markr041

You are correct. Could we get an explanation why this information was pulled, especially given the above examples with Slog? I am very happy with the settings for ooc video.

Thanks for this information. I purchased EOSHD Pro Color, and it has no settings for using Slog 2 at all. So I am still confused. I get that there are LUTs for sale, but where are the settings for Slog2? Again, they are not in the EOSHD Pro Color for Sony I purchased. So, in what package?

I like the results of what you did, but I am totally confused how you did it. What EOSHD Sony Slog 2 settings? What EOSHD LUT? I own EOSHD Sony Pro color and there is no LUT and no settings including Slog 2.

Really! I am seriously concerned with the posting of a purely subjective statement like this from someone who is a "PANASONIC AMBASSADOR" [caps from the guy's own avatar]. Other statements from this source are also of similar quality. This is pure PR, complete with hyperbole. I am not saying it is not true, but that this is the type of stuff that demeans this forum. I appreciate that the conflict of interest is at least visible. On the substance - no other camera available at around the GH5 price enables one to shoot "serious movies."? Alexa quality? In fact this statement led to look at his others, and there are post after post of "game changer" and other PR phrases. I am NOT suggesting any censoring, just an expression of distaste. We all can get enthusiastic, and revel in others' enthusiasm, but not from someone who is not receiving gifts from manufacturers. I do appreciate that the GH5 has important features that put pressure on competitors, and so I welcome its introduction. But I think the small sensor (MFT) will ultimately doom this type of camera for "serious" moviemaking. That is subjective too, but not based on who is supplying me with equipment or paying my bills. It should be clear I am neither an ambassador, or a diplomat! :).

The current Samsung Gear 360 uses HEVC.

No, EOSHD is not "for" SLog 2, or Slog 3 or "Movie" or "Picture" gammas for that matter. In the video, the guy graded his ersatz EOSHD profile, using Slog2 (not an EOSHD setting), with a LUT. Obviously, one is free to do anything with the EOSHD settings, but changing the gamma from the EOSHD one evidently puts one right back in the never-never-land of LUTS, which EOSHD settings were designed to avoid. But I am sure everyone would be interested to see what you come up with.

Before you do that, am I missing something? EOSHD color settings do not include Slog 2. And it is not for grading; that's the point.

I like that picture, but that is not what EOSHD looks like out of the camera:

I am glad you are in favor of Panasonic offering H265 as a choice, however begrudging (see below) I am not here looking for an answer - you do know what a rhetorical question is, right? The rhetorical question is why in the world does the GH5 not have an H265 option for all resolutions? It is not a hardware limitation, and the "reason" given (repeated by you) that it is not adopted is absurd. All firms are greedy; that is what drives innovation, but also can lead to collusion and exploitation of market power (segmenting markets, etc.). You are not correct that my beef right now should be with all of the manufacturers who are not going to H265 - Sony, Canon, Nikon, whatever. There is no evidence that their prosumer/consumer cameras have the hardware capability to do it right now - but the GH5 evidently has. I hope they do create the capability in the future. Note also that I am not arguing that my GX85 should have an H265 option, or any other Panasonic camera. I shoot with the GH4 and the GX85 - they are great - and have shot with the NX1 using H265, so I have faced the hurdles to using H265 and know what it can do and what the issues are in editing with it. I do not have a beef with Panasonic - this is about their not implementing H265 on the GH5, thus crippling (to some extent, I do not want to overemphasize this) its ability to shoot the best 4:2:2 10bit video that it can. And there you go again seeming to contradict the point of choice being good - I am not saying to eliminate H264 and replace it by H265, so saying that H265 should be offered should not threaten you at all. And indeed first you say you would be happy to choose, but then you say that H265 is "inconvenient" for you and ask if I want *you* to switch, so it sounds like you have a personal bias against it. Do you really believe my push for H265 implies I want you to use it and buy a new computer? I want you to have the option to use it; that should not force you to do anything. However, right now everyone is forced to use the old, inefficient H265 at relatively low bitrates. It is interesting that those who seem not to be enthusiastic about H265 use software that currently cannot handle it. Another illogical analogy and projection: advocating that Panasonic offer H265 is not like advocating they offer 8K video, because we know Panasonic can implement H265 with the hardware right now (they do not use hardware implementation as an excuse, and as you correctly say it is used in one limited implementation). It is unlikely they can offer 8K in the GH5, it is very likely they can offer H265. It is not pie in the sky to ask for H265, it is not like saying they should make a tiny m43 20X zoom with a constant aperture of f1.4 or do 4:4:4 color sampling or 8K or 3D in 4K. They can do H265. Why defend Panasonic (or the other guys) over not implementing this option, other than somehow it would be inconvenient to you. Why in the world does the GH5 not have this option? Do not answer.

I really do not understand why you are against *choice*. How in the world could having the option to use H265 be bad? You could have made make the same argument about H264 back whenever it became available - H264 (like the XAVC variant at 100 Mbps) is in fact still hard on many "consumers". Perhaps Panasonic should not offer higher bitrate options, lest someone complain they have to buy a better sd card? The licensing fee issue is not speculation, nor is it a defensive obfuscation sourced by PR people. Here is an example of what is being said (no facts, but an indication of there is more to this than Panasonic "protecting consumers"): https://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/07/26/0149234/hevc-advance-announces-h265-royalty-rates-raises-some-hackles And here is a source with some facts: http://x265.org/hevc-advance-reduces-proposed-license-fees/ The H265 licensing fees are much higher than they were for H264. Anyway, my principal point is not to hypothesize on the reason for Panasonic and Sony etc. (and Apple software) not adopting HEVC, but to restate that we as shooters want it and I see no good reason why it should not be offered as an option. Certainly no good reason provided on this web site.

For a moderator, you can be rude (and not just here). Dude? In any case, if you were "repeating: what someone has said, you should give the source reference. You did not. In any case, what is the point of repeating less-than-candid manufacturer's excuses? You are right, just let alternative facts go, or better, "repeat" them.... P.S. I do really like your videos, and know you are not a Panasonic fanboy.

No, those previous post ignore the best alternative less than thousands of dollars and significantly better than the Nikon Keymission and the Samsung Gear 360 - the Kodak 360 4K dual. Test after test confirms this. For a good 360 blog, see 360rumors.com. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1235855&gclid=CKqv-P7AxdICFZaPswodvmQLPQ&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051677442%2C&Q=&A=details

Are you competing with Yogi Berra? It is difficult to "adopt" H265 if Sony, Olympus and Panasonic do not support it. In any case, it is factually untrue that mainstream processors (Intel) and software editors do not support it (Vegas Pro 14, Power Director, Resolve, etc.). 4K TV's support it (playback from video files). H265 is part of the HEVC spec. I do not think we should let Panasonic off the hook on this, when the real reason *may* have to do with royalty payments, and not specious arguments in abundance here about the "quality" of H265 compression for high bitrate video, its inability to be used for intra, or the lack of "adoption."

Vegas Pro 14 also supports H265. There is no good reason for software or cameras to not support H265 (hear that Panasonic?) other than greed.

I downloaded the 'original' video and played it on my color-calibrated (4K) monitor (I know the video is 1080). Let me get this straight: the wide shots are from an A7s ii. Most of the video is composed of the wide shots. Those are fine. The handheld shots often were out of focus and shaky - those were the Olympus, right? I also do not get what is going on with the audio - if the mic was on the Olympus, then we would have heard a shift in the audio when the camera was moved or in a different position across clips. So, there is no way the touted mic was mounted on the Olympus, or that the audio is actually from the mic if it was mounted on the mobile, handheld camera. I listened with Sennheiser HD650 headphones. I also heard electronic clicks throughout, which may or may not have been the mic, the preamp, or what was coming from the speakers in the venue. The clicks were not coming from my sound system. Finally, testing audio by recording music from speakers is like testing video by shooting a video displayed on a television screen. As people have posted above, how can we tell if the lack of bass, and other shortcomings like high distortion, is due to the sound system in the venue or the mic (which ever mic it was). I am unimpressed not only by the sound and video, but by any positive statements about the camera or mike based on this video. The other parts of the article were informative, but the final issue is video and audio quality, and this example tells us little about the camera or mic.

EOSHD Pro Color and faces: After 1.5 minutes many faces.

@Dipak I think you still do not understand what the EOSHD Pro Color is about - it is getting good color out of the camera by using the powerful tools in the camera. Period. Thus, there is no need for a Lut - the alterations are done in camera. There is no need for any grading or conversion in post unless you want to achieve some kind of "look". Is this clear? No lut supplied or needed. EOSHD Pro Color at night: No lut, no adjustments in post.

You may have missed the point. The Sony settings are for the camera. The camera has a sufficiently rich set of tools that there is no need for further manipulation in an editor, unless you want to grade according to your taste (say, using your own lut). The settings are for getting good color right out of the camera. No lut needed.

Thanks. And thanks for the info on the lut, which I may try out.

Many example videos using EOSHD Pro Color settings are either taken exclusively at night or mucked up with Luts that completely alter the color, so you cannot see what the Pro Color settings do. So here is a video shot using the Sony A7s ii in daylight with no Lut applied in post. The main subjects are flowers - nature's color palette (although there is also a cat). There are plenty of blues, greens, yellows, whites, reds, etc (though no human skin).

I did not say there were no REC709 to REC709 LUTS. I said that saying one used a "709 LUT" is not informative. You yourself said x to y LUT (where both x and y are REC709), fine. But y LUT is meaningless. Get it? I was just trying to understand what exactly the poster did; not a criticism.

I remain confused by the purpose of posting your heavily-graded (the way it looks, whatever you did to it) video here and especially your response to my question. A LUT translates a specific color space/gamma to something else, like REC709 or some film emulation. It is a translation from x to y.There is thus no such thing as a (REC) "709 lut" - there is a VLOG L to REC709 LUT or a SLOG3.sgamut.cine to REC709 LUT, etc. I know of no EOSHD SONY Pro COLOR to REC709 LUT. Applying such a LUT in any case would defeat the purpose of the PRO COLOR, which to get more pleasing color out of the camera. Of course you can grade from that, but that usually means more than just applying some LUT, let alone a REC709 LUT. In any case, the video that was posted is neither showing REC709 colors (for sure) nor EOSHD colors and tells us nothing about the merits of EOS Pro Color. I am not criticizing the look of the video, just asking what we are supposed to learn about EOS Pro Color from it?

EOSHDC PRO Color straight from the camera, in a very dim setting (FE 28f2+UWA):

There was a lot of obvious color grading in your video ("Dream Drives"). I thought the whole point of the EOSHD settings was to achieve a look *in the camera* not by color grading in post. Your video, whatever its other merits, looks nothing like the colors you get from the EOSHD Pro color settings out of the camera. As I understand it, these are specifically not settings for major color grading in post.

I actually shot RAW with the EOS M, just because.... Gets among the most hits on Vimeo of my videos there: