jonpais

And this is using the highlight picker, then adding the Leeming LUT, then using the color match feature. Edit: I just realized I put the LUT in an adjustment layer, so maybe the order of operations is not like I described.

I just imported the pic to FCP when I realized this shot's got a reflection in the black square, so the color match feature won't work. @Orangenz The second shot is using the highlight picker in Color Finale, the first is with the Leeming LUT applied on top of that.

Redundancy was the kind of word I used to love teaching to my students, but most didn't get it.

So if you do lose the files on your memory card, this will tell you what kind of error occured. Cool! Is there one labeled 'failure to insert two memory cards'?

You must be psychotic. ? Because my very next test was going to be to try out some combination of the two.

How did you know I do just that? In fact, I reduce exposure just until the zebras disappear from my T-shirt at 100%.

I'm working on another vlog at the moment, comparing the results of using the camera's presets, custom white balance (white balancing straight off the card using the camera's auto feature) and manually white balancing, among a bunch of other related and unrelated stuff as per usual. ?

I've been regularly deleting posts by newbies selling gear that don't meet these criteria.

Right, that's one reason I don't use AWB - the color will change even when you don't notice the light changing at all. Perhaps one of the presets? Cloudy, shady, sunny?

Practically every single serious filmmaking site scoffs at AWB and strongly encourages manually white balancing. But it takes me as long as a minute to manually white balance a shot, and even then, after all my efforts, my colors are still off. I'm wondering now whether it might not be a better use of my time to simply shoot using AWB and include a couple seconds of the ColorChecker at the beginning of each clip, then let the software work its magic in FCP, rather than getting my panties all in a bunch. What do you think?

The 'add media' function on this site sucks. It keeps saying 'upload failed', then when you cancel the post and go back to edit it again, the failed uploads magically appear! In this case, maybe one disappeared. Here's one that is closer to the look I wanted, but a bit dark. Oh well! Anyone who's seen all the orange/red/yellow clips I've posted in the past will see that this is a quantum leap in my small world of color correction. It should be noted that the Leeming LUT is not a color correction tool per se - it just adjusts the color balance of Cinelike D to the rec709 standard. The color match feature in Color Finale is great for fools like me who don't know magenta from cyan.

Here's a comparison between the Leeming LUT and the X-Rite ColorChecker, Color Finale in FCPX. 1) original clip 2) Leeming LUT 3) Color Match in Color Finale with slight luminance adjustment and color adjustments. Using the X-Rite and Color Finale in FCPX gets me close to the color I want in just seconds.

I've been using the X-Rite ColorChecker now for the past few days, and when used in combination with Color Finale's color match feature in Final Cut Pro, I'm also able to get a great starting point for making minor color corrections, grading, adding LUTs, whatever. The X-Rite ColorChecker Video Passport and Color Finale together run around USD $230.00, but I think it's well worth it considering the time saved and the results I'm seeing.

That's one beast of a lens!

Thanks! I guess there are a few decent Mexican places here, but nothing like food lovers paradise where you're at.

Here's a short clip shot at a temple here in Saigon over the weekend. Straight out of the camera, no editing, no color correction, no nothing. Lumix G85, Cinelike D, Sharpening -3, NR -5. But I thought you had to purchase V-log from Panasonic?

Couldn't agree with you more!

I haven't tested it out for myself, but I believe the base ISO in video mode is 200, not 800. At higher ISOs, color depth and dynamic range will decrease and there will be additional noise. To really take advantage of the available dynamic range, obtain the most accurate color and reduce noise levels with this camera, users should seriously read up on the benefits of exposing to the right.

Oops! Deleted, thanks.

Here in Vietnam, I see tons of photographers shooting with adapted lenses with cameras like the Sonys and Fujis. Many are mounting Nikkors with cheap Chinese adapters to the X-T2, for example. A young filmmaker here also uses adapted glass on the GH3 and GH4 cameras I sold him. But they're doing so not so much because they prefer legacy or vintage lenses (though some actually do) but out of economy. Few here in Vietnam can afford to spend $600.00 USD (or even NZ!) or more on modern lenses. On the other hand, many in the online community choose to shoot with legacy lenses to soften up the 4K image, while others avoid Panasonic and Olympus lenses entirely because they find them too sterile or clinical looking. Then there are those who go on about the character of older glass, which I guess translates into imperfections, such as lens flare, aberrations, unusual bokeh and so forth. I'm sure not a few also purchased a Nikkor AIS because it was within their budget, only to discover they preferred the image quality to that of glass that gets the highest ratings over at sites like DXOMark. In a recent video posted on YT, I watched a comparison between the GH5 with a Minolta lens and the Red, which I think had Zeiss optics. On their own, the images shot with the Minolta looked truly lovely, but when viewed side-by-side against the Zeiss, it paled. I'm not even sure if they were shooting with Zeiss, I'd have to watch the video again, and we all know I'm too lazy to do that, preferring instead to spin ideas out of thin air. I realize we're talking about different sensors here, but nobody can deny the choice of glass is critical. On a side note, many erroneously believe that just throwing a full frame lens and adapter on their mft camera is going to magically transform their footage into cinema. I've railed against the haphazard use of universal zooms for a while now, not only because of their lack of speed and compromises in image quality, but because the carefully considered choice of the correct focal length for each and every shot may be even more critical to achieving a 'cinematic' look than any other single factor. Of course, this could all be total bs, if so let me know your thoughts. Anyhow, returning to my original query, what properties are you looking for when choosing vintage glass?

BTM_Pix has done an amazing job, breathing new life into the GX80. But it should be pointed out to those not familiar with the custom settings - each time the camera goes to sleep or shuts down, the color temperature, shutter speed and aperture will revert to the initial settings saved to C1, C2 or whatever - the camera doesn't remember your latest settings like it does in movie mode. This can be a bit frustrating, so it's not a replacement for having Cinelike D in camera in the first place.

The following were shot with the G85 using an LED light, all set at -3 sharpening and -5 noise reduction. 1) Cinelike D 2) Standard 3) Natural

There's still so much misinformation being spread about Cinelike D that I doubt it will really catch on except among a very few GX85 users. But it's immediately apparent that it has substantially greater tonality than either Natural or Standard, and I prefer the color renditon to Standard for sure. The extra detail in the highlights in the foreground is impressive, but even more so, for me, is how the greater tonality gives the out of focus areas in the background a much more pleasing appearance.

Where did your file disappear to? i was just about to download it...

Share some clips when you have a moment? If you use a corrective LUT, you can restore the proper color balance and take advantage of the extra dynamic range if you don't need V/Log.