kye

Not bad but pretty hard to tell as not many shots with neutral lighting. It is, however, an excellent video to play a game of "spot the shots they did noise reduction on". YouTube LOVES footage without any noise, it has a party and you get fun things like this! or this: It makes sense that doing slow-motion in such an environment would give some noise, so no judgement there. The secret is to do NR to all the shots in post, then apply some grain over the top so all the shots are even. YT compression will clobber the texture of the grain, but it will prevent the banding. It would be interesting to see some RAW vs compressed shots of skintones in a controlled environment with pristine CRI and exposures.

Unfortunately I don't share your thought that everyone knows this. I've seen many conversations in the past, both here and elsewhere, saying that digital stabilisation / EIS will make IBIS and OIS obsolete. Perhaps it will, in action camera products, but not if you want to maintain a 180 shutter, as I would imagine the majority of people who shoot 8K RAW would be interested in doing. An additional factor that comes into play is the general lack of understanding about how these things actually work. Of course, we can't expect everyone who uses a product to understand how it works - none of us could ever use a computer ever again as they're now hundreds of times more complex than any person could ever understand - but knowledge is power and there are consequences to people not understanding some of these things. A lack of understanding about ISO limitations might cause someone to suggest that they can darken an image with aperture to get a deeper DoF and simply compensate by raising ISO. This is true but if their understanding of ISO is that "higher = brighter" then they're going to risk ruining an entire shoot because they didn't understand the limitation of the technology. Same with digital stabilisation. It does have a stabilising effect, just like raising ISO has a brightening effect, but it's not the same as IBIS or OIS, in the same way that raising ISO isn't the same as turning your lights up. Any time a conversation begins with a faulty understanding of reality, the danger is that it goes in strange directions that are misleading and outright wrong. There were many references in this thread to digital stabilisation being a substitute (or even an upgrade) for IBIS. Anyone who knows that OIS and IBIS are similar (which they are) might conclude from these comments that digital stabilisation can be a good substitute for IBIS and OIS. The fact that the tests presented included OIS and this was basically ignored in pages of discussion is misleading at best. There is something magical about ARRI colour. It is magical in both its RAW form and in the Prores files from it too. It is expensive though. There is magic from the older BM cameras (OG BMPCC and BMMCC) but in many ways these cameras are a PITA to use, and also limited to 1080p, which for many isn't enough. There is magic in the ML RAW files too, even when graded with a simple LUT. However, there wasn't magic in the compressed files. A couple of people have expressed that the compressed files from the latest Canon cameras have "clay" like skin-tones. Now, we know from the 5D3 that the RAW was great (thanks to ML) but the compressed files weren't, so we can deduct that the compression that Canon employ removes some of the image quality. My impression of ML RAW through Youtube compression was that it has this magic, but that normal Canon footage from the Canon you tubers does not. I then make the assumption that the lack of magic in the current Canon cameras is from the compression and image processing, rather than assuming their sensors have gotten worse since the 5D days. Maybe this is a faulty assumption, but I suspect not. In my experience heavy NR and compressed LOG profiles are generally what result in clay-like skin- tones. That leads to the idea that if you want to get great skintones from something like the R5C then you have to shoot RAW. No problems so far, good stuff, but it gives you a choice. You either shoot the full 8K RAW with the large file sizes, or you crop into the sensor which you'd have to compensate for in lens choices and more noise etc, or you shoot compressed codecs and lose the magic that is very likely to be present in the RAW. One way around that is to use an external monitor to get RAW out of the camera but compress it to Prores, which can (as ARRI and BM have shown) retain the magic within skin tones. That's it. That's the logic. My thoughts on the wider topic are this: Cameras are giving us more and more pixels, but less and less magic. In 2012 Canon released the 5D3, which had a sensor that captured magic (when paired with a hack). Also in 2012 BM gave us a quirky sub-$1000 camera with a magical image, but the magic was also in the compressed files. Now, a decade later, we have cameras that cost 3x, 4x, 5x, or more, the price of the OG BMPCC, but there is no magic. We have 16x the number of pixels in the image, but no magic. We have 120p, 180p, 240p, but no magic. Worse still, manufacturers have managed to brainwash us to not even expect magic. The entire point of cameras is to make people feel something. Images should be emotive. Colour is a great way to do that because it's subject agnostic. A CEO giving a quarterly update will have a substantially different effect on people emotionally if their skin looks radiant rather than pallid. This is something that matters. Sure Canon RAW might be similar to ARRI RAW, but (as you say) ARRI RAW gets professionally graded and Canon RAW doesn't. This is all the more reason for the compressed files to look just as great as the RAW. BM gave us this in 2012, after all. In this sense, cameras have gotten harder to get good colour out of instead of easier. But this gets us into the crux of the matter, which is GAS. If you're happy with what you have you stop looking at what else you can buy. If Canon implemented Prores and a colour pipeline that could keep the magic in the files, perhaps requiring a LUT to be applied in post, then people would be happy and not looking to upgrade. Lots of people who own a 4K RAW camera that they're not completely satisfied with would probably be interested in an 8K RAW camera. Almost no-one who owned a 4K RAW camera that made wonderful images would be interested in that same 8K RAW camera. The manufacturers are in the business of keeping you happy enough to buy but unhappy enough to upgrade as soon as you can. What do I own? I own a GH5 with manual and vintage lenses. I shoot handheld in available light in a verite style with no directing and no retakes. The IBIS and internal 200Mbps 1080p 10-bit ALL-I codec create a nice image that's easy to work with. I tested the 5K, 4K and 1080p modes with my sharpest lenses stopped down and the difference in resolution and sharpness was small and so the benefits the 1080p ALL-I files have in the rest of my post-production workflow outweighs that slight IQ bump. I am not happy with the colour science / DR of the GH5, and this is one of the weaknesses I hope the GH6 fixes. I am also not happy with the low-light performance of the GH5, which I also hope the GH6 will rectify. I own a GX85 and GF3 for pocketable fun projects. These are paired with vintage, manual, or lenses like the 12-35/2.8 and the 12-60/2.8-4 that I plan to get to replace the 12-35. I own the BMMCC, which I bought as a reference for its magical image and colour science. I have done dozens of comparisons with it and the GH5 trying to emulate the colour of the BMMCC with the GH5. I haven't gotten perfect results, but I have learned a lot and still have much to learn. Being able to do side-by-side tests is the only real way to compare two cameras if you plan on really learning about how each of them works and how to get the best of both. In theory the 10-bit from the GH5 should be bendable to the colour science (but not the DR) from the BMMCC, but I'm yet to really nail it. I own the OG BMPCC, which I bought as a small (pocketable!) cinema camera to use for fun projects. Turns out the screen isn't visible with my polarised sunglasses (a terrible design decision) and isn't really visible in bright conditions anyway, requiring an external monitor, and negating the point of the camera over the BMMCC. The GX85 was the replacement for this and I'm just yet to sell it. What do I recommend? I recommend people point their cameras at interesting stuff. Assuming they're already doing that, I recommend that they study and increase their skills in story-telling, directing, lighting and production design, composition, editing, colour grading, music and sound design and all the creative aspects of film-making that are relevant to what they do and the roles they play. I recommend people practice and get as much experience with things. So many people on social media ask questions that they could answer themselves. So many more people on social media endlessly parrot things that "everyone knows" but are actually outright bullshit. I've lost count of the number of times I've read something, questioned it, done a test myself in an hour or two, and realised that this "common wisdom" is actually just flat-out wrong. I recommend that if a problem can't be solved by learning more or working around it (one of the reasons to practice and try things yourself) I recommend that people spend money on basically everything except their camera. Lighting, modifiers, grip, supports, audio, and lenses are far better upgrades than cameras, most of the time at least. In terms of cameras, which I know was what your question was actually about, I recommend that people truly understand their needs. Everyone wants the perfect camera and there isn't one and there never will be one. This means that in order to get the camera with the fewest compromises you have to work out what your priorities are, then starting at the bottom start removing them until you're left with a list of just your top priorities that can be met by a camera. I would suggest that existing lenses and other ecosystem factors would probably be high on this list for most people. My philosophy is that you miss all the shots you don't take, so priority #1 is getting a setup that you can use. Fast primes might be great, but if you film in the remote wilderness and can't carry the gear there then it's game over, pack lighter. If you need to shoot fast then primes won't work either - ENG cameras had long zooms for this reason. Would ENG footage have looked nicer if they could have gotten blurrier backgrounds or if there was better low-light performance? Sure. But primes were never going to work, and a lens that weighed 20kg/44lb was never going to work either. Priority #2 is having the equipment allow you to get the best content in your shots. For me size is a factor here. I regularly shoot in private places (like museums or art galleries etc) where professional cameras aren't allowed. I could afford a medium-sized cinema camera but I'd get kicked out of those places in a heartbeat. I also appreciate not hassling people around me with a large camera, and I don't appreciate the unwanted attention that it brings. For me, a GH5, lens, shotgun mic and wrist-strap is about as large as I'm willing to go. Priority #3 is having the nicest images come from the camera. This is why I use vintage and manual prime lenses. I want my images to look as cinematic as possible. Not because it's cool, but because it suits the subject matter and aesthetic of what I shoot and the effect I want them to have on my audience. It also makes me happy to shoot, and it's pretty obvious that I enjoy the technical aspects of it as well, so this is part of the experience for me. I prefer the look of a vintage lens with IBIS rather than a modern lens with OIS. I like the lack of clinical sharpness that vintage and manual lenses give me, because, once again, this suits my target aesthetic. This forum spends lots of time talking about this level - the image from the camera. It spends less time talking about the practicalities that are associated with those choices (priority #2) and even less time talking about Priority #1. Worse still, we spend basically zero time discussing aesthetic, which is what the whole imaging system is designed around. It's just assumed that more resolution is better and sharper lenses are better, etc. I have the distinct impression that the people here who could actually talk about their aesthetic, what the emotional experience of that aesthetic is designed to be, and how their equipment and process is designed to maximise this.

It sounds like you're set on a point-and-shoot and seems like you have a budget range to work with. I'd suggest doing some reading and working out what the options are. Any good review of the ZV-1 will list a few competitors, and their reviews will list more. Build a list, read about each of them and eliminate any that don't meet your preferences, then search to find low-light tests and simply compare them. A few hours with google should give you at least a pretty good guess about what your best option might be.

Do these people even still make videos? Here's a thought...

Great stuff. I'll be buying something similar (although I'd be fine with a 1080p one) for use as an external display for Resolve using the UltraStudio Monitor 3G device that outputs HDMI and means that you can monitor your timeline from Resolve using the native resolution and frame rate from your timeline, plus bypassing the OS colour management malarkey so you can calibrate it properly. I'd be using that for video production while travelling. You know, once that actually starts being something a sensible person can integrate into their life once again.

I have just re-read all your posts in this thread. Your expectation is that you're combining digital stabilisation with OIS, but you don't mention it - you just keep talking about digital stabilisation without talking about the whole picture. This eliminates a huge number of people using either vintage lenses, cinema lenses, or third party lenses. Let's review your comments. I've bolded the relevant sections. Digital stabilisation mentioned without mentioning OIS. Then @Video Hummus posts an OIS + digital stabilisation test but only mentions digital stabilisation: In a sense, yes, it might be the future. Perhaps as manufacturers try to lock everyone in to buying their expensive OIS lenses and lock out older glass through their normal anti-competitive behaviour. Typical for Canon and their cripple hammer - perhaps the only IP they don't make you pay for. "More stable footage without the need for a fast shutter". I'll help you expand this statement..... "More stable footage without the need for a fast shutter but absolutely needing to use OIS lenses lest your footage look like you are having a seizure of some kind" Yes, yes it should* (Note, this requires the OIS used in the test. Hopefully this fine-print will protect me from misleading people that the things I didn't mention aren't actually needed. Wow this is cool, I can imply things without mentioning them!) Also, you can film a high-end TV show on a potato* (Note, you also need millions of dollars, a professional writer, preproduction consultants, production done by a large studio with dozens of staff on set and in the production office, millions of dollars of equipment and facilities, and engaging multiple post-production houses to edit, grade, mix, and master the show. See - now my statement is totally true, I just failed to explicitly mention these things but I'm totally sure that no-one would be mislead by my original statement) You mean that test that involved OIS? Did you know you can film a high-end TV show on a potato? It's definitely true and I'm definitely not misleading anyone by leaving any information out of that statement. You didn't write that one replaces the other? Maybe that's true. I also never wrote that you can film a professional looking TV show on a potato. Check it. I never said that exact combination of words. Do you know what straw-man argument is? You mean the one with OIS? ....with an OIS lens. ....if you use an OIS lens.

Well, we don't know that yet. For all we know they could have developed some killer sensor in secret and it might have just kept the 5K resolution from the GH5 but have 5k500, 4k750 and 2k1200 fps or something. It might have a Dual Gain (not dual ISO) architecture like the Alexa sensor and output 14-bit LOG with huge dynamic range. It might pull some other rabbit from the hat. Who knows. MFT certainly isn't suited to the resolution race due to the pixel size required, so maybe they'll go huge in some other way?

Yes, the layout absolutely matters. The Beatstep Resolve Edition comes in different resolutions and you have to use the right one. When you start it up it does an initialisation routine that resets the layout and puts Resolve into Full Screen mode. I don't find it that much of an imposition but if you'd moved the windows around (in the Colour page) a lot then that might be an issue for you perhaps. Depending on your screen resolution you might not be able to adjust the Colour page that much though. I run Resolve in three ways: on my laptop using only the laptop display, so viewing the clips/timeline in the GUI on my laptop using only my UHD panel, so viewing the clips/timeline in the GUI on my laptop using an external monitor as a "Clean Feed" and only using the GUI for controlling things I heartily recommend the latter "Clean Feed" option if you have an external monitor you can use. It's how you set things up if you have a BM hardware device (which I have just ordered and would recommend) but you can also do it with just a normal dual monitor setup through the menus - I think it's called something like "Clean Feed" - but you just choose which monitor it goes to. It's a great way of working. It's a tricky one as these things are absolutely worthwhile if you're billing your time, but hard to justify if it's only a hobby. As there isn't one controller that does Editing and Colour it seems like the more controllers you get the more you're forced into the studio system way of working where each "page" in Resolve is done separately, rather than jumping around as I tend to do while I'm exploring and shaping the material.

I suspect that engaging those magnets takes a reasonable power draw. Fine for a few seconds but it might be more than the battery is even capable of outputting. There are lots of circuits that take huge power for a short burst and so they charge a capacitor prior to the operation and then the capacitor provides the burst. Even if they didn't do that, it might halve or quarter the battery life of the whole camera.

You cannot un-blur an image. This seems to be the fundamental thing that you're getting stuck on. There are billions of dollars waiting for the company that can process an image and restore detail. Law enforcement would be using it the way it's shown in the movies, but it's just not possible. Digital stabilisation occurs AFTER the blurry frame has already been acquired. and if that frame is blurred, there is no way to un-blur it. It doesn't matter if the digital stabilisation is being done in-camera, in Resolve, in-country, or in-cognito, the only place this is possible is in-fantasyland. You have simply read one post of mine and forgotten the context of this discussion. Go back and read it again if you want to understand what I was talking about. The ProAV used OIS. OIS is similar to IBIS in that it stabilises during the exposure. I've only been talking about Digital Stabilisation ONLY in these comparisons. Here is the video again - you seem to have mis-read the title. Plenty of people are using lenses without OIS, which is why IBIS is a useful feature. In the test video I did all the motion in the shots was relatively consistent, so the frame blurring was moderate. If you're walking or doing something with large sudden movements then those frames would be particularly blurred, so maybe that's what you're seeing? Maybe you're seeing something else. I remember the A6300 and A6500 had IBIS problems where the IBIS would jitter about and even go haywire and flick up and down at full-speed, almost threatening to tear themselves apart. I think they fixed it with a firmware update. The other elephant in the room here is that a lot of people have gotten used to the video look and the look of poor colours. There also seems to be a huge number of Canon fans who treat Canon colours and looks as the pinnacle, so when you say there's a problem they cannot understand it because Canon is literally the definition (in their minds) of what is good. If you bring up the image from an Alexa then they just dismiss you because all expensive cameras are in a parallel universe and therefore do not apply. Never mind that the 'standard' has gotten worse or should show some problems - that's simply not possible, and how dare you to even suggest it. I have been talking this whole time about comparing digital stabilisation ONLY to using some form of OIS or IBIS. That's what my test showed. Plenty of people shoot with lenses that don't have OIS, which is why the lack of IBIS matters. I'm not aware of any camera that has IBIS and a sensor lock feature? Maybe it's difficult to implement? In terms of producing cameras with both, I think the film world is far larger than it looks, and by only hanging in forums with mostly videographers and amateurs it can seem like our needs are common but I suspect they're not. I suspect the vast majority of people would either shoot locked down, or if they needed hand-held stabilisation would just use a gimbal or steadicam. I am on a number of forums and lists etc that are mostly populated by industry pros and from their perspective a wedding or corporate videographer is about as professional as a 12-year old who streams Minecraft. Their definition of professional (and therefore who cameras are made for) is people working within the studio system, where shoots are on sets with many people and heaps of equipment, different companies will be handling production and post-production, and they're all essentially specialists in a huge production-line of content. The reason I mention this is because when manufacturers want to talk with customers to understand their products, they don't talk to someone who is a solo-shooter, they talk to Roger Deakins, or Walter Murch, or <insert member of the ACS or other professional association here>. Those people might not have even HEARD of IBIS.

Regardless of how you implement it, there are two fundamental principles: it happens after the frame has been exposed you can't un-blur an image Therefore, IBIS / OIS = frames not so blurry, Digital IS = frames hella blurry

It shifts, scales, and rotates each frame to make them line up. That's it. It's probably simpler than the exposure triangle.

Yes. Interesting solution. It's another example of where there's hardware and software that control the mouse and keyboard to operate Resolve. You can see it when he adjusts the power-window - the mouse is skipping around. It's based on ControllerMate, which is one of the pieces of software that the Beatstep Resolve Edition also uses. If you were interested I'd suggest doing a price comparison between the two options as they seem broadly similar in price, although the functionality of the Beatstep looks to be significantly more expanded.

You know, I'm really looking forward to someone talking about the shutter speed on the R5C. I mean, how does it work? I know that the numbers are similar to other cameras, but I don't want to make any comparisons that get different results. You've really opened my eyes about that, I mean when you take the exact same technology and take it from one device to another how can we really be sure that the fundamental principles will be the same? Does a shorter shutter speed give a darker image, like on every other camera ever made, or is it different, maybe it gives a lighter image? Maybe the colours start to go strange? Maybe people who are happy get brighter? How does the rotation of the earth factor in? I wouldn't want to make a comparison that will give different results all around. and what about ISO? Are higher numbers better? Does it go up and down? Maybe the even numbers are good? Once again, every other camera ever made works in the same way, but can we really compare? I mean, what do we know about anything anyway? None of us has ever used an R5C. Maybe the images are from another camera and it's a hoax? How can we know it really exists? How can we know anything? Are you real? Am I even real?

Here is the GX85 compared to the ZV-1 The camera is bigger but not by much, and the sensor is significantly larger. If you put a small lens on it then it wouldn't be that big. Here it is with the 12-32mm kit lens. Obviously the ZV-1 or a point-and-shoot would be smaller and easier to use, but you said you wanted better low-light and I'm not really sure how much better it would really be. I appreciate having a camera that's fast to use, but in reality it's about how prepared you are, how familiar you are with the camera, and how good you are at planning and anticipating things rather than reacting. I shoot travel with a GH5 using manual lenses and I can be holding the camera in my hand by my waist, see something, turn it on while bringing it up to my eye, manually focus while adjusting composition, and be recording in only a few seconds. I've changed my process to actually hit record before I have focused the lens so that the first frame in focus will be in the file and usable in the edit. If you're using this thing as a b-camera then I'm imagining: You have another camera that you're setting up At least one of these is on a tripod (you're not holding both at the same time I'm assuming) Adding a few extra seconds to the process of hitting record on your second camera doesn't sound like it's really that big a deal? A GoPro is fixed focus, auto-everything. A GX85 with a manual lens could be set to a specific distance and taped in place, and the camera itself can be set to auto-everything. Both would require you to turn them on and hit record. Maybe the GoPro does it in one button press and maybe the GX85 requires you to turn the knob and then hit the record button, but I can't imagine that's somehow going to make any significant difference. Sadly, most "what camera" questions don't have a good answer because there is no camera that meets peoples requirements, so it's about understanding what you're doing enough to understand which criteria matters least and must be sacrificed in order to have any options at all. I could be wrong, but it seems like this might be the situation you're facing here.

Thanks. I was pretty sure that I was explaining it ok. Maybe the reactions to a relatively straight-forward topic has revealed how Canon manages to sell its crippled cameras? Bizarre. I am literally speechless.

I think there are really two paths forward, the addition of mind-bending specs or just doing a solid upgrade and rounding out the whole package. The A7S3 did the latter - it didn't up the resolution or any major features but just became a better all-around package. I'd be happy with a GH6 that was a GH5 with the weaknesses remedied. The GH5 was a workhorse with some weaknesses so I guess we'll see.

I'm also a bit confused as to what "similar sized" means, because a GoPro and ZV don't seem that similar to me...

I think the answer to your question is probably that there is no camera that meets your requirements. Any camera that is "something similar, in term of size" to a GoPro will have a small sensor and therefore poor low-light performance. If you want better low-light performance from a larger sensor then that means that the depth of field will be shallower, which means that you'll have to focus the lens, which I thought violated your "fast use" criteria. I don't really see the problem of having an interchangeable lens - you can simply install a lens and then never take it off. Almost every camera with a significantly larger sensor will have an interchangeable lens. Cameras with larger sensors that don't have interchangeable lenses will likely have zoom lenses with very large zoom ranges, making them physically much larger and giving shallower depth of field which makes them require focusing from shot to shot.

IBIS = blur reduction, Digital Stabilisation only = no blur reduction

The digital stabilisation was done in Resolve, which has better digital stabilisation than ANY camera will EVER have, because Resolve can see into the future and cameras can't. IBIS / OIS stabilises DURING the exposure of each frame, digital stabilisation does not and therefore the frames will have motion blur. I don't understand how you could watch that comparison and still genuinely think that one can replace the other. I'm sorry if this is rude, but I just literally can't understand how you could see it and not understand it. The IBIS means that the frames are all sharp, the digital stabilisation has frames that are blurry as all hell. I shoot very unstable handheld footage all the time and stabilise digitally in post and this whole thing has been obvious to me from basically day one.

Well done everyone... you inspired me to shoot a little test to show why Digital Stabilisation can't replace OIS / IBIS. @Emanuel - this is the video that should end the debate. Digital stabilisation can be great, but only if there is very little motion and only if you have short shutter speeds. I'd encourage everyone to realise that Digital Stabilisation is just DIFFERENT to OIS or IBIS. It's a different tool for a different job. I often use digital stabilisation on my IBIS footage and it can work really well. Hopefully this clears things up?

I'm not aware of any way to check focus while recording, and the GH5 is my main camera. If you used an external monitor then it would be a standard feature on all those I'd imagine, although if it was an external recorder then you'd have to look at the functionality of that device. It's really dependent on how you shoot. In terms of the GH6, who knows. The precedent set by the GH3,4, and 5 was that it leapfrogged the competition and really stood out. I'm not really sure how the GH6 could do that against the current crop of cameras, but maybe they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat.

Interesting. Does what you describe above still apply for ML RAW files "developed" with the Arri LogC to 709 LUT in third party ML applications, or exported as CinemaDNGs and processed in the Resolve Raw Panel? Or just when developing them with Adobe products?

@BTM_Pix Got it working and it doesn't do anything in the Cut and Edit pages - just in the Colour page. Bummer. I'll have to re-think my workflow. Currently my workflow is to pull selects into a timeline and rearrange appropriately to make an assembly, then duplicate the timeline and add music and cut ruthlessly, touching up shots I like as I go. Then I'll continue cutting and refining, and at some point I'll go across to the Colour page and do a "proper" colour session where I do primaries and secondaries etc. The advantage of that is that approach is that I only colour grade the shots that survive a couple of passes, and I only really go to town on the Colour of shots that are basically in the final edit. The downside is that it involves lots of trips to and from the Colour page during the editing process, which means I have to change from the Speed Editor to the mouse and keyboard and back again. The alternative would be to do a colour pass on all the footage in the assembly, but it would result in lots of work for shots that get culled early. It's interesting that the officially supported panels have the same Colour-page-only limitation as the Beatstep. I also noticed that the Printer Lights don't work in the Cut or Edit pages either. Hmmm.