fuzzynormal

The OP might be new to videography and obviously does find these results unexpected. (how a beginner has access to c100 and a Nija Star recorind system is interesting, but perhaps it's a student) Don't know what's really up until certain questions are answered. From what I know about c100 ghosting, it's a field interpolation error that pops up from time to time within the hardware of the camera. It looks a little like inverted field rendering that one would see back in the NTSC days. Thanks for the info. My conclusion/guess is that you're not aware of the physics of light and how cameras work. That's fine. You'll learn. Bottom line: your camera is operating without error. You're making an incorrct assumption about your perfectly natural visual results. It's most likely not "ghosting" it's motion blur. The c100 "ghosting" would look more visually stratified. If I'm wrong, I wouldn't be absolutely surprised, but that's my best guess.

Compression artifacts are blocky distortions, chroma banding, things like that. This isn't that. I'm going to wager these stills are captured from video clips where the camera was in the middle of a violent handheld pan. Most likely you're recording @24fps, right? In other words: a normal visual result. We're looking at a still that represents 1/48th of a second as the lens moves quickly. Was the camera moving for these stills or not?

That it doesn't look anything like compression artifacts in my experience. It looks like motion blur. OP: Shoot the exact same shots and use a tripod. Don't move the camera. Upload those images. If the "ghosting" is there, you can start worrying.

Hey, my camera does that too! Actually, all the cameras I've used over the years have done that.

Indeed. Consider the choir preacher to.

Just one filmmaker's opinion: animated lower 3rd graphics are ridiculous.

Old productions were lit well. I wouldn't asssume the film stock was the only reason that show looked great and your digital footage looked bad. As for motion pictures as art, I do remember my first movie going experience was seeing "Bambi" at the "Twilight Drive-In" movie theater. As a three year old I was hardly able to tell what would be discernible as art, but I recall being engaged in the storytelling. At any rate, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from thinking film IQ ain't grand, but when it was all-film-all-the-time back in the day, the distribution chain did have issues. We're in a place now where, practically, digital bypasses those quality control issues. I can shoot a doc on a gm1 and have it edited then screened with no loss in quality from the moment it's shot to the "4-walled" user's eyeballs. I'll take that trade off vs. a difference in DR IQ. Watching my films projected via DCP has been a lot of fun. It looks incredible. That kind of thing has only been possible on the cheap in the past few years. And, without a doubt, in the next few we'll all be shooting high DR stuff on consumer gear that does surpass film.

Yeah, no question, but when I was watching films at run-down grindhouses during the 1dollar matinees, the print and projection was not all that great. So the quality perception is skewed regarding "film" if all one is used to is watching a pristine transfer on blu-ray. My movie going experience as a kid growing up was decidedly less refined. Memories of sloppy screenings of "Corvette Summer" or "Fort Apache The Bronx" or "Phantasm" are more my recollection. ...this doesn't even touch on the reality of VHS home viewing of movies. So yeah, film is great! But by the time copies of movies filtered into my rust belt neighborhood, the IQ reality had taken a beating.

Agree to disagree. Raw ain't the "filmlook" panacea many people like to think it is. Its great, and I shoot it from time to time too, but it's not a priority for me. And 12 stops of DR is better than what I was used to growing up on 70's cinema screened at the drive-in. It's not like those films were awesome image-wise. Salvaging some highlights is nice and all, but blown out sky on a bad print never stopped me from enjoying a Sergio Leone or Sydney Lumet film. In fact, a good exercise last year was watching "Hateful 8". The novelty was fun. Even under the best controlled conditions of what they were doing, I was thinking, "yep, this is a film projection and it's crusty." after a few minutes of the narrative, it really didn't matter. Also watched the last MissionImpossible, shot on film, (digital projection) and thought, "Wow, that's grainy and rough." For me, a lot of the "film look" is the analog flaws of it all. The blessing and curse. Of course, that's just me though. Your mileage may vary.

I tend to think if you shoot a "360" degree shutter it pretty much takes away most of the video look. I used to call it "0 degree" shutter, but 360 is technically correct (so I've been told). Whatever the case, it's basically a 24 shutter speed matched with 24fps video. One needs to be mindful of the motion blur, but I really like motion blur because it takes away the video-ish-ness. I shoot my documentaries this way, on m43, with longer focal lengths. The footage doesn't look like it was shot on video at all to my eye. Not sure if you can say they look exactly like film, but it seems pretty close to me. Also, I think MTM was a multicam film production, like other sitcoms such as Cheers. Gunsmoke was film too, I'd wager; single cam. Typical film production style. Price is Right was most definitely live to video tape. Studio video cameras all the way. An interesting bit of trivia you probably know: in the days of before video tape, electronic NTSC tv shows were recorded live to film via a primitive telecine; basically a film camera recording a tv screen. FWIW, the magic bullet suite is a 3rd party plugin from red giant software. I think it costs about $800. It's not installed by default with premiere, so the OP might not have it on his/her particular system. But regardless, you can easily make a custom gradient and overlay it on your video in any NLE. personally, in premiere, I'd recommend just masking a lumetri effect.

To be honest, I'd say 1 out of 2 ain't all that hard these days. Even the laziest SOB can throw one of these new cameras/lenses into auto, dial up a flattering color profile, and shoot clean motion pictures that look technically impressive. Artistically impressive? Probably not. But technically impressive? Yeah, no problem. The other stuff? You're right, not so much.

Let me respectfully suggest you're in a "forest for the trees" situation. If you want super cheap, and are truly strapped for cash, then maybe step back and consider older LUMIX cameras, speedbooster, and a old fast manual prime lens for low-light situations. I've shot numerous documentaries and projects with a variety of LUMIX M4/3 cams. As far as I'm concerned, the 60p on these cameras is fine. I really have an affinity for my GX7, for example. An effective S35 sensor area is adequate. I mean, we're talking about $500 to get all three pieces of gear; even less if you buy used. No, they're not the best low-light cameras @60p, but do-able and that price is ridiculous considering what you can accomplish. If you don't like the results it's not like you've invested a lot of cash. With those cameras, buy used and then sell used and you won't lose any money regardless. Ultimately it'll come down to your abilities with whatever gear is in hand. Certainly don't assume you are going to solve the majority of various production problems just because you own a camera that's 2 stops faster than another one. I mean, low-light-full-frame cameras are fun and all, (I do like them too) but work is work, your budget is tight, and cameras are only a small fraction of the whole process. All that said: NX1 and X-T20 tick boxes what you want, just at a higher price.

Affordable? Man, it's all affordable these days. Even the expensive stuff is affordable.

Certainly very common back in the day of indies shooting on videotape. Does FotoKhem in Burbank do it? Anyway, I think the cost was somewhere around $200 a minute... but this was 15 years ago. The cool thing, for your inner hipster, is that you'll get a can(s) of a 35mm print to show off. So, a "real" film, you know?

I like to call my color grades "stylized" simply because I stink at it and end up in some weird places color-wise. But I do like manipulating stuff away from authentic and more to something "other."

Nothing wrong with that. Emulation is a good exercise in trying to figure things out.

The "film look" is a combination of the entire craft. I've even seen (and shot) 16mm film that doesn't necessarily have the "film look." Embrace the fact that one needs to comprehend numerous elements of motion picture image creation and you'll be on a path that might get you there someday. It's not a single tool, it really is the knowledge and wisdom that makes it happen. ...the least of which, IMHO, is highlight roll off. But, understanding color is a piece of the puzzle. Knowing how to control color in post does help, but don't expect it to be the answer. It's just a fraction.

I'd actually recommend checking and testing both ways before deciding which way to go. I've shoot the Lumix 100-300 on an EM5, and found that I liked the stabilization more from the body, so I turned off the lens stabilization. Was able to shoot video at a 600mm focal length (equivalent) effectively; had to really brace myself and lock it in, but it worked well enough.

FWIW, and it may not be germane to the above conversation, but I've had the sensor image stabilizer get "stuck" on my GX85 a few times. Just putting that out there. Keep an eye on that possibility with these cameras regardless.

Yup. And then controlling the light in those kinds of scenes can make a "cheap" camera look good. But anyone thinking they can slap on some post production magic to make sloppy footage look on par with elite gear is really misunderstanding how this stuff works. We can make footage from cheap hybrid cameras look awesome for a lot of reasons, but 15+ stops of dynamic range is what it is. A camera that squeaks out 12 just ain't the same. So, rely on the fundamentals of the craft and make any gear you use look as best as it can.

Light properly.

No knead bread is the easiest thing in the world. Love it so much it's made me fat.

Not very. The controls are very straightforward --but you will most likely crash before you come to terms with it. I felt pretty confident after a day of practice with an old and used camera-less drone. Then, I flew my actual camera drone into a tree a few days later during a shoot. Boom. Basically, it takes some wisdom to learn how to interpret spatial dynamics from a distance. More important than that is just learning how not to over-react to stuff when flying. All that said, I basically gave up on aerials. I don't find them particularly compelling anymore. Understood that your clients just want it "because," but I really have a hard time rationalizing 'em these days in my own work considering that it's so prevalent elsewhere.

Point taken here. The thing I came to realize a long time ago is that not all camera enthusiasts are necessarily filmmakers. But all filmmakers are usually camera enthusiasts. In open forums like this, you know what happens...

Better than I could do on a "regular" camera, so I ain't gonna knock it. I doubt anyone in their family that sees it is really interested in how it was sourced anyway.