Don Kotlos

This is more worrisome than a Prores licence

This thread might have some useful information to you: Keen in mind that: 1) XAVC-I is much less CPU intensive than XAVC-S so it should be easier to edit right away (no transcoding required) 2) A powerful GPU will work wonders for previewing effects in Premiere and color grading in Resolve. A GTX980Ti should be enough. For Resolve later on you can add a second one if necessary (but I don't think you will need it). 3) Water-cooling is your friend With i7 CPUs and Macs you get quick sync that apparently helps in encoding/decoding of H264. That can decrease the time of rendering when comparing to a similarly spec'ed PC. But the powerful GPU and multicore CPU will separate an off the shelf iMac with a custom build powerful Windows computer. GPU for previewing effects, extra CPU cores for rendering (which for h264 encoding will just make it equal to the iMac but for anything else it will be much faster). It is actually not that difficult to either build a custom computer or set it up for optimal performance.

"Most impressively, Panasonic says that the IS continues to work in all 5 axes when you're shooting 4K video - the first camera we can think of that does this. The digital component of IS used in video requires the camera to read lines off the sensor above and below the standard output region, then use gyro sensors to predict where on the sensor the original framing is now being projected. Most sensors can't read out a large enough section of the sensor fast enough to stabilize 4K video, but the GX85 claims to do so." From: http://m.dpreview.com/articles/1025794424/small-but-mighty-hands-on-with-the-panasonic-gx85

I am too a fan of weather sealing (WS) but as you describe sometimes this means nothing. Actually it might be true that more WS cameras go bad than non-WS since users tend to put them under more harsh conditions. Moreover, most lenses and video gear are not weather sealed so having a WS camera provides no benefit whatsoever.

Yeah being able to switch between pictures & video at the same time is an inconvenience with these Sonys and shooting in M mode sometimes can improve things. Other than the framing and color/exposure differences is that in M mode you take pictures at 1/50 and most of the time you want something faster... Shooting in A mode helps in that respect since when switching to video it defaults to the 1/50 of the M mode. The other annoying thing is the delay when you are in M/A mode is the few seconds delay between switching photos & videos.

I have noticed the same with many M43 and c mount lenses on the A7rii. For example I find myself using the SLRmagic 25 0.95 in S35 more and more, and any vignetting/loss of resolution happens at the very corners of the frame which go away when I create a 2.35:1 crop. Anyways the resolution of many anamorpic lenses was not that great in the edges either so...

1) Open your task manager (in W10 at performance tab, right click on the graph and change graph to logical processors). 2) Download a GPU monitoring program such as GPU-Z, install it and have it running. 3) Do your normal editing with the effects that you usually use and observe what happens to the CPU and GPU when you think performance is bad. What you might see and what you should do: a) If GPU is close to 100% (>80%) --> you need a better GPU b) if CPU is at 100% (unlikely) there are few things that might happen. First is that some effects in Sony vegas are CPU dependent --> need a better CPU or another editing program ( ). Second is that the codec is hammering your CPU --> transcode to an editing friendly format. c) if CPU is not at 100% but a single core is maxing out --> 2 cases from b) (more likely the second, transcode and test again) d) If none of the above, transcode to a better format and test again. If the same thing happens, your are probably limited by your GPU memory speed and it does not appear in the GPU monitor --> you need a better GPU.

I don't think you will need something faster than a GTX 970 since in my test at normal playback the titan was sitting ~40%. But I would first try to find out the bottleneck before buying anything .

As you can see in my tests, a strong GPU is very important for realtime preview of the effects. That was with Premiere, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens across most editors. You can find out what is the bottleneck by monitoring your GPU & CPU. Keep an eye for single threaded limits (CPU utilization far bellow 100% but max for one thread).

You haven't described what the problem is. Do you think that your computer is not enough or have you tested it and it is not performing well? If the latter what is exactly the problem? I haven't used Sony Vegas, but with premiere I found the codec to play a major role for good performance, and for realtime playback of the effects a strong GPU is also very important. Of course using fast drives and having plenty of RAM helps too but I think you have that covered. You can see some tests that I have done with 4K here: If you haven't used your setup yet, I would first try it and then if there is a bottleneck improve that. Modern CPUs and GPUs can help too but that really depends on the codec and the program that is used.

Don't, shoot in video mode. Many times I see differences in exposure & color. It can be due to a) effects preview not being activated (WYSIWYG) b)Inevitable dimming of the screen that happens with 4K c) different processing during video mode. You will also get to frame correctly... No. All the gammas other than s-log don't require overexposure.

Looks great. If only there was a tiny tillable viewfinder... I wonder if any company will make an HDMI version. I also wonder if BM will ever allow the global shutter to work. Now I am looking to see if the composite output of the micro can drive an Olympus VF...

Vibrations at a small scale can act like an anti aliasing filter. Maybe that explains the difference with the pocket

Actually less 3.3lbs vs 3.74lbs of the BM. But that is just the brain.

Exactly my point.

In the specific example it is just bad WB setting, nothing to do with hard light. I have been using a Sony for quite some time now, and even in the worst light possible I can get much better skintones than this. I am not sure how you are so confident that a Sony would be terrible.

I hope the following image will convince anyone that pleasing skintones has much more to do with lighting, camera settings & color editing than the ability of any camera to capture them.

I tend to agree. Other than the aliasing, I see bad highlight control & plastic skin tones. I love Fuji for stills, but for using it for video ? No way. I could live with the sub-par quality of E-M1 because of the class leading IBIS, but for me Fuji offers nothing in the video department. Is it AWB that is so important? I cannot see the pleasing colors that Fuji stills have. And if it is the filters that are nice, I already made LUTs that get you there if you want to. Its nice that they improved the video over previous Fuji cameras but they still have long way to go. Anyway, to each his own.

It still depends on the noise of the camera preamp,how close you are to the sound source and how noisy the environment is. In my experience, if the these points are somewhat satisfied then yes the videomicro can give excellent results even with in camera audio.

There is no graph that shows this info for all the color profiles unfortunately. My simpliplic generalisation is Cinema for less saturated colors, Pro for more saturation in low contrast scenes, rec709 for extreme light conditions with different light sources or very very low contrast (low light with cloudy sky for instance). There are some tests on color accuracy with A7s profiles like this one: http://similaar.com/foto/flaat-a7s/technical-tests.html#color And there are some useful general info on the color information of sony cameras: http://www.xdcam-user.com/2014/05/what-is-a-gamut-or-color-space-and-why-do-i-need-to-know-about-it/ http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/my-cinegear-presentation-on-the-sony-f55-part-1.html Also here is the place to get more info on the Sony color profiles and how to tune them as you wish (very helpful): https://docs.sony.com/release/Help_C198100111.pdf

There is no "proper way". You can do it anyway you want. You can think of LUTs as the easy way of translating color information. So you can shoot sgamut3 and have an LUT that gets you to sgamut3.cine space or an LUT that gets you from sgamut3.cine to rec709. You can add another LUT on top of the previous to add secondary looks, or you can have just one that combines all the LUTs together. Or you can do all these things manually with color and contrast manipulation but spend a significant amount of time doing it. I agree that people tend to misuse LUTs, but then again color grading is not a trivial task. I find that people misuse/overuse more the slog/sgamut than LUTs... While shooting a wider gamut allows more control of the final image since you can do more translations of color (match very different clips), it can lead to bad & unbalanced results easily and with 8bit codecs things can get messy (banding, plastic looking colors, etc..) very fast. That is why wider gamuts such as sgamut3.cine or log profiles are not always advised. For my type of shooting (documentary run&gun style), Cine4/Cine2 gammas with Cinema/Pro/rec709 gamut with rec709 LUTs added in post, give me the best balance between gradability and quality.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/03/28/5k-for-less-than-5k-kinefinity-launch-the-terra-a-compact-raw-and-prores-shooting-cinema-camera-in-5k-and-6k-versions/ Definitely.

Thanks for the video Ben. When looking at the last scene this is what I see: I guess this is normal Video compression right?

Maybe but it could also be that they care less about PR than making a camera that actually does what is says and is available at a reasonable timeframe. Maybe if BM stopped focusing so much on PR or sending underspecced cameras to testers they would be more respectable among professionals. They might anounce yet another groundbreaking camera at 2016 NAB to keep people from going to other companies but now that doesn't work anymore... The truth might be somewhere in between of course but I never worked in a camera company so I can not be sure...

Good enough also depends on the footage (for example how much motion there is). I doubt there is a universal "good enough" rate, but something close to the original 100mbs would be my personal choice.