kye

Panasonic will be getting exactly the results they want to be getting - they're just aiming at a different target. That target might be a different colour science, or it might be to cover up any image problems that creep in when shooting in odd situations like low-light, coloured lighting, poor CRI lighting, etc etc. These are just guesses of course. IIRC there was a test some years ago on the most accurate camera, and Sony won by a good margin, and this was in the middle of their time as being regarded as having terrible colour science. The name of the game is providing something that has the nicest and most flattering colour science across the widest range of images. In my analyses (of which I've done several) this typically involves making skin-tones more flattering, and giving subtle tweaks to the rest of the image by emphasising the warm/cool axis and de-emphasising the green/magenta axis. The standard Panasonic 709 colour reproduction @hyalinejim shows in the video is rather odd because it's not really following the normal patterns that I've seen, even in other Panasonic cameras.

I have the GH5 and GX85 but not the GH6, but I absolutely agree that although the GX85 is a great 4K 8-bit camera, the 1080p on the GH5 is in another league entirely. Prior to the GH5 I was using the XC10 and shooting C-Log, which in theory is a better colour science and a better codec, but the XC10 is only 8-bit and is way noisier, and you can absolutely tell the difference in post. Watching colour grading tutorials with ARRI footage they seem to be able to push and pull it anywhere in basically any direction and it just goes there flawlessly - the GH5 feels like that in post. I've (finally) worked out colour management in Resolve and graded a bunch of clips from different cameras and the files from the GH5 were the easiest to grade by a large margin. The fact the GH6 has more modes / frame-rates / codec options would just be better again than the GH5. I have heard it is noisier though.

There's a technique called "back button focus" which I have enabled on my GX85 ( @mercer told me how to set it up but google should also know how) and would side-step your issue. Basically the camera is in MF the whole time except when you hold down the button you configure for it. So the button is like having a hold-to-focus option. Choosing one you can hit with your thumb seems to work quite well ergonomically. I use it all the time because it means that you can focus on something and then use the shutter button to capture things without the camera having to refocus every time you go through the half-pressed position, and making the shutter button far more responsive too.

Well done on getting such a great match... and the video too. Your career as a camera influencer has begun!!

Great to hear! Did you used to have a GH5 and shoot 1080p with it? The impression I had from those who tested it online was that it was virtually flawless, so if the GH6 is even better then that would be a real achievement 🙂

To expand on the above, here's a bit of colour psychology in which Cullen demonstrates that cooler colours are perceived as further away and warmer colours as closer, so it's a way of adding depth to the image: In the context of building a colour grade by making a number of small adjustments, this individual adjustment may not even be perceivable on its own, but would be in the mix adding to the overall look. Obviously Cullens example is stronger for demonstration purposes (and his LUTs are designed to be used by adjusting the amount they're applied) but the principle would scale.

I've never been a fan of the teal/orange look, which involves a lot of hue shifting, although I've consistently been surprised how much of it a movie can have and you still get used to it while watching, but I've never liked it for my own work. There's a school of thought that you should never know that a colourist did anything with the images, and I've heard more than one colourist say that cooling the shadows just makes them muddy, so I'm not so sure it's an unpopular opinion. What is interesting to me is how much of it is occurring in virtually every camera LUT and every camera profile. It seems to be a different story when it's applied in subtle ways, being more like adding salt to a meal where below a certain threshold you can't taste it directly but just experience everything else heightened. But the teal/orange look isn't going away, although it may get less extreme (it's hard to imagine it getting more extreme at this point!), because it exists in nature and is part of how the world works. It's built into many classic film-stocks so has been with us for literally decades. It is probably hard-wired in our brains to some extent too, although I don't have proof of this. I feel my next stage in colour grading is learning how much of these things is the optimal amount where it adds to the image but doesn't call attention to itself.

This makes sense. The average camera reviewer knows next to nothing about colour grading, and these are the people that create the word on the street. Better to annoy the people that have more expertise, and besides, it might encourage them to buy further up your product line. Perhaps the most significant thing that Yedlin has said in all his essays is where he tries to convince people to look beyond the manufacturers: What is interesting about this sentiment, which seems pretty normal and par-for-the-course on these forums, is that the audience for his articles is the entire feature-film and TV industry and all the professionals in it. It seems that the same "colour comes from the camera" mentality is shared by the pros as well! I don't envy the job of the colour scientists who are trying to make transformations that will be used on billions of images and has to suit more situations than any one person could even imagine. Obviously these folks would have built large libraries of test images and would (I imagine) be able to apply the transformation to all those images and also to other datasets like the RGB cube and then analyse them for artefacts and discontinuities etc, but you're still grading billions of photos blindly. It is interesting that the warmer hues (red orange yellow and browns) are darker than the reference circles, and the cooler hues are lighter than the references, which I would interpret as a degree of making things flattering, but it's pretty limited. Yeah, looks come and go, like fashion trends, but what is old will be new again someday. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've been binging Cullen Kelly colour grading videos and he's taught me a lot about the taste aspects of colour grading and also look design. I found some things really interesting: He spoke about wanting an accurate film emulation, and asked if people wanted the limited DR of the negative? what about the grain? gate weave? inconsistency in output when processing? etc. He said that when these film stocks were the latest in technology the people working with them were very aware and frustrated to some degree about their limitations, so now that we have digital why would we want to accurately recreate all those limitations, other than to make something look period-accurate? More likely is that we want to capture what is desirable about film without the limitations it had, and in this case the question moves from "how do I accurately emulate film?" to "what are the desirable attributes of film and how can I recreate those?" His approach to this seems to be focused around a few specific operations: Applying a film-like contrast curve Applying a subtractive colour model Applying a split-tone adjustment (typically to cool the shadows and warm the highlights, but keep black / white / mid-grey neutral, although there are other variants of course) Applying some hue modifiers (which I assume are hue rotations) and if a film-look is desired, then adding grain, halation and gate-weave He mentioned that he applies a split-tone to basically every project he grades, but also demonstrated that when applied subtly it is not visible as an orange-teal look, but simply adds colour contrast, which was very surprising as I thought this would always be noticeable Going back to Adobe and their conservative approach to colours, I was surprised to learn that the colour model in Resolve is HSL (which is used basically by all the standard grading tools) which seems to be one of the least useful models when you consider that it's not a good fit for how we perceive colour, how colour works in the physical world, or what we perceive as being desirable or flattering. The kicker is, though, that you can't change it! If you want to perform operations in more desirable colour spaces then you're left to do various complicated work-arounds (such as setting a node to HSV, disabling channels 1 and 3, then adjusting saturation with the Gain control) but this isn't optimal either, and more sophisticated solutions require coding custom scripts like DCTLs etc. I don't know what Baselight does, but Resolve is one of the top-tier colouring systems that has been used from the very beginning to adjust colour reproduction of the physical world in an artistic industry and yet it uses HSL as its colour model. I'm not even saying that it should be some other colour space, just that it should be configurable, but it's not, and all the other options essentially render your control surface and most of the tools irrelevant or inaccessible. How well do you think they work? Fuji has some expensive and technically sophisticated cameras, so they're not a budget option. I ask because I'm wondering if its not just the transformations, but perhaps the sensor itself. CCD vs CMOS seems to come up in these discussions once you dig deep enough.

There appears to be a broader context to all this. I think that people fall into one of two situations.. People that are happy with the images they can achieve This could be that: they can't / don't colour grade (maybe beyond adding a simple transform) but are happy with the images they get don't colour grade at all and just shoot in a 709 profile but are happy with it they can colour grade, potentially at a very high level, and their skill is able to match their expectations This appears to include people like our friend @markr041 who seems to enjoy the results of his many camera tests, and the vast majority of consumers, but it also includes quite a number of professional colourists who have high expectations but also high skill levels to be able to craft images. This is also likely to include the cohort of people who have high expectations but are able to meet them by using tools such as FilmConvert or Dehancer and have had enough practice that the heavy-lifting of these very sophisticated tools is able to get them over the line with their images. @BTM_Pix appears to be in this category, although he seems to be suggesting that the camera is adequate because any shortcomings are due to the lack of the other 499 people typically involved in creating nice images. They do say that great skin-tones begin with the makeup department so this definitely has merit. @hyalinejim might be here too, I'm not sure, but has certainly demonstrated significant skill in film emulations in other threads. This category of people rely on the colour science of the manufacturer to different degrees, but it might be quite significantly, and potentially spent many thousands of dollars buying that colour science. I include even many deeply experienced colourists in this equation, as typically, even though they have significant levels of skill at their disposal, they're also mostly spending time grading footage from the best cameras around like ARRI/RED/VENICE and would absolutely not be able to get such satisfying results from lesser cameras. People that are NOT happy with the images they can achieve This could be that: they can't / don't colour grade beyond adding a simple transform don't colour grade at all and just shoot in a 709 profile they can colour grade, potentially at a very high level, but their skill is NOT able to match their expectations (This list is almost identical to the previous one) These people rely on the colour science of the manufacturer and are unhappy at the manufacturers because the manufacturer doesn't deliver sufficient image quality to get the desired results. Where this is discussed on EOSHD is from people that are familiar with the colour that has been shown to be possible by cameras like the OG BMPCC/BMMCC, Digital Bolex, Canon 5D with ML hack, etc. I think that no-one sensible expects a 3K modern MILC to have the colour reproduction of an Alexa 65, but the fact that a S16 sensor from a decade ago could do a MUCH better job than todays cameras is extremely frustrating. This is where my comment about "more pixels instead of better pixels" comes from, and definitely represents my position, and explains why I have been focusing on colour grading - I have basically accepted that the manufacturers have abandoned us and am learning to do what I can on my own. Cameras seem to be in one of several categories: cameras that have a baked-in look that is quite "video" (e.g. iPhone, DSLRs, MILCs, etc) cameras that have no baked-in look (RAW) and require colour grading for all the colour work cameras that have a baked-in look that is very filmic (e.g. OG BMPCC, Digital Bolex) Unfortunately the last category is now extinct, despite there not being any real reason why this was necessary or desirable. There are thousands of people online who share this view - this thread has 3700 posts and is still going strong: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/409881-ccd-sensor-cult-i-mean-club.html What is interesting is that the vast majority of colourists are in this second category, despite having the highest skill levels of the bunch and even when grading ARRI/RED/VENICE footage. This is mostly to do with film emulation, combined with their incredible visual acuity, which has to be seen to be believed. It's widely acknowledged that Steve Yedlin has implemented the best film emulation seen in the wild in recent times, which was used on his films such as Knives Out / Glass Onion and especially Star Wars The Last Jedi which was shot on digital and film with the digital processed to match seamlessly with the film. This article gives an excellent overview of the many technical essays that Yedlin has posted to his website Yedlin.net: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography The reason that I raise this is that Yedlins work is perplexing, because it shows that emulating film basically perfectly is possible, but also that it is not possible for most people, even most high-end colourists. In the Display Prep Demo FAQ Yedlin mentions that he had to create his own tools to do this manipulation: He doesn't say it specifically in a nice quotable format, but the impression I was left with was that he built these things for himself because they're beyond the capabilities of even Resolve / Baselight, which are deeper and more capable than almost anyone on the planet (let alone these forums) could even comprehend, but are not adequate. This is where we get into the difference between a colourist and a colour scientist. Accurate film emulation requires a colour scientist, not a colourist, and the two are quite distinct skillsets. Summary When it comes to getting the look you want, it's either a case of: camera colour science + production design + your grading skills > your expectations camera colour science + production design + your grading skills < your expectations The problem with the second one, especially for film-like images, is that we have seen it's possible for camera manufacturers to create starkly better images than they currently do, so this is enormously frustrating. Obviously production design matters, but if you're just looking at people outside in natural light, this aspect is far less significant than the camera and your colour grading skills. When it comes to film emulation specifically, the cruel joke is that: It is possible, because Steve Yedlin did it, but simultaneously it is not practically possible, because only a handful of colour scientists in the world are capable of doing what Steve Yedlin did to achieve those results Most of us could get better grades with the great examples of older cameras (OG BMPCC, Digital Bolex, etc) than we can with modern cameras, so in a world where the only people that can afford to get access to the colour scientists is the manufacturers, they have deliberately not done this, basically cutting us off from that potential

Reminds me of that Modern Family episode where the whole thing was from the perspectives of their various devices as they video chatted etc with each other all the time. I read that they actually tried shooting it like how it was portrayed but ended up using real Apple device cameras but operated by camera ops and the actors just resting their hands on the camera ops wrist.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's less in-keeping with the "how far and how fast can you go" ethos of endurance sports, and more a weekend event designed to not only challenge you physically but to challenge you on every level. If the goal is to create an opportunity to fail then it fits, and it makes sense that it would take a very different form than the other ultramarathons around. When I watched the original doco on it I didn't know much about them, but I was surprised to discover that ultramarathons are super common.

I'm also often impressed when I see something shot on film, but in addition to that, I'm often impressed by something that I think is shot on film, but when I look it up I see it was shot on something like an F35, which shot 1080p and was introduced in 2008. Often the things I see from pre-Alexa digital cameras are on TV shows, where they wouldn't have had the budget for a colourist to dedicate themselves to optimising every shot, so a lot of the look must have been from the camera. Also, and to partly counter what @BTM_Pix said about it being a team effort, sometimes the shot that is more impressive will be an external shot in full sun, which is something that most of us are much closer than 499 people away from being able to re-create. This is why I've turned my attention to colour grading - the camera companies are no longer trying to create the kind of images we're actually chasing. So it's either shoot on film or you're on your own.

I have seen various snippets over the years of influencers talking about the craft and lots of them have a far more developed sense of things than you'd imagine. Not all of them of course, but definitely a lot of them. One of the things they're often very aware of is the aesthetic of various types of production. In todays terms, things shot on a phone have a certain look that tends to be viewed as more authentic and less produced. If you're making content that plays better if your viewers think that things are unplanned and 'real' then this aesthetic would help that, and if you want to appear as a professional authoritative source then maybe some nice lighting and shallower DOF would suit better. As a few examples, Gerald Undone seems more like an authority figure with a nice studio setup rather than shooting on a phone while unboxing things on his floor, Chefs that want to be taken seriously have professional looking kitchens and have nice lighting and cameras, but not everyone wants to look professional. A bit of searching revealed this channel - a kids show that looks like it's shot on a smartphone. https://www.youtube.com/@KidsDianaShow/about BUT, the channel has 112M subs and 93 BILLION views! I have no idea if they do paid content but the YT ad revenue alone would probably buy them an Alexa. I suspect part of their allure is that the content sort-of looks like it was made by the kids themselves. Maybe it is, and maybe there's an entire production team, but the aesthetic is deliberate. Cinematographers choose lenses deliberately because they're professionals, you'd be crazy if you thought that professional YouTubers weren't aware of the difference between filming on a smartphone vs a cinema camera 🙂

If they overheat then they're not for influencers... The best way to shorten your record times is to: Develop script & storyboard Shoot in controlled situations Create the excitement deliberately Most influencers, except the serious ones that have mature and controlled processes, just setup crazy situations and then see what happens, recording the whole time, then edit it down. If it overheats, it'll be yet another floater in the camera specs pool, along with cameras without wide angle lenses, selfie screens, external audio inputs, etc etc.

Actually, I thought this forum was mostly focused on 8K RAW with global shutter... I always seem to be the minority opinion when discussing what cinema actually looks like, what is practical in the real world, that spending $5K on a camera and 5 minutes slapping on a LUT isn't the best approach to getting good colour, that the content of the video matters more than the DR, that editing is more important than colour subsampling, etc etc

Even watching a movie trailer on YT, then watching "cinematic" videos on YT will show, very clearly, that despite the movie trailers being right there, just a few clicks away, most online film-makers are in a parallel universe. I understand that not everyone wants "cinematic" results, and that's fine, but it's just incredible that those who do are so far from the mark and it's so obvious. Maybe we're in a post-truth moving image design world?? 😂😂😂

49 people?? That's WAY more than the Barkely Marathons... only 17 people have finished that since 1989 😉 (For anyone not familiar, the Barkely Marathons is essentially what a cross country race would be in hell, and was specifically designed so that high-achievers would be able to experience failure.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Marathons) Seriously though, the two races couldn't be more different, how fun. I've never needed to do crazy things to find the limits of myself as a human being - just watching anything shot on film and then trying to colour grading your home video footage to match will show you your limits in about an hour!

Production process: Shot on Panavision Cameras and anamorphic lenses Using Kodak and Fuji negative films and Kodak projection film No digital intermediary - editing was done on the negative The image quality that blew you away was the state of the art in colour science in 1989. Here we are in 2023, 34 years later and we have 8K RAW but it still doesn't look even remotely like that. It's a pity everyone wanted more pixels instead of better pixels.

Well, if that's what you want to do then don't let me stop you, but social media is bad for your health in many ways and something like this might be one of them!! It also reminds me of the doco The Barkely Marathons which used to be on Netflix but doesn't seem to be available any more - if you haven't seen it I highly recommend it 🙂 This one is on YT and is also a pretty good watch, although I think the other one was a better edit (and definitely a better colour grade!):

How to say you're in the US without saying you're in the US! My experience travelling elsewhere is that people stop and look at you, but not to pose...

In a moment of temporary insanity I read the first few pages of that thread and the previous camera one, and was left with impression that BM have a bit of a problem. The people in the thread seem to want a new BM camera to be: FF sensor modular / "box" design with Pro features UMP sensor (or similar performance) replacement for BMMCC Micro Cinema Camera bright tilting/flipping touchscreen replacement for P4K The way I read those incompatible requests is that, according to the customers, BM have four "holes" in their lineup: professional modular camera, likely FF, with SDI / timecode / etc, flagship modular camera, likely S35/FF, to compliment P6K update for P4K for entry-level users replacement for BMMCC I'd even suggest a fifth hole in their line-up, which is an update to the OG BMPCC, which would have the look of the old sensors, but with 2.5K, better battery / sound, brighter tilt screen, and dual-ISO. Of course, the market for that last one would be too small 🙂

and your NLE will be so fast that the editing experience will be fantastic!

Everyone knows that long takes are boring......

Yeah, it's the first example I've seen that's ready for genuine pro work right now.

Sure! But for a weekly upload schedule you might need to branch out somewhat 🙂