kye

That's true, but it's always useful for those who can't afford to walk in the woods, or don't have time or the right shoes for it, to be able to go for a walk in the city and then fix it in post

Sorry to hear things weren't going well for you. We all have times like that, and it's great that you actually did something about it, which is more than most do (or can manage to do) under those circumstances. If there's anything we can do to help, just ask!

I'm also looking forward to what everyone else does with these clips. If we unlock the right settings it's more likely to be someone else that figures it out lol So, to be clear, the plan is to shoot both RAW in max resolution and Prores 1080 on all cameras? That makes sense to me. Partly it's a good comparison between those modes for anyone that doesn't (yet) have the cameras and can't try it for themselves, but also all that discussion about v3 vs v4 colour science and how the colours are hard to match kind makes me a little nervous, so also having the RAW without different things baked in would be good I agree, and that's the beauty of a well executed camera test, you can do anything in post that you like. I'm sure we'll be feeding off this footage for some time to come, trying various things and seeing how they work.

Very nice! We already know - she's becoming a rapper! Step One: get that million dollar contract Step Two: we'll all be waiting for your hot track ???

20dB would be just fantastic! What bit depths are they talking? No point having 20 stops of DR and then only having 10 or 12 bits - by the time you convert back to a standard gamma curve it would be banding central. Could you post a link to your source?

Indeed it is.. good thing I never claimed that I can do it, only that I would try! ??? My suspicions are that colour matters, but that there are other elements to it as well. @webrunner5 has commented that it looks too clean, and I've heard many other similar kinds of comments around the place too. To me, those comments seem to be similar to the comments about modern 4K cameras being too sharpened, so I have a hunch that the difference between sharpened 4K and P4K RAW is maybe similar to the differences between P4K and BMPCC. If you spend time looking at film stills they have beautiful colour (very high bit-depth!) and of course are uncompressed, but they're also quite soft in comparison to the sharpness of 4K, even if not the resolution of 4K. It is possible to reduce the sharpness of an image without reducing the resolution, and of course the 1080p RAW from the BMPCC will have less resolution than the P4K in 4K RAW too. I believe that the softening effect of vintage lenses on sharpened 4K footage is one of the reasons they're so popular on these forums - they help to give the look that many of us enjoy. I'm thinking of things like blurring the footage, blurring the footage and blending it into the original footage, downscaling and the upscaling the footage, as well as adjusting for colour. My plan is to colour match the footage as much as I can, then pumping it through as many different ways of processing it as I can think of and having them one after another and then posting it to get people's impressions of what works and what doesn't, then trying different things based on feedback. It will be interesting to see what the results are. In the end I'm hoping that even if we don't match the 'look' of the footage from the older cameras, that we manage to find some things that get part of the way there, and then we can explore what those techniques look like on other cameras like the GH5. It would be great to get to a point where we know the settings to make H264 look a lot more like these classic cameras. Plus if it's a combination of various things, having it in a Powergrade like Juan Melara did to replicate the LUTs will mean that we can refine or disable each adjustment to taste. @graphicnatured - just a thought, is it worth shooting the P4K in 1080 Prores as well? If we could make P4K 1080 Prores HQ have the classic look then I'm sure that knowledge would be of real interest to a lot of people here. 1080 RAW would be severely windowed so difficult to match framing on, and what we learn from matching 4K RAW and 1080 Prores can probably be combined for processing 1080 RAW if anyone decides to shoot in that mode to extend their lenses or get 120fps.

It would be more sensational, but I'll leave that to you, I'm more interested in facts. In terms of how I interpret the data on those graphs, I do it by looking at the datapoints that I quoted. If you're not sure how to read graphs properly then there are many good online courses from reputable university courses available. If you disagree with their methodology or results, then I look forward to reading your published and peer-reviewed paper on the subject. Or actually making some kind of sensible criticism. Zooming in to a low resolution graph and assessing the data point that's less than one pixel wide is just stupid. I blocked you previously because of your disgusting personal attack on someone else here on this forum, but have been reading your comments because I thought that despite having basically no inter-personal skills (or no compassion) you had some technical knowledge to contribute. But if you can't even read a graph properly, or more likely you're deliberately mis-reading it because you value being right more than the facts, then I'm not sure why anyone would trust anything you contribute. I looked for that mentioned above but couldn't find it. Maybe I missed it? 4K60 10-bit with HLG would really be something if it could do it!

+1 - Just use Resolve's integrated conversions. @blafarm @famoss In fact, there's a big difference between using the conversions in Resolve and a LUT: If you use a LUT and the conversion clips any parts of the signal (highlights or shadows) then they're clipped forever and nothing you do after the LUT can get them back. If you use Resolves conversions (either in the Clip properties or via the Colour Space Transform plugin) the clipped values are retained within Resolve (as super-whites or super-blacks) and if you adjust the image after the conversion then you can get them back into the normal range without damaging them. The internet talks a lot about LUTs but that's mainly because the people doing all the talking are selling...... LUTs. I don't know how the other NLEs work, but I'd imagine they work similarly. If you have to use a LUT then you can lower the contrast before the LUT to get the output from the LUT within range, but this defeats the purpose of using a LUT in the first place (because your inputs to the LUT now don't match how the camera encoded them) and you may as well just apply contrast or curves to get the look you want and ignore the LUT.

I totally agree on calling out BS, so here goes - your post is BS. You're right that it's optimised for lower bitrates, but the advantages remain at higher ones. This paper shows the objective (Peak Signal-to-Noise ratios) and subjective (blind test) comparison of the two: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7254155 The graphs in the paper test bitrates on UHD 60Hz up to 38Mbps H.264 and 18Mbps HEVC (broadcast bitrates) and they conclude: And what about higher bitrates? This paper here shows the relatively quality of the two at higher bitrates - up to about 250Mbps: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0bc/9342d1031250db0c7e2aabd2eeed51beef2e.pdf Figure 3 shows that the 50% saving seems to extend up to around 6Mbps H264 (where the equivalent HEVC is about 3Mbps) but after that point there is a knee in the HEVC curve. Figure 4 shows that the HEVC bitrate required to match the H264 goes above 50% up to the point where 40Mbps H264 requires about 30Mbps HEVC. Figure 5 shows that the HEVC bitrate required to match the H264 goes back closer to 50% where 250Mbps H264 requires about 120Mbps HEVC, and for another clip 200Mbps H264 requires about 110Mbps HEVC. Fact-checking the internet is fun, but it helps if you actually know the facts when you do it. Yeah, some higher bitrates would have been nice. I came late to the GH5 party so I don't know what the original specs were or what people thought of them, but they did introduce the 400Mbps and 5K Open Gate modes in firmware updates, so maybe there will be updates for this too? I guess time will tell.

The BMPCC4K (Pocket4K / P4K) is a wonderful camera, but some say it looks too clean, or doesn't have the classic look from the previous BMPCC (OG) or BMMCC (MC) cameras. Considering that the P4K should have either higher quality levels (ie, more pixels) or sufficient quality but different (bit-depth and colour science) than the others I think we should be able to process the P4K in post to match the classic look (or looks) as the older models. Even if we can't, I'm sure that there are things we can learn in the attempt. Thanks in advance to @graphicnatured who has volunteered to shoot it. I've shot A/B camera tests before and they're a lot more work than they seem like they should be. Assuming we learn anything, we all owe him a drink - he'll need it!

Great stuff! I'll make a new thread so we stop clogging up this one Edit: done.

I think that's the idea. If I understand it right, some pixels could be at ISO 100 and others at ISO 25000, so your DR would go through the roof. However, if you had a part of the image that was very dark and those pixels had high ISO, then they'd still be noisy.

Agree. They said that it takes two people to set it up but then a single person can operate it, which seems ideal. If you were any good as a wildlife photographer then I'm sure you could put that to good use. Anyone who is travelling the world may very well be going with another person anyway, so that's not as big a deal as it sounds. It's also not as much of an investment as it sounds considering that the image quality is very high and the costs of travelling to the exotic locations, getting guides, etc would be considerable, especially over a multiple year timeframe. I've been contemplating a trip to Antarctica as part of my bucket list and considering the costs involved I'd definitely be taking some serious camera equipment, especially renting some serious glass. Not suggesting that I'd rent that one (!) but those long lenses really are the tool for the job. Personally though, I'd make sure I took multiple camera bodies as a backup, and having two bodies means that you can always have a short lens on one and a longer one on the other, like the pro event stills shooters do. With my GH5 I can also take advantage of the crop factor to turn more reasonable lenses into hugely long telephoto lenses too, saving considerable weight as well!

One of the articles said that fungus will grow if there's humidity, the right temperature range, and a source of food. So not only do the spores get in-between the layers of glass inside the lens, but particles of food do as well! No more of those "throw flour everywhere in slow-motion" shoots people!!

True. I'm not sure why you're pointing that out, but ok 70m2 is tiny! I lived in an 80m2 two bedroom (it was built as a granny-flat by a friends parents to retire in, but they moved out because it was too small). It was a little larger than it absolutely had to be, with a small office and an ensuite in addition to the bathroom / laundry, but it was smaller than the two-bedroom unit I used to live in. I can't imagine that there are enough 1 or 2 bedroom places under that size to offset the staggering number of 3 or 4 bedroom houses that fill the suburban areas of every city and town here in Australia. It would be interesting to see some stats on existing dwellings but I can't imagine the average is that small. That sounds like a pretty nice rotation! I'm guessing that you have ties to Poland? it's not normally on many people's 'must-see places" lists

It's ok... I know we all love to talk about the crop, but don't worry about not being able to talk about it any more - way before Canon does no-crop 4K we'll be talking about the crop in 8K! I agree, when you can't take your lenses with you then all bets are off and everyone is "in the market" for a new system again. It's a pretty significant point for brands to try and capture and "lock in" customers into their ecosystem. Maybe it's one of those "can you afford to do it? true, but can you afford not to do it?" type things for Panasonic to release their own offerings. As a happy GH5 owner I definitely agree. It will be interesting to see what the GH6 offers. The GH5 has few flaws, but if they offered 4K60 10-bit with HLG and H265 all internally that would be a decent step up. Also if they offered a card slot that could do higher speeds in UHS-I then that would be great too. Being able to use Sandisk 90MB/s cards instead of being forced to buy UHS-II cards would be great. And of course, if they offered the ability to render prores proxies to one card and H265 to the other that would be wonderful. Or RAW!! *ahem* I've watched the release of all the FF mirrorless cameras with underwhelm. They seem to be chasing the photographer market and mostly offer only scraps of improvement for video users, at the cost of buying extortionately priced lenses. I've probably lost all touch with the stills photography market, but there doesn't seem to be anything really that interesting about these cameras from a stills perspective. If you had a 5DIII then I'm not sure why you're paying thousands and thousands... The earlier comments from Panasonic indicated that video was staying in MFT for now, so that makes sense. Of course, they might get their system established, some more lenses sorted out, and then start cramming video features into the FF range, we'll see. Out of a choice of an MFT system limited to 6K sensors that's been around for ages with all kinds of strange glass vs a brand-new FF system with 8K sensor and completely new glass or high-end Leica glass, which system do you think they're going to introduce 8K video into?

The Canon 50-1000 lens: The best way to make an FS7 look small, and to make your tripod look like a spaceship!

I like the Lenses sub-forum idea. So many lenses, so little time!

It's difficult to think of anything they are likely to bring to a FF camera, but it's also difficult to think that the company that made the GH series (and its consistent "they listened to us and gave us everything we wanted" track record) wouldn't do a good job. When is this thing being launched?

Another thought, a colour chart would be useful, and maybe something with predictable movement, like a fan. That way we can verify that any movement-related differences aren't related to shutter angle, and the colour chart would help in matching colours.

That's a pretty big advantage. Not only the lack of processing to debayer, but also the lack of processing to get data rates down to be manageable. Still, a 12-bit intermediary codec would be pretty nice and skip having to make proxies. 12-bit files with no rendering proxies would be a big drawcard.

Is there any chance it will record Prores internally? Or cineform? There are some very interesting 12-bit 4:4:4 codecs that don't have crazy data-rates: 1080: Cineform 12-bit HD Low 130Mbps 1080: Cineform 12-bit HD Medium 160Mbps 1080: Cineform 12-bit HD High 195Mbps 4K Cineform 12-bit UHD Low 445Mbps 4K Cineform 12-bit UHD Medium 515Mbps 4K Cineform 12-bit UHD High 630Mbps For many the ability to record 12-bit 444 internally to an SD card would mean they wouldn't care about RAW, surely?

+1 for movement. The difference might have been clear, but the x-factor was completely missing. I'm not sitting and looking at the images going "wow those cameras are great", I'm thinking "these make terrible photo cameras" We also need to be sure to nail focus too. I'd suggest stopping down to mostly eliminate it as a variable. I'm thinking there's mojo in these cameras even without fast lenses, so stopping down isn't going to prevent us from seeing the magic.

There might be a clever way to keep it aligned, for example if the gain on each pixel only had a few settings to choose from, but each was 2X or 4X the last. Then you read the value of the pixel and only need to do a bit-shift to the value to align it with the rest of the image. Audio DACs are 16 or 24-bit, and each bit is worth double the previous one, so it wouldn't be that challenging to also make the amplifier for each one have a few "bits", and I'm sure there are some simple circuits that can use the amplifier setting to shift the bits in what the ADC is putting out.

I just assumed that it would be at least as good for video as the GH5. If it didn't have 10-bit then I'd be stunned.