Leaderboard

Rather yet... are the photography elements so much better than what the G80/G81/G85 offers (which supposedly will continue to be its own line-up)? Currently body price of a G80: around 700 EUR. The G9 comes in at 1700! 1000 bucks for... a gorgeous (by the looks of it) EVF and uh... a top LCD? Ok, maybe a bit better photography performance, but again 1000 bucks worth of improvements? I think not. And a 200mm f/2.8 lens that's like 3000,- bucks? When you can have the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO with 1.4x TC with more flexbility for half? Not sure what they've been smoking. If they want to take the battle to the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and their own G80/81/85 and GH5, they should've come up with a gamechanger. I get the need for a more professional flagship for the stills shooters that have no interest in paying a premium for advanced filmmaking features. But this lack those and is up there in price range!? Actually, effectively the deal I managed to get on my GH5 turned out to be 400 bucks cheaper than that! Maybe they thought 'well, to those who can afford a 3000,- bucks lens, they're probably willing to shell out another 1700 for a camera = profit'. And on the other hand it's also a bit of a 'fuck you' to people heavily invested in the MFT system, it's like 'we know you're more or less stuck in the system, so we're going to drive the prices up and you'll still buy 'em!'. Anyways. At the end of the day this is their photography flagship now. So... don't be too surprised about the disappointing video specs.

One of the coolest Sankor 16 demos I've seen. This is how you get a lot of anamorphic on the cheap. The model helps too.

It is an interesting article about mirrorless cameras, and a confirmation of my view that one of the major strengths of the NX system were the -not so many, but most quite good- lenses. "Sony — NEX is history. But so, it appears, is the A5xxx. Really? The crop sensor Sony line is now a series of three cameras each of which is a "stick more sensor tech in it" version of the former? I fail to see how this is a useful strategy. Things that were wrong with the A6000 are still wrong with the A6500 (and A6300 in between). And when all is said and done these cameras seem a lot more GameBoy than anything else on the market. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but... Note to Sony executives: You're making the same mistake Nikon made with DX, and Canon made with EF-S and is making with EF-M. Samsung made lenses for their NEX-clone that clearly bettered what you put out. You can put all the tech you want at the sensor, but it's the optics out front that are hurting your image quality, not the sensor. What I'd give for Samsung's 16mm f/2.4, 20mm f/2.8, 30mm f/2, 45mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8, and 85mm f/1.4 in a Sony E-mount. And no, your Sony 16mm, 20mm, 30mm don't even come close." http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-latest-state-of-mirrorl.html unfortunately, even someone mentioning the NX system is news for us! It would be interesting if anyone could make a similar evaluation for the NX system in the end of 2017, almost 2018. I see the system being used from some of us until 2020 at least.

I think Jon looks for different things in a lens than some of us, which is perfectly fine of course. Seems he likes a perfect lens, he has a track record of owning and shooting with some of the best lenses for the system, incl. the Panasonic 12mm f/1.4, 42.5mm f/1.2, Olympus 75mm f/1.8, 25mm f/1.2, Sigma DC DN 30mm f/1.4, Veydra Mini Primes etc, where it's all about resolving power and sharpness, where they are absolutely smashing it, you can't really argue that. It just doesn't seem he 'gets' people that put character first however (which is funny itself because he didn't feel Phil A's footage had any, but okay)... like shooting a 17.5mm f/0.95 wide open or using anything vintage. Takes offence himself when people find a lens to render 'boring', meaning not that he himself has shot something boring, but that the lens has a reliable and clinical look of perfection to it (maybe that is the sort of 'character' he wishes to see, to me that's prefering a vodka over a whiskey, where as well, nothing is wrong to put one over the other, personal preference and all). To that person. Yet you know, it's okay if people aren't on the same page, an opinion is something subjective, there's no one true way... and one should really be accepting of that and letting others do their thing. To me it matters more that someone is having fun shooting and makes great content in terms of mood, composition, 'story telling' however limited applicability perhaps. If you have blinders on and can only tell if someone's work is good by pixelpeeping, then you might be missing the point (but atleast you'd have every pixel). So I personally was able to appreciate said video and post, because it isn't always the main goal to capture something pixel perfect, but to capture something that elicits something beyond that. And Jon's said it before himself... he might've shot and uploaded a video with the white balance, framerate or audiosync off... and never finds anyone in the comments complaining and pointing it out. That's all because they look through the pixel peeping and rather just focus on the essence. If your content is good, it's probably good because of the bigger picture, not just the individual pixel. And even if you don't see it that back with someone else's work the least you could do is give them some constructive feedback... the lowest thing you could do is dismiss what they've done altogether and regard it as someone clowning around (discouraging them to ever post something again). A bit of mutual respect goes a long way.

I just visted a super trippy art installation in Santa Fe. Shot this in 4K anamorphic on the GH5. SLR Magic 50mm 2x Prime.

So it's here https://www.wexphotovideo.com/olympus-17mm-f1-2-m-zuiko-digital-ed-pro-lens-1643052/ As thought, pretty much the same size and shape as the 25mm. As it happens, I am using Panasonic bodies again at the moment, so I may just end up getting this lens if I ever have a spare $1000. God damn my lust for 35mm and shallow dof. Click this link to see a simulated comparison of dof between a few lenese https://dofsimulator.net/en/?x=ECqAkeBXgAAIJE4EAAAjgAA

Lets not forget the power switch. I have no idea why Olympus thinks using both hands to turn on a camera is a good feature. Also the joystick & larger size will be appreciated by sports/wildlife photographers.

Not battery operable, but Cool Lights just slashed the prices on all their fluorescent fixtures. A lot of very good light for the money, and the softbox/grid options are both cheap and work well. Add one or two Aputure hard lights and you'll have an extremely versatile kit without breaking the bank. You might also think about grabbing one or two tungsten fixtures as well, just for the sake of variety. A source four leko w/50 degree lens and/or 650w fresnel are both incredibly versatile lights that are plentiful and cheap on the used market. A Lowel Rifa or two might come in handy too--one of the best lights for making talent look good, quick to set up, lightweight, and very easy to control with a grid or duvetyne skirt. Search eBay, you can find them for great prices. Probably more important than which lights you choose is your grip package, so make sure you don't skimp on bounces, flags, clamps, gels, frames, diff, etc.

For sure, and I'm not a super experienced camera person, but it does seem like pixel remapping is one of those features most might expect to come standard in a camera from Canon's C-line.

Plus, you see things like space left on the card with the camera turned off.

It is using the same "WhiteMagic" RGBW LCD as the A9 so double the brightness than A7RII with less power. So no dimming while shooting 4K. I remember a hands on report verifying it, but can't find it now.

Look into aputure ls 1s, aputure 300d and some quasar science crossfade tubes. I also own a miniflo (from kinoflo) set for lighting in cars.

I'm still in audio purgatory. My experience so far. Spending TIME experimenting/configuring a $25 Takstar mini-boom and $25 wired lav is better than MONEY spent on an expensive Rode NTG1. Environmental considerations FAR OUTWEIGH mic quality. For example, I set up my NTG1 in my office and was getting super audio. I then went to a friend's, similar sized room, but the audio came out horribly because my friend's room echoed a lot. (Yes, I listened on headphones but didn't hear it). I didn't have the experience/expertise to either get the mic closer or ditch it for a $25 lav. Therefore, I'm going to make a counter-intuitive suggestion. DO NOT GET a good mic first. Get a Takstar and Lav (or similar) and experiment trying to get good audio with each, writing down your findings, etc. Learning environment and levels has done the best for me. AND AND AND, working with post audio processing. Premiere has some amazing tools now "Essential Audio" that gives one a good idea of what's possible. Once you get all that sorted out, then shop for an expensive mic based on what you COULDN'T do with your cheap mics. That's what I'm doing now. The problem with an expensive mic is that unless you have all variations (boom, super cardoid, lav, wireless, etc.) you end up forcing whatever good mic you have into situations a cheaper solution would be better for. Again, I should have ditched the NTG1 for a cheap wired lav at my friend's place. BTW, the difference between my Takstar and Rode is VERY slight. I can only hear it because I'm listening for it. NO NORMAL person would notice a difference if I switched mics during the video. The bigger difference is the unbalanced mic could be wired up longer and has less risk of interference. Well, that's where I'm at!

What lens setup did you use, both anamorphic/taking? Good shots you did. How did you manage to get it to pop in low light (f-stop)? Thanks for sharing.

I have a base model MBP, a couple years old. No problem editing Sony 4K. Specially since switching to Final Cut. Never going back to Premiere. At work Im forced to but I'm working on changing that.

The macbook pro from 2014 is still a great machine but Egpu will need Thunderbolt 3 support to work natively when it's released. Until then please, I recommend you test and be patient with FCPX, especially with 10.4 it's going to be even better and after a while, you'll be thinking why you didn't try it before. If you liked Resolve, you'll love FCPX and its lightness.

It's really not. Terrible crop which raises artifacts. Only software solution in post and I bet they are using normal frame analysis as well. This cannot fix any sensor jarring. This is based on the assumption that motion sensor data that they gather separately and send through the mic input can improve on electronic IS on board cameras which themselves use motion sensor data actually on-board PLUS other types of post involving picture analysis. Both of which involve less picture degradation. Also this was never aimed at the cinema crowd, it was funded on the basis of small dslrs and action cams. If they are changing that then it shows another failure. Mercali, Warp, Hyperlapse Pro, NewBlue 5, and of course, Reelsteady are clearly superior. I really believe steadxp is a gimmick and borderline something else.

I would rather make a compensated zoom into the eyes and fade to space, pretty standard but won't look crappy.

Works great in FCPX. FCPX is actually fantastic to work with on the new Macs. I tend to edit XAVC on it as it seems to handle it the best of any program I've tried. I also use it for quick edits that I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on. I'm yet to really try out Resolve as an editor, but FCPX is more attuned fir the new Macs than Resolve anyway

new short video of my visit at the Zaanse Schans. Now with the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 and speedbooster NXL paired with my NX1, Bolex 16/32/1.5x and HCDNA.... a lot of lenses. Not sure if I wil continue this setup...

I have done extensive documentary editing using 4K XAVC-S and GH5 files using FCPX on 2015 and 2017 iMac 27 and 2014, 2015 and 2016 MacBook Pro 15. I used Premiere extensively from CS4 through CS6 and have a Premiere CC subscription but mainly use it for testing. Obtaining smooth editing performance on 4K K264 is difficult on almost any hardware or software. Unlike Premiere, FCPX uses Intel's Quick Sync acceleration for H264 and is much faster on the same Mac hardware -- yet even FCPX can be sluggish without proxies. Using 1080p proxies, FCPX is lightning fast at 4K on any recent Mac, even a 2013 MacBook Air. However compute-intensive effects such as Neat Video or Imagenomic Portraiture can slow down anything, no matter what the hardware or editing software. Editing 4K H264 using Premiere on a Mac tends to be CPU-bound, not I/O or GPU bound. You can see this yourself by watching the CPU and I/O with Activity Monitor. iStat Menus ver. 6 also allows monitoring the GPU. The I/O data rate for 4K H264 is not very high, and using proxies it's even lower. Using I/O optimizations like SSD, RAID, etc, tends to not help because you're already bottlenecked on the CPU. This is a generalization -- if you are editing four-angle multicam off a 5400 rpm USB bus-powered portable drive, then you could be I/O bound. I have done a lot of back-to-back testing of a 2014 vs 2016 top-spec MBP when editing 4K H264 XAVC-S and GH5 material using FCPX. The 2016 is much faster, although I'm not sure how representative this would be for Premiere. On FCPX my 2017 iMac 27 is about 2x faster than the 2015 iMac (both top spec) when transcoding or exporting H264 from FCPX. I think this is due to the improved Kaby Lake Quick Sync, but am not sure. A top-spec 2017 MBP might be considerably faster than your 2014 but this depends a lot on the software. Comparing top-spec configurations, the GPU is about 2x faster but the CPU only modestly faster. It might be enough to compensate while staying on Premiere, especially if your problem was GPU. But I'm suspicious why it's so slow if using 720p proxies. In my testing Premiere was very fast on 4K H264 if using proxies. This makes me think it's Warp stabilizer or some effect slowing it down. Can you reproduce the slowdown without any effects? Without effects does the extreme sluggishness only diminish or does it go away entirely? Resolve performance has been greatly improved in the latest version and in some benchmarks it's as fast as FCPX. You might want to consider that. FCPX is very good but it's a bigger transition from a conceptual standpoint, whereas Resolve is track-oriented like Premiere is.

This would be completely acceptable as production ready footage. (IMHO)

I don't like looking through the EVF, or turning the LCD on every time I want to change or check a setting. Top LCD is fast, easy and doesn't consume a ton of power.

About 7 or 8 years ago my friend directed a short film about astral projection that had an out of body experience shot. The shot was a much smaller scaled shot than you’re proposing but he filmed The Nightwalker with an HV20 using practical effects and simple superimpose effects from FCP7. I actually played the silent lead in the film. Actually, I think he made it 12+ years ago on a Sony miniDV camera, which means he probably edited it on iMovie.

An "impossible" shot. Often meant to impress the audience. There is a danger in that, insofar as you (as one of my film school teachers eloquently put it) feel the presence of the author. That's inavoidable, it can be a bad thing, but not always. If you want the audience to experience the experience of an OOBE, your modus operandi needs to be established first. If you wanted to just make them understand, oh, this is meant to be an OOBE, a sequence of crude tricks will do (showing the person flying to the sky could be seen as crude, no matter how realistic, surrealistic or hyperrealistic it's done. Unless it's a dream). But for immersion? In 2017? Did you see Enter The Void? The hero smokes DMT and has visions. Everything is his POV. Then he is shot dead. He sees his dead body, and from then on the camera can (and does) move freely. The film isn't easy to watch for many, but for those who can, it's very immersive. Sounds reasonable. The cut through the roof is difficult/dangerous. For something to feel continous, it often needs to be interrupted. You didn't say what kind of OOBE you want to show. People who were once clinically dead report strict POV. They can see themselves lying on the hospital bed, they see mundane details of the room, a pretty sober affair, even though they float in mid-air, which obviously is being spontaneously accepted (or imagined?) as the normal way a disembodied mind/soul behaves. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross has interviewed hundreds of them. They came back, so of course they were not really dead. Then there is the whole complex of OOBE through drugs, meditation, lucid dreams asf. Carlos Castanedas The Teachings Of Don Juan also implies POV. Everybody occasionally dreams that he/she can fly. Does this count as OOBE? I don't know. What I do know though is that these dreams are never strictly POV, no dream is. My own experience is that you think, this must be a dream, I can't fly! As if to prove you wrong, the dream shows you above he fields and houses. You don't want the dream to stop, because it's such a good feeling (you can imagine what Freud said about hose dreams). The immersion then would be triggered by empathy more than by FX. How the actor radiates ecstasy or so.

Maybe Panasonic finally removes the blinding of exposure info. Maybe finally I can see what shutter speed, aperture or iso the camera is using during video recording if using P, A, S or auto iso.

I wouldn't hold your breath on 10bit