maxotics

On the Nebula 4000, there are two ways you can balance the "roll" of a camera. The first, is to mount it in any plate slot, looses the screws attaching the roll arm to the motor, and move the roll arm until it balances. The second way is mount the camera on a plate mount either closer, or farther, from where the roll arm attaches to the pitch motor. The problem with the GH4, A7, and any larger camera, is that you can't get it balanced, for roll, unless it's in a plate slot that puts it right up against the pitch motor adjustment screw; that is, the roll arm doesn't move to the right far enough that you can mount the camera on the right side of the plate where you can get the wrench into the pitch motor screws. Dave Dugdales's videos show him wrestling with this problem. The bottom line is that with a smaller camera you can easily adjust the pitch bar position because you can mount the camera away from it. With the GH4, you'd need to figure out the pitch balance BEFORE You mount the camera. That makes balancing the camera very difficult. In order to get a good balance, you need the camera mounted on the gimbal where you can move each part around and test. The second problem is that if you put any sort of long, or heavy lens on the GH4, you start to stress the Nebula out. The motors aren't designed for heavy cameras. So you'd have to have it balanced perfectly. I don't want to dissuade anyone for using a Nebula with the GH4. I just want to point out that it's much easier with a smaller camera. The sweet spot cameras are probably the A6000, LX100, EOS-M, GX7, etc--and not with heavy glass.

I have a Nebula 4000. Below is the most popular video I put up using it. I also have some setup videos at YouTube. With enough battery power, good motors, and framing, you can fly almost any camera on a gimbal. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, if you're looking to fly a big camera on a small or inexpensive gimbal, you're going to have to learn how to balance the camera REALLY WELL and how to modify PID settings to make the gimbal handle the camera's weight. When a camera is perfectly balanced on a small gimbal, it can work wonders. When the camera isn't balanced well, or goes out of balance because you move the lens, or your IMU goes out of calibration, then you have to really THINK about what you're doing. Anyone who wants to get a stabilizer should watch some video at http://www.simplebgc.org/ so they know what they're getting into. Some of the images above of stabilizers that are coming out are pipe-dreams IMHO. A lot of people are waiting for a perfect small stabilizer at NAB. I don't see it coming. Yes, the Nebula 4000 has a lot of shortcomings and is in need of many updates. But the physics remain the same. Any battery small enough to stabilize a large camera will need to have the camera perfectly balanced at all times. It if can't, the motors will struggle, the frame vibrate, and unpleasant things happen. That said, stabilizers are improving over time. I just believe it is one to two years before they become really stable (pun intended) and easy to adjust (for walking, etc). I love the A6000 on the Nebula 4000. That is my main setup now and I believe will be for quite some time. I found the GH4 too bulky for the Nebula and it's auto-focus not close to what the A6000 can do. That's another thing to keep in mind. You can't manually focus on a small stabilizer without throwing it out of balance. Surprisingly, what I value most about the stabilizer isn't the walking around, though that's nice, it's that the stabilizer is like an auto-tripod. At whatever height you hold the Nebula, it creates a look of being on a dolly tripod with just the right amount of movement.

​Samsung can do it because they just entered the DSLR business. You're a wedding photographer, does Samsung have the color science and lenses to deliver you the results you can get with your 5D? (let alone FF DOF). You're an architectural photographer, where are Samsung's tilt-shifts? You're a documentary filmmaker, where's the Samsung camera with XRL inputs? In Canon's labs I'm SURE they can do 4K with the 70D, for example, just like I can get 720p RAW out of the EOSM using Magic Lantern. But it's one thing to tweak the camera in a lab to get 4K and another to put it in the real-world where it must co-exist with your working technologies which are important to your market, which is broad for Canon. Or put another way, Canon can't do 4K without creating a lot of risk that they'll screw up something with their mainstream business. I'm sure it's the same in Berlin, as it is in London, as it is here in Cambridge, MA. Walk the street. You'll count Canon after Canon in DSLRs, and some Nikons. No matter how nice the NX1 might be, people want to buy the camera that fits their lenses, with menus they're familiar with, that their friends use, etc., etc. If Samsung screws up a feature it's no real big deal for them, they sold a few thousand cameras. Canon has a LOT more to loose so is more risk-averse about new features. Canon probably sells more cameras in a day than Samsung in a year. When Canon releases 4K, it has to be right. Look at the problems Nikon had with its mirror assembly as it tried to improve frame-per-second shooting. Large stakes. BTW, I'd rather have 1080 RAW from a Canon, than 8-bit 4K

​Exactly. In order for Canon to make 4K is needs to make it with an APS-C sized sensor or better. The only reason Sony could pull it off was by increasing pixel size and reducing resolution, and even then, you need an external recorder. "Yes this is something we’re working on but it’s very difficult. The challenge is data. Processing that amount of data. If we were using a supercomputer it would be OK!" This is Canon's root problem. Big lenses mean big sensors mean bigger processor demands. He also said a couple of things about corporate realities that I've pointed out on this forum. "The threats that our mirrorless cameras team face aren’t from other companies, they’re from other divisions within our company." I’m saying “sell it!” but it’s their decision whether they want to or not. IF the market for 4K video grows, what can Canon do? 1. Use MFT sized sensors or 2. Use a smaller resolution size APS-C/FF sensor. Their best bet is the EOS-M line, but as he said, internal politics is a bitch.

"It’s time to bring EOSHD back to the stuff I love." AMEN!

​I think you're confusing me with Andrew

@eleison Andrew bring this subject up, not me "It’s tricky at the moment to find a tone in my EOSHD reviews that is brutally honest enough to be of use critically but not too blunt that it upsets the many fine people working at the camera manufacturers. " I'm only pointing out that there is a difference about being brutally honest about your technical findings and brutally honest about your EMOTIONS. As for my getting laid, I have 3 daughters. And still a wife! lafilm, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH I've been over this territory with Andrew in private messages. It's difficult to support him and criticize him at the same time. It is difficult for all of us. I write here because I still hold out hope he can find a way to keep his fire and rock-star ways and NOT alienate people like me. Okay, I'm selfish, sue me I don't think the topic is ruined. Camera equipment is part of the Art, as Andrew has pointed out, and I share the same attitude. Again, I'm NOT disputing what Andrew thinks or feels. As soon as you try to express yourself you must deal with this stuff--how much to express your raw feelings, how much to use artifice. Every artist I believe must pander a certain extent. Or compromise.

"I’d say the menu system on the FS7 is dog shit. Complete and utter dog shit" Guess I'm lured back for a moment. There is a difference between being CRITICAL and PERSONALLY OFFENSIVE. Let's say there's a guy "Joe" at Sony who made the menu system. Okay, I may not like his decisions about the menus, but should I just be constructively critical about WHAT those problems are and WHY I need it differently. I left this forum because you felt I was calling your GH4 setting "complete and utter dog shit" when I wasn't. Why talk to people who dish it, but take offense at things you never said? I tell you how I feel, as others have here (who are also critical like you), and you show that you value our feelings also, as complete and utter dog shit. So you need to think about how YOU feel, Andrew, when others are critical of your work, and then you may start to see that though you may feel ignored, you are anything but. You hurt real people, which, as I've said a gazillion times, is a real shame because you have important things to say. And, as I've said, one day you WILL SEE. If you don't see it, you will become a bitter old man. You will marginalize yourself. People get tired of people who can't see the mote in their own eye. I'm not telling you what to write. I understand that you need to keep the fire in your belly stoked. No one is perfect. Maybe the world DOES NEED your style of nasty criticism, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too. You can say what you have to say, using expletives, about the FS7, without hurting the feelings of people at Sony. People you DO NOT KNOW. You've never worked in a corporation. You have no idea the real issues involved in building large-scale technology. A little humility never hurt anyone. As for using Steve Jobs. He built things. You just tear them down. When he criticized the people at Xerox Park he didn't write a blog about it. He build a BETTER computer. Be part of the solution. When you write, take a walk around the block. Make sure you people feel welcome in your home. Make sure you're focused on your ORIGINAL mission, making DSLR video work for others. Make it so Sony might invite you their facilities and talk to you so you can help them face to face. No one changes if you curse at them LEAST OF ALL YOU Where for you, IS the point where one crosses the line? Finally, when you use such language like that you are NOT respecting the intelligence of the reader. I don't need to read "utter dog shit" to know if it's bad. I respect your opinion. If you say it makes studio work difficult, for example, I'd take that seriously. Why do you need to curse? People who curse don't take the time to find the right words, the right language. For educated people "complete and utter dog shit" is not respectful. It's the kind of stuff you'd read in a novel about a drunk at a pub. What's incredible to me is you are a fantastic writer. I just don't get it. You sing beautiful songs then spit on the audience. So ask yourself, why do you need to use personally offensive language? What's really in it for you? Does it really help the reader? I stopped reading your article because though I was VERY interested, how can I know the real OBJECTIVE truth when you seem so emotionally charged up? If you ever want to fix this the solution is simple. You send your articles first to a friend you trust and if they say something has crossed the line you take it out. That's what I did when I realized, sadly as late as my 40s, that I was guilty of all the above.

The 24-105 on the Sony is going to auto focus slower than it would on a native Canon. You already sold the NX1 for workflow issues, which should tell you something It looks like you RUN a recording studio, so will you have time to manually set focus, exposure, etc. I can tell you that using two system, I have Sonys and Panasonics ruins many shots for me because my 53-year-old brain doesn't move between menu systems as well as it used to. What I've learned in the last couple of weeks is these cameras, as nice as Cine-D and s-log might be, are NOT RAW cameras. You have to have the experience and skill to set exposure EXACTLY RIGHT. There is little you can do in post. In short, getting the right exposure on your GM1 or EM1 will do more than having an A7S improperly exposed. The Sony's have fantastic auto-focus in good light, but I find they struggle indoors. The Panasonics too. Again, if you're going to manually do everything IGNORE all this. But if you have to be realistic, pick one camera platform and get lenses that are made to autofocus with the camera and you have image stabilization.

​Exactly, more color but with out the light looking harsh. Blown highlights is what makes for amateurish video which is why I can see professionals paying to get that image.

It's like Jonesy said, once you shoot RAW (like BM), it makes you fall in love with a certain look. At least me. Again, Fuzzy, I never said the color was bad with my GM1, for example. Again, the problem I had, and which I believe others have had is You do some RAW shooting, love it, then try to get that flat look in 8-bit, and end up ruining your colors, by using data to capture DR (at the expense of color depth), which is noticeable when you shoot faces because we're biologically sensitive to complexion. The great thing about the GX7 and GM1 is they don't have Cine-D You're playing devil's advocate a bit here I didn't say that we have a biological need to see faces with a certain color / skin-tone. Many films have a look that are not "natural" but the "fake" colors achieve an emotional effect. What I said is that in a setting where the viewer expects the person to look a certain way they are sensitive to colors that are off. That's why JCS explained how he could get background colors one way but they ruined the skin tones, or the other way around. Skin tone is about context. If you're shooting everything with a GX7 no one is going to notice the skin tones. Consistency always works. However, if you were to mix that footage with BM footage, say, there's a good chance you would prefer the RAW but wouldn't be able to get the GX7 to match it. You would be able to get the RAW to match the GX7, but then you'd lose what you liked in the image in the first place. AGAIN, if the viewer doesn't know better, no harm no foul!

Yes, FuzzyNormal, I wouldn't say ever had a "problem" with skin tones until I shot some RAW with a Canon 50D. That is, most video had a "video" look which I felt I was stuck with. But RAW changed everything for me. Then I went to an EOS-M, then a BMPCC and feel that both camera deliver great looks. I never get tired of RAW (just the workflow). Anyway, I've always wanted the nice crisp image, small file sizes, and video ergonomics of Panasonic cameras. What happened is that I wanted the high dynamic range, flat look, of my BMPCC with the GH4. So I used Cine-D and dialed down the contrast and changed the hue TOO MUCH. What I didn't realize is that the low-contrast look I was getting was AT THE EXPENSE of color, which meant the skin tones went to crap. So I can understand how this problem seems silly to you Fuzzy because you don't shoot RAW, far as I know, and you haven't pushed the GH4 too far as I did (and should have known better). The good thing for me, is that it has awaken me to much of the stuff JCS has been writing about for a long time here. I agree with him, people are biologically sensitive to good skin tone. If you're doing a very busy video, with many cuts, and high contrast, etc., you don't notice. But if you're going for a natural look it ain't easy. If you take a family member, and sit them down for an "interview" where the person has to look at their face for minutes on end I think you'll go through the same thing as other people--the image may not do justice to the person in front of you.

Hitfabryk. Nice shot. I have to run take my daughter to a Ukulele lesson right now, or would say more I'm starting to like the GH4 a lot more since "coming back to Earth." Going to do what JCS does. I think for studio stuff I'd go with the GH4 because it's just so easy to work with in video. Also, the slo-mo would probably be very useful for interesting artistic clips. Also, the 4K mode is great for taking out 4K photographs. I only keep the Sony because I always want a full-frame for photography. Indeed, it's primarily a stills camera for me. If you want shallow DOF for video just get a focal reducer. Later!!!!

Found this analysis of Cine-D on the GH4 which I think explains the problem very well. http://blog.josephmoore.name/2014/11/05/why-cine-d-sucks/

Thanks, I already have the $10 photo version. I can get Premiere for $20 a month (but doesn't include after effects, do I really need that? I won't be doing special effects). I might be able to get the $30 version because I own a copy of CS 6. I don't want to create any more threads than I have to, so here's some video footage I shot recently. Nothing great, but if you're like me, ANY footage from different cameras is interesting.

Yes, that looks nice! Thanks JCS! Now the GH4 looks exactly how the a6000 looked but with the extra resolution and better DR. So you've proven it's NOT the Panasonic camera (not that many had any doubts). I've been really busy with work lately, and it's only going to get worse this month, but I look forward to shooting more and using the LUTs and the techniques you've explained. Thanks everyone! While I'm here, I've been using Sony Vegas for years, but I'm now thinking I need to bite the bullet and move to Premiere (I'm on Windows). Any thoughts, something else? Vegas has a bug where you have to run a script to fix GH4 files on the timeline (or the video portion is 4x longer, the last 3x part just the last frame stuck). What do you use JCS? I also have a BMPCC.

That's about all of "Gone Girl" I want to see I'm sure it's good, but the older I get the more I'd rather watch Fred Astaire dance and make corny jokes. Some of the color work I see in films is great. But it's like zoom lenses in the 70s, many are overdoing it. I feel the same way for steadicams and slider shooting, etc. I just watched "Mozart in the Jungle." I loved it, nice color work, a few mistakes here and there, but otherwise really created a good Carnegie Hall mood, both there and in the apartments. Of course, the show is very well written, directed, acted, edited, etc. So I probably would have enjoyed it shot on an iPhone. I was thinking more about what Cinegain was saying. I think I can answer more of what my problem is. When I go to shoot people, I want to start with a shot where they look natural--in whatever light. I want to do it quickly and confidently. That's why I thought, no matter how bad, the test footage shows me in that situation. I'm setting up a camera, shooting me saying something, and then going to the editor. As many pointed out, the a6000 was washed out. Obviously, my techniques need work. I found that the more I went to camera defaults the better I was. The same with the GH4. Anyway, that's what I'm after, good natural looks even BEFORE I think about mood. I believe many have my problem because many watch the "quick and dirty" pieces I post on Vimeo. It's closer to what they deal with too. I have more footage to post later. Thanks for your images JCS, now that I understand what you're saying I'm ALL EYES!

I saw that. MLRawViewer is as nice as everyone raves. I wish the 5D3 was cheaper. I bought an a7 about 4 months ago and it's already dropped 40% in value, or something like that. I expect depreciation but the Sony stuff has been worse that usual. I always want a full-frame for photography. But I love the EVF of the Sony A7s. I'm so torn! @Cinegain, I tried SO HARD to explain what I was doing. I had a feeling that GH4 was producing yellow skin tones. I did a crude test so we had something to look at, no matter how bad, I felt better than nothing and just my "opinion". I tried Andrew's setting AS A STARTING point, nothing else, and was happy I had them, but somehow he felt I was doing this to undermine him. Anyway, the more I've worked with this the more I see what JCS has been talking about for a while (and which I privately thought he was making a mountain out of a molehill)--getting good skin tones bout of H.264 cameras take some real time and effort. I GET IT NOW! (JCS, feel free to say 'I told you so'!) But I think it can be done and others here have given me stuff to help. I've always known that with RAW I can get whatever I want (or as much as any camera can deliver). What interesting to me about the two images above is they perfectly illustrate what I'm saying. The top one is pretty yellow, but looks more natural, the bottom one looks more natural, yet is somehow a bit wrong. It never ends!

@Guant, yes that may be an issue. But I am aware. In any case, I can't do a real skin tone test on me. Yuk! If there is NO problem the camera is lying. HI Jcs, I have calibrated my display, though using ref photos. I have a Macbeth color checker, but it's temporarily misplaced...I hope I was walking through BestBuy and looked at some of the 4K screens. What horrible stuff they were showing. I worry about a little yellow in the face? As you say, no matter how perfect I may get the color it will be seen with all kinds of color problems. The test video I did was not great, but we ALL KNOW how time consuming it is to do these things. Which is why I really appreciate what Andrew does and it pains me that I'm causing him any grief. Still, I want to get where I want to go. And I wanted to show something. I am always guided by "the perfect is the enemy of the good". So I did a test, knowing that some would say "Max sucks." I've learned to live with that. Fortunately, I learned a lot from this difficult process and believe, though there is a slight yellow problem, it is only 10% of what I thought it was a few days ago. I also believe my crappy testing will help others. To me, I'm just building on what Andrew worked on. I wish he saw it that way, and not that any change I might make to his settings is some kind of judgment--it is NOT. Every setting can be perfect for what someone wants to do. I never forget it is subjective. Okay, consider that horse beat to death BTW, just helped a friend load Magic Lantern onto a 5D3. I wish those things weren't so expensive. ML continues to improve. We shot some dual-ISO stuff. OH if only I had 100 hour days!!!! I don't want to see Matt go. I don't want to leave myself. It's up to Andrew.

I'm not trying to draw you into taking the blame for anything. I've been here for over a year. I've bought 3 guides. I recommend your site to other filmmakers. Why would I want to undermine you? I thought we were discovering this stuff together--all of us here? This post ASKS a question. EVEN if your profile was "wrong", so what? What blogger should I go to instead? I like what you have to say, Andrew. I don't keep score. It IS all subjective! I took extra care to write that this is subjective and it might be "in my head". I'm here because you're INSIGHTFUL 95% of the time. Matt was a tad disrespectful, but I think his actions should count for something, which is, like me, he pays you a compliment every day by spending time on your site. He's a good guy to have around, IMHO. I think of people here as my friends. But it's your house Andrew. I don't want to stay anywhere where someone thinks I'm out to get them or make them look bad. Again, if we're on a journey together I want to stay, I'M SORRY. But if that's not what you have in mind, with this site, I respect that and will only ready our articles and keep my posts to a minimum.

Andrew, do you think Hue at +2 in your Cine-D profile makes sense for skin-tones? UPDATE: I'm shooting closer to the camera's default (using Cine-D) and getting a nice image. Still a very slight yellowness, but now I'm beginning to question is that's what I look like in the first place Doesn't look bad, in any case. If I accept that the colors on the GH4 are at least as good as the A6000 then the GH4 blows the A6000 image out of the water in dynamic range--that is, it better captures what the light looks like in my office. The A6000 looks video-y in comparison. Noa is right, now that I have the colors close, the GH4 4K footage responds a lot better to adjustments then the A6000. A lot more room before highlights get blown, colors more nuanced. I'm now leaning to the conclusion that the "yellow" stuff I see on the Internet may be from people pushing the settings too far, or not really learning how to use them properly. Okay, so those people are me ;)

Thanks for the votes. Another thing I was thinking when walking is Andrew's C1 has Hue at +2. I'm going to put that at zero and also do another test with the GH4 at "natural" which I think looks good and might be much safer than Cine-D, at least in my hands! Again, love this camera otherwise, so if you guys can help me get to the bottom of this I would GREATLY appreciate it!

Thanks noa. I agree the A6000 is washed out; part of that is the lower resolution. And again, not saying one is better than the other "objectively" just to me, there is a "jaundice" look in the GH4 which bugs me and I believe many others have struggled with this too. But if you say the GH4 looks good, then that's one vote for it's in my head And again, I'm not saying the jaundice look is so bad anyone I know would consciously make note of it.

The other thread on the forum about whether to buy GH4 or LX100 pushed me to do a test about this skin tone issues I'm having with the GH4, which I bought a few days ago. I don't think the GH4 is a stinker, by any means, but I do believe there are color differences between it (the Live MOS sensor) and Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras (CMOS) that cannot be color corrected away--at least I can't do it. Obviously, skin tone is subjective. It may be "in my head" so to speak. Anyway, I used Andrew's C1 setting and then corrected best I could in Sony Vegas 12 Pro. I hope to do more test later, but for now, this test shows, at least to me, the "issue" (which may not be an issue to you, quite the contrary, I can understand why some would prefer the GH4). What I can't take away from the GH4 is the 4K gives me REAL 1080 in sharpness--love that!

It all depends on what look you're going after, right? The GH4 delivers a super nice image and I'm pretty sure no one will ever say "skin tones look bad". I think the GH4 would get very close to the Cancer Awareness video you did. You have good lighting and you're shooting/grading slightly over-exposed and slightly desaturated (seems to me). If you're looking for sharpness to match the C100 then the GH4 won't disappoint. That I know for sure But the video of the woman on the rocks near the water. The GH4 may struggle a bit, not in sharpness, but in feel. @Cinegain, I've been trying all the profiles. I have Andrew's C1, C2, C3 loaded on the camera. I like C1 the best. There is still something about the image that seems slightly jaundiced in it. Faces are lacking in the red channel somehow (I'm no colorist). I looked at Inazuma's stuff, and though he's seems to have improved it a bit, I still feel I see it. The other problem with the fancy GH4 profiles I'm noticing (and again, I'm just a duffer) is that you can easily make things worse. Double edged sword. Cine-D is nice, but it leads to a common problem in a lot of Panny footage I see. Subconsciously I believe many shooters lower the contrast (no real blacks), wash out the image to get ride of the jaundiced look by sort of jaundicing up (graying) the whole image. With "Canon" colors people let the blacks go black because the reds pop. I've been shooting many clips and will post them to Vimeo. So far I've done a bunch of stuff on the GH4. I lent out my BMPCC, so when I get that back, I'll shoot same subject/location with that--and the Sony cameras. For interviews you might also consider the Canon 70D. Nice autofocus (though yes, not as sharp)!