Cary Knoop

The statement above does not make any sense. If you do not transcode a video file you don't have a proxy for it.

While selecting a YouTube video I got an add about an upcoming film scoring master class by Hans Zimmer. Anyone has experiences with similar or other masterclasses from this website or alternatives? Or any other advice? https://www.masterclass.com/classes/hans-zimmer-teaches-film-scoring?utm_source=Paid&utm_medium=YouTube&utm_term=Aq-Prospecting&utm_content=Video&utm_campaign=HZ&gclid=CjwKEAiA1ITCBRDO-oLA-q_n8xYSJADjBQfGL-BTirp1ROYnBZEL6gAy1mmytmNFbJ-d9QZvWUohUxoCD_rw_wcB Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Hans Zimmer whatsoever I am simply interested in the topic as my film scoring ability is rather sub par to say the least. .

Oops, you are right, my apologies to everybody, here are the correct files: http://caryknoop.com/original.tif http://caryknoop.com/denoise.tif

Settings were Natural -1, -1, -4, 0 with iDynamic. As any filter I believe it should be used in moderation, no filter can make massive improvements without harming other things. But a stronger DeBlock setting is certainly possible. -5 on the contrast will not give you a higher dynamic range, it will simply compress the luminance values. Obviously it was simply a shot demonstrating DeBlock, and in fact you are right I could have made the shot with a higher exposure without clipping. As you can see from the scope we have enough room for a higher exposure. And of course values need to be brought into legal range.

Here is a sample original video frame and the same frame that is processed by DeBlock with a moderate setting. http://caryknoop.com/original.tif http://caryknoop.com/denoise.tif

I experienced that by using the DeBlock function in VapourSynth the number of macro block artifacts on 4K sources is diminished.

Well think about it, the contrast setting changes the luminance values only, it does not change the actual dynamic range. So what you effectively do is compress the number of possible luminance values. That information is lost it cannot be uncompressed in post. Similarly for saturation you compress the UV vector. So what would be the point? I really do not see the point in lowering sharpness, I cannot spot any edge enhancement effects on the GX85, -1 seems harmless so I put it on -1 but I do notice resolution loss when sharpness goes down. With respect to noise I do set it to -3 (and -4 with high ISO). The noise reduction of the GX85 seems to be dynamic as it really kicks in at higher ISOs and I find this noise reduction unpalatable, to me the results almost looks like a water color painting, I prefer being stuck with a noisier picture. However noise and the ability to compress effectively is of course a trade off for we only get 100Mb/s. The GX85 codec does provide illegal highlights so it is very important in post to bring them at legal values first otherwise you run the risk of clipping your highlights. I like the Natural profile and use iDynamic at the Standard level.

No kidding? I think that is a sure way to completely mess up your video quality.

Exactly!

It appears you are wrong: http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_0/hdmi_2_0_faq.aspx You can do 4K@60 with 4:4:4 8bit, or you can do 4K@60 with 4:2:0 10bit but for 4K@60 with 4:4:4: 10bit you need DisplayPort.

I would love to be corrected but it is my understanding that you cannot do all those three things at the same time over HDMI but you can over DisplayPort (which is not available for this model). Still it looks like an interesting TV/monitor.

I think that content providers should always aim for the best available quality and resolution, after all content is made for the future not just for today!

This may be your personal preferred style but I think that the colors way too flat.

For indoor you need good lights the rest will only make things even better. But without good light even a million dollar camera will still give you a bad results.

Manual, mostly 180 degrees but I am flexible. Aperture is most important to me and obviously depends on the scene.

The pixel density for a 40-43 inch 4k monitor is just fine. It is not huge at all and I would not go any smaller than 40 inch.

If true then this industry is in a sad state of affairs: Discrimination of people (students), stereotyping of people (lazy) and ostracizing people because they are critical (and no, i'm not talking about extremes like talking on set).

Jeez, North Korea looks mild in comparison!

i think that is a great idea(I have a 4K monitor myself). But I would make sure the monitor is: o Around 40 to 43 inch. o Able to handle 4:4:4 color @60fps I am waiting for an OLED monitor in the 40 to43 inch range which would be wonderful. For professional color grading in Premiere (or other NLEs) use a separate mastering monitor avoiding the OS and GPU.

Did you make sure you brought the highlights down to legal levels as the gx85 records out of range highlights. If not handled correctly you run the risk of clipped highlights.

In my opinion those settings will completely botch the video quality. The idea that compressing luminance values will somehow increase dynamic range is completely wrong in my opinion.

I would not recommend the Lumetri exposure slider. I would recommend instead ProcAmp. In ProcAmp reduce Contrast and Brightness but make sure Clamp Signal on the Scopes is off otherwise you cannot see if you clip the signal. Then after this slightly adjust the temperature in the Lumetri panel like so:

I think it is a wonderful lens and absolutely worth its money.

Let's not!