Leaderboard

I can definitely understand what you're talking about - but that's not something I would at all class as "motion cadence", which to me implies a) regularity in frame exposure duration and b) regularity in frame exposure timing. Judder is a big factor here - the playback interpolation of frames during 24p -> 60p telecine pulldown to match most modern monitor refresh rates makes a far bigger difference in the viewer's perception. For instance, when shooting GH4 footage at 30p it will often be described by clients as more "cinematic" when in fact, they are discussing video shown on monitors versus what they see in projected 24p theatres. So, there's a big perception difference in frame rates, pulldown effects, and frame timing (which is provably inaccurate on some cameras at certain frame rates), all of which I would classify into perceived motion cadence issues. The "quantized in-frame capture" you mention on the other hand... that's odd. I'd noticed it before on some footage (can't remember which camera) and wrote it off to perhaps the lighting in the studio (60hz AC versus 23.97p) doing something a bit funky, but now that you mention it outdoors, I'll have to comb through the footage again. This said, I can't say that would make a significant difference in "motion" perception, although perhaps if it's randomized frame to frame instead of consistent it could lead to a flicker effect. But of course I've seen 35mm film in fast pans or fast cross-frame motion "flicker" too, thanks to our inherent perception of the motion differences versus blur in those large-delta situations, so it's entirely possible. Then again, I did a lot of my GH4 recording externally direct to ProRes... might make a difference. Edit: thinking about it: are you sure this isn't including telecine effects of frame interpolation? It sure as hell looks like it, some modern telecine implementations (in FCPX, for instance) frame blend instead of just blandly repeating...

IMO the motion difference has a lot to do with the recorded format. The BlackMagics, Alexa etc all shoot to intraframe formats. The GH4 is all interframe (IPB), except for the 200mbps 1080p mode, which is bitrate-starved for intraframe and thus is a little soft. I do use it a lot for high-motion stuff, though.

Apart from a global shutter I do not know of any cadence differences with respect to the GH4, so as long as it is real and not crackpot "filmic" science I would certainly want to learn about it.

Going to be a little more cautious with the GH5 than I was with the GH4. I took possession of two of those on day one and spent a year trying to wrestle that image into something it wasn't capable of -- and VLog was a massive disappointment. Have been much happier with the Blackmagic line -- especially with the more cinematic motion cadence of those cameras. Optimistic about the GH5 but again, taking a wait and see approach.

I've had good luck with: https://luts.iwltbap.com I just finished this doc and it's all NX1 with LUTS from the above.

Thanks for the support. If people don't agree with me on this, then I will at some point also cave in and do a run of big advertisements splashed on the site and regular sponsored articles. But if my readers say they're NOT fine with this, I won't. Simple as that. So speak up for the indies... not many advertising-free places left now on the internet. It wasn't supposed to be this way online.

Ciao! This is a music video I shot with GH4 and G7 (both with Natural profile, saturation -5, contrast -5). I shot it very quickly: two afternoon and an evening, one week between the 2 days of shooting and in that time I sold the GH4, so the second day of shooting was with the G7. I shot all handheld without shoulder rig except for a part of the indoor shot with the voodoo witch, where I used a tripod while she mix the potion. The drone scenes are shot on DJI Phantom 3 Professional (not mine, we called a pilot), which is a little too "digital" for my taste. I used Andrew's EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic and I'm really happy about the skin tones and the overall colors. I also used FilmConvert's Kodak Vision3 5207 with grain 20%. Thank you Andrew p.s.: can you spot which is the GH4 and which is the G7?

Well... some bad news, the source I got 29mm from seems to be a typo, it seems the flange is only 20mm, which is still more than M mount, but that is very little space for the adapter. It will definitely have vignetting, lots of it ^_^. Maybe not too bad at some focal lengths though, not sure on that. When I'm back home I'll check out the protocol as best I can, no need putting in any time until I do that. Maybe the chip won't even be working, the camera shop I got it from had nothing to try it out on. The NX-Ls have arrived ^_^. Unfortunately they came through Q-post on this end, but luckily my brother was still home and was able to pick them up for me, only made it by like two days as he is flying here tomorrow. I asked him to bring one with him so I'll get to use it on this vacation ^_^.

May the 4th be with you, Luke!

@Davey So, you BELIEVE that the guy sold his pro equipment and shoots now with the 80D? Sorry, when Canon states things like this, I have to laugh. We own over 60 (!) Canon major lenses, ALL Canon Cameras since 2001 (excepting the new 5D IV and 1DX II) and I love Canon. But this statement is bullshit and a sign, that this company is on the wrong way. That's why now we are changing (for stills) completely to Nikon, after 25 years + of Canon. Enough is enough...Vastly overpriced products, poor dynamic range and the ultraconservative attitude make Canon unbuyable for us. The 80D? A good camera for 2003. Simply 3 years too late and - excepting DPAF - no reason to buy at this price. And some morons state, they would sell exceptional cameras for filming with the 80D... Of course... :-))))

@mercer I think we're all in agreement that it exists, if in perception only. It may mean different things to different people. Personally, in the (admittedly unscientific) studies I've done on the subject, it's got to do with things like precise frame timing, proper frame exposure (there was a bug in the original C300 - not sure if it's still there, I haven't shot on that camera in a while - where footage shot as 24p would always have a 1/60 shutter speed, reducing motion blur from the expected 1/48 by enough that was noticeable - it made all the footage feel slightly less "smooth", for instance), and of course ensuring that playback was at a matching frame rate. For others, it's got more to do with colour, for others, bokeh or lack thereof, film grain or noise "feel", and the anamorphic effects, etc. etc. and of course any/all of these in combination. This subject has been beaten to death and we could still talk about it, but I think it really comes down to how you, personally, define it, and whether or not you can, in post, create that effect or if it's purely the result of the in-camera hardware and encoding. That said, I'd argue you could make stuff that very nearly everyone except a small percentage of other filmmakers finds entirely "cinematic" or "filmic" with nearly any decent video-capable camera these days, and that it's not as much of a hardware thing as people think. Can you do it on all cameras, straight off the card, in available light? Not easily, and certainly not with as much success. My personal perspective on the whole thing is that we've failed to carry forward actual cinema production technique and style and values. The importance of lighting and light modifiers. The use of colour for symbolism and message. The practice of motion. The importance of DOF (not low-DOF) and when/how to use it. Traditional framing versus unconventional. The language of editing. The incredible contributions of the art dept. (even if it's just one person) and wardrobe/makeup. Having a good colourist. To me, these contribute FAR FAR more to the feeling of "cinematic" or "filmic" than any of the gear you shoot with or what LUTs you slap on the footage, and my own eyes, in blind viewings, have held that up so far.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space. That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country. Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it. I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

@Huey, @fuzzynormal Let's keep this discussion focused on the GX85, there is actually a perfectly good topic to read on this specific lens in this specific case, even. Let's move this topic there, shall we? That said, I've just ordered a GX85, and am putting my GH4 up for sale. The main reason is that I need a compact, discreet camera more than I need a full video workhorse, and that I love the rangefinder format for the bulk of my personal work which is candids. However, I'm concerned that I may have bought too early. Is anyone anticipating a successor to this camera (in this format) for CES in January?

My first Shooting forum post! It's all Samsung NX1 (except for a couple of drone shots) with the Kinoseed bitrate hack (180mbs), using Andrew's Gamma DR profile. Lenses: Samsung 16-50 S, Rokinon 12mm and 85mm, plus some lensbaby. I used a couple LUTS by luts.iwltbap.com and FilmConvert in post. Filmed in 4K converted to ProRes for editing in Premiere. Yes, I know Premiere supports H.265, but I've had nothing but problems with H.265 files since the last update. Exported to 1080. What's it about? What do you call a ghost town that still has people living there? This documentary is a peek into the world of some folks that live in what others call a "ghost town." Haunted kewpie doll, boot fence, dream cowboys, custom caskets, and stories of healing are all there in the Dreamworld.

When I worked for them I had my suspicions they would try and suppress the strident tone of my reviews when it came to Canon's shortcomings in video. Now it's plain for all to see what is going on there - https://***URL removed***/articles/9717214609/filmmaker-scott-dw-trades-his-pro-video-gear-for-canon-eos-80d-watch-the-results I will be sure to get my fix of Canon PR marketing there from now on and of Ebrahim's latest forum frauds.

Can I just start by saying a massive thank you to Otto k for the work he has done on the NX500, Massive thanks also to vasile, you guys are so clever and talented. And well done to everyone looking at the different sections of code, interpreting them for us, and creating this hacking scene. Props to everyone who tests out the hacks and reports back. So .... Can we prioritise what we hope the guys will achive with the NX500 hacks. Maybe someone knows how to make a poll. I know this most probobly wont affect how the guys work, but it might be interesting to find out. Following it here and dpreview is riveting . I'm checking the forums all day, everyday. I'm hoping for ....... better slomo in 1080, and for vasile to make his announcment in due course.

Can't say for the G85, and I just got my GX85, but on a 4K camera I never shoot in 1080p unless I need slomo and in that case it's not a big deal if it's a little soft as the slo-mo I shoot (unless I'm renting a seriously capable rig) is going to be for dreamy stuff anyway. If you plan to work in 1080p, do yourself a huge favour, shoot in 4K and use something like EditReady to transcode to 1080p ProRes as part of your ingest step (possibly applying Andrew's excellent LUTs at the same time). You'll end up with roughly equivalent to 4:4:4 colour and the downsampling will increase sharpness and decrease noise by a lot. You get basically 4x oversampled 1080p (2x horizontal, 2x vertical) for your trouble, and not horribly greater file sizes.

Hi Luke, I've really enjoyed your music and color grading tutorials. Can you offer an opinion about the GH5 color science yet?

yes, a 180° shutter angle will maintain it relative to framerate. if you were dealing with shutter speed, on the otherhand, then you'd want to manually adjust it to match your framerate: 24fps and 1/48, 120fps and 1/240, and so on. of course you can divert from this for creative reasons.

Added it to the compatibility list. It should have been there in the first place but I forgot to add it. I went out and bought an LX100 again the other day as I am liking the results so much with the G85. LX100 is a little gem of a camera.

No, Premiere Pro interprets the information just fine. Many cameras do record out of range values for overhead. By the way Davinci Resolve will do the same with video levels. In Resolve you also would need to bring down the overhead values into legal. But Resolve does not have the 'Clamp Video Signal' so you have to look and see if there are out of range values. You could as an alternative force data levels in Resolve. I would recommend always to check for overhead when you are dealing with video levels. The values in the scopes are just scales superimposed on the data. If that confuses you I would recommend to only look at the percentage/IRE scale on the left. If you import multiple clips where some are video and others use full range Premiere correctly maps all of those onto the 0-100% scale. But out of range values (which obviously are not possible for full range) will be mapped outside of that range. Which means that levels outside the 0-100% range need to be brought into legal range.

Idk, I will probably get slammed for saying this, but I totally get the phrase "cinematic motion cadence" and "filmic." The problem is that those terms are rarely quantifiable, so some people hate the phrases. But when you look at footage from BM cameras or Mark iii with ML, etc... there is a certain rhythm to the movement or weight to the image that feels more cinematic and less video.

@Tim Sewell Very good description of the problem. "There's honor among thieves" - that's not a special DPReview problem...It's the problem of 90% of publishers. That's why I like the "affiliate links reviewers". Transparent claims and a mostly clear business concept: people liking their reviews and tipps, can help keeping the service free by buying items through affiliate links. The advertorials / paid editorials visualize the problem, that classical advertitzing is dead. People simply hate unsubstancial and unrealistic marketing bullshit. "Sponsored posts" is the last best hope of a completly sick marketing industry. Nothing wrong about making money: but please stop crying out incredible marketing buillshit. Just try to inform and not fool potential customers! BTW: Take a look at the users comments on YT. ZERO credibility for this Canon video post. Z E R O

Nice! Yeah same here..Premiere's lumetri has a hue/saturation curve that works great.

Still waiting for the promised Osmo going to couple to the X5S...

"I don't like movies because of the plot line."

My understanding is that it's a codec issue, but I'm far from an expert. I just know what i see. the GH4 handled it better than most low-cost cameras, but it still often rendered motion with a "doubling" or "tripling" of the fast-motion portions of the image in single frames. It was always easiest to spot on specular highlights on passing cars. Take a look at the car's grill in this image from a clip I shot many moons ago. You see how fast motion in this frame is rendered in three "steps", rather than one smooth motion? On the whole, this subtly nudges the perception of motion closer to a "video look" (for lack of a better term) when played back at speed. It's something that I don't see on the Alexa (the Mini specifically) or even the BMCC, BMPCC & BMMCC sensors when shooting in RAW. Certainly there are more important considerations than this when choosing a camera -- and many would say this is acceptable -- but given the choice, it's something I try to avoid.

So, I have been looking for a compact for a while now. Last year I tried the FZ300, and this year the RX100V. Both cool little cameras but not exactly what I was looking for. After reading Andrew's scathing review, and finding a pile of BH Gift Cards, I decided to give the FZ2500 a test run. This was shot with the 200mbps 1080p with cinelikeD profile using Noam Kroll's settings...

never owned a GH2 or 3. Had an AF100 prior to owning the pair of GH4s. Dont think I ever shot 1080p. Pretty much 4K exclusively. there's a few threads on this site (and others) that cover the topic in-depth if you'd like to learn about it.

"I no longer want to pander to the times."

Most sony raw files are supported (including the A7rii). Here is an older list form 2015: https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4630-supported-develop-raw-cameras/ Adobe's subscription scheme, the constant round-tripping between Lightroom & Photoshop for just using LUTs and the shitty performance during the last few versions will definitely force me to try out this program. Thanks for this.

The one on the right. no wait, it's the one on the left. no no wait, it's definitely the one on the... left.

For open source, there is always GIMP as well

How does this LUT handle videos with different levels? The highlight recovery is obviously done by digging super whites 235-255. What if the video is recorded with 16-235 and no super whites. Many Panasonic cameras records 16-255. What if the video file is 0-255? Is there some automatic level conversion?

There's another NX1 thread with links to ARourke's free LUTs that you should try as well as recommended picture settings. I really love the 1DX one that he did. I've also had great luck with the IWLTBAP ones.

Yachts: Too expensive! Jets: Too fancy! Jetpack: Too dangerous! Trip to Mars: Too exotic! Panasonic GH5: Just right!

Cary, I have to thank you for reminding me about this because I did actually forget about it. The easy way to fix the problem actually (in Premiere Pro anyway) is just to use the Fast Color Corrector and change the white OutPut Level frm 255 to 235. Before: After:

Hey Scott. This sums up quite well what I loved about DPReview's editorial and why I was so proud to be contributor for those years. I looked upon DPR as something of a leading light, the most respected review site for digital cameras, one of the first, and that's why I hold it to a higher standard than others. I care passionately enough about it to get upset and to shout about it when it goes wrong and I think it's in danger. DPR did go in-depth, especially on the technical side and still does. If the new advertising in the form of sponsored content also did this to the same standard, then the quality would remain and not hurt the brand as much but even then there's a problem, because it would only work as long as it was impartial, which advertising never is and never can be. Flick through an old fashion magazine from the 1970's and it is almost ALL advertising yet readers still bought it in droves.... you'll see a lot of high quality advertising, fantastic photos (David Bailey, Helmut Newton) and minimal words, minimal editorial pieces! I am not against advertising culture entirely or with zero tolerance of ads and I'm not a communist although I do live in Berlin The problem I have is that more and more the manufacturers seem to be the boss, the paymaster and the editors, if not directly then certainly in subliminally controlling ways like with the PR organised events and it is wrong that this appears to be our only choice as reviewers if we want to get our hands on new gear at the earliest opportunity. We join the hype train by doing this and we trade our credibility, or at least it looks that way for the readers. I am open for a civilised debate on what we can do in the industry to recover some integrity in what we do. There needs to be some collective action. So the PR companies and manufacturers are after our jobs Scott. And we are going to just let them take over on the content side? But their purpose, if sponsored, is to sell a camera. For me that is not the purpose of what we do. I hate this insidious influence. If we for example are to put out educational content for instance and it is paid for by Canon, then whichever manufacturer sponsors us the most or pays the most, the more content on that particular brand there will be, and there's yet another form of bias. Even if the content itself had zero bias, the money still control the agenda. It's our job to create excellent content that's worth watching, not Intel's. By taking their money, you are trading your position as a content creator with them and one day you will be without a job. Of course! I understand that and always have. That's because it's being traded in bit by bit. Your voice replaced by somebody else's. If it's only a 3% increase in ad revenue and you're owned by Amazon, why do it at all? Why take such a big risk with the brand for the sake of bowing to the manufacturers and 0.001% of their overall ad spend budget? Tell them to fuck off! Thanks for the message on here Scott, I do appreciate it. If I can ever mend my relationship with DPReview I would. I have friends there and the only bad words exchanged were with Barney and Simon Joinson. In the end the buck stops with them. If they are going to take the site in this direction, they know my opinion on how wrong this is and why it won't turn out the way they hoped. They have a responsibility as the senior figures to change tac. Their responsibility to the readers should come before their financial obligations to advertisers anyway, because without any readers there won't be any advertisers!

Fredrik, great test but there is a problem with your comparison. You are actually clipping the highlights in the GX85 scenes. The GX85 provides video levels but does use out of range values for overhead. So in your NLE or color grading application you need to bring the out of range values into legal to compare the shots. If you keep out of range values then a lot of setups will clip the highlights because they expand limited to full range. Here is the waveform before and after bringing the highlights into legal range. The 100% values on the left are from the titles but notice there is more highlight information above it. The right side has brought the highlights into legal range and obviously the titles are now too low. For indoor it is not really an issue but if you make a video outside in bright lights the out of range highlights contain valuable information that you should not discard.

There is a SpeedBooster for the M-Series. I have one and works like a charm: http://www.ebay.es/itm/EOS-EOSM-Focal-reducer-Auto-focus-adapter-EF-EFM-EF-to-EFM-EOS-to-EOSM-Booster/302171367352 Custom made in Korea EF to M. I'm attaching some sample pictures with a Canon 50mm 1.8. The pics of the buildings are taken with the normal adaptor and with the speed booster

So this is by no means a great comparison, it's a very quick one on a 5D3. Same WB, settings, etc. James Miller's is cooler and flatter IMO. Andrew's is warmer as a touch less flat in this situation. I need to dial these in and get more in depth on the 1DX mark ii but my quick thought it I like James Millers. Andrew's in first and James's second.

Use Wordpress and buy a theme which is almost exactly how you want it to be from Theme Forest. Only choose themes made in past year with at least 20 4.5 star overall reviews. Embedding videos is much easier and it will boost the video rankings on Vimeo or Youtube. Buy your domain name from internet.bs (avoid GoDaddy they will hammer you with unnecessary addons). Host it with Hostmonster if in US or Vidahost in UK. Cheapest package is fine. Actually the domain name may be free with the hosting. Use Tinypng to compress photos or the plugin SmushIt if you want to batch compress. There is also ImageOptim app on Macs for jpeg. Page speed is a big ranking factor for Google. Dont buy any spam links or it will get banned or penalised in Google. Join Google Analytics and Search Console to help get the pages indexed in Google, get advice and see visitor statistics. Join Google My Business Local if you want local clients or Brand if not. Make sure the category is right, then get a couple of reviews and it can be a short cut to the top with the Google Maps listings. This is my first post on here where I am an expert, usually feel like a noob.

Wish someone who worked in Samsung camera department would accidentally leak the developer tools

Hey Andrew, Great review! What makes you feel that the GH5 may ship early/January/before NAB 2017?

You are 100% right that even if the compromise is subtle, integrity is undermined. I can't say for sure what is motivating them - greed or just a business decision to survive? But it's tacky and actually not even so subtle in many ways... Plastering sponsored content into your blog roll feed is not subtle. Too right. I will NEVER turn this site into either of those just to take it to a mainstream audience. Nofilmschool is all clickbate. The headlines and the way it is presented, it's knocked up so quickly there and it's always somebody else's content they are selling their ads around. Cinema5D is a corporate platform and not representative of the passion enthusiasts have for making personal work and learning cameras. I have taken to watching Dave Dugdale on YouTube and The Camera Store TV for fun, the rest of it is just boring, DPReview included, sadly. It's a shame there are not more people putting good content out there.

Kino, I wouldn't need encryption as well. Rather I'd kill for the 4k cropped video option from nx500 to be implemented in nx1...any chance for this?

My buddy does have some good clients. One success story was when he invested a lot of unpaid private time in second-guessing the 'corporate identity' of the firm who made the announcement. He met the woman responsible for public relation with concepts ready to present. But he was wise enough to make her feel it were her ideas. They accepted his offer (reasonable, but not cheap) without batting an eye. The communication worked from the start (what's the right idiom? They were on the same wavelength?). He had thought out everything in advance, he could control the situation. The client came back several times despite cheaper competitors. If the client feels you are just some guy with a camera you will not be treated with respect. A successful professional must be a prostitute sometimes. The good ones make their sugar daddies think they love them.

mesmerizer off the scale good a very large beast. mr kish who designed it was a very clever optics man i think he realised early on why try to beat an old isco design. so he built his monster around early isco 54 and the very large isco inflights which would have been had for cheap from the retirement of the inflight film projection systems on dc9 and boeing 707. it is a great optic it is really a rehoused isco inflight or isco 54 without the 2 extra focus optics that have been copied so much in the last few years. work out your focus zone range dial onto mesmirizers scale critical focus on taking lens. the original design was mainly for tv show dream sequence commercials and many music videos of the 80s and 90s. sold to many big camera rental houses great for the warped bent anamorph spin effect or you can lock the rotaion down and use as a very fine quality anamorphic optic. i had a few one was 1.75 the other 2x one more modern coatings the other golden early 70s coatings. the one i still have looks like it uses the original isco focus helicoid system just put into a nice big metal jacket. because of the beyond heavy duty quality of the exterior jacket and the rental house buyers i would imagine this would of been a 8- 10 thousand dollar optic back in the day if it had the isco patented 2 extra focus optics making it single focus it would be going out on rental every day for big bucks. as it is now stiill very usable slightly radioactive as is a lot of the magic vintage oldtimer glass

I would have thought that you'd need a whole production crew, and a rather large budget to create something similar to the link you provided.

I agree with a previous poster in this thread that it should be a SECTION and not a single thread, all about lenses!