hyalinejim

Stunning!

ETTR, ACR and create custom noise profiles for each ISO in Neat Video.

Set your WB in ACR and leave everything else untouched. I turn off sharpness, and have luma noise at 0 and colour noise at 20. Set up your AE project as 16bit Rec709. Export a test clip and reimport it to check that your colour management settings on export are correct. Some versions of AE have a bug here.

Yes, that's correct. This is for jobs where image quality is of utmost importance. You can get similar results debayering to Alexa gamma and gamut in Resolve, but as you've seen colour and noise isn't as good.

Actually, the GH5 has better high ISO performance than 5D ML - about a stop better at least, I would say. I'd hesitate to use 3200 on 5D but have no qualms with using 6400 on GH5.

ACR gives nicer colours and cleaner image than Resolve. To avoid flicker don't use shadows, highlights, whites, blacks or contrast - use exposure slider or curves instead. Or better still, forget about grading in ACR, buy Cinelog and grade later. For fast jobs I use Resolve. For maximum IQ I bite the bullet and transcode overnight to 444 Cinelog masters using ACR for AE. Search for a Smart Import 2 script.

I think you should get both. Spend a month playing with them. Then sell one. I think 5D is slightly better for short films and GH5 is significantly better for bread and butter jobs.

Shadows on GH5 have grain-like luma noise. 5D has lots of chroma noise and blotchy low frequency ugliness in underexposed areas.

I'm not a wedding shooter but did help out a colleague at a wedding recently. I used a Tamron 24 to 70 on an EF Speedbooster XL, giving a 1.8 aperture in terms of light and 31 to 90 f3.5 full frame equivalent. IBIS worked perfectly AF was much slower and more unreliable so I used MF with focus peaking and rarely missed focus at 1.8 Plenty narrow DOF without changing lenses. Wide end is wide enough, but would have preferred extra reach on the long end. I was shooting 1080. I didn't use ETC as it gives a softer image, but clients may not notice this. Overall I'd recommend this combo if you're confident with manual focus and can get close to the action when the long end is not long enough. If changing lenses is a hassle, have you thought about using two bodies?

I'm on my phone so apologies for this abbreviated set of answers: Highlight clipping - protect highlights when exposing and it's not an issue. GH5 has slightly more dynamic range than 5D3 IBIS on manual lenses works very well If you want softer footage blur it VLOG is a must - more DR and control in post 5D is more malleable. There may be cases where you can't get the same look with GH5.

The answer is... it depends! 5D3 ultimately has better image quality (stands up to fierce grading) so for a short film I would choose that. However preview in high res modes is hard to use, so if focus pulling is important you might be better off sticking to 1080. For promos, GH5 all the way. It kicks the 5Ds ass here. I have used ML for corporate work with great success, but I prefer the GH5 for its usability.

You might be pleasantly surprised.The IBIS with non-Panny lenses is still very good. I stuck a Tamron 24-70 2.8 with Metabones XL on my GH5 and didn't notice a difference in IBIS performance compared to the kit 12-60.

I think that for Resolve, Cinelog operates as a LUT and has been pretty much made redundant by the addition of the color management options shown above - it basically did what Resolve can now do. The only advantage it would still have is that it may improve colour slightly. So you may not need to buy it. Cinelog is at its best, in my opinion, with ACR: the ability to get a log image from the best debayering application for ML DNGs. If I'm doing a quick job for a client I'll use Resolve with the above settings. If it's my own work and image quality is of the utmost importance, I'll go through ACR and AE using Cinelog. Colours are nicer than from Resolve (this might be just my opinion) and noise is definitely handled much better.

The BM Luts should work well in terms of luminance with your BM ProRes exports. For Arri luts try these settings in Resolve:

Part of the problem is that any given LUT is expecting a certain range of luminance values, as well as a certain range of chromaticities, which it then transforms to create the desired look. If either the luminance or the colour of the input is wrong the results will be unexpected. Luminance is not such a big deal as this can be fairly reliably manipulated before the LUT in the post pipeline using curves or something similar. Ben Turley's LUTCalc can generate LUTs that transform gamma and colour primaries from known specifications of various cameras. It also gives the option for transforming colour primaries - this does have an effect, but it's not a magic camera emulator machine. This is a long-winded way of saying that it helps if you know what gamma and colourspace your ML footage is in. This is why I like Cinelog - it gives Cineon gamma and Alexa primaries. So let's say I have a LUT designed for Alexa, I just need to transform the gamma from Cineon to Alexa, and leave the colour as it is and it should work well. What's your post workflow? I'll add that Juan Melara's print film emulation LUTs are great. There's also Tom Majerski's VisionT luts for BMD and Digital Bolex, but ML footage will need to be manipulated for these. Also Andres De La Cruz Kodak PFE . Finally, Light Illusion have a film emulation LUT available on request. Finally, you can use IWLTBAP LUT generator to convert Lightroom or ACR presets to LUTs. So if you have a bunch of VSCO presets, for example, you can convert them for use with Rec709 ML footage (although the effect of DCP profiles within a preset can't be converted).

Just white balance the camera to your monitor's white, load up the image above on your monitor and defocus slightly. Frame the shot so the chart is 50% of the image area (avoids vignetting). Start at base ISO, and expose so that the black square is near black on the histogram. Go to the next ISO setting, adjust exposure accordingly, repeat, etc.. Then use these clips to build a noise profile for each ISO setting and save it permanently. This will give you a decent noise profile to use in the future where you there may not be anything uniform in frame for a given shot, or where you forgot to shoot a chart. I don't know if it's actually better than a chart or not. But it's free! I guess the guys at Neat Video picked those magenta and green squares for a reason. In my experience the ultimate way to use Neat Video to kill noise in low light situations is to hold a ColorChecker or similar in front of the lens at the beginning or end of each shot / lighting situation / change of camera settings. But it's not always entirely practical to do that.. or I forget!

I use this:

I agree 100%. People have been afraid of contrast and saturation for a number of years. As well as the proliferation of Log, I think it has to do with a felt inadequacy of video's dynamic range versus film, where crushed blacks are perceived as a giveaway that something was shot on video. However, as deezid has already pointed out, the blacks here are not "crushed". They are sitting where they are supposed to: at or near 0 IRE. Again I urge anyone who is concerned with making video look cinematic to study how film has been translated for display on Rec709 devices: http://blubeaver.ca/ Download some stills and look at them on a waveform.

Anyone who is unsure about where black levels sit in cinematic images can check out full res movie stills at http://www.blubeaver.ca/ There are even men in suits in there somewhere!

I love the Tamron.

I love the Tamron 24-70 on my 5D3 for these reasons: 1. Light transmission is good 2. IS 3. Good colour, contrast and sharpness I haven't used it yet on my GH5 but I imagine it's going to be slightly front heavy compared to a native lens.

Don't keep us in suspense!

I haven't noticed a harshness of highlight rolloff in GH5 VLog.

If you're in a mixed lighting situation, the position and angle of the grey card will have a huge impact on the result of a custom WB, depending on what percentage of each light source it reflects. If you're shooting under one kind of light only, the custom WB should be the same every time, unles you're getting a lot of reflected light from a coloured object on the card. If I'm shooting outdoors I'll happily use a WB preset like daylight or cloudy. Or if I want a warmer or cooler look I'll dial in the Kelvin. Indoors I'll always try to do a custom WB because who knows what colour contemporary light bulbs are - there's a crazy range of spectrums in different products these days. Either way, I will tweak the temperature and tint of nearly all shots I use. Not because I want to neutralise the colour of the light or mixture of lights, but because I want to fine tune the colour relationship of the objects in the scene. I fiddle with the sliders from too blue to too orange and back again, looking for the sweet spot. Then I do the same for green and magenta. But the next clip, shot in the same location from a slightly different angle, might need a tweak of both sliders to match the previous.

Read it again: My emphasis added, for your benefit.