jonpais

Small quibbles - AF, IS doesn't necessarily work any better with OIS lenses than it does with some non-OIS lenses, shutter button travel is too short, weak battery life, 15-minute record limit annoying, no exposure aids such as zebras, exposure changes in big 1/3 stop chunky increments, laggy touch screen. Jordan says if you shoot with the X-T2, shoot in F-log and throw on the Eterna LUT, you're getting something very similar to the X-H1. Notes: While @Jordan Drake says he wouldn't hesitate to use the Eterna profile straight out of the camera, there's no question that the video they uploaded would most certainly benefit from grading. Jordan also says that the AF works well for run 'n gun shooting, but in the sample, the camera has difficulty keeping him in focus for even 15 seconds.

Excellent editing.

Yes, they do.

I wasn't addressing my comment to you, but okay. I thought GP said at NAB that they might consider adding it at a future date, can't recall. If the camera had ProRes RAW and you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Plain and simple. But it sounds like you've already made up your mind. Cool.

Okay then, everyone hates Apple, ProRes RAW sucks. Sorry I commented on Anaconda's post.

I did not ask anyone to show me cinematic footage from the camera, John. I've already seen cinematic looking footage. I was merely asking if readers thought the video I shared looked cinematic. The video has gotten lots of love online. I gave my reasons why it doesn't look cinematic to me at all: reasons which I still continue to stick by. I did not say my opinion is the holy word of the almighty. I asked in my post if I was mistaken. I accepted comments graciously. Until someone accuses me of shooting underage girls and claims that I have a love affair with Panasonic - all of which are lies. I never said the Pocket was not capable of delivering fine IQ. If I misunderstood @cantsin, I apologize. I really respect his contributions to this forum. JP Really? ProRes is used in 80% of productions. If ProRes RAW can deliver better quality and use less storage space than ProRes HQ, that's a big deal. And it will soon be in most cinema cameras.

It looks as though HLG support is for monitoring only. We'll still have to wait for HLG in/out.

I see many saying ProRes RAW has higher quality and takes up less storage space than ProRes HQ. I don’t know, I haven’t used it myself.

Right - the BMD Expert.

That is an unusual answer. It sounds as though the BMD expert is saying there is no such thing as ProRes RAW.

Good question. The list of bug fixes and improvements is listed on their paper accompanying the update, but I didn’t read past ‘HLG’! I haven’t installed the firmware yet to see how the HLG behaves - maybe this evening. I’m shooting with the Veydra 50mm this morning and will be using the Video Assist just because the Ninja is too darn heavy.

Atomos Shogun Inferno adds support for Panasonic GH5 HLG. https://www.atomos.com/shogun-inferno

Agree 100%.

I read in the info box over at YouTube that there was a problem trying to work with RAW in Premiere - is that still the case?

I never said anything here about the GH5, so why don't you give it a rest? I normally have an aversion to shots of leaves and twigs, but that footage is splendid.

I didn't suddenly realize anything, @Django, I've seen good footage as well. Notice, I did not write 'all' the footage I've seen - I wrote 'much' of what I've seen. My point was, what do members consider to be cinematic. The video posted by @TwoScoops is eminently cinematic, the one I shared, vehemently anti-cinematic. And I never talked about the Pocket's IQ. I was talking about the operator's skill.

Lenses. #1. Super glue. #2.

What ever gave you the idea that all I look for in a video is sharpness? Did you even bother to read my post? Not only that, but in fact, the resolution of the video you shared, as near as I can tell with the slow vimeo I get here, is actually quite poor.

FWIW, I wasn’t asking anyone to compare anything. For a long time, it’s been claimed that the Pocket produces cinematic footage, and what I posted is fairly representative of much of what I’ve seen - cyan cast, weak shadows, soft, grainy, clipped highlights, crushed shadows, poor skin tones, etc. The video @TwoScoops just posted proves that the operator is 99% responsible for the image quality, and it will be no different with the Batcam.

That is gorgeous! Thanks, @TwoScoops

First of all, I don’t shoot adolescents. Secondly, not once, for as long as I’ve been shooting video, have I ever claimed that my work looked cinematic. That’s like telling me I can’t play basketball like Michael Jordan - I never said I could! Thirdly, nothing you say changes the facts I reported about the video I posted.

uummm... I don't follow. If you're gonna use a monitor, you'll want a cage. Cages don't have to cost a fortune. Even if you use the threads on top of the camera, I see no reason to destroy the body just to attach a cable....

Why would you need to do that when the cage will have clamps?

Cool. I just wanted to get feedback, and I hope to hear from more forum members as well. I can enjoy anything from Vinterberg's grungy 'Festen' to Ulrich Seidl's masterful 16mm "Import Export' to whatever.