kye

57 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Do you know about the Fermi Paradox?

" In 1966, Sagan and Shklovskii speculated that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales."

I believe we chose the first one.

Yes, I'm familiar with it.  It's definitely a hard question to answer, that's for sure!

1 hour ago, Django said:

I think we have to distinct making tweaks and applying a LUT which is what most of us (myself included) are doing and advanced pro color grading which is a complete artform imo.

I got into shooting log & grading mostly out of a necessity because i'm generally unsatisfied with most picture profile in hybrid cameras (aside from Fuji Eterna, Nikon flat) which are often way too sharp/saturated/crushed blacks, need the extra DR and need to fix exposure, wrong camera AWB, color science issues..etc. 

So I'm usually just trying to get things looking correct and then i might apply a LUT for certain look. I might go full manual if i have the time.

I've been experimenting with ACES recently and it looks like it might be a game changer as far as workflow.

On a side note, I do wish hyrbids would either allow LUT import in camera or offer more filmic picture profiles for fast turnover projects.

Pretty sure Sony has the most complete picture profile settings (a little convoluted though). I also like how in Fuji's you can adjust shadows/highlights.

My personal favorite PP is WideDR on Canon's C line.

In a sense I disagree with you.  I would say that getting the colours you want by making changes in post is grading, regardless of how you do it.  

There was a discussion on LiftGammaGain forums about colour grading vs colour correction and their opinion was that they are the same thing, because colour work is just doing what is necessary.  They talk a lot about just adjusting contrast and the colour primaries from the colour chart and that if it was shot and lit properly then this is enough to get great results.

After watching a bunch of YT wannabe colourists taking log footage and screwing with it via all sorts of manual methods I then found the pros and they talk about using ACES, Resolve Colour Management, Colour Space Transforms in software or LUT form, and then making simple adjustments to correct for shot-to-shot variance and they're done.  They don't care about being fancy - they care about how efficient they can be with their workflows.  Getting the job done quickly means a higher hourly rate or extra time to really lift the project and deliver a higher quality result.  Of course, it's different if you're colouring a low budget documentary or a high budget Hollywood blockbuster, but the 'leg work' of the process is the same in terms of matching shots, removing anything distracting (like strong colours in the background or whatever).

21 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

That is so last century.

LOL!

21 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Joking aside, there is some very dark and troubling stuff involved in the whole debacle irrespective of which side of the vote people came down on.

"We want our country back" was and still is one of the mantras of the Leave side but what the past 2 1/2 years has shown is that we don't actually know what that country is, how it works and who runs it.

We are currently 60 million people with irreconcilable differences going through the messiest divorce of all time.

Forget the division from the EU, it is the self division that will echo longer and louder after we've got "our" country back.

I read an interesting book called Visions by Michio Kaku and one of the things he talked about was where we are in our evolution as a civilisation.  

According to The Kardashev scale, which is a system to categorise civilisations:

Quote

• A Type I civilization—also called a planetary civilization—can use and store all of the energy available on its planet.
• A Type II civilization—also called a stellar civilization—can harness the total energy of its planet's parent star (the most popular hypothetical concept being the Dyson sphere—a device which would encompass the entire star and transfer its energy to the planet(s)).
• A Type III civilization—also called a galactic civilization—can control energy on the scale of its entire host galaxy.

Michio Kaku argued that we are actually a Type 0 civilisation going through the rough transition to become a Type 1 civilisation.  He said that everything you read about in the newspaper and all the significant aspects of the news are related to this process.  He mentioned things like the internet being a Type 1 civilisation telephone and data network, globalisation as being a Type 1 civilisation economic forum, etc.

This creates enormous change within society, especially considering the difference between how culturally isolated the pre-baby boomer and baby boomer generations were growing up and how completely not isolated they are now from a large spectrum of languages, cultures, religions, and races.  Growing up, everyone looked like them, talked like them, valued what they valued, etc.  When things change too fast people resist and want to wind back the clock, which is what has caused things like Brexit, the rise of nationalist political parties, ISIS, etc.  Those who are old enough will remember that terrorists didn't used to be called terrorists - they used to mainly be called 'separatists' because they were people wanting to remain separate - to not mix with other people who were different/inferior to them.

In short, we're being forced to learn to get along, and most people don't like it and want to just make the people they don't like go away.

Personally, the UK has a special place in my heart because they made a nice place to live by stealing wealth from other countries, and are now shocked (SHOCKED!!) that those people want to move to the UK and enjoy it too.

Yes, consolidation, not consolation!

8K at 120p....  and we're sitting around talking about if 8K 30p is possible!!  That's amazing.

but one thing that I think you're wrong about..... instead of accepting defeat instead you should work on your levitation skills ???

37 minutes ago, GreekBeast said:

Of course it's not, i just said it's easy to find f2.8 lenses that matches the f4 of ff which is still 'okish' dof. What really makes the GH5 specifically useful to me are two lenses that after trying different things are now keepers:
Olympus pro 17mm f1.2 and the 45mm f1.2 combined with Ibis and the full manual focus on the lenses make it a everyday tool on every production. I keep a 35mm 1.4 Glied to the eva1 and have a wide and portrait equivalent of 35mm f2.4 and a 90mm 2.4 in FF terms but with 1.2 light gathering. All together a very good package.

Cool.  Sadly, there are a lot of people running around thinking the 12-35 f2.8 is the same as a 24-70 f2.8 Canon L lens.

I run my GH5 with the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 on by default, an SLR Magic 8mm f4 for getting those 'wow' landscapes or interior shots, and am still working out my options for the 80-120mm equivalent length (in the running are a few 50/55/58mm lenses from Minolta, Pentax, and Helios), and also the options for sports lenses.

On my trip I used the 17.5mm maybe 80% of the time, the 8mm maybe 10% and the 58mm the other 10% of the time.  The right trio of lenses and you're ready to just work and get shots, it's great when the gear gets out of the way like that.

6 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Many b4 lenses, including this one, have an integral switchable 2x teleconverter that will enable them to cover MFT when it is engaged.

That is very interesting indeed!  I didn't think about the TC giving a lens a larger image circle.  Do all TC's do that?  I would imagine that some of them might obscure the image circle due to other elements of their physical design, but maybe not?

1 hour ago, Anaconda_ said:

Don't forget that a lot of reviewers get demo units for a very limited amount of time, so can't really test them in real 'professional' situations. They can only really go for a walk and do some street shooting.

That's true, but I think it's not familiarity with the camera that's the weak point.

Imagine two kinds of reviews..  the first just says things about the camera, the second about what that really means.

Type 1 review: "The GH5 has X stops of DR.  It has 10-bit internal recording."
Type 2 review: "The X stops of DR combined with the 10-bit internal recording means that if I shoot this building against the sky I can bring up the shadows in post to get this image here, exposing the building correctly and not blowing out the sky - here's the same image from my control camera and you can see the noise from the 8-bit means the shot is ruined.  This means that if you're shooting outdoors there is enough latitude for shots of this nature, such as documentary work on location.  This is a real differentiator for those who would typically use an XYZ model camera for this type of shooting".

How many reviews of the GH5 showed what shots the GH5 could get that the other cameras couldn't get?  A reviewer can tell me the specs and I haven't got the faintest idea what that means to me in real life.  If I was trying to figure out which was the better camera for high DR work I'd be screwed if I only got given the stats - shadow recovery depends on ISO noise, bit-depth, codec, bit-rate, DR, and colour space - try getting two cameras with different sets of specs and trading all those things off against each other.  Not to mention if the noise looks nasty or lovely in character.  That's why we have reviewers!!

How many reviews of the BM Micro showed us that do to its size and image quality it would be useful in filming a TV drama like John Brawley showed us he'd done in shooting The Resident?

How many reviews of the C100 explained the practical benefits of having a high-quality and low-bitrate codec in terms that compared to other cameras?  Let's imagine you're getting a similar quality image from two cameras, but one is lower bitrate and more expensive.  At the current HDD prices, how long do you have to record for until the more expensive camera pays for the difference because of the reduced file sizes?  No-one gives us that kind of information!

Most reviewers are only one step away from just getting Siri to read us the spec sheets, giving us an unedited monologue about how they liked the packaging, and putting music and their branding package on it before hitting publish.

I can understand why the working cinematographers don't elaborate on what they're looking for in a sensor / lens / filter or how it matters to the production because they're really in their own space creating content for other working cinematographers.  It's a pity though, because there are people like me who are lurking and trying to learn but don't know that a lens with X optical attribute is good for scenes of type Y lit with lights of type Z.  Sure, I'm not in the market for either of those $100k lens kits, but I'd like to learn the links between equipment and end-result, especially from those who really have depth in that knowledge and experience.

Interesting results - thanks all who took the poll so far, if you haven't, please do

Currently, these seem to be the trends:

• People seem to think that colour grading is an important part of the process of making a film (it's useful or magic)
• The majority of people go beyond using a LUT into more custom adjustments, and also want to get better results
• The minority who basically only use a LUT are more happy with their results than wanting better results
• The vast majority believe that you don't need Resolve level grading software

My theory (that caused me to create this poll) was that getting a great grade is more about using the simple controls well, rather than having all the tools in the world.  I wondered if I should try and 'prove' that by exploring some grades using only basic tools and sharing them here.

It looks like lots of people want to get better results, but there are also lots of grading tutorials out there and I'm not sure if people are watching them or not.  I can imagine that we're all wanting to get better results from every aspect of our film-making, but it's a matter of time and energy, rather than availability of information or resources.

Is there interest in seeing before-and-after grading examples that also show the adjustments made to create the grade?  Would that be useful?

21 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I also assume one of the many mics built into the BMPCC4K is there for a similar noise reduction purpose. 

Ah, that might explain the complicated looking microphones it has..

Brexit sure is a fascinating thing to watch.

I know it's not in-keeping with the level of content on this thread, but there's a pretty good coverage and explanation of it on this channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSMqateX8OA2s1wsOR2EgJA

I'm not sure how biased their analysis is, but they explain the logic and options of the situation pretty clearly, you know, if you're into that sort of thing

I'm wondering if the protector is special in some way due to the holographic display (that's right isn't it? holographic?).  If that's the case then I can understand $40, and the problem lies with either the RED marketing team for not explaining that, or the fanbois who didn't know about it or explain it properly.

Or it could be price gouging and zealotry.  I'm not ruling that out either ?

edit: send us pictures when the roses arrive in your drive

11 hours ago, GreekBeast said:

- Lots of factors here and m43 can do a lot with DOF as well. m43 can use a focal reducer which makes it more like a APS-C sensor size in terms of DOF. You are now only one stop away from the same DOF as FF. Shoot f4 comfortably on FF? Well f2.8 is pretty easy to get on m43 even with zoom lenses and can easily match the DOF of FF. This is again such a non issue unless you insist on having razor thin DOF from FF by shooting 50mm f1.2. Optically not the best solution and almost impossible to focus with for serious production work where clients pay you. It honestly only takes a sliver of extra effort to achieve similar DOF on m43. Can't replicate every situation but the importance is much less significant than you think it is. Plus very few Hollywood movies actually use that shallow of DOF. They shoot s35mm (close to APS-C size) and not FF and they tend to stop down their lenses to f4 or f5.6. Extremely easy to match that on m43 and even easier once you add a Speedbooster which essentially makes the GH5 an exact match to s35mm size sensors. On the GH5s using a Speedbooster XL gets you around a 1.2x crop which is half way between APS-C and FF so not a huge difference in terms of DOF.

Much of what you say makes sense, but I disagree with some of it.

Are you aware that shooting the 12-35 f2.8 at 25mm f2.8 isn't the same as shooting a 50mm f2.8 on FF?  25mm f2.8 on MFT is the same as 50mm f5.6 on FF.  To get the same DOF on MFT as you get from FF 50mm f1.2 would require something like 25mm f0.6, which I don't think even exists.  
This is a handy tool for comparing equivalent focal lengths and apertures: https://mmcalc.com
This is a handy tool for comparing DOF: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I also disagree that f2.8 on MFT will be enough light.

Late last year I did a couple of trips with my GH5, shooting in ambient light conditions, sometimes at night (eg, streetlights and shop windows), with my Voigtlander 17.5mm 0.95, and I found two things: f0.95 was needed to reduce noise in the image, and f0.95 wasn't as crazy shallow DOF as you'd think.

This is an image I have shared previously, and I think you would agree that it's not a crazy shallow DOF shot - but this was absolutely at f0.95.

In terms of what the OP needs to film a building at night with tall ceilings only lit by candles, is probably more than what I needed when filming my family in being lit by street-lights, shop windows, and Christmas lights.

I don't know if the GH5 with fast lenses will even be enough - they might shoot it and be left with a very noisy image that suffers in quality after sufficient noise-reduction has been applied.  If they want to get any shots where their lenses aren't fully open then they're in trouble with the GH5 too, although how many of these shots they'd need is dependent on the situation and their shooting style.  At least with the A7Sii they'd have some wiggle-room in between having too shallow DOF and having too much noise in the final image.  

It's an extreme recommendation to make, but it's an extreme situation too. 

7 hours ago, leslie said:

edit: i'm increasingly disenchanted with camera comparisons or maybe its the amateurs doing these vlogs but personally i don't find alot of substance in them. i don't find much new information and at the end i cant help but feel cheated out of a few precious minutes of my life not to mention several megabytes of data  i'll never get back. i guess for me its more i bought my camera have paid for it, now for me i need  to learn what i can do with it.  i really don't care how it compares to other cameras.

I agree.

Camera comparisons can be useful when you're researching what to buy, but there isn't a lot of content around how a certain specification or feature will help you to make a finished product, which is ultimately what matters.

I think there are four levels of review:

1. Useless reviews where you learn nothing about the camera (beyond the specs)
2. Good reviews where you get a sense of what the camera can offer to a real shoot
3. Great reviews where you learn about film-making as well as what the camera is capable of

Most YT commentary is in the first category, there are a smattering of the second, and the occasional flash of the third.  

I think it's mostly the reviewers fault, because mostly they either don't know anything about film-making so can't link camera features to real productions, or assume that you already know everything about film-making and don't have to link camera features to real productions.  The former are the YT vlogger wannabes and the latter are the working cinematographers who often publish their camera / lens / lighting tests for you to decipher yourself.

The biggest challenge for me was the edges of the frame being kind of out-of-focus in a way my eyes didn't like, so I'm not sure I like that lens wide open.

Of course, if that's the biggest criticism then it's doing well, considering that on YT we watch content from multi-thousand dollar cameras shot in 10-bit (or more), shot in RAW, shot in 4K, etc...  then it's punching well above it's weight!!

@BTM_Pix Great post - thanks for taking the time to type all that

The consolation makes sense, both from an economics perspective as well as an efficiency perspective (which are related under the assumption that a perfect market optimises efficiency) and the subsequent exclusivity and price hikes also make sense from a profit and power-broking perspective.  I was once part of a business that ran an online store of sorts, and the system provided an easy way to gather competitive pricing for the clients, and they were surprised when the system provided better prices than their "special deals" with suppliers (who knew they were the only people quoting), and then after some time our business went under because the main client tried to eliminate the fixed per-order cost that we charged by going back to the "special arrangements" they were being promised by the suppliers behind our backs.  Capitalism is a strange thing when you understand how far from a perfect market we actually have.

In terms of the images suffering, I can see competing priorities.  Having wide angles for the TV audience to follow the ball and stay oriented with who has the ball and who is open for passes etc, having simultaneous coverage and detail for the virtual umpire to make decisions on, and having the right angle and framing for the killer photo are definitely things that aren't 100% overlapping.

8K will help to crop in to wider shots for stills, but there are still fundamental conflicts because no matter how much you crop in to this angle:

you can't get this angle:

In a sense that decision isn't one I'm forced to make personally as my only choice at my kids games is to sit down or stand up, but if I'm shooting for video then I'll still want images that are a lot wider than the portrait shots, and without multiple cameras it's a tradeoff between resolution for stills, wide enough shots for video, and simply being too cropped in and losing track of the action or players.  It's also a tradeoff in terms of having a nicer image with a larger aperture vs losing focus and missing a moment, or having a shorter shutter speed for images vs 180 shutter for nicer movement, etc.

18 hours ago, anonim said:

Friendly advice - but hardly it doesn't already in your mind: stay with Voigtlanders of choice, because you'll always come back to them after excursion in the realm of vintage lenses (Voigts have best  combination of vintage/clear-modern traits). Than, slowly spare money for Fujinon MK zoom (or best Leica R zoom with speedbooster 28-90 - zeiss contax 28-85 as cheap alternative): firstly, it is much better to make dreaming for perfection  longer,  and secondly, your kind of commitment simply deserves and logically aims just for the best (still inside of the boundaries of achievable). 

Wow - the Fujinon and Leica are expensive!  Although the Contax looks interesting, I'll have to read more about it.

One thing I don't know is what part of the vintage look I'm interested in.  I suspect I'm interested in the rendering being a bit softer, but I'm not sure if this is just lowering the sharpening in-camera, or if this is something I need to get from the lens.  

I have a Minolta and a Super Takumar on their way so I should be able to compare those to the Helios and Voigtlander and start to get a feel for what I like and don't like about the image.  It is appealing to have a zoom that does 35-109mm equivalent but f3-3.5 is still quite slow, and with primes I have the ETC mode which gives good flexibility without having to change lenses.

14 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I suspect another factor is how badly set up modern TVs are by default. 

Every time I go over to one of the chick's I'm seeing to watch Netflix with her, I'm struck by just how awful her brand new TV looks! And I feel compelled to tweak with her settings...  which she kinda hates and often turns it back to the defaults after I leave ??

Is one of the reasons why from the start most of my lens investments has been in Nikon F mount 

4 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

My lord, I was watching TV at my friend's house and was horrified at how bad an HD tv looked. Turns out he had sharpening all the way up. I turned it all the way down and he comments how it doesn't look sharp anymore. I can't fathom how anyone could think that image looked good before I corrected the sharpening lol. Plus he that no motion blur setting turned on. ?

Yes, I suspect the default process-everything settings on TVs is a big issue as well.  The guys at LiftGammaGain are always struggling with these things, because they deliver a grade to their client who then watches it on some random TV and then calls them in the middle of the night to tell them the film looks all f*cked up without realising it's grandmas TV and not the grade.

12 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Yes, this one (shown here on my GX80).

Also an Angenieux ironically enough.

Even got the servo zoom working on it with the aid of the trusty £10 Sony NP battery sled and a cable!

Does that lens cover the m43 sensor?

I looked up that mount and found the image circle was 11mm diagonally, which was a lot less than m43, but it looks like I missed something...?

4 hours ago, mercer said:

Good eye, Kye. This morning I had a look at those clips and realized I had Sharpening turned up to 25 in the Raw Panel. I usually leave it at the 10 default setting. 

After our discussion, I decided to process the clips through the MLVApp to ProRes and have a stab at them in FCPX. I think this one turned out nicer...

Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8

Ah, yes, that's a bit better.  The other image was a bit worse as it had the parallel lines from the handrail that stood out, but the lines at the waterline are less distracting.

TBH I'm not sure how much that stuff matters when you're watching a moving image, and there's probably also an element of it not mattering if you can direct and hold people's attention - "if people notice continuity problems then your film sucks" type thing

35 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but I will tell you something. I have been taking video for a Hell of a lot of years of my family, and my TV Job,  my advertising company, weddings, etc., 30 years easy. Now probably one main problem is I have moved so many times. But I have absolutely Zero, Nada, None, any footage of any of it left. It has all, and I mean tons of it either lost, thrown away, corrupted hard drives, hard drives that I can no longer use due to incompatible things, disappearing Thumb Drives, on and on.  I have had, owned just about every type of video media you can have other than 1" tape. That was part of the problem. Things changed a lot. But guess what I have a hell of a lot of the photographs, well my daughter has them for safe keeping. Now I am talking a span of 50 years here now. Now the negatives, not so many. They were on digital media, Ahh the problem. But good old hard copy photos seem to last. Digital media not so much. So just be cautious as hell. You might find yourself in a situation where the media you have isn't even something you own, like a 8 Track Deck. Who has one of those, or a Hi 8 deck, mini DVD, Beta SP deck, who has one of those big things laying around? But most people have photo albums, even years and years later. Something to think about. You have been warned as they say.

Excellent points.

In a sense I've been lucky as apart from 2 disposable film cameras (IIRC) I've only shot on digital.  I've also been careful / lucky enough to still have all the files, and they're backed up too, on a disconnected drive so a reduced risk of ransomware. The only thing I don't have is an offsite backup, which is probably something I should get around to doing.  There are also overlooked backups these days, with things like facebook and YT having been steadily fed the highlights of life, assuming you use those things.

The wife and I have plans for some photo walls in the house but life has been absolutely insane over the last 3 years so we've not gotten around to it yet.

I hear very mixed things about colour grading and I'm curious to get a bit more info on how people think about it.

My theory is that it's actually simpler than people think, but maybe I'm not getting the full picture.

24 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

The right place and the right time applies to a lot of great shots. But obliviously you can kind of anticipate some times and avoid pure luck. It helps to have a Lot of patience also. I find photography a LOT more relaxing, and in a sense more rewarding than video. To be able to capture something you feel that is great with a singe push of a button is quite a feat to be honest. And it is much easier to share your pride and joys to others with photographs than having them try, or even want to watch a video, especially a long, drawn out one. Plus you can hang a photo on a wall. ?

My goal is the best of both worlds.  I film my kid playing, so I don't have the pressure of having to get every moment or get coverage or whatever.  

I made a highlight video of his 50th game (banner, game, award, speeches), but really my brief is to get enough footage to be able to cut something together down the line as a highlights reel for the family history, and to get a few shots where we can extract a frame and hang it on the wall, as you say.  I am pretty good at anticipating the action and operating the equipment, the main challenge is that I don't know what framing or shots to try and get.  I want to capture the effort he puts in and to make him look good essentially, so studying professional sports photography and videography will help me see that.  I don't watch sports on TV or read about it, so my exposure is pretty minimal.

I tell you one thing though, using video as 24fps burst mode for photographs sure gives you a lot of options for choosing shots, and really makes you appreciate the skill in photographers who only have 5-10fps non-continuous burst-mode, let alone the film days when bursts were what happened between changing rolls of film!

Probably the biggest demand is that when the game is finished he always asks if we saw that goal / kick / or key moment, and of course, he remembers exactly what happened because he's out there putting in 110% and so you better have seen it and remember it!  He's the top tackler in his team and if the players end up in a heap then there's a good chance he's underneath most of them, so trying to get footage or stills that live up to the intensity of his experience is a tall order. 

29 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Speaking of Photos. Man there is some nice ones here. I can see why they were awarded.

https://***URL removed***/photography/6987116741/slideshow-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-people-s-choice-award-shortlist?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source

Indeed!

I should do some research into what makes a good sports photograph.  I've pretty much sorted the equipment I have for next season of Aussie rules football, so now I need to learn where the point the camera!

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

True but nothing about this “test” is fair. Pitting an f/2 lens vs an f/2.8 lens wide open isn’t fair. Also Nikkor lenses are traditionally warmer than Zeiss lenses. Hell, I may have even set the color temperature differently in the Raw panel because I preferred one over the other at the time.

I have a very modicum amount of grading skills, so I prefer to allow the equipments’ natural tendencies to do some of the job for me. Color grading is a craft in and of itself and as a one man band filmmaker, it is impossible for me to be great at every discipline. Of course I try my best, to do my best and your point on the lesson is definitely taken and food for thought. 

There are only three skills needed to be a good colourist:

1. To know what you like, what you want, and what is good for the project
2. To be able to see colour - to look at an image and notice that the shadows are cooler, or the highlights have a soft rolloff, etc
3. To know what knobs to twiddle

When you have the first two, the third becomes almost a non-issue.  Watching truly skilled colourists work has taught me that the top people can get 90% of the results with only a few controls - even if you only gave them lift/gamma/gain controls then they'd still put out beautiful work, add curves and they can make magic.

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think Both Panasonic and Olympus screwed themselves with the pricing of the GH5, GH5s, EAM1 mk II. Hell you can buy a FF Sony a7 III for the same or less. Now you can buy the Z6, EOS-R, XT3 for the same or less. They have shot themselves in the foot big time. And now this A6400. I really do think m4/3 is in big trouble.

Even if you bring out a GH6 for 1500 bucks it pisses off all the people that bought the GH5, GH5s. They can't win now. Not with this A6400, X-T3, PK4 out. And that  is not counting this new Panasonic S1 FF line. The lower one can't cost more than 2500 bucks or they are screwed right out of the box. So what, they going to charge 2500 bucks for a GH6?

As a GH5 owner, I'm winning all the time.

I see people all bitching about newer cameras and I just sit back and relax, I see newer features on cameras that I think might be cool and then I remember how it feels to look at your footage and be reminded of film, to see people grading UMP / RED / Alexa footage and then grade the 10-bit HLG and have it feel the same.  To read about 8K and think about how that will be true 4K footage and not feel like somehow your equipment isn't good enough any more.

When someone develops a LUT pack to match with the Alexa and have the best colourist on YT (Juan Melara) comment "This is actually really impressive. Top work!" and I know that I can get the Alexa look with any of my footage if I want to.

The GH6 could be $1 and have 8K 16-bit RAW with integrated drone and I wouldn't feel bad about my GH5 at all.  My only stress now is buying lenses - there are so many and I want to have all of them!

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

With one of those guns that everyone should own. 

Remind me again - that's the AR15, right?

4 hours ago, mercer said:

So, I took a drive yesterday in the cold to do a test of a few lenses... the Nikkor 24mm f/2 vs the Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 in the Rollei QBM mount. 

Here are the results...

Nikkor 24mm f/2

Carl Zeiss 25mm f/2.8

I found the speed of the Nikkor to be pretty helpful considering that that shot was taken about 10 minutes after the Zeiss shot, but there is just something about that cold Zeiss look that has a definite pop to it that seems more cinematic... maybe it's in my head? 

Full disclosure... I didn't attempt to match these images, I just did a basic Rec709 conversion and a little bit of curves and saturation. Also I am still using my MacBook Air screen for all of this preliminary color work and lens tests. I'm in the process of deciding on a monitor upgrade... so these may look like crap compared to what I am seeing in Resolve... oh the fun of hobbyist color work... lol.

The Zeiss is a lot bluer which makes sense given the time of day - you can't use that as a fair test.

Having said that, take away the lesson that this is what happens when you grade like this - if you have a go matching the Nikkor to the Zeiss then it's a free lesson in grading

3 hours ago, Nikkor said:

I'm bored of those seascapes, I want to see some New York City footage.

I prefer the zeiss because I don't really like nervous bokeh,but let's continue this review with NYC footage, I want to see some glorious out of focus lights on the zeiss, I love it when they are dense dot and not some fuzzy crap, and I think that's where the zeiss really will show off.

Interestingly, I was distracted by how sharp the bokeh was in both the Zeiss and Nikkor images above and prefer the softer Angenieux rendering below, but for night shots with bright light bokeh maybe harder edges would be better.  

Great - now we need a set of day lenses and a set of night lenses!

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a bit of technical jousting and whatever myself but at some point all this shit has to mean something tangible in terms of an image.

The amount of A/B/C/D camera comparisons that I see getting chewed over that use completely different lenses on each camera bewilders me to be honest, like the lens is somehow incidental.

I've posted this before with regard to making a Cinecorder but I'm definitely going to get rid of a few bits and pieces and buy one of these Angenieux 25-250mm if I can find a decent one.

 

"at some point all this shit has to mean something tangible in terms of an image"

Truth.  Otherwise we're just the video equivalents of those people that photograph brick walls!

2 hours ago, mercer said:

If this stuff was one hundred percent scientific, then I’d be a lot better and we’d all be Kubrick but it isn’t no matter how much math you throw at an explanation. Art isn’t always describable and a brush stroke can only explain so much. It’s when science and art melds with craft and emotion does a beautiful image appear. I am far from that goal but it doesn’t mean I can’t recognize it without explanation.

end rant

That Angenieux looks beautiful. I’m always tempted to pick up the 35-70mm Nikon Mount Angenieux until I see the price tag. With my brief stint with the Micro, I had the 15mm c-mount and it was like painting with pastels and sharp as a tack at the same time.

There's the same problem in audio of describing aesthetics in a consistent way.  It creates all the same confusions and arguments because people all hear differently, and people have different preferences, so comments like "A is better than B" "worth the price" etc are automatically a problem, but even things like "X is faster than Y" "X has better imaging than Y" "X has better bass than Y" etc are also difficult because even when people have the same definition of what those words mean (which takes a shared history of experience) each person might hear different aspects of those things differently and depending on how you value those different aspects of that trait will depend on how you think each one rates.

There's also another complication which I'm not sure is true for video, but if definitely true for audio and that is that the 'rules' change depending on the overall quality level of your equipment.  For example, if you have a low quality digital source, like a cheap CD player, then the high frequencies are unpleasant and so speakers that don't have an extended high-frequency response are more musical because they're covering up a problem elsewhere in your system.  However, when you start going up the levels going from a bad CD player to a very good CD player there is a point at which having speakers that hide the problem by de-emphasising the whole high-frequency range becomes a liability and not an asset.  Unfortunately what this means is that people with low quality systems will evaluate high-quality speakers and dislike them, then flood the internet with comments about how they sound awful.
The main difference is that you can't hear an audio system over the internet, so video is a bit different in that sense.  Imagine all the issues you'd have with cameras if people were all warring in the forums and reviewers relied on ad money etc, but you couldn't see any photographs or video except in person!  Yeah, it is that bad.

Synergy is always a thing, art is always subjective, haters gonna hate but who cares!  Just like Casey Neistat said about haters.. "People who don't create don't get an opinion"