jonpais

It is really very slight, as I say in the video, I actually opened up the aperture just until there were zebras (@100%) on my t-shirt and used that as my ETTR shot. I am working on another, far more detailed video, which I hope to post very soon.

You can be rude all you like. The fact is, I think most of us admire the work of PannySVHS and Jase, so I'm not being critical of them. But shutter angle does matter - it affects the final image, and like frame rates, it can be used creatively. And for that very reason, I don't want my camera dictating the shutter angle to me.

To be honest, I do notice it, and you should, too. The images stutter. Not that I don't like your videos.

Auto shutter.

I just did a very quick test with the Lumix G85 in natural light which leaves little doubt that there is greater dynamic range and less noise in the shadows when exposing to the right. Colors are a little trickier, first of all, because I'm not a professional colorist, so I couldn't exactly match the ETTR clip to the one that was underexposed by 1/3 of a stop. Also, detail that is plainly visible in the shadows in the original ETTR clip is obscured somewhat by YouTube compression. But the most startling revelation is that noise in the shadows, which manifests itself as ugly macroblocking due to YT compression, is somewhat reduced by ETTR. Look at the back of the flapjack LED to the left in the ETTR clips, in which macroblocking is virtually absent, and compare to the clip that is underexposed by 1/3 of a stop. Many YT and Vimeo videos suffer from this unsightly macroblocking as a result of underexposure. Applying the Leeming LUT to the footage would have restored the proper rec709 color space. My takeaway is that, while correct exposure is critical, proper white balance in camera and in post is paramount for good skin tones. But the fact of the matter is, the G85 is a great camera for the money, content is king, and I wouldn't get my panties all twisted up in a bunch over exposure.

@Fredrik Lyhne @fuzzynormal For the longest time, I believed shooting Natural profile with all the settings dialed down to -5, buying adapted lenses and expensive speed boosters, and using LUTs was the secret to getting that elusive 'film look'. Why? Because that's what everyone in the forums suggested. Later, I found out that native glass is often better, and that Cinelike D has greater dynamic range and better color, at least in my experience: which anyone who wants to compare, can check out my YT channel or blog. The same goes for underexposure: I'd been taught to believe that you have to protect the highlights and lift shadows in post, even though that is often not advisable. And the instant I post my findings, arrived at through my own extensive shooting, a vocal minority with very little work to show is quick to disagree. I've already shared many examples of Cinelike D, ETTR and tests comparing a number of m43 lenses as well as adapted glass; and if I have to, I'll get my hands on a GH5 if that's what's necessary to prove what should be obvious. And once more, unless we can see the original clips, and preferably some scopes, we can't be 100% sure what's underexposed, what's white balanced correctly in the first place.

There's a big difference between emulation and what passes for gospel in the forums. Which is why I always encourage readers to first consider the work of those handing out free advice, and secondly, to do their own tests.

@Fredrik Lyhne I don't see any need for underexposure in any of the videos you've posted up till now.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand to watch any more of Shane Hurlbut's videos. I've been shooting Cinelike D now for months now using ETTR and have never had such consistently good results using just the histogram and zebras. I'm sure V-Log must be trickier. But many mistakenly believe they should be shooting V-Log when shooting Cinelike D would be better. V-Log is not the be all and end all for every situation. As for the work of the other person you mention, from what I've seen, all their videos have crushed blacks. I need to see the clips straight out of the camera. Edit: Again, I strongly urge readers to check out the YT channel of those insisting that underexposure is better, and compare their videos to those who recommend ETTR and decide for yourselves which results in richer colors and greater dynamic range. You can even have a look at my own channel and see how much better my skin tones are than in the past, when I was underexposing. Many of my videos are straight out of the camera, and several of my more recent videos also contain screen shots of the scopes so you can see for yourselves.

Very good video, thanks for sharing, @Orangenz. I still think this is more of an emotional issue - those who insist that underexposing is the way to go won't be convinced that there is greater dynamic range and color bit depth, as well as less noise in the shadows when ETTR. Even my best friend here, an outstanding stills photographer, regularly underexposes by as much as 1/2 stop, his images are still gorgeous, but even after explaining to him the benefits of ETTR, he continues to shoot the same old way. Many mistakenly believe that if you're shooting a dark scene, you should shoot it 'dark', which, if you've ever watched a professional grading tutorial, you'll realize is nonsense. Typically, the colorist is lowering the shadows in post, not lifting them. Of course, there are exceptions, I'm speaking in general. As I've said repeatedly before, using the ETTR technique, often my exposures are close to a normal exposure, or perhaps only 1/3 stop 'over', depending on the scene contrast, of course. And ETTR really applies mostly to base ISO. If you're shooting at ISO 6400, obviously, you're just trying to capture enough light to make an image. There's also a lot of needless confusion in the forums about clipping, and even the terms underexposure and overexposure, as few in the forums share histogram, waveform monitor or RGB parade screen shots. If someone says they underexposed a clip by 1/3 stop, we can't really be certain that's an accurate statement without actually seeing the scopes. We read far more frequently in the forums about lifting the shadows than we do about ETTR for the simple reason that it is still not a widely accepted practice. As one photographer put it, we're still using one hundred year-old metering methods with digital cameras. Then there's the fact that many, if not most of the videos we watch online that we love have probably been exposed 'correctly' or even underexposed. Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have benefitted from an extra 1/3 or 1/2 stop more light, just as there are thousands of nice videos that have been shot with sharpening at factory default and shutter speeds violating the 180 degree rule.

a warning sign when the body's getting too hot would be great! ?

Color Finale

Why would the iMac Pro be the wrong machine for transcoding to proxy? Just wondering, because I'm also seriously considering getting this machine as well. My 2013 iMac is pretty sluggish when it comes to 3rd party plug-ins like Neat Video too.

I expected something like this, which is why I said 'not enough info', and 'apparently'. Anyway, looking at those shots over at Frank Glencairn's website, the Samyang just kills the Nikkor wide open. Is this just his copy, because so many swear by those Nikkor lenses. Maybe the Korean company should take over the lens division over at Nikon.

You could always pick up a Saramonic SR-AX100 for 50 bucks. It can reduce microphone levels by as much as -35dB. There may be less expensive solutions as well, like wrapping some handkerchiefs around the microphone. I use one of these with my two RodeLinks.

Intriguing, but not quite enough info as of yet. Apparently, several overseas investors are interested in struggling Nikon, but the Japanese government would like the 99 year-old business to remain in Japanese hands. Could Fujifilm prop up Nikon? http://www.fujirumors.com/japanese-goverment-wants-fujifilm-help-suffering-nikon-company-says-japanese-report/

Final Cut has crashed on me a couple of times, but I've never lost a thing because of the auto save feature. And yes, DBounce, so many claim that Apple's individual components aren't the latest, that they can put something together with much better specs, but they don't always run faster than Macs, depending on the application of course.

The reason there's no longer a video in the post above is that the hotel where Brandon shot the video made him take it down, saying recording in the rooms is prohibited. Good thing I made a copy before he took it down from YT!

My experience too, on a 2013 iMac 27" built-to-order. I'm seriously looking at an upgrade.

If I brought that along to a coffee shop here, they'd charge me for electricity. ?

For those like me who foolishly blew all their cash on gear and can't buy tickets to go anywhere, here's some inspiration. Maybe this doesn't belong in the lenses thread, but Brandon does tell us which lenses he used.

Based on Kisaha's advice, I just picked up a Canon to record audio for my G85.

Nice job!

But in three years, we'll still be able to prolong the life of those m43 lenses on the EVA2. ?

I still haven't seen any footage from the Leica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 that touches the Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4 at any aperture. This despite assertions by reviewers that it's just at the edges of the frame that we begin to see the differences. And I've yet to see any adapted lens at the same focal length equivalent that can equal the quality of the Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 or the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 on a m43 body. So none of these arguments that premium m43 lenses aren't worth it carry any weight with me whatsoever. I don't want to see links to YT reviews anymore. I want to see your own comparisons, proving to me that an adapted lens is superior to a micro four thirds lens. Edit: Preferably ungraded, no sharpening added in post, of course!