Leaderboard

Can't tell if troll or fool.

Not while recording and the mirror is up

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful. Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white. I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good." You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move." Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine. I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me. You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones. If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun. Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously. And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

Well, your first comment indeed appeared to imply "yes, it's filmic but it's because the lighting, depth of field etc", so I think that was a fair target and frankly, I agree with a lot of what Andy says. However, I think you also have a point: even if you cannot express exactly what's wrong with the image, you don't have to, it's your perception why shouldn't you trust it. I respect that. Myself, I am long since annoyed with this hype about "filmic/cinematic" image, which is a term that should never had been defined but of course now it is. It seems like lots of people have no individual vision of how they want their films to look, instead striving to emulate this "filmic" standard as the end of it all. It's also being universally implemented everywhere, including documentary, event coverage etc.. And there's a lot of snobbish attitude towards those, who care about different qualities and have different approaches, being deemed as "non-professional". You are almost forced to adapt the style to be competitive. BTW, exactly the same thing goes for storytelling techniques and sound design == copy copy copy; copy is good; copy is professional; copy is cinematic. Form over content, level everything by overdramatizing and exaggerating at the cost of realism, logic, depth, subtlety and nuance.

I'm not trying to convince myself or anybody else of anything. And don't accuse people of being babies or making stuff up because you disagree with them. You misquoted me to trivialize my opinion and then made it seem like it's okay because you're poking fun. If that's how you discuss things with people you have passive aggressive issues. And honestly, I don't really care what your highly developed theory on what digital and filmic means because you probably developed it reading forums as I've seen everything you said in other posts. So me saying the GH5 looks a certain way is not a reason for you to lecture me about the importance of technique and story. We all know it's important. Yes we get it. Cameras don't matter as long as you have good lighting and technique. So please save yourself some time with the lectures. Again, I'm just sharing an opinion. At least it's my opinion and not regurgitating rote ideas. I think it looks videoy which is fine. You don't. But I'm not so presumptuous to think my opinion matters more than yours because I don't really know where you're coming from. To me, film looks like film which is fine. Some digital cameras look like video and some look like film which is fine. Some people have better technique than others when using images. What's your point? I started making shorts in the 80s using vhs cameras. Worked in the industry doing national commercials shot on film and transferred to beta, digi-beta and d1's in the 90s. On the weekends, I shot narratives on 8mm, super 16mm, super 35, betacams and sony vx1000s. I've done post work on flatbeds, macs, windows, unix machines. I worked at two post facilities as they moved from conforming offline with tapes to Avids and using After Effects. I've directed a feature film theatrically distributed. Some of my closest friends are feature film colorists who I hang out with as they grade projects from all different cameras. And that's why from my experience, I think this footage looks like nice video. I don't know how to use emoticons but I would place a smile at the end of this sentence to convey the idea that I wrote this in a light hearted manner.

Absolutely true. I've watched this on my 5K iMac, 65" UHD OLED and 75" UHD LCD, and there is not a trace of moire. Further, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about moire with the GH5. As you've correctly said, sometimes the computer and/or monitor that's being used can easily cause these artifacts. That roof is squeaky clean. How about a nice UV filter smeared with Vaseline. That should give it that nice cinematic look that some are after.

I'm all for the test, the observation, and the progression through understanding, but it always goes way past that because people are just way too sensitive, and emotional about cameras. Grown adults spending thousands of dollars for gear, over, and over again to argue over brand bias This camera VS ( your camera choice here ) The camera fraternity wars are at full steam, LOL! Someone might get shot!!! ( it'll be OK if it's cinematic ) You're either with us, or against us. Canon runs this side of the tracks, We don't like your tiny sensors, and we don't like your camera's AF system, you're not welcome here. Street gangs fight over silly things like street signs and clothing colors, Camera gangs fight over camera brand support... It's comical that so many adults have no issue wasting time arguing over camera's they never planned to buy. On both sides, people are way too emotional, It's like they need others to cosign the camera THEY CHOSE so THEY can feel justified with the decision to purchase their choice of camera. AF use or Strictly Manual... isnt that personal preference. Creating art... choice of tools really doesn't matter because it's always going to be subjective. As always carry on!

W H added some new shots to the previous video: 3k 14 Bit RAW Compression Lossless Test

Yeah but she still has the best skin tone and still pretty hot. You kinda wish you could hook up with her again (even just once) if it wasn't for all her issues and the fact that she's a gold digger.

Of course there are times when you would use AF: when using a dedicated videocamera, not a MILC or a DSLR! That's the way I roll, my friend. Not condescending at all, just stating that pros don't let their gear get in their way. And by that I mean not trusting AF systems on MILCs or DSLRs. Have we become that lazy?

I don't wanna sound like i'm moaning... but is there a reason the HFR modes aren't being tested, is it not implemented yet? Keep up the good work guys, I have a bid on a 5Diii as we speak, I have regretted selling my 5Diii to get an A7s for some time now and this has pushed me to sell the Sony and get back on board!

Light the scene properly for your equipment. It's a crazy idea, but it might just work.

He asked if this little Sony camera shot 4K... I mean, even if you're living under a rock... Seemed he portrays the GH5 as the end-all of all cameras and why even look at something else, definitely had his Panasonic blinders on. I mean, he's a Luminary or how you call those, but even Matt or Sean wouldn't act so defensive and dismissive of other brands/cameras. Sure, I agree, the GH5 is top notch and I didn't buy a A6300/6500, Canon with DPAF or whatever because they have their own issues, but no reason to glorify your own camera. A camera is like a human being, flaws included, but ultimately it's all about acceptance. The whole range of GH cameras was known for iffy AF. The GH5 continues the GH legacy, the good and the bad, it's in its DNA. Not sure why suddenly it's such a big shock for people.

Bushman Films has been contributing enthusiasm and knowledge and kindness in his posts. I always enjoyed them and his opinions and so I did with his post of the footage above. Thats what this beautiful forum is about, enjoyment and exchange. By the way, love your Fuji videos, jonpais. Please keep sharing your videos with us. Also, I hope Bushman Films keeps doing so as well. Arrgh, I just did:)

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise. You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage. FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

Big boy toy!! Damn the 4k is usable. And it shoots in Raw also!! And the wide angle stuff IS Wide Angle! Interesting. I can see a few firmware updates and wow, a real player in the Video field. https://***URL not allowed***/hasselblad-h6d-100c-review-shooting-medium-format-video/

Well at least we know for sure they gave it a lot of settings.

Well we all know it is Way to early on tests to show weather the GH5 is "normal" GH4 AF or they did make a real improvement.

Likely, what you say is true... the answer is "it depends." On the subject, conditions, skill of videographer, etc. But this implies that when reviewing complex equipment used in a specific and limited way (the "test"), one should not be too confident in your own results, and should certainly not use melodramatic language like "it sucks." How can anyone take this kind of comment seriously? Now there appear to be other individuals on youtube supporting the "it sucks" position even though they don't even own the camera and haven't done any testing. That's really foolish.

Hi, There is a thread on Personal-view that has introduced a free set of input and output 3D LUTs to make video files respond to color correction like they were shot in RAW. These are free and available at http://www.logarist.com The video below explains how to configure your video editing software (in my case Resolve) so that exposure compensation, contrast and white balance (via offset) behave like they are working on a RAW video files. I tested it on files from my Sony A7RII with shot with the Still color setting and Cine1 gamma (as recommended on Logarist.com) and it worked great. I tried the same CC settings without the input and out LUTs and it still looked ok, but not as good, especially when there were any exposure changes. Besides looking better after color correction, the process of color correction was easy to get great results quickly. If you are looking for great color with 8-bit video files from your Sony cameras, I highly recommend you try it! Mark

Don't worry I'm having a great day. But look how you started this conversation with me. You turned me into a wailing baby because I have a different opinion. And now again you are the one who literally misquoted me at your first post but now accuse me of doing it. I don't get it. Also don't make it seem like I'm being sensitive and you are the bigger man for being rude to strangers. More passive aggressive issues. I'm at the park and my wife and I are having a good laugh about this. Sorry it's at your expense. As far as the GH5, I will probably rent it next week and do some tests. Rough scene coverage to see how it handles skin in mixed interior lights. Hopefully it looks like nice "digital" images. Did I do it right this time for your safe space?

wow ? thats........ a lot more resolving power than we had last month. omg. this is exciting!!!

I think you are chasing a dead horse LoL. Those days are long gone. Hell buy a Red One MX and be happy!!. One of the best cameras ever made! And heck, still is top shelf stuff with the Raw on them. You can still made a Hollywood movie with one. How cool is that!

Well, Panasonic will say: At least it's free of noise, lol

One of the most interesting low light GH5 samples seen these days was shot through a 20 bucks 'plastic lens': Reason why I had the need to open this protest here:

Ahh, I have had a few Mamiya Universal Press Cameras in the day. Most with 6x7 backs, 6x9 once.. I used Mamiya Pro RB67's a lot! And with Polaroid backs on them. I loved how you could just rotate the revolving back to go to Portrait mode in a few seconds. But they were a handful, but with the bellows on them they were good for Macro also. And built like a Tank!

This video is absolutely fantastic!

Well I doubt any of the MF cameras really make too much difference to us good or bad. We can't afford the bodies, let alone the lenses. And they are going to suck at video and video controls. So they are a dead horse to us in reality.

So much controversy around a MILC that never promised earth-shattering video AF performance. We've become lazy. Either move your wrist around the barrel of the lens and make the enormous effort of +focusing+ like pros have done for DECADES or buy a good videocamera and see your AF problems melt away thanks to its inherent design nature. This coming from an owner of a 7Dm2 which has, arguably, one of the better video AF systems in the industry (DPAF). Even them, I rarely trust the camera to do the focusing for me. I can't afford even a single AF hunting second. So I go full manual. You know, like a paid professional!

On further reading, it seems I was wrong and the Hasselblad does have very slightly larger pixels than the A7Rii. 4.5 microns for the Sony, 4.6 microns for the Hasselblad is what I can find. In any event, many current/recent FF cameras have larger pixels (all the Nikons, all the Sony mirrorless other than the A7Rii, the Canon's other than the 50mp pair). Some of the latest APSC sensors are close (some of the older APSC and even 4/3 ones have larger pixels but that is different ages of technology and some of the older MF backs had massive pixels too).

More footage:

Well, maybe we need to save the grace going on with some filter in the front of the camera in order to put it soft, I guess. Apart, work @post.

The problem isn't the codec or IQ, it's the heavy internal processing like sharpening (it's an unsharp mask with 1.5 radius actually even at -5 sharpening) and noisereduction which cannot be bypassed. DJI uses the same sensor with really cinematic results, by using no processing instead.

The outside car to roof video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXsPFxB6kHU There is no moire/aa on 4k monitor in 4k. The roofline is not smooth - it has tiles that go slightly up and down. It's meant to look like that. Perhaps there's something wrong in your graphics card settings? Take a snapshot (or even a screeny) and compare

But, you've made it with your GH4... BTW, you should be hired for Lumix Luminary instead.

You guys rule. I was just looking for an answer to this. Of course I found it on EOSHD.

I said it looks nice but still videoy. To me something being filmic is not just technique but the quality of image itself - it emulates film. Digital systems like arri and red get close. Also you don't know what experience I have that led me to my opinions. Cameras like gh5 look nice but videoy. It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move. Don't know why panny prosumer images feel this way to me but they do. But again that's just my opinion. Don't know why you think I'm being childish about it. I guess I hurt your feelings. If I did I apologize. Crazy people are so sensitive about a thing like a camera. I guess these days people being a special snowflake isn't enough, there chosen brands need to be special too. To me it's there to tell my story and I always wish it worked better no matter the brand. Maybe these brands keep innovating because some of us are never satisfied. If it was all technique why are these product cycles getting shorter?

Nice shot. I was thinking about running a few more tests at different apertures with the 35mm lenses but to be honest its shown me enough to think that the Sigma is only going to be making an appearance with the speedbooster attached when I need a 24mm that can see in the dark with the DOF of a cigarette paper.

Nope. With all the equivalence tests that have been done, none have been conclusive. In fact, all of those equivalence tests show a difference in DOF between lenses made for different formats, and some comparisons actually show a dramatic difference in DOF.

Cinema5D vídeos are so posed I can't take them serious.

Max knows a lot more about Panasonic cameras than the so-called luminary, who spent most of his time justifying himself with defensive body language and filling the airwaves with repetitive waffle. Max 2-0 up with another video to come...

I re-read your post and I apologize, you are correct. Part of this was the frustration I was feeling in that it was only Max's tests that people were paying attention to and judging the camera on. It wasn't just the ignoring of my videos showing things to the contrary, but all the other GH5 videos that also showed the AF not to be nearly as bad as it appeared in Max's tests.

This is a gh5 with a pro colorist, looks very filmic

"Pulsing" in AF mode is an old Pana problem, facing FZ1000 and new models too (as the FZ2000). The only way to sail around this AF flaw (continuous AF) is to lock and use the area mode (I told this @jonpais in this forum some times though...). When using a Pana in area mode (subject within a fixed AF area), there is no much pulsing/micro-hunting forth and back (microadjustments of the faulty AF). Take a look at the "successful" AF video of PhotoJoseph...Full of visible and abyssmal pulsing forth and back in the background. Look at the video of Peter Gregg...Again the pulsing when focusing on the remote of his TV...Hehe, this is a "P&P"-camera - permanently pulsing and pumping... It's simply a shame to blame users by saying, they can not handle it. Same users do well with Canons DPAF and with Sony's standard settings. No need to go to a university to use AF. It's simply a barefaced claim of fanboys & paid henchmen, who simply don't want to accept the truth. BTW: I use more Pana cameras, but AF on them is simply BS...far away from current standards...By "tweaking" you can get it to work in some situations...Continuous AF for professional use has to be reliable, that's why many DOPs rent the C300 mII... The AF ist not a great strength of the GH5...But as many Pana fanboys claim, AF is only for pussies...

I guess its because Im old fashioned and started out in TV a long time ago before the DSLR boom. So Im used to professional gear where setting a custom white balance is an easy thing that an ENG-shooter does ten times a day. Same with focus. I need it to work, so use manual. I guess thats why I shoot so much film and prefer cameras like Leica. Less fiddle faddle and instead focus on the craft and cteating. We all like different things and work in different ways. You said once you liked to use tele for street shooting while many if not most of us like to get in close to the subject. Nothing wrong with either approach. Just different tastes.

Footage is nice, probably best I've seen so far. But he's shooting on a grey day, muted palette, slo-mo, some very shallow dof shots, tracking, so yeah it looks nice. It works with what he's got which is what he should be doing. Still, I agree this looks good.

Sorry for a slight off topic, but bear with me. As some may have read, I recently purchased a 5D3 to shoot ML Raw. I am nowhere near proficient enough with it to start testing the new 4K builds, but I am enjoying the camera immensely and since the new ML achievements may see an increase of 5D3 sales, I thought I would share my very first ML test video, so newcomers, like me, can see what they can expect if they decide to shoot Raw on the 5D3. This video was shot in 2:35, so it is technically not even Full HD at 1920x810. I also processed the files with the most basic conversion using ML Raw Viewer. They were transferred to ProRes as Log-C. I then brought the files into FCPX for a cut, color and render to Vimeo. I have found that the 16bit color is insane and I had to re upload the video a couple times because it was so saturated with a gradient of colors just not possible with the 8bit cameras I've been used to. Anyway, here it is... As most probably know, I am not the greatest colorist, I am practicing but it does not come naturally to me, so I am sure some of you guys would do a much better job correcting/grading this footage. Also, I really wish all TVs, computers and phones were standardized and the saturation couldn't be changed... but oh well, we do our best.

5d mark iii Magic lantern RAW 3104x1298 scaled to UHD

After abandoning the NX community just after releasing two news cameras (NX1 & NX500) and pro lenses, I don't see anyone in their right mind investing any of their money again if Samsung ever had the idea of coming back to take more of our money. Camera market is not a market where you can just come and go. Reputation is (almost) everything. Samsung were given the benefit of the doubt but most professionnals did not switch from their Canons or Nikons to Samsung because of their lack of history in the PRO camera business. Mark my words - which are just my analysis and don't come from anywhere else - if Samsung ever comes back to the camera industry (which I HIGHLY DOUBT THEY EVER WILL) it would be a total economic failure. Because no one will trust them again - especially people who will own by then GHx and Sony A7R x cameras-.

I suggest to get the most out of the NX1 is to put negative 10 on sharpness, lower contrasts a little by negative 2 and increase Colour saturation by 2 and then use any of the picture profiles cause they are gorgeous even the normal one outputs sexy colours, just decrease the green by 0.95 or 0.90 whatever you feel is best, do it for all the picture profiles as all the NX cameras are green biased. Nice work otherwise, I guess I should not voice my opinions too loud because I have not even edited together all those footages I have shot over the year I guess I must get to it.