Leaderboard

Here is a movie done with the SLR Magic Anamorphot 50, a 1.33X anamorphic lens. All the details are subtitled in the movie, here are the material : SLR Magic Anamorphot 50, 1.33X anamorphic lens 1-On Sony A7 with Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 pancake lens 2-On Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Nikon E Serie 50mm f1.8 pancake lens and Lumix 20mm pancake lens Some of the shots done with the focal reducer TurboLens, a cheaper version of the SpeedBooster Some of the shot done with SLR Magic achromatic diopters (0.33X and 1.3X) and Tokina 0.5X diopter ND variable filter No color correction

jonpais thank you so much for the feedback and critique, I learned a ton from this shoot being a one man band. There's a million things I will do differently on the next one. inazuma the actors were actually friends of mine who have never acted before, just doing favors for me. I actually did shoot just about the entire film on the glidecam, good eye!! I'm in the process of a regrade right now and will upload for review. Thank you very much for your input! Thanks Guys!

awesome, thanks andrew! regarding Premiere: i just love it. not having to render anything in after effects because i can just drop the ae project in the premiere timeline is just a killer feature. i tried fcpx for a while, but i couldnt get used to it. and i think i never will as it seems to be for people who edit something from the left to the right. i on the other hand drop the footage in different places and fill the gaps that are left. with this workflow using fcpx feels like i have to workaround everything i do. i just cant wrap my mind around why i cant just import a second video layer and move the footage freely. i dont want to connect this clip to any other clip. its so weird to me...

Glenn, not unexpected to be frustrated with a user interface after 1 day of use.   I've been using Premiere for 10 years and it still has annoyances ;)   But you get used to it believe me... I like it...Straight forward and quick. It's FCPX I couldn't get my head around. Maybe I'll try again one day.

Just a simple test of the 96fps function of the GH4.

tell the guy who made this video to send it to nolans producers...im sure they will fire him at once!how dare he break the continuity rules of editing! below the batman franchise in dollars... http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Batman

The EOSHD Panasonic GH4 Shooter’s Guide is now available 8bit DSLR codecs get quite a lot of bashing for banding, and it is something we're well used too... A sky or a wall taking up half the shot with only 4 or 5 shades where there should be a silky smooth gradient with thousands of tiny steps in-between darker and slightly lighter areas of the image. However one of the first things I noticed with the Panasonic GH4 was that banding was greatly reduced and it looked like my 10bit Blackmagic footage, even though it was still an 8bit codec (internally with 4K). Why such a turn-around for an 8bit codec? It turns out the 4K mode on the GH4 holds the key to hiding this banding... yet it is something we can apply to all DSLRS... Here's how...   Read the full article here

Editor's note: While the GH4 guide takes pride of place on my home page I am using the forum as the regular EOSHD news-feed and blog-roll.   This YouTube story puts the Vimeo copyright stuff into a whole new light.   Apparently YouTube are launching a streaming music service to compete with Spotify. It's subscription based and ad-free, but the royalties Google want to pay to the musicians is miniscule. We're talking REALLY minuscule here, and Spotify is no angel. Radiohead took steps to withdraw their music from Spotify when they saw the fees. Google is a much larger, much more cash-rich company, yet their royalties for streaming are smaller than Spotify.   On the one hand YouTube has enormous traffic, so the stakes are high. Google with their business head are right to drive a hard bargain with the music industry on this... Especially because the platform is the number 1 promotional channel for the music industry.   Because of that, Billy Bragg has accused YouTube of trying to 'strong-arm' record labels into accepting extremely low royalties for the subscription fee music service... I.e. if you don't join the service, you won't be welcome to promote your artists.   I can see how it works two ways for the record labels, but the problem for them is that streaming long term is going to replace record sales.   How the hell are they supposed to make money?   All the free promotion in the world is useless if you have to sell everything for a pittance.   It gives you an idea perhaps of a potential strategy the music industry is using with Vimeo. Stung by YouTube's low streaming rates and a minuscule share of advertising revenue, they are holding a gun to the head of Vimeo in order to (I think) to drive a hard bargain when it comes to allowing their music to be streamed on Vimeo clips.   Already I feel safer uploading a non-commercial artistic video of my own to YouTube knowing that at least (in some minuscule way) the record label and artist are getting paid, via advertising. I don't like advertising on my videos but it's better than not being able to exercise artistic freedom in music selection and having Vimeo reject the video outright and not give a penny to the music industry for use of the song.   If YouTube can up their rates to the music industry, then the advertising revenue will go a long way to freeing up visual artists in terms of using the music...   The musician gets paid, the record label gets paid, both get exposure and the visual artist gets a career leg up and the video isn't compromised by lack of choice on the sound track.   Seems like a perfect deal to me...   Let's pressure Google into making it happen. I'm totally with the small record labels on this one.   Further reading: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27694353

DXOMark's lens ratings are flawed in my opinion because they depend on the megapixel count of the sensor.   Why introduce the sensor as a variable to your lens testing?   It doesn't make sense!

To summarize from the other thread: 8-bit monitors can't display 10-bit information without some form of effective dither Banding and blocking are especially noticeable due to the way the eye-brain system detects edges: Mach banding and other illusions: http://www.wikiradiography.com/page/Mach+bands+and+other+Optical+Illusions Noise or image texture from 4K material can be helpful in reducing banding/blocking for material after downsampling to 2K The resulting 2K material won't be the same as 10-bit capture from the sensor, however it can in some cases provide additional tonality for grading latitude In order for this to work, there must be sufficient noise or texture in the 4K material. Increasing ISO might help when shooting sky or other challenging material Adding noise in post can help reduce banding, ideally on the 4K material before downsampling. In the case where downsampling introduces aliasing, applying Gaussian blur before adding noise to the 4K material can help When the final 2K render has banding or blocking when rendered to 8-bit 420 for delivery, a small amount of noise can be added to provide effective dither to preserve tonality for 8-bit quantization It's not clear if NLEs already apply dithering for 32-bit float to 8-bit integer conversion. If not, a plugin could provide more optimal error diffusion dither to the 32-bit material which will survive 8-bit quantization. While Floyd-Steinberg is easy to code, it's not very fast. Newer CPU/GPU versions are much faster: http://web.iiit.ac.in/~ishan.misraug08/research/dithering/dithering.html Challenging areas such as sky can be selectively masked and dithered using tools such as Resolve (External Fill + Power Window)

Thanks Andy. I returned the metabones bmcc and nikon 35mm dx 1.8 and bought the Mitakon Lens Turbo speed booster and a used nikon 28mm ais 2.8. Looking forward to using this on our next video project in a couple weeks!

It is. I do this often.

Thanks to John for pointing me here, it is an interesting discussion. :) As one of the people who think that there is free tonal precision lunch to be had in 4K to 2K downscale and the one that wrote the ShutterAngle article linked on the previous page, I think the 8-bit display argument is a bit beside the point. The whole idea of shooting 4K for 2K (for me, at least) is in using a flat profile as s-log2 on the A7S. Then working it in post to the appropriate contrast. As my idea of a good looking image is generally inspired by film and includes strong fat mids and nice contrast, this means the source image is gonna take quite the beating before getting in the place I want it. And here is where the increased precision is going to help. To simplify it a bit: when you stretch an 8-bit image on an 8-bit display, you are effectively looking at a, say, 6-7-bit image on an 8-bit display, depending on how flat the source image is. That's why starting with more precision is helpful. Starting with 20-25 values in the mids (which is the case with 8-bit s-log2) is just not gonna handle it, when you are aiming at, say, 60-65 values there in delivery. Compression and dirty quantization to begin with surely affect the result and limit precison gains. But they don't entirely cancel them, and the better codec you use on the hdmi feed, the cleaner the downscale.

the only moment I use higher shutter speeds is when shooting slowmotion. a higher shutter speed helps in getting nice slowmotion footage. and if you're using twixtor or any other kind of interpolation, shooting higher shutter speeds will help the calculations and deliver a cleaner end result

jcs- Yes but, as per the title of this thread, people are confused at to whether or not you can convert 4k 8bit 4:2:0 to 2k 10bit 4:4:4 and get the grading and smoothness of detail that 10bit acquisition can give. They "want to get to the bottom of it", which I appreciate. By bringing up adding noise to reduce banding, algorithms for dither, the limitation of what we see with 8bit monitors (which makes it seem irrelevant for anyone to want anything higher than 8bit unless you're viewing on a 10bit monitor) and the fact that the chromatic channels don't add up to 10bit 4:4:4, although I don't doubt you mean well, you've helped to confuse the issue even more. Andrew is now posting an article on how to "cure banding", almost within minutes of learning that the technique exists. We should really just stay focused on the flaws in the bits to pixels = depth workflow. I think you understand it's fundamental flaw, that it does not represent the scene more accurately or improve stops that you can push before you see artifacts. Can we just agree that all the conversion from 4k to 2k does is anti-alias and shrink? Then the discussion about dithering algos and 8bit monitors can be an aside. I have my thoughts about all that but I don't want to get off topic.

I just looked at that video, and I have no idea what you are talking about. The reviewer said, "If I really had to compare it (the D4S) to the GH4, I would have to say they are so close, as to be basically equal." Michael

if you have 10bit per channel to convert to 8bit per channel, noise dithering is not the best algorithm, diffusion dithering is better the typical algorithm is Floyd–Steinberg - look at the difference with the noise or "random" algorithm it is day and night : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither vs

I am really enjoying this camera. Here's a test video I made. Sorry it's so short.

Fundamental, supplemental, totallymental...point is there are more than 2 ways to convey information in today's filmmaking.

Had a go with my newly aquired GH4 today. Took a short trip to local cemetery in bleeding harsh noon sunlight. Everything shot with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 Ai-s and ND. Shot in 4K and cropped to 2K in AE. Graded with a lut only. Used James Millers settings with minor adjustments. Aspect set to 1:2.40 for the infamous "movie/film-aspect ratio". Sorry for only still images taken from the edit. Have not been able to render out yet, but wanted to share what I consider a fantastic value-for-money camera. I think it captures wonderful images I can't wait to explore it more.

Here is some of my music, this is stuff I have put up that my friends wanted to hear but I have alot of other songs,