markr041

Here is the "next step": 60P, 4K, HDR (HLG). There are a few color errors (I made), so I may redo this. But no, no matter how nice the SDR video you make with the GH5 it is not even close to HDR. HDR is stunningly different for almost all scenes anyone shoots.

There was a mark 2 update to the FS7 that did not change the sensor or sensor readout (same as FS5 and FS700!), so the newest mirrorless cameras beat both the FS7 and FS5 on sheer 4K resolution (I know FS7 does 10bit 422 4K internally). But... The RAW (external) capability - e.g., 4K DCI 60P 422 10bit, 4K DCI 30P 12bit RAW, 10bit 4K DCI 120P burst - as you say, is what makes the FS cameras stand out, aside from "just" ergonomics. Nothing will beat that for a long while. And the built-in continuously variable - and automatic - ND filter is a real creative tool for run and gun: clickless changes in exposure with no change in DOF or shutter speed while moving around, choice of DOF without regard for how bright the light is. No mirrorless cameras will probably ever get this.

Almost always H264 (XAVC) at 100+ Mbps for 4K or DNxHR HQX 10bit for HDR.

We are all wanna-be's! The point is that by using bigger-sensor cameras (the current fad) up close and sometimes with mediocre lighting so they open up the aperture, the dof is relatively shallow and Vloggers heads move enough so that manual focus would result in the heads moving in an out of focus. But maybe they don't know how...

Here is a 4K60P video I recently uploaded, with lots of detail (some false) and motion. Watch in 4K. It seems to me a pretty good compression job: Yes, an Action Cam video! Ban me...

The M50's AF works even better in 1080 than any Panasonic - dual pixel beats CD any day. The complaints are that in 4K the AF is lousy in the M50 because it is not dual pixel, just like for all Panasonics for any resolution.

Yes, autofocus prowess really matters for Vlogging: you see plenty of instances where the camera loses focus on the Vlogger's face - even slight head movements do that (GH5 anyone?). And many Vloggers like to move around with the camera at a set distance (selfie stick), and the same ugly thing happens as something in the background appears and attracts the attention of the AF. Pro-wannabe's and pretenders of course claim they use manual focus exclusively. Only amateurs, tourists, and hobbyists "need" AF.

I have been very happy with the resolution of streamed YouTube videos that I have uploaded in 4K HDR (both HLG and HDR10), viewed in 4K or 1080. Also 4K 60P (SDR) videos have looked good. My uploaded videos are at a minimum 135 Mbps.

Where is the color option?

I use Adobe products, math and stats programs, Office products and Resolve Studio on Windows 10 across multiple amchines. I have had no problems at all - no crashes, hold ups or anything with any program. The constant updates are annoying but I have never experienced them making things worse.

1. Sony FS5. 2. Graded in post, but very little adjustment of colors; mostly levels, some WB. I think you are correct that you need to use the YouTube app to view in HDR. This goes as well for the HDR-capable phones and tablets. When I click on Youtube, it goes to the YouTube app. The videos I posted are not to "go for extreme contrast", so as to get away from the gimmicky videos one see, like those demos for HDR TV's. HDR enhances all videos, some more than others. The videos I shot as examples were ones where HDR helps more than normally but less than extremely. (It is like the early days of stereo - there were these gimmicky recordings issued where the separation was extreme - bongos isolated in one channel, trombones isolated in the other - it's stereo!). It's early days, and it is fun to explore what additional creative possibilities are opened up by the enhanced dynamic range and color palette. I agree about handheld shake. Here is an HDR video shot on a tripod. It is not especially helped by HDR and not shot for HDR, but there is still a difference that is quite visible:

By videos shot for HDR I mean videos shot with an emphasis on scenes that would benefit in particular from the extended DR of HDR, especially highlights. Here are three examples, shot in 4K using HLG with REC2020 color and uploaded to YouTube so that those with HDR viewing devices can view them in HDR, those not in SDR. But, because these videos emphasize highlights that can best be captured by HDR, the view in SDR will miss the point (to exaggerate, like looking at a picture of a rainbow in B&W). The SDR versions will look perfectly fine, but they will be far less interesting. To view in HDR, if you can, you must go to the YouTube site to view by clicking on the YouTube logo. First up (already posted in the contentious YouTube HDR thread) is a video shot on a sunny day after a snowstorm. White snow expanses in bright sun are almost blindingly bright in the real world, ideal for capture in HDR: Next are two videos shot at the golden hour. The bright, golden light reflected off surfaces and/or coloring objects are again captured well in HDR (white surfaces reflecting bright light are the most impressive).

Terrific. Wonderful illustrations with paintings.

I have a plasma TV of about that vintage (also Pioneer) and I agree there is something special about the picture, so I know exactly how you feel. I have not gotten rid of it, given that most everything we see is good *old* REC709 and FullHD. But, are you seriously asking "What would an HDR television bring that does anything better?" You really do not know? My $299 Samsung 40" TV (used as a monitor) is capable of showing 10 stops of dynamic range to your 6 (that's REC709) and shows more colors and color gradations than your plasma TV, when HDR videos are displayed (it is also highly accurate in color representation, surprisingly). Your plasma TV has a great picture, but its DR and color gamut are truncated by a lot compared to the current HDR offerings. You may have DR "to spare", but you will never see that extra range. Ever. You simply cannot play HDR videos. So, there is plenty that an HDR television brings you that is better, quite visibly better. It's fine to say you don't care about better DR or color representation or that you do not expect that there will be enough content for you that can take advantage of HDR to sacrifice the better REC709 representation of the plasma. But to try to imply that HDR TV's have nothing to offer over what you have is ludicrous. I know people who love tube amplifiers; no matter what evidence is brought to them about how distorted they sound, they just don't care. They like what they hear, no matter how inaccurate. There is no arguing with that. But they do not deny the facts. And I guess you too will not be creating HDR videos, despite their enlarging the creative space substantially.

It's your choice. But your logic is questionable - just because there are lousy ("oversaturated, shrill") videos in HDR and really good videos in REC709 that you like does not negate the advantage HDR has over REC709. That is not deniable - SDR has worse color (in multiple dimensions) and lower dynamic range and is not better in any other dimension. And, by the way, there are way, way, way more really lousy REC709 videos than there are bad HDR videos. That is not the reason to create HDR either. I have seen some absolutely great B&W videos (movies) and some really bad color ones. I am sticking with black and white... The obstacles to creating HDR video have been reduced a lot. The free Resolve handles HDR easily. You can use a small HDR TV to monitor easily, at least with PC's. The availability of HLG in lots of cameras makes shooting and creating HDR videos quite easy, since one is shooting in the REC2020 color space and therefore no LUT is required. It is true if you do not have RAW (with enhanced color space), or log profiles or HLG, then you need to get new equipment. But most people here do not need to make any new monetary investment. Just need to learn new things. It is funny how people try to rationalize not investing in new , better technologies.

You obviously have never compared HDR and SDR versions of the same video, so remain in ignorant, self-satisfied bliss. Or, if you have, you are in denial so you can justify not making the investments in knowledge and equipment. You can purchase $299 40" excellent HDR tv's (not the best, but still displaying the spectacular difference). I am sorry you cannot understand that we are trying to help you; it seems that you feel threatened by being told you are basically left behind in the limited constraints of specs set years ago based on the very limited viewing devices of yesterday. It is uncomfortable.

Yes! Even on my Samsung S8, where I can switch between HDR and SDR while watching a video, one sees an enormous difference. Anyone who compares would have the same reaction; it's not like 4K vs HD, which relatively speaking is marginal to many.

Thanks. Be sure it has the correct metadata. With those, YouTube plays the HDR version automatically if it's an HDR-capable set, and plays its own SDR conversion (quiet good) if its not. Without the metadata, however, only those viewing devices that can be manually set to HDR will be able to watch in HDR. As far as I know, the HDR-capable phones cannot do that and YouTube will not recognize the video as HDR - those devices rely on YouTube to recognize HDR videos.

Where is this video posted? Given that this thread is about HDR on YouTube, we should be posting HDR videos there. Not to be anal about categories, but because many HDR sets (including HDR-capable cell phones) can only show HDR videos using the YouTube app. That's why YouTube figures importantly for those interested in HDR video. Is this on YouTube? Why not? Given so few people have HDR viewers, it would seem you want to maximize viewership among those few. So, how do I feel about this footage - deprived!

Speaking of inaccuracies! I think you missed the point. There is HLG content now, in fact, right in this thread. And many cameras now can create HLG video directly - it's a standard among creators. This whole forum is about creating video, not watching Hulu, or Neflix or Vudu (or Voodo). Go to some TV forum, wherever that is, to make your case to stick with your outmoded TV. That forum is for watchers and couch potatoes, not creators. There is plenty of whining there about standards and which service providers supply which flavor of HDR. You can also argue about which HDR mode is better! What is relevant here is that if you get an HDR TV that has HLG or HDR10 you will be able to watch HDR videos you create and those created by many videographers all over the world, including some posting here. By not getting one you will be stuck in SDR land, inclusive of any videos you create. You just have to shoot in some log gamma with an extended color gamut to create HDR videos, and you may already be shooting in those modes (when you are not watching Amazon Video or Netflix). But you won't create HDR videos as long as you can't watch them. So, you are missing out creatively; and the fact you do not have an HDR viewing device means that you are unable to even make an informed decision as to whether shooting in let alone viewing HDR is worth it. So, your SDR TV means you are missing a lot, unless your only purpose is to watch commercial TV. Too bad.

Thanks. I'm hooked!

Go for the Sony FS5, which can do 240FPS 2K from RAW (or 10bit 422) or 4K DCI 120FPS from RAW (buffer-mode).

Yes, uploaded a bunch of HDR videos to YouTube, both HLG and HDR10. My Samsung S8 phone automatically switches to HDR mode when I play them full screen. Resolve Studio automatically inserts the metadata that YouTube uses to detect HDR videos. I use the "HDR" scopes in Resolve to grade. Latest HDR HLG test video - snow, which is the brightest white on a sunny day, seems a good use of extended highlights of HDR HLG. Remnants of a previous-night snowstorm, cleaning up, and snow fun - snowmen, forts and sledding. Just used one lens a 35mm f1.8, so I could get some very shallow DOF shots wide open using a variable ND.

It doesn't make sense to say your TV "is perfectly fine." It's not; you cannot enjoy HDR video. You are missing out, now. And HDR video is really something - it is not like 3D, requiring glasses and sacrificing light, or even 4K, which is not visible at enough distance. It is dramatically better, even for mundane videos. And HDR TV's are cheap (if you shop carefully and watch what is real HDR and what not). It might inspire you to shoot for HDR... I agree that there is worry about standards. But there is at least one standard that I think is here to stay that most everyone has adopted - HLG. It's on most TV's now, many cell phones will show it, and many of the latest video cameras enable shooting HLG (for free). Editors are ready for it too (Resolve and that Apple one).

Where is the evidence of electronic variable ND's harming the image? The FS5 and FS7 are principally used by pro videographers, and this feature has been available a long time. I have never heard about the electronic ND having any adverse effect - who are the "some people" who "feel" it harms the image? Pro videographers would certainly care and report about this. I have never seen any discussion of image degradation in any reviews, and I have read many. Give the link to any source. This is typical internet bad behavior that leads to the propagation of nonsense. On the other hand, if you got a source that is credible and share it, that is very helpful indeed for the many users of this technology (who are according to you blind to the "harm" being done). It is true that the electronic ND cannot go to zero light attenuation; it must be mechanically removed (and can be with just a turn of a knob). The ND can also be pre-set to a particular value like any ND using that knob.