PannySVHS Posted June 18, 2023 Share Posted June 18, 2023 9 hours ago, gt3rs said: Yeah right S1 video AF for sports…. maybe instead of complaining about the thread you could post some of yours sports frame grabs 😉 Yeah right "yeah right S1 video AF for sports". Nor about posting about sports pictures. I posted my good deal of stuff. Posted photos and a test video this month. Maybe you post some cool video for a change instead of grabs all the time. I didnt write about "S1 video AF for sports", but about general use for photos pulled from video. So, "yeah right", 10bit 420 24Mpix is not too bad for amateur use or in a pinch. Nice examples of your cameras AF for sports. Professional work. I gave it a like. I posted some photos with my GX85 two days ago in another thread. No sports, no AF. 🙂 SRV1981 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt3rs Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 It depends on the scene, sometime it works well and sometime not but you can also get decent result by adding motion blur in post, here two example from this Saturday (8k RAW 60fps F2.8, 1/2000): motion blur in Resolve Btw you here you also see a bit the rolling shutter that at 15ms is not fast enough for pans to avoid making the pillars leaning... This from yesterday 4k 24fps 1/50 F2.8 you cannot really take a picture out. You can always try to add motion blur in post but you cannot remove it. This I filmed with the 180 rule as we did not care about taking photos out. kye, PannySVHS, SRV1981 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PannySVHS Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 Last shot looks like a Knights and Swords film from the 50ies in these dream day for night scenes. @gt3rs Motion blur give a good anticipation of the action. I bet it looks awesome in motion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt3rs Posted June 19, 2023 Share Posted June 19, 2023 A couple where the motion blur makes them more interesting. 24fps 1/50. kye, SRV1981 and Juank 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRV1981 Posted June 19, 2023 Author Share Posted June 19, 2023 The game of thrones vibe is great. I feel like they’re saying “let us gingerly touch tips” PannySVHS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markr041 Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 Shot from 8K 60P (N)RAW video frame. 1/125th second shutter, which is ok for video motion at this frame rate and enough speed for portraits (people micro move). "Developed" in DaVinci Resolve Studio. RAW video then gives the best of both worlds? SRV1981 and gt3rs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 The only difference raw would make is the ability to grade the image. The rest is the same. But this was why I was interested in the Nikon Z9 with it’s ability to shoot stills and shoot less storage heavy video, but when I needed both photo and video at the same time, shoot 8k raw for both. 6k 50/60p would do it for me however. I think… I need to rest later this year when I have the time. gt3rs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt3rs Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 4 hours ago, MrSMW said: The only difference raw would make is the ability to grade the image. The rest is the same. But this was why I was interested in the Nikon Z9 with it’s ability to shoot stills and shoot less storage heavy video, but when I needed both photo and video at the same time, shoot 8k raw for both. 6k 50/60p would do it for me however. I think… I need to rest later this year when I have the time. 4k imo is a bit the bar minimum as it gives you almost zero cropping space. I agree that 6k is probably the sweet spot with 8k giving you more possible tight composition and vertical reframe. RAW gives you a bit more flexibility mostly due to white balance but is not imo a key requirement as 10bit log you can definitely process more that .jpg. So 10bit is somewhere in between RAW and jpg... When I shoot 8k I always do it in RAW LT as is much faster to edit and scrub in Resolve that h265 4:2:2 10bit.... At events I take my gaming notebook and edit directly from the CFexpress... for the photo I show the frames to the athlete and I ask which he/she wants and then I edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 Yes, I have had some decent results from 4k, but limited in the ability to then crop (especially vertical stuff!) and to date, grade, but the latter is more because I was shooting profiles and not log. This year, I am about 70% 6k 30p plus 30% 4k 60p, mainly log, only switching to the Flat profile once it is dark or close to and next year I will ideally be 6k 50 or even 100p which is where I expect the next gen Lumix S1 line will go. If it’s 8k, then even greater scope for the stills but massive video storage issues… 6k I do think would work best for my needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyalinejim Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 43 minutes ago, gt3rs said: RAW gives you a bit more flexibility mostly due to white balance If you convert the log gamma to ACES CC gamma, which is straight, you can use a master color wheel or master offset control to make accurate changes to WB. Another (unrelated) interesting thing to note is that photos tend to be more contrasty than video. Historically, this is probably due to its intended output mediums: print versus TV screen. Even nowadays the default ACR/Lightroom curve is way contrastier than what most video people grade to. Worth bearing in mind for sending photos extracted from videos to a client. And for making prints. markr041, gt3rs and kye 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt3rs Posted June 21, 2023 Share Posted June 21, 2023 10 hours ago, hyalinejim said: Another (unrelated) interesting thing to note is that photos tend to be more contrasty than video. Historically, this is probably due to its intended output mediums: print versus TV screen. Even nowadays the default ACR/Lightroom curve is way contrastier than what most video people grade to. Worth bearing in mind for sending photos extracted from videos to a client. And for making prints. Indeed, I rarely use the same grade for video and photo, for the best photos I normally export 16bit tiffs from Resolve and edit in ACR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 8 hours ago, gt3rs said: Indeed, I rarely use the same grade for video and photo, for the best photos I normally export 16bit tiffs from Resolve and edit in ACR. Interesting… My interest is the other way and that is to have stills that look like they HAVE been pulled from a movie, ie, both should match. I really need to find a gig some time this year when I can try this, ie, not shoot a single still, but only video and with the intent of pulling the equivalent of an entire photoshoot from the resulting film. Anticipated problems: 1: I don’t have any pure video jobs booked. 2: Realistically, I am going to need to be shooting 6k or 8k 50/60p over-cranked shutter, unless the camera can do 6/8k 100p with audio and ideally open gate… 3: …because vertical crops. Vertical video from 6k or 8k is relatively straightforward if the consideration for shooting for it takes place, but vertical stills are a slightly different kettle of fish. If it’s ever going to become a reality for me, it would need to be as follows: A. Shoot the entire event with 2 bodies and 2 zoom lenses in 6k or 8k, min 50/60p, ideally 100, ideally open gate. B. Make film including finished grade. C. Pull stills and not re/grade as such, ie, the colour should remain the same, but tweak exposure. There’s a massive pro and a massive con. The pro is capture workflow, download and editing are streamlined from 2 processes to just a single one. The con is, although I would still be thinking like a photographer at the capture point, ie, considering with every single shot how the result will work also for photography (something I have been doing for 10+ years and for the last few, using the same tool, just in 2 different formats, video and stills) but no longer arguably working as a photographer. The former has huge appeal on many levels. The latter I am not entirely sure about but could probably not only live with, but embrace. Any future changes in kit will be purely regarding this possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 On 6/21/2023 at 12:57 PM, MrSMW said: The only difference raw would make is the ability to grade the image. The rest is the same. On the contrary - the vast majority of content on this forum is devoted to the idea that any non-RAW codec is inferior to a RAW one, otherwise when I shoot with any of my non-RAW cameras there wouldn't be any loss of image quality compared to RAW. RAW is special for still images for lots of reasons: The frame will have no compression artefacts The frame will have no processing artefacts (sharpening, temporal or spatial NR, etc) As well as being easier to colour This would matter a lot more for stills, as they're potentially printed and put on walls and looked at on a regular basis for years or even decades. Far less scrutiny is placed upon an individual frame from a movie or TV show! 22 hours ago, hyalinejim said: Even nowadays the default ACR/Lightroom curve is way contrastier than what most video people grade to. Do people even grade anymore? The modern Sony sensors have so much DR that most of YT looks like C-Log or V-Log from the days when cameras had 11-12 stops. The turning point for me was realising that things shot on film were super contrasty, and had clipped highlights and crushed blacks, so it wasn't mandatory to keep all the DR of the image if it didn't serve your purpose. Then when I started grading to have that level of contrast I worked out why people don't do it - it's hard to get a great looking image with that much contrast (and therefore saturation) without it looking cheap and digital. Now I don't even bother capturing that much DR unless it's for a specific scene, like a sunset etc. Which allowed me to go from a GH5 to the GX85 and shoot lower DR 8-bit 709 instead of 10-bit HLG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 22 hours ago, hyalinejim said: If you convert the log gamma to ACES CC gamma, which is straight, you can use a master color wheel or master offset control to make accurate changes to WB. Another (unrelated) interesting thing to note is that photos tend to be more contrasty than video. Historically, this is probably due to its intended output mediums: print versus TV screen. Even nowadays the default ACR/Lightroom curve is way contrastier than what most video people grade to. Worth bearing in mind for sending photos extracted from videos to a client. And for making prints. A YouTuber I follow appeared on a TV show and vlogged a bit of BTS content, and also got permission to share a bit of the finished content, so a rare YouTuber vs professional crew comparison moment occurred. I'll preface this by saying that the YouTuber makes great content about Japan and is a talented film-maker. She does have, however, the same approach to YouTube camera equipment as most, based around the old combo of Sony A7S3, DJI drone, GoPro, and the usual approach to colour grading etc: and the show was shot on Sony cinema cameras, so same / similar image pipeline as the below, from the TV show: I know which one looks nicer to my eye... The other difference I see is that images for cinema get graded a lot darker than social media. Cinema treats 50% IRE as where the highlights start, and social media colour grading thinks 50% IRE is where skin tones should be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyalinejim Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 39 minutes ago, kye said: thinks 50% IRE is where skin tones should be Caucasian skin is about one stop above middle grey. So it "should" be even higher! The dark & moody = cinematic/filmic thing is also another recent trend. 50 minutes ago, kye said: Then when I started grading to have that level of contrast I worked out why people don't do it - it's hard to get a great looking image with that much contrast With representations of film, the highlights are usually a lot softer relative to a typical contemporary digital curve with contrast added, and the shadows a lot harder. I find I get nice high contrast looks by copying the curves from a 35mm minilab film scanner. The shadows are very deep but the highlights go on for ever. This helps a lot when shooting people, as high contrast in the highlights is not nice for specular highlights on skin. kye 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 4 hours ago, kye said: On the contrary Not sure what you are disagreeing with here Kye… Raw simply has no baked in stuff to deal with so is the better starting point for those that have; the time, the skills, the storage etc, but otherwise all else is equal at the point of capture ie, exposure, choice of shutter speeds etc. Same for video, same for stills, raw vs Jpeg, one has more latitude than the other. Which I think is what you went on to say… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kye Posted June 23, 2023 Share Posted June 23, 2023 11 hours ago, MrSMW said: Not sure what you are disagreeing with here Kye… Raw simply has no baked in stuff to deal with so is the better starting point for those that have; the time, the skills, the storage etc, but otherwise all else is equal at the point of capture ie, exposure, choice of shutter speeds etc. Same for video, same for stills, raw vs Jpeg, one has more latitude than the other. Which I think is what you went on to say… RAW is uncompressed. By definition, anything that isn't RAW is compressed with a lossy compression. By definition, anything compressed with a lossy compression is lower quality than something than RAW. Therefore, RAW is superior in almost all aspects relating to image quality. Your comment: On 6/21/2023 at 12:57 PM, MrSMW said: The only difference raw would make is the ability to grade the image. The rest is the same. indicates that it's only the ability to colour grade it that is improved, not anything else. In the context of pulling stills out of video files, all image quality aspects are important and relevant, not just the colour grading aspects. Maybe you meant something else, but that's not what you said. markr041 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSMW Posted June 23, 2023 Share Posted June 23, 2023 Same word, same line, same page Kye. I maybe just didn’t express it as well as I might have! kye 1 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.