Axel

You are right. A gimbal is just one tool among others to make shots stable. Particularly if the operator tries to show off, it gets boring.

Well, it should be called a gimbal zoom then, shouldn't it. As John Hess knows, there are different names: Since the first use of the effect, in Vertigo, was achieved by foreground, center (not moving) and background layers of the staircase with a multiplane camera and so strictly speaking was neither a travelling nor a zoom, I find it appropriate to use that name, Vertigo.

https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/01/egpu-acceleration-internal-display-mac-apps-macos-video/

Vertigo zoom of course (as they say in the video). Brandon Li uses it a lot in Hong Kong Strong, only there he zooms out digitally, resizing a UHD image to 1080. You *could* name the rotation around the zero anchor point (around 1'20") a 2001 shot ...

Fantastic review, Dave! Now I really want that thing ...

Yes, it isn't: As for the performance of the eGPU with Resolve, no guess work is needed: ... and Resolve performs as good (and in some respect even better!) as FCP X on those iMacs. Another thing to keep in mind is that for GPU performance, the said eGPU doesn't need a *new* MBP: That Apple and BM are still busy with such joint ventures may be a good thing insofar as in my very humble opinion ProRes Raw could substitute CDNG on the long run. Got FCP and Resolve both on your computer? Then you can download snippets of both from here. Grant Petty argued that they could get DNG data rates down through compression to almost match those of PRR. Be it as it may, they won't be able to achieve the same performance with that. So it's possible that at Christmas time, when relevant numbers of BMPCC4ks are being shipped, they will have the PRR firmware ...

Bokeh actually is a rather esoteric term because it doesn't mean blur, but the aesthetic quality of the blur. In the same way bouquet does not mean stinky wine. That's why there are so many criteria to judge the bokeh of a lens. It had been a trend for long, but it's nothing special anymore. Last but not least, why is it a flat medium? There are other factors to make us feel depth: We don't *see* it in real life, but something very similar happens. Apart from the fact that our vision has a permanent vignette at the borders, we only see the momentary object of interest really sharp and clear, even if the other objects/persons are optically in focus. If you want to focus on something/someone, it's therefore justified (if also often crude) to throw the background oof.

I entertain myself with niceties of visual perception ever since. It all comes down to what german poet Goethe concluded: (clumsy translation) He had written on perception of colors early on, and we are talking about the 18th century! As William Gladstone proved later on, we may all *see* the same things, but we take completely different things *for real*. His finding: if you don't have a word for blue, you can't (yes: canNOT) distinguish blue from green. The sky turned blue the instance the color could be artificially reproduced, and the sky and lapis lazuli were no longer the only blue things in the world ("blue" flowers are always light or dark purple, and they are described as such in earlier times). So the least we can say is that our perception is way more flexible than we are aware of. But what is still questionable is whether or not ISO grain does convincingly look like scotopic vision. The answer is, it can. Everything that signals a purpose, an intention, a calculated effect, and be it drastically distorted and stylized, will trigger the suspension of disbelief. On the contrary, if an image surrounded us 360°, had 20k resolution, 200fps and 30 stops of DR, we would be smart enough to find it reality-like, but ultimately unreal.

@BenEricson Sigh. That's analog to having wine served from bottles with cork instead of Tetra Paks. I told one story already. We had a very worn print of Time Of The Gypsies in the cinema where I was projectionist. A thick layer of scratches, rumble in the (analog) audio, hundreds of splices. It was a morning performance for two school classes, kids of fourteen, fifteen. I was certain, they wouldn't stand it. Much to my surprise, they were deeply immersed. Their faces were red, their eyes shone when they gathered in the foyer afterwards. Sure, it's an unbelievably good film, but I think the presence of he medium added, well, something. Did you read Flicker?

Like we saw in the thread/video F*** the numbers!, a film from the 50s or 60s could top 8k RED footage with ease, quality-wise. But that's only because analog film is still seen as the superior medium. Digital is limited in unexpected ways, heavy compression being the worst. Apart from that, it's quite impressive how far we came within one decade. A 35mm mass print, projected with the average projector to the average (white) screen, showed comparatively poor quality, resolution 1k, around 4 stops dynamic range, many charming artifacts added like dust and scratches. With digital HDR and HFR and of course ever higher resolution, the image quality could be far superior to analog film. But it might take another generation before 24p die, and the reasons for that are not *just* nostalgia.

I absolutely hate my test shots. If there is an idea, a purpose, a plan behind what I'm doing, then it also is much better in every way. My cats also hate my test shots. Testing AF, exposure and gimbal skills with a one-shot. On the TV runs a loop of the intro of Rear Window. I make a long travelling shot over items I arranged in my living room (like in the film), then finally I pan over to the window front, where I have almost the same backyard theater. It's much brighter outside (aperture/ND transition). Need to find he right speed so that vertical edges don't stutter @24p. Need to program AF and see how it reacts. Also: weddings!

I'm going to sell the Sigma 19mm. Sharpness and overall look is top notch, really on par with Sigma 18-35 Art (at least @f5.6), and that means a lot! But it has two and a half shortcomings: 1. Bad manual focus ring (fly-by-wire, slippery) 2. Very fast, completely quiet AF, but, and that's the main problem, it breaths or hunts: background permanently and annoyingly focusses and defocusses, no matter the aperture, no matter the AF setting. Does so not all the time, but you won't notice the behavior on the display. 2½. Too short and lightweight to balance properly on Zhiyun Crane V1 without additional base plate.

Update: Sobering early review that revealed serious shortcomings for ambitious editors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWPYLJQ-tKk Offline already, as you can see.

The 18-105 would be *the* perfect lens, spec-wise. If it didn't have that kit-lens-look. With OIS and an additional monopod, it's indispensable @105 mm. Also good for gimbal work, because it doesn't protrude. Good starting point. I have the Sigma 16mm f1.4 only since a month or so now. Never would want to go any wider (24mm FF equivalent), that's nailing down this side of the spectrum. Manual focussing is perfectly possible with EVF (and not so much with shitty display), but it definitely is more precise and more fun with an external monitor. Just practise and see how good you are. May I suggest a "rig"? See attachment. Made of these parts, all Amazon: Didn't find this on Amazon.com. On Amazon.de it's called Nicna universal bracket and costs €8,99. The Arri-rosette and the grip both are Smallrig products (the brand name fits, since I want to "reduce to the maximum"). That particular grip is also not available internationally, it seems, but imo you don't need all those mounting points, and the Camvate grip is 10 bucks cheaper anyway. That cable is USB to microUSB. Like I wrote, I feed the camera with an external powerbank on my belt the whole day, and then it's still charged. The little cut-out on the "base plate" is for the cable of a dummy battery.

Sorry, I had to make this reference ... Here are three scenarios, you decide how far-fetched you find them: 1. Just another app in the portfolio. It's true. If you are a CC subscriber, you frequently see new little applications come and go. Edit on mobile devices. Why, not bad, is it? Did you hear her say "take it further into Premiere Pro"? You could qualify, organize in the field. Not bad, is it? Probably an app that's going to stay. 2. Premiere is EOL. With it's ancient source code, it had become ever harder to optimize PP for modern hardware and modern requirements. Also the stuffed and stuffy GUI looks outmoded, despite brave attempts to make it up with "dark mode". But what to replace it with? That's risky, Adobe has learnt that from Apples FCP X inauguration disaster. So they start as a modest little add-on, with the typical Adobe PR understatement ("if a big NLE is too intimidating"). Because this app is so streamlined, it will have stellar performance and stability. Indeed, the faster and more responsive Rush turns out to be from the start, the more you can bet that this second scenario is true. Allegedly they have put Lumetri into Rush. The limitation to four tracks on the one hand (a deception, also perhaps they subsequently cut them down until no tracks remain, see point three), the crown jewel in the glove department on the other hand. WTF! Adobe watches anxiously how it is received and then - lets PP die in dignity. 3. FCP X is EOL At WWDC, Adobe was mentioned several times, FCP not once. FCP (you buy it once and for all) has reached market saturation and doesn't generate more money. Also it may be fast approaching the state of rigor mortis Premiere is currently in, in that it's bloating with new features. But clients must have a reason to buy Apple hardware. So this could be a revival of the very old times, when Apple and Adobe worked together to have that synergetic effect: pricey (no longer overpriced) elitist software on specialized, highend hardware. The design similarities of Rush with iMovie are just too obvious. Perhaps it's a joint venture?

Wedding? Just did one with A6500, bunch of fast lenses and Zhiyun Crane ("V1"). No additional light needed. Even not in frigging candlelight! Weight, size, good AF, IBIS (therefore not A6300) and good lowlight make me think: well, would do this again. Get yourself a dummy battery and connect it to a powerbank (Intenso S10000 costs some 15 €, has the size of a smartphone and therefore fits perfectly into a belt clip holster, easily lasts a whole day). Main problem - at least if you are a one-man-band - is audio. Not even an earphone jack ...

Oh, jonpais, you've got the A7iii? Welcome onboard the Sony boat! Maybe, but then not because of better resolution than what we already have with our normal hybrids. Just compared a wedding video I shot two weeks ago with A6500 with a four year old I had then shot with BM Pocket - on a UHD TV, from a very short viewing distance. Negligible visible differences of resolution between "HD minus 20%" - the Pocket has 1920 by 1080 pixels on it's sensor, un-debayered - and "6k downsampled to UHD". How is that? Well, Yedlin was obviously right. The display resolution is of more importance than that of the camera and FullHD is the threshold. The BMPCC 4k also has just 4k pixels (the additional pixels for the wider AR can't be used for debayering). Decided I had to go back to the computer and finetune the colors, because in comparison *some* Sony shots looked like "video", colorwise. Not all though. And here is the interesting part. I had used GFilm as picture profile. And I'm glad I did. The A6500 may have it's shortcomings (more so if you compare it - on paper - to the Pocket 4k's specs), but it also has undeniable virtues (small size, low weight, good lowlight and AF), the most important one being that I already own it and a combo of good glass. Sony cameras are vloggers' choices. They don't care if their stuff looks like video. No one yet showed me a Youtube link to a Sony video to disprove that. But there will be a *few* Pocket clips to show such elusive qualities as better cadence or beautiful skintones. Few, because at least the skintones need the ability of the user-colorist to let them survive.

One part is to set up a natural behavior. This EOSHD member explains it for the Zhiyun (and why you would want to choose different settings): The second factor is the speed of pans and tilts. Too fast, and they will stop too abruptly. Not sure how this is prevented with the Ronin S. Must be a very sophisticated algorithm, ease-in, ease-out, with powerful motors.

You got me wrong. I didn't say the lenses were soft. Or 'crap'. One of my favorite lenses for my A6500 is the Sony 18-105. Mostly for practical reasons. But you can't for the love of god focus manually, because there are no 'positions', and if you try to rehearse a focus transition, the focus ring will just slip under your fingers. Even infinity is infinitely pushed away from you. That's what I meant with "completely useless there" (= on a 4k Pocket). And your son's clip proves little, because it's done with such a narrow aperture, it's almost fixed focus. Also, of the category I was referring to I only know Pan 14-40 kit lens, Oly 9-18 and Oly 12. There may be better lenses. On the official Pocket site BM shows the camera mostly with the Oly 12-40 f2.8, and according to this review, the manual focus is very useable: You might take a look at the Viltrox speedbooster, which seems to have a manual aperture control for the EF lenses (video timed):

To say that those Pana/Oly system lenses with very soft fly-by-wire focus (usually ideal for fast and quiet AF) are 'suboptimal' is way too weak. They're completely useless here.

The following comes from a guy using FCP X, but don't worry, I won't try to baptize you ? First thing you have to do, of course, is to manage your media. JBOD is very risky. I have a raid5 TB, and recently one of four disks died. Easy enough to replace this, but what if the whole controller died? Go with JBOD, but provide redundancy, in short: a complete backup, elsewhere. Never ever run out of disk space! Sounds wrong, is wrong. You should better split the project. Has nothing to do with performance or launch time. There is a threshold beyond which you simply invite disaster. A project of this size can't be managed. And with it going over several versions of the NLE ... Good idea. However, Premiere may be less dependent on a specific OS, but I doubt very much that Premiere 2018 will run on prehistoric Mountain Lion. If it can be installed in the first place, it will probably creep. That said, there almost certainly is a way to split your project with your old OSX and PP version. Like, saving as, deleting all edits not used for the part you want to create and consolidating it with copying to an external disk. Or so. There may also be third party software to manage the project. It's all about instant and continuous access to databases. Have your media in compact bundles, separated from caches, render files and project files. Limit the number of files Premiere has to access all at once to a few hundred. Remember, Premiere only has to open the folder(s) that contain(s) material for the current sequence. Close the timelines not in use. Split episodes to scenes (=sequences, rarely longer than 10 minutes). But even if for a short timeline Premiere has to open 8 folders containing 4000 clips, you are asking for trouble.

Long and heavy lenses are notoriously harder to balance, no matter the gimbals' maximum payload. If you choose a one-hand-gimbal, you might want to keep it lighter, if possible. Follow my (very personal, wedding videographer owning Ronin M and Zhiyun Crane) reasoning or find your own arguments: 1. The angled roll-motor of the Ronin S doesn't obstruct the cameras' display. Now it seems that this lets you forgo an additional external monitor. But does it? Depends on whether you just need to frame the image - and that's possible even with the considerably lighter Moza or Zhiyun with the motor in front of the screen - or, other story, if you need to focus manually. Because you have no or a poor autofocus. In this case, most camera displays won't be sufficient anyway. Probably. And you needed a free hand (one-hand-gimbal literally) or someone else to pull the focus (watch the promotion video). Heavy gimbal, heavy lens, field monitor, follow focus add up to a total weight not suitable for longer shots and longer shoots. 2. What is it that you expect from gimbal shots? Majestic crane moves or buttery smooth dolly shots through empty architecture? These are possible even with heavier setups (because they run just seconds), but they require more or less the same skills a steadicam operator must have, hashtag ninja walk. Also be aware that the Ronin S also stabilizes just three axis, and that there are more: (these flexible arms can also be added to existing gimbals, see here). 3. But there is another purpose. You can follow a person. If you consider yourself a good handheld operator, you won't need to practice an awful lot with a good gimbal, set up well (see next point). There are roughly two scenarios for a wedding: shooting static telephoto images with very long lenses, from a tripod or handheld with IBIS and OIS, and do the rest (we are talking *hours*, therefore you will learn to hate every unnecessary ounce!) with the gimbal and 24-35 mm full frame equivalent focal lengths. 50% of all footage you see in films and TV shows fall into that latter category. 4. Well set up means the gimbal will ignore little shakes (I think that's called dead zone) and smooth out your big, intentional moves. As of now, there is a limit to the speed of pans and tilts, because if you move too fast, the gimbal will of course follow, but the movement will look robotic (because that's what it is). The Ronin S advertises a 'sports mode', and again, watch the official promo: I think this feature is the most outstanding one of this gimbal. But one has to be aware how it should be used. Shooting a staged breakdance? Fine. Documentary style (like a wedding)? I'm afraid then it was too heavy.

This problem can be addressed. The flicker of LED can be avoided with changing the shutter speed. Poor lowlight has not so much to do with bit depth than it has to do with noise and compression. As it seems (judging from the test and demo clips on YT), the GH5S really has an advantage there. But the Sony shouldn't be too bad. Minimize noise, choose the right profile and the right iso (you can't do much about the compression factor), most importantly: mount a fast lens!

I agree with JB's "move on". But just one - hopefully last - remark. Frank Glencairn never used the term "sissy", not even "whiner". I know him well from the german slashCAM forum. He never uses questionable language, but he likes to provoke others with what I'd call an old hand's attitude. His article starts with: You don't need a grade in psychology (which I almost made) to very quickly find out that he is actually asking to be challenged and that his often slightly, but unmistakably condescending tone is meant to hurt. Whom? The con- and prosumers that are not up to his professional ethics and complain about missing features (among others, but that'd take too long). If you read between the lines, he says: A *real pro* needs no AF or IBIS. jonpais must have felt that JBs comments said something similar. Now how did he come from feeling insulted as an amateur to being dismissed as "sissy" (if we accept the sexist meaning)? I think that's a rather easy transition. Video gadgetry is "a man's toy" (please don't quote me for that, it's not my opinion, I just try to nail down the underlying emotions), and not being a "real pro" is equal to not being a "real man". Rather blatantly irrational, if you ask me, but it's the reason why so many hobbyists insist on using pro NLEs - to which Frank Glencairn often wrote, you can make the same edit decisions (that's your professional or creative part) in Windows Movie Maker or iMovie, I appreciate his views. Let's move on.

jonpais paraphrased Frank Glencairn, who in spirit (if not literally) wrote that battery whiners were sissies. Did he intend to insult gays? Well, english is not my native language, but to me "sissy" sounds more like "pantywaist". Frank is living in Bavaria, a country that's not famous for diplomacy or political correctness or much respect for "snowflakes".