jonpais

A comparison between the Spark, Mavic and Phantom.

Thanks, @PannySVHS There’s a reason I haven’t dusted off my G85 and X-T2 and put them on craigslist - the GH5 hasn’t suddenly made them obsolete. And if I were to do another vignette of streetlife (I like that!), I’d most likely shoot it with the Laowa on the G85 and Zhiyun. Which brings us back to why we choose one piece of gear over another, and for me anyways, ergonomics, ecosystem, battery life, UI, workflow and so on, are every bit as important as image quality.

Even those unfortunates ? who don’t yet own an HDR display can see the limitations of SDR in this awesome grading tutorial, where Juan Melara has to conform 13-15 stops of dynamic range to the rec 709 color space.

I should add that, just like the Sigma ART lenses in my collection, as well as the Veydras (which, you may recall, are compatible not only with MFT, but can also be used with Fuji X-mount, C mount and Sony E mount), the Atlas anamorphics will be compatible with any camera I decide to purchase in the future, be it Canon, Kinefinity, BMD, or whatever. Thinking only in terms of your present camera is shortsighted, as many filmmakers eventually upgrade from crop sensor to S35 or even full frame. As far as the various diabolical formulas that would limit the price of lenses to one-third that of the camera body, a set of G Master zooms can easily surpass the going rate for a used Sony a7s severalfold. Another thing to keep in mind is that the GH5 sensor can out-resolve most lenses on the market today, and if I were filthy rich (instead of just wealthy ?), I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a full set of Cookes or Compact Primes. But I’m not looking to replace my entire kit, I just want to be able to mix some anamorphic in with my spherical stuff. And if @Jordan Drake hasn’t already bought the very last Isco over at eBay, maybe I can find a less crushing alternative.

Medium format killer? Thoughts from one of the more insightful gear reviewers, with lots of twists and turns.

@Jonesy Jones I'm dying to know myself. =)

Thanks, Glenn, I appreciate your input! Online, I see professionals pairing up the GH5 with pricey cinema lenses all the time. Same goes for Sony mirrorless. Not sure whether they're renting or buying, but heh... You've got to admit that your statement, for every shooter that loves their GH5, I can find one that loves their _____ [fill in the blank], is not the quite the same as presenting solid reasons why someone prefers one camera over another. For sure, I'd like to play with RAW someday, but none of the cameras you mention have all the features that I so like about the GH5: HLG, ETC. IBIS, 10-bit internal, full HDMI, Anamorphic de-squeeze, 4K 60p, etc. As far as color goes, I think @ntblowz demonstrates in another thread that if you white balance correctly and are good in DaVinci, Premiere Pro or what have you, you can get adequate results. =) And he was shooting RAW with the Canon C500. But rather than changing the topic to different camera systems, let's talk about lens choices. =) I don't think the Super Speeds are anamorphic, are they? Because I'm after the anamorphic look. For sure, I'll check out the lenses recommended by @Julien416, for one, because I'm still on the fence about the weight and cost of the Atlas, and I'm not sure I'll even be able to get it anyhow because of the ridiculous duties here in Vietnam. Even ordering vintage lenses online is going to be a tremendous hassle. Fly to Hong Kong or Singapore? Absolutely more doable. But whether I decide to get the Rectilux and some vintage lenses with swirly bokeh or go with the more modern anamorphic look of the Atlas, I still believe that delivering 4K (or 6K!) anamorphic HDR will rock.

@Vesku Maybe not 12 stops, but more than 6? =) First you’re talking about 8-bit, then you’re talking about RAW... The topic is about HDR and YT requirements. You made me laugh for the first time today, but if you post in this thread again, it will be deleted pronto.

?????? @Vesku I thought @kidzrevil‘s explanation was very clear and concise. Instead of cluttering up this thread with how you can see 12 stops of dynamic range on your SDR television set, please start a tutorial in a new thread. Thanks!

Another short rant. About sound quality. My recent preoccupations have been HDR and anamorphic lenses. During the course of watching dozens and dozens of webinars, listening to podcasts and watching sample footage, I noticed that they all have one thing in common - horrible, clipped, distorted and at times unlistenable audio. Crackling sounds when they speak. Dropouts. And many of the videos I'm talking about are produced by directors and professionals in the AV industry. You'd think they'd know how to adjust levels. But you'd be dead wrong. So it was refreshing to actually be able to sit through a video by Luke Neumann that has beautiful sounding audio without any of that nonsense. As an aside, as much as I'd also like to be the next David Mamet or Aaron Sorkin or whoever, writing brilliant screenplays and producing dazzling short films, I don't get people who belittle those who enjoy vlogging. I grew up listening to talk radio, it was thought-provoking and engaging - and even though I don't see a ton of content on YouTube that could be remotely characterized as provocative, I think that can be attributed as much to the audience as to the vloggers themselves.

First of all, 10-bit is a big deal. Secondly, you knew about the focusing when you bought the camera. If you didn't, shame on you. Thirdly, I'm asking you politely, cut it out, or start your own hating on Panasonic blog. This isn't the GH5 thread.

Sorry, but the ability to shoot HLG high dynamic range video and internal 10-bit, combined with outstanding in body stabilization and focus peaking (critical for shooting 4K in flat profiles), all topped off with a small sensor that is ideal for anamorphic shooting, along with anamorphic desqueeze, 4K 60p, ETC mode (which effectively doubles the focal length of any lens) and full HDMI out make purchasing a Canon, Nikon, Sony , Olympus or BMPCC seem like a huge step backward. And even though I agree that it’s possible to get something like Panasonic’s wonderful EVA 1 for the cost of one Atlas Orion 65mm T2, for example, the combined cost together with a GH5 is still one third the price of a new anamorphic cine lens! To sum up: Advantages of purchasing the Orion: one-stop solution, impeccable build and image quality Disadvantages: supremely heavy; I will have to sell one of my kidneys

Of greater interest to me than which cameras were used is the post production process. Jonny Elwyn delves into Mindhunters’ Post Production here. And editor Vashi Nedomansky shares 25 subliminal shots in Fincher’s Mindhunter here.

The only thing I agree with above is that there should absolutely be a Crane Mk2, since it’s not already confusing enough. ?

Thanks, @mercer, I appreciate the input. The cost of the Atlas 65mm T2 I've been considering would be pretty devastating to my savings account, that's for sure. And I'd probably have to fly to the USA and smuggle it in through customs to avoid paying insane duties. Then there's the weight - unlike all the cool anamorphic footage I see online, where the filmmaker's nimbly following some petite blonde around the gently winding cobblestone streets of some idyllic European city at golden hour, I'd be forced to use a sturdy tripod. It'd also mean getting a new set of rails and god only knows what else. Schlepping around a Ronin in this 90 degree heat is out of the question for me. Anamorphics are like Lays potato chips - it seems nobody can buy just one, so you're right about the lifestyle part - they're like an addiction or something. You've got me thinking about RAW - if only JVC added it to their LS300, like you were fantasizing about. A cinema camera really doesn't appeal to me though, as much as I love to ogle them! I haven't monetized my YT channel yet. I thought I'd wait till I had more than 400 subscribers. =)

@Trek of Joy Have you handled one of these? It's much larger than the original Zhiyun Crane, which I would say was the average size for single handed gimbals. The alternative is to get the original Crane or v2, which is already smooth, like Brandon Li's been using for his wonderful videos, and he's got no intention of upgrading either. Unless you're using a large camera or long heavy lenses, there's no need to upgrade. Those who want to throw a Sigma 18-35mm on their GH5 might consider buying this, but that's not my style. I prefer compact primes for gimbal work.

Another review, this time by Brandon Li. I think I’ll hold onto my money. BTW, I saw someone shooting with one last week, it’s ridiculously huge, no way would I ever want to travel with that thing.

There are some stunning looking 4K 60p HDR videos on The HDR Channel on YouTube, but they look pretty horrible on an SDR display.

My writing’s definitely not as eloquent as @Cinegain‘s, which is why I’ve got to rely on videos. ? In his vlog, Christian Maté Grab says the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN and 18-35mm f/1.8 are his two favorite crop sensor lenses, though he considers manual focus with the prime all but unusable, which it is. And if it weren’t for the excessive weight, I’d probably be shooting with the 18-35 more regularly myself. Hugh Brownstone often shoots his own YouTube videos with the Sigma 30mm too. In a few more days, I’ll have to decide whether or not to pick up the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, though common sense tells me not to. But since when did common sense ever prevail when it comes to glass? Backtracking a bit just to keep you off guard, it must be said that although Mr. Grab has good judgement, he’s still young and relatively inexperienced, and his list of five favorite lenses will in all likelihood look very different in a few years. Traveling back in time, my favorite lens was the Panasonic 35-100mm - but I only owned two lenses! Right now, I’m seriously considering picking up an anamorphic lens. Although they’re quite popular now, I’m not overly fond of the SLR Magics, and I’m certain I don’t want to mess around with dual focus setups either.

Broadcasters and post production houses have been shackled by standards that are nearly thirty years old. Better displays have been the driving force behind the new standards. Even if your Panasonic can display more brightness, richer color and a higher dynamic range than the run-of-the mill set, Technicolor couldn't arbitrarily start grading and distributing content solely for premium televisions in the current SDR space. The idea has occurred to me though, that since colorists grade shows in dimly lit rooms under D65 bulbs with neutral walls, and content is meant to be viewed that way, that TV sets should use their light sensors to automatically switch off when operated under unfavorable conditions. =) I think they're looking at doubling the brightness in movie theaters.

@Vesku Are you asking why we can't give more exposure in rec 709 without clipping the highlights? When you've reached 100 nits on your display, that's as bright as the whites (or highlights) are ever going to get. With HDR, fire, the sun, a bright sky, and specular highlights can be reproduced by as many as 1000 nits on some of today's displays. When you say most of today's TVs and monitors can show good highlights and shadows in rec 709, are you saying they're capable of much more than five or six stops of dynamic range? Because this contradicts everything professionals in the industry are saying. rec 709 was only designed to accommodate around five stops of dynamic range. Look it up. Not sure what you mean when you ask why 8-bit videos must look crushed and clipped on 8-bit screens - as long as they're properly exposed and graded, they should look fine. I'm also having trouble understanding what you're getting at when you ask why commercial television has such low dynamic range. It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here - on the one hand, you're telling us that when you shoot rec 709, you get images that resemble HDR, but when you look at professionally shot video on TV, it looks terrible? Lastly, I fail to understand why you keep insisting on 8-bit for HDR when every single industry professional is recommending 10-bit. It's all the more baffling, as you've got a camera that can shoot 10-bit internally. I think you're missing the point about 10-bit as well. In the first place, it never has been the most desirable bit rate for grading (most colorists say they prefer working with higher bit depth footage), and according to everything I've read and heard and watched, it can be even more problematic when grading for HDR. I think it's got something to do with banding or something. Since you already own a computer and I'm assuming an HDR TV, I would think you'd be able to instantly see the difference between SDR and HDR. It's like night and day. Only today, I compared the experience of watching some videos on both my LG C7 and on my 5K iMac, and guess which one had deeper blacks and brighter highlights? I also watch my own YT videos from time to time on TV and they look incredible, but they're still in the rec 709 color space: no amount of playing with the highlights and shadows is ever going to make them magically look like HDR footage. I should add that it is absolutely possible to grade your rec. 709 footage for HDR delivery, and it can indeed look very good. But not as good as HDR. Below is a screen shot from the intensely beautiful The Lost Castle by Christian Maté Grab. Viewed on an SDR monitor, it looks fine, but if it were graded in HDR, the bright sky would glow and the image would have greater overall depth. It would benefit from more subtle color gradation (particularly in the sky - 10-bit rec 2020 can reproduce bright intense colors that rec 709 cannot), as well as an impression of greater sharpness as a result of the higher local contrast of HDR. Fortunately, it was shot with James Miller's LOG profile (created in partnership with Atomos) and can always be graded again in HDR should the filmmaker be so inclined.

@Mattias Burling If you lived in Vietnam, you'd see that buying and selling micro four thirds lenses and bodies is a loser's game. And even trying not to lose your shirt letting go of popular brands like Canon and Nikon is tough here. I've been trying to sell some other stuff from around the house for forever. I've come to the realization that even if I bought a brand new fully spec'd iMac for $4,000 today and turned around and tried selling it tomorrow for $800 on eBay or Craigslist here, nobody would bite.

@Mattias Burling This is the Sigma Contemporary lens for E-mount. Not the same lens. =) Confusing, I know... Or is it me who's confused?

I'd quickly be in the poorhouse if I bought and sold all my lenses five times.

We often hear that this or that lens is too clinical or that lens looks organic; and maybe Sigma's got a reputation for being more in the former camp; but this video demonstrates to me at least that it's about the light, the camera work and the grading; and yeah, I'm kinda liking the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN. But I will say that teal and orange look is sort of wearing thin, and if I wanted to be really picky, I wouldn't have added so much sharpening to a few of the shots. Anyhow, thanks to @mercer for pointing this fellow out.