aldolega

So does one have to buy the V-Log upgrade to get the HybridLog/HDR profile, whenever it's released? Or will it just be a normal (free) profile? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Hybrid Log profile kinda make V-Log pointless?

Like this? If so, that's the first version of the EF-m4/3 booster, which is .71x power. The Ultra is a new version of this, still .71x, but with slightly revised optics. The XL is .64x. And you're right, the Ultra and XL are both labeled as such with yellow writing. So you almost definitely had the first .71x version. Someone could probably drop those two screenshots into Photoshop and measure the crop factor and we could know for sure...

I'm all set to pick up a G85 and 5" Video Assist soon, but I haven't been able to find adequate answers to the following questions, hopefully someone here can help: 1. Does the G85 output a record trigger over HDMI, and does the Video Assist recognize it? I know the GH4 has the trigger, and the VA sees it, so I would assume the G85/VA would work fine too, but I wanted to be sure. 2. I read that the VA records everything as 16-235, regardless of what the camera is putting out. So GH4 users just had to switch the camera to 16-235, no big deal other than I guess technically a slight loss in tonality (less values to use), which in 10-bit is not such a big deal: however the G85 only does 0-255 or 16-255- no 16-235! So will the VA not record anything above 235, thus losing my highlights forever? Or is this more of a tag/flag issue in the file, where the highlights are there, but I just need to adjust input or output levels in my NLE to regain them? 3. Related to #2- assuming the 16-235 issue can be corrected in my NLE, how exactly would I go about creating a monitoring LUT that would let me see those above-235 values on the VA screen? Thanks!

You would enter the actual focal length of the lens (or of the lens + booster as a package). Native lenses are of course labeled with this, although you don't have to enter anything for electronic native lenses, as they communicate with the body. For non-electronic native lenses (Voigtlanders, Samyang/Rokinon m4/3 lenses, etc), you would have to manually enter the lenses' stated focal length. Same for any manual glass with a plain (non-booster) adapter. For boosted lenses you would enter (lens focal length X speedbooster power), so for instance for a 50mm lens with a .71x booster you would enter 35.5mm (50mm X .71 = 35.5)- or the closest option in the IBIS menu.

It's BlackMagic's fault. They didn't QC their lens mount tolerances well enough and all the first Pockets went out the door with sloppy mounts. Metabones was simply trying to accommodate BM's mistake, which makes sense as this booster was made for just this camera. It seems that getting a booster/camera combo that is so tight it won't mount is fairly rare. More likely it will just be a bit stiffer than you would like, which actually isn't a big deal if you're leaving the booster on the cam. Which is what it seems most people do. If you're switching back and forth to other lens systems then it could be a problem, or at least annoying.

The Pocket version (the one he's selling) is what you want for a Micro, though. It's made for the S16 sensor the Pocket and Micro use. Some do have a tight fit on the Micro. Metabones made the mount a little tighter than the m4/3 standard, because the early Pockets had loose-fitting mounts (slightly looser than the standard). Then BM tightened the mount at some point, and eventually Metabones loosened their mount to match, which means some boosters fit very tightly on later Pockets and the Micro. There's no marking or other indication of whether a booster has a tight or loose mount, and of course there are small variations in the tolerances from copy to copy as well, so you just have to try it on your camera and see how it is. If it's too tight, email Metabones and tell them you need an updated (looser) mount. You may want to neglect to mention it's for a Micro though, as the Pocket booster isn't officially sanctioned for the Micro, and they may charge you for the mount if you do.

Because it says "BMPCC", i.e. for the Pocket. The booster for the 2.5K BMCC says "BMCC".

Yes, that's a very popular combo on the Pocket and Micro. That model in the pics is the .58X Pocket booster though, not the .64X BMCC model.

So when shooting VFR, what's the bitrate, bit depth, and color sampling of the file? 100mbps 10-bit 4:2:2?

I don't see why 6K Photo would have to be intraframe. The GH4's 4K Photo is IPB. I would prefer AV1 to take the lead, it is supposedly more advanced/efficient, and it seems restrictions in NLE's like mentioned above would end, as it is free.

Yea, you can get a faster lens, or switch to a booster system, but sometimes you need a deeper-than-two-inch DOF, though... and that's when high (6400+) ISO performance becomes irreplaceable. Shooting a naturally-dim/dark scene at F8 with very little noise is a unique look, and really only the Sonys can do it right now.

Or it's just that the sensor glass is larger, or not shaded/tinted at the edges... Or that's just a rendering and actual photos of the actual production cam/sensor will look like the GH4...

The argument for in-camera NR is that it is working with the raw sensor data, whereas with NR in post you're working with the compressed codec (on non-raw-video cams of course) and thus much less data.

I think it's important to remember that h264 has many flavors for different applications, and at this point they are all pretty mature, and have been tweaked and tuned and tested for almost a decade now to their maximum potential; some for consumer applications where low bitrate/easy en/de-coding is priority over IQ, and some for prosumers/pros who demand quality and have the hardware/software to work with the higher profiles and bitrates. Look at the difference between stock GH2 and the mature hack settings; both are h264, but the tuned settings are undoubtedly better quality. h265 is new and mostly the only implementations I know of outside of the NX1 have been video chat, mobile platforms etc where again low bitrate and easy en/de-coding are the priority. The NX1's h265 implementation seems decent for a first go, certainly better than early h264; but the bitrate hacks have shown it can be improved, and (AFAIK) the present hacks are only allowing a higher bitrate, not tuning/altering the encoding itself. So when the camera companies' engineers (and hopefully hackers, if they are able to get deep into the NX1 or another h265 camera) start going to a higher bitrate and tuning/tweaking the encoding implentation itself: I think there could be big gains made.

Go for the 25mm, unless you have to shoot in an extremely small space.

It's not about expanding the camera's DR, it's about delivering more of that DR to the viewer's screen.

Good to hear, Luke. Were Sharpness and NR adjustable on the normal gammas when you shot the piece? Or were they locked at 0 too? I recall one of the Panasonic reps saying, in one of the dozen interviews I've watched, that the new image processing/sharpening cannot be totally turned off, just down. If that's true I really hope that on the production cam, turning down to -5 on both will get rid of the haloing and temporal artifacts.

So it would basically be the same rule it seems most have adopted for the GH4- stick to normal gammas with 8-bit (in-camera), and use 10-bit for V-Log (i.e. add a recorder). Just with the GH5, going to 10-bit is only a matter of switching a couple settings, instead of dragging out the recorder, and the SSD's, and the HDMI cable, and the rigging... Sounds like I will just be setting one of the custom modes on the dial to 4K60p with Cinelike D at Leeming LUT settings, and another to 4K30 with V-Log and the preview LUT. Should be pretty simple to switch between them. As someone who shoots a lot of motion, the only things I'm worried about are the possibility of ghosting from temporal NR, and the haloing that @anti12 just posted is worrisome too. It seems like with every GH release the engineers do their best to deliver the most nail-bitingly-sharpened-and-processed image they can, and we all spend the first month or two with the camera just trying to dial that out of the picture. It would be really nice if, right off the bat, we could have the option to not just turn down, but turn off the extra processing and NR, instead of waiting/hoping for a firmware update that lets us do so.

And that's the rub isn't it? We don't know if it's been implemented right. So we have to test if it is. For video, who cares if the sensor can do 16 stops in raw stills, if the camera can't get it into a video file?

IMO using photo full frame as the "ruler" is only useful because S35 is a little nebulous, having several similar but different formats which are all loosely called "S35". Whereas photo full-frame (135 film) has always been 36x24mm. Although I would argue that post-DSLR-revolution the ruler should actually be photo-full-frame video, i.e. a 16x9 crop of 36x24mm, i.e. what a 5DII/III/A7 would shoot. Which is just a little smaller, diagonally, than the 3:2 photo format on the same sensor/film.

You can use the 17-55mm f2.8 with a speedbooster if you remove the plastic baffle on the back of the lens, which sticks into the mount and will hit the front element in the speedbooster. If you do a bit of googling you will find more info on this. I would recommend getting a .71x booster over the XL .64x version. Less danger of vignetting and more future-proof, as the GH5 uses the whole sensor width for all video modes. Canon 17-55 f2.8 vs. Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is something you have to decide for yourself. If you need IS or the larger range, the Canon is your choice, but you will need a proper Metabones booster, as that has electronics to power the lens for aperture control and IS. If speed is your primary concern go for the Sigma. If you get a Nikon mount Sigma you can use a "dumb" booster and that saves some money. Don't waste your money on any generic booster other than a Mitakon/Zhongyi Lens Turbo II. The cheaper ones have awful flare problems, or are soft.

Ah, yea, now that I look at B&H, that's about the same here... the M kit is $621, and the L kit is $1,035. The L kit has carbon legs, though, which I would guess would be a $200-300 difference by itself, making the difference in the head not THAT huge. So I guess it's more an issue of the heads not being offered by themselves, and the legs each come bundled with aren't directly comparable (cf vs alu). EDIT: just saw the Freddie Wong Super Deluxe Faster & Furiouser Xtreme 2DAMAX Edition Ace L kit, only $783, comes with the aluminum legs. So that's well worth it over the Ace M kit IMO, if you can stand the neon green.

The one I have, the Ace L, does have a bubble light! Very useful I agree. It seems most people aren't aware that the L version exists, as the M version is what you see everywhere. The L has a 6kg load capacity as well, the M is 4kg.

I'll throw in my Benro experience. I've done the typical keep-buying-a-pricier-tripod-every-few-years-thing, first with an HV30, then DSLR/mirrorless. Started with an awful RC-4 mount (I think, tilt mechanism was one-sided like the Benro S2) Manfrotto, then a 701, then the S6, and now a Sachtler Ace L. I've also used various mid-level Manfrottos (501, 502, etc). The S6 was pretty good, performance-wise. Same or slightly better than a 501 or 502. Seemed smooth at the time, and adjustable drag and counterbalance on tilt was a big step up from the 701. It worked- it wasn't awesome, but I could shoot with it. Just really cheap touches to the construction, though- plastic knobs, weird/poor fit on a couple things, cosmetic badges fell off from cheap glue, and the pan lock knob broke off. Zero response from Benro "customer service" on that, BTW- on my own and through the dealer I bought from. So be warned that it seems like they're going for a "disposable" sales model. And I'm in the US! In Vietnam or elsewhere I would expect it to be even worse. The Sachtler is another class- and it's not even a "real" Sachtler, haha. So smooth, great finish and controls. Well thought out. Smooth! Solid! Supple! Can still mount to slider etc, as the bottom of the bowl is flat. I actually look forward to using my longer manual glass now, instead of being worried about getting jiggles or overshooting my landing... hell, I look forward to using it with any glass, period. It's actually a little smaller than the Benro in width/depth, but is taller, because of the bowl. Although the Benro + ball leveler is bigger and probably heavier overall.

Uh, if it did what you proposed, it wouldn't stabiize the image at all. It would be counteracting the IBIS (the sensor moving) with EIS (a moving active crop of the sensor), for a net result of zero stabilization. My guess as to why Panasonic hasn't gone back to MAR sensors is because they (supposedly) haven't made their own sensors since the GH2, they've (supposedly) been buying them from Sony. And buying from Sony probably comes with all kinds of strings attached, so maybe Sony simply restricts them to the standard m4/3 size. Or Sony just doesn't want to make new, custom tooling/dies/etc to make an oddball sensor size for only Panasonic, when the rest of their m4/3 customers want the standard size that they're already set up for. And either Panasonic doesn't want to pay for APS-C sensors, or doesn't want the marketing confusion, or Sony won't sell them to them.