Leaderboard

...says the guy who goes by "user".

So far I have heard no mentioning of WB in combination with V-log …it has a huge influence and I actually suspect there is a bug related to WB an V-log causing the macro blocking artifacts. I did some tests with the following settings: WB 4000K and 4200K, Natural vs V-log, Shutterspeed 30, ND 1.2, Exposure 6400, everything in All-I 25fps 1080. Shots where 2 stops underexposed. I used V-log to custom (own brew) on the Vlog clips. As you hopefully can see in the picture, the noise pattern of the Natural clips is identical in both 4000K and 4200K. The only difference is the color. The noise patterns (macro-blocking) of the V-log clips are completely different for each Kelvin value. Only when you reach the top values (±9000 and up) the patterns become more identical. It is as if the WB adds ad-random posterization to V-Log clips as if the white balance is part of "V-log space". I do not know enough about WB and how it works or should work but to me this looks and feel like a bug. If it's not a bug …I would like to know how to set the WB because even Custom has a a different noise distribution each and every time you set one. The second picture shows this. Each of the four custom settings give different noise patterns, even though the conditions were the same at the time of creation. The two at the bottom look quite similar but that is luck. To be clear these are not four frames out of the same clip. The macro block islands change shape but stay where the are …and their position and number are completely random as far as I can tell. Hope someone can either confirm it's a bug or tell me how to use WB properly. Thanks.

Ive been asked quite a bit about what the 4K 305Mbps 4:2:2 C-Log looks like ungraded. Here are a few "Before and After Shots". I've spent maybe 10 seconds per clip on grading so its more to show the ungraded. But most of all its to also give a link to two random 4K and one HD Slowmo clips that you can download. Files: http://we.tl/b0zsUe2hxy

...I'll show myself out.

I believe that the jump from 8bit to 10bit is far more important than 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0. The bump to 4:2:2 increases the theoretical gain of picture information by 1,3x, whereas 10bit increases it by 64x more information. The A-B-C example that Emanuel posted doesn't prove the opposite for quite a few reasons: 1. When testing the impact of a certain change or setting you can only vary one factor to make assumptions regarding that setting. But as it has been pointed out it not only changed from 8bit 4:2:0 to 8bit 4:2:2, but the entire system that recorded the scene changed including the codec thats being used. thats a massive flaw in the test and therefore doesn't prove anything regarding 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2. 2. Better color subsampling only increases accuracy of chroma information meaning that a black and white picture looks identical in 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2. The ABC example still shows banding even when converted to black and white, meaning the banding isn't caused by the color subsampling. 3. if 4:2:0 were to blame for the banding in the picture then the 4:2:2 example would show the same kind of banding on the horizontal line of the vignette circle. why? well, because 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 have the exact same amount of information on any horizontal line of pixels. its only the vertical chroma resolution thats improved. Quite opposite to Emanuels opinion I think people are way to focused on 4:2:2. Its really just a leftover from interlaced footage times that only increases new picture information by a tiny bit. if something bothers you about 4:2:0 it should also bother you while looking at horizontal lines from 4:2:2 footage as it has the same chroma resolution. 10bit on the other hand is HUGE. companies went from 10bit raw to 12bit raw to 14bit raw and its still going. Now, in my personal opinion we have reached what makes sense in that matter and everything above is just marketing, but since 8bit is the lowest amount of color we need to not see any banding, it makes A LOT of sense to go at least one step higher to have a little bit of room for grading. 8bit only accounts for 0,02% of all the color that 12bit includes and if people don't even think thats enough, we might see a bunch of reasons to upgrade to 10bit.

Argh. F**king Canon. Now I want one. I just did a quick grade of your footage and the image is just great. I'd happily replace my BMPCC for one of these I think. Just that lens though ...

If it would be a Eos-m mount their could be plenty of options. An evf would have been a dealbreaker for me. I much rather have the loupe which gives me pretty much a huge evf. If they would have put one in it probably would have been the dreadful one from the xa20, c100 and xf100. And the one from the c100ii would probably compromise size and price.

I always give Mattias a thumbs up on his vids but on this one I didn't vote as I think those who argue there might be a danger with some vintage lenses are more likely to be correct. Still, I did laugh at the scientific chart Mattias included, so thanks for that, and I don't think he deserves to be attacked for the vid- I disagree with him about a vid, it's not the end of the world. I wish everyone would chill out and dial down the outrage.

Best results come by using it on individual clips, sometimes adjusting blur amount to avoid ugly artifacts. Generally though, it is an easy way to get motion blur back into high shutter footage. I often shoot handheld DSLR with higher shutter on purpose, so that Warp stabilizer has crisp frames to work from - giving better/ smoother results. Then I run a pass on each clip with the Reelsmart motion blur effect to get the 1/50th motion blur back. Works very well, worth the extra time if you need everything to look as good as it can.

A number "5" on its front.

Hello all, Tito has kindly allowed me to do some streamlining of the Lens-yclopedia database: I have templatized all the entries so key information is in the same location when you cycle through the pages.The template improves overall readability of the information.I've broken up Mounting Solutions into To Filter, To Taking Lens, and Lens SupportI’ve changed the Index to a spreadsheet that provides key stats for easy ‘comparison shopping’I’ve removed a couple lens entries that had no (or next to no) information.I've added a few bits of info on various lenses as I went through, particularly links to example footage.I’ve made significant updates to the B&H and B&L entries based on the info I gathered from EOSHD, as well as other locations. I'll keep adding to them as I embark on modding/using my lenses.Check out the updated Lens-yclopedia here. A great big huge thanks to Tito for allowing me to build on his great work. And to all the folks who have responded to my info-seeking posts. The information people have provided here has been invaluable for a newcomer like me. I was surprised at how much info I was able to find on the B&L, I cited sources in the Lens-yclopedia entry where I could - I would love to see all entries given source/reference links. I know people’s time is limited, but even just a morsel of info here & there would really help re-invigorate the database and make it more robust. A little crowd-sourcing can go a long way! I am considering periodically starting ‘Seeking Info About X Lens” threads to build up the other lens entries in the Lens-cyclopedia. If this is something you would like to see (or help me with), please chime in. If you want to send info my way (corrections, answers to red question marks, Lens-yclopedia functionality, etc), I will find time to update the database appropriately. Cheers, |. . | .|

Here is V-Log L at 8 bit, captured internally. And here it is at 10 bit, captured externally. These are 1:1 extractions from the 4k frame. Wrote more on the subject here... http://zakforsman.com/a-dynamic-range-and-tonality-comparison-of-v-log-l-on-the-gh4/

Rented a Dog Schidt Optiks FF58 this weekend, and I wanted to see how shooting with its oval aperture (f/3.5) would go on a GH4. With V-Log L in the mix I'm happy to say I'm sold. Depending on lighting conditions I had ISO anywhere from 400 to 1600. Also rolled on ISO 3200 for one shot to see who it would look -- it's the XCU of a parking meter with prominent oval bokeh at 1:47. In my opinion, shooting at (-2, -5) external 10 bit is essential for keeping the noise tight and fine and as grain-like as possible. I might drop to -3 Sharpness from now on but the difference would be subtle. And pushing NR above -5 would start turning it into mush. No grading here. Just V709 + an Impulz Kodak Generic Rec709 LUT.

VLog L converted with Cineon LOG to Linear LUT. A mixture of 4K 24p and HD 96fps. Things I'm loving about VLogL: Dynamic Range, and Color Things that aren't so great: Banding, and noise. I'm hoping that using an external recorder at 10 bit 4:2:2 will help with the latter.

-internal super clean 10bit ALL I 1080p, with a perfect downscale from 4K like the Sony A7s, all that in 24 to 60p -internal 10 bit 4K -VLOG -super clean 1080 120fps 8bit slowmo - 2000 USD -small battery grip like HDMI recorder with XLRs and HDMI connectivity for external monitors for around 800 USD no supernatural feats, just great possible features:)

Probably it's a mixture of both.

Cool, I hope you find the information you're looking for! This got me thinking I should clarify everyone's expectations so there's no confusion later on: In the future I *may* start more lens threads and add Lens-yclopedia info on anamorphics I own or are otherwise interested in. I am *not* offering to sift through other people's threads and collate the lens information for them. What I *am* offering is to add any lens info to the database provided 1) that lens info is sent to me and 2) that lens info is labeled according to the fields in the template, so I know where to place it: Lens NameManufacturerAlso Known AsAnamorphic StretchWeightLengthFront Element SizeFilter Thread SizeRear Element SizeRear Thread SizeYears ProducedFocus MethodMin. Focus DistanceTaking Lens Minimum Focal LengthFull FrameASP-CMicro Four ThirdsProsConsMounting SolutionsTo FilterTo Taking LensLens SupportObservations & Empirical DataGallery PhotosScreen Caps / Links to Footage CHeers, |. . | .|

Hot pixel issue has been fixed in Firmware 1.1 - see my comparison pictures between 1.0 and 1.1 Light is very different because the firmware update took like 30mins or so and it went completely dark by that time. So Version 1.0 had more light and F6.3... with firmware 1.1 I set it to F3.5 just because it was much darker. ISO was set to 100 and I pushed the image +5 stops in lightroom. If anyone wants the RAW files... I can upload them.

A better way to phrase would be "Canon level color or better" (Canon, Nikon, ARRI, etc.). I've found that even well-colored/corrected FS700/A7S footage still can't look as good as 5D3 RAW (even H.264), etc. For stills (skintones), the A7S isn't even considered. Again, the A7S shooting raw stills can look good, however the 5D3 will look better in the same conditions. For run & gun, the A7S is a much better video camera than the 5D3 (especially if shooting RAW video), however if color image quality is the most important factor, especially for people and skintones, the 5D3 is a better choice. As you noted the C100 looks better even after correcting the RX10ii. If you showed a client, without telling them which is which, could they tell the difference? I've done tests where I didn't tell the client which was which, and they strongly preferred the Canon over the Sony. While in this case they may not demand Canon-level color, when given a choice they prefer the better color provided by Canon level cameras or similar/better (Nikon, ARRI, BM, Red Dragon (see Narcos on Netflix), etc.). Sony can do excellent color (F35, F65 (See Lucy, Oblivion)) however they are holding back on the lower end camera. While the FS5/FS7 are much lower cost vs. the C300.2, time is money- how many hours of extra work equates to the extra $8K for the C300.2? Factoring in the Sony's won't ever look as good as the Canon (until or if Sony ups the color quality), the C300.2 makes sense for professional work. Factoring in Sony's slow and buggy UI's and usability issues and the C300.2 looks even better.

Very very nice work! Thanks a lot, it's a treasure for all of us anamorphic diggers! By the way, I have two questions if you don't mind: - did you remove Elmoscope II from database? - it looks like you think there's an optical difference between Kowa 8-z/16H & Kowa Bell & Howell. But they are both Prominar labelled. Is this "B&H quality control" a web legend or not? I mean Kowa is Kowa, japanese handmade excellence (still today). I really try to understand this price difference. For me they optically look same, don't they? Thanks!

Slashcam has discovered that the Arri Log C to REC709 LUT curve is nearly identical to V Log. I've tried it briefly and it does look to be the best fit so far.

I didn't here but typically I add a little sharpening. just enough that I can see a difference and then i back it off a touch. i've used neat video in the past for NR but lately i've been enjoying the finer, more grainlike noise you get when capturing in 10 bit. so yes and no. depends on my mood.

It's very sturdy, the top edge of the screen rests against the camera body when looking down. Very steady together with the ibis. Audio is really good. Adjusting it is done pretty quickly with the function stick. Or touch if not using the loupe. The good part is the amps, it sounds great. Where you would activate the +20 dB gain on the mic for DSLRs you don't on the XC10. Signal is still strong and clean. All the audio in this is from the XC10.

Sounds like you want an FS5

B&H modification plan: Remove front element from B&H front housingMake a partial cast of the front housing using RTV silicone rubberMake a black polyurethane cast from the RTV mold. Polyurethane is rated Shore D 75 (same rigidity & strength as a hard hat)Get a M52 helicoidMake a partial cast of the M52 helicoidMake a polyurethane cast of the helicoid from the RTV moldMeasure, file, and sand both polyurethane parts, bond them together to create new front housingAdd B&H front element to M52 helicoid using rubber o-rings, screw helicoid into new front housingScrew the final product into the B&H anamorphic housing. Pray that it works Steps 1, 2, and 4 are complete. Will attempt step 3 once the mold has set.

Natural Profile Contrast 0 Sharpness -5 NR - 5 Saturation -3 or -2 Tint 0 H/S default, no change

Pixel motion blur is a good suggestion to try too. Yes - Reelsmart can produce artifacts sometimes (usually at the start of a clip), I usually can eliminate these by keyframing the setting to 'ramp' on at the start of each clip. Most post-motion blur effects rely on motion analysis from your footage, not all footage will work first time, and may require tweaking in the effect control parameters. Often a lower than default setting is enough, just to take the edge off the super sharp shutter look. If used for a fast-pace action sequence, when viewed in context (fast cuts) - it often hides all but the biggest of warp artifacts from post motion blur shots.

Good topic. Been looking myself. I have using the Focus Module and my cheap FF is too weak to spin that giant ass lens. The Fotga DP500s looks like the best budget FF, but I came came across the Lensse FF. A hundred bucks more but looks nice. Here: http://www.lensse.com/lensse-s5-dual-follow-focus/ Don't know anyone who has tried this one. Would like to see some reviews or hear feed back.

You don't even answer questions, so there is no debate. Please stop spamming. I might start a Kickstarter for this.

This is killer. Great reference. Thank you!

If you have After Effects, try pixel motion blur. I've found it to be quite good, but be sure to bump up the frame count for good results. It is dog slow though, so you'll need to add that to your workflow time. The ReelSmart motion blur is really fast (especially when using graphics card), but produced strange artifacts, at least in my testing.

Hum... Probably shot on something like this:

I say it again, please stop. You need to read up on this because you are spreading false information as facts. And it has nothing to do with this thread. Just Stop.

You rock, man!

Please stop, you use some BS article as a source??? I have lived in America, I went to school there. I have lived for 30 years in Sweden, I was born here. I am a working journalist since 15 years, a real journalist, not some blogger. That Sweden has a greater extent of freedom of speech than the USA is a fact. You will have to give me way more than a link to one of the internets most notorious BS sites to prove me wrong. I suggest you just drop it because you are making a fool of your self. Also I want to know which Swedish broadcasters you have worked for.If you haven't worked for none, well that just means you have no authority to claim my statement was false. Also its off topic and you are merely spamming the thread. (BTW, Told two of my friends about your statements and they burst into laughter.)

Well that's why you have a legitimate password. And if you think you wont be able to pay you download all of your files and back them up some other way (which would probably cost significantly more than whatever the yearly fee is). I dunno, unless you're enemies with mr. Robot , I don't see it as a bigger risk than backing it up yourself.

now you can add A7S2 to the list, but from given choice i'd go with Ursa Mini, and not 4k, but 4,6k version, extra resolution is nice, but extra 3 stops of DR even more important, but, as always, budget has final say;

Blue ray is your best bet. 2.5" mechanical drives is the next best thing if you want to also save some space. Most thumb drives use very cheap materials so they are very prone to unrecoverable malfunction. *SSDs in this poster are SLC. The majority SSDs in the market are MLC/TLC which is much worse for the drive longevity

Since that drone MFT camera can do 4k raw i have a strong feeling that panasonic will fight back and probably bring that to their next GH-camera

But, for that, they shall run it in much higher bitrate... Upcoming post-focus feature will happen. And I hope for 4K/60p as same as DVX-200. S35 won't happen, I bet. But, have you used the speedbooster going with the GH series? You'll reach the same optically.

8-bit 4:2:2 and I would buy it. (I will buy pretty much the first DSLR/Mirrorless that does, maybe the 5Div)

$100?

Pretty! Any way to install VLog on the LX100 ? hehe

All three of them? The guy is obviously successful and very talented as a photographer (if a little pretentious) and I don't begrudge him his opinion, but I don't think he understands a lot about digital. He tells us not to complain about RAW compression with no adequate explanation, he claims he underexposes all his shots by up to one and a half stops (On digital? Why?), and he offers no insight into the sensor performance besides citing DXO. Also...a landscape photographer who hates using tripods? Weird. His statements about Nikon's PCE lenses being subpar makes no sense at all, considering they're among the best-performing lenses in the system. Yet he's impressed with the Sony Zeiss 24-70? Weird, weird, weird. The biggest problem is that besides not liking SLRs, I have no baseline for how this guy feels about other products and why, which makes it hard to contextualize his opinion. I realize I'm reviewing a review, so I'll just leave it at that.

How have you managed to fly under my very well evolved bastard detector radar for 196 posts?

You know what guys, either I am going mad or I am starting to see why Canon held off on significant improvements to video like 4K on their consumer DSLRs so far. If landscape photography with a long exposure suffered due to heat, Canon would lose half their customers.