Towd

In Premiere, I think both solutions will give you the same end result. I typically leave the import camera settings alone and just set the playback speed on the timeline. So for 60fps footage, it would be 40% for 24fps. Any time you are doing this, you want to be sure your time interpolation is set to "frame sampling" rather than "frame blending". Just another caveat, some cameras can record at one speed but set playback for another speed. (Red cameras do this.) So in those cases the footage will already be slowed down on a 24fps timeline, and if you want it to play back at normal speed you have to speed it up.

You are correct, if you are just going to run the footage shot at 60fps slowed down onto a 24fps timeline and you want to play back every frame, 180 is the best choice. I was describing a technique for shooting at 48fps or 60fps and then playing it back at normal speed on a 24fps timeline where every other frame is dropped, but with the option of ramping into slow motion. You seem to just be interested in running the footage as only slow motion, so in that case 180 degree is probably going to give you the most natural result. I've done a lot of work with high speed stuff shot at 96 and 120 fps, and we've found shooting with a 360 degree shutter helps reduce strobing when the footage is ramped to normal speed. So, I was just throwing that out there. But it is really only a concern if you are going to drop frames to play it at "normal" speed. Didn't mean to stir up confusion.?

If you are shooting at 60fps and know that you are going to be putting the footage on a 24fps timeline and running it at 40% speed so it plays at a "normal" speed, wouldn't it make more sense to shoot at at 360 degree shutter angle so your footage ends up at least close to 180 degree? 360 * .40 = 144 shutter angle Also, if you want exactly a 180 shutter angle, but want the option of going to slow motion without using software in post, you could shoot at 48fps with a 360 degree shutter and slow by 50%. This would remove every other frame in your timeline and give you exactly a 180 degree shutter angle. Granted these solutions will give you a 360 shutter angle when you go slow motion, but if the vast majority of your footage is going to be normal speed, it would keep the shutter angle more natural for the majority of your footage. Slow motion is also a non-standard look, so having a 360 shutter angle on the slow motion sections is probably less of an issue than having a 90 or 72 degree shutter angle on you normal footage ( which is what happens if you run 48 and 60 fps footage shot with a 180 degree shutter angle on a 24fps timeline). Am I missing something here?

There is a lot I like in what I'm seeing with this camera. And the skin tones look pretty solid in torchlight and daylight. Hopefully the rolling shutter isn't too bad even if it takes going to the crop mode to control it. I just absolutely hate dealing with stuck pixels. So hopefully you are right and it will be fixed for the final release. Just something that really popped out to me even if it was being shot at high ISOs. I may wait until I see some more tests before pulling the trigger. But nice to see some Z6 footage.

That's some impressive looking footage, but there looked to be some serious stuck white pixels in the night shots. I hope they get that ironed out in the final version. It's such a PITA to have to kill those in a lot of shots. Giving me flashbacks from the 5DmkII.

My bad Hyalinejim. I was not trying to specifically reply to you. I think you should get post of the month for your work here, and you obviously know what you are doing. I just see a lot of replies from people who seem to be looking for help at finding a starting place when working with V-Log. So, what I meant was that the Arri LUT generator is nice for getting near Rec 709 and playing around with rolloffs, but its not going to be as precise as Panasonic's LUT for getting to Rec.709 on a GH5.

I never see anyone mention this, but Panasonic actually has a Varicam LUT that can be applied to properly convert V-Log footage to Rec. 709. I think its a really nice starting place for grading footage, and it will properly transform V-Log into the Rec. 709 colorspace. I see a lot of people grade by just applying custom S-curves or contrast to their Log footage with great results, but I'm a big fan of getting your camera data into the proper color space. I think its especially helpful for people new to color grading, since it gets them into a more recognizable starting place. The Arri LUT generator tool is also pretty cool especially for generating LUTs with soft roll-offs for shadows and highlights,. Your starting place is a bit off I think compared to Panasonic's LUT, but it's totally workable. They're both free and worth checking out: http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/varicam/35/dl.html http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/tools/lut_generator/lut_generator/ For those interested, Camera Labs put out some really nice ungraded footage to test these LUTs in their review of the GH5.

I don't want to derail the discussion about the GH5, but I hate seeing bad information out in the world, and just have to correct this. For all intents and purposes, as long as the focal plane of the camera is in an identical place in the world between shots with different focal lengths, the effect is mathematically identical to a crop from a larger FOV to a smaller one. In other words you can animate a crop on an image to recreate the effect of a zoom with a lens. The only things that could possibly be different would be characteristics of the different lenses, such as pin cushion or barrel distortion throughout the zoom. Of course there are going to be varying resolving differences depending on the technique used. For example a digital zoom is going to reduce pixel resolution, but an optical zoom is going to be affected by any resolving differences of the lens at different focal lengths. That said, if you took a theoretically "perfect pinhole lens" and performed a zoom it would be identical to to a crop on an image with infinite resolution. I've run into so many photographers who don't get this, but I think it's an important bit of information to keep in the back of your head while out shooting-- you can crop in on an image and it will have the same basic effect as putting a longer lens on your camera. What's neat about the GH5 is that trick doesn't seem to have much effect on the detail in the image, so it really effectively gives you two lenses which is very cool. Just as a side note, that Jaws effect is achieved by combining a move through the environment combined with a zoom or crop in to keep the subject in the same scale in the frame. The key to the effect is that the camera is moving and not in the same spot from the beginning to the end of the shot, so you are getting the parallax of moving the camera. In fact even before digital, they used to do the effect using optical printers in the same way in which we can crop a shot today.

It sounds like the G7 is the flavor of the month here on EOSHD, but just be really sure that you are okay with the limited dynamic range of the panasonic cameras. Personally, I have yet to see anything that has blown me away from Panasonic's prosumer line. I'm not a blackmagic guy, but in your price range if the best image possible is something that is important to you, they may be your best choice.

In my opinion a big downside to shooting 4k in the prosumer price range is the rolling shutter is typically much worse when compared 2k/HD. I personally find rolling shutter to be one of the most annoying aspects to shooting on cmos sensors. While nice to have, resolution probably falls somewhere after accurate colors, good dynamic range, bit depth/image fidelity, and a lack of difficult to repair artifacts such as rolling shutter, moire, or aliasing. Limited resolution really doesn't matter much to me and can be flattering in a lot of situations.

Yeah, this is just my point. Unless you want to fork over the money for a Red Weapon, you are going to be making a trade off. The trade off with the Raven is that you will be shooting using Red's 4.5k or 4k sensor size for your projects instead of the 6k size. I know for people who are used to shooting full frame or S35 this feels like a big trade off, but at least the FOV can be compensated for with lens and framing. It is a lot harder to fix bad color that was shot on an inferior sensor-- and many times can't be fixed. If you shoot with PL glass, spend another $5k and get the Scarlet-w. I sound like a Red fanboy and I'm not. I've just graded a lot of Red footage in addition to Sony, Canon, Nikon, GoPro, DJI, Phantom flex, and others. Red is just a very workable image that gives nice results. Same can't be said for some of those other options. Obviously, different tools for different projects, but I hate to see people write off a Red just because the sensor is slightly smaller than S35.

I think you are doing yourself a big disservice with this kind of attitude. Red is a great professional option. You can like it or not, but don't avoid it just because you think the sensor is too small. FWIW, if you shoot on a Red Weapon at 4k you'll be using the same sensor area as the Raven. From what I can tell, the same goes for the Red One or Red Epic. Red seems to keep its photo sites the same size across different sensors, so the exposure area only get larger as the resolution goes up. Just seems to be a Red thing. Personally, if the image that comes off the camera looks great, the sensor size is secondary to me. Just shoot with wider lenses and adjust accordingly.

I can see the third one affecting the cadence of an image and a jello'd frame is pretty easy to spot in fast motion. And its something that camera's like the Digital Bolex love to point out as a selling point for global shutters. Is #2 really a huge issue? I guess overly compressed footage would be softer and affect cadence to an extent, but that just seems like soft footage. I could see #1 being an issue if a camera recorded in 30 fps and then dropped frames to get to 24 fps. Or do some cameras possibly record at 48fps interlaced and then reconstruct frames? Seems weird and I'd be interested in seeing some real examples. I'm not calling BS because I believe its a real phenomenon to some extent with various cameras. I just wonder how visually perceptible it really is and to the extent it affects the NX1 if at all. Personally, the only cadence issue I've encountered is when uploading 24fps footage to Youtube and watching in dismay as it plays back at 30fps through frame doubling. Same for TV with some weird interlacing or frame doubling applied. Thinking along those lines, I'd imagine that the monitor the footage was viewed on would affect cadence as well. At 72hz you'd get 3 refresh cycles per frame where a 60hz monitor would give you alternating 2 and 3 refresh cycles per frame. I wonder if that would not be biasing an opinion.

First time poster. In regards to the Samsung NX1, I'm considering a purchase, but I'm a bit curious about your comment regarding "3. Unnatural motion cadence when panning or recording a moving subject (deal breaker)." Is this in reference to some form of extreme rolling shutter when recording UHD or 4k? I've seen that the 4k rolling shutter is pretty bad on the Samsung but its also not great on the Sony A7 series. However, the Samsung 1080p rolling shutter is one of the best among CMOS sensors. My thought is that during scenes with extreme action or during lots of hand held shooting, I could drop to 1080p to compensate. Or does motion cadence refer to something else? To my mind, something shot at 24 fps at 1/50th shutter speed should be pretty much the same across cameras unless rolling shutter plays a major role in what is perceived by the viewer. I'm very curious in regards to what people are referring to when they reference motion cadence. Seems a very nebulous trait of a camera and I'm very interested in what makes good cadence vs bad cadence that would constitute a deal-breaker for a certain camera.