studiodc

The Rokinon 12mm is excellent, and I own the 10mm and like it quite a lot, so far, but I haven't used it a ton. You can put filters on the 12, but the 10 has the option of being used on APS-C (S35) later on, so it's more versatile to own, albeit heavier. Both are rectilinear.

Hey everyone, I just shot this music video. It's my first serious music vid (the rest have been edited concert footage), and I'd really appreciate constructive feedback from those of you with real experience. The band really rock and I wanted to make something that had a bit of a strange homage to The Shining, a slight off-kilter feel you can't necessarily put your finger on. Those of you with experience will no doubt see what I was trying to do and have comments on how I could do it better. I welcome those. Anyways, please try to be nice, but I'll take anything honest.

Caveat: I don't own either. However, I've had to match many cameras before. Trick is to first nail your white balance with a proper grey card (do this religiously, in the full light that your subject's faces will be reflecting) and THEN shoot a colour card (in the same place your grey card was). The LX100, from what I've seen, looks pretty good. Shoot it with settings as close to the final look as you can, and shoot the BMPCC in either RAW if you have the time or ProRes if you don't. You won't go wrong either way, since the LX100 will be "driving" the look as it will be more limited in it's ability to adapt in post. As long as you find a setting in the LX100 that looks close to what you intend to end up with, you'll be great, since the BMPCC can really stretch to match it. However, the LX100 can be made to adapt pretty well to the look you want to begin with. Try playing with the photo settings, and then fine-tune contrast, saturation, etc. to get to where you want. The pros do test shots with both cameras under a variety of settings, then match in post and see what works the best for them. This is highly recommended for anybody trying to get two cameras of different ilk to work together. And don't forget to control your lighting as much as possible. Help the camera out rather than forcing it to deal with high-contrast situations it may not be suitable for.

I edit on a dual-core late 2013 macbook pro laptop. I can edit GH4 .mov H.264 files natively without problem. I can also edit 4k ProRes 422 HQ without a problem. I use a G-Drive 2-drive RAID enclosure, thunderbolt. It wasn't cheap, but not as expensive as the Pegasus. I use it in RAID 1, for drive redundancy, so don't get the benefit of RAID 0 speeds. However, I can also easily edit off a single G-Drive USB3 external, if I'm only doing one stream of GH4 H.264 4k or ProRes converted footage. But, this is all in Final Cut X. Premiere Pro is vastly slower, and a serious pain in the ass to use. It can't be hard drive speed because the data coming off the drive is the same. So I would say your system itself is probably not fast enough. Firewire 800 is easily fast enough for most video streams (800 mbit/sec is faster than the 220 mbit/sec of 1080p ProRes HQ and not quite enough for the 960 mbit/sec of 4k ProRes HQ but since most ProRes HQ doesn't need the max bitrate you'd be likely to handle a single stream on FW800 just fine in the real world), so USB3 or Thunderbolt wouldn't be absolutely necessary (although really nice to have). My point is that you're not likely being held back by your hard disks unless they are USB 2.0 or FW400 and also internally very slow (5400 rpm or something). You're much more likely to be limited by your GPU/CPU with Premiere, and possibly by RAM although I have 16GB and again, no issues at all. If 4K is essential to you, you need a much faster system. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend transcoding on import to 1080p 422 ProRes standard (not HQ or LT). It's a perfectly good codec, much much easier on your CPU/GPU, and your hard disks are likely plenty fast enough to handle the increased bitrate and take some of the load off your processors.

Keep in mind the VideoDevices (nee SoundDevices) PIX series can do 4K recording, also have a FHD screen, and are also in the size/weight ballpark for roughly double the cost. So if you want actual 4K recording for the same size/weight penalty, that's another very good option (a lighter/smaller/cheaper Shogun, basically).

So far, I haven't read a single thing that says Panasonic has officially acknowledged a V-LOG update for this camera, and I haven't read anything that suggests V-LOG is actually going to be any better on an 8-bit codec than shooting the way you want it in-camera. I think what we're getting from this camera is pretty close to the best it has to offer already, and throwing software at it won't fix any of it's shortcomings or make it significantly better, as much as we'd all like to think so. It's still a noisy, low-DR camera at heart, but it's got a decent enough image and has a lot of positive attributes that make it useful, especially at it's price point. Pretty much, we're (myself included) hoping, wishing, and waiting for something that isn't actually likely to happen in a realistic timeframe and even if it did, it won't magically make this camera better than an NX1 or A7S or BMPCC RAW image for certain people's opinions of "better". If the camera isn't already better for you, it's not likely to be better after this much-fabled V-LOG. These test shots are great and all, but I've seen better footage from a GH4 before (some examples posted to this site, for instance). Colour me tired of waiting. At least Blackmagic is giving us options (and meaningful firmware updates), even if they seem married to a Super-16 sized sensor for anything less than unwieldy bodies (or the URSA mini, which seems at least usable if not by any standard diminutive). I should note: I'm sure for you anamorphic shooters this is a nice firmware. There's just absolutely nothing in it for anybody who shoots spherical, it seems.

I'm honestly tired of hearing "V-LOG is coming...". It's starting to sound about the same as "winter is coming".

@sqm that's one of my favourite things about the GH4, to be honest. The clean HDMI out and 4K downscale allows me to capture in-camera 4K as well as external 1080p 4:2:2 and both of them make excellent footage. I can use the 1080p immediately and if I really want to take the time to transcode the 4K later (for, e.g. better final quality or some fiddly tweak or what-have-you) it's still there. Or if I want to do a 1:1 punch-in or something. The reported lack of HDMI features on the NX1 is one of the main reasons I'm not even considering that camera for anything serious right now. The GH4's workflow just beats the pants off anything else, for me, at least, and it's image is just fine as far as I'm concerned, although more/better/etc. is always a tradeoff between cost, weight, size, rigging requirements, extra shit necessary, etc. etc. etc. Edit: Just saw your Q about transcoding before editing. No, I never need to transcode the H.264 4K I just drop it into a timeline in FCPX and start working (a 1080p timeline or a 4K one or anything, doesn't matter). The transcoding happens behind the scenes if I want to render, otherwise it just happens on export, same as anything else.

​I've heard it doesn't have the same dynamic range as what they used to make.

Depends on what you want to do. I picked up a couple very nicely made power converters from a forum (8.8 V is confirmed to trigger the AC input mode of the GH4 - how far above that you are comfortable going is up to you - the specs aren't published) and a cheap battery drop-in with a DC plug on the end (the drop-in is dumb and doesn't convert to the proper voltage so you have to give it the right voltage ahead of time). You can get that on eBay and I can't see why you'd pay for the Panny one when all it is is a connection between the +/- on the battery plates and a DC barrel jack. After that, feed it with any battery source you want from 3-30V (or whatever your converter box will accept). I use both the Varavon batteries (the 7.4V and 12V units, don't need the GH4 specific one if your converter is external) for lightweight kits and run it from my V-mount for gimbal and shoulder rig operation (the v-mount battery is part of the counterweight for the shoulder rig). But I'll be honest, the GH4 lasts SO LONG on the internal battery it's ridiculous. Several hours. So I always keep one or two of those as a spare and know I'll have at minimum 3-5 hours of shooting reserve time. So the only real motivation to go to an external battery for the GH4 is if you're powering the rest of your rig off the same source (e.g. EVF, recorder, possibly a wireless FF, gimbal, or other active stabilization, lights, etc), and you want to only manage one battery type. Then I can see it being quite useful. I would expect the same exact idea applies to the A7s and any other camera, get the dummy battery for AC operation, set your variable DC-DC converter to the appropriate voltage, then plug it into any battery raw output you want (no further conversion is necessary - you can run it off a raw D-Tap output, a 9V cheapo store battery or a 4AA holder, car battery, drone internal 3s or 4s Li-Po, whatever). At that point you can also look at the seriously low-cost model lithium batteries too - some of the lowest cost per watt out there and there are some very reputable brands to choose from now. A good dc-dc converter should accept anywhere from 3-30V DC and be able to customize the output to the exact voltage you want (usually using a little screw inside the box, you turn it to where you want and then set it with a dab of hot glue so you can change it in the future if you need to). I got mine from a chap on another forum who makes really quality gear, but again, you can get them with a little searching nearly anywhere for between 10-20 EUR depending on features, size, etc.

So, I've just shot a quick test using my GH4 and a Ninja Star. The test is to check the differences between the internal HDMI-based 4K downscale and the 4K -> 1080p downscale using the 4:2:0 8-bit H264 as a source. The images can be downloaded in full resolution here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6o06zoowk7z5fh/GH4%20Test%20Images.zip?dl=0 See the attached files for some side-by-side 100% comparisons. Images are from the GH4 (set to a gently tweaked CineV, 4K 100M 24p - really 23.98, 180 degree shutter, Sigma 18-35 at f/2.8 on a Speedbooster at ISO 400, auto white balance, tungsten lighting). They were captured to 1080p using the following workflows: Clip 1: Recorded in GH4 (4:2:0 8-bit H.264 4K) then downscaled in Red Giant Bulletproof to 1080p ProRes 422HQ. Clip 2: Recorded in GH4 (4:2:0 8-bit H.264 4K) then downscaled in FCPX by adding to a 1080p timeline. Clip 3: GH4 HDMI out (4:2:2 8-bit) to Atomos Ninja Star (ProRes 422HQ) Clip 4: GH4 HDMI out (4:2:2 10-bit) to Atomos Ninja Star (ProRes 422HQ) All clips were then placed in an FCPX timeline (Clip 2 was placed as a 4K file), then a frame was exported as a TIFF uncompressed file at full 1080p resolution. No effects, grading, or anything else was applied. I tried to choose a subject (ColorChecker Passport and tomato, lit just off-axis with a side light accent) that would both provide some sharp edges as well as gentle gradients, and the green/red of the tomato should hopefully accentuate any actual chroma sub-sampling issues that exist. Camera was on a beanbag so please excuse any pixel-level misregistration, I don't have my tripod handy right now. I hope this helps someone. GH4 Test Image 1.tiff GH4 Test Image 2.tiff GH4 Test Image 3.tiff

​This is exactly why these companies are so far behind right now. They have nobody who is specifically creating large-scale strategy for the firm - each division is effectively independent and in competition.

Well the best news for you then is no matter what you switch to, as long as it's not a mirrored Nikon camera, you can keep using that beautiful Canon glass if you want to. It's some of the most adaptable optics in the industry, covering photographic 35mm all the way down to the BMPCC. ​Assuming this isn't vapourware. It's been "imminent" since the last firmware practically. And so far it's just a rumour. I'm as hopeful as anybody, but I'm not biting my nails waiting either. I'm as hopeful about the next round of hardware as I am about this firmware, and honestly it's not stopping me from going out and making films, I just have to be careful with exposure and light control - but that's filmmaking, no? I guess my point is that M43 is already looking pretty good even now, and it's still in it's first real 4k generation. Give it some time hardware- and software- wise and I think it'll always have a superb place in compact, lightweight filmmaking, much as 16mm did before it (although it has the potential to be far far better than 16mm).

​Did you try calling and leaving a voice message? Online communications aren't the only option ...

​Yes, the 1080p output is an exact scaling of the 4K FOV. I doubt it's a 1:1 sensor readout, it's probably (but I'm not certain) an in-camera downscaled 4K. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if there's 4K pixels in there, how could it be a 1:1 readout at 1080p? But, I can confirm that, without specifically pixel-peeping (as I haven't done a full side-by-side comparison, the image off the Atomos recorder is every bit as good and usable, optically and colour-wise, as downscaled 4K in my timeline, so I do agree that it's a simple, excellent, and very convenient way to get that lovely sharp 1080p look that downscaling 4K gives you without any transcoding necessary. I use it all the time when I'm travelling and have to edit on laptops - I can edit a 1080p timeline fine on my Macbook but cannot edit 4K in realtime, so this saves me a LOT of time on the go. Having the 4K copy as a master archival and backup is just icing on the cake. If I get some time later on I'll put the camera in 4K photo mode, record a few frames on both devices, and put up a side-by-side so you can see. I can't promise when I'll get one of those round tuits, though. They only sell square ones here in Berlin, it seems.

​ The GH4 does do 10-bit out, but won't record simultaneously internally with that setting. It's been demonstrated multiple times that the advantage of 4:2:2 recording is FAR more significant than the nearly invisible advantage of going from 8- to 10-bit recording, so 4:2:2 8-bit external (plus the 4K 4:2:0 8-bit internal) is in my opinion an astounding combination of both workflow-ready 1080p production-grade footage and 4K archival at exactly the same time, with zero transcode time. Of course, it'll be even easier when Atomos gets their act together and turns on HDMI record triggering for the Ninja Star and Ninja 2 devices using the protocol they invented in the first place, so you only have to hit one record button...

If I'm recording straight to 1080p I prefer to use the Ninja Star with my GH4 - 4:2:2 makes a nice difference and the higher bitrate means fewer artifacts. Plus it seems a bit nicer to use the 1080p downconverted from 4k than to use the built-in 1080p. I haven't done aggressive testing on this, but I'm happy with the results. It seems to be on par with rescaling the internally recorded 4K to 1080p in a timeline, but with less post-processing so saves me time. It's not a huge difference but it really does sometimes give "the look" when the internal H264 would go a bit mushy (e.g. highly textured surfaces, fast motion, stuff like that holds together better).

The Ninja Star won't do any downconversion for you. The GH4 can downconvert it's HDMI output and simultaneously record 4:2:0 8-bit 4K internally while outputting 4:2:2 8-bit 1080p out the HDMI for the Ninja Star to consume. I can't speak for the NX1. But you need to feed the NJS a 1080p signal for it to work properly. So if you want this working on a 4K camera, as far as I'm aware right now your only choice is the GH4. The A7S can output a 1080p signal but won't do internal 4K recording.

Agreed on the contrast discussion. Many film stocks are specifically optimized for a higher contrast look which can be very cinematic when exposed properly. Unless a low contrast look or a high contrast look specifically suits the subject, go for the middle ground and head towards the end that suits the end viewer the best. Back when I did broadcast editing, I'd take clips of comparable content (e.g. other stuff that plays on the same channel) and watch it and my grade intercut on a standard TV. I'd grade to where I felt my content should "feel" next to the other content, and then when it aired it looked psychologically as I'd intended. If you want it to be the same sort of feel, or if you want a deliberate shift in feel, it's going to be relative to the other typical content on that channel or program, so this is a good way to help you figure out, relatively speaking, how your grade is going to translate.

My Dog Schidt lens rocks. It's my other favourite lens next to my Voigtländer 17,5 and they are in totally different worlds. Rich's willingness to totally customize a lens is amazing and he has some great ideas about what works and can help you get a beautifully unique lens. And the prices are not exorbitant considering how much handcrafting goes into these lenses. The FF38 is another great idea and I like how he's going both long (88) and wide (38) to give a small but really nicely suited set of focal lengths which allow for the crazy unique optics of the central lens to be retained. Plus with how inexpensive they are you can get a few with different customizations to suit different scenes if you like and not need to buy the 38/88 over again.

I prefer Super35 or smaller, because the lenses are lighter weight, I can carry more of them backpacking or around town, and as a one-man-band doing art/doc work I enjoy the flexibility of smaller, lighter gear (when I want/need weight I can always add it). Honestly, for me, 4/3 is fantastic, and super16 was always an excellent film size, which is smaller still. I don't buy the full-frame argument one bit - and even super35 is overrated in my opinion. If I shot on film, I'd shoot super16. I love the look of super16 film and lenses and honestly prefer it to most of the Super35 stuff I've seen, let alone the stills photography "full-frame". (Rant: "full-frame" is a total BS term, super35 IS "full-frame" as you don't shoot a part of a frame and no cinematographer compares his or her gear to stills photography equipment. And I've never heard of super16 being referred to as "quarter-frame"... "full-frame" is just an absolutely misleading and linguistically useless term if there ever was one. Rant over.) People should shoot whatever makes them, personally, happy and stop judging other people's choices by what size they are using. There is no "best" - it's art.

Will do @agolex, though due to my schedule here it's unlikely I'll make it there. I might do a weekend trip to Dresden, though.

So, I'm spending a couple months in Berlin right now and thought I might put a shout out to anyone on this board who wants to have a meetup somewhere. Anyone up for a pint and some film talk?

@Tylerh, welcome to the forum. There is a lot on this forum about the 18-35 f/1.8 lens and even some about that lens on a GH4 - definitely do some searching and you'll find a bunch of videos and comments. I own it, I love it. I also own a set of Samyangs (in EF mount, with an EF speedbooster) and the Voightländer 17.5mm. I love them all, for different reasons. The sigma is usually on my lens on a run'n'gun shoot, because of it's (limited but still useful) zoom and it's still a very good low light performer. The Voightländer I tend to use more for photography - stopped down past 1.2 it's an almost clinical, zeiss-like lens. I don't find it has much character but it does give a very clean image and opened all the way up, if you can get past the purple fringing (which I can) it does actually gain some slightly vintage-ish qualities. The Samyangs are my mainstays for special purposes. Take a look around, do some searching, and you'll see videos made with each of these lenses. They'll all do very very well on the GH4, as will any of the lenses suggested by others here. And take a good look through the Lenses topic, there is a wealth of knowledge particularly on lower-budget or vintage glass which you may find valuable.

Trekpak makes fantastic dividers which are WAY nicer than the velcro+foam ones. I also second M Carter's suggestion to avoid foam. My recommendation is the Pelican 1510 case with the Trekpak divider kit. It's fully carry-on legal nearly everywhere (including the European value airlines, from direct personal experience), it's got wheels when you've got a ways to go, it's not so heavy by itself, and it's absolutely durable. I love mine, and with the lid organizer, it's held an entire guerrilla shoot's worth of gear multiple times, including lenses, bodies, led lights, batteries, tools, pretty much everything except the tripod. And I can't say enough good things about Trekpak's gear organization. I have a Trekpak system in every single case i own, now. Worth every cent. Not paid, sponsored, or otherwise benefitting for me saying this, just a happy customer.