maxotics

Unless you include the BMPCC. I agree with @funkyou86, the GH5S is what the GH5 should have been. Panasonic should have some sort of trade-in program. I understand that Sony comes out with new models every day, but my sense is Panasonic users are younger professionals who make some money with their equipment, but can't afford to keep upgrading. Without internal 10bit, or RAW, I can't see why I would get one over even a first-gen Sony A7S. I certainly won't buy a $2,500 GH5S to replace my used $1,500 C100! The next step up from the GH5S is the EVA1, a $7,000 camera. And like Anonim just said, the BM maybe come up with a BMPCC with 4K and improved AF, etc. Finally, DPReview shot most of that footage, in low DR scenes, in VLOG and SLOG2 for Sony. Yeah, LOG gammas really bring out the best color in a camera! We live in a world of LOG shooting gamma diarrhea.

It might be. I have no idea the OP's real-world use. I wouldn't say Kyno is THE solution. It's just A solution. No one knows better than I how little most "filmmakers" pay for accessories, either software or hardware. Under 10 people have ordered one of my vlogging mirrors from me. I'm not in the least surprised. Most of us just want to amuse ourselves with our cameras after work, or during the weekends. You and I are both outliers, like really out there Most don't have a real daily need to shoot much with their cameras, and hence, don't have the need for cutting software or vlogging mirrors, no matter how little they cost. The last person who inquired about my vlogging mirror wanted to buy it for her daughter. I looked at her daughter's channel. I told her, she needs a microphone first! That's also a problem. As much as everyone on EOSHD might want one of my vlogging mirrors for their Sony camera, or that software, they probably need better mics and lights first! If only money grew on trees.

In my world of quality, Jonathan Pie would have 7 million subscribers and Casey Neistat would have a few hundred thousand. Most viewers have probably stumbled on both of those channels at some point. Most people want to watch a fantasy life, like Neistat. The world seems to be have been that way forever. As @OniBaba said, in Rome the colosseums were built large to accommodate tens of thousands of people who wanted to watch fighting, with the small theaters were barely filled by people who appreciate the well-made play. For those of you who don't know Andrew's countryman, here is one of his more popular recent videos. Pie does them every week I believe. They're all amazing. He has no equal in America, for me. Maybe Jimmy Dore, though Dore is older and goes at a slower pace.

This is a theme that runs through biblical texts from thousands of years ago. Who can one speak for? I can only speak for myself. How can I know if someone else is "resigned"? How can one judge another person's life? If we never see God, how can we know what he judges right or wrong? Can you point out what is junk and what is not junk? You said "Game of Thrones" was quality. I say it is complete junk. It would be the first thing I'd throw out So who is right? Are you right because it is your blog? Am I being a rude guest in disagreeing with you? Am I guilty of the same cime you are in judging you as you judge others? The answer to all those is 'Yes" which was Jesus' greatest insight even though they built churches in his name that has buried his truth into junk--like celibacy, hell, etc! You cannot win an argument by calling people resigned or calling anything junk. All you can do is create a difference in opinion, right? If something is truly good it should take over the bad. Right? These are all question the Greeks studied deeper than any known group of humans. They didn't come to any fixes. "Junk" is as old as the first paintings in cave walls.

The root problem, behind Andrew's article, is not YouTube's pushing of crass video content. Forty years ago TV and comics were similar scapegoats. Stepping back even further, none of the issues confronting us were alien to Dostoevsky, Henrik Ibsen, or even the author of the first modern novel, Miguel de Cervantes. How do we feel good, right, happy in a society that seems to have abandoned, or cannot adopt, to the right ideals? Are current affairs fundamentally different from the problems dealt with in the Old Testament, say? Societies always expand and contract. We're in an expansion phase. From the turn of the last century until WWII, the world was als in an expansion phase, technologies and populations increasing faster than they could be absorbed. I would call WWII "the great contraction". So Andrew starts EOSHD. It's in the beginning of a period where people can shoot near film/TV quality on consumer cameras. It's a heady time! As I've said here many times, one could barely afford to shoot 3 minutes of super-8 film in the 1970s-early 80s, when I was young. Okay, so I read about the 50D shooting RAW using Magic Lantern, buy Andrew's guide, and I finally feel I can realize my youthful dreams of making a movie! My only problem is I either never had anything to say in the first place, or it's not a good fit for my mode of thinking (which is very analytical, as if you didn't know ) Anyway, a burst of joy followed by depression. I imagine Andrew also had some dreams, or projects he wanted to do. Perhaps just as he got all the technology sorted out through EOSHD he looks at where his content might go and his head explodes. Or maybe he just sees all his advice misused and mangled. In any case, the ability to make professional video with a DSLR used to be something special. When I shot my 50D with ML it was a cool feeling. Now anyone can by a BMPCC and get that result easily. As for nice sharp video, the GH5 can match any broadcast TV camera, if I'm understanding the experience of many here. So where does EOSHD go with the world full of good cameras that don't need hacks and a completely glutted market for content? I feel there is as much a need for EOSHD as there ever was. Although, as you know, I am very cynical of HDR and LOG and other misunderstood techniques, the problems they try to solve are real and are a continual struggle. As nice as the GH5 is, it doesn't compete with the cameras used to shoot modern movies. So the need to optimization remains for the serious cash-strapped filmmaker. Last night I woke up at 5 and figured I'd look at Instagram for a minute. It auto-played someone's crappy iPhone video (which I feel is extremely rude) waking up my wife. I thought, "Andrew is right, f them all! I'm going to delete Instagram!" I then calmed down. I'm working on a new video about how RAW sensors work and their relation to LOG video. Yes, it's a stupid subject. Yes few people are interested in it. But I have a better chance of improving the understanding of myself, and a few people, than changing what people want to watch, or in the case of YouTube, shove down their throats. I have to contract back to the somewhat-feeling-isolated guy with dreams of being respected in my head. There's a lot to the saying, 'ignorance is bliss'.

I'd love to take credit, but that was @EthanAlexander killer line!

I'm 56. I went to public schools in NYC in the late 70s. They had large populations of blacks, Puerto Ricans, and other minorities who had few opportunities in the white-collar world. Today, on YouTube, Marques Brownlee makes a living doing tech content, on his terms, in a way that was probably unthinkable to his parents when he was born. You also have Dagogo Altraide, of "ColdFusion" who has 1.5 million happy subscribers (like me). Or how about Olufemii? My guess is that 30 years ago there were few opportunities for @Oliver Daniel to do anything creative on his own in Manchester. If you were born 30 years ago what would you be doing then? I can get as upset about this stuff as you, like "Game of Thrones" which is on your quality list We all have different tastes. You haven't been on your forum much. You are EXCEPTIONALLY lucky that you have a platform/business in which you have some freedom of choice, freedom that is still not available to billions on this planet. If what you say is correct, and the World has totally lost it, then what hope for anyone? Do you think some young person, who finds his way to Berlin with dreams of making films, wants to read this stuff on EOSHD? That person is who you want to keep in the back of your head. Live and let live, Andrew. I strongly urge you to go watch the film "Sullivan's Travels" again to find your way back.

Do you still use it? I found it buggy. It might work for one set of parameters, but then croak on another. The dev seems to go on and off it. The last news update was almost half a year ago. Whoever is behind Kyno has certainly put a lot of effort into it, and even they ran into problems. The dirty truth is every update to one's OS, or every new camera CODEC settings, threatens to hurt your software. I'm all for open source (use ffmpeg,imagej , dcraw, and imagemagick, etc), but,at least for me, if I can pay to save time and future grief, I will if the price is right. It's a free trial. Why don't you try Kyno and let us know? I'm just one opinion. I've used almost every piece of software mentioned in this thread and most of them are no longer being developed in a significant way. Kyno is a new effort. For that alone, one should see where the latest thinking is at. Or one can go back to the GH2

Apparently my bug about the C100 slipped through the cracks at Lesspain / Kyno. They asked me to try it again in the new 1.4 version and I can report that it is fixed. It's a very nicely thought-out piece of software which allows you to trim, copy, re-encode video/audio in whatever manner you want . They have a trial. Highly recommended that you try it out, if you do any footage "pre-processing". https://lesspain.software/kyno/

I must play my tiresome part here Of course a lot of GH2 footage, from years ago, looks better. It's before the mass over-use of V-LOG gamma profiles that kill color tonality. That said, the GH5 4K in a standard, or very gentle LOG gamma, is a sweet image indeed!

I used to think the way Andrew thought. Have I become jaded, misguided, scared of the truth? I feel the same way, but... There's amazing content on YouTube now that was impossible to produce/see 10 years ago. I find it sadder that many people aren't familiar with this amazing content, than the fact of "snuff" types of videos on YT (that's what they called similar stuff in my day). For example, our own @Mattias Burling videos, @DaveAltizer,ColdFusion, Wendover Productions, Ave, Curious Droid, Sean Tucker, Red Means Recording--I could go on and on. YT has got it more right, than wrong. @Chrad makes the point that there IS a problem with suicide in Japan (and the U.S. with vets) which is a problem bigger than the ethical standards of any YouTuber or the Alphabet Corporation. How does society learn about these problems, or guage their significance or scale? If YouTube were able to block these kinds of videos would anyone ever get emotional about the problem? I doubt it, it would just be another statistic. Keep in mind, I am NOT CONDONING the vlogger's behavior, only pointing out that when you stand back, society works in weird ways. He may have sent the message to get more viewers, but who ever send a message without some self-interest? I've met no one. I used to think I was above it, I'm not. So I always try to focus on the biggest problem, not any self-interest. The biggest problem is suicide. The vlogger was society's weird way of having it put under people's noses. Think about it, we're all as guilty as the vlogger in doing nothing about the problem--at least I do nothing, but talk. Until the bigger problems are fixed first, I want information to flow freely, not matter how distasteful it may be. All sources are biased and society still works in mysterious ways.

What does?

Like @Mattias Burling I have a bunch of bodiless MFT lenses/adapters. If the GH5S had RAW, even at 1080 30p, I'd sell almost everything video related I have to get it. I'd probably shoot 8bit video most of the time, but having RAW for those special moments would be worth it. I might also consider it if it shot 8K, which would give perfect 4K in my book (after debayering).

I agree. My father, who got me my first camera, said that B&W is pure visual expression of an idea that is the same for all people; whereas color creates an emotional distortion that affects each person differently. I don't remember his exact words. I agree with @TwoScoops that the lack of color is too disruptive for most viewers; however, color has become a lazy-way to generate an emotional feel. I thought "The Artist" or whatever that semi-recent B&W film didn't use B&W properly. Anyway, I'm with webrunner5. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a suspenseful film in color that matches Hitchcock and others in the 30s and 40s. Last night my daughter put on "Hot Fuzz" again. It's in color of course, but Edgar Wright never uses color, in my opinion, to tell the story. No LOG bullshit for him All his visual conceits and story bits would work in B&W. The only film I can think of recently where I really thought color added something that couldn't be done another way was "Her". And while I'm rambling. Watched the 1st episode from Season 3 of "Black Mirror". By God, the distance between those stories and what one sees in the movie theater these days! And finally, what those cinema cameras and projectors can do these days! Wow!

Depends on where you're traveling to. The Sony cameras are not as robust as Nikons. If you shoot outside in good light the MFT cameras are great. Less than ideal light and you might get frustrated, coming from APS-C. It doesn't sound like it's a sure thing you'll shoot much video. I can tell you for 7 years I go everywhere planning to shoot video, yet do it rarely. If that's a possibility for you I'd get a Nikon D750 or D7500. Keep in mind I have a Sony A6000,A6300, A7, A7R! I haven't shot video since the D600, which was atrocious, but people here say the new Nikon's video is good stuff. Again, bottom line, if you're POSITIVE you'll shoot a lot of video, consider a change. If you really need to go small, I agree with @scotchtape just get an RX100 (doesn't have to be the latest). For photography, stick with Nikon.

I was just commenting on a Curtis Judd video about this issue. So many YouTubers mangle these concepts and I hate feeling the outcast. Anyway, AFAIK the concept of 0-100 IRE dates back to when video was produced by tube cameras (which I shot stuff with back in 1985). With those cameras, a video signal was an analog signal that was read by an oscilloscope, the waveform being one way of displaying the signal. The 0 -100 ERI basically measured when you were under exposing or over-exposing the image. It assumed an analog input, so I don't believe you could save, later, anything above or below those values. Anyway, I believe it is a limited metaphor for today's digital equipment. Even though they are displays available in Davinci Resolve, etc., they confuse people who doesn't understand the difference between a recording gamma (which doesn't exist in RAW) and a display gamma. If I'm wrong, I hope others will chime in. I think where you might be confused (and I was too) is believing that luma is encoded in your data. It isn't, though it is implied. When you record a value with your camera, whether a gray tone, like 128,128, 128 or a color 78,53,250, the brightness is ultimately set by your display. So the difference in brightness between say 128,128,128 and 250,250,250 might be 2 stops or 3 stops, depending on your display gamma. Your video data doesn't know the gamma it will end up in, though again, for most cameras there are expectations baked in. Think about it, if luma was baked into your data than on some displays it would look really washed out, on others very bright. Every display, from your phone to your PC monitor, transposes a range of brightness levels, calibrated to its expected output, onto the data. If the data was to say, display 128,128,128 as a fixed level of brightness then how would each different piece of equipment do that, if some couldn't? The whole "rec709" problem, IMHO, is a fake problem thought up by people who wanted to sell cameras, or their color profiles or LUTs. I have never experienced a practical problem between shooting sRGB, AdobeRGB or others. All the color spaces outstrip our ability to differentiate colors and they have a complex relation to luma. Anyway, the fact is, assuming your expose your material favoring what you want exposed, then all software will work to create a relative output that assumes the display is using a rec709 type color space, or similar.

Definitely not for RAW which has no assumption of color. He's my cynical view of LUTs. A person looks at some movie, likes the look of the color. Can't figure out how to create it for their footage using Resolve or some other color grading software. So they buy a LUT, which is a "look up table" of color substitutions made by a colorist who can duplicate the look of that film. So what you're buying with a LUT is only another person's opinion of what looks good which matches your opinion. There's no such thing as a LUT that creates better colors, though there's certainly a market for those who believe there are. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Color styles, like everything else in the arts, goes through FADs. Right now, we're in an unsaturated-color FAD with so many people shooting LOG which is a destroyer of rich and vibrant color. However, at some point, the bit-depth of cameras will increase, removing the need for 8-bit LOG gammas, and a FAD in highly saturated images will happen because everyone will want to show off their high-bit footage. There's a prediction for 2020! I need to quit this stuff again for 2018

Distribution is a whole other question, right? Yes, if I was doing anything commercial I'd post on Vimeo, but only because it still has somewhat of a following from film-makers, NOT the general public. They're all on YouTube and Instagram. It would just be one of those nuisance expenses. However, does anyone look for videos on Vimeo? I no longer do. Anyway, I was definitely not making the argument that one should leave YT for generic hosting. Though even there, I doubt anyone in the film business cares where your video is, if they're just looking for the quality of your content. For example, just 5 minutes ago my wife took our friends dog for a walk. Our friend, on vacation, wants to see a video. I shot a quick thing, converted to mp4 for an iPhone (which is what she has) and put it on my Google drive. Then posted the link in FB messenger. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tUKJDeaq6GT1xEbFrcVc-_4oPSkw1EO5/view?usp=sharing Seriously, it would have taken me more time on Vimeo because there is nothing shorter than drag and drop and create link.

I don't know the answer because I now use YouTube. It's easy to set up multiple channels. If I needed non-branded videos, which Vimeo could allow me to embed, I would just get an Amazon AWS account and host them that way, or Microsoft Azure, or Google Drive, etc. If enough people are interested in that here, I can look at it and offer solutions. Maybe Andrew should set something up as part of his business here I understand why Vimeo is raising rates. Good bandwidth costs money. My issue is that they're cutting corners, re-investing little, IMHO, to pay for their investment, name, etc. They rightly believe that most people will not leave because they're already entrenched. So I believe, if you don't have a lot of effort spent in Vimeo, it's a better deal to just buy the bandwidth directly from one of those companies which are competing fiercely in the cloud storage space. In today's technology, there is nothing special to hosting video. There are "players" galore. It was even built into HTML5. So it's just bandwidth.

I don't know why anyone uses Vimeo anymore. I cancelled my subscription because of it and they made it difficult for me to go to free mode. Long story...short story is they're run by a PE firm which has no "love" for video. Vimeo videos seldom plays through for me, as yours just didn't. I believe they go cheap on bandwidth. That might be the cause of the choppiness you're seeing.

Hey Mercer, finally a post where I can say, "SHOOT LOG ALL THE TIME!" The drawbacks of LOG, chroma noise, only create a nice film-grain look in BW. All that said, I believe you'll still get a better image shooting RAW. I compared the RX10II to the professional X70 I had at the time an couldn't see a difference. In short, those RX10s shoot a sweet image and have a nice selection of LOG profiles. If I was going to shoot B&W that would be of my top 10 cameras. Nice images! I keep meaning to shoot BW. Another hangup I need to fix. Post a video when you have one! @UncleBobsPhotography First, you'd need to remove the Color Filter Array (like the Leica Monochrome) to shoot true B&W--in STILLS! In the RX10, it's actually a 1080 image downsampled from 4K, so you shouldn't have much chroma problems interfering with your B&W. In other words, not sure a b&w sensor would give you much benefit except it should be more sensitive to light (having no light-slowing micro-filter-lenses) and give you a higher effective ISO. h264 duplicates values in 420 or 422. Cracks me up that in some other threads people want 444 in 10bit. Who needs that? Give me 444 in 8bit and I'll throw a party! Anyway, h.264 stinks for everything compared to RAW but stinks less for B&W Rock on Mercer!!!!

I'm supposed to read comments too! Anyway, if you look at my videos you'll know that I should be the LAST person to criticize anyone else's video. It's not much of a visual test of the camera, no matter how you shot it, so what just making a joke. Again, great sound!!!

vlog at twilight with over-cast clouds?...not going to say anything That is some bitching nice sound though! You should put your youTube channel in your signature, I had no idea you have a channel! Also, if you visit the U.S., please don't wear your vest in public, you'll get all the streets closed off and the bomb-sniffing dogs set loose!

Trying to fix various misunderstandings I experienced while posting my findings about LOG gamma profiles last year, I'm starting at the beginning--Camera RAW. Most of you probably know all this already, but if you have 25 minutes to kill, or just want something to put you to sleep. I've done a video on RAW. I hope to do others, taking someone all the way up from RAW to video LOG. As I do these, I learn a lot too. There is plenty about video LOG that I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. Anyway, here is part one

Film-grain, or noise, is added to reduce visual distortion. Imagine someone is going to drop you on a desert island for 20 years and you have two choices of what music system to bring with you. A) You can bring an old phonograph player with 100 scratched records (vinyl say). B) You can bring a stereo with unlimited scratch-free songs; however, the sound level is set just 5 db above where the sound gets distorted. Which would you choose? We (humans) can tolerate huge levels of noise in sound and vision. Yet we can barely tolerate the smallest amounts of distortion. All digital media is inherently distorted. All values in 0s and 1s. The only reason it doesn't sound/look distorted, is we sample enough to remove the effect. HOWEVER, as many audiophiles will tell you, subconsciously the distortion may still bother you. I've written in many other posts that many don't get, that it's more important we have reduced color distortion in 6 stops of dynamic range, than higher dynamic range with more color distortion. Bottom line, I don't care how new/expensive the equipment is, in a theater or in your camera bag, if you operate it without understanding the issues you can get very poor results.