Leaderboard

Yes pity he can't time travel a month into the future to answer flawed test outcomes, which blame 10bit for compression artefacts. Must work harder Panasonic And give us 960fps 8K in a firmware update whilst you're at it. By the way my GH5 is pre-ordered and should arrive on the 20th March in the UK. So expect some decent coverage finally

Even crappy jpegs look decent pretty much straight from camera.

Well, the combination of an 80mm lens and a 0.7x focal reducer does have a focal length of 56mm. After all, focal reducers really do reduce focal length. You could prove this to yourself by measuring the separation of photographed stars or I could prove it to you in my lab using the nodal slide on my optical bench. And if you use that 56mm lens on FF (24x36mm) format, then *it is* a FF 56mm lens. In this case, the use of a focal reducer together with an 80mm lens is a perfectly valid way of designing and creating a true 56mm lens. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the only possible reason it will look different from any other 56mm lens will be due to lens/reducer aberrations and other flaws.

Sort of HDR on Steroids! That video was a waste of 2 minutes of my life. And I am running out of minutes!

Here's a basic formula: When possible, take away all the light and carefully add light tuned for the story and emotion of the scene. Look at how often everything is dark, or overall not very bright in classic films. Paint with light. There are tons of books on this subject. Shoot at night and wet down the street. Set the frame rate to 24 (or 23.976), shutter 1/48 (or 1/50). That's for normal shots, you can go all over the place for emotional effect of the scene. Protect highlights so they don't clip and pay careful attention to exposure to keep skin tones in the sweet spot for your camera. Study film behavior for highlights and adjust your look in post to match the highlight and color response of film. Film generally never gets super white. Use a diffusion filter of some kind. Blur a little in post if necessary and add full resolution film grain (blur may not be needed if diffusion is used). Make sure there are no digital artifacts such as aliasing or Moire. Use depth of field to help tell the story by helping the viewer focus on what's important in the scene. If your camera has rolling shutter, make sure to move the camera in a way to minimize it. Try to make the scene a little 'unreal', in a way you would not see in normal everyday life. Like in a dream.

Maybe because the masses who buy this camera will film everything - and I mean everything - at 4K60p for the first six months until the novelty wears off and the views die down. They will not care for bit rates or efficient codecs. Those who buy the GH5 as a production workhorse are in the tiniest of minorities and will likely only use its showcase feature very sparingly. Just as the YouTube viewing market was swamped with rats scurrying about at 4am in deserted cities when the a7s first came out, it will shortly be swamped with slow motion skateboard gimbal videos from the end of this month onwards. None of them will care for h.265, let alone Anna Morphic or whatever her name is. Panasonic need to make money and they do that via the masses and not the serious filmmakers, just as every company does that sells prosumer gear.

Could you guys continue your cocksword fighting elsewhere? This is a thread dedicated to the kipon speedbooster review by mattias.

First of all, you didn't even make the test so I could just tell you "No way" right there and then. But you are in luck, I'm not small minded. So here is a chance for you at the $100. Look at the test I made yesterday with the two pictures of the same flowers and identical settings apart from the "equivalent" lens. Convince me that my eyes are wrong and that one of the pictures isn't darker than the other. Do that and you have proven to me that the "equivalent" lens thing is at least slightly for real (there are still going to be plenty of things that separates a lens from another imo). I post new pics every day on my Instagram since getting the adapter and have uploaded a quick video test. Just sold my A7 five minutes ago so the next video will be after I have bought an A7s. It might be a while because as some of you may know, I pay very very little for my gear compared to retail and list prices. Sniffing out a deal sometimes takes a little time and dedication (plenty of more stills to come though)

You either have a bad memory or you didn't read the thread. The simulation wasn't created for you. Matthias denied what Timotheus wrote... He is talking about the math behind it. No you cant. Look at the Tony Northup frame I posted. It clearly proves that you can replicate the image from a large sensor in the way YOU earlier suggested. I tell you what. Take the three lenses and sensor sizes you listed in your first post. Take three photos from the same distance of the same subject. A person with a background similar to the example I posted. I will give you $100 it they turns out exactly the same. tweak likes this As you can read Matthias suggest it can't be done the way You Timotheus suggest. In other words the math is being denied. That's why the simulation was created as it removes the imperfection of the lenses. Meantime the math is no longer the point of discussion, or so it seems. Film is not reality. Even more so in this day and age, as there are more and more CG generated movies produced. A reality you will have to live with. @ Matthias, still waiting for the $100,-. btw I settle for a lens. ...and btw I dig this thread and the adapter results.

2M - this is not in real life. 35NAP family - 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-3M. 2-3, 2-3M bigger and heavier than 2-2, 2-4. Optic scheme the same, image look similar. 2-2, 2-4 looks a little sharper, but if good aligned lenses, all will be good. minimum focus distance, if not modded - 8-10 m. If modded, starts from 35-40 cm, but I recommend to shoot from 1m. to close focus - little squeeze. Also present 35NAP 1-1, but I didn't come across.

Why don't Panasonic release an h.265 option for encoding 10 bit 4K? 200-400mbps. Problem solved. I don't see why it should be exclusive to 6K anamorphic 8 bit. And on that note, why not 400mbps h.264 IPB?

For those of you struggling with the white balance setup, here's a super easy way of doing it. Since you can't adjust the Kelvin on Custom 1, 2, & 3 (for some stupid reason) on most Sony cameras, you have to point the camera at different light source and hope you nail the desired kelvin. Instead, open up a white background in photoshop. Ad a second layer and fill it with orange color. Then you just point the center of the camera on the the computer screen and dial the opacity of the orange layer to achieve the desired kelvin degree. If you want to go higher on the kelvin scale, just switch the orange layer to a blue layer and adjust the opacity accordingly to get the desired white balance //cheers

Yes. I'm writing this while procrastinating on a low-end-corporate-edit currently open in Premiere that has exactly that: GX85 and X-pro2. I like the x-pro2, but I don't like that it makes me color grade "backwards" from what I'm used to doing. I have to lift the blacks and bring down the whites. With my other cameras, it's the opposite. Not a big deal. Let's say I "push" up the x-pro footage and "pull" down the gx85 footage. This doesn't even take into account the vast differences of lenses used on either camera. The X-Pro2 was the Fuji f1.4-35mm and the f4-10-20mm. The GX85 was an old Canon FD f1.2-55mm on a speedbooster. And then also some other location shots done with the GX85 and an old Nikon f1.4-50mm on a speedbooster. Honestly, that's just a lot of variable. I would never really get this stuff to match perfectly, but I'm making the footage harmonize, not necessarily be "perfect." I'm not a perfectionist. I mean, I know what shots come from what cameras and I personally can see the nuances. But that's me. The client can't make the distinction, so therefore it's all close enough, for whatever that's worth.

Heard from Andrew and all is now solved. Have downloaded EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic. Now to start using it and see the results!

More pics and video please @Mattias Burling.

Neumann Films, how were the VF and LCD for manual focus in 4K? Were the clear enough for critical focus?

Mate, kickstart this project to a mass production!

@tupp the equivalence equations and test images don't claim to be pixel perfect, only a tool to set up cameras and lenses as equivalent as possible. You've looked at them all and proclaimed, "ha HA! The two images aren't perfect so it's invalid!", right? Then when shown pixel perfect computer simulations (which can in fact model any defect/transfer functions you'd like) you proclaimed, "simulations aren't reality so it's invalid!". I was providing information I thought would be helpful. If it doesn't work for you, no worries. If anyone can show that any specific lens has special properties only available for the format the lens was designed for, I look forward to seeing the results.

I am not making fun of anyone, we all are here to learn. If you don't give 2 shits, well we sure aren't going to debate, learn much being like that. No one on here that I know is rolling in the dough or they probably would not be on here if they were. I hope this forum is a learning experience, a place to see what others have tried, used, sold hated, liked. Even still have. There is no One camera. Even 60 million dollar films use Go Pros in them, BM cameras. They are throw away stuff for car chases, fire scenes etc. I want to see what works and what does not for people like us that we can afford... If you can get a Cine look out of a GH4 well show us how. Save us a shit pot full of cash. Looks damn good. Trailers are always a bit too choppy, scene cuts out the ass to judge footage with, but I do like it. Would have to see the normal footage. There is a reason we are now up to a GH5 coming out. The GH1 was a breakthrough camera and it has gotten better with every new version.

shot with a hacked gh2 and played in theaters across the united states

I want to see the Cadence, Raw look, great Codec, along with ten other things or more that is required to get a cinematic look that I don't see from GH4 videos. These things are baked into the better cameras. It does not take much effort at all to get it out of a Arri, Red, Panasonic Varicam, a Sony F55. That is why they cost a ton of money. They have a secret sauce of sorts. But I have to admit this James Miller guy seems to have done some good stuff with the GH5, but do we really think Panasonic is going to give us the same look as a $45,000.00 Varicam camera they make has? Do we really expect Sony to make a new Sony A7xxx that is as good as a Sony F5, F55 for 3000 bucks? Sure a few people can make it look pretty good, but not 40 grand great. Magic Lantern is done doing their thing. Canon has threatened to sue their ass. They were hurting their C700, C300 mkII turf, and Canon gimped the hell out of the 5D mkIV video wise, and it will be around for probably 3 years more. Imagine that. Now like I said many of the older cameras that have that ability we can now sort of afford to buy now. I am not saying you just turn them on and it works, but it sure as hell is easier than trying to get it fro a GH4. I have been in and out of this business a Long time. Peons like us have Never been able to get that look ever until the last few years. You could not do it with film cameras unless you father was Donald Trump. Because 8mm looks like shit next to 16mm, that looks like shit next to super16, that looks like shit next to 35mm, that looks like shit next to Anamorphic wide screen, that looks like shit to 70mm wide screen. You get my point. Bigger IS better. And you could not really afford used Digital Broadcast equipment either. You might, a big might, afford a used camera but hell you could not afford the decks, switchers,hell even the tapes, monitors, on and on. That is why I got out of it for 25 years. And you can't really make a good living working for TV stations. The reason I quit being a videographer. I made fairly good money but the hours suck big time. Most News people make damn near minimum wage. That is why you see the Weatherperson of the month on TV stations. Now if you are making Porn Films, who gives a crap how the film looks, it is how the woman looks. We are not talking about Porn Films I hope. Even a GH4 would be overkill for that. And people have not really bashed the Sony FS700 output, that have bashed its form factor more than anything. And when it was new all the Sony components to make it work were crazy expensive. they still are in a sense. But you can buy the Odyssey 7Q, not that this is cheap either. I am not telling anyone on here not to buy a GH4, GH5, Sony A7xxx. Hell they are unimaginable cameras 4, 5 years ago. Great cameras for the masses! Just don't expect them to look like a Sony F55 or a Arri Alexa on the big screen.

@tupp I know you say you're serious however I've been saying it's the optics, and only the optics for this entire thread (this a quote of what I wrote from your post quoting me): Are you even reading my posts lol? So now we're in agreement that it's not sensor size, great! Let's get on with debunking lenses designed for a certain sensor size format have special properties not present in lenses designed for other formats. You're going to need a large format camera vs. Super 16 in order to demonstrate the effect your propose is real? Why not use a cellphone vs. the World's Largest Camera? Yes I'm joking, to demonstrate the absurdity of all this There are no significant looks or special properties for lenses designed for a specific format either. With the lens somewhat close to the subject I suppose size could matter, however there are full frame lenses bigger than medium format lenses so that's not it. What is it about medium format lenses (or large format lenses) that make them produce a unique look only available to those lenses? Can you show us examples demonstrating these unique qualities? That also means strapping a focal reducer to a medium format lens captures these special properties and makes them available to a full frame sensor? Any examples to share? (swirly bokeh as shown in this thread is also available with full frame lenses). As with the sub-debate with @tupp, I've been saying it's the optics, and only the optics, for this entire thread. The debate was sensor size having an effect, or not. Now the debate has moved to lenses designed for a specific format have some kind of unique properties only available to those lenses. What are these special properties, and where is the proof supporting this claim?

Nice.

The DP's response would most likely be: "Perhaps it would be better if you shot this yourself..."

Yes. Except you miss the point again and again, which is a lens only works for it's intended image circle (and full look) on a certain size format... Thus if you like a lens that is designed for a FF format when used on FF, then it indeed has that "FF look" (as non-descriptive as that is). Your definitions are your definitions, whether you wish people used other terms or not is irrelevant, because they don't and is the reason you are in the perpetual argument now. (It's the same thing as me telling you that "look" is not the right word to describe equivalency, then you telling me that it is .)

Thanks, Flynn. Yes, I use bellows. Setup as always :-)

I think that guy in the video uses ML on his T3i so he is shooting raw... so he is kinda in the ballpark of BMPCC I guess... I cant knock him has build an over 500,000 sub youtube channel on the back on them... he took it even further on this next video he put it next to an ARRI

'Look' works as it captures any possible effect at all. The argument has been: does sensor size, by itself, create any specific visual effect or look, whatsoever, or not. Do lenses made for different formats have any special characteristics related to the intended capture format? One could argue size, however some full frame lenses are bigger than some medium format lenses. I had asked Brian Caldwell if he'd be making a medium format Speed Booster and he said no. There are now many very high quality full frame lenses and medium format lenses have no unique properties, so there was no point. A lens is defined by its optical transfer function, that's it. In this thread we learned that some medium format lenses can be found for very low cost. Combined with a focal reducer for full frame bodies that provides a cost effective way to get shallow depth of field, swirly bokeh, or other desired artistic looks. That's cool and useful info, thanks again @Mattias Burling! In summary, what we have been discussing is the notion that any format has any special and unique look or characteristic: 'full frame look' and 'medium format look' really mean a 'shallow depth of field look' or in some cases 'swirly bokeh' or other lens artifacts, which aren't specific to any sensor size or any lenses designed for a specific format.

35NAP 2-2 (mod) | Helios 44-2 F:2 (VariND) | Sony A6300 (SLog3 | ISO800)

I think what's really important here is that any camera even under $500 can be used to make a great film. The right person, with the right story can make a good film. The question becomes... if you have a t2i or a gh2 that cost you $300... is it worth spending a little more to get to the next threshold? A year ago, I could barely afford the G7 I was using. With some creative purchases and lucky sales, I am now able to afford a much better camera. But if all I could afford is a t2i, I would still want to make movies. And the only thing stopping them from being good would be me. So, if all you can afford is a t2i or a gh2, then go out and make the best film you can with that camera. But I don't think it's wise to make a film with a t2i or a gh2 just because you want to make a cheap movie... especially when there are so many great options for next to nothing.

I thought if a movie was cinematic or not depended on if they used the same gear as "you" do or not? It seems the better the film maker, the less the need for expensive gear (I need as pricey as it gets). Just about all cameras have some things they do well and others not so much though so there is still a place for choosing the right gear for the job from what is available to you. I was photographing a band last Friday night and as an afterthought recorded an original song they have and I started late, was hand held and not stabilized and out of focus for the first few seconds. I shot in both XAVC-s and MP4 at the same time. Looking at the results, the MP4 is terrible. Horrid ghosting and just an ugly mess (was using auto ISO and was varying up to around ISO 51200 I think), the XAVC-s was actually ok (apart from the issues that are all from ME) and good enough to give the band at least so it just means that me plus a reasonable camera for video is ok sometimes, me plus a lesser camera (or shooting a lower quality anyway) is unwatchable. Skill and know how matters most of the time, gear matters some of the time. Skill AND gear together is almost always going to win

To bad. I saw Hateful Eight shot and projected on 70mm film last year. It was awesome.

You bet, and it even has been proven scientifically. It was a report in a german magazine for cinema owners some 20 years ago, so I have no links for you to read, but let me explain the method: The same film was shown to big audiences various times in the same cinema, in mono and surround, with different sound levels. Right afterwards, the people were asked to sum up the plot on one sheet of paper. The most accurate and most detailed descriptions came from those who listened to the loudest surround screening. A good sound mix also emphasizes emotions much better than the best graded images. Those audiences also generally liked the film more. Personally, I often think that very much stylized and abstract images with very rich and atmospheric sound and music work best to trigger the 'suspension of disbelief' and let the viewer invent his own, deep and emotional story. Much in the way you lie in your bed and listen to your grandma's voice who reads you a fairytale. Is what you imagine then less intense than the latest Hobbit? I don't think so.

Here is my first 4K-based adventure with the GX80. I am suprised I didnt really miss the slow-mo at all. Although rendering takes ages on my Macbook Pro 2011 (3min video took 3:45h for rendering!), editing with proxy files works without any hickup. I am amazed by the quality and I think I will continue using 4K from now on. Lenses used: Sigma 18-35, but mostly the Panasonic 20mm. I already sold the Speedbooster XL and the Sigma, it is just too huge and even with the 4K crop one sees the vignette when the stabilization kicks in.

Jonpais when the moderator starts to post sacarcasric comments about several forum members it sets the wrong tone. Are you sure this is the example you want to make? I really hope that this just reflects a bad day. And I hope that you soon feel better

I always just use the shutter release button on the front , never the small red video button

Lots of people are pretending that these are a good option for filming with - for £50, but if you're paying anything in the £200 range, you can do a lot better. Have a search in this section, so much advice - hell, buy a copy of the Anamorphic Shooters Guide! It does need updating, but has a lot of info in it. Alternatively, if you don't want to spend any money, just take a look at Tito's info:

Because he wanted to win an Internet forum argument, so obvious.

I'd like to see: "The New Ursa Micro".... - MFT Sensor. - Can record in 4K, but has a "golden" 2.8k mode at up to 60fps. - Tiltable and Removable Micro Video Assist (so you can put it in a convenient place on a pistol grip gimbal, or monitor from strange angles if adapted for action shots). - Pro option Ursa Micro slots into an accessory which gives you audio options and a handle.

Small door bumpers used in kitchen cabinets come with adhesive...just peal away protective paper and stick on. These samples are just over 1/4 inch diameter....can be trimmed smaller...and no doubt bought in smaller quantities https://www.amazon.com/Bumpers-Small-Diameter-Thick-Sheet/dp/B003F092P6

You're not making sense, Jon. From an epistemological point of view if it's unacceptable, as you claim, for people other than you to make inferences regarding a camera they haven't used it must logically be unacceptable for you to make statements about another camera that you haven't used. I'm not being nasty here. Putting feelings and emotion aside, this is rationality. Edit: And you're right, I do actually have nothing useful to offer here in terms of a Fuji - Panasonic comparison. This is just a point of order.

Well then, don't be condescending.

I did. From what you've seen of: Please use logic.

Well, by the same token unless you've shot with the GH5

Wanted to showcase my latest album with a song fitting the 80s and what better way than a slot car racing track. Doesn't get any more 80s than that. Looked up a guy with a Scalextric slot card track and brought over my A6000,the kit-lens, the 50mm 1.8m two cheap LED lights and some blue gels and got to work. Lit everything so it would look like moonshine on a clear night and just got the angles. Edited in PP and stabilized. Some grading needed but no noise reduction used. Everything is handheld including the POV, although that took some DIY to get right.

Lets talk about art. The example posted by Miller is too soft. Making the entire video soft is not beautifull, its a flaw. Whats the point of using expensive lenses to deliver a soft video?? You can soften a skin texture, but making the entire scene soft is wrong. The video will look like a low resolution out of focus video. With high end codecs, like raw, you can make the skin look soft and sharpen the eyes, for example. Eyes need to look sharp, otherwise the person will look lifeless and the video will look like a distant dream. He is also throwing away good dynamic range. He is blowing out the face of the main subject. She is like a pin up girl, but he graded her like a zombie shot on a low dynamic range camera. Her skin tone is green. One thing is to add a graded color to the scene, to create a mood, the other is to add a color cast that makes the skin tone look horrible. I said it once and I will say it again. Applying pre-set looks like mojo, film convert tools, LUTs etc are not the way to do it. Grading is REALLY easy. You dont need those tricks. And here is my simple grading for commercial use. What did I do? - Made her skin look soft - Gave her a pin-up skin tone - Increased the sharpness and contrast of her eyes, to make them stand out - Changed her eye color, because I like blue - Added a lot of saturation in her lips, to create a sexy look - Increased the sharpness and the saturation of the yellow, to make her hair stand out - Added some split toning (blue and purple) while mantaining her skin tone Now I can see me gaining the contract for the commercial, while James grading would be only usable for an underground alien movie. COMPARE THE 3 VERSIONS:

I'm thinking a lot of y'all need to take a break and go into the screening room here on EOSHD. Look at stuff that actually exists as a creative endeavor, for better or worse. Get motivated to create rather than pixel peep. Even if you have the latest and greatest camera, all that resolution is for naught if you're horrible at framing a composition and editing. And try not to get all sad and mopey if someone doesn't like a piece of kit that you like/covet. It happens, so what? Does your self-worth run tandem to the gear you own? Really? Someone owns a BM cam and you want a Pan4K. Fine. I'm not sure we need to hear convoluted rationalizations about your future purchase here online. Do we? (I'm attempting to motivate myself with this plea as well...too much dry corporate editing and procrastination forum reading. Making a dry training video turns me grumpy. Not enough creativity going on in my life this week.)