kye

It's back! I skipped through ARRIs YT channel to look for 1080p videos that had it, and I found a couple of interesting things: ARRI upload videos in all sorts of resolutions, 4K, 1080p, 1440p, even 720p, even recently The 1080p uploads they did only have the Enhanced Bitrate option very recently - the 1080p ones uploaded more than a couple of months ago didn't have the option This video has it: Here's a comparison. This is the 1080p video displayed full-screen on my UHD display and then a screen-grab taken. Standard 1080p: Enhanced Bitrate 1080p: Standard 1080p: Enhanced Bitrate 1080p: Oddly, it's not available on this 1080p upload, which is more recent than the above. @kaylee Do you have it enabled yet?

I think you might be low-balling your estimate...

I see metalworkers releasing things like Loctite by just applying heat. They typically do it with a blowtorch, which obviously I wouldn't recommend, but it might be a simple case of applying a soldering iron for a bit perhaps? It depends on how much superglue you used. "A few dabs" isn't very scientific a measurement!!

Just a hint? I'd suggest that there's more than just a hint of je ne sais quoi from the Komodo!! Good practical questions. If the battery life wouldn't last then a V-mount could be added, potentially via a cable with the battery kept elsewhere, like in a pocket, but it would potentially add to the weight of the rig, so should be taken into consideration. One trick that I got from a fellow forum member for stability and holding a camera for long periods was to buy a belt and put a tape-measure pocket on it, and then put the camera on a monopod and put the foot of the monopod into the tape-measure pocket. This puts most of the weight of the rig onto the belt, and provides a third point of contact, although your hips aren't completely stable if you're walking around. It's quite a minimal setup, can easily be held with only one hand (potentially even quickly changing batteries like this), and the rig can easily be quickly taken out of the belt pocket and used as a normal monopod or packed away etc. If @backtoit put the camera on a gimbal and then extended the handle of the gimbal with a monopod into the belt then that might help stabilise things sufficiently. They might still get the vertical bobbing up and down motion when walking, but it might not be that visible.

Also, paranoia seems to be setting in..... https://petapixel.com/2023/07/11/real-photo-disqualified-from-photography-contest-for-being-ai/ The judges looked at the metadata (it was taken with an iPhone) but couldn't work out if it was real or not, so disqualified the image because they weren't sure.

This one is incredible. I'm not sure how available it is for users though - I saw this video posted by the developer who is sharing their work on the liftgammagain forums just this morning.

Not a user, but having RAW 5.7K60 and C4K120 and 4.4K anamorphic seems a lot like it's now in cinema camera territory. Things like the ability of RED cameras to have RAW at high frame rates was one of the things that I thought separated them from the usual prosumer cameras that mere mortals like I could afford. Maybe I'm just behind the times, but if you were shooting something serious like high-end music videos / high-end docs / low-budget features and had the ability for 5.7K up to 60p (for those emotional/surreal moments) and also C4K 120p for any special effects shots (like if shooting an emotional sports doco) then it makes it a serious camera for those tasks.

Wow - that looks really good! I shoot with my phone regularly so I see a reasonable amount of iPhone footage and I agree that the iPhone doesn't look that good. To my eyes it's clearly RAW. Despite the low bitrates that YT uses to compress things, if you give it something shot on RAW then the quality of the YT stream goes up significantly - things like the falling snow and fine detail gives this away. Here's an example of a very high-quality RAW capture, but this is from 2015 and only uploaded in 1080p: It has the same look to me. Definitely agree with this. I would go further and suggest that the lesser phones (any phone shooting a compressed codec) are modern Super 8 emulations. I say this because: they get used for home videos like 8mm used to be and are the perfect tool for shooting for fun and not thinking about the quality of the work by the time you process the footage so the compression isn't visible they're not as sharp as RAW 4K they're likely using SS to expose there's enough hand-held motion shown in the frames that it's a different look to a S16 film camera I have to resist the temptation to turn random iPhone shots in my projects into 8mm film emulation 🙂

If you take time-lapses using RAW stills then they look pretty good. No-one is expecting it to look like an Alexa, but it looks way better than the prores files that the latest iPhone creates.

Absolutely! I must admit that my excitement to hear that Apple introduced prores was topped only by my disappointment when I saw that they were the first people in history to implement prores to record an image that had been dragged through all 7 levels of hell first, rather than it just being a neutral high-quality compressed version of the RAW image.

No worries! A little bit of excess enthusiasm is the least of our issues!! What are you planning on using the RAW for? or is it just a recent discovery?

Nice! They definitely look like movie stills and not photographs. What was the show LUT? Interesting range of tones/hues there.

My understanding of it was that a colour timer would take the negative and make a positive print using a special machine where each frame of the film was exposed via a separate light for Red, Green and Blue, and the machine allowed the exposure time for each to be adjusted. Thus the phrase "colour timing". Adjusting all of them would raise/lower the overall exposure and adjusting them in relation to each other would adjust the WB. The controls from that operation live on as the "printer lights" controls in Resolve and other software, as they literally adjusted the lights of the printer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading#Color_timing

It's definitely very different shooting conditions... I laughed so hard years ago when I saw the review of the P4K by CVP (IIRC) and the guy took it out and took some random shots in public including some shots of his companion while riding on the train. His comment was that he had to work "incredibly fast"... HAHAHAHAHA. It was a person sitting motionless for several minutes!! I can go from zero to rolling in something like 5 seconds, and there are situations where I'll still miss a quarter of the shots I see.

@Brian Williams On the contrary.. Lots of interest, as expressed in this thread! Smartphone sensors have enormous potential if we could just get all the ridiculous over-processing out of the way to get to the image. I've developed a powergrade that matches my iPhone to my GX85 to suit the work I do, but RAW would be the far easier option, that's for sure!

Vintage lenses tend to be 10x the price for the "best" version compared to 2nd place, which is great if you don't happen to need the fastest/sharpest one. Often, if you can find a lens test that does compare the "best" one with the "losers" then you'll find there's not much of a difference between the best one and the next best one (and maybe the one after that..). A year or two ago I thought that Minolta glass was probably the next one that would become super popular, but I haven't kept up with it so I don't know if those have rocketed up yet or not. They're spectacular lenses though. Realistically, if you watch enough of those "OMG I found this incredible $30 vintage lens" then you realise that somewhere between half and three-quarters of all vintage lenses are actually great performers. Even more than that if you're interested in lenses that have a more degraded set of optics, or are mechanically only so-so.

Definitely not mid-season! I suggest: Learn the interface and how to get around Learn where the basic tools are and what they do Learn Colour Management and how to set everything up correctly At that point you'll have the knowledge to start getting into all the fun stuff like playing with other colour spaces and splitting channels and using blending modes etc. The journey in Resolve has three phases: You can't yet swim, so you wade out a bit, but can't go far You learn to swim and have fun swimming around a bit further from shore and grow your skills and confidence You start to explore what's happening underneath the surface and you dive down and suddenly realise that you've only been exploring the surface and that there is no bottom..... I've read posts on the colourist forum where someone makes a one sentence post and it took me 8+ hours over multiple days to work out what they said, how to do it myself, what it meant, and how I might use it.

Good points and they strike me as mirroring the workflows of Cullen Kelly and Walter Volpatto, the only two professional colourists who I've heard break down their workflow. The broad process for both of them seems to be: Import footage and get things setup (or, in our cases, edit the footage!) Setup the colour management correctly so everything is well behaved Setup the global 'look' If required, setup any specific looks for groups of shots Then start reviewing the shots individually (in passes) to even things out, troubleshoot, and then to really polish things up Of course, I tend to bounce between 1 and 2, because for me the colour and visual appeal of the shots matters in terms of which ones I choose. This is in complete contrast to how all the people that play 'colourist' on YT do it - they spend 10 minutes on one shot, whereas pros often only get 1 minute per shot, or less, so would be screwed if they didn't start broad and narrow down. I also particularly like Cullens approach, or at least the approach he's taken to his more professional LUT pack, which is that it's modular, so there are separate LUTs for contrast, saturations, hue rotations, split-toning, and other look adjustments, with there being several options in each of these categories. He recommends mixing and matching and applying them and adjusting the opacity of each to taste. For me, considering I tend to shoot and grade the same sort of material, I'm developing my own default node tree with everything all setup and ready to adjust as required. On many projects it's just a matter of applying the overall look and then just going into the Lightbox mode which shows all your shots at once and then just adjusting any that stick-out and then exporting it and doing a final watch-through. The BM grading panels are a bit of a clue as well, having Next Node and Previous Node buttons, but not buttons to create new nodes, on the smallest one at least, which implies to me a default node structure already applied to each shot. I've been meaning to go back and re-watch the Walter Volpatto masterclass now that I've actually gotten my head around colour management etc. Colour Management was the biggest breakthrough for me. Shooting on cameras that didn't have profiles in ACES/RCM meant that I had a really hard time adjusting levels or WB without the mids and highlights/shadows moving in different ways, but convert to DWG and grade and convert to 709/2.4 and then grade in DWG and all the controls magically do what you'd want them to do.

I thought that the standard focal lengths were normally designed to be spaced out relatively evenly in increments where you could move the camera closer/further to fine-tune. Obviously there are variations within that progression, and also variations in lens line-ups (like 28mm, 56/58mm, 90/100mm lenses etc) but that when you see matched sets of cine lenses, those were the main ones. There were quite a lot of other bundles with other spacings, which was interesting, although I did sort from highest price so started with the lens sets with every lens they made!!

Indeed I do! But seeing as I live in Australia, I tend to keep local hours 😉

There are definitely things that are best done in production, but for those projects where they can't be done in prod (or weren't) then it's nice to understand what can be done in post. I would expect that the field of colour psychology would be just as deep as any other, and worth studying regardless of if you're involved in pre, prod, or post.

Interesting. The only ones I've compared with any level of attention are the GH5 and GX85, which seemed so similar that after doing my initial comparisons I just wrote them off as being "the same", which in my context is probably better defined as "similar enough that any differences between cameras are small compared to the normal differences between different scenes, so there's no reason to develop a transformation to match them in my projects". The testing I did was to shoot a real-world scene and also a colour chart, then I matched the GH5 to the GX85 by adding contrast and saturation and looking at the results on the waveform monitor and vector scope, paying attention to the curve, the rotation and saturations of the patches on the chart. They were close enough that I assumed all Panasonic cameras would match, as that seems the most likely assumption you'd make. So I just moved onto matching the iPhone with the GX85, and (referring to the above definition) that was definitely NOT "the same" 🙂 I agree that the RAW->Profile is the only place they could match them, and I would have assumed that they would have done this. It's odd to hear they haven't! I mean, all you'd have to do is profile each camera, which would involve the same kind of setups that you'd need for testing them during the design phase, and then just install the transformation as a LUT. They're developing a bunch of them anyway, for each of the 709 colour profiles, so why they wouldn't do custom ones each time seems to be a false economy - especially considering how many of their users would own multiple models and shoot in multi-cam setups or at least multi-camera projects. Also, if you profile each camera, you don't have to re-do the colour profiles.

Cool - MF and the IBIS settings are the only downsides I can think of to going this direction, and it seems they're both in hand. I'll be curious to hear your impressions of the setup once you've put it through its paces - weddings are at the serious end of being able to work fast in challenging conditions so it's definitely a rigorous real-world test! Have you settled on which lens? I don't know anything about it specifically, but the CZ 40-80/3.5 should be a stellar performer so I would imagine that you'll be reporting good things...

I disagree. Panasonic is in the business of selling cameras to people, the vast majority of whom either couldn't colour grade their images to save their lives, or can't even spell LUT. However, they have managed to include a couple of features that cater to the more informed, the first of which is the inclusion of V-Log which caters to those who can spell LUT but aren't the most discerning control freaks on the planet. The second, and most refined option is to use the external RAW capability, which is the most neutral, and requires the most effort in post to get a good image. This three-tiered system allows Panasonic to be the most pleasing for people that can't troubleshoot the images, and the most neutral to those with the most capability, with the V-Log tier being the middle-one - it's not the most accurate and it's not the least accurate. It's like a political dog-whistle, only in camera marketing terms. You can cater to multiple markets without them suffering from the limitations of the other markets.

How is your muscle memory for manually focusing? As someone who has shot exclusively for several years using MF lenses handheld in fast-moving real-world situations and trying to get a bit of background blur, my advice is... get lots of practice beforehand! For what I do, I shoot a lot, I get what I get, I miss the shots I miss, and I have an infinite time in the edit to make it work. If I was shooting a wedding I'd be very nervous about using MF!