kye

I’m confused - you said you like the image you get from the A7iii and don’t really like the image you get from the GH5. I’m also not clear on what you’re trying to achieve?

There’s a thread on here about Resolve and colour grading and i’ve shared all the really useful videos and resources I could find about it: Resolve is perhaps the best overall solution in terms of having all the bases covered so you can ingest, transcode, log, edit, sound-design, VFX, colour grade, and export all from the same software. Resolve is weakest in the editing and management of media, and strongest in colour grading compared to the other packages. It’s also improving and adding features at about 10X the speed of the other packages. The idea that you avoid Resolve because its colour grading is too complicated and instead use one NLE for editing and Resolve for colour grading makes no sense as both involve having to learn Resolve and colour grading. The reason that Resolve is complicated to learn is that it is powerful. In much the same way that Lightroom is more complicated to use for colouring images than Instagram is, it is also more powerful and can do things that Instagram cannot. Photoshop is more powerful (thus more complicated) again over Lightroom. Packages like iMovie are the colour grading equivalents of Instagram, PP and FCPX are the equivalents of Lightroom, and Resolve is the equivalent of Photoshop. Learning Photoshop is daunting if you’re only familiar with Lightroom, but if you want to progress in the industry then you can’t expect to get away without learning it, and the same is true of Resolve. FCPX and PP offer the basic colour grading tools and are sufficient for the majority of work done on normal productions, but Resolve can do almost anything, and is actually more flexible than Photoshop due to the difference between nodes vs layers. The reason that people talk about FCPX/PP/Resolve are all kind of spoken about as equivalent options is that you don’t have to use Resolve to colour grade, and perfectly good grades are done all the time in FCPX/PP. The other reason they’re spoken of in equivalent terms is that TBH most people online don’t actually know enough about colour grading to appreciate the extra things that Resolve can do. That’s not a criticism, I speak with professional colourists and they say that most of the time they are just doing basic corrections and don’t need to use the exotic tools or techniques that often at all (and most productions don’t have the budget to get that fancy). The only times when there is time / budget to get really sophisticated with colour are big budget productions where there’s money available and hobbyist productions where someone has lots of time because they’re essentially working for free on a passion project. I’d suggest you get clear on what you’re trying to achieve and work backwards. In reality, the extra functionality that Resolve offers isn’t understood, required, or even used most of the time, colour grading itself is over-hyped in comparison to things like good editing. Good editing is over-rated in terms of how important it is to get good lighting, sound, and composition while actually shooting, and everything I have listed is all basically pointless if the writing is bad or you have nothing to say. After reading this thread, my advice would be to: Pick the software package you like, or just pick one, and move on Realise that building your editing, sound production, and basic colour skills is what you should be focusing on and accept that your overall success will be determined by the relationships you develop within the industry, not on anything else I’m happy to help out if you have more questions, and good luck

Interesting that you don’t like the GH5 and prefer the A7iii - for most it is the other way around. Are you shooting log and grading in post or are you shooting a rec709 preset? I know that the rec709 from the A7iii looks lovely, whereas the GH5 log files are very easy to grade and people struggle with Slog. In terms of the P4K vs P6K, I agree with @IronFilm about the P4K being the much more flexible option in terms of adapting lenses, but it depends on what lenses you use and like. For example if you’re going to just use the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 f1.8 lenses and nothing else then maybe the 6K is a better fit. Like I say to everyone, get clear on what work you’re trying to do and how you like to work, make a list of your priorities and rank them in order (by asking yourself questions that force you to choose between two priorities) and only then consider what equipment you should buy. That way you will spend money on things you will use, rather than things that seem cool or that will solve problems you would like to have..

Ah, yes. I guess as an owner of the original Veydras the Meike releases aren’t quite the good news that they are for other people! Doh! There is the possibility that they aren’t the same level of quality though, as we know that the Veydras are superlative because of the rigorous lensrentals tests, but no-one has done equivalent testing of the Meike releases, so although they look the same the glass or materials may not be equivalent.

I agree with the above, and while I recommend Resolve to people and firmly believe it will gradually take on a huge market share, if you want to get work the most important thing will probably be using the same tools / workflows / etc as the people you will be working with. Even if that means Adobe, which seems to be buggy as hell and going down the toilet if YT and these forums here are to be believed. I would make one suggestion though, and that's to try and think longer-term because if there's an industry you want to get into later on but don't have immediate access to then it might be worth aiming high and being a bit of a misfit for the interim. I should also suggest that I've watched enough videos where people compare NLEs or swap from one to another to know that software isn't just which buttons to push and where the windows are, the structure of the software (including the features, hotkeys, control surfaces, and strengths and weaknesses) all shape the way that people think about editing, and while it's tempting to think that now we've left tape / film splicing behind that in the age of NLEs they'd all be the same, they're not.

You forgot whatever Veydra reissues Meike will be releasing for next to nothing!! I look forward to your ironglass lens impressions and footage...

No experience with the Olympus cameras, but I’d suggest that the best approach is just to google the various settings, do lots of tests and generally play with things. Sports and fast-moving things is difficult for AF, so you’ll need to dive in deep to get the best results. Good luck - i’ve heard that the Oly cameras have some real advantages over Panasonic but for some reason they don’t get the PR that the others get. I was considering an Olympus before I bought my GH5, but the 10-bit internal was more valuable to me than the superior AF or IBIS, but PDAF would sure be a huge advantage to have!

Best approach is to work out what you’re missing and then either fix that or give yourself a reality check.. For example, if you’re chasing good autofocus then you should consider why you need AF in the first place, and if using a deeper DoF would fix it, for example. The reality check is to assume you just bought an A7iii, so just donate $4K to charity to simulate the financial hit of being locked into the Sony lens rort, then take all your 10-bit footage and batch convert it to 8-bit and apply a sickly green WB to simulate the experience in post. There’s currently no FF camera that can do everything the GH5 does without giving up something. Even the S1H (which won’t fix your AF envy) will still hit the CC pretty hard and IIRC is bigger and heavier than the GH5. The grass always looks greener, but often it tastes just as bad, but in a different way.....

Cool looking lens.. Super wide and a lot smaller than the 40mm, so cool for less conspicuous run and gun.

If YT detects that you've used someone elses music then it applies the relevant rule from its database. Most songs get your video demonetised (which means the ad royalties go to the copyright holder of the music instead of you) but some songs are blacklisted and so your video is just blocked and no-one can view it. YT has a search engine here to inspect what the rules are: https://www.youtube.com/music_policies?ar=2&nv=1 TBH it's actually pretty draconian considering that you might plan, write, cast, shoot, edit, grade and publish a 90-minute video but if you include something like 10s of someone elses music then they get the entire ad revenue and you get nothing, but then again on the other hand YT gives you about 0.3c per view, so you're basically not making much money anyway, which is why every video is now sponsored.

Anyone know what the DR of the sensor is? The Canon film-making YouTubers have really struggled with the comparatively poor DR of late and one posted a series of videos from a trip that were clipped to hell and obviously had a bunch of interactions with other manufacturers because camera tests from other manufacturers followed quite closely.

Thanks to a nice sunset, I took a few RAW photos that are interesting. Here's the first one - sunlight and shade on the fence (which is made of small sticks). The image looks fairly neutral, if perhaps a little warm. In realty the sticks are pretty neutral, doing the silvering that weathered wood tends towards. If we apply some OTT saturation for diagnostic purposes, we get this: That looks fine, not counting the over-saturation, but is well within the colour palette of cinema. If I shift the WB a little towards "neutral" and put some colour in the shadows then this is what we get. You'll note from the vectorscope that this has had a slightly non-linear effect (I did this adjustment with the Offset control in the first node, so not sure why it would do that) but I don't think it takes us too far from reality: So, this is the natural colours created when the suns light is scattered by the atmosphere, which is why sunsets are orange/red/purple and the sky is blue. The sun is a pretty good approximation of a source of full-spectrum black-body radiation: https://lco.global/spacebook/light/black-body-radiation/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation There appears to be a spectrum from Blue to Red that objects follow, depending on their colour temperature. Here's a chart showing the colour temperature of various stars for example: As all of these are sources of broad spectrum radiation they all kind of act the same in terms of rendering colour, also including incandescent light globes and fire. Here's the spectrum of an incandescent light globe: and I suspect that fire is broadly the same. We didn't really get different coloured light sources until we started messing with chemistry and making things like fluoresce, like this fluorescent light: So, the Orange / Teal look occurs in nature, and I presume we attach some kind of psychological sense of well-being from times we spent with other folks around a fire, being both warm and (relatively) safe.

Just did a couple of tests (8mm SLR Magic vs 7.5mm Laowa) and both wobbled a lot, although the 7.5mm wobbled a lot more. 7.5mm is only 6% wider than 8mm but it felt like there was more than 6% more wobble, although my test was very unscientific. Thinking about it more, Bill is right that it must be a comparison between a lens designed for a larger vs smaller sensor, however I think it might just be that wider lenses are more problematic due to the 3D projection onto 2D plane. I don't have any APSC or FF lenses wide enough for a real comparison as all my wider lenses are all MFT. It would be interesting if someone else could do the test though.

Interesting question, and worthy of some testing. It will be to do with the level of distortion within the frame, but with all lenses there is a fundamental issue because the image projection is spherical and the sensor is flat, and it's worse on wider lenses, which I think is why wide lenses are either fisheyed or are very stretched in the corners. Let me do some tests....

Australia...

Great stuff! Well done I also shoot family travel videos so it's always interesting to see the choices that others make - not too many people upload this type of content so thanks for sharing!

This is interesting to me, more from a nerd perspective rather than a desire to deliver in 8K, but interesting nonetheless. I think it would be really interesting to see real tests where an 8K sequence is downscaled to 4K or 2K, ran through the upscaler, then compared mathematically to the original resolution. Obviously we don't see exactly the same as a straight mathematical comparison, so subjective comparisons would also be useful, but comparisons can be made. I watched a comparison of some stills image upscalers and the person reviewing them consistently chose the worst quality ones because they smoothed the skin and did other things that no-skill retouchers love to do, so it would be nice to get more objective results.

Awesome! I can't watch it (title not available in my location) but great to see some distribution happening

Not necessarily. I just tested my Sandisk Extreme Pro C10 V30 U3 95MB/s and it tested at 85MB/s read and write, with a 5Gb file size and being almost full (which decreases performance - the BM app warned me that the test would be affected). 400Mbps is only about 50MB/s which the card can easily do, but the reason that the GH5 won't do the 400Mbps All-I mode is because the card isn't UHS-II. I think that might be a limitation of the GH5 and how it writes to the card perhaps, but I'm not sure. It just happens that that the V60 is only on UHS-II cards, so it's the right advice, but I bought my card on the basis that it could handle the bitrate, but it turns out there is more to it than that, because on bitrate alone my card would be V60 comfortably and almost V90.

I can't speak for Zak, but wide angle lenses have significant stretching on the edges/corners and when combined with IBIS (and potentially other kinds of stabilisation) it gives the edges a strange kind of warping effect, kind of like the jelly effects of rolling-shutter but in a different way. Depending on the motion involved it can look very very strange, and if you're doing pro work then it can absolutely ruin shots.

Great looking stills. Nice work! Awesome to hear that your brother was behind FEOTFW, that was one of the shows I binge watched when I first saw it - it was just a bit different to the normal narrative tropes and cookie-cutter plot lines. There seems to be a ground-swell of comic adaptations to TV/Cinema so your brother may have many shows in his future. While i’m not a huge fan of the medium, I think that comic books have a huge untapped potential in terms of narrative innovation. Hollywood has only had the ability to create worlds that don’t function like our own (eg, aliens, outer space, different laws of physics, etc) for a few decades, but comics have had full creative control since the first cave paintings were made thousands of years ago, and so the plot-lines are much more creative. They are also much more mature, instead of having a world like ours but with one twist (like including the afterlife and ghosts for example) instead you get a rich world where that twist has been fully integrated and all the ripples and implications are also present. Lots of potential there I believe!

Footage is a tricky thing. For many of us our best footage is unavailable for some reason. For the pros amongst us there are contractual limitations, and there are professional reputations at stake when quickly posting anything. For people like me who shoot personal work of friends and family, it’s more personal and sharing our family videos is a bit odd. Most YT people don’t share video of their families, especially the children. So that means that what is left is our second-best work, which is pretty difficult to share on forums such as this, partly because it’s a film-making forum so the level of scrutiny is very high, but also it’s the internet, and these forums aren’t immune to savage criticism from people that are all talk and don’t actually shoot anything themselves. It’s a tough thing..

Just make sure it's a UHS-II card. I've got the SanDisk Extreme 90MBps which can do the data rate easily but isn't UHS-II so won't do that mode.

It's relatively easy to work out how much DoF your eyes have by bringing up a test chart on a laptop / tablet, putting your finger in the line of sight of the chart and focussing on your finger and seeing which detail in the test chart is discernible and which isn't. It ranges with focus distance of course, and also with low light when your eye opens up giving a larger aperture. It's not the crazy DoF of a 50mm at 1.2 or anything, but the background defocus is a thing, and F4 of 5.6 is easily within the range of our vision, so should look natural. It's a good experiment to do so you're aware of it.

Soft in the corners isn't such a bad thing either. Lots of cine lenses have quite poor performance in the corners (even taking into account field curvature) and this only really matters when you put the subject in the corners of the frame. The eye is naturally drawn to things in focus (which is why DOPs use shallower DoF - people don't spend the entire movie looking at blurry backgrounds) so if your subject is nearer the centre then the softer edges will actually help draw attention to the subject instead of away from it.