Leaderboard

Yes, the GH5 is second. For sure, the 5D files have much more malleability than 10bit VLog. You can really go to town on Magic Lantern RAW - it's a much thicker file. It's almost pristine (except for ugly shadow noise). But I think that it is actually a testament to the GH5 that I can do that. And what I've presented here is only the realisation of my preferences. The point that I want to make is that the 10bit 422 files are robust enough to undergo a fair bit of colour correction / grading. To me, the VLog coming from the camera is a "raw" material with massive potential, as the (properly) RAW footage from the 5D3 is a beginning, and not an end in itself. In the main GH5 thread you mentioned that there was a range of quality in the posted videos for the GH5, from video-ish to something more satisfactory. Believe me, if Magic Lantern RAW was accessible to the same kinds of users - and in the same numbers - as the GH5, you'd see a hell of a lot of bad 5D3 ML videos. Exactly. You need 12 nodes or 20 minutes work to match this with that. But when the groundwork is done, you're in business. Today I made a nice lut that combines the Canon-like colour with a Lightroom film emulation preset. I loaded this into the camera as a monitoring lut and exposed until it looked good in the viewfinder. Came back and slapped the lut on and each shot was perfect. It took as long as it does to Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.... with maybe a small WB and curves adjustment beforehand This is the look that I'm into at the moment. In a year's time I might be into something different. Big time!

@hyalinejim Great job with making the Panasonic reds less orange and ACTUAL red. Here is a shot where the tubes were solid red, the poker table was red, and the guy's shirt was red/black. It was looking a bit orange naturally till I added your LUT.

I've been using 5D3 Magic Lantern RAW for a few years now and it's my personal gold standard for image quality as I'm very familiar with it, can predict the results I'll get in various situations and have developed my own look that I like using in post. I do a lot of documentary and corporate stuff and wanted to do more handheld, so I got the GH5 for its IBIS, 10bit V-Log, 4K and general ease of use. Although the GH5's colour is an improvement on its predecessors, the 5D3 is nicer looking to me. So I wanted to see if I could tweak the GH5's VLog colour to be more similar to the colour I get from Magic Lantern Cinelog-C, processed via Adobe Camera Raw (other debayering workflows will give different results). I shot a chart with both cameras, extracted the squares and put them side by side in Resolve. V-Log on the left, ML on the right: I used Hue v Hue and Hue v Sat to line up the signal on the vectorscope: Here you can see the effect of this correction.This is accurately white balanced V-Log (default colour) with a curve and saturation added: And here's the same shot with the colour correction applied: Skin goes from green-ish to pink-ish. Reds become more saturated, blues are pulled back. Foliage separates out into varying shades of yellow to green to blue-sh green, rather than being one big block of pure green. So next, I wanted to test this by comparing the same shots to Magic Lantern RAW. Would this correction really turn my GH5 into a handheld and more usable version of my 5D3? I stuck the GH5 on top of the 5D3. I shot the 5D3 at 3520 x 1320 (the maximum resolution I can get that's both continuous and at a sensible aspect ratio) - this has a crop factor of 1.63x. ISO was 100, and aperture at f5.6 on the Canon 24-105. The GH5 was 10 bit V-Log, Cinema 4K, ISO 400, aperture f4 (roughly equivalent) on the Leica 12-60. I used shutter speed to control exposure, so motion blur is different between shots. It seems like the GH5 has around 0.66 stops more info in the highlights at the same exposure as the 5D, so I shot it one stop over to maximise DR. First I corrected the 5D shots to the way I wanted them to look. Then I tried to get the GH5 to match. It's not a perfect match by any means, there are individual hues that tend to go awry a little, especially in the first shot. But for me the exercise is a success: the GH5 footage looks more like Canon Magic Lantern than it would straight out of the camera. And I would be happy to intercut the two, or to use the GH5 in situations that are more suited to its features. The take home message is that V-Log has a lot of grading potential - you're not necessarily stuck with Panasonic's colours on this camera. A nice surprise for me was how much detail is in the 3.5K 5D files compared to Cinema 4K GH5, especially when sharpened. However, it's not very practical to shoot in its high resolution modes at the moment, due to the slow refresh rate of the LCD preview. If you want to check out the files yourself, here are a series of matched pairs of 5D DNGs, and GH5 V-Log TIFFS. FOLDER: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFdi1FZ3hma09YZms ALL FILES ZIPPED: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwzsbjMgrAwzTFJZby0xSTV6VmM

Now you can clearly see the black screens on the Sonys when video recording. lol

Great job with matching these two cameras...for those preaching the 5D as the holy grail...it's your opinion...nothing but subjectivity there...I remember one critisism of the GH5 being that you can actually match it with the 5D...or have to...lol....well only if that's what you're looking for...I prefer Panasonics image over Canon...what does that mean?...NOTHING....to be exact...just my taste...my preference...just like yours....and it holds the same weight...if the 5D is the image you're loving....happy for you...as I'm happy with my Panny cameras....

When learning still photography, I spent a lot of time (and money) buying LED lights to replace strobes (best bang-for-buck strobes I found were the Einstein E640s, fantastic light output and quality (one strobe can easily overpower the sun in broad daylight at the beach). However they don't fire 100% of the time (recommend perhaps Profoto as a step up or if doing full-time stills and traveling, etc.)). Even with gels and a light meter I couldn't get the LEDs which weren't great from the factory to produce nice skintones. Spending a lot more on Dracast LEDs, which are built like tanks, got closer, but they still didn't look great for skintones (magenta bias). The lower cost Aputure LSx series LED panels finally produced great skintones, as did the spot source LED Fiilex (fantastic skintones though not a great bang-for-buck and relatively low light output per dollar, plus the fan can be audible in recordings (it's pretty quiet, but not silent)). We talk a lot about how Canon has too much red, and red objects don't look right, etc. The reason Canon does this, is to make sure skintones look good. However for certain lights and conditions Canon's red bias can look no so good and must be fixed in post. To get a better idea of what camera and light makers have to deal with: https://www.provideocoalition.com/doestlcireallywork/ . CRI and even TLCI aren't great predictors of light quality. I can say I agree- only testing the lights has shown whether they work well for skintones/color accuracy. I recently replaced LED bulbs in my studio office to help make shooting video from my desk look better. The new Hypericon LED bulbs rated at CRI 95 were purchased to improve the light/color over these Crees which IIRC were 80-85 CRI. To the light meter, both bulbs have a magenta bias, but to the eye (and cameras) the bias is green. The CRI 95 Hypericons looked no better on camera than the older ~80-85 CRI Crees. At least they use 2W less power, 16W vs 18W. What's the deal with red and skintones? http://www.leapfroglighting.com/why-the-led-r9-value-isnt-important/ (read the article- they are actually saying the LED R9 (red) is the most important for skintones). If you are having trouble getting great skintones indoors, take a closer look at your lights, especially if using LED or fluorescent lights (my first lights used fluorescent bulbs designed for photography/film and they still had a green bias: skintones didn't look that great). If on an ultra low budget, tungsten with china balls is still perhaps the best bang-for-buck (provided all the lights in scene are tungsten).

Hello NX1 fan-club. Couple of months ago i published a video i shot completely at 120p 170MBs: https://youtu.be/UyRyZzM5do8 Some of you mentioned nice and clean picture and asked me about a Light i’ve used during the interview. I’ve used Aputure 582 mark2 (CRI-95) model, and UHD-30p 170MBs mode. Now i decided to share with you guys, my experience with NX1 LIGHT-wise. Aputure 582 mark2 (CRI-95) is a great module, compact and really powerful, but it can produce weird skin-tones paired with NX1. That’s why i purchased fluorescent light set with “OSRAM 950 ColorProof” tubes. OSRAM 950 ColorProof paired with NX1 produce much better skin-tones. There is my completed video-interview-style project, shot on NX1 paired with OSRAM tubes: https://youtu.be/uTI8i-FOuuM As far as understand NX1 WhiteBalance algorithm, custom set and presets are just a general orientation for the camera. NX1 continue to fine tune WB during video-capture, even with custom WB set. From my experience, it is better to set one of the available WB-Presets, but Kelvin-WB and Custom-WB are the least used (because most inadequate). Now i think, NX1 sensor is really sensitive to the Light-spectrum. Any imperfections of the Light-Spectrum could potentially drive NX1 WB adjustments in a weird territory making skin-tones unpleasant. Otherwise i have a set of three very inexpensive LED panels (big flat and cheep) from a Lerough-Merlen-Superstore (60x60 very flat, very soft light capable and easy to install light wight panels). Paired with NX1 works really good, unless i have to shot people. If i have to interview, OSRAM fluorescent light is definitely the way to go, caused by skin-tones reproduction. Hope that could helps you guys Light-wise and WB set with NX1.

Autofocus for video will never work for 100% of the situations. It's that simple in my opinion. And since it won't, it's better to become the master of manual focus so you will never ever have the problem of becoming dependable on autofocus, until you find yourself in a situation where it doesn't work. For instance, you're filming a wedding. You have a beautiful shot on the bride and all of a sudden her father walks in the room. You quickly zoom out to get him or them both in the frame. You want to focus on him but still keep the frame like an over-the-shoulder. How does the autofocus know what to focus on here? It doesn't know, so you have to tell it. So do you physically have to touch the touchscreen here or press some buttons to transfer the focus from one point to another? On any camera without voice-command, most likely. And are you able to do so without moving or shaking the camera and maintaining the exact frame? Not with my setup. I can however with my middle finger just slightly move the focus ring of my lens whilst holding my rig steady, and the focus peaking confirms my new focus point. 0.02 seconds of work with great results. I do not need to discuss autofocus for video ever nor while I ever rely on it for the things that I do such as weddings. 'Sorry that I messed up your ceremony, the autofocus didn't work apparently'. No. On a professional movie set with expensive props, gear and talent? Nope. As a vlogger or to hold your cat in focus while it moves towards you? Yep, might be handy. Surely there are and will be camera's who will be up to this task but so is my $150 phone. So yea, I agree with you. No perfectionist, which every cameraman or cinematographer should be, would actually care about autofocus.

I think whats been made aware on this threads that both of these cameras, hell ANY video camera, can be molded into what You want it to look like. There are LuTs for everything in this day and age, and guess what you can even make your own. No 2 people I think ever see the same thing in reality exactly the same. I know women see a lot different than men do, colors wise they say, even on a lot of things not related to Video!! So I guess that is why there is so many video camera makers, with so many different cameras. But this still proves the old saying, you have to go out and shoot, shoot, shoot, to get good at it, and with both of these cameras being new in a sense it will take time to learn them. I think I have learned something here, and that is we all have different needs wants, and desires. And that is what makes life interesting. And nobody got in a fist fight. Now that is how great this Forum is. Well done. Wow hyalinejim that is a impressive looking Stadium next to the Landsdown Tennis Club. Soccer maybe??

Here is the LUT for colour correction only - the V-Log gamma remains unchanged. This should be first in your post pipeline. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1exEpCRAfgFcVdtSXhRdmJvalE

Believe the Sigma 24-105mm is quite a bit better than the Canon in terms of sharpness and general IQ, then again, have you ever heard bad things about a Sigma Art lens? Don't think so either. Might want to give that a shot? Of course the Sony has the shorter range, so less compromises, plus, it's really engineered and built to kill on sight! It's a looker. It's also f/2.8 opposed to f/4 and just about everything is optimized... it has an extreme aspherical element and promises great solving power and minimal onion ring bokeh. But... you know, the price sorta reflected the expectation already... not always though, do companies really deliver what they're promising, so I'll give 'em that. I agree in terms of the pancake lenses and 14-140mm zoom. They were always very uhm... 'modern'. 'Poppy' contrast, saturated colors, cut-edge sharpness. Sounds good, unless you want something a little more 'organic'? But, I've gotta say, they seem to have improved a lot since the GH2 paired glass days. Maybe not the kit zooms, but the primes for sure.

Was wondering what city, then saw the bridge at 1:16: https://youtu.be/VGgZRrfXUBA?t=1m16s (Sydney Australia, did the bridge climb a few years ago- highly recommended!).

Ah, the noise you are hearing is the internal mic. If you are only plugging in one XLR mic, when you import your footage, you'll need to either reinterpret as mono (1 channel), or mute the other 3 tracks. In Premiere CC, I created a preset to reinterpret the audio channels as stereo (use only channels 1 and 2) since I use both XLR inputs in the studio. After I import the clips, I select all of them then apply the reinterpret preset. In FCPX I disable channels on the audio board (haven't researched how to reinterpret imported clips as a group). I used to have the fan turn off when filming, however now I leave it on since the mics are on booms in the studio, and when shooting handheld, the shotgun mic (Schoeps CMIT5U) does a really good job masking not just the fan noise but also the AF noise (really impressive- all that gets through is low frequency AF vibration from the factory mic mount (can remove in post with a low cut filter; should try the mic low cut filter). If using a better suspension mount should be silent. Haven't tested, but something like this might work: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/861386-REG/Rycote_037324_SOFTIE_LYRE_MOUNT_with.html). Electronics last longer when cool, so I'd leave the fan on unless you can truly hear it in the recording and/or you're trying to save battery for a specific location shoot.

It looks brilliant. But they all do when other people are using them. When I get my hands on one it looks like I was shooting while walking over a path of upturned Lego and 3 pin mains plugs. Does anyone know if Pilotfly's place in Augsburg is an actual retail premises where you can go and try one and get help setting it up?

No, the C/Y>MFT speedbooster doesn't arrive til next week so I was manually speedboosting by stepping back a bit! Shot in Cinema 2K so I could have the option (which I used !) of the extra range on the long end using the Prime Zoom function. Its a push pull, which isn't ideal but its a hell of a lens for the well under £300 you can get them on eBay for. Some user reviews here http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/contax/vario-sonnar-t-28-85mm-f3-3-4-zoom/prd_84513_3128crx.aspx

Looks great! Speedbooster? Is that a push/pull zoom or does it have a zoom ring?

Such 2000 bucks camera already exist. It’s small, lightweight, you can attach almost any lens to it, 10 bit 422 internal, great codec, battery life is only half of it’s predecessor, 5-axis IBIS, ergonomics you can only dream of ...and it has great colors you only have to adjust a bit to make it look like a Terra 5K! Plus free ufo sightings at higher ISO when too much internal NR is applied. It simply can't be beaten.

It was sarcasm.

From interviews it seems the dummy battery is included.

I did of course mean the Contax Zeiss 28-85mm and not 24-80mm

The battery life on my Beholder DS1 is 9000 hours switched off. I am impressed that the batteries have yet to leak and finish the pile of crap off for good. Wasn't there a myriad of problems with the original Pilot that did not come to light until after the initial showboating videos?

SxS and P2 are both used still often enough on many many sets. I used SxS very recently, & I think next weekend's shoot will use P2. Wait and see what the specs are of the Panasonic. For all we know, it too might have: adaptable mount, high FPS modes, variable ND, 10bit internal, raw output, etc But even if it doesn't.... wouldn't you rather have the dual ISO and colors of the Varicam over the FS5's limitations? Because only the small oddball outsiders like Blackmagic Design and Kinefinity are letting you use off the shelf consumer SSDs. All the big established players are insisting you use typical media formats like in the rest of their cameras. Which is why I'd be very surprised to see a Varicam that let you record straight to an off the shelf consumer SSD. Going from GH5 to a7S mk3 would be a strange sideways "upgrade". Anyone doing that is probably suffering from gear addiction syndrome..... and needs to slow down! I suspect the price gap between an FS5 and this new Varicam will probably be small enough that it won't be the biggest factor when people are choosing which camera to go with. No thanks, 80D would be a massive downgrade from a G85 And it is just a momentary blip in time that there is a large price and feature gap between the G85 and GH5, because the GH5 just came out. Very soon enough if we are just patient and wait, the G90 will come out which will close down the gap with the GH5. And we'll probably see a successor of the G90 to come out as well before a GH6 arrives, further reducing the gap between the GH and G line ups (even catching up and exceeding the GH5! Like happened with the GH4 and GH3 before it).

I'm still a little bit skeptical and would need to test it myself. After seeing these test I'm definitely going to rent one and try it out.

Yup that Sony is INSANE. Razor sharp from wide open at every focal length with great background separation. I shot a corporate video and a wedding with it, $2K may be expensive, but that lens is worth it. Just don't have the money for it quite yet

Its the Aviva Stadium and used for both rugby and soccer.

Ahhhh....... heaps better!

Hey I think your best bet is getting quality lights (Aputure or better with high CRI/TLCI), setting white balance correctly, and exposing properly using Canon Log 3 + Rec709 or Wide DR + Rec709 if you don't want to mess around with grading. For our green screen shoots we use a bunch of Aputure lights (LS1, LS1/2), Canon Log 2, Production Matrix (for ARRI LUTs), and Cinema Gamut. Then just applying an ARRI LUT in PP CC and it's 99% done (then just minor tweaks to saturation etc. in Lumetri). FCPX applies a LUT automatically (I could also make it work with just the Color Board and no LUTs). I never have to do any other color tweaks. I recently started looking at the other settings (not using Canon Log 2) to get a 100% WYSIWYG to allow for no post needed at all (e.g. for live streaming). I can deep dive into the esoteric settings, however IMO it's a waste of time unless you have a very unusual situation, such as needing perfect camera matching for a live feed, etc. If you still want to deep dive those settings, perhaps post questions here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?246-Cinema-EOS-Cameras

Amazing work. If Panansonic would just give us an option to bake in our Luts... Record -> Edit -> Done, lol

I am not here to knock the GH5, as I don't own one and cannot speak first hand about its quality. I may still purchase a GH5 someday. I cannot deny its allure. I have seen some insanely great work from it, yours included. The motorcycle video that Emmanuel posted the other day is also some of the nicest video I've seen from it, but there seemed to be a growing consensus, based on your labor, that the GH5 is better than a 5D3 with ML Raw and I believe they misconstrued the point of your work here. Or maybe I did. Either way, nice job. And food for thought.

Winner LUT and shooter! :-)

The fact few people if any can tell the difference lets us know all we have too....... Both cameras look great and if most people here cannot tell the difference, 99.9% of the audience will not be able too either...... Go and create the project you've always wanted, the camera is no longer an excuse /

@mercer Read 80D, replied with the only words worth of this camera. As you know C100markII is my favorite camera for most uses, but if there is a C100markIII with 4K capabilities (and it should be, really soon) then it won't cost 4500 euros, so the new Panasonic will compete with the III, and not the II. The C100markIII it can be north of 6500euros, to close the gap between the 13.000 euros Canon C300 mark II (and look at those specs for 13.000euros). When they are both out we will compare and decide (I am definitely in the market for such a camera), I favor Canon in general, so many years they have treat me good, but as you know I am brand agnostic, whatever works; but in 2017 I can't buy a 4500 camera with only 35Mbps 8 bit bitrate, even though it is a magically robust codec. Raw isn't something they will give for cheap, even the new Ursa reaches 5 number price territory if you include all things necessary. I can accept such a camera for 6500euros, if it has everything else I need in that price range, and get raw out of a Atomos or Video Devices recorder. Seriously, for more expensive products we just rent a camera, but of course it is good to have raw with some way. Now, if Pana gives as raw in that price range, then thank you very much! In my next buy I would like to use more dual pixel technology, so ideally I would like a C100markIII (or C200, whatever it's called) and a CN-E lens. P.S what's wrong with G85?! I consider it to be a more advanced camera than the 80D, and native lenses are just fine. GH5 is extremely cheap for what it offers. Unbelievably cheap, and there is the GH4 for less than 999$ as a worthy option.

@mercer 80D is a joke of a video camera, I do not understand why it is mentioned here. I guess you have misunderstood the whole industry, the productions that need raw are so few in the general video creating scheme of our times that it ain't even make a dent to sales. Even for documentary TV series C100markII or 8 bit 4:2:2 is mostly adequate. If you do a few projects per year and have all the time in the world or a big budget, then ok, most of the time we are rushing to keep into deadlines, and raw workflow isn't the fastest or most convenient one (both pre/pro and production wise). Every company protect their product lines, and that make sense for customers as well. What is the point to have a lot of similar options from one company, it doesn't make sense. Just check car companies and their models (take Citroen par example, where their product line is very clear) and you will understand how things work. Also, to keep with the car terminology, a racing car (raw) has the absolute power, but a professional needs a small van 7 times out of 10, and the rest 3 ain't a sports car either!

Im loving resolve 14. The lens distortion tool seems to be super useful at emulating the bend of anamorphic lenses

Well, I purchased NXL from Luca. Paired with Samyang 24mm/f1.4 - i have a night solution. This video i shot with NX1+NXL+Samyang 24/1.4 handheld. It was a complete dark night. The camera see definitely MORE than i could. Just take a look at the sky - you can see Night-Clouds! As far as i remember, the ISO was between 1600-3200 ISO. The file is - original 4K NX1 converted into ProRes422. The size is huge - 460Mb.. I do not keep originals H265, sorry… http://www.kwon.ru/2/SAM_2398.mov

Pan GX80 + Pan 42,5 mm 1.7 WB - auto Portrait -1,-5,-5,-3 i.dynamic - auto sh/li - 0/0 Skintone is perfect for me, Printscreen Video RAW without adjustments directly from the camera , 1080/50p , It's a surprise for me

There are other settings beyond sharpness where over processing stands. Neither ends there. A bit all over capture devices and camera manufacturers BTW. Without mention post. That is, yet no clue of any digital camera to somehow shoot film :X other than towards the subsequent workflow...

Thanks for the information Aaron. I'm afraid the explanation can be nailed from this discussion: Even though, this may come more apparent when we raise the sensitivity. ISO 800 is too low for popping up. I guess that's there even when not noticed.

Thanks @hyalinejim I finally think about considering the GH5 again. These don't look terrible and oversharpened and some further colorgrading and filtering leads to really nice results (with good skintones actually).

I just want them to reduce the price of this damn BMPCC. Still the same price as when it came out, plus used market is still quite expensive in comparison to the retail price :s

Its a garbage patent. The fact that it expired several years ago - and hence is now in the public domain - and yet nobody has used the "technology" to produce anything should tell you something. The Kodak patent example is huge, slower than f/5, and basically doesn't work. The clue that something is seriously wrong is that the entrance pupil of the attachment - which must lie at the exit pupil of the attached lens - is tiny and located right next to the first surface of the adapter. This will result in severe vignetting with just about all lenses. I can't imagine that any prototype was ever made. If you restricted yourself to telephoto lenses having an extremely long back focal length you *might* be able to design one that works, although US5499069 is non-enabling and you would have to invent something from scratch. The Kodak patent is completely useless if you want to make a general purpose focal reducer that will work with any SLR lens.

@jpfilmz I took a look on my 4K TV - about 4m far away from TV (my usual distance when watching TV). The footage looks generally very nice...BUT: That wasn't that important when watching "Unmasked", because I simply forgot to pay much attention to IQ...A very good and engaging story, top notch audio and (mostly) a very pleasant lighting (beginning in the darkness is really amazing) . WOW...really nice work: Don't dream your life, live your dream... After watching for the third time, pixelpeepers and "uber-perfectionists" could find for sure some points to criticize...But hey, artistic and good conceptual work (like in your film) is nothing for know-it-alls...It's simply a great story, letting me forget the technical aspects...Just my two cents... EDIT: ...and a top main actor perfectly matching the type of character/guy you wanted to portray in your story...

Yeah I would have been happy with that, basically a BMCC as a Pocket, whats wrong with that? Duh! Christ the data with 4k raw would have been crazy as hell anyways?? Damn battery would last 10 minutes LoL. I would not have even begun to want 4k Raw? Who in the hell did they ask that even wanted that shit?? Sure as hell didn't come on here and ask anyone about Our opinions, that's for sure. Jesus even a Arri is not 4k! A Arri, BM Ursa uses about 60% of the body as a heat sink. And a Red has a fan on the top of them that will blow your wig off if you lean over one! Forget about having a on-board mic on one of them. And they are going to run 4k raw in a body you can stick in your pocket? No the hell wonder they can't find a sensor for it LoL.

Check this. http://pic.twitter.com/pb5x0JpeQU

This is how I got my visioncolor cubs luts into .vlt

I didn't really test it yet, only shot some Hyperlapse travel stuff with it yet and cursed the lacking dynamic range of the phone. If I find time this week I'll try to make a comparison for you. I can compare 120fps with iPhone, A6300 and NX1 if anyone cares.