Gregormannschaft

Just a heads up that if you use CUDA, it hasn't yet been patched for High Sierra and won't be available to use.

Thanks to everyone. It looks like the resounding bit of advice here is to move to FCPX or Resolve.

I, stupidly, updated to High Sierra without realising CUDA wasn't yet supported. CUDA has also been at the root of most of the problems I'm having. I figure a 2GB graphics card can't really handle the 4K + effects. Joema, this is a stunning post and I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write it out and contribute to this thread. Again, thank you. That it could be the CPU is an interesting idea and I'll open Activity Monitor tomorrow when I'm working on the project that is causing me grief and I'll take a look. I have a theory that my latest problems involving crashes have been in part thanks to a buggy new software update from Adobe. The problem is though, I've found that almost every software update from Adobe is buggy, so narrowing down the problem becomes a lot harder. I should have looked into Activity Monitor sooner. I have read up quite a bit on the Adobe forums, and there lies some sort of theory that this 2014 Macbook using both Intel and Nvidia graphic chips can be problematic. I think it was the last Macbook Pro to use Nvidia graphics...? Certainly CUDA problems seem to be common. 720p proxies can work very well while editing 1-2min projects with effects on. Recent problems have been "Unexpected Crashes" during export, and have been fixed by removing matte track masks. This kind of sucks, but I was able to export the video albeit without my skin tones being quite as perfect as I would have liked. tl;dr plenty of problems, off and on over the past year and a half or so. Premiere doesn't make it easy. And I would imagine the problem is exacerbated on slightly older hardware. Perhaps I'll hold off on an upgrade until I've worked my way through current projects and have dedicated a bit of time towards properly moving to Resolve.

Premiere...which I'm starting to think is a massive part of the problem. I started using Resolve and was really impressed, but haven't had the time to really dig in yet and learn Resolve. Thanks for this! I eGPUs look super interesting and it's definitely something I will look into down the line. But again it looks like I should be moving away from Premiere. At the moment I am editing light 720p proxies, with stabilisation, 2 x lumetri effects on 1/8 quality and it is killing my 2014 Mac – even though it really shouldn't be. So editing lower video quality is no problem, as long as it works. You're right about the USB situation being absurd, but it's something I'm willing to compromise on. So, looks like a resounding 'YES' as long as I move away from Premiere. Which I would really like to do ASAP. In the meantime, anyone had any first hand experience using the Adobe CC suite? I've come to hate it, but I have a few projects I'm in the middle of right now and won't be able to make the switch for some months.

Look, first off. I'm sorry if this is a repeating a topic from a few months back, I did a quick search and nothing really seemed to answer my question so I thought I'd quickly throw it out here and hope for the best. I'm in the market for a new editing machine. My spec'd out Macbook Pro from mid-2014 just refuses to work with 4K footage these days and I'm pretty sure any effects nails the GPU. I need an upgrade. I would love to move to a desktop, get an iMac, but I think I need that portability. Does anyone here currently edit 4K (Sony XAVC-S files, GH5 files etc) using a 2017 Macbook Pro? And if so, has it been a good experience? Last thing I want to do is invest and return to that chugging feeling a few months down the line.

I got a 1/4 filter. Which doesn't have a huge effect on people's skin, a slight, very pleasing smoothing effect. Outside, it's also pretty pleasing, really softens the extreme highlights. The only time it's super exaggerated is when you're inside and there's a bright window nearby - then the highlights tend to bloom quite a lot. I like the effect, and it's probably exaggerated on my shots because I'm also using vintage glass. I think kidzrevil is using a slightly different filter with a subtler effect that you might also want to look into. Either way, whatever you settle on, I think it's a great idea to buy one. I have loved the footage I've gotten since I got one.

I only bought the filter after reading all your posts on here. Has made a HUGE difference. For me it basically simulates the look of higher end productions, improves roll off, tonal graduation. Really top stuff. You're totally right. There's some macro blocking on the wall behind that's very noticeable if you zoom all the way in. But for a smaller sized project where you want good images on a low budget I think it works well. This was a very small setup.

These were all shot with a dirt cheap Carl Zeiss Tessar 50mm 2.8 - incredibly common and cheap, at least here in Berlin. It's not particularly wide, but it's sharp at f2.8 and I love the way it renders the background. It somehow feels more filmic than a lot of the other, more expensive, lenses I have. A few other lenses were used on the whole video, a Canon 24mm FD, a Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm 2.4 and a Canon FD 85mm 1.8. Crazy to think all of them can be picked up for around 250 USD.

Figure I'd upload a few screengrabs from a recent project using the SLOG2 + SLOG3.cine combo we're talking about here. I used a DeLUT as a starting point to grade - most aren't great but I love Downton Alt. Tends to give very natural colours without doing too many weird things with grain or colour blocking. These were all shot using a Tiffen BlackPro Mist 1/4, which at times was possibly a bit much. But when it works I really love the effect it gives.

I'm also using primarily vintage glass - I find that with 4K you want as much character as possible in the image, even if it's not technically perfect. So I have a few FD lenses, a lovely Zeiss Jena 35mm and the cheapest lens I have which is probably my favourite - a 50mm Zeiss Tessar f2.8 which I picked up for 20 bucks. So that's what I'm working with, and I've found that -3 is probably my limit in terms of in camera sharpening. I eventually settled on -4 as a happy medium for vintage glass. It could be slightly lower on the A6500 but might be worth a shot. Even -5 made a noticeable difference.

Interesting. That "mushy" feeling was exactly what I've always experienced. When I brought it up to about -4, I found a bit of structure was brought back to my images, especially helpful for uploading to YT or Vimeo. But your footage looks really nice, very organic and sharp. Perhaps on the A6500 it's not such a bad thing to have -7, as you're already downsampling 6k footage. On the A7SII you don't have that. I've also really enjoyed using Geoff's GFILM settings, might be worth a shot trying out for yourself. I'd be curious what you could do with it.

Love what you're doing here, always find your threads to be the most interesting to read on here. Curious why you chose to go for -7 detail and then +7 crispening? I've never touched crispening before, and found that -7 detail was actually a little too much. I've since moved to -4 and found that my images now appear to be 'sharp'. I know -7 detail is best practice and all, but it was too soft for me.

The 24-105 does sound great. I tried the 24-70 GM a few months back and the clarity, sharpness, whatever you want to call it, made a huge difference. If the 24-105 is even close to that it would make sense. Native glass, no metabones problems, smaller size, lighter, actual autofocus. For docs it makes a lot of sense and I'm pretty excited about using it.

I've seen some real nice images come out of the GH5. My reservations: I don't like buying adapters to mitigate that micro 4/3 look. Autofocus isn't great, and I'd like to future proof myself in that regard in my next camera. I don't really feel like switching systems again. If Sony improved the codec in the S 3 to make SLOG cleaner, as well as bringing the battery + autofocus improvements, I'd be very happy.

Price in Germany is 3500 euros, around 4150 USD. Ridiculous, right?

I doubt it. I'd bet we're now looking at spring/summer 2018.

I'd be pretty confident that the SIII will add a few more video features. I think Sony didn't really expect the RII to be as popular among videographers as it was. I can definitely see it getting 4K60p. Like you though, I'd love a new codec.

Interesting. Looks like they're working on making the R primarily for photos again, and hopefully, the SIII will see actual proper improvements for video. Or not, and I have 0 reason to upgrade, which will also make me happy.

Yeah so apparently this new camera was a new camcorder of interest to absolutely no-one. Sorry. SonyAlphaRumours still maintains that the A7SIII is coming very soon, but all those who said these rumor websites are probably garbage are right. Also you can get really great colours out of the Sony A7SII very easily. I thought this was well known by now.

Strong rumours that Sony will be announcing the Sony A7SIII next week on Wednesday. https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sure-sony-will-announce-new-camera-around-october-25-new-a7iii-a7siii/ Rumoured specs coming later today. Philip Bloom and a lot of other filmmakers of that ilk were out in Japan a few weeks ago for a "celebration of photography" event that didn't sound quite right, it could have been to test out this new camera. Who knows.

No doubt they have the absolute best screens and sound in Berlin, but what broke it for me wasn't those stupid intervals, but a tourist sat next to me from a Spanish speaking country, watching Arrival with his partner, pretty much translating the whole film to her. It was excruciating - even if translating the film, Arrival, is kind of ironic given the plot. Even after I asked 3 times for him to stop it continued. And there have been countless other experiences. Yorck seems to attract people with a bit of common sense and it's nice watching slightly smaller films in a smaller audience. The sound in my showing was incredible still, have to say, but watching this film in IMAX would be stunning. Wished I'd seen Dunkirk like that.

That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to the Sony Center kino - it got too much. Yorck Kinos, while smaller, are so much better. Saw the film last night and really really enjoyed it. The photography is stunning, continues the really good work Deakins has done with Villeneuve over the past couple of films together. Every shot is beautifully put together and it was so refreshing to watch a Hollywood blockbuster taking its time with pacing and mood setting.

Would it be foolish to want a better codec instead? Regardless of whether it's 8 or 10bit.

Oh come on. If you're really doing medium to high budget video projects, you are most certainly not rocking up on set with a mirrorless camera. Nor is it so easy to justify a switch between the two. The GH5 footage has the potential to be cleaner, sharper, punchier - for sure. But the difference between the two cameras is not night and day, and I'm sure a lot of clients won't be able to spot the difference. This doesn't even take into account glass, or lighting or crew size which have a much larger effect. Really, you're just perpetuating this camera myth where people like to think a new camera with flashier specs will elevate their projects, and in turn make them feel like they're a better filmmaker by owning the latest piece of gear.

This is insane. I'm editing with a massive smile on my face. No hitches, project loaded my footage almost instantly and editing is an absolute breeze. Moments before, I tried to import footage on Premiere Pro and it took 3 minutes for the previews to even load. I'm buying the full version.