Leaderboard

I cannot say much but give you two dear forum friends a hug in spirit and from my heart. This forum has been a comforting place for me as well. A puny little camera, nobody took serious back then for video, but you image lovers did, was my rock to hold onto in the roughest of my times, a black small GX85, my dearest trusty video mate. I filmed butterflies with it and my parents garden. I will never make fun of anyone filming flowers, except when they do it with a Leica.:)

My condolences about your mother. We're here for you - especially if it involves fighting over irrelevant technical details! I've said it previously, but I actually don't have a huge list of wants for an updated GX-line camera, and the GX85 is now my daily driver as-it-were. I've heard people ask for a range of improvements but they all seem quite modest actually. Things like PDAF, 10-bit, LOG, full-sensor readout, etc. These may well only require a sensor upgrade and a processor upgrade, perhaps to existing chipsets that aren't even the latest generation, which may not actually require that much additional power / cooling / space. At the moment the GX85 already has: IBIS / Dual-IS Tilt screen / touch screen EVF half-decent codec etc etc Plus, it's right at the limit of actually being too small from an ergonomic perspective. The grip design on it is really quite effective and I enjoy using it, but I probably wouldn't want it to be any smaller. If it had a slightly larger grip then that would actually be an advantage ergonomically, wouldn't make the camera much bigger in practice because it would still be smaller than most lenses, and would allow for a larger battery size. With proper colour management it is actually a very malleable image too, I did an expose test with it some time ago, doing exposures under and over and bringing them back to normal in post, and while the DR wasn't great, the image was very workable. The endless pursuit of megapixels has proven that a feature can be designed and then marketed and people will go nuts over it, despite the fact that it's not of any practical use to most consumers and it also requires upgrading of all associated equipment in turn. I think this shows that even if you did make a perfect camera for the people who shoot, the people who like progress for its own sake will always think that the perfect camera is the next one. Please no!!!!!

Interesting about the sensors (perhaps?) not being Sony - it makes sense though if they developed the dual-gain architecture as a custom design, which I am assuming they did. It also then follows that the colour science would be slightly different too. I suppose they could have made it identical if they'd wanted, but I think if you were designing such a thing you'd constantly be tinkering with it, trying to improve, adapting to more recent tastes etc. The fact that the G9ii is as good as the GH6 in many ways could be a promising sign for what a potential GH7 could bring. I think the difficulties with the GH6 were unfortunate, as was that it was overshadowed by the PDAF implementations of the next releases. I think that Panasonic were being bold and trying to really push forward in doing a dual-gain architecture sensor, but unfortunately it just didn't quite make the kind of difference that you'd hope from such a bold move. I guess Panasonic might take the "lesson" to just go back to incrementalism and play it safe etc, but I really hope they don't do that, but instead view it as a good-but-not-great project and keep being bold and trying things. If the GH6 and G9ii sensors are from TowerJazz (or any other non-Sony provider) then it might be a sign they're going out on their own and will continue to iterate on the design and improve it over time. That would be a great outcome I think.

Nothing short of total armageddon will change that. Your Leica Q3 vs my VW Golf GTi. Fight me.

Funnily enough, I was mocked on here not so long ago for suggesting any of that trivial shit was required so I was keeping it simple. Not to mention being in keeping with the other thread on here about making a "real" movie with a cheap camera.

I agree the GX85 is one of those cameras where the design and features were 'just right' when it came out. Its main problem (for me) is the on-board audio is poor (terrible electrical/IBIS noise breakthrough) and there's no mic jack, so getting decent audio means using a separate recorder. Wanting a genuinely pocket-sized camera with decent video and on-board audio, plus reasonable stabilization and a mic jack, I've just bought a refurbished Sony ZV-1 (original version). Only had it a few days and been able to test it much yet, but so far I'm quite impressed with the performance of such a compact camera (and the build quality seems pretty good - it's a nice solid-feeling camera, like the GX85 is). It's only a 1" sensor, but it's BSI with reasonably low rolling shutter and decent low-light performance. Quick size comparison of HX99/ZV-1/GX800/GX85/X-S20 - https://camerasize.com/compact/#797,847,699.397,673.397,908.706,ha,t (I also own the Sony HX99 small-sensor/30x zoom camera on the far left - that really is small!)

Sadly, this is just a stupid nickname 🙃. About the mambo jambo textures, when using BRAW on the S5II, the image is free from the weird edge sharpening, the image is great, juste like the internal S1 and S5 with their last firmware. So yes, like you I hope they will allow to turn off most of their bad processing, they surely can.

I just hope that Panasonic allows to turn off the mambo jambo with textures, what @Beritar was describing. Then it would be my S1 replacement and compliment my S1H. I am curious about dual gain colour. I would also love to have more "official" crop modes for S16, 2/3 inch, 16mm and so on, rather than a 2 x digizoom for 2/3" or pixel to pixel , which on the G9II in 4K mode is something around the 16mm format. Btw isn't Beritar a label under which Tokina and Sigma lenses have been sold, just like Vivitar, Soligor, Hanimex, etc? 🙂

Hard to say because I already sold the GH6. However, like the S5 and S5II, the G9II and GH6's colors are slightly different. But honestly the G9II's colors are really good, the best I've seen (with the GH6) from a Panasonic camera. From what I've read, the sensors inside these two M43 cameras come from TowerJazz, as opposed to Sony with the GH5/G9/S5II/S5/S1H/S1.

At the 2010 Academy Awards, The Social Network was nominated for eight Oscars and won three of them. It was shot on the at the time newly released MX version of the RED ONE, a camera that you can now readily pickup in a full kit including EVF, batteries and media for around £2K. There are a boatload of different options available now so, of course, I'm not suggesting you rush out and buy one but, nonetheless, this is an interesting time capsule of how it was no hindrance to making a very successful film then and likely wouldn't be now either if you did fancy buying one. Just make sure you budget for a decent tripod.

I still have my good old NX1 and NX500. Indeed, even at ISO 200, with bad light, details fall apart, very mushy. Back in 2014/2015 I was really disappointed by this mushy rendering in low light compared to my GH4, I was one of the first to point out : This exactly what the S5II is doing with most picture profiles (internal), of course the S5II has much better low light performance so it's much less worse, but when I crop inside the low light videos of both my S1 and S5II, I can see more or less the same difference, the S1 keeps much better details than my S5II (V-Log is really better but details are still not as good as on the S1, mostly because of weird edge sharpening). About the rolling shutter, it is really bad in 4K on the NX1, one the worst I've seen, but the image was and is still gorgeous with the right light, especially with the 16-50mm and 50-150mm NX S. Iirc, the RS is close to 30ms. I also have the NX500 somewhere in my house, but I never really liked the video quality compared to the NX1. In good light the NX1 is full of details, the NX500 much less, probably because of the big crop. Also the NX500 has more difficulty to nail the focus in 4K, and it has no electronic stabilization, which is very handy with the little 30mm and 45mm on the NX1. I used the hacked firmware of the NX500 allowing the 2,5K mode, the rolling shutter was excellent, below 10ms for sure, but the image quality was not good, there was sometimes weird lines and aliasing.

And budget for several lighting trucks. And budget for a six figure sound package. And budget for all the crew, and actors. And feeding them. And budget for all the locations. Yiiiikes, that doco starts out harsh "There is no reason this shot ever has a boom shadow", the director shouts while pointing an angry finger at the Boom Op. Poor guy

Plus I hate change...though it is inevitable for some things. The key to what I do though is making everything as simple as possible and as bulletproof as possible. The Rode stuff I use is 'prosumer', but in something like 200 (?) jobs, it's earned a place with me.

Batteries. Yuk. One more thing to charge and everything I own is internal battery. Thanks for the suggestions but the original Rode Micro and WG have served me well for however long it’s been, (6+ years?) and for my needs, just work. So better the devil you know kind of exercise with a large dollop of KISS.

Give a serious thought to the Deity Theos system it's only just came out. It's very affordable, not much more expensive. (especially when you factor in the extra cost factor of buying lavs for the Rode GO) More range, better design, more features, also is internal recording (for non-Americans, such as yourself). https://deitymic.com/products/theos-digital-wireless/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1779378-REG/deity_microphones_dtu0253d56_theos_digital_uhf_wireless.html

Right, basically the grade is never baked in for vfx delivery but yes the lensing grain etc is baked in if needed. The way to look at it is almost to not think of vfx shots as any different to any non-vfx ("real life"). The exception is totally cg shots on bigger budget films, but even then, ideally they have some real world reference or photographed guide that they are following. If you look at what Yedlin does, he is indeed bypassing what happens in DI to a degree and he's using Nuke in the same way the vfx houses do. He is basically doing what the color science departments at places like ILM have been developing for years. I believe that he applies a pass on all the shots on his films where he adds his lens emulation and film emulation if vfx have not already integrated that. Which I imagine he still does before DI, but then DI would be comparatively simple. I know he also works with color scientists/developers at places like EFilm or Fotokem though, to port some of his Nuke tools over to Resolve as OFX or DCTL plugins so that some can be done in DI.

I'm so sorry for your loss! And I understand completely!

In their older cameras that I have (GO2, RS, 1 Inch) they have Log profile but is 8bit only and not particularly great. So not sure I would count on it. It would be great. The 8k 24 is a strange story as apparently reviewers are not allowed to post 8k 24, only one so far did it. Looking forward to see some real work and not these YT reviewers madness.

I'm guessing that they would probably bring 10-bit along with the log profile by way of a firmware update.

I would still like to see the 2 forum members who were fairly dismissive towards my suggestion their video work or ideally their reels. I’ve seen some stills of Tom’s work and here and he is more than able to produce great images, so I think his opinion is definitely worth reading. to clarify my suggestion, which imo, I shouldn’t have to do to this extent, my reasoning is simple: - op was considering an fx9 originally, and i think ironfilm recommended an fx6 at some point. - We know that the p4k uses a sensor from the same family of sony dual iso options, and that they perform about the same in non raw codecs (and you can easily find that on cined too). - braw has a highlight recovery option, which can yield you an extra stop of highlight data, which means its actually better performing than both those (and i can actually speak from experience. Way easier to blow a highlight on an fx6 than a pocket cam). The DR argument is now invalid - in regards to rolling shutter: from what i’ve read, the p4k performs about the same as the c70 from what ive read. The fx6 performs better, and the rolling shutter on the fx9, which is what op originally considered, performs way worse. so what’s the point of bringing this argument up? - what is the point of a bigger sensor if you want more reach and don’t care about super shallow dof on wide angle lenses? Its easier to get those results on mft. - why are you already thinking about upgrading to different lens mounts? This person might quit within the year? What end result is a potential upgrade going to bring? i dont have any experience with canon cameras. Im sure the c70 is great, but it seems like a waste of money unless you’re a docu DP who already has a bunch of bigger canon cameras and you needed a slightly smaller one as a bcam.

...

Speaking of the G9 ii: It's too expensive; It's too big; It's not good enough in low-light (meaning high-ISO); It's too sharp; It doesn't have shallow depth of field; It doesn't have that "full-frame look". Do you really want to "invest" in M43? Other full-frame sensor cameras are the same price or cheaper. And on and on we go. I don't think there's any way to universally "win". In fact, I don't think any manufacturer has any real incentive to make the "perfect" camera. If they did, why would you ever buy anything else?

Sorry to hear about your medical issues and great to hear you are on the road to recovery. I echo your thoughts about this place. My last few weeks have been spent at my Mother’s bedside as she drifted away to her passing. In times like that of huge change and trauma we look for constants to keep us connected to “normal” life. In that respect, checking into here every now and again to find everyone having the same circular arguments was oddly comforting. And I honestly mean that with love.

Have you considered a C500 MK2 6k, Internal ND, Great lowlight performance, great latitude and good dynamic range, internal RAW and 10 bit capability. Pretty well designed package that works great for building up or building down, good battery life. To me IQ/usability wise it would be the C500 MK2 or the RED Monstro. In that price range they are the top performers. With the Monstro you have to deal with 8k but you have tons of compression options. You're getting better dynamic range and color depth over the C500. Only downside is no internal ND's, probably more expensive media (redmags), and power consumption is higher(though not terrible). I see some mentions of the S1H. I think it's a great bang for your buck camera. Great battery life, great sensor. They sell used now for incredibly cheap. Downsides are the HDMI out latency is terrible, slow rolling shutter, no internal 12 bit/RAW, and color isn't the greatest compared to higher end cameras. Again you can get great images out of it and for a hobby camera it would excel. If you are looking for a more high end experience I just don't think that would be it. In terms of value it is incredible though. I might also suggest an ARRI Alexa XT, but that might be too far into the too heavy spectrum. It's quite a beast.

The Pocket 4k has BRAW which means you get 1 stops more in the highlights with highlight recovery in Resolve. The Red Komodo does this internally to get its 12.5 stop rating ( a $6000 "cinema" camera). That makes around 12.6 stops for the Pocket. Also the C70 only gets 12.3 stops in RAW, because it has no NR. Again you can get an additional .5 stops or so out of the Pocket with NR. The comparison between a RODE wireless GO and the Pocket 4k makes little sense to me. Also the Pocket has held its value pretty well over its entire lifetime. Hardly a waste of money. I still see them making money all the time on different projects. M43 mount is hardly dead. The GH6 just came out with a brand new dual gain sensor, Z-cam is putting out a new global shutter M43 camera with higher dynamic range. Z-cam didn't likely design that sensor, probably made by Sony, which wouldn't be designing and making M43 sensors if there was no demand. But it doesn't really matter. If you aren't shooting for clients the camera you have is irrelevant outside of it giving you a usable image, which almost any camera on the market in the past 5 years does. Recommending a cheaper camera is not dissing someone's abilities. Award winning films have been shot on a GH2. The Pocket 4k is very capable. Anyways the Pocket 4k wouldn't be my choice in camera. Something like an S1H, FX30 would be as they are more run and gun friendly. My reason for not getting something "high end" for hobby uses is not because I don't want to spend money. It's because such tools are inconvenient and annoying for doing anything non work related. But that's me. Maybe you like to move slowly for your hobby uses an a big ass camera rig works for you. Even a DSLR for photos is annoying, would rather have the smallest APSC or M43 mirrorless option that I can at least sort of fit in my pocket.

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie. Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I. But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change. As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals. The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it. The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison. In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go. Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.

Are you referring to Jedi Master's thread? He doesn't need any of the professional features required by productions. Just needs a sensor to capture pretty landscapes in a slow paced chill manner on the weekends. That's like expecting someone to read an article before commenting on it on Facebook! Totally unrealistic expectations.

This is the internet... such things are irrelevant when arguing about technical matters!

I was just skimming the news this morning and the verdict was: Ukraine vs Russia South vs North Korea Israel vs Hamas...and maybe others China vs Taiwan/Japan/US A straw thatched buffoon vs an old man The United Kingdom. YouTube comments Other assorted fuckwits Random shit I think I'm going to go back to doing what I did during Covid and that is stop looking at the news completely. Because it's utterly depressing.