kye

LOL.. cool images though - I love the colours. It must be so rewarding to shoot live events where the lighting is so dramatic and expressive.

YES!! but Director of Finance says no... Basically decided on Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95, and likely the Laowa 7.5mm F2. The Voigtlander because it is a very good performer stopped down, opens up as wide as they come, and matches my existing 17.5mm lens. The Laowa probably wouldn't match so well but is a good performer too and can be degraded in post to look similar when required. I was tempted by the completely amazing performance of the Veydras and the potential that Meike will be similar but for less money, however they're not as fast and the lens tests I did with the 17.5mm Voigt at smaller apertures combined with the 4K mode on the GH5 were too sharp / sharpened and so I'll need to soften the whole image anyway, so the pursuit of higher resolution isn't really something I'm pulled in the direction of. Although, the purpose of this thread was mostly to use my lens purchase as an excuse and motivator to do a deep dive and learn about lenses. I still haven't worked out if there's a difference with larger sensors, or if a 55mm + SB is somehow nicer than a 40mm, but in my tests I couldn't see any difference, so in that sense it doesn't factor into my understanding of the whole situation and I've kind of relegated it to an academic question for me that isn't that high up the priority list. I'm intending to shoot a bunch of lens tests with the lenses I have to kind of compare them to the database of lenses that others have tested above, so that might be interesting to compare what is readily and (in some cases) cheaply available.

@Matt Kieley nice images and cool story.. Glad it turned out well and you have a cool set of lenses. I still have a 13mm D-mount lens that is waiting to get Frankensteined onto an action camera.. I'm really looking forward to seeing the results. @Cinegain cool stuff. VLFV is a cool acronym, I like it. I've just taken delivery of a 1000W halogen light so am almost setup to do some lens tests with the various Russian lenses I have. I think people will be surprised at how well they perform, assuming they're not already familiar with them.

I'm not sure if you got to see the final footage (or SOOC) but if you did, was the effect just a general lowering of contrast, or did it typically show off light-rays (eg, through windows) and have other 3d effects? The reason I ask is that I'm curious if they were just lowering contrast (and perhaps giving a bit more 3D pop to things in the foreground) or was it definitely visible, because the lowering of contrast is something that a lens can approximate, going back to the coatings / BPM type of effects.

Haze.... I didn't see you mention that first time around, but it reminds me that I read somewhere that haze is one of the secrets of Hollywood, and that practically every shot has at least some degree of haze, and that fog machines are a staple. It makes sense and they're highly visible on interior shots in things like The Queen, Peaky Blinders, and other high budget (and gloriously produced) shows. It might not be so obvious in others but it might still be there and just not calling attention to itself. Any news on this?

I haven't checked, but I'm thinking there are probably several ways to get Resolve to do this. It's a bit like photoshop in this sense - being so powerful that it can do anything but that nothing is immediately obvious. What context would you want to do this? I can probably suggest one or two approaches..

There is now! But yes, in hindsight it's amazing the LUT peddlers on YT didn't come up with the phrase first!!

That's one of the huge advantages of MFT - having a bright exposure and not having to contend with a razor thin DoF. It took me ages to realise that and I couldn't work out why people were saying that getting f0.95 lenses for low light was ridiculous because they unusable and I was thinking "it's not that hard actually" - then I realised they were thinking about FF exposure and DoF and I had one of those "ah ha!" moments! Agreed. Fast wides are a weakness, but if you shoot sports then you can laugh in the face of those people with their hernia-inducing 800mm prime lens setups!

Obviously you have to get the exposure in the ballpark - what get clipped stays clipped, but you don't have to worry about tiny amounts of flickering. You'll still need to have some kind of auto-exposure to compensate for the light changing. Day-to-night time lapses are really difficult to do well!

It's also worth mentioning that there's a plugin in Resolve that can smooth exposure changes between frames in time lapses. It might be the deflicker one, but I can't remember. I've used it and it worked well, so you don't need to get everything completely perfect in-camera.

h265 is about half the size as equivalent quality h264. So this is equivalent to 400mbps h264.

The resolution doesn't really matter, what kills 360 is the bitrate. If you're cropping into this for a wide angle shot then you'll be taking a 90degree crop, which is 1/4 of the width and let's assume 1/2.5 the height (just for ease of maths). This means that you're using 10% of the total pixels, and 10% of the total bitrate. If the source is 8K then you'll have a 2k crop. Not bad. The problem is that if that 8K was 100mbps, your 2k image will be 10mbps, which is just awful. If the source was 4k but was raw, you'd have a 1k crop, but it would be raw. Which would be the nicer image? 1k raw or 2k 10mbps? Its the bitrate that kills these things, not the resolution.

Wow. It really could be. 8K is great, but I think it's the low bandwidth and bit-depth that have limited other cameras. 200mbps h265 is *very* promising in this regard. This will be one to watch - let's hope that it delivers and that it's easy to use. So many products have the tech spec but the app won't work or makes no sense, etc..

This is the internet. I'm not sure that trust is compatible! (it never was anywhere else either, because the problem with trust is human beings, but never mind that.....)

Yes. Lots of people have issues. See this thread: For me, I have to download Vimeo videos to watch them, so if someone embeds a video and I can't get the "share" URL then I rarely even bother. In my downloading software I can download the full video in 4K in 25% of the duration of the video, but if I try to play it in 4K it stops every 5-10s and buffers for up to a minute. The download test shows that Vimeo has 2-4 times the required bandwidth, I have 2-4 times the bandwidth, but it still can't play. As far as I'm concerned, that's the technical equivalent of not being able to get drunk in a distillery.

Absolutely, subject distance dominates DoF, which is why macro is the only way to get bokeh with a phone. Cool teaser! The aerial shots are particularly impressive - the shots looking down on the plane were really good. I'm thinking you had access to a second light plane from the same organisation? I'm not aware of the performance of the top drones but this seems beyond the reach of those things? I didn't spot any traces of a limited budget or constraints, so that's well done. I see the f0.95 a lot more in this cut. It seemed a little much to me, but that could be because I was looking for it, so who knows - at this point in the conversation any neutral perspective on DoF is completely gone! I'm absolutely with you on DoF and low-light both being advantages of the Voigtlanders (and other lenses this fast) - it's a look that I don't particularly mind, but can be compensated for. It's also relatively easy to degrade a shot in post to match this look, so if you want to stop down sometimes but still get a uniform look then that's possible. Here's a shot from another thread about degrading a modern look to a vintage one. Original side-by-side: Matching Samyang to Lomo: It's not perfect but in an edit it wouldn't be that noticeable, especially as you wouldn't be seeing both at the same time, and also the shot/angle would be different. Interesting about running a 360 degree shutter. It makes sense that if you've got some other factors pushing you into the 'video' look that you compensate by 'overdoing it' on another variable to bring the look back into balance for what you want. Fascinating. His shots appear to be perfectly matched. @Nikkor what are you seeing in the images in the second link? (you have to scroll down a bit). I see subtle differences in the look, but can't tell if they're because the actor is posed differently. I was anticipating doing a test using a still-life to match the images exactly.

Just watched this and it's hilarious, well done! ???

I'm actually a bit conflicted about the GH6. I want it to be great so that it lifts the standard of the industry, but I want it to be mediocre so that I'm not tempted to upgrade! Ironically, no new camera has actually tempted me in any serious way, so it would have to be something truly special.

The first half looked good. Pity it's on Vimeo and is therefore unwatchable

I did some comparisons with the XC10 between the 300mbps 4Kp25 with 50% time-stretch and the ~50mbps 1080p50 and the 4K timestretch killed the 1080 due to bitrate alone, but the GH5 has much better 1080 so i’m not sure. I’ll have to do some tests, but TBH I’ve shot the last couple of trips using only 25p and I didn’t really find any moments when I wished I’d filmed in 60p or 120p. I’m not really a fan of the trendy travel films that are all about special effects without content, and for my own work i’m really just trying to get a sense of what actually happened. The emotional experience of travelling with kids is very different to the feeling of these hyper-produced videos where every shot is a speed-ramp gimbal shot, so it’s more a case of what is right for the project for me. Of course, I might be missing something and not know it, which is why I push myself to try other techniques and explore the potential in features of the equipment. I think there’s a lot of value in learning another genre and then bringing that experience and skill set back to your normal work to be better able to realise your vision. The more you know and all that...

Just watched the trailer and firstly, great looking film, well done! In terms of the look of f0.95, yes it completely suits. It’s funny because I tried it and it made no sense whatsoever in most shots, but then i’m watching your trailer expecting to have the same reaction and it looked completely appropriate. I think the difference is the subject matter. I film my family while travelling and so every people shot is really an environmental portrait because they’re about us being in a particular place. When you’re crafting compositions it’s much more about the subject of the shot, so the relationship between the subject and the surroundings are different, or at least this relationship is portrayed differently through a different approach to compositions. This is very interesting to me, thanks for the prompt to think about it more

I’m still trying to work out when to use the slow-motion modes TBH. I used to shoot 25p a mixture of 60p but have since taken on board @Mako Sports rationale of shooting 25p when something needs sound and 120p otherwise. Of course this mainly applies to sports, but the rationale about needing sound or not seems to have some logic to it. Since then I haven’t worked out how to decide between 4K60, 1080p120, and 1080p60 (which IIRC is 10-bit). These are of course in combination to Resolve and the post-processing that it has, including high-quality upscaling and time-stretching (optical flow and AI) algorithms. What a time to be alive though - having to choose between time-stretching 4K60 to get 4K120 or up-resing 1080p120 or time-stretching and up-resing 1080p60 but getting 10-bit. Just have to think through what I value more and what situations I would use each mode in.

Yes, high ISO performance would be spectacular, which is what I said. I would actually quite like HLG to be available in 60p too. Matching a mixture of HLG and Cine-D footage in grading is an extra step I don't particularly enjoy.

What's interesting to me is that I actually don't really care that much for most of the above improvements.. The dual-gain would be fantastic and the hinge/articulated screen would be nice, but the rest are a bit meh. I would like internal NDs though, that would be sweet.

Anything outdoors on a sunny day should do the trick...