he did some quick edit afterwards.
So might stick back to Canon.
And my friend who shoot with Panasonic does have people laugh at him for using old piece of gear (the EVA1), on this one job after seeing the result (it's a livestream job and they have a dedicated people that does lut and facial beauty thing done in real time as well) they said Panasonic looks nicer than the Sony's they used and need much less time on tweaking.