dbp

Yeah, color is still very mediocre. Not terrible or anything, and I'll probably still wind up buying one but was hoping for a big jump over the GH4.

I've never done a scientific side by side, but the 2 10bit cameras I've shot alot with (blackmagic pocket, panny HPX300), I feel like I can see the difference. Usually whenever there's a color gradient in the scene. Certain skies, lights splashing across a wall, etc. Seems to transition smoother. I remember flipping between 10bit (AVC-Intra) and 8 bit (DVCHD-Pro) on the HPX300 and it was obvious, no pixel peeping required.

Agreed, thanks for the test. Very interesting. You did a great job with matching, but it's neat to see the subtle differences in hue/saturation for each color. And yeah, the more I test... the more I realize the issue isn't classic tungsten per se, but the incandescent type that you see, which typically sits in the 2850K range. Dimming increasing IR makes even more sense. It's a worse case scenario for the pocket, but and unfortunate reality for most venues at night. The filter isn't really an option because the pocket already *barely* gathers enough light in these scenarios as it is. Just did a similar event with a mix of RAW and prores in the same room. It really surprised me how much easier raw is to deal with. The pro res was bad and nothing I did could really salvage it. I'll get an IR cut soon and hope for the best. I've been surprised that this issue hasn't come up more, but I guess people aren't using the pocket as an event cam, LOL.

Looks great! I've seen a lot of your work and it's always really well done. I don't necessarily think high detail is super important / flattering for wedding videography anyway. The color science outta the 1DC/1DX looks great and I think that's more important for this line of work.

That's my running prediction on where the GH5 will fall, but I'm hoping to be wrong.

Nice, looks great. Really smooth. Beautiful dog too!

I thought this was fairly common practice with the Alexa, and considered one of it's big strengths. High quality and efficient Prores. Particularly for TV where turnaround times are faster.

Not to mention that ergonomics and usabiltiy of a phone during a high pressure shoot like a wedding would be a nightmare. Sometimes it seems like a pointless attempt to be like "look what we can do", when they could take any low end camera and a better job 100x easier.

Mark II gives 60p, which was the only real achillies heel of the first version I think.

It really is. There are better, of course, but it's a very easy and pleasant experience to get something solid out the ol' C100. The definition of a workhorse camera.

Is anyone else struggling with Blackmagic cameras in tungsten lighting? I find the pocket looks brilliant in daylight and even florescent, but it's always a struggle to pull something nice out of tungsten. RAW is usually doable with some work, but Pro Res is even worse. It's been a struggle because a lot of events (weddings etc..) have big parts of the day under tungsten lighting.

The Bolox stuff is almost always pleasing to my eye. It looks different, compared to the flood of Panasonic/Sony/Canon offerings.

I think people are prone to think like that initially, but realize the error of their ways. That said, provided ratios are maintained, high iso does at least let you use less powerful lights, which can be handy at times.

How so? I've generally found the greens to be pleasing. Do you use LUTs or grade from scratch? I have heard that IR filtration can actually make things worse in specific scenes where there's a lot of green, like shooting in a forest. My big issues color wise are tungsten lights. Do you use your IR filter indoors? I'm thinking I might need one for that. I do 23.976. Only to match other cameras, haven't really tried 24fps, but I'm curious now based on your comments. I get tempted to ditch my stuff and grab a micro for the 60p, but we'll see what Blackmagic does in 2017.

I find that it also just looks a little different than most, and that's big to me. Same with the Digital Bolex. They have a unique look that's welcome after seeing the 9000th DSLR/C300/FS7 video. Gotta add, one of my big complaints about the pocket was lack of slow mo, but that can be a blessing in a way. I tend to over-rely on it at times, so it's nice being forced to get away from it.

I think so, unless 4K requirements really become an issue. I've been shooting with mine a lot more lately and it really does look better than the GH4 pretty much all of the time. It's quite sharp at 1080p, too. Moire is definitely a bummer at times, though. But of all the cameras I ever shoot with (GH4, C100, canon / nikon DSLRS), it's the only one that gives a hint of the really high end camera look at times.

I get ya that it's frustrating. I hate keeping track of all of that crap too. Gotta agree with Andrew, though. You're making it way more complicated than it needs to be for an interview. That's one of the GH4's strong suits. Simplicity with set ups like that. I go with the GH4 + sennheiser G3 directly plugged in all the time. Battery on GH4 is pretty solid. Screen is good enough for basic interviews. Internal codec is fine for that as well. I think sometimes people are too quick to jump on using monitors/cages/recorders when they don't necessarily need to.

I think as well, like relationships, expecting things to change is a lost cause. It's key to accept that a cheap and difficult client will always be a cheap and difficult client. Time spent trying to shape them otherwise is time *much* better spent by finding better clients. I'm definitely guilty of this trap.

Oh hell yeah, this this this. Do it enough and it can run the risk of making you hate your career. I've had a bit of a rough year dealing with difficult clients/jobs, and I swear I was pretty much regretting getting into video production at one point. I was convinced I was going to switch to photography, because video had lost all of its fun. I think, much like romantic relationships, learning to spot the red flags and avoiding this fuckery is key, because it will eat you up once you are stuck in it.

It's good and bad. On one hand, there's an overwhelming amount of choices, as you said. On the other hand, even the crappiest are still pretty good at this point, so it's hard to wind up with anything junky. Most halfway decent lenses and cameras can make pretty good looking stuff these days. I make my living at this full time and I feel like I have 1/10th of the gear that half of the people on forums like these have. Sometimes it's people who don't even work in the industry, it's just hobby for them, and they *still* have piles of gear. Gear is nice but you don't need nearly as much as people will make you think, and improving your craft will go way further.

How is the Befree overwise? Been looking getting it.

Anyone ever try use Resolve 12.5 for serious editing tasks? I was playing around with it last night, and it seems like they are getting closer and closer to making it a viable editor. Having all of their amazing color grading tools right there is a huge plus. I noticed you can create proxies in it as well. Think for some smaller projects, I might experiment. So much of what's keeping me tied to Adobe is time, habit and nostalgia.

The more time goes on, the more I consider trying Resolve as a Premiere alternative. It is free, after all. 12.5 somes pretty good, too.

I used to be a huge champion of Premiere, but have since soured on it a bit over the years. Having to rely on it for work has made the bugs and instability increasingly intolerable. Certainly not all the time, but enough to be annoying. I have little experience with anything else, so I of course assume the grass is greener on the other side. I'm guessing they all have their issues though.