Benjamin Hilton

From a promo I did recently with the GHA color on the interviews, you have to skip in a bit to see them: Funny thing, I was in a meeting a little while back with the Director of a really big TV station in the States and was showing him a video I did using the GHA color, while watching it he turning to me and asked under his breath, "you shoot on Red, right?" I took it as a really big compliment I must say😉

@Sage might have better info on this, but from my experience, the 1080 out of camera vs 4K downscaled to 1080 in post are nearly identical, something very rarely found. I shoot 4K for most projects still as I have the processing capabilities and want to future proof. But if you aren't concerned about it, 1080 is very wonderful out of the GH5. On the advantage side, 1080 out of the GH5 gives 60p in 10 bit, and a more bang for your buck bitrate. I've been using this GHAlex process for quite some time now, and couldn't be happier with it. I feel like it gave the GH5 the soul it was missing.

That's right, the bitrate will always determine your file size, no matter what codec you use. The codec just decides how efficient the bitrate you use is for the video, meaning 10mb/sec will look much better in h.265 as compared to h.264 as it is more efficient.

You should be able to set a maximum bit-rate and calculate the size based on the video length. Meaning a 500MB = 4000mb = 22mb/sec for a 3 minute video

This is really good to know

One feature I found really useful with Adobe Audition is the retime feature for music, where the software takes a look at the track and cuts it down to the desired length using AI I think. I've used it for years and had really good results with it. I'm in the process of switching our post over to Final Cut instead of Adobe and am wondering if anyone has found a feature like this in any other software that works usably? I don't think I can justify keeping a monthly subscription for Audition just for this one feature...

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried Handbrake and it is definitely slower than Media Encoder, but great final output! Might just work for me...

Hey all, I'm in the process of switching editing software for our company from Premiere Pro to FCPX. I really liked Premiere, it has the bases of our workflow for many years now. Our main issue was stability, just so many issues over and over again with no sign of improvement. I've cut two projects in FCPX over the last couple of weeks and really enjoyed it! I feel like my editing speed has gone up due to the flawless performance of the software and I really get this feeling like FCPX just gets out of the way of my editing...revolutionary I know. My main question is what conversion software do you guys use? I am used to the abundance of options available in Premiere Pro for rendering that are lacking in Final Cut. I could drop the $50 for compressor, but just wondering if that is the best option. Anything better/cheaper for encoding/conversion etc.?

Great work, this is such a fun idea. I wanted to enter so badly, just couldn't make it work time wise right now with my job. Hopefully if we do a round 2 at some point I can find the time to enter.

I think the score for the mk ii was less sharp than the original in official chart tests

That's a valid point. With having the GH5 as an A cam right now though, these lenses really don't do me much good without a speedbooster, meaning I'm really only interested in seeing how they perform in combo with a speedbooster and GH5. Lenses look very different depending on which sensor you pair them with.

So I've been curious recently. I've been shooting with the GH4/5 Canon L 24-105 Metabones speedbooster for a good couple of years now, and have been pretty happy with the usability, color etc. One problem though, I don't think my images are as detailed as they could be. Digital sharpness is there, kind of native to the GH processing, but the detail seems lacking. I've always put this down to the compression of my final render output, but I think there is something else going on. I assumed the 24-105 would be tack sharp, even at F4 as I've never seen anything amiss with DSLR photos and this lens combo. So, I did this quick test yesterday, comparing different focal lengths of the Canon to some Leica Primes, and also the Helios 56mm I believe it is. Nothing too scientific, just a quick cycle through apertures pointing at the same background. The focus point is the same double checked for each lens, and the exposure was just eyeballed using shutter speed to keep ND out of the equation. The Helios isn't too helpful for comparison as it couldn't focus far enough to match the other lenses, so take that one as you might. To add even more confusion, I labeled the Canon by the F number on the back of the GH5 screen (after the speed booster stop gain) and the Prime lenses are labeled by what was marked on the lens. So the F2.8 on the Leica would really be closer to a F1.9 after the speed booster, as compared to the Canon F2.5. Anyone have any experience with these lenses or thoughts on the test or sharpness in general?

That would explain your two in every three frames then, must have been 60fps.

what frame rate were you shooting? It sounds like you were shooting at 48fps and it that were the case the duplicated frames would be because the shutter is opening at a slower pace than your sensor is capturing frames; thus duplication.

The first Cine Like D profile should work great, good all arounder. The only adjustment I would say is to maybe bring the saturation down to -2, helps prevent color clipping, especially in the red channel. Another good profile for day usage is: Natural, contrast -2, sharpness -5, NR -5, Saturation -1, and a +1 on the shadow curve. It is pretty much the same dynamic range as Cine like D, but with better color and highlight roll off. Just DON'T use it in low light, Natural applies some kind of weird noise reduction even with NR all the way down.

Great options, I'll check them out. Money to burn is relative to the project you are working on? . Not for hobby work.

Hey all, I DP a lot of shorts and documentary work and mainly use LEDs and old tungsten lights for most of what I do. I own an assortment of LED lights including the Aperture Light Storm and some custom built rigs that I use quite a bit on films. My main problem is the lack of brightness punch that these lights give. I understand they are not really meant to replace HMIs, but my problem is that I work overseas a lot in places that I can't rent HMIs very often. My main question. Are there LEDs on the market that pack enough punch to take the lead role in lighting short films? Something that could replace, (or get close to replacing), a 1200W HMI? Even a 650W? I understand I'm not going to find an LED 18K equivalent yet...maybe one day? Just something bright enough for indoor daylight keys, bounced off of muslin or something. Or, any other ideas as to high-output lighting without HMIs?

Brilliant!

Agreed! Although we did have a sound professional on set... just didn't have cameras that supported timecode in. The joys of DSLRs

Finding the first word will help you. After that, learn the keyboard shortcut for nudging clips to the right and left. (on my machine in Premiere Pro its Command+arrow left or right) Then, play back the audio nudging your sync clip to the right or left one frame at a time until the sync feels right; premiere can normally do this in real time. I've had to do this for several TV shows, hours of pre-content, hundreds of clips to sync, and the major wind they were shooting in on some mountain tops totally messed up the scratch mics...pretty much had to do it totally by hand. Just be grateful you only have to do two interviews. ?

I think we need to stop looking at numbers so much and start focusing on results. The effectiveness of codecs and bit depth totally depend on the sensor and processing. My old Sony FS100 shot 1080P at 24mb/sec 8 bit and looked fantastic! The GH5 on the other hand, looks terrible at 24mb/sec 8 bit. The Sony Alpha cameras can look great at 100mb/sec 8 bit with S-log 2 and such, but the GH4/GH5 V-log 8 bit does not. The GH5 was really built to shoot V-log at 10 bit, end of story. It also does Cinelike D and Natural profiles great in 8 bit if you want, just depends on the look you are going for. Try the internal codecs, if you aren't getting the results you want, try a recorder. Rent a camera and do some tests. Know the look you are going for, and find a camera, lens, and color profile, that can effectively capture that look. Here are some screenshots from a short film I just directed. GH5s, Leica R primes, and the lowly internal 10 bit codec of course...?

I have shot extensively with the GH5 cameras over this last year and I can confirm that there is a night and day difference between the internal 8bit 100mb/sec and 10bit 150mb/sec in V-Log. Even using Cine-Like D is a big difference. If you are shooting natural or rec 709 though, the 8bit 100mb/sec holds up great. It just depends on what you are shooting. S-log 2 is made to hold up with Sony's 8bit codecs, V-log is not.

I guess the beauty of the FS100 sensor was really pulled out with the Glencairn G Log Profile, totally different camera almost than using stock profiles. More cinematic out of the box than anything I have been able to pull from any camera since, and I've shot with quite a few cameras. I've never used a C100 though, but I would imagine the ergonomics are quite a bit better. That is why I had to give up the FS100, just too big and awkward for the kind of doc work we do, wouldn't be bad for cinema shoots though.

No specifically. But, the F3 has the same sensor, so I assume the FS100 settings would carry over the same; that's what I was wondering...if the same settings would create a similar image on the F3.

Whoops, meant a6300 This is the link for the profile: https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/g-log-ultimate-1-0-picture-profile-for-the-sony-fs100/