markr041

Its here: Sony FS5, Sony FS7 have as an option built in auto variable electronic ND continuous smooth. Does exactly what you want - set shutter, aperture, ISO, and exposure is set automatically. Choose your DOF and not worry about lighting conditions. Great for run and gun, doc, eng. No need for clickless aperture lenses.

Here is an HLG HDR (Sony) video. By this I mean the video was shot in HLG REC2020 color gamut and the rendered video (from Resolve Studio) is also HLG HDR, REC2020. It will thus play as an HDR video on a suitable viewing device if you watch within the YouTube app or on the YouTube web site. If you cannot view in HDR, the video will play in SDR - the SDR version is made by YouTube using the HDR version - it is a conversion to REC709, not HLG viewed in SDR. The HDR version nicely captures the glowing, golden sun reflecting off fauna and other objects. The SDR version has the correct colors. The difference between the SDR and HDR versions is large, because the golden light highlights are the centerpiece of the video..

I want a 5" Atomos Inferno. 7" screens are absurd for other than stationary shooting.

No, sorry, but your problem was that you were ranting in ignorance of what the benefits of HDR are. If you provided actual correct information (or were more careful in what you said, if you did actually know something) then there would be no reason to apologize. What you said about HDR wasn't appropriate because it was incorrect, not because people are trying out HDR and their feelings might be hurt. Those people who knew more than you on HDR just called you on what you said, appropriately.

BestBuy demos are terrible. Before I could watch HDR using videos I chose or shot on my own viewing devices, based on what I saw at BestBuy I thought HDR was a marketing ploy. If you can adjust the TV picture mode away from Retail Vivid to Normal or Cinema and play an HDR video using the TV's YouTube app maybe you will "get the picture". You also need to view a good video. Maybe people here can suggest some examples.

I think you are now talking without a full understanding of HLG and HDR10, in which the issue of screen brightness is indeed an important component of the difference between the two, or maybe you are just being cute and cryptic so I do not get what you are saying in what seems to be a rant against DR and thus HDR. Are you denying that shooting in HLG, a quasi-log gamma, does not get you more DR on a bright, appropriately-set-for-HLG monitor than shooting REC709? That HDR10 videos do not display more DR than REC709 videos on, say, 1000 nits screens? Or are you arguing that DR does not matter or simply that you do not like spectacular (not just specular) highlights? And, if one's eyes adjust to real-world high DR to fool the brain to think they are seeing high DR they will do that based on what they see on the screen too. That argument against more DR on screens seems specious. My experience is that DR matters a lot for achieving more realism, next for me is resolution, next is degree of compression, but color bit depth matters little. I have shot using 12bit RAW and see little gain over shooting 8bit. But, boy, I can see big differences between HDR and SDR even at 8 bit. Even if I am deluded, doesn't matter.

YouTube is a great asset for distributing videos. In terms of distributing *our* videos on YouTube there are no ads, annoying or otherwise, if one does not monetize. None. Works just like Vimeo: click on play and it plays, and you can select the resolution. More importantly, YouTube supports HDR video. And support means both that it will automatically play HDR videos in HDR on HDR-enabled viewers (HDR phone, TV's) but it will also create a very good SDR version of the uploaded HDR video that will play on all other viewers. YouTube also supports 5.7K and higher resolutions, and 4K60P. It supports 360 video. It supports 3D video. It has supported more video variants than Vimeo, which is always lagging behind. All of this at no cost to the viewer or uploader. The only remaining advantage for Video is that viewers can download the original uploaded video or different resolution variants of it.

This was my first attempt (successful) to make a 4K HDR test video back in November 2016, using the GH4 (which outputs 10bit 422) and the Shogun Inferno. The difference between the SDR and HDR versions is immense - the HDR version just glows, the SDR version looks ordinary: You need to go to the YouTube app (by clicking the video title) to play in HDR, it will not play in the window.

You are absolutely right that one is seeing only a subset of the benefits of HDR on the HDR-certified Samsung phones, or on most HDR TV's for that matter. But, you missed the point, again being bogged down in technical details - the HDR versions of the videos look amazing, even the "crippled" renditions on the phone. And you do not need to compare to see the visible benefits. And here we go again - I have bolded your cliché and epithet. Yes, content matters, duh, and using the word gimmicky. There is nothing gimmicky about increasing the realism of videos we shoot. HD gimmicky? 4K gimmicky? color gimmicky? widescreen gimmicky? progressive versus interlaced gimmicky? Higher frame rates gimmicky? Give us a break. You sound like you are threatened by HDR. But anyone who shoots in log gammas with extended color space (Vlog, Slog, V-gamut, S-gamut, or RAW) can produce HDR video (yes, not *all* of the specs). It does not require new cameras for most people and the *free* Resolve creates HDR video without much additional hassle. And YouTube, the most popular multi-platform *free* video-sharing app, provides an easy way to share HDR videos. Again YouTube even makes an SDR version for those without HDR screens. What could be easier? It's not like 3D or VR. I am not predicting anything about what will become popular (VR? 180 video?), just pointing out that unlike watching 10bit or 422 video versus 8bit 420 video in SDR, which is invisible in almost all cases, or even 4K versus true FullHD, which can be subtle, HDR is quite visibly different in the right way - reproducing what we see in real life.

I don't get this - I can see am immense difference between HDR and SDR on my Samsung Galaxy phone for almost every HDR video on YouTube. It is not subtle. They key difference is the brightness/dynamic range, not as much the color gamut. I can show (have shown) the HDR videos to anyone with my phone and they all are amazed by the difference (I show them the SDR version too). The Samsung phone does at least 90% of the P3 color gamut btw. I think some people here are in denial. I also don't get the concept of "good HDR shot content" - all content that purports to depict reality rather than fantasy (documentaries, travel, etc.) benefits from being able to display improved colors and greater dynamic range, especially if the scene has spectacular (not just specular) highlights. If you shoot log gammas and HLG properly, you can get good HDR. HLG is the easiest since you shoot in REC2020 color and thus need no translation from some other color gamut for HDR.

The UHD Alliance publishes different standards for cell phone, tablets, and notebook computers.

Yes, seeing HDR on an HDR-capable phone really shows off what HDR does. Who would have thought phones would beat TV's for usability - YouTube just puts the phone right into HDR mode when you push play (and full screen) in the app. Bam! it is really difficult then to go back to dynamics-compressed, dull SDR video!

The easiest way to see HDR content is with a "Mobile" HDR-compatible phone, like the Samsung Galaxy S8 or S8+ or Note 8 (HDR10 and I think HLG too). The YouTube app recognizes the capability on these phones and switches the video to HDR mode (it is labeled as such) when played full screen if the video, again, has the HDR metadata. The brightness of the screen increases substantially when play starts, and you can see the difference from the same video that you can play in a small box, which will be SDR. Sure it is not "true" HDR like on a big screen TV - but it is actually certified as true mobile HDR. And it comes close to the big screen HDR experience and is really impressive. The notion that HDR is worth it is demonstrated just by this. If you want to show your friends your HDR video in HDR, just whip out the relevant phone and play it using the YouTube app. This is the Samsung PR about the phone: "The Galaxy S8 is the first ever Mobile HDR Premium certified smartphone, so you can watch shows and films the way they were meant to be seen. And the Quad HD+ Super AMOLED display brings films and shows, games and images to life in vivid detail." *I think some Sony phones are HDR capable as are LG phones. I just have the Galaxy S8, so I can just attest on that phone this really works. It is so far the only phone (and S8+) certified as Mobile HDR Premium. So what are the requirements for Mobile HDR Premium on smartphones? 10bit, DR of 0.0005-540 nits, 90% of P3 color gamut. And do not scoff at the nits - if you hold the phone up close as one normally does for viewing, that level of nits is almost blindingly bright. The link to the UHD Alliance press release on Mobile HDR Premium: https://alliance.experienceuhd.com/news/uhd-alliance-defines-premium-viewing-experience-battery-operated-devices

A key issue in this is what the uploaded HDR video looks like on YouTube when viewers do not have HDR capability. The good news is that YouTube converts the HDR video, if it has the correct metadata, to an SDR version and shows the SDR version if it detects no ability to display the HDR video correctly. That is, if the video is HLG and the display cannot work with HLG videos then it plays the SDR version. And, in my experience, the SDR version of HLG videos converted by YouTube look good. The downside is confusion on the part of viewers whether they are seeing HDR or SDR. The uploader usually labels the video as HDR, so many viewers might think they are viewing in HDR when they are not. And this could be true even if they have a real HDR-capable display but, say, one that does not do HLG. All in all, if uploading to YouTube is what you do I am tending to go with the idea to always create and upload HDR videos.

You are right ceteris paribus, but the bit depth statement and the visual comparison ignores the role of bitrate (that is, you have compared different bit depths for highly compressed clips (I assume)). The test posted above shows us that bitrate matters also, and that it matters more. Remove the high compression, and the difference by bit depth shrinks almost to invisibility. So you are correct, it is just that it turns out something is even more important than bit depth (they interact). That is, when you use 8 bits but do not highly compress you get much less banding. I have heard this before; I am not claiming the bitrate effect is correct other than interpreting what the poster showed (and I do not see anything wrong with his test).

It seems to me that most of the banding disappears when the lightly-compressed, high bitrate codec at 8bit (probably ProRes 422 - that is what the Shogun uses) is used compared to the highly-compressed low bitrate internal codec (middle panel compared to the first - both 8bit). There is a gain from going to 10bit from 8bit, using the exact same compression (bitrate), but it is relatively minor. The poster should have indicated the bitrates, not just the bit depth.

I am back to HDR, with HLG. First, the workflow in Resolve (free!) is easy: Import your HLG clips as you would any clips. In Project Settings, choose the "Color Management" pane and select DaVinci Resolve YRGB Color Managed as the Color Science. Choose Rec. 2100 HLG as the Input Color Space if you shot in HLG, and Rec. 2100 HLG as the Timeline Color Space. Choose Rec.2100 HLG as the Output Color Space. Place the HLG clips on the timeline and edit (and grade if you want). Export using the QuickTime container with a Google-supported codec. I use DNxHR HQX 10bit. Upon rendering DaVinci automatically includes the metadata needed by YouTube for it to know that your video is HLG. I think this is also true for the free version. That's it (the rest, the important things like editing, are normal). For the paid version, there is HDR mode for editing which provides tools (like scopes) especially for HDR editing. So, this is what I did for my 4K HLG test clips. Here is the 4K HLG video (totally boring). If you do not have an HLG enabled TV, you will see this in SDR as transformed by YouTube (looks ok). If you have an HLG-enabled TV the video should go into HLG automatically and you should get an HLG logo. Maybe this will work, maybe not! And, one can use the Atomos Shogun Inferno as an HDR monitor (7"!), using HDMI (with the appropriate graphics card). You can select whether the input is HLG or PQ, very easy.

HLG-shot video, as posted above, converted to REC709 using Catalyst Browse.

I would like to return to two of the original premises of this thread - that Sony color is now "better" because you can shoot in HLG with the REC2020 color space and that HLG is easy to grade. Note that REC2020 and REC709 are both standards and both of these color spaces are available. That is, it has always been true that SONY accommodated color standards set by others (REC709). S-Gamut is their own, but not REC709. First, I assume that we are still having to view video in REC709. If we view video in HLG, then shooting in HLG is great. But, few will do that. So, the fact that one can shoot in REC2020 color can hardly (easily or automatically) result in good REC709 color. REC709 color is a subset of REC2020, and REC2020 color does not nicely translate into REC709 color just because you view it on a REC709 screen. Nor is translating REC2020 to REC709 in post simple at all. Thus, it is not easy to grade HLG to make a video that looks good in REC709 unless you know the exact math that makes REC2020 translate to REC709. Of course "looks good" is the issue here. Let's start with accuracy or realistic as one notion of looking good. REC2020->REC709 is not easy if one is looking to get the most accurate color for REC709 screens. Maybe someone likes the look of REC2020 as viewed in REC709. But to say that look is "better" is completely subjective. If you prefer the gamma curve in HLG, you can play with that. But then why not combine the HLG gamma with REC709 color if the ultimate viewing is going to be in REC709? OK, here is a comparison of the same scenes shot in HLG and in REC709. Four scenes. For each, the first was shot in HLG (HLG gamma and REC2020 Color) the second in Standard (REC709 gamma and color). If you watch this on a standard TV or monitor you can assess how HLG clips look viewed in REC709. If you watch this on a TV and *set* it to HLG, you can see the HLG clips as they are meant to be seen and get HDR. The HLG clips underwent no post-processing; the REC709 (Standard ) clips had to be re-rendered to merge with the HLG clips but no other post-processing was done. That is why there are no titles in the video - to avoid processing. This was shot using the Sony FS5, which can also now shoot in HLG. I chose the standard one, not the Sony HLG variants. Does anyone think the HLG clips have better color? I will later post a video that displays the transformed HLG clips to conform to REC709, using Catalyst Browse. One can see how ell HLG converted lokks in REC709.

Again, the SLR Magic 8mm F4 - it is small, it is cheap, it takes filters and stopped down it is very sharp. It is native MFT. Manual focusing - but for 8mm at F8, you just set the focus to infinity and everything will be in focus. 8mm is ultrawide. 12, 14 or 15mm is not.

SLR Magic 8mm F4.

From that web site: "Note: AF function was tested for photo, video will not work properly "

Smartphones are not the only reason - there are now alternatives to all the GoPro cameras that match all their features, and in some cases provide better quality, at literally half the price. For example, the Yi 4K+ vs. the GoPro 6; the Yi 360 VR vs. the GoPro Fusion. Just like with drones - the GoPro model was inferior to and more costly than those offered by others - no "smartphone" issue at all. The problem is lack of ability to innovate and lower costs. They gained an initial advantage by being first with a product - their original action cam - and then failed in all subsequent innovation.

Yes, most of the software touted here has stopped developing. I do not understand why TMPGEnc Smart Renderer 5 is not THE solution? It has been constantly updated to add new features (eg, HEVC trimming) and it renders losslessly and quickly - that is its purpose. It is up to date and has been around a long time. Is this forum populated by high schoolers who don't want to pay $59 for software? Or does someone actually have any bad experience to report? It has a free demo. http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/tmsr5.html