austinchimp

low/no budget referred to the production value of the review itself, not to the type of productions it would be used on. As in - this review has been shot with a very low budget. They obviously don't use a big crew or have a gaffer with them, or even a proper DP. It's a run and gun review. With that knowledge, I don't expect too much. I just want to see simple demonstrations to illustrate what they're talking about. Maybe your expectations are different, which is fine. Maybe if you post some examples of your work we can see what kind of level you're expecting? Not trying to provoke, only to understand where you're coming from.

Now I haven't watched the review itself, but aren't we being a bit harsh here? I find this a useful - if basic - demonstration of the DR and a quick and dirty grade. It's an ugly shot, sure. It's not a Hollywood level production, but if I'm being honest this is the kind of shot I end up with in my edits frequently, and the kind of shot you want to know you can salvage something 'usable'. Not spectacular or perfect, but usable, and in that case this is a good demonstration. If you're expecting world-class images from both a technical and artistic standpoint then go see Dune in the cinema or watch any number of big-budget movies. This is a low/no budget camera review. As a content maker myself I can see what he was trying to do, and it was adequate in my view. I don't like this attitude of piling on on somebody for one shot that you personally might have done different. Or perhaps all of our work is beyond reproach with every shot a masterpiece?

Have you tried the GHa luts for the S1? I can tell you that they work great and elevate the colour completely. The S1 files have enough data and latitude that you can match to the Alexa pretty well. Here's another lut pack that does the same thing -

Beautiful. Videos like this are the counterargument to the technical assertion that "every camera is the same, you just need to know how to process the images correctly". Yes, maybe that is technically true, but how much work and how many hours would you need to put into a Sony A7s or a GH5 to get it to have this emotional weight and texture? Something about these old Blackmagic sensors is just magical, it feels like memories. Lovely for you to have captured precious moments like this.

Can't comment on Nikons but the A7rii is a pretty stunning photo camera with one of the best sensors I've ever used. I'm still stunned by the quality of the images today. It's also a pretty decent video camera as long as you don't need high frame rates. I was using the A7rii for sports shooting and my only real complaint was the small and slow buffer, so when I'd fire off a few frames of something cool happening, the buffer would get full and basically freeze the camera for a few seconds until the buffer had cleared. For portraits and slower work where you don't need to fire off 100 full res shots in quick succession then it's great.

It would be interesting to see some detailed technical analysis of why images from different cameras look so different - for example the GH5 and the Arri Alexa. We know they do look different, and even if you took both images and outputted them to the exact same compressed h264 file format, there would still be a massive difference between them. Even discounting the obvious colour and dynamic range differences it seems to be there is a massive difference in the texture of the image and motion itself. But what exactly is happening in the pipeline of a GH5, or A7SIII that makes it different? Then we could start to work out which specific process was to blame, and maybe how to undo it or ask for manufacturers to change it. I guess without one of the manufacturers opening up their secret recipe, we'll never know. All I know is fairly vague terms like 'noise reduction' and 'sharpening'. I do agree with @kye that sharpening+processing+compression is likely an irreversible destructive process.

I have a theory that the new Sony sensors have a lot of inbuilt processing done on the chip itself or in the accompanying electronics, which you can see in the new BMPCC4k cameras. It feels a lot more sharpened and as if there's processing or noise reduction in there. The newer BM pocket 4k and 6k cameras look very similar to the GH5s and Z-Cam cameras for me. A nice image, but not with the same magic or feel. Some have speculated that it's about the jump up to 4k, but I feel like there's something else going on there.

Yeah I'm really conflicted about log profiles on consumer cameras. I honestly don't like the way most footage is graded these days, and the popular style of 'cinematic grading' which to me usually looks flat and weird when done by amateurs. The worst casualty has been skin tones, with rich vibrant alive tones replaced by green grey yellow orange stylised skin in 90% of videos on Youtube. Whether that's to do with Sony sensors or just Log profiles is a difficult question. I do know however that I have rarely seen skin tones out of any Sony camera below the FX9 that I've liked. One of the things I'm struck by when I watch old movies shot on film - from the 70s through to the 90s - is how natural and beautiful everything looks, before every shadow had to be dark blue and every skin tone had to be sunburnt orange or desaturated grey.

Wow Panasonic really nailed colour back then. When I look at this and the colour from the 5Dmkii I have to wonder what the hell happened since then? Maybe my negative perception of colour in consumer cams 2014-2020ish mostly comes from Sony dominance and the pandora's box of giving S-Log to the masses.

Not sure if it's placebo or something in the compression used by consumer cameras these days but I definitely perceive a certain flatness and lack of colour density in many hybrid cameras and camcorders these days, and the common factor in most of them is Sony sensors. Out of all the consumer brands, Canon seems to stand out as being an exception in that regard. They seem to be capable of producing more rich tones straight out of the camera. I was also never that into the colour from the BMPCC4k with it's Sony sensor, compared to the Ursa image. It's been said many times on this forum, but I do wish manufacturers would focus less on 8k and more on getting colour right, after all Arri has been showing how to do it right for a decade now!

Yeah I think the skintone is much better with the S1a lut. It's from a hike near Benidorm in Spain.

I purchased the S1 set, and I see what you mean about the colour deviation between the GHa and S1a Luts. I was quite happy with GHa on my S1 footage, but the S1 High Scale Lut looks more vibrant and cleaner to me compared to the GHa Linear conversion. Better colour separation and fidelity. Thanks for your hard work, this is a really valuable tool and a pleasure to use! Footage is 1080p 10 bit from the S1, basic corrections with the luts applied on top, ungraded. Top is S1a, bottom is GHa.

Is that Alicante port? I work nearby.

@Sage Is there a discount for Emotive Color packages if you've previously bought the LUTs for another camera? I got the GH5 set and am considering the S1 set.

Don't think this has been posted before - I saw this example from the Emotive Color site, and I genuinely can't believe how good this looks. It must be my favourite example of GH5 footage. Stunning filmlike color. I'd love to know more about how he graded it.