kye

+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.

Awesome! These camera tests are a lot more work than they seem, so including whatever other cameras (and helpers to come with them!) is a lot easier than trying to repeat the test with those missing cameras, or to try and shoot something equivalent under different conditions. I'm totally fine for someone on social to get in on this too, I'm after knowledge not fame This is my primary drive, so exact colours and whatever don't matter as much to me. When you look at old BMPCC footage that "x-factor" is apparent, so I don't think we need identical movements. It's a "we'll know it when we see it" kind of thing, and that's why I think so many are interested in it but no-one can really describe what "it" is. Thus why we invent new words like Mojo My vote is for matching the "soul" of the cameras so I don't care if the movement is identical, so now we just have to pick the most cinematic lens... lol. .... So, artificial lighting, adorable 8-year old, Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, adapters, cameras and a tripod. In terms of the setup, how do we shoot it so that the character of each camera is most emphasised? I'm thinking more dramatic lighting and lots of movement perhaps? Should we use mixed lighting? What really makes the BM cameras sing?

True! Sometimes for the wrong reasons, but still best not.

Awesome! I'm thinking we should do this carefully and properly, unlike all the other BS camera comparisons we all justifiably hang shit on. I think there's two approaches Shoot all of cameras simultaneously, which would mean no differences in what they're filming and we can sync them up for direct comparison. The downside to this is that you can't use the same lens on each of them, unless you can borrow some duplicates from somewhere, and the angles would be slightly different, but with a long focal length this is passable. Shoot them sequentially and have a completely controlled scene, so 100% artificial lighting (already warmed up), etc. The upside is we can get the same angle and lens, the downside is that any human movement or poses won't be identical. In terms of what to shoot, we absolutely need movement, we absolutely need skin tones, and we absolutely need to have a range of highlights/shadows and different colours. I'm not going to be able to match the colours exactly like @Sage has done with the GHa, I'm more interested in making the footage from the P4K look like it was shot with either of the other two cameras, ie, to be believable. I'm with @DBounce that motion plays a critical role here. I'm also thinking that resolution and softness are in the mix somehow too. And if we can get a GH5 in there too that would be absolutely brilliant! There really is something special about the BMPCC and some of these old cameras, and maybe @webrunner5 is right, but maybe not, and i'm not sure if anyone has given it a serious go or not. What does everyone think about how to shoot it? I'm going to need guidance from everyone else on this project for sure

Nice video! It is very clean as @User says, but that's a style unto itself, so why not I especially liked the night time lapses and the drone shot following the bird, very nicely done! Just because you live in three places doesn't mean you can't go on holiday! I think with things like airbnb it's probably easier to rent rather than buy and have all the ownership hassles. Of course, you can only live with what you can carry around, so no having heavy possessions like a large monitor, decent studio monitors for editing, a solid coffee machine, etc. These things are affordable and you could buy duplicate setups for each place, but if you didn't own them then carting them around would be a hassle, especially if you need to fly to get between your residences. Wherever I go I like to have a quick look at real estate prices and look for the lowest price of anything available. I understand that you can't just say a house a quarter the size should cost a quarter because it costs more to build a bathroom than a bedroom, plus there's an overhead for it being useful (as a place to live) but you really should be able to buy a tiny studio apartment for $50k in most major cities. That doesn't get you around the foreign ownership laws, but I'd have a few here in Australia and spend time between them when I could. It would also sort out lots of problems with housing affordability and some of the social problems surrounding it. I've followed the Tiny House movement for some years now and that's quite a promising thing. Not necessarily because a caravan built like a wooden garden shed is the answer, but because they're pushing the perceptions of why we need to have large houses. In the US, and lots of countries I believe, there are minimum sizes for building houses and I heard they were introduced during an economic slump as a way to ensure the building industry had more to do. It will be great to see those standards relaxed, even if other more relevant ones are to take their place, as it opens up a lot of possibilities.

I don't care what they look like when made to "look good" or even how well other people have matched the colours or whatever. I'm talking about a full-out attempt to make them indistinguishable. @Sage has included some modifications to sharpness of the GH5 vs Alexa in his GHa LUT packs, and I'm talking about that kind of thing. If I can work out how to make the P4K look like the BMPCC then I think there are a bunch of things in there we can learn. Yes, that's a pretty big change, but we can always apply the different adjustments at varying levels of severity according to taste. At the very least we'll all learn something. I don't have a P4K or BMPCC but I'm still up for it because trying things is the only way to really advance, and I know you guys can see stuff that I can't so I'm keen to see through your eyes as it were. I'm talking a new thread, posting comparison clips, sharing what adjustments I made, taking feedback from the group, and really trying to nail it. Who can shoot the clips?

And actually, it would be even better if we could get a GH5 shot in there too. That way those GH5 owners who are fans of the classic look (like me!) can also benefit. Maybe a P4K, BMPCC and GH5 lineup perhaps?

@webrunner5 @thebrothersthre3 @Emanuel I agree that we should be able to degrade the P4K footage to look like the older cameras. Things like bit-depth, resolution, or noise can't be improved, but given a sufficiently high-quality source I think that the 'look' should be able to be replicated. If anyone owns the P4K and other relevant "classic" cameras and is willing to shoot a short clip of the same scene (with both cameras right next to each other and recording at the same time) then I'll give it a red-hot go to "fix" the P4K footage and share the settings of how I got there.