Leaderboard

Disappointing and barely improved from previous models (or at all??) Once again, people fail to understand what is actually going on here. The problem with 360 cameras was always that by the time you crop to a FOV that doesn't look like you're on massive amounts of drugs, the image starts to fall apart with lack of resolution and compression (poor bitrate). When you crop into the image, this 120Mbps 6144x3072@25/24fps in 360 degrees equates to: 15mm lens on FF (100.4 deg Horizontally) 1713x723 resolution (16:9) at 7.9Mbps 18mm lens on FF (90 deg Horizontally) 1536x648 resolution (16:9) at 6.3Mbps 24mm lens on FF (73.7 deg Horizontally) 1258x530 resolution (16:9) at 4.24Mbps Realistically, the 120Mbps is the limit, not the resolution. A 1.2K image wouldn't be so bad in the context of a nicely graded edit if it was more than 4Mbps... I'm waiting for a 400Mbps model - that would take that 24mm crop to something approaching 'real' camera territory (15Mbps or so). The challenge is that these are often used in situations where things are moving a lot and really stressing the codec.

fast update 0.2: Today I get to shoot a replica Ferrari 250, and here are some sceen shot with simple color grade shot on PMW-F3 and sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens: and a lovely BTS:

Astute. However, at least in our festival the selection committee and the judges aren't the same folks. So we have a smidge of integrity there. But yeah, a lot of them still definitely judge on thematics, not craft.

Oh, I've been there..... I remember one festival that I submitted to (as co-producer) where our submission didn't get in, but it ended up being won by a charming little documentary that was a thinly-veiled excuse to get old people to talk about sex. The oldies were adorable and the content was gold, but it was shot absolutely terribly. There were shots under and over exposed a bit, maybe one with a poor white-balance. At one point there was a locked-off interview shot where someone bumped the tripod and the whole camera moved about a quarter of the frame and was slightly off-horizon, then about 5s later they slowly straightened it up again, but it was a funny moment in the interview (I understand why they left it in). Sure, it was funny and the concept was great - it deserved to win for best writing or directing or something... but it won Best Cinematography. It beat another entrant that was a music video that was super-clean and where the cinematography felt like a commercial project. It was literally at that moment that my sister (my co-producer and the director of our film) and I looked at each other, sighed, and gave up on festivals. Most festivals I've seen operate behind-the-scenes using a dozen or so categories, normally like this: Film that the judges happened to like Another film that the judges happened to like The next film that the judges happened to like A film that the judges happened to smile at Some other film that the judges happened to smile at That strange film that the judges happened to enjoy A film that the judges happened to laugh at The film that the judges happened to think was cute The film from the people the judges know The film starring the person the main judge is sleeping with The film directed by the person one of the judges wants to sleep with Judges choice

There are some limitations with the GH1 dynamic range, but the clips in the reel are mostly available natural light. One or two shots are lit with a shop light and diffusion gel. Imagine if I actually used lights and modifiers as I would now, it would look much better. And I was just using the 14-42mm Panasonic kit lens, a Canon FD 50mm 1.4, a Sakar 28m f/2.8 and Sankor 16c/Optivision XW5000 Anamorphic lenses. The second video (Lighting test) is when I got more serious and bought lights, a modifier and "cine" lenses: 300w and 150w Arri fresnel knockoffs, a 5-In-1 reflector, and a Rokinon 16mm f/2 and 24mm f1.4 The bottom video is a test a friend (the one in the video) wanted to shoot for a film he wanted to direct (with me as DP) when I lived in North Hollywood in 2014. He wanted to test spherical and anamorphic. This video kind makes me want to get a Helios 44M again.

I've been considering getting a GH1 as an experiment, to see what I can do with it now with more experience/better lighting. I'm surprised by the color/fidelity of the GH1. In certain situations, newer cameras are better. I recently shot BTS on a friend's short in very low lighting conditions, with the GH5. As so-so as the GH5 is at 3200iso, the GH1 would be so much worse (color shift/noise above 640iso) and no stabilization. But in a narrative film situation with more control, there might be less of a difference. After writing the above, I decided to make a reel of some old GH1 footage remastered and regraded: And here's a couple other test videos I would have included had I not deleted the raw footage:

Well I confirmed it, I desperately need negative fill. I set up a different angle in the small room. But the shadow side of my face is farther away from a wall. Boom. Now my face has texture again. I’m shocked at how sensitive light spill is! Now, any recommendations for super cheap negative fill? But effective enough even in very small spaces?

It is basically just metadata except for when it switches from base ISO of 100 to 3200. There is also a difference in DR between different ISOs because some of them are clipping the highlights at the same value even as they raise middle grey. I also noticed there seems to be some good subtle in-camera work taming the noise floor with, for example, ISO 800 vs if you shot ISO 100 and boosted by +3 stops. From my tests with DNG, it's clear to see the advantage of ISO 3200 over ISO 800 when it comes to an improved noise floor, at the expense of about 2/3 stop less highlights. I would need to double check the behavior with the Ninja V though. It is nowhere near as dramatic as the higher base ISO in something like a Sony a7sIII/FX3/FX6 though. Here's an example using 12-bit DNG. On the left is shadow detail at ISO 3200 and on the right is ISO 800, both exposed for middle grey -2 stops (to protect more highlights) with the Sigma kit lens which is very contrasty. I'm pushing the exposure up in the extreme so you can see how the ISO 3200 is holding the color in the shadows, not clipping at black and also not contaminating with green. What interests me about 3200 besides shooting in under lit scenes, is using it with wide contrast scenes if I underexpose it by 1-2 stops. So I can take advantage of the better noise floor while protecting highlights. Otherwise 800 (base ISO 100) is a good choice. It's about setting a usable key/fill ratio. In an uncontrolled setup where you're not lighting from scratch it would be about ideally adding enough fill to keep shadows from being at zero and enough diffusion to tame extremely harsh bright light. I don't see why that would be the case.

Doubt I’d ever use it for anything serious that might require ProRes, ie ‘work’. Well I will use it for work, but only SOOC social media. Never been in a pinch where I have had to use my phone and have a ZV1 for that purpose anyway. Nope, it’s simply a Swiss Army Knife that is more than a phone and more than a camera and though I have seen some pretty impressive stuff shot on a phone before, just not going to use it at that level even if I could. The only thing I’m less keen on is the size. I would rather have had a mini, but I’m more a tele kind of guy than a wide angle with 50mm+ being my preferred focal length. I do use wide and have 20, 24, 28 and 35 (mostly just 35) for various purposes, but more because I have to than want to for work purposes. I mean I could impose a “I only shoot at 52.5mm” FOV on my clients, but I’d then need to put myself in the category ‘pretentious tosser’.

Ha, quoting myself… Today I put my money where my mouth is and bought an iPhone 13 Pro. It replaces: 1. IPhone 8 Plus that is literally falling apart. Some of the rear internals are exposed and it’s only being held together by an armored case. 2. Not buying a dedicated controller for my Air 2S because they cost as much as a decent phone so… 3. Action 2 4. Any further thoughts over a ‘personal camera’. The simple reality is I have my phone with me 24/7. A bit sad, but that’s what it is, a personal and business tool for so many things… Phone, tv series and movies on the road (and I work away a lot) internet, e-mail, banking, video, photo, now with optical telephoto for the first time. It’s my book/reading library and zero transfer of stuff for social media because it’s mostly already in my phone. Yada yada yada… The best camera you have got is the one you have with you. Looking forward to seeing what it can do over the ‘old’ and knackered 8. I suspect, night and day difference…

Filmed with one hand on right handgrip and second hand on top handle. I've not use Power IS, just Dynamic etc...

My guess is that every scene doesn't need to be color matched... the story, the look, the mood, the emotions... different colors invokes different moods and emotions... I think they discuss this and story board it - color and style should be discussed here, the colorist has to give his input here too and the cinematographer needs to choose wisely to match that...

@Llaasseerr I am now learning to use the camera in the V-log way (with and without a LUT). What I simply do not understand is that if the camera records RAW data, ISO value is basically just metadata. That being said since the fp has dual iso it must have two native EIs. The DR of the camera is always the same no matter the ISO setting both native EIs. Have seen couple of videos explaining that in a dark environment you should use a low EI value and in bright a higher EI. They try to explain that with selecting different ISO values, you are just shifting the middle grey point. On one hand it makes sense to let as much light into the camera in a dark environment as possible, and in a bright environment do the opposite. But yet I am not 100% sure I understand what they mean. For the fp I have noticed that with false colors turned on (and the V-log LUT) only as from ISO 320 you are touching 100 IRE. So I assume that is in reality the native ISO value of the sensor. Or is that already wrong? Maybe you are willing to explain so maybe I can understand this?

Chip shortages and thin profit margin. Look at the Nikon announcement today. Everybody is trying to use the parts they already have in inventory or still available to order. This one has 1 inch sensor and two of them, at just $700! Japanese gave up single 1 inch P&S at $1000. I don't want to be business manager of this company.

Unfortunately I think that this is unlikely to resolve itself any time soon. For sports-bros and the GoPro crowd, more than 100Mbps seems to become cumbersome (or at least the manufacturers seem to think so - the GoPro Hero 10 tops out at 100Mbps and hasn't improved much since the GoPro Hero 3 which was about 45Mbps). I don't know why, because SD cards keep coming down in price every year, and computers keep getting more powerful, and the resolution is what kills a computer anyway, not the bitrate. There are higher bitrate 360 cameras available, but they're huge, like the Insta360 Titan, which has 8 MFT sensors and records up to 11K and 180Mbps per lens (1,440Mbps in total before stitching? I'm not sure about this because stitching might create a VR image?). Problem is that it's 23cm / 9 inches in diameter and weighs 5.5kg / 12 pounds. I'm not casually putting that on a selfie-stick and carrying it around! It's the old adage once again - big quality = big camera and small camera = shitty quality.

Absolutely. It's a shame that many (most?) of the camera internet community are not craftsmen at all, just technicians. Or are craftsmen of making camera content for social media, not a skill that really translates to almost any other use of a camera. Absolutely, sound is definitely more than half the video. In my quest to understand good sound design, I've discovered that unfortunately sound-design-related-content is by no means half (or even a single percent) of the camera-related materials found online. In terms of getting sound right, I'd really like to see cameras implement more than two channel audio. Having four channels would mean you could capture a stereo signal as well as a mono signal with a safety track, or two channels where each has a safety track. It's easier to get levels right if you're focused on sound, but as a solo-operator working in uncontrolled situations, this would be a killer feature. I've absolutely clipped audio in the past, even with a safety track(!), and I hardly ever remember to capture stereo on-location sound, so I end up with a mono channel and have to scrounge ambient stereo tracks from all sorts of places. Four channels would be a set and forget setup that I would very much appreciate. I know I can do it separately with an audio recorder, but then media management becomes an issue, plus the rig and battery and charging setups become impractical.

4x4 floppies and 6x6/8x8 solids are useful for negative fill. Anything dark you can put up--a duvetyne, black visqueen, black rip stop nylon, etc--will help block the light bouncing off those bright walls and restore contrast to the setup.

Maybe lower or switch off the ambient/fill light as the white/closer walls are acting like reflectors.

Ergo, it's the story dummy. In this day and age you could shoot a movie with an EOS M and get the job done with a great script and good actors. The playing field is a Lot leveler in this day and age cameras wise. Iti s probably harder to get sound right now than camera work right. And I would much rather sit though bad camera work than bad sound.

This... except I would argue that theme is craft... just a different discipline. But I get your point. I'll take it a step further due to this thread. A writer/director with an inkling of visual sense could take any of these crappy cameras... or a camcorder and make a sale able or popular film. On the converse, most craftsmen on the technical side of filmmaking still need that writer or director to utilize or show off their craft.

You're absolutely correct. I'd add you're definitely better positioned as a specialist to maintain a successful career than I am as a one-man-band-guy.

I feel it is important to specialize. Be that was a Gaffer, or DoP, or Sound Mixer, or Grip, or whatever. We're on a camera forum, so of course we're going to obsess over the pros/cons of a P6K Pro vs a C70! Or the Sirui vs SLR Magic anamorphics. We're not going to be discussing on the merits of using Walmart's own brand of foundation vs using Maybelline's foundation. (but if you're a MUA, then yup, you think about that, and might use something different depending on if it is the Lead vs an Extra) This morning I spent a bit of time thinking about if I getting a Lectrosonics 200 series plug on transmitter is worth the cost savings vs a Lectro UH400A / HM ? (brief answer: if a UH200D? Yes, maybe. Anything else? Definitely not) But that type of minutiae level discussion about sound is not what I expect to see on EOSHD, that's what goes on over at JWSOUND instead. (well, except I couldn't find anything worthwhile over there discussing in the past the UH200D, as even for them that is too niche/old. Hoped to have better luck at R.A.M.P.S. but drew a blank there too) Each individual piece of minutiae obsession is unlikely to make any major impacts, but when you add up dozens of these 1% improvements, then add up every crew person also striving for these 1% gains (which hopefully they're all doing, as they're all specialists in their crafts striving to be the very best), then you're seeing some huge improvements overall for the film itself.

Me too! Hope to hear something yet on topic this week! Grazie! :- )

Did you try swiping from the right of the screen to access the lens data menu? There you can manually input the lens focal length. I would think that would work for fully manual lenses. I plan on doing my own tests shortly.

What settings, Codecs etc ... Filmed by hand ? With what stabilization setting ..? Thank You

It is for family videos and travel, why on earth get a Canon 5D mk2 / mk3? Doesn't really seem compatible with your purposes. Get a Panasonic G9 (or heck, even a Fujfilm X-T30) and enjoy!

update 0.1: since it doesn't come with mic or mic stand, there were a big ugly hole on the right side handle, so I used some soft silicone rubber that left from some old project, cut it with razor and voila! a rubber cover, not pretty but it works and I don't need to worry dust and rain water will get inside handle anymore. Here are some screen shot fresh comes out of it, RGB444 on PIXE5, 180° shutter and ISO800, SLOG of course, 5600k WB, just transferd it to R709 and a tiny touch to exposure. The dynamic range and color science is truly amazing! Indeed it is a reason that F3 was called 'baby alexa'

No such thing as a good luck..they just got it..next delivery unknown..this camera will be the hit of the summer!