Don Kotlos

Yes, there are a lot of "positive" reviews with their main objective driving sales and clicking the "affiliate button" (*cough* dpreview *cough*), but there are others that are truly about the possibilities that each camera offers. There was a time that this site was more about what the cameras can do than what they can't. But I guess back then it was hard to even get a usable 1080p while now we bitch about AWB, AF or having too many settings in the camera. How things have changed. Don't get me wrong, I am all for improving cameras even further, but we have to be able to distinguish negativity and valid criticism. Spicing things up in a forum can drive conversation but most often than not it drives negativity as well.

After giving this program a try for a couple of days, I can say that it is more a Photoshop alternative than a Lightroom. Performance wise it is also very similar to Lightroom/Photoshop, but a bit on the rough side since it processes the image in chunks and it is visible. While it does allow the use of 3D LUTs and actually much easier than in Photoshop, I can't see an easy way of processing many photos the way Lightroom does. Of course it is much cheaper that the adobe bundle, but unfortunately for the volume of images that I am processing Lightroom is still the easiest.

Most sony raw files are supported (including the A7rii). Here is an older list form 2015: https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4630-supported-develop-raw-cameras/ Adobe's subscription scheme, the constant round-tripping between Lightroom & Photoshop for just using LUTs and the shitty performance during the last few versions will definitely force me to try out this program. Thanks for this.

Till January 4th I guess these will be the longest 9min & 25sec of my life.

Yes, yes, yes! While I agree that with transcoding you will always end up with less information, with CPU unfriendly codecs you can grade proxies and use the original format for the final render without any major drawback. Content is the exception. It will always be greater that the sum of the rest...

Its also funny how the verge is using sponsored content from Samsung with Casey Neistat & a drone as another clickbait and at the same time it criticizes the content being sponsored. Yes TheVerge that has plenty of sponsored articles and is owned by which other :

"It is nothing new. And it is not limited to Canon as others pointed out. No point in keeping this thread open, so I am locking it." Olga Johnson MOD https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4093381

But that makes it easier to spot so it's preferable in a way. Before these paid articles you might have had a slight doubt, now there is none. Can I at least trust their standardised test ? Who knows... Now does it really make a difference? Not really. The majority of consumers won't give a shit. They buy stuff to feel good and live the goddamnamericandream. Now they can buy an 80D and feel like they are filmmakers. Did anyone really have the illusion that capitalism will find its way towards morality?

You could aways voice your concerns on the comments section. Oops, no comments allowed on that one. I am sure it is a mistake. YT comments are allowed though so apparently Canon has more trust in the public opinion than a forum site. Makes sense.

But if you adjust the settings during live view then the color result will not be the same with the recording. so jpegs do not end up with the same colors as the videos.

No that is not correct. You are confusing dynamic range with bit depth. While the bit depth can potentially limit the dynamic range the opposite does not hold true. Sure if you are at noise levels then bit depth might not offer an actual gain in the number of colors, but for the range of values that the noise is less than your signal (the ~12 stops with the GH4 for example) 10 bits per channel offer more color tones that you otherwise throw away. See the link in the original response for an actual example if you are still not convinced. If you still don't think there are significant differences then you should accept that others do find differences important enough and don't think 10bits is a gimmick with 12 stops of dynamic range. Again cameras with noisier sensors give better colors, and bit depth is one of the reasons. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but in the original response there was no confusion between bit depth and dynamic range which frequently but wrongly is expressed also in bits.

You are correct of course. Bits are frequently used for dynamic range instead of stops wrongly, and that also confuses people with the color depth.

No that is definitely not true. 10bits per channel offer a much denser space that can improve color reproduction and tonal differences while getting rid of artifacts like banding. Especially v-log with its ~12bits stops of dynamic range will benefit tremendously with the 10bit internal codec. Look at BM cameras for example, much less dynamic range in many of their cameras but amazing colors & tonalities. Here is an illustration of V-log with 10 & 8 bits: http://www.provideocoalition.com/v-log-l-gh4-revisited-part-2/ Part 1 is also worth looking at.

What I meant is that that. Since colors are not the same between stills and video you cannot preview the final result when in manual mode. You might have a nicely looking image when recording and then as soon as you hit record boom colors are totally off. That is with an A7rii and I am not aware of any setting that can change this.

While Andrew offers a good way to simplify things I think you pose an important question that every professional needs to address. The main reason professional cameras cost as much is that they have been optimized for a professional environment and that can mean anything from simplifying the workflow to ergonomics and customization. Now it should be noted that professional cameras can get equally complex or even more with the extra modules they need (look at zacuto for example) and sometimes a mirrorless consumer camera might offer things that a professional does not have like small size or low light performance & sensor stabilization. In the end it is what you need and how much time and money are you willing to spend. And that only you can answer.

Unfortunately Picture Profiles do not give the same colors between jpeg stills & movies. This is one of the main reasons I don't shoot in manual mode since I cannot preview the colors and WB correctly.

Andrew I think you misunderstood the point of my post which was : exactly that. I applaud your effort to provide consistent good colors across many Sony cameras, cause I know how many hours I have spent trying to optimize the colors of just the A7rII. Cheers

Exactly. Its truly an amazing camera when used primarily for stills, offering decent video as well. But just for video? not a great value. Maybe when a proper log arrives with a firmware update will make it easier to swallow that price tag.

I don't want to sound too picky but this is definitely not a good example. I am not sure if it is the EOSHD LOG or the post work (I know its not the camera) , but a look at the vector-scope can be very informative about the quality of the skin tones: After some corrections it looks a bit better but again the skin tones are all over the place. More examples for both Cine & Log modes are needed in this thread.

Using a set WB and adjusting in post with an 8bit codec is a very bad practice for the following reasons: 1. With 8bits per channel you loose a lot of color information, that upon correction will give you flat colors with minimal tonal differences (skin will look like plastic) and a lot of banding (but interestingly at least in theory you could get less sky banding if you shift your WB to cooler values, just don't have a face in the scene ) 2. The sensor itself is not equally sensitive across the visible spectrum, consequently the colors will shift to different hues 3. Artificial lights have non-uniform spectra (fluorescent bulbs is the most extreme) and that will amplify the hue differences and flatter tonalities. Adjusting the WB in post to bring back the warmness or coolness of the scene will always give you a better result. Forgetting the WB in one setting might sound easier, but it is a bad practice that will definitely give you more problems. Going back to the main thread subject, any natural light (daylight, shade, clouds) is easy and can be a set value of temperature & tint for each. Artificial lights always need custom adjustments in both temperature and tint, and never ever AWB (at least with Sony cameras).

Looking at all the samples, I can say that I am spoiled by the video quality of the A7rii. As Olympus states here: "It is a stills camera with movie capabilities and not the other way around" . They say a firmware update could bring LOG IF there is demand. Well, IF you don't need what the E-M1ii offers in stills , then you are better off waiting for the GH5 to be at least properly announced, cause $2K is just too much for better stabilization.

Here is a very nice article about optimizing storage configurations with Premiere: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-2015-4-Storage-Optimization-854/ One comparing CPU performance: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-2015-3-CPU-Comparison-849/ And one comparing GPU performance: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-2015-3-Pascal-GPU-Performance-840/

@Neumann Films if you wanted more shaky footage could you let's say use a GX85 with ibis on? Also if I wanted to buy a camera in the future what codec would you suggest ? I am afraid I might have more fun decoding your messages than transcoding my future files.

$2800 - a $250 giftcard that is included in B&H If the GH5 was not on the horizon I would have pulled the trigger on that one.

Yep, now at $2.5K in US with 3 years of warranty makes it an amazing value for documentaries.