mercer

I recently did a handheld test between the GX85 in 4K and 1080p vs. the D5500 in 1080p. I used the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 with both cameras. I do not have a speedbooster for the GX85, so I used a simple adapter. The FOV was obviously different. I have yet to look at the footage, but I have a feeling there will be little difference between the two images in terms of visible quality. I will post the results here when I finish. You may be better off keeping what you have. There is some fine work done with the Nikon Flat Profile, so maybe a simple upgrade to the D5600 would suffice. Otherwise, if you can raise the money, the D7500 should drop a little by the holidays or you can do what I am considering, either the a6500 or the Fuji X-T20 if you want/need 4K.

Did you get an a6500? I have been toying around with the idea of buying it again. I think the 4K is unmatched at its price point.

VLog on the GX85 would have been a hot mess anyway. Panasonic didn't offer 10bit video, for $2000, on the GH5 out of the kindness of their heart. However I would still love if the LX100 could get CineLikeD or V... but that sounds like an improbability as well, I suppose?

So you don't trust his opinion because in one statement he says that he downscaled to 1080p from 4K but then in another sentence he says he doesn't like the ultra sharp images from some lenses? I don't see how they are conflicting statements? I have been thinking long and hard about 1080p vs 4K. As you know I have been shooting Raw for the past couple months. I don't even shoot at 1080p... I'm shooting 2:35 at 1920x810 and IMO it has a better image than any 4K I have ever shot... but it is Raw, so it isn't a fair comparison. So I'll digress... Over the past 6 months, I've had 2 FZ2500s. The first time I bought it, I purchased it two weeks after release and paid full price for it. I specifically tested the 200mbps, all-i 1080p vs 100mbps IPB 4K. I downscaled the 4K to 1080p and on my 40" TV, I noticed absolutely no difference between the downscaled 4K and the high bitrate 1080p... in fact, if anything I found the all-i 1080p had slightly better motion cadence at true 24p. The problem with that camera is that I think it's too expensive for what it is, so I returned it. I bought it again, a couple months ago, for a casual camera after I got my 5D3 and the image looked so brittle in comparison that I returned it again. So, I really don't think 4K is a necessity and I believe that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't be able to tell the difference nor care. With that being said, I still love gear and I want a 4K camera. I have yet to see any 4K image, less than $4000, that looks better than the 1DC. That camera has some special mojo going on. So I will probably save up for that and hopefully can find one for $3000 this time next year. In the meantime, to quench my unexplainable desire for 4K, I may pick up an LX100... because the 4K out of that camera also has some special sauce going on. I keep wanting to test the 4K out of the D7500 because I just simply love the Nikon Flat 1080p... seriously one of the best images for the money, but with the crop and its inability to meter older Nikon lenses, the camera is overpriced for my needs... or desires. So since I can't justify Nikon 4K and can't afford Canon 4K yet, another option for me is the Fuji X-T20. It's in a comfortable price range for me. I should be able to sell it for not much of a loss next year and put that money towards the 1DC. As much as I am tired of the fat adapters laying about, in the end Fuji color and my Nikkor 35mm 1.4 could make a perfect little combo. But then again, I want IBIS too... will the madness ever stop? I think regardless of what tech is available, people should really look to what is most important to them in a camera. If they need 4K at 10bit... get the GH5. If they need really good 1080p, maybe get a Nikon or Sony a7s. If they need great auto focus, get a Canon 80D. If someone needs 4K or even really wants it... then that's what they should buy. But since the title of this post specifically asks... is it really necessary? Nope. It is not.

???

Don't be pissed, even if the 6D2 had 4K, I think you may have had unrealistic expectations. If you need all of those specs, you should have bought a GH5 before this season started because you can't get them for $5000 with a Canon and it will probably be another few years, if ever, that they offer 10bit 4K at 60p in a consumer DSLR. If there is any truth to this rumored FF mirrorless, that will be the most telling about Canon's intentions going forward with video in a stills/hybrid form factor.

Ben, I am glad to hear you bought another one, your XC10 videos were amongst my favorite and they truly captured the spirit of this S16 digital camera. I still have the XC10 saved in my eBay search... just waiting for that price I feel comfortable with. I keep chasing the XC10 form factor as well. I've had two FZ2500s and the RX10ii since I've sold the XC10. Both were cool cameras, but neither are as unique as the XC10. The FZ2500 has solid high bitrate, all-i 1080p, shutter angle, decent Touch AF and tracking, multi strength, body selectable NDs, internal zoom, slow/quick at the touch of a button. Even with all its strengths, it just isn't worth $1200 in my opinion. The RX10ii I really liked as well, solid 4K image, okay 1080p at hfr, good preamps, sLog2 but both feel more like camcorders than S16. That zoom through wide angle is a cool trick. I had one for my ZR60 back in the day. I hope Canon continues to update the XC line. As is, it's a blast to shoot with, with a few refinements, it could be epic.

Thanks, I think you suggested the Arri workflow to me before and I forgot to test it... thanks for reminding me. CineLOG is available for Resolve, isn't it? If so, once purchased and installed, does it appear in the Camera Raw settings in the right corner as an option along with Blackmagic Film, Arri, etc...? I've read some about CineLOG and it seems to give you the most options for coloring? Is it a simple process, or will it require a lot more time and/or skill to eek out a good image?

Ok, @hyalinejim this makes perfect sense. Thanks for the the detailed reply. Right now I am processing my MLVs through Raw Magic to create my CDNGs. I was using MLRawViewer and exporting as "LogC" and I was VERY happy with the results, but ever since I updated my Mac to Sierra it has become very temperamental. So I've been going the Davinci Resolve route as Blackmagic Film. I'm still shooting so I am not really invested in any particular method yet, but I have deleted most of my original MLVs, so I have to go forward, with this project at least, using a program that will accept DNGs. For the "dailies" I've been just processing them out as ProRes, as shot, and then doing a basic correction/grade in FCPX. Inside FCPX I've been testing various LUTS, in Color Finale, including BM Film to Rec709 LUTS, Arri to Rec709 LUTS, a universal LOG to Rec709 LUT or running it through Colorista IV as Alexa. I've also tested just using the simple Color Board tools in FCPX. I was very adamant about WB while shooting, so the footage usually need little to no adjustments and I am mostly playing with saturation and exposure and then adding a finishing LUT or using Tint, and/or Colorize as a final "look." I then use Sharpen, in FCPX at default. I have found many looks and methods I like but I am a little concerned because correcting/grading a long project is something very new to me. Other than a couple tests, I've never tackled to color anything long form, so I am searching for a method that will offer both ease and consistency.

I've been testing out a simple LUT workflow and I have found a few that work fairly well. This is known as Hunter's LUT. The idea behind it is to underexpose 5D3 ML Raw footage by about a stop and then this LUT is supposed to help mimic Alexa footage. Here is where you can find information. And here is a screen grab from my film using the LUT and some slight adjustments in FCPX... I've just been testing some different looks for my film. It seems like an interesting concept, but it isn't a hundred percent what I'm looking for. Here is another screengrab using Captain Hook's Basic LUT for BlackMagic Film... they work pretty well with 5D3 Raw footage... I believe @hyalinejim made a Kodak Ektar LUT for 5D3 Raw as well. Does anyone know of any other LUTS specifically designed for ML Raw footage? Or some that work well with it?

Looks awesome. Congratulations on some of the best GH5 video I have seen. I've been very critical of the work I've seen coming from the GH5, but you have definitely proven that this camera is a force to be reckoned with. I look forward to the finished video!

I liked the XC10 a lot. It just lost its value way too fast for my comfort zone. Especially since prior to that, the most I had ever spent on a camera was $600. I didn't notice the ghosting as much as others did. I shot comfortably up to 1600iso without any real noise issues. I haven't shot with 5D3 Raw at higher than 1600 either, but it hasn't bothered me. This was 5D3 at 1600 ISO, but with the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 wide open, so that's still what... two stops better than the XC10 would be at 1600. If my memory serves me I'd say 5D3 Raw is cleaner at 1600.

I've been lucky the past year or so. I took a $2000 purchase of the XC10 and was able to sell it, for a small loss, but use that money to test a bunch of cameras. While I figured out what I wanted to shoot with, I consistently spent a small amount more to constantly upgrade what I tested until I was able to afford the 5D3. Also I always bought better lenses than I had. So over the past couple years I was able to narrow down what I wanted to keep and make a good return on previous lens purchases. Four years ago I could barely afford my $200 eos-m. now I should be able to afford a 1DC by next spring.

Btw, I thought you really liked the 80D?

Online polls are outliers. There are too many ways to fix the poll. I could go there all afternoon and vote a hundred times by clearing out my cookies. Too many people can vote who would never ever buy a Canon no matter what the features were. Way too many variables to sway the poll.

Well, interesting article, but you probably shouldn't use an online poll from a rumor site to support one of your thesis statements.

Yeah this season was great. I liked the episode where the prison transport bus crashed and they ended up in the bowling alley. Ray Wise was so great and unexplainable in this season. The nighttime woods scene looked great.

That's pretty cool. I've always wondered about those. Do you have your in camera meter set to spot or multi?

Man, Jon I love your passion about filmmaking. I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate the depths you'll go to improve your craft. With that being said, ETTR is a bad habit to rely on. Sure it can work, but in a lot of instances you're setting yourself up for more work in post and risking ruining shots if you can't pull back those highlights or you end up with weird skin tones because now the curve is messed up. It all depends on the curve. sLog2 needs to be overexposed by about 1.7 to 2 stops, otherwise it is an unrecoverable, noisy mess. CineLikeD works best -2/3 to +2/3 depending on the shot. You have lucked out in your tests because you've needed the +2/3 and it seems to coincide with ETTR. Plus from your test, we've already surmised that since you are relying on the lens' aperture stops and not an incremental change from a variable ND or a clickless aperture that you are actually not even truly using ETTR correctly. Try it with an actor with a bright blue sky behind them and trees in the background in mid day sun. Or light an actor's face until 100% zebras appear and then back off with a variable nd, clickless aperture or the dimmer from the light. Those skin tones will be a pain in the ass to correct. Why do you think Panasonic cameras have their zebras set to 80% and 100% out of the factory? The 80% is for skin tones. These cameras are only capable of so much DR. I don't think it's worth the risk of losing shots with ETTR to get an extra half a stop. I respect your pursuit of craft, you have way more patience and skill than I have, but you would probably be better served with a light meter than from the Leeming LUT. In most instances, the camera's light meter is sufficient enough. I was constantly worried about ETTR after I dumped my EOS-M for an NX500 and all of my footage suffered from banding and bad color. Part of that was my lack of skill, but part was due to my ETTR with every shot, in every scenario, without regard. I did the same with the G7 and I had the same results. Finally, after getting the GX85, I started using the in camera light meter instead and I had better results overall. But it really wasn't until I got the D5500 which won't even meter on older Nikkor lenses, let alone has zebras, so I had to go back to exposing by eye and without a doubt it was some of my favorite and best work. No doubt that zebras are a tool and they are great for reference but they are not a reliable measurement of light and exposure. If you want or need that then you should definitely get a light meter. I don't mean to keep bringing this up to argue with you about, but if you Google ETTR and video, on the very first page, near the top, the infamous Ebrahim Saadawi's long post about it pops up. When I first started coming around this site, I thought he was an authority on video, I took some cues from his bloviated posts because I thought he knew his shit. We know how that turned out. Again I think ETTR can work in some instances and I would never not use it when needed. Hell, I use it most of the time now with ML Raw but even then, I will back exposure away if I feel the shot requires it.

If you liked him in 2002, then you should definitely go back and listen to him during the OJ trial. His show was never as good as it was then.

Think about it, Canon doesn't have a grudge against 4K or the filmmakers and consumers that may want it. There just aren't enough to warrant the R&D to implement it yet. Even if they did include it in the 6D2, it would have been cropped in MJPEG, so you would have complained about it anyway.

Well Sony, Panasonic and Samsung were early adopters because they needed consumers to create content to watch on the 4K TVs they wanted to sell. Nikon, Olympus and Fuji followed suit because Sony, Panasonic and Samsung convinced content creators and consumers they needed to shoot Billy Jr's baseball game in 4K. Or should I say are now starting to convince consumers of that. Canon will flip the switch when their market research shows they are losing a lot of sales to the other manufacturers.

The problem with this argument is that it comes from a child's perspective. 20 years ago me and my friends didn't buy real cameras either, we bought disposables. Children never buy high ticket items and manufacturers don't cater to them for that reason. In 10 to 20 years when they stop going to the bars and start having children and hobbies, then they buy cameras. Sure the low end consumer camera market will never be what it once was but it hasn't been that for years and most of the companies have already adjusted for it. I'm sure I sound like a dinosaur but don't underestimate the amount of money a middle class man will spend on a hobby as they grow and accustomed to adulthood.

I highly doubt Canon has a huge attitude about how photographers should shoot or what tech they need... they have a board that they answer to and they are beholden to their shareholders. Through market research and profit margins they've come to the conclusion they don't have to include such features to make profits. It's really that simple. If the lack of video features begin to disrupt their profit margin, they will start including them. The End.

I think there must be something wrong with my eyes because I still kinda like the soft, organic look of Canon 1080p. I think the 1DC has the best 4K image around, specifically at its price point or lower, and I think the 1080p out of a hacked GH2 looks better than any of the new Panny 4K. Sorry I keep going on about this, but I am utterly surprised and I can't understand why hacked GH2 video looks better and more organic, to me, than the 4K from the GH5. Obviously the GH5 has more resolution, is sharper, has way better features, but there's gotta be a technical reason the GH2 videos look so filmic and more organic to my eyes?