Leaderboard

That's one example. No sharpening nor noise reduction applied (-5 both). I never saw any GH5 footage without any sharpening applied in camera, lol. The only answer I got from these Panasonic marketing guys was like: "All the DOPs loved the sharpening"... WTF

No, the IR filter helps with the IR contamination (black turning red/brown) but for the moire you need the OLPF that Mattias mentioned. Seeing how the BMPCC has "only" exactly 1920x1080 pixel and a bayer-sensor should be downscaled slightly to get the real resolution, I'm just still on the fence. The BMCC is perfect in that regard due to the 2.5k sensor. The OLPF will further reduce the resolution a bit afaik, so you end up with something between 1080p and 720p in real image information... but then you have those amazing colors so who cares really?! I don't need slow motion (I always wanted it but I find no real use outside of tech demos and "food dropping into water" kind of gimmicks), I don't need 4k, I could live with speed-boosted ISO 800/1600. I think a problem is that the system just keeps to sum up. BMMCC (because I'd rather have the LP-E6 power solution and improved processing vs the BMPCC's screen) + SpeedBooster + OLPF is already over 2000€ (I'll ignore a field monitor because a lot of people probably have one already). You probably want one of those cute control grips people sell, there go another 200€. Add the cage to put everything together, another 100-200€. The system is not as cheap as it seems if you really want to use it as an A cam, so the BMMCC rigged out is actually more expensive than a F3 body used.That's why I'm one of the people who would love if the BMCC or BMPC4k would make a return in a better form factor (exchangeable batteries would have been a big win already). But yeah, I'm probably going to sell some stuff and buy one, even though I'm really spoiled by the Sony AF-C. But how many movies need wide aperture gimbal/steadicam shots?! Edit: on the other hand I'm having an eye on the GH5. Combined with Voigtländer MFT lenses it might have a nice image (compared to the clinical Panasonic zooms) and 10bit VLOG will maybe not be much worse than 10bit ProRes of the BMPCC (and clearly better than 8bit S-LOG3).

Well don't we really want to admit you can go out and buy a BMPCC, BMCC, shoot raw, and be happy with a Lot less hassle than shooting Film for normal stuff that is not a Hollywood Feature?

You're not wrong there. Utterly bland.

The challenge with *nix is there are so many flavors (versions). Ubuntu and relatives are perhaps the mostly popular right now... What we do as software developers is download the source code for tools/apps and build for the specific version of *nix that we are using (this too can be a pain and time burner). This is great for back-end server products but not front end user-facing products. This would not be possible for mass-market commercial software like Adobe. The other challenge is UI development tools on Linux are currently very weak. Just debugging code on Linux with an IDE is currently very very weak. XCode on OSX and Visual Studio on Windows are still light years ahead of anything on Linux (Microsoft has released Code for Linux, but mostly for webapp development (not C/C++ which is needed for native apps)). Working on Linux feels like working on a Model T vs. Porsche or Ferrari on OSX and Windows respectively (Windows still has the best developer tools, by far). C++ Builder used to run on Linux, however support was dropped: https://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder . This is an incredible cross-platform toolset for C++ development. They could bring it back to Linux if there was a market. The challenge with Linux is most desktop Linux users don't pay for anything, and want everything for free (and/or pirate software). Until or if major software vendors can work out a model that works for Linux users (can't be totally free), don't expect any major products to be ported to Linux. AutoDesk and Blackmagic do support Linux, however that's for very vertical market applications (renderfarms are a good use for Linux, and having many seats in a (e.g. one-off movie) production environment where the OS is free can make financial sense). I switch between OSX and Windows 10 frequently. Instead of dual-booting my 'old' 2010 12-core + GTX 980ti anymore, I built a brand new 10-core box (6950X) + GTX 1080 which I was going to make into a Hackintosh. After getting it running with Windows 10, I was so impressed with the superior font rendering, snappier GUI response, and ability to display a 4K desktop vs. OSX, as well as superior 4K editing performance and less crashes (really an NVidia driver issue- it is what it is), I dropped the idea of putting OSX on it. I use a special USB switch to switch keyboard and mouse input, and use the 2 4K Dell display's multiple inputs to switch between OSX and Windows 10 without having to reboot. Works really well in production. I still use MacBook Pros running OSX, however modern software such as vMIX (for live streaming with efficient GPU acceleration) only run on Windows (not really enough space on the internal SSD to run Bootcamp at this point. It is possible to install Bootcamp on an external drive with a bit of effort (easiest with Thunderbolt, a bit more work with USB3), see YouTube for some examples).

We're on the same page.

So if we focus on the art, the emotion of the combined 'lens filter', we can categorize looks so others can replicate themselves* and quit arguing about sensor size. I think Mattias' pics look cool, and if a MF->FF focal reducer plus cheap MF lenses can be used to recreate those looks, that's pretty neat- gives new love to neglected unused MF lenses * this was not meant as a cloning comment

35NAP 2-2 (mod) | Helios 44-2 F:2 | Sony A6300 (cine4, iso 640)

Hey, just sharing some images I took with my adapter and camera. These are shot with my A7s or A7rii + Pentax 645 Kipon Speed Booster + Contax 80mm f/2 (Modified) A7s A7rii A7rii A7rii

Usually I'd define it myself first, but I really want to leave it open to whatever anyone has to say. Maybe mainly I'm just seeing myself less and less interested in someday getting an Oscar. What makes, or would make, you feel accomplished and creatively satisfied?

You can now follow my friend's band (and long-time EOSHD collaborator, Herdwhite) on Patreon! Click here to follow the progress of the Berlin based group and pledge as little as $1 per month The ideal run & gun solution for music videos? Read the full post here

So I know that this thread was mainly a provocation based on the "how much better is the F35" discussion in another thread but I'd like to derail it to actually take up the original post's point. Everything looks amazing and/or shit at the same time. It is borderline impossible to judge color, resolution, etc and if you don't do broadcast/cinema, I start to wonder if there's any point to obsessing over image quality. Exhibit A to prove my point: I set up all my entertainment options together with my desktop system that I use for editing/grading/destroying footage and loaded up a video on Vimeo in 1080p at exactly the same point. It is the video "Portrait of Rome" by Of Two Lands which I think is a beautiful video, showing the quality of the BMPCC. Systems to play back were the following (to satisfy @sam): iPhone 6s iPad Pro 9.7" Lenovo Y700 with 15.6" IPS panel at 3840x2160 px via Nvidia GTX 960M Connected to my desktop computer via AMD Radeon R9 390: Dell U2711 with 27" IPS panel at 2560x1440 px, calibrated with Spyder Dell P2210 with 22" TFT panel at 1680x150 px, calibrated with Spyder (but useless as the panel is crap) Panasonic Viera TH-42PZ85E 42" plasma TV at 1920x1080px (that's normaly my preview monitor via BMD Intensity Pro 4k IO card) You can already see on the first view that color is different between all systems, so no matter how much effort you put into your color correction, it's completely random what your viewers will see. But what was also blatantly obvious in this quick and unscientific comparison, but not visible on the foto above, is that even the resolution and scaling of the 1080p video was all over the place. iPhone 6s -> probably streamed in 720p from the Vimeo app, but the screen is tiny so everything nice and sharp iPad -> looked good Lenovo laptop -> scaled great, which is no hard accomplishment from 1080p to 2160p, combined with the 15.6" screen size it was really sharp and nice Dell u2711 -> totally horrific. The video scaled in an ugly way, there was quite some pixelation. Total no go. Dell u2210 -> Doesn't scale really well but it's ok, as it downscales anyway. Can live with. Plasma TV -> I hear angels singing! Image is perfect, no scaling, everything smooth and soft. I'm not sure what I learn from this, as it kinda makes all my efforts to make my material look its best futile. My main screen is the U2711 and that one makes everything look bad, I feel like 1080p just doesn't scale well to QHD, considering that the material looked way sharper on the even bigger Plasma TV. It's somewhat better with really sharp & detailed 1080p material downscaled from UHD but still a big dip in quality. So how do you handle this? What are your thoughts about producing for the web with zero control what people will see?

I'm sure you've already read the thread. Bottom line: XC10 is a great camera in good light. You won't regret its purchase for daylight shooting and it feels great in the hand. For low light, try to stick to the wider end to keep ISO down as the image starts to fall apart from 1250 plus, especially if underexposed.

Does that not seem like several lifetimes ago?...the only thing getting worse here, is not the images from the camera, but the thread itself!...personally I decided after the 1st or 2nd video clip out of the camera, but am continuing to read the thread with morbid curiosity I suppose Also I think the reason Deakins or any other DPs are shooting at such high T stops is they have an entire film to get through...M4/3 is not a tiny sensor....it is almost S35...when you have to get between 1 to 2 minutes of USABLE footage in the can in a day of shooting...in the process of making a 2 1/2 hour film and it's your name on the slate as the DP, you make sure every day counts and you produce...for Cinematographers making a feature film with a $100,000 a day crew, the sweet spot is somewhere be T4 & T8...

Dealing with Video for stills is total pita unless you are shooting bursts anyway. Videos in general are a pain in the ass because you have to watch the whole thing to get the information you need, which takes a lot of time. Obviously it can be handy to have a Video to pull stills from, but stills are way more productive in the Long run, so it's not something that is going to dissapear

Point taken. Should have been more attentive. Trying to do too much at the same time. Neither looks particularly good...

I gotcha! For the record I love shooting 35 film and even recently bought a dedicated film scanner so my costs are essential the roll plus $3 for dev. But I understand tech will change as it does. We shall see what Nikon comes up with! Might suck might not but none of us can say for sure until they do something. Tbc.

I'd still rather have a Pocket or Micro before the GH5. Lovely colors with minimal post work needed to make it look cinematic, even with ProRes. I'd rather have the Micro than the Pocket, but I don't want a big rig for such a tiny camera. I can't believe someone hasn't produced some type of dummy battery or two sided battery that would place a small 3.5" monitor directly behind the micro and the camera and monitor power could be fed from the same source... or some way to adapt one of those small Canon hotshoe EVFs with an HDMI... or even one of those GoPro wrist monitors could be a cool solution as well.

I didn't mean that ALL the photos would be pulled from video files, I still have my analog equipment, nothing stops me from shoot film or super 8 cartridges (well, for the second, cost is a reason!). When I generalize (in general..) I mean the "masses", which is a more vague term than the people frequent this forum. Already people do that from their 4K footage, and our cameras have in built applications that do that. I read that Japanese TV wants to broadcast 20K image in the Tokyo Olympics (they broadcasted 8K in specialized booths in the previous ones), I can imagine all the iPhone crowd choosing their best poses out of a few seconds of 20K images, I can see dedicated apps "choosing the best out of ALL your incredible moments" and the rest.

Sweden is a great place for camera nerds in the summer when the sun never sets and the golden hour lats for ever. The winter is of course the opposite. So when I come home from work I can usually see a sunset but then its lowlight photo or no light photo. But I can at least take indoor shots to test my second Mamiya 80mm f1.9 that arrived today. We have a service here where one can return items for a full refund within 24h when buying used stuff from regular people online. So light or no light, I needed to test it. The lens was in great shape. Its of course bigger than a f2.8 version but with the adapter its never gonna be a pancake anyway. Both shots are f1.9 because.. you know... it can. That of course means not the maximum amount of sharpness. But I still really like the detail without looking "too digital" if you know what I mean. I like how when zooming in I can see that GP had a hair stuck in her mouth that goes in and out of focus on its way down to the bed spread.

Just earlier today I read a bit on Roger Deakins forum where people asked him about preferred lens choices. His answer was spherical lenses, as free from aberrations as possible (shall we say clinical?), shooting around f/8 in daylight. So you could shoot that kit zoom and even stop down. The problem is: most of those teaser videos (plus probably most things we here on this forum produce) have no set design and no sophisticated color grading fitting to the topic/mood and especially basically 0 content. This doesn't add any value to this discussion but lately I have a bit of a disinterest in the discussions here because, as people already mentioned here over the recent time, we will never be happy with the technology. But it's because we want to use superior technology to help with certain lack in our skills. 9 out of 10 people on this forum don't need any new gear but better cinematography / set design / production / post-production skills. I'm one of them. Shoot me.

Man, 3 topics for the same lens? You had a 54 now you got another and hm well why not put 3 grand on the top and dump it on EOSHD? Makes sense, one thread for each thousand in profit.

This is fantastic work - some great looking images. How difficult is it to work with? Would love to try this out on some narrative projects. Are you selling these?

@Axel Yes and no. It would of course make the monitor unnecessary for most applications. But then the monitor can use a sun shade (you will always struggle to see the camera screen in really sunny environments), has custom LUT preview, custom aspect ratio markers, false color, etc. so I would still find use for it. After all you can use the monitor also when on a shoulder rig or tripod, plus it has a full HD screen so it helps with manual focus. And yes, it's the SmallHD 501. Bought it when it was on sale for like 600$ at B&H.

Yup, pre launch and promotional footage is always very contrasty and straight from camera. And every time its forgotten and people say "To video" and "Crushed Blacks". Every time, for every new camera, forever.

Thanks, mercer, this is a very good trick for ETTR, better than using zebra. If it comes to skin tones, the best method for checking exposure would be false colors. One should check if a monitor has this feature.

You'll get more traction on FB if you upload directly there. However, since you can't currently monetize on FB, it will have to be for publicity only. I would recommend posting the full videos to YouTube and then post teasers, bts or highlights to Facebook. Facebook did just recently introduce mid-roll ads on videos and is starting to expand their revenue share ad program, but I think it's still a long time before independent producers will have access to that program.

I think it's best you ask around in the music circles where most of their exposure comes from. Any musicians here as well?

The way I saw Driftwood's piece was someone who is leaving somewhere special and looking at what he's leaving, on the other hand after a second and third look I wondered if it was a man who wants to embrace and live in this beautiful piece of the world. may be I'll give it another look tomorrow and decide what it is he's telling from my perspective. I reckon he's much more than just Driftwood the hacker and camera geek. btw, do you analyze all you see shot by shot, 'cause I don't, as I beleive substance will always win in the end. I don't think I'll stay up all night grabbing screen shoots Jon, so you win in that department mate, but I do look forward to your screen shots and analysis.

@Ken Ross I liked it. composition, exposure, the geometry of landscape, and the music. Driftwood is the complete package when it comes to telling a story.

I'm not sure the video supports the writing here. There's not much movement to show the virtues of the in camera stabilisation. It'a a long low wide shot with a few cutaways inserted. There is a colour difference between camera angles (magenta vs green). At times the focus is significantly off. I don't see the image quality described at all. Sorry.

Man, I love this site- I got talked out of getting the E-M1 II after reading Andrew's review of the Panny G80, where he talked about how the Olympus wasn't worth the money compared to this alternative. Now fast forward a month and Andrew has actually gotten his hands on the Olympus and now it's totally worth it. Can we hold our future judgements on specific cameras until we've actually had a chance to use them? Doesnt really matter, I couldn't have afforded the E-M1 II anyways.

Creating something that I'll enjoy watching in 10 or 20 years time and be glad I took the time and effort to make. The story will resonate internally from the outset, and the end product will get to the heart of a matter that feels important. Reaching a wider audience would be a bonus.

Oooh, good to know, thanks! I shot on the FS700 + Odyssey 7Q. And Mattais, I can't import the Raw directly into Resolve because I need to do greenscreen / motion tracking / rotoscoping / on most of my footage. I realize that I could do most of this stuff in Resolve as well, but I am much more comfortable with After Effects for stuff like this (I've also done the bulk of that work already).

Honestly, 16mm is really underrated. I'm working on a few Bolex 16mm/Super 16mm projects right now. I have been getting 4K scans and I am super happy with the results. You get the color everyone wants but you also get the character of the film stock and lenses of that era. Really been loving the Kern 18-100. The first few frames are with the Kern zoom. I'll post up the projects when they get done. I really love the F3 and C300ii but cannot stand the FS700. There's a lot of green in washington state, and the FS700 just doesn't render green right. Canon nails it. F3 nails it. Film obviously does as well.

Interesting that you say this, because I am the exact opposite. Not to say that you are wrong by any means. What you are saying makes sense. But I think that's why I'm a bit enthused by the GH5, and a lot of new offerings in it's range, for that matter. It feels like having quality, accurate, true to life footage has been achieved. The GH4 and many others already do a decent job of that. I long for something that looks a little different, stands out, even if it's not necessarily accurate. In fact, I'd prefer it to look a little surreal. I think that's why I gravitate towards the digital bolex and the blackmagic stuff. It has a unique look compared to the many Canon/Sony/Panasonic offerings.

Character/rendering are entirely separate issues from photographic basics like DOF and perspective. Certainly, if you like the character then there's nothing wrong with that. Heck, if you find that using an 80mm lens with both a 1.4x teleconverter and 0.7x focal reducer (in series!) to get back to 80mm but with some funky aberrations gives you the results you want then you should certainly do it. My only real objection is with pseudo-explanations - basically "fake physics" - that cross the line into mysticism. Mini correction: techically, aberrations can and do influence DOF.

What did you shoot on? Can't speak for other cameras, but for Magic Lantern Canon footage ACR has the edge on Resolve in terms of colour, noise reduction and highlight reconstruction. I've found Cinelog to be a great solution for an ACR to AE workflow, retaining all tonal information in a log format. It's available for a range of cameras. To get back in to ACR in AE, select clip in project panel > Interpret Footage (ctrl alt G) > More Options

The main issue is that with XC15 you still have the same ghosting like with the XC10, but there are some XC15 which do not have this issue, if you can go to the store and test several cameras and find out one without ghosting you made it big time!!!!…..but if that is not the case, and you still can live with the ghosting in your shooting stile, I strongly suggest you to pick up a second hand XC10 which now are going very cheap….

If it's the same screen dimming as the A6300, it works okish on cloudy days but if it's sunny (imagine on a tropical beach, in the desert, etc.) it's invsible. You'll want to use the EVF then or a screen loupe. About the cage, just keep in mind that you will probably not be able to balance the camera with the native lenses (16-50mm kit, 35mm 1.8, etc) on a gimbal if you put it in a cage. At least I can't get the A6300 in SmallRig cage balanced on the Zhiyun Crane. By the way, the A6500 is supposed to show the overheating warning but not shut down like the A6300. That's how I use it, just waiting on my UltraThin HDMI cable at the moment: I have quick release plates on the camera and the crane so they can quickly go on my mini-tripod or tripod with fluid head. I also use some small quick releases specific for accessories so I can swap the arm with the monitor between the crane and my shoulder brace.

I second that. Although I can only speak for the GX80, the colors look WAY better with -2/3 exposure. One should not take the camera's LCD to judge exposure, it looks quite dark, but on the computer much better and there is plenty of room to lift the mids if needed. I think from now on I will always shoot with -2/3 except in low light.

Of course results are what count. My 2 cents: just don't get caught up in a possibly expensive quest for medium format glass assuming there is a super different, unique, mythical look to be achieved. (Not to say that hunting down and using vintage glass is a blast!). Understanding equivalence can help one understand what results can be expected from any combination of sensor size and lens. Yes, there are unique combo's at the extremes of the range (no m43 equivalent lens for a 50mm f1.0 on full frame). But in general: for the most frequently used focal lengths, you can find equivalent lenses for the current different sensor sizes, thus yielding (close to) identical optical results.

They're absolutely still worth it, as cropping just sucks! It's not the same thing at all, as you'll never be able to replicate the creamy out of focus qualities of an anamorphic. Also, the great thing about them is that they really do/can minimise the video feel of some cameras. What i really like about adaptors is that you're not beholden to one look, you can change the taking lens & by doing so alter the look/feel of the image. So, if you want different scenes in your piece to have a distinct & different feel to them, you can. However, if you're a modern clinical sharpness enthusiast, who doesn't appreciate/understand the various different types of flares or image distortions then stay away from them - as they'll drive you crazy!

THE MASTER COPY! This is printed on B9Creator DLP 3D printer.

f1.2 lenses (and faster) are already available for MFT and probably better corrected than half a ton of glass.

Yeah monitoring rec709 helps a little, the screen is still faded but between that and focus peaking, which works great with the a6500, it is doable. And yes, the metal from the cage works as a heat sink. I didn't have any issues with Wasabi Brand batteries, but I only used the camera a few times, so I concede to Oliver's suggestion. With the IBIS, I found using a neck strap, keeping my elbows at my sides and pulling the strap taut helped. As Oliver said earlier, subtle slow movements are your friend... any quick pans or jerks and RS jello will invade the shot. Also, experiment with the sLog2 settings but don't obsess over them. A minor tweak here or there won't make much of a difference. In the end, with my RX10ii, I ended up using a combination of GeoffCB's GFilm and Flaat for the a7s... http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-a7s/download.html sLog3 is awesome but I almost recommend not even bother trying it because once you do you'll be chasing those 14 stops of DR and just end up in banding hell on half of your shots... but the ones that don't have any banding will look amazing. Also cine2 profile is your friend if you don't want to correct and grade sLog2... in fact a lot of people suggest using it over sLog due to the potential artifacts using sLog with an 8 bit codec. With a light hand in post, you shouldn't have too many issues with sLog... but overexpose by 1.3 or 1.7 stops, depending upon your light for best results. The a6500 has the ability to use auto ISO with manual lenses. You can set a minimum and maximum ISO... I used 800 and 1600, or sometimes 800 and 800. The cool part is now, even with manual lenses, in manual mode, you can use exposure compensation to set your +1.7 stops. If you don't have enough light, or too much, the meter will blink. It makes the camera's meter act as if you were shooting in Shutter Priority mode. Then if you're using a variable ND filter, you can adjust accordingly until the blinking stops.

I am sure the GH5 will not be all we hope for. Not going to be that much different than a pumped up GH4. But unless most of us win the Lotto I would say it will have as good as specs as most people could ever afford. It will be as up to date as any camera for less than 5000 bucks used that I can think of. James Miller is sure showing it can produce some damn nice output if you have the skill. The specs are just about impossible to turn down,

I am playing the waiting game, a C100markIII must be imminent, is the only non 4K C camera, even they replaced the XC10 with a newer model! The important thing is what features they will include to that camera (I just hope for some kind of 120/100 frames) and if the HDMI-out is 10 bit (probably not). ..and the dough.. Whoever has used a C100markII for more than a week, knows what we are talking about.

On my youtube you will find that I have had an A7 before and made a very positive review. You will also see that I bought the A7ii, A7sii, a6000, a6300, rx100, rx100ii, rx100iv and a Z3. Not exactly a hater imo Its just that Sony does alot of things that makes me question them. And I speak my mind about it.

Test shots from 35NAP 2-2 | Helios 44-2 F:2 | Sony A6300