kye

Varicam RAW is uncompressed DPX with an external unit. Source: https://na.panasonic.com/us/trends/raw-capture-varicam-lt-and-convergent-design-odyssey-7q They could go the FP route and just have uncompressed Cinema DNG files, but it's not particularly elegant. Panasonic and BM are both part of the L-mount alliance, and MFT is an open standard from Panasonic and Olympus, so in a way they're agreements, but Panasonic also supported external RAW with Atomos who are a competing ecosystem to BRAW / Resolve, so I would estimate that Panasonic and BM aren't secret best friends.

You'd assume it would be licensed from one of the existing RAW format patent holders, not a brand new format. Panasonic has worked with Atomos to get external Prores RAW, but who owns that patent? If it's Atomos then giving RAW support without having to buy an external recorder wouldn't seem like a desirable strategy for Atomos' perspective, although maybe they cut a big cheque? Or maybe it's not Atomos that owns the patent, or the rights to it? BM or RED seem equally unlikely.

Gentlemen, warm up your keyboards... remember, no imperfection shouldn't be blown completely out of proportion!

I've seen stranger things in the corporate world... Still, if you think they're all organised and rational, think about how well the camera offerings seem to match consumer requirements! 🙂 I'm hearing references to the Varicam, and that it might be high-end. At this point it could be anything!

The fact that a working man couldn't afford her seems to be feasible too...

If it was a last minute change then it must have been almost ready for launch anyway, which seems to fit considering they launched a camera basically without the lenses to go with it. So maybe the camera was ready and the lenses weren't (except for the F8 pancake) but it was the best option at the last minute.

Thanks. Things are always in the last place you look....

Where the hell is my flying car?!?!

I guess we'll find out in a few days. Still, inside baseball is fun sometimes - looking in from the outside.

Yeah, it's even got a tick-box that disables all the parts that can't be turned into a LUT, so unless I'm mistaken, there will be a zillion LUT packs based on FLC over the next years. Of course, with FLC part of Resolve, the market for LUT packs might drop considerably, as getting a film-like look is about to go from quite difficult in V18 to literally only a few clicks in V19. Part of me is a bit annoyed that FLC will make it so easy, because whenever I create a decent filmic grade it's not valued much anymore, but of course skills are always useful and I can adapt.

During the livestream around S9-gate Gerald mentioned he didn't have anything that he was reviewing but couldn't talk about, so depending on the accuracy of that claim and the timelines involved, maybe he doesn't have either. Wow, that seemed to go really fast! I guess it was just over 2 years ago, but still. Maybe the GH7 launch was what all the influencers were invited to in Japan, and like Dave said, they switched up the camera that was released for some reason. It would explain the audience and also the S9 not having the associated lenses also being announced at the same time.

I'm waiting for it to come out in theatres.

Yes, I was absolutely talking in the general sense. Accurate emulation of a particular stock is definitely a niche that exists, but I suspect it's a pretty narrow niche and one that is narrowing. I don't recall ever hearing anyone talk about accurately emulating the resolution / sharpness or the grain from one particular stock combination, these seem to be much more generic and adjusted to taste. With the new Film Look Creator tool paired with the new Colour Slicer in Resolve 19 (which is still in beta) I suspect that a lot of people who would previously have used specific LUTs or a 'proper' emulation plugin like Dehancer or FilmConvert will switch to the more generic but adjustable approach of the new features. We may never know, as I've heard from a few colourists in passing that the majority of projects have a print film emulation LUT somewhere in the pipeline, but that very few colourists will admit this, likely because clients are likely to focus on it and devalue the other 27 things the colourist did. Like how people think that nice photos are made by nice cameras and the photographer doesn't matter much.

It's an interesting notion. Actually, diffusion filters are probably quite a good match to the general characteristics of film. Film has an MTF curve that has a downward slope - ie, as the details get finer the contrast drops. This is unlike digital sensors that maintain contrast until they approach the pixel size and where either aliasing of the OLPF kicks in. Diffusion filters reduce local contrast by spreading the light around, and spreading more light a small amount than they spread it a larger distance, which would emulate the downward slope of film. Vintage lenses have a similar effect. I'd imagine this explains the preferences for vintage lenses, diffusion filters, and softening in post that higher-end productions favour.

You've got to be on top of your game to make predictions that stand up over time.. Just rebrand and shoot with iPhone 15... if you want to get serious then you can get fancy and rig with handle, SSD, NDs and USB power bank, but it's only weddings so no need to go nuts.

Prores is a constant bitrate per pixel, so 4K is 4x the bitrate of 2K. This is a good reference: https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/compare-50-intermediate-codecs/

To be fair, basically anything freaks out the MFT users at this point.

This is what I would do too. The next level in matching is to go through the Hue vs Hue, Hue vs Sat, and Hue vs Luma curves and tweak things to match there, paying particular attention to the Hue vs Hue of the skin tones. I'd be gentle with these, so if the curves looked too drastic I'd back them off to minimise the risk of breaking the image (although with cameras like these that's unlikely). Then I'd just save that as a power-grade and apply it if/when required in future. You do it once and have it forever basically. Even this is potentially unnecessary, as once you put on a global look over the whole project it will often obscure differences between cameras to the point they're not visible in context.

I'll start making popcorn.

People don't want to know that they're basically full of BS. That's why people don't go looking for new information unless it's to reinforce their existing views, will argue their position regardless of how ridiculous it makes them look, and why they get so emotional when challenged.

I thought internet fixing was illegal?

Good luck, and happy shooting!

The sticking point is that people don't want "filmic" looking images anymore. Everyone uses and abuses the word "cinematic" and it no longer has anything to do with what is being projected in cinemas, but rather it has come to mean overly sharp images with very shallow DoF and a heavy grade in FilmConvert or Dehancer where the mood of the grade has no connection to the story of the video (if there even is a story at all).

Sure, but I don't see this done on YT basically at all. Everyone chasing high-end images, and no-one willing to learn the basics.

In terms of the quality of the frame grabs, it will be down to the codec with more bitrate being better. I don't know if h264 or h265 or Prores would be better, but it would likely come down to the way that they render the very flat areas of the frame. All the codecs will prioritise the sharp and contrasty areas of the frame at the cost of the flatter areas, which potentially have huge macro-blocking issues. From this perspective, uncompressed or lightly-compressed RAW video would be highly preferable. Depending on what standards you have for your use-case, you might want uncompressed RAW only.