maxotics

"Dynamic Range" is such a misused phrase. It's the MacGuffin of filmmaker dreams and fantasy. When someone writes the camera could have 15+ stops of DR my head explodes. Measured how? I'll try another way to explain how I see it. In an 8-bit DATA space (which Panasonic is probably shotgun married to in its electronics), you only have 16 million color values. If you shoot in 6 stops, you have 16/6=2.6 million colors. If you shoot in 15 stops you have 1 million colors. The data "word"/bit size is what sets the maximum colors you can capture. So after the camera comes out various camera experts will show on YouTube/Vimeo how you can see 15 white/gray bars, each exposed 1 stop away from the other. So yes, if you're shooting white bars you have 15 stops of dynamic range. However, change each bar to an individual color chart and you will see banding because you can't spread color out in 15 stops in 8 bit without seeing it in many situations. Again, you want 2.6 million colors at each stop, or 1 million? 10bit full color compressed video is not the same as 10bit single-channel RAW, not even close. Arggggghhh! What's so mystifying to me--the million dollar question--is why Panasonic can't offer RAW. A GH5 with RAW output would be a game changer. I'd buy one immediately! Anyone? As for the focus stuff. I agree with the above. Sony and Canon invested in low-level tech that can't be done without changing manufacturing. No one wants to hear this, but Panasonic is married to the wrong sensor size. Might have been one of the points @Don Kotlos was trying to make. Yes, there are many tricks that can be done to improve the image. But GROSS Dynamic Range? As they say in cars, "there's no replacement for displacement" If Canon can get 4K on its consumer cameras Panasonic will be in very serious trouble. That's my thoughts on their desire to keep announcing.

As much as I love my C100 (with DPAF) I don't use it enough to justify keeping it. I hate stuff just lying around. So will probably sell it, so keep that in mind if you decide you really want one and I'll give you another option. Some more thoughts, for a few minutes of video here and there, the A6300 works perfectly for me. What I love about the C100 is it just works well in almost any light and the battery lasts, it doesn't get hot, has XLRs, etc. It isn't 4K, but as perfect and nice looking 1080 as I've ever seen (it downscales to 1080 from 4K internally). If I ever want to do long-form video again I'd buy another in a heartbeat. I'm in the U.S. though, Boston area.

Agree. It's not a "real" mic. What I meant about nifty is that it allows you some directionality and ability to move the mic away from the camera and put on a dead-cat essentially. It may stink, but for the size it's good Sorry, when I said I use it on any other camera I didn't mean it's a mic I use for anything important. Whereas the other mics aren't that much better even though they're large. They're hobby mics. I agree with your other points. The Rhodes were interesting when they came out. But that Takstar, and similar knockoffs, are good enough that it's not really worth it pay more than $50 for an unbalanced mic. In the balanced realm, a whole different ballgame.

AFAIK, the biggest difference is the Videomicro isn't powered and doesn't work with the Canon C100 btw. However, I use it on every other camera and it's quite the nifty mic.

He did an unsolicited episode on my vlogging mirror for Sony cameras. Like me, he felt that a feature holding Sony cameras back from the vlogging mainstream is the non fully-articulating LCD screen. I've sold around 5 vlogging mirrors which I sell below cost. I believe there are two reasons for the lack of interest. 1.) Many people have fantasies about becoming a successful filmmaker and the latest/shiny/expensive equipment is what gets them dreamy-eyed, not some gadget made in some guy's garage (or hackspace). 2.) The Panasonic cameras have benefits beyond articulating screens; seemingly endless battery life and crisp 4K. 3.) The desire to vlog does NOT EQUAL a desire for camera equipment (quite the opposite probably). Anyway, I enjoy Caleb's scripted pieces but also find the streaming episodes too slow. On his studio setup I'd quibble about a couple of things. First, his mixer combines all the inputs into a 2-channel USB stream. Perfect for live-streaming, but of limited use for studio stuff because you're not recording separate non-processed feeds for each device. Also, the setup is fine for a talking head, but isn't as flexible for other things. He did a review of the Odyssey, where he switched between different cameras--great video! The device cost $3,000 though. There just isn't enough time in the day to do an equipments shows AND go out and shoot short films. It must be very frustrating for him. There are only so many pieces you can do about lights, cameras, lenses and doodads before wondering what the heck it has to do with story-telling. Here's my current vlogging setup. Now that I have it working well, technically, there is just the problem of my stiff presentation Anyway, if you have USB3.0 on your laptop/computer, that Cam Link is nice device.

I'd get the MK4. For ML RAW you can pick up a used 7D for around $400 now. 7D RAW is very close to the 5D3; indistinguishable to me. I wouldn't use RAW for interviews though. And I wouldn't invest a lot of money in a camera for RAW until you're sure you want it. If you're going to do more video, expect to invest another $1,000 in audio equipment. And lights? So if you don't have that stuff already...

That camera had its own display stand at B&H for a while. I couldn't get it to turn on. It was hanging by its security wire which I doubt was plugged into anything. Has a mic in. Hey, let's go make a MOVIE Good eye Don. Tempting...

After too many hours I came to @IronFilm's conclusion. Get the mic close to you lips. Speak fully and stay below 0db and you're good. Anything else, and audio goes south in a hurry! What BLEW ME AWAY is how difficult it is to get good levels through your MIC on Windows. I ended up downloading shareware/freeware from here http://www.darkwooddesigns.co.uk/pc2/meters.html And the camera makers. WTF x 1000! Why don't they have a feature where, like white balance, you have the subject talk and have the camera analyze the sound and set the a value at 0db, or wherever you tell it to set max db. Or allow different gains for each channel. UNBELIEVABLE. Fck, rant coming on Setting levels on all cameras stinks! I'm with sondreg, headphones can't be trusted. And why can't Panasonic have a way to integrate smart phone audio with the clip, or any of them. We're still in the dark ages of audio recording when it comes to these cameras--even the professional ones. @jonpais I'll go where you're polite to go. Hey filmmakers, if you can't set audio in a low-budget vlog then check your fame-and-fortune delusions at the door

On YouTube Mattias is a simple man who loves his cameras and dog. Might be a wife or girlfriend there too. On this forum, he's just another raving lunatic Cracks me up! We all need a place to let our lunacy run free. Thank you Andrew Anyway, I'm running out of cameras to try. I want to sell most of them but each camera has a "thing". The C100 perfect video in any light. The 7D shoots raw. The A6300 does 4K and let me run it all day through the USB. Have an a6000 too. The EOS-M3 (a recent edition) has a pop up LCD, mic in, and is small. The X3000 is really portable and has great stabilization. The GR--love poem there. A nikon D80--might want for my copy stand. An A7R, for real estate and portraits. However, I'd LOVE an D850. I'd love a Leica. I want every camera Mattias talks about. A point. I lose some money on each camera I sell. It's the cost of my lunatic hobby. I estimate that it costs me $1,200 to $2,400 a year. It's part of my photo hobby. If I was a full-on professional photographer, however, it would be bad business. Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. None is the clear-cut best. So it's time wasted figuring it out when it would be better time learning how to deal with camera X's limitations. Or just spending time preparing to take better photos. I hate myself when I spend time on this forum. But here I am Where were we...?

Yeah, I'm 56, I don't want to do ANY NEW SHIT My arguments to the OP are as much to myself. ASFAIK you can use the cloud, or not use the cloud. Whether Adobe updates LR software through the cloud, or you do it manually after installing from a DVD, what real difference? And just so you know I'm as rabid as the OP about this stuff, I just cancelled my Netflix subscription because they auto-play previews/audio while I'm browsing shows. Just another thing I'll have to suck up and re-join in a few months

Hi everyone. I've been working on a setup where I can efficiently green screen vlog from my desk. I have a solution that seems to work well, so far. I'm using an Elgato Cam Link ($130), Bandicam ($40 HDMI capture to motion JPEG), an Evoyo HDMI monitor ($60) and Teleprompter Pro ($8) for PC. Also using a QICENT USB 3.0 hub ($30?) . After a lot of experimentation I've become a believer in Motion-JPEG as a poor man's ProRes. There is one part of the solution I couldn't find an option for. How to record the Cam Link Direcshow stream to Prores, Cineform or DNxHD, etc? Does anyone know an open-source solution? (Yes, I know you can do it with ffmpeg, but it's very complicated) It seems OBS only does H.264. For me, I'm fine, but those on stricter budgets might want a solution. Though OBS is probably sufficient for most people's needs; definitely if green screen editing isn't a necessity. Anyway, here it is if you have any interest in HDMI capture. BTW, I almost sold my A6300. So glad I didn't! I also tried the C100, but I believe it interlaces its HDMI output, anyway, the Cam Link didn't do well with it. Maybe I'm missing something there.

I doubt that will happen. Indeed, with their current pricing it seems Adobe will provide a $10/month PS/Lightroom app forever (because a lot of people simply can't pay that $50/month). Adobe can't afford to give the competitors unfettered access to beginning photographers. As it is, there already are a lot of great alternatives. If all Adobe offered was PS or LIghtroom for $10/month I think no one would bat an eye. It's the jump to other products that makes people feel abused. I believe that's the case with the OP because as others have pointed out, there's no real reason not to keep with Lightroom when you compare it one on one with other products. I had PS for a year or two, $10, then wanted Premiere. To add it on was another $20/month. I flipped my lid. Talking to Adobe on the phone further aggravated that. It took me months to calm down enough to bite the bullet. I even CANCELLED PS for a few months. So I COMPLETELY understand where the OP is coming from.

Adobe's pricing is irritating. You can pay $10/month for Photoshop, then an additional $20/month for something else meaning it makes more sense to buy the full CC for $50 a month. So one is between $120/year or $600/yr. I went the full CC, but have a client pay some of it. If you do any amount of professional photo or video work I suggest just sucking it up (as most of us do) and pay for the full CC. A friend of mine's Dad calls it "just pay the freight". If you were just starting out, yeah, maybe look at all the alternatives, but you already have time invested. Anyway, money aside, the value of the full CC suite is quite good--I must say. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's one nice dinner a month with friends and I'd rather spend the money alone with my photos and Photoshop There are so many economies of scale, so many great tutorials on CC that will save me time versus other products. Competition is good. I'd buy other software if I need it. For core stuff though, PS is the software to use. The CC suite is quite comprehensive. I did some podcasts for friends and Audition worked real well so CC felt like a bargain to me. A few months ago I was really annoyed at Premiere's new "Essential Graphics". Now that I've figured it out I'm really happy with it. Adobe keeps innovating. CC DOES keep getting better. Tough decision. For me I decide based on how much photo/video I do every day. As long as I keep doing it every week, and they keep adding functionality, I'll keep paying. When I don't or they don't, I won't.

Why are you ending your subscription?

With the Canon 5D3 you can shoot Magic Lantern RAW and blow all the Sonys away You can also shoot serviceable H.264

If only most filmmakers asked these questions! These are the questions I asked, and ask, myself too. The following is what I've learned so far. A color gamut is a theoretical/mathematical space constructed to represent all visible colors. However, there are many colors in a gamut where one cannot prove that they can actually be seen by most humans, if any. The main point to keep in mind is a gamut is a "mathematical" space. There is no assumption that any color in that mathematical space, say color 100, can be displayed on any screen, printed by any printer, or viewed by any person. Why are there different gamuts? Mostly because we can't print or display pure colors! (nor capture them). All colors are created through blending (because we don't have the technology to produce pure colors). In displays it's pretty straight forward, generally a red, green or blue pixel. In printing, however, many colors can be dithered together to create a color. You can't always describe those colors in simple red, green and blue, hence some of the more complicated, wide gamuts. Whenever I study that stuff in depth I reach for the advil So, there is NO CONNECTION between a LOG profile and a color gamut, unless you make it. Whatever one shoots on their camera, standard profile, LOG, internal HDR, etc., there are no actual COLORS, there are only values. In RAW, if Pixel 1 has a green filter on it, then it gets a value of 1 to 16,384 (in 14 bits). If that value is 1245 then you need to give it a color, so yes, you need a gamut to connect it to display technology. HOWEVER, that is an ARBITRARY choice. No matter what gamut you choose, your value is 1245 and it is only a measurement of a voltage coming out of a piece of doped silicon. AFAIK, all gamuts cover all the visible colors we can display/see in video. So no way you could throw away colors. In printing, gamuts can make a difference, though again, debatable the ability to notice. Why all the confusion? We all want to get the same results as David Fincher say, or whatever the latest RED cameras do, etc. Like the Alchemists of old, who tried to produce gold from lead, various people try to produce a RED image through special color profiles/grades, etc. They buy X $1,000 camera and make "special" adjustments to the pedestal, knee, LUT, etc., to get an image as good as that RED camera. Maybe they will, for certain looks, but they will never get real "gold" sensor values. What the camera recorded, it recorded. They are just numbers. Nothing changes those numbers. Nothing creates the right number from nothing. Either the camera got it, or it didn't. Last night I watched Brandon of "Linus Tech Talk" where he discussed their $138,000 purchase of RED equipment. They had a list of problems too long to show on the screen or discuss. Think about that. If the most expensive camera you can buy, developed by the sharpest minds in the industry, struggle to deliver an image, what hope the guy and his dog and his GH5? Hey, alchemy is fun! I get it. I try it too. However, when you have professional work you need to put that stuff aside! So the bottom line for you is the only significant difference between the D750 and A6300 is the A6300 shoots 4K. That's it, in my opinion. Otherwise, video bit for video bit, they both record the same 8bit data.

This is stuff I struggle with myself; my guess is someone will correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with "stream" CODECs like H.264, HEVC, XAVC, etc., is most frames are calculated from an I-frame (essentially) and the more compression tricks they use, the smaller the size of the visual data for streaming forward. However, that makes it harder for the computer to go backwards. So every time you want to land on a frame that isn't an I-frame, the computer must go backwards a certain number of frames, and do a lot of backwards analysis to reconstruct it. The more work, the greater the chance of crashing. Handbrake should be fine, or any software that uses FFMPEG as an engine. With Prores or Cineform, you can do a quality where there are less tricks used to make a forward-read stream so it's easier for the computer to reconstruct a video at any frame. At a certain quality, you should not lose any color information. There are some comparisons out there of DNxHD and ProRes, etc., but my take-away is you'd really have to pixel peep to see any difference between them. The weird problem with ProRes or Cineform or DNxHD is that if you choose very high quality the files get big and THEN YOUR hard drive can't keep up and you're back to square one with crashing your computer! FAIK,GoPro has just put Cineform in the public domain. So I'm hopeful there will be some good/free encoding tools for it in the future, maybe the camera manufacturers may offer it as a CODEC! In any case, my main point is that I doubt there is a significant difference between Nikon and Sony video files. You should do some tests because chances are you just happened to have an easy Nikon file/project and it was a coincidence that it seemed better. Yes, very DERPY HA HA! Think you should do some tests for that too. I believe Sony video is much better than Nikon, or you can get the A6300 to look like the D750, but not the other way around. I have an A6300. I love that I can power it forever using USB. I love that it has the 4K option. And it has a mic jack. It's small. Maybe what you like more about the D750 is how the body feels (solid). The larger/heavier body make it easier to get steady video. Maybe you just need a rig to beef up the A6300? Odd idea I know. Sounds like you have all the basic equipment. Based on this new information I think you should ditch the D750 and maybe get a Sony 1-inch camera, like an RX10, RX100 or even the RX0? I truly love Nikons, but I can only keep one menu system in my head. So I'm Sony all the way now. Anyway, I had an X70 and RX10 II and I couldn't tell the difference in video quality. The RX10s are quite underestimated, though if I remember correctly Andrew always falls in love with them every time he tries one again. Yes, for real-estate video I can definitely see LOG being VERY useful! No argument there! For still, however, bracketing would be far superior. link to my video about LOG

If you make most of your money shooting stills I predict you would super regret selling the Nikon. However, if you shoot real estate, the 10-18 is a MONSTER lens and I'd rather use the A6500 and that and call it a day (but only for real estate photography, not other stuff). What really affects the ability of a computer to handle video is the type of CODEC you use. Transcode any footage you have, D750 or A6500 into Prores, Cineform or Motion JPEG and there will be no difference between cameras. I have a pretty nice computer and it still chokes on H.264 once I apply any sort of effect. The Sony is better than the D750 in video, for all the reasons you mention (Sorry, I disagree about the Nikon having better video color than the Sony). However, it has the same shortcomings as the Nikon when it comes to what you'd need to do professional video which is 1.) mics (shotgun and lav), 2.) lights 3.) gimbal, fluid-head tripod, rails, etc. In other words, if you do get real video work which camera you have will be the least of your struggles. As everyone here knows, I believe LOG is mostly bullshit. Unless you know EXACTLY WHY you must shoot LOG, it is the inferior profile in 95% of all situations (just my opinion). In short, it trades true mid-tone color for a noisey increase in DR. I've even done a video about why Nikon doesn't provide LOG to its users to hang themselves with The big question for me is what other equipment do you have in terms of strobes, video lights, mics, etc. My guess is that is where you need to spin your wheels a bit

The only reason to use a DSLR/Mirrorless is to get close-up shallow DOF, ability to use any crappy (but full of "character") lens and a better low-light image, but I really mean LOW light. Otherwise, if you're shooting video ONLY today's 1-inch camcorders produce wonderfully clean images, with pleasant shallow DOF once your reach beyond effective 70mm or so, and you don't have to worry about the battery, audio, easy of use, etc. They're built only for video production. They're not going away because if I'm a school, public cable company, etc., they allow anyone to shoot a doc or short film with minimum fuss (calls for technical support). Someone want's a photo they can take out their phone. If your camera, no matter what kind, doesn't have XLR inputs, you're going to roll the dice with your audio every time you shoot. @DaveAltizer If shooting content ABOUT cameras is more important to you than fiddling with a DSLR/mirrorless AT THE SAME time you're talking about camera, then you should really give one of these 1-inch camcorders a try. I believe one would allow you to focus on your content which will improve what you're able to say about the DSLR/mirrorless you're talking about. In any case, getting some real experience with one might help you put all the other stuff you do in perspective?

As in I shouldn't have said "amplify" which is, thinking about it, incorrect? Or something else? Also, interesting that you bring up ADR. I notice a lot more of it and it's not all good, no matter how good it sounds Because you lose something of the real emotion that was in the scene. All the more reason to get good sound in the first place.

I disagree with me too Like @sondreg I find this whole area maddening. Why is it so difficult? I'm going to theorize so maybe some experts here can set me straight. The difference between audio and video is that an audio (image) decreases in amplitude exponentially as the microphone moves back from the subject. This is different from the video (image) where the light intensity stays basically the same wherever you put the camera (moving lights a different story of course). Therefore, any changes in distance from subject to mic will greatly affect the mic's ability to pick up a clean signal (exposure). All mics do have ISO 100s, in a sense, that there is an optimum distance/sound strength, where they record it without noise. That optimal strength is something like 1 volt, or some amplitude from the mic. Like cameras, one can get a great sound if the mic is placed at just the right place to pick up the sound. A small voice might need the mic 5 inches away, a large voice, 10 inches. However, except in a studio environment, with people who have some understanding of how mics work, it is impossible to get the mic's maximum quality output. Therefore, the recorder has two options 1. Electronically amplify the signal from the mic; 2. Digitally amplify the signal coming from the mic (which is what I call post). Add to that, pick the mic with the best trade-off in pick-up pattern, or easy of use (lav), etc. Add to that, that the "small" voice above my scream a lot, and the "large" voice may keep a constant level, so in the first you might choose no-clipping over normal sound quality, or allow clipping to get better normal quality. In the large voice you can focus it just right, but then maybe you're worried they may move their face, Etc, etc, etc. Ironically, getting a good image exposure is child's play compared to using, setting-up, adjusting and post processing audio I now understand why so many professionals on this forum say "get a sound person" if you possibly can. Anyway, because of all that, even though I don't like it, I've found post-processing to be a life-saver in improving the crap I ended up recording (because I didn't get a sound person)! So far, I've been pathetic setting up any mic. But I'm taking my own advice, and doing a lot of experimentation in that area. I can now distill my limited advice-from-experience to this: Better to set up a cheap mic well, then set up the best mic badly. The more post you have to do, the more you have failed.

Thanks Brian! Yes, my experience is past experience. Interesting that Olympus finally has their act together. I don't doubt you. I did a little video with the X-T2 but found the autofocus inferior to the Sonys. Is that wrong too?

When I mean "cute" I mean they try to give the photographer a rich photo-taking experience through many dials and features. I favor raw sensor-size and sensitivity. Just my personal taste! My limited experience is the Olympus and Fuji 4K is nowhere close to the quality of the Panasonic cameras, like the G7. So surprised you think their quality as good. Anyway, the achilles heal of the Sony cameras is the big sensors, and the way they're designed, makes video a bit kludgy--still. My A6300 gets hot, especially in 4K. As everyone knows, those Pannys will run forever and not get hot headed However, I use the Sonys because they have bigger sensors for better photography. I won't use an Olympus because the video still stinks. And even though the Fujis have larger sensors, they still have, again in my opinion, sub-par video. I have not noticed a difference in photos between the Panasonic and Olympus cameras (just video). So if Panasonic can leverage some of it's high frame rate shooting, like photo 4K, and now 20 frames per second, knowing it will do so without getting hot, gets my interest. I still miss my GM1. I broke the mechanical shutter, then my daughter broke the screen. Anyway, I just love the all around thinking of the Panny cameras. BTW, I bought my daughter a Fuji X100. She never used it. She took my G6 and basically sleeps with it, even though I have a lot of better cameras in m opinion I understand your interest in advanced CODECs, etc., but my interests are basic. All Panny 4K looks great to me! Doing 20 frames a second, having an LCD display, etc. It's stuff that makes them closer to Nikon/Canon and which I appreciate. All this is predicated on my belief that Panny video is miles ahead of Olympus of course. So curious what other's thoughts are.

I think Panasonic is making a step in the right direction, though I generally agree with @jonpais prediction. Right now, Panasonic's line-up is a bit strange in that I often read/hear, "The GH5 is an awesome camera, but I is use the G7 for a lot of stuff" The G7 is such a great value it competes with the GH5. Anyway, like Andrew, I was really impressed with the LX100, especially the 4K photo mode. I'm also impressed with Panasonic's camera control apps. They do it the best IMHO. Anyway, the success of the G9 is possible for this reason: In good light (or with a flash), the g9 could become a workhorse for the photo/video media professional. The Sony cameras are still too battery hungry (which we can see they agree with the new A9, or whatever it is, I can't keep track anymore). Anyway, I find the Olympus and Fuji cameras a bit too cute for my taste. A photo camera (weather sealed, top LCD), etc., that takes rapid fire photos and nice 4K video. Not as stupid as it looks

I've listened to tons of tests on YouTube with mics, imagine you have too. I can never hear a significant difference--especially after post. Again, there is a difference in noise floor, but my guess more to do with going balanced. If that's true, then go with the cheapest mic you can find on your version of Craigslist. I understand what you're trying to do. It's what I did with the Rode. It distracted me in a bad way Any mic you get is going to have a trade-off of some sort, and the more expensive, the more esoteric those trade-offs are. My view is if you don't know EXACTLY why you want something, based on your own experience, you end up going through a bit of gear....not that that is a bad thing