Leaderboard

I haven't watched the video and probably won't ever. Is the poster frame a complete fake? Oh yes, thought so... he's edited it to be more extreme. Clickbait bullshit.

I shot hours and hours of footage to create EOSHD Pro Color. Sony's latest cameras still need it. Fuji is superior. This YouTube clickbait, is not even a proper test. It's some unknown, unstated default settings, completely unoptimised. With maybe 1 or two button presses, the entire result would change. Max has a well known Sony bias, and I simply don't trust what he's showing here is representative. If the Fuji is too green for your liking, and you are sure Max hasn't fiddled the results like he fiddled the poster frame, you know what to do about it. There's a hue control, a white balance control, a saturation control and 8 different film simulations.

Wanted to share my first trial with Canon EOS M, Magic Lantern RAW and vintage lenses. Also the first time I use Davinci Resolve for editing and grading. Overall I'm quite happy with the results. Here's the link: https://youtu.be/bDT8-ChgzrE. Make sure to watch it in 4K, even on non-4K screens, because it has way less compression artefacts. Shot in mv1080 at 1736x976 resolution, 25fps. Using Helios 44-2, Mir 1B and maybe in some shots the Jupiter 9. Also used two stacked polariser filters as variable ND. Didn't use a LCD viewfinder, but plan to use one next time. Need to get more stable shots, so I applied stabilisation in post. Sound recorded with Rode VideoMicro.

Tossing some more love towards my favorite lens Voigtlander 40mm f2. Video grabs from D750

In premiere in the export window you can choose to scale your source material to fill the screen. I have a time line with over 200 clips shot 4K DCI in DaVinci now and can't find an option to scale it to fill a 1080p output. Just wondering if I have to go manually and scale each clip by itself in the edit page or not... EDIT: Figured it out. You can just CMD+A the timeline in edit page and then adjust the scale and it will adjust all of the clips marked.

Please submit your suggestions and remember to make it good! http://pro.jvc.com/survey

Don’t be too modest, you shot one of the best 5D3 ML Raw videos out there.

From the Laforet Youtube video description: “What’s impressive about this package is the micro four thirds sensor. This sensor has an incredible roll off of highlights that I seldom see which really opens up your ability to capture an incredible dynamic range, from the deep shadows to extremely high highlights all the way to the sunlight”. I wonder which Blackmagic Camera version update this was shot with to allow the sensor to display its "incredible roll off of highlights". Were they shooting 6.1 with Cinema DNG? Were they shooting 6.3 or 6.4 and Blackmagic has silently rolled in better highlight response or was it there the whole time and the newest Resolve 16.4 beta or some future release beta unlocks the sensor "incredible roll off of highlight"potential with the way it process BRAW. At 4:54 in this video, it illustrates and describes the highlight issue. If Blackmagic has some how improved the highlight rolloff characteristics with pocket 4k generated video files, it would be great to know what combination of Pocket 4k hardware version, Blackmagic Camera version update , recording format and recording format post processing to unleash this potential. If nothing has changed on Blackmagic's side, maybe Laforet could share his recording technique to achieve incredible highlight rolloff with the Pocket 4k because this guy does beautiful work, so I am hoping he knows something I don't know and will be willing to share his knowledge with the community, or that he will tell Blackmagic and they can share it with the community. Hopefully someone will clarify how this was made a reality.

Honestly, I think it's because many BM users are whiny and entitled. Announcements would get hyped up beyond reason and ultimately people would be underwhelmed by the actual improvements. Look at what happened with some of the GH5 AF improvement announcements: people jumped the gun and starting declaring that it would be Canon Dual Pixel level performance immediately, only to be disappointed when the firmware was actually released. Better to just surprise people. I say this as a BM user and lover.

First video I am not ashamed to show I guess. I started to appreciate hand held shooting more and more while I was doing it. Mostly shoot evrything in 4k60 fps which is again another surprise - I dont need 120p for everything. I think it is overrated and with GH5 awesome IBIS you dont really need that much of a slow motion to hide shaking. Orbit shoots are done with a gimbal though I've already ordered a flycam cos I wanna try to produce more organic looking shoots and have better control with my motion blur transitions. Yea transitions, I am just learning how to remember to apply them here and there in camera, still a long way to go though. Appreciate your feedback guys!

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

Put it in full manual, auto iso should never be on when doing any kind of video work. Maybe look for or a buy an XT3 camera user guide dedicated for video.

In almost every shot I thought that the best version was somewhere in-between the too-purple Sony and the too-green Fuji, and I also didn't like the skin being blown out / washed out on the Fuji. In practical terms, if I was grading log footage and I got to either result I would think "well, I screwed that up!". However, I'd imagine that either one would be gradable to get that right balance somewhere in-between with a few simple adjustments, so in a sense, my conclusion would be that either one is fine. I'm sure there are differences in terms of which colour science you might prefer, but with shots that have the WB and Exposure so far off there's no way to tell which might have the edge. Once again, this isn't a comparison of the cameras, this is a demonstration of the skill (or lack thereof) of the person performing the test. It would be interesting if he'd used a grey-card to manually control things, but alas....

It is a completely different look, am sure is not at all what the director wanted the mood of the film to feel like.

if your friend is agreeable try some oval aperture frames in his anamorphic, basically an oval shaped cardboard cutout installed at the back of the anamorphic. like they do to for some lenses you see advertised on ebay. Actually you could buy some already made https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Anamorphic-Bokeh-Custom-Lens-Aperture-Frame-4x4-set-6ps/253314572787?hash=item3afab9a1f3:g:YSAAAOSwk1haNA5I but im cheap so i'd cut my own. That might be an interesting experiment for an afternoon. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested to see how things turn out. So a couple of pics and a short results video would be excellent ?

It's kind of funny that to really make the Pocket 4K work well, it usually ends up looking like the Ursa.

I think it is the Woodencamera kit as you can see the SDI in the back of the viewfinder. It looks like he's gone Camera > HDMI > Video Assist > SDI > VF. You could do the same thing, but replace the VA with BMD HDMI-SDI converter. They're like 30 bucks second hand, and run on USB power. Could tidy up the kit and minimise loose wires if you mount it somewhere out the way... like taped to a V-mount with USB output for example.

This is a shot taken with one of those Toyo Field Cameras I was talking about. This has a nice look to it to me.

I'm not so sure that there is no point to scanning in digital. Epson make some fairly ok film scanners. I see quite a lot of video's online where the images are scanned and they look great. I think the real draw to film for me is the idea that you focus more on the creative process. Granted, you can disable everything and go full manual... which is largely how I shoot, save for focus. I like the more modern film look. 70s, 80s through current... wait... I take that back. I like the "clean film" look. I'm not seeking to add artifacts to my images. I want a clean look, but with the organic soul that film has. I believe digital is a bit sterile. Looking back at some stills I took with my Fuji X-T3s; Fuji did a good job with their film emulations, but fall short of the genuine article. And frustratingly, the details are hard to pin down. Film seems quite forgiving of overexposure. Whereas underexposure is far less so. Digital the the exact opposite; performing quite well when underexposed, but clipping the highlights with far less resistance than film. Granted you can always do a long exposure with film, provided your subject is not moving about.... unless that's the look you are going for. It's entirely possible that I am simply misguided. It's not beyond reason that any interest in shooting with film is merely the result of some delusion. But nonetheless I'm liking the idea ? Leica MA Hasselblad Xpan Hasselblad 500cm

Too dark for my liking. But I guess they were trying to show off it's low light capability. But I think they went too far with it on a consistent basis..

Yes the whole point of ML for me, is that the images are artistic, low-fi, messed-up, film like, amazing to grade... The opposite of modern 8K digital. No matter how good our expensive full frame mirrorless cameras get, there will always be a place for a ML raw video or Digital Bolex Super 16

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about grading. Maybe you Ought to Calibrate your Monitor if you think it is OK. It sure as hell isn't on mine. I guess the new norm on here if it is half assed it is fine. Sure we are probably going to half ass stuff, but if that is the best video on You Tube to show off the XT-3 well Woopty Ding.