kye

As I have written about before, the best film-making advice I ever got was to try to the most contrast and saturation into my images. Once you can push really far then it's easy to not push as far, so it's like doing altitude training, and you don't know the limits until you hit them. As such, here's a very heavy grade of some night footage from the GX85 and 12-35mm F2.8 zoom. This shows just how far 8-bit 709 footage can be taken. It's not free from artefacts, but then again, I see grading issues semi-regularly on Netflix, so... SOOC: Grade: In terms of how far this is pushed, lots of films get into this territory.. I concentrated a lot on matching tones across shots and it was pretty fiddly at times, but I was pushing things. Realistically I think there's a bit more in the footage and the limitation is my grading. It's worth pointing out that this was done in Resolve 18, so no Film Look Creator, and no third-party plugins so no FilmConvert, no Dehancer, etc, so some of the things I did might not be the best tools. When Resolve 19 goes out of beta I'll be rocking the Film Look Creator and Colour Slicer etc, which I think will make this stuff so much easier.

Awesome stuff! The fact that the profile is fully supported in colour management pipelines really unlocks the potential of the camera, and if you are interested in stills and video then being able to pull the right frame from the video means you can capture The Decisive Moment without having to be HCB.

Depending on what you typically shoot, it might be a significant difference just because the DR for each is quite low by modern standards. I've run into DR limitations frequently because I tend to shoot a lot at sunset and also in uncontrolled conditions in full daylight where you have to choose between what is in sun and what is in shade.

Also, to add onto the very good points of @eatstoomuchjam, you likely have a display problem too. Most modern computer devices (and potentially lots of smart TVs too??) run a 60Hz display. This will display 30p and 60p image streams perfectly with equal spacing between each new frame, but put a 24p video on there and you get jitter because the display isn't updating at a whole multiple of 24Hz. Displays at 120p or 240p will not have this problem, or if you drive the display with a 24Hz input and have the display in the 24Hz mode. This is the primary reason that I own a BM Ultrastudio Monitor 3G - it drives your reference monitor with the exact frame rate and resolution of the timeline, without any jitter. I've compared 24p vs 30p vs 60p videos on a 60p display as well as through the Ultrastudio and there's a big difference - I prefer the 24p in both scenarios because it doesn't look so artificially smooth as 30p and 60p, but depending on what you value in an image and how you perceive motion, the jitter might tip the balance for you. Unless you've got a dedicated output driving the monitor in the timeline frame rate, you really can't say anything at all about each frame rate because you're not seeing them properly.

I'm up for it... GX85 the whole way. Probably with a heavy film emulation. Although it seems that grading images to look like anything other than a camera test generates zero interest.

I'd imagine that the ML folks would be pretty good at getting the RAW sensor readout, so the DR of each implementation should be the same as the RAW still images, so perhaps just look those up to compare?

Please provide a clear and objective definition for "not usable".

This is a good video summary where they tested various aspects to see what mattered.. However, as someone who actually uses Resolve on a low-end machine where I hit the limitations of it all the time, the two biggest points were: Different parts of Resolve (Edit page, Colour page, Fusion) use different aspects of the computer (CPU, GPU, RAM) Once your machine can edit smoothly on the footage / codec / timeline settings you have, getting a better spec only improves render times but doesn't impact your experience of using it

If you have a lot of dead time in your media, the other option is to split the original clips to cut out the good bits. IIRC ffmpeg has an option to split a clip into two pieces at a given timestamp, but there might be other programs that can do this too. This method doesn't re-compress the video and audio stream in the file so there is zero loss of quality.

Just watched this video from Jimmy on Film and it's right up there in terms of useful and entertaining content.. His examples were really convincing in terms of creating a realistic re-creation of different times of day: and that wasn't even the point of the video - it was just an example of the broader point he was making. He even included lighting diagrams etc. I don't normally post stills etc from videos, but this is an example of the highest level of YT content - it's a clear and simple explanation of an extremely powerful concept, it includes specific details such as diagrams and specific numbers (in this case colour temperatures) but is straight-forward and entertaining too. This is the stuff that really shows you how pathetic the rest of camera YT is.

I don't even think you need a tin foil hat, the energy sector is one of the largest and most powerful on the planet and everyone knew that movies and TV were/are a pretty good way of "guiding" people how to think about the issues of the time. Even if it wasn't influenced directly, nothing exists in a vacuum, and the politics of nuclear weapons and nuclear power were a pretty big topic with many passionate people on both sides trying to push the issue in their favoured direction by whatever means they have at their disposal.

I read some rumours it would have a fixed lens. Who knows, but if so it might enable them to optimise the lens in a way you can't do with an interchangeable mount. I also read it would be full frame. If so, the lens would be the big question. Maybe they'll release a new lens at the same time that is compact and a better compromise for these mercurial content creators.

I definitely always keep the originals, but it depends on what work you're doing and what you export. If you really want to reduce the amount of storage your footage takes up, one way is to use the (excellent) Media Management tool and use the Copy Only Used Media Files option to create a backup of only the files that you actually used in the project. If your source files are large RAW files then you could transcode them to a Prores file as a lower resolution source and delete the RAW files. Or you could even export a Prores HQ copy of your completed timeline to have a high quality copy of it, rather than an 8-bit h264/5 export only. Of course, all these things take time, and if time is money to you then it might just be easier to buy more hard drives!

Absolutely. I'm exclusively a MBP user because of portability requirements, but as my 2020 Intel-based MBP is able to edit the files I have, lately I've been investing in extras that live outside the MBP and therefore don't need to get re-purchased every time I upgrade.

BM has sample files for download. They're on these pages under the "Generation 5 Color Science" heading (different files are available for download on each page): https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursacine https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro

It would be great to be able to give a straight answer, but there are too many variables. Even something like the SSD option of the Mac model chosen might mean that it can or cannot do something. Going to Resolve, there are literally dozens of variables involved. Even if it's just 12K footage on a 4K timeline with a LUT - will Resolve be using Linear or Tetrahedral interpolation for the LUT? This matters as it's extra processing power required, etc.

Sure, but crucial for what? If it's the difference between being able to play realtime with a LUT for editing purposes or not then it's probably a critical amount, but that will depend on the timeline resolution. If you want to colour grade then some things need to be done at full timeline resolution and some things don't. Grading in front of clients is a specific need that some have and some don't have. If you're only grading with simple adjustments then that is very very different to doing intensive tasks like NR or any of the AI things. So, "critical" really depends on the application. For typing on these forums, I'd say no, but everything else is a question mark....

Further to what @eatstoomuchjam said, I think there are only three types of performance: it can't play ungraded footage realtime (ie, you can't edit with it) it can play footage realtime but can't do it with a heavy grade (ie, you can do some colour grading realtime) it can play footage realtime with a heavy grade (ie, it's reliable and you can colour grade live in front of a client) The spec required for level 2 should be researchable and BM would have made this pretty efficient I would imagine. The spec for level 3 is a "how long is a piece of string" question, depending on a ton of variables including timeline resolution and only you can answer it, but if you're going to be doing lots of heavy things like NR and spatial treatments on a 4K timeline then you're probably well into Ultra / Studio territory.

Further to this, I watched a few past videos from Blaine yesterday and this video (while quite chaotic) gives a bunch of pretty interesting examples of how using a Film Emulation of some kind combined with some of the basic Resolve tools can give quick but very effective results: Perhaps the most interesting thing about it is the way he treats Resolve.. he shows that if you know a few techniques then you can get in, make some good adjustments, get a great result, and get out, and move on with your day. It's sort of a rare counter-example of the impression that Resolve is finicky and takes hours and hours, which almost all other colour grading videos give, but isn't true. At it's most basic, you can just apply a LUT to every clip and then make basic adjustments in a node prior to the LUT on each clip and can get great results in a really quick way. This is the way that film-makers grade when they want a result, rather than the way that colour grading YouTubers grade when they're making a YT video about some nuance or other. The section from 5:00 on with the test shots shows that even if the shots weren't filmed well at all, you can get great results quickly with just a few quick techniques.

Cullen Kelly says that the grain and the halation are nicer than the previous separate OFX plugins, so that's promising if you're a connoisseur / picky 🙂

I recommend FilmConvert or Dehancer if people like the overall film look but don't want to learn to colour grade - it's a quick and effective solution. Resolve 19 has a new plugin called Film Look Creator included in the paid version that is like FilmConvert / Dehancer except it doesn't model specific film stocks but is designed to give a flexible overall film look. For most people it would be better than FilmConvert or Dehancer just for creating a nice look and not having to learn colour management etc.

Yep! Hey - you should look into colour grading! 🙂

Blaine Westropp is also killing it recently.

I think it's just creators responding to the searches people make. I suspect there are far more searches on "A7S3" than there are on "three point lighting" because if there weren't then why is everyone making equipment videos? It makes sense too. I've just gone down a rabbit hole of searching about the ZV-1, despite it only being idle dreaming about having a slightly smaller camera. Obviously I have searched for many things associated with skills, I've done far more searches that were equipment focused, and despite the fact I'm not in the market for a new camera, for those people who made those videos, a watch / subscribe on a video still counts.