kye

Another comparison I pulled the video into Resolve and did a little grading on the GH7 LogC image to match the Alexa, and it wasn't too hard to get this: Obviously colour grading a Log image that has been through YT is an abysmal image pipeline, so take that into account. It would be interesting to play with the files and see how they feel. I suspect the vast majority of people would be looking to get the LogC upgrade in order to get a nicer image, rather than match an Alexa, so shooting Vlog and LogC and then trying to work with the images would be interesting.

like any other camera: if you're an artist then it's fine. if you're a technician then not fine because it doesn't have 750MP and 22 stops of DR.

Sharpness and resolution are misleading measures if you care about aesthetics. The things to pay attention to are the MTF curve of the final images. Both film and classic lenses all had a natural fall-off where finer details were present but became lower contrast - a low pass filter essentially. Digital has no low pass filter (except nearing nyquist), and with most processing, it actually exhibits a high-pass pattern, where the contrast of fine detail is higher than that of larger details.

Skateboarders don't care about helmets, or safety of any kind whatsoever. See the below video, which they spiced up with slow-motion........ and explosives.

OG BMPCC and 45-150mm f4-5.6 zoom... The cinema flows from the people through the equipment into the edit. No excuses.

....and far more friendly than the HK416.

Now this is marketing... clicked on an S9 thread? Here's a product you might also be interested in... the ARRI 416!

I am growing more and more fond of the saying I invented recently, which is that the art/cinema flows from the people through the equipment to the final film. It is simple, but seems to capture the heart of the matter..... and explains a great deal about the quality of work that we see from various people online.

Maybe you would benefit from using back-button focus? I use it on the GX85 and it works brilliantly because you have full control over when the AF is enabled.

I must admit, this thread really makes me laugh. No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it. I've been spending my time more and more elsewhere and I can tell you, there are places where people discuss aesthetics, creativity, productivity, and try and help each other out and encourage each other.

I wonder if you got the LogC profile for each, if maybe those would match between GH6 and GH7. Paying for the profiles might be worthwhile if it matched them SOOC.

Please look through this thread and show me where this was stated.

In life I've continually found that when people around me generally agree on something that I can't see when I look, I have found that there was something there and I just hadn't learned to see it yet. It's about being smart enough to know that you don't know everything. By claiming that something doesn't exist, you are claiming to know everything - otherwise how can you know it doesn't exist? It might just be in the part of the sum total of human knowledge and experience that you haven't experienced yet. The only way you can know something isn't in there is if you have all of it. You're not claiming you know more than us about it, you're claiming to know everything about it. The logic is very simple.

It must be amazing to know everything and have nothing else to learn. I can't imagine what that must be like. To see everything. To know everything. Wow. We truly are lucky to have you here to correct all of us in our silly and naive delusions. Please... tell us what else we all collectively believe that is also wrong... enlighten us... your omnipotence!

100mm on MFT is definitely a pretty long telephoto for sure, but remember that in my case I had IBIS in the camera and the OIS in the lens both helping with the stabilisation. Depending on what camera and what lens you have, they might not work together like this, so you'll get less effective stabilisation. I find stabilisation to really be a bit of a gamble - you can get good comparisons from people and they're likely to be good information but until you actually test a setup yourself you're not going to know in what situations you can get a stable image. I've found that there are lots of things that can impact your ability to get a stable shot, for example all the following will have an impact: if you're tired if the ground is level and solid or not what sort of shoes you are wearing and if they're comfortable what pose you're in if it's windy your caffeine levels how tired you are if there are bright lights shining in your eyes (obviously) if you're moving or walking, but even then there are all sorts of techniques involved and how much practice you've had at them, etc Perhaps the best advice once you've bought your equipment is to practice as much as you can, know what you can and can't do, and have a backup plan in place for when it gets difficult.

If you want your images to be sharp, in your editing program there is a control called Sharpness. This is used to increase the sharpness of the image. To get sharper images you would increase this control until the images are as sharp as you like. If you're shooting 1080p or above, sharpness has nothing to do with resolution.

I just got the 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 Panasonic zoom lens, and in combination with my GX85 they do DualIS which utilises the IBIS and the OIS together. I'm able to hand-hold up to about 100mm, which is same FOV as 200mm on FF. The problem of stabilisation is that there's no standard for testing, and each person has differing abilities to hold a camera steady. If you're able to rig the camera in a way that makes it steadier then that will significantly improve your ability to get stable shots. For example, having the camera on a small tripod and using the tripod to brace the camera against your body, or using the string trick to hold the camera to the ground, or using a strap to pull it away from your body and stabilise it that way, etc.

Maybe you need two... one to have the battery fail and the other one to be rolling and catch the moment!

I'm not proving your point. The picture is fuzzy, and there isn't a single definition, but these things do exist. Take "the film look". If you ask people what the film look is, you will have arguments until the end of time. Any attempt to define the film look will fail. However, that doesn't mean there is no film look... imagine two scenarios: Scenario 1: I shoot images with an 8K sensor at base ISO, Zeiss Otis prime, sharpened h264 codec, 709 profile, and I edit in a 4K timeline without colour grading, and upload to YT. Scenario 2: I shoot images with a 2K sensor at ISO 800, Contax Zeiss prime wide-open, in RAW, and I edit on a 2K timeline and in post I apply a Kodak 250D and 2383 colour transform, I add grain, I add gate weave, and I upload to YT. I then show both videos to 100 people. Probably all of them would say the second has a "film look" to it. Just because you can't define it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I then shoot images and I add a film-like contrast curve, some grain, some subtractive saturation, soften the edges slightly, and do a warm/cool split-tone, people who saw it might start to say it's got a "bit of a film look". It's the same with the medium format look. Or the Kodak look. Or the S16 look. Or the Technicolour look. Or the Wes Anderson look. Or the Tarantino look. Or the VHS look. etc. These things don't have a single precise and universally agreed definition, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Or it might be that you're not seeing it. That's fine, no-one here is even remotely close to seeing everything in the images. When the top cinematographers, colourists, editors, production designers, etc all look at things they all see things we don't. I mean, if interior designers can walk into a room and see the influence of late-18th century French sensibilities in a room, that leaves the rest of us practically blind by comparison, right?

For Colour Management, I recommend biting the bullet and learning it once and learning it properly. That video is just over an hour, but it's worth it. The alternate approach is what I did, which was to watch shorter videos that give you random puzzle pieces in random order and basically just confuse the absolute crap out of you. I was really bad at colour grading for years until I started watching the professionals give thorough explanations of things, and the confusion lifted and I was able to get things setup and start getting the results I wanted. You know how professionals make things look easy, and can do great stuff with a few clicks? It's because they know how things really work.

I shoot personal projects, so they're really mostly for me, and for the kids later. If you're shooting professionally then your clients will probably have chosen you because of your work, and your work looks like your work because you see what you see and let that shape your projects. If you care about being happy then trying to do the best job you can is how to keep morale and self-esteem up - if you're just going through the motions and don't care about the results then it's dragging down your whole life.

I think it's simply a matter of who can see the differences and who can't. When I first started out in video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p video. Not even a little. Now it's 6 years later and I can even tell the difference between 30p and 24p, and I REALLY don't like 30p. There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images. Lots of things that are debated.... motion cadence 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit vs 10-bit 24p vs 30p vs 60p shutter angles Sony sensors vs others CMOS vs CCD I suspect much of the debate is that people simply can't see the differences, or can and just have different taste.

You can actually adjust WB and exposure of LOG images just like they are RAW if you have the right colour management setup. It's complicated, but there is a lot of good info out there if you're curious.

There are no definitions of looks. You can't assess if something has the medium format look with a checklist. Ask different people what the look is and you'll get different answers, because people notice different things. There are commonalities, sure, but it's not a precise thing. Also, not all lenses have the same character. Your Noctilux 50mm F1.0 lens might have completely different optical aberrations than the average vintage MF lens, so the feel of it would be very different. It's like cooking. If two people make cakes with the same ratios of flour and water and sugar and eggs, and then all add "flavouring" then will they taste the same? Of course not. The "flavouring" matters, and can vary hugely. Imagine comparing 8mm film and iPhone 4 video. We could go through every category of image assessment and rate them and maybe we'd conclude they both had video quality at 5/10. Do they look the same? Of course not, because the individual characteristics that make up the "8mm look" and the "iPhone 4 look" are very different, despite the fact they've both got a similar amount of imperfections / character / aberrations / etc. It's like if you're making a horror film vs a rom-com. In the horror film you don't just use "horror lenses" or "horror angles" or "horror lighting" or "horror music" or "horror dialogue" or "horror sound design" or "horror colour grading" etc. The horror in the film comes from using all of them. Hopefully the rom-com uses completely different elements in all departments too.. the "look" or "feel" of the final film comes from the combination of many subtle elements combined together. Same with images. People that are into lenses look at sample images and can read them like a book. Some people can even tell what optical formula the lens uses from looking at a single image. The clues are very subtle, but they're all there.