kye

See my above example... the 10-bit is better than you think.

I've posted this before, but here's a clip I tried to push to breaking point, but it seemed pretty much unbreakable. This is the GH5 150Mbps 10-bit mode, so not even the 400Mbps All-I. When I was playing with ML raw I compared the 10-bit to the 12 and 14 bit modes, and although I could see a slight difference between the 10 and 12 if you pushed it hard, I concluded that 10 bits was enough for me. In terms of the GH5, the dual ISO is one feature that would be great to have, but the IBIS more than outweighs it, and in comparison to the S1H, the smaller size and cost more than outweigh it for me. Literally, if I became a billionaire tomorrow, the GH5 would still be the best camera available for what I do.

Considering the GH5 is currently winning, it seems that the answer to your question is "3". Or, put another way, 0.000821/day. ??? What is it about the GX9 that makes it 'faster'? I never really thought of the GH5 as slow...

......and I could keep shooting on auto ISO / auto SS and it would no longer look like I left my ND filters at home!

Maybe, but it would have been strange for me to say it all those years ago, when I only just now looked it up and learned what it meant!

Not sure about the quality, but Resolve comes with a Media Management engine built in. It's kind of hidden, but its super simple to use, and has all the cool codecs. https://***URL not allowed***/davinci-resolve-media-manager/

Meh... Kids want to be <insert the occupation of the tallest most impressive person they saw in the last 2 years here> when they grow up. All the kids that wanted to be astronauts when they grew up became accountants anyway, and once they make a few videos and meet the algorithm then they'll grow up to become accountants as well Same with anyone deemed 'successful'. I once had a very intelligent relative (who is a high-level manager in a small-medium sized business) tell me I should 'write an app and make a comfortable living off it' and I thought he was making a joke, but he wasn't. When I showed him the millions of apps on the App Store and told him that writing an app is like starting a business he changed his mind, but he genuinely didn't know. No-one makes a million TV shows or movies of people losing their savings for every movie or TV show about a dot-com billionaire. Of course it looks easier than it is.

You can, but adjusting it would be difficult and it's a subtle effect, so you'd have to do lots of tests and dial things in. I'd suggest just doing it in post. That way you can adjust it shot-to-shot if you need to. Most lenses are softer wide open and sharpen up, so having an adjustable approach (especially in post where you're already setup to evaluate and match shots) shouldn't add that much to a workflow. Although, the counter-argument to that is to go with a Pro Mist or equivalent, and you'll find that any effect you deliberately add will make the footage much more uniform and differences will be much harder to spot. But you can't adjust the effect, so buy wisely

Excellent question. I've been trying to peel the onion and get to the heart of things in my cinematic lenses thread, but I still have many more layers to go I think. When I did my big lens comparison I tried looking at how 3D each lens was. I put the lenses up on the screen, closed one eye, and looked at the image through a short PVC pipe so that I couldn't see the edges of the image, and I asked myself how convincing a 3D image it created. By only looking at it with mono vision it should have been a reasonable approximation of what the eye actually sees, and I made sure to evaluate the scene by only looking at the object that was in focus in the image, otherwise if you look around then the eye doesn't have to re-focus and the 'illusion' was broken. There were subtle differences between the lenses, but one overwhelming factor in this test was that if two lenses were at the same aperture (eg, 2.8, or 5.6) then the one with the slightly longer focal length had the advantage (eg. 58mm over 55mm, etc) This, of course, means that the aperture was slightly larger and the background was slightly more out of focus. I believe that there are queues that are genuine and that the people on here (and also real DPs doing real lens tests) who talk about it are genuinely seeing something. Unfortunately I'm not seeing it, so it's hard to do tests and get more insight. I'm very interested to see if there's anything new we can uncover.....

No one has used the phrase "out of focus areas" which I thought was quite common. Yup, wide aperture = faster SS

@kaylee don't stress... #GetBoke !!

I've had success matching softer lenses with sharper lenses (or matching a softer wide-open image with a sharper stopped-down image from the same lens). I'd recommend taking a blurred copy of the image and adding it on top with a small opacity, there will be tweaks to get it perfect but that should get you into the ballpark.

It would be interesting to see how many videos are sponsored and not declared. I've seen some (I don't think they were from Potato Jet though) but mostly they do this awkward "sponsor time" kind of insert which I just skip if it goes for more than a few seconds. I suspect that there's lots of people who don't like the inserts, because many channels now put a count-down timer or a progress bar up, which I think helps with the psychology of people sticking around (I find it makes it easier to skip lol). In terms of advertising, I'd prefer to be able to watch these guys get paid for creativity and have cameras advertised to me (or website companies, or music streaming services, or power tools companies) rather than be watching a nature documentary on TV and then have some person who sounds unhinged yelling at me that their furniture store is going bankrupt (again, for the 10th year in a row) and there are crazy bargains. In the end, someone has to pay. One of my favourite YouTubers Alex (a French guy who makes cooking and recipe videos) just started a series on making meatballs, and decided that instead of his normal process of learning the classic recipes, breaking them down, then perfecting them, the first video in the series ends with him getting on a plane to the US. I can't recall if that video was sponsored, but I don't think the economics of the ad revenue he gets from his videos enable him to fly to another continent for a week or two to meet other chefs and get glimpses into their kitchens etc. He did a series on pizza, where he went to Italy and filmed inside the kitchens of the best pizza places there. To me, the quality of the content makes the ad inserts worth it because it's better than the person that has to work a job and can't devote as much time and travel to it, and it's better than the content being interrupted for minutes at a time to be screamed at by crazy people about their bargains, or to have barely clothed people try to FOMO me into buying their slightly-better-but-100-times-more-expensive goods. The best solution would be to have a subscription network partly owned by the creators where the revenue model is by membership and it's ad-free, and we're starting to see these things with Makers Mob and Nebula, or on the free platforms with Patreon.

Roger Deakins (and others) might tell you what they know, to the best of their ability, but the problem is that the better someone is the more likely they have unconscious competence, and aren't actually aware of how they do what they do. It's full of "natural talent", "having a good eye", and "making it so it looks right". That's why teaching is a skill separate to the skills of what is being taught, and why someone can coach the worlds best in something - coaching is the skill of being able to teach someone else to do something you could never do.

Actually I think the Canadians are all about the one wheel (Matti, Peter McKinnon, etc) and the NY crew are still all about the boosted boards (Casey, Sara Dietchy, Sam Sheffer, etc). I think it's a case of NY having slightly different terrain and conditions. In Canada I don't see people commuting by EV, so the one wheel is better because for fun you can take it offroad and you don't have to carry it with you as a pedestrian, in NY it's about the commute and so it's about going fast on roads and I think the one wheel isn't so good at going fast. Here's a video showing Sams board collection and his total miles in Dec 2017 was 7722 miles. That's more than twice the distance from NY to LA. Personal EVs are a thing in big cities.

Potato Jet recently commented that the brand deals all have contractual clauses that say you can't reveal how much the deal was for. Here's a bit where he shows ad revenue and says you can't reveal sponsor deals:

Oh, I don't know... I thought the standard like for marketing was that every time a product is released it's both NEW and IMPROVED... ???

IIRC the tests i've seen showed that the Sony (the one they were testing anyway) was the most colour accurate of the bunch, more accurate than Canon, Fuji and the like. Of course, that's different to what is the most pleasing, and to that end, I agree that Sony doesn't do the best job. I have also seen some strange WB choices from Sony shooters in the past too.

No worries - many others say it that way and mean it. I mean what I say about not getting too attached to resolution too. We go to huge lengths to implement the 180 shutter rule, which takes our 8MP image (4K) or 2MP image (1080) and makes absolutely sure that whatever is moving is blurry as hell in almost every frame. Then we complain that the lens isn't tack sharp on a 50MP sensor at 1/10000s exposures. I find it strange that stills photographers are busy emulating the best still shooters, and we're into video but instead of following high-end cinematographers we follow the best stills photographers instead. Have a look at this post I made in the cine lenses thread again and see what the pillars of our profession (not a different but similar profession) have to say about lenses: What I take from these comments (combined with the various other tests that I've seen on these lenses) is that people want resolution but not too much of it. They want contrast but not too much of it. I think there's a huge disconnect between how a lens measures and how it looks, so that when we see measurements of a certain lens we screw up our noses, but when we watch TV or movies shot with that same lens at the same settings we don't have the same reaction at all.

DON'T COMPARE LENSES WITH DIFFERENT MAXIMUM APERTURES ON THEIR "WIDE OPEN" RESOLUTION!!!! You wouldn't compare a 50mm F0.95 at F0.95 with a 50mm F3.5 at F3.5 would you? The f3.5 lens would kill the faster one, but that's just ridiculous. Lenses sharpen up when you stop them down, and the Voigtlanders sharpen up very well when stopped down. Lenstip is the only site that has measured both in a way we can compare, and you'll note that the Voigt is behind the Leica on sharpness but not too much when you actually compare them at the same apertures - here's the Voigt: and the Leica: The Leica is sharper, but it depends on what you're looking for in a lens. For example, here is a comparison between the Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 at F1.4 (RHS curves) and the Samyang Xeen 50mm T1.5 (LHS curves). The Xeen resolution is abysmal, yet it's on B&H for USD$1795 and those who shoot with it found it fine, and it didn't seem to really be that bad in tests... The Xeen at T1.5: and at T4: It sharpens up sure, but you're hardly looking at the first image and crying about how it's so terrible and unusable. We have to stop thinking like internet stills photographers who seem to only talk about sharpness, and start to learn from practicing cinematographers who love the softness of vintage primes and older lenses. @midloch I'd say go for the 10.5mm because you've said you like the less clinical look of your 17.5mm, and the 10.5mm lens should be the same. Also, 10.5mm is slightly wider. I have the Voigt 17.5mm and 42.5mm lenses and went with the 7.5mm Laowa F2 lens because I wanted the extra width, but otherwise would have gone with the 10.5mm

I watch a lot of YT and I think it behaves in similar ways to any other marketplace. More specifically: Those with more money / resources / connections can get access to things that aren't available to many/any others, which leads to unique content, which leads to more views, which leads to more money / resources / connections There are gaps where a lack of competition exists and there are openings to new players, and the only way to find these is to either get very lucky, or do a lot of experimentation, which of course is easier when you have more money / resources / connections because a few failures doesn't mean you go broke or get excommunicated altogether Those two are what separates the successful from the unsuccessful, but there are other factors in play too, such as talent and authenticity and hard-work which can give you an advantage, but this is difficult but the separation between rich and poor is bound to expand when the successful people also work hard and try to be as authentic as possible too.

Softer vintage lenses?

Maybe the resolution will give it away? If it's RAW then we can just work out what percentage of the normal resolution it is and then apply that to the normal crop factor of the P4K? Oh I don't know... Those new fangled computars are gonna run the world one day boy!! OK, from the BM page, the P4K sensor is 10mm wide, and that is 4096 pixels. I think the new mode is the "2688 x 1512 (2.6K 16:9) up to 120 fps" one (also from P4K specs page), which means that it's using an area of the sensor that is 6.56mm wide. Referring back to this image again: a FF sensor has a width of 24mm, so therefore the crop is 24/6.56 = 3.66 I used the width as that stays constant when you choose different aspect ratios, so it's easier to work out. Did I do that right?

They're so close to each other I'd suggest confirming somehow, rather than relying on the accuracy of their marketing department!

This thing looks useful... So, S16 looks like it's a diagonal of 14.33 and FF is 43.27, which makes the crop factor of 3.02