Axel Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said: You will see: this will rule out RAW for he majority. Moire traps are everywhere, not just on clothes. Pollution through rainbows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danilo Del Tufo Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 10 hours ago, LORDD said: Panasonic has just announced an update for GH5 and GH5S, improvements in focus and image, to see what they surprise us with. Where did you read this information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 39 minutes ago, Danilo Del Tufo said: Where did you read this information? It was reported on the 43rumors site the other day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 This is fairly typical of what I've seen from 99.9% of original Pocket footage online (actually a little better than most) - soft and grainy; gobs of lens flare; ugly clipping of highlights; crushed shadow details; dreadful skin tones; strong cyan cast with ugly sepia tones; little to no cohesiveness; poor dynamic range; lugubrious soundtrack - much of it resembling lo-fi home movie footage shot on VHS, or worse - yet it gets oohs and aahs from viewers. It's got nothing at all to do with the cinematic look as I understand it. Yet the uploader has the pretentiousness to call it a 'film'. What do you think? Am I way off base? Is this the 'cinematic' look you're after? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone1k Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 34 minutes ago, jonpais said: This is fairly typical of what I've seen from 99.9% of original Pocket footage online (actually a little better than most) - soft and grainy; gobs of lens flare; ugly clipping of highlights; crushed shadow details; dreadful skin tones; strong cyan cast with ugly sepia tones; little to no cohesiveness; lugubrious soundtrack - much of it resembling lo-fi home movie footage shot on VHS, or worse - yet it gets oohs and aahs from viewers. It's got nothing at all to do with the cinematic look as I understand it. Yet the uploader has the pretentiousness to call it a 'film'. What do you think? Am I way off base? Is this the 'cinematic' look you're after? Considering the subject matter and people in this 'film', I'm guessing whoever's 'film' this is is a 13-18year old and in that regard I don't mind it and willing to cut the person some slack. You could say it's lowfi, and I don't love the heavy cyan cast but I remember sitting in cinemas and watching 35mm projections of blockbusters and art house films alike and loved the fact that things were never tack sharp. I loved the softness, and the grain.... These days, more and more people expect images to be clinical, super sharp and noiseless all the time. webrunner5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Tone1k said: Considering the subject matter and people in his 'film', I'm guessing whoever's film this is is a 13-18year old and in that regard I don't mind it. You could say it's lowfi, and I don't love the heavy cyan cast but I remember sitting in cinemas and watching 35mm projections of blockbusters and art house films alike and loved the fact that things were never tack sharp. I loved the softness, and the grain.... These days, more and more people expect images to be clinical, super sharp and noiseless all the time. Cool. I just wanted to get feedback, and I hope to hear from more forum members as well. I can enjoy anything from Vinterberg's grungy 'Festen' to Ulrich Seidl's masterful 16mm "Import Export' to whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted May 4, 2018 Super Members Share Posted May 4, 2018 I'm ordering a job lot of this in time for September if anyone wants in ? Tone1k 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaconda_ Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Ah so the P4K does have IBIS! (In Built Instant Stick) Juxx989 and BTM_Pix 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone1k Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 As another member suggested, I'm just going to find my own hacks to make it work. Might tap some holes in the side of the camera and use one of these....... Should be FINE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Tone1k said: As another member suggested, I'm just going to find my own hacks to make it work. Might tap some holes in the side of the camera and use one of these....... Should be FINE! Why would you need to do that when the cage will have clamps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone1k Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Just now, jonpais said: Why would you need to do that when the cage will have clamps? HDMI is all about saving money.... Not spending it on a cage ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, Tone1k said: HDMI is all about saving money.... Not spending it on a cage ;-) uummm... I don't follow. If you're gonna use a monitor, you'll want a cage. Cages don't have to cost a fortune. Even if you use the threads on top of the camera, I see no reason to destroy the body just to attach a cable.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaconda_ Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, jonpais said: uummm... I don't follow. If you're gonna use a monitor, you'll want a cage. Cages don't have to cost a fortune. No necessarily. I often use a monitor on a tripod. If they're using the new Atomos, you could mount that straight to the camera. Or if, like me, you're planning on using a Zacuto EVF, then you can mount that to the camera with magic arm. A cage is fairly low down on the list of things I'm going to get with this camera. In fact, I'm going to wait and see if someone makes a battery grip before looking at cages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tone1k Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, jonpais said: uummm... I don't follow. If you're gonna use a monitor, you'll want a cage. Cages don't have to cost a fortune. Even if you use the threads on top of the camera, I see no reason to destroy the body just to attach a cable.... Sorry, I was being sarcastic.... And visicious. I wouldn't really tap holes in the side of my camera. I'll stop now.... It's late. jonpais 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted May 4, 2018 Super Members Share Posted May 4, 2018 To be honest, I was nodding along appreciatively thinking "yep, that could work" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 3 hours ago, jonpais said: This is fairly typical of what I've seen from 99.9% of original Pocket footage online (actually a little better than most) - soft and grainy; gobs of lens flare; ugly clipping of highlights; crushed shadow details; dreadful skin tones; strong cyan cast with ugly sepia tones; little to no cohesiveness; poor dynamic range; lugubrious soundtrack - much of it resembling lo-fi home movie footage shot on VHS, or worse - yet it gets oohs and aahs from viewers. It's got nothing at all to do with the cinematic look as I understand it. Yet the uploader has the pretentiousness to call it a 'film'. What do you think? Am I way off base? Is this the 'cinematic' look you're after? Like the image or not, Jon... it’s way more cinematic than any comparably priced camera... especially if you got in on the $500 Sale. The obvious issue with this specific video is the lack of IR Filter and that he slapped on an M31 LUT on top of it. The beauty of the Pocket/Micro is that it can look however you like. Throw on one of those Veydras or Leicas you like so much and you can have a crisp modern look. Throw on a cheap lens and you can have a soft vintage look. It’s a different type of filmmaking... the entire process almost feels visceral. You really should go out and buy one, or a Micro... they’ll be selling for cheap real soon. I saw a barely used Micro go for less than $500. After you shoot a little Raw or ProRes HQ with it... you will be hooked. Don Kotlos and jonpais 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantsin Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 You can also record ultra-crisp video with it if you prefer that look. It's just a matter of how you post-process the raw image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 hour ago, mercer said: The beauty of the Pocket/Micro is that it can look however you like. Yeah, and I think I've said before that the more flexible something is the harder it is to get what you want. On a sliding scale between using Instagram (which 3-year olds can do) and shooting ARRIRAW (where professional colourists are required), this is at the difficult end and requiring the colourist skillset, however the killer aspect of this camera is that its price is at the Instagram end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 4 hours ago, jonpais said: This is fairly typical of what I've seen from 99.9% of original Pocket footage online (actually a little better than most) - soft and grainy; gobs of lens flare; ugly clipping of highlights; crushed shadow details; dreadful skin tones; strong cyan cast with ugly sepia tones; little to no cohesiveness; poor dynamic range; lugubrious soundtrack - much of it resembling lo-fi home movie footage shot on VHS, or worse - yet it gets oohs and aahs from viewers. It's got nothing at all to do with the cinematic look as I understand it. Yet the uploader has the pretentiousness to call it a 'film'. What do you think? Am I way off base? Is this the 'cinematic' look you're after? It's waaaay more cinematic than your tack sharp home movies of adolescent Asian students. I guess some people just can't see the difference.? This is the video which convinced me to buy the BMPCC a few years ago. The performance footage just looked so organic and filmic. Especially when juxtaposed against the GH4 footage also used in the video. Each look has its uses and I'm not saying one is better than the other. But that particular filmic look is what I'm interested in You can't really look at this and say the BMPCC is not cinematic. P.S. Thank you Aaron for making it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 why are we comparing footage from a FHD camera released 5 years ago with a S16 size sensor to an upcoming camera that shoots 4K with brand new M4/3 size sensor, 4th generation color science and featuring dual native ISO? the only thing the original pocket & the upcoming pocket 4K share in common is the "pocket" moniker and even that is misleading imo. if anything the IQ will be closer to a GH5S without NR/Sharpening, and with BMDs Film/Log profile, color science & pro res / raw recording support. TwoScoops and Nikkor 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.