kye

Oh, don't get me wrong, a 360 camera is a spectacular tool for capturing moments that cannot be predicted. I want one and would use it extensively, except that the quality just doesn't justify it. For me, my experience of shooting is a combination of how good the equipment is and the results I will get from it. The GH5 is a reliable camera with easy-to-use functions that creates a great image (when paired with the right lenses) and it's a pleasure to use, but it cannot guarantee that I will capture the right framing while I am recording, and it absolutely cannot give me two (or more) camera angles from the same moment in time. A 360 camera can give me every camera angle simultaneously. If I am walking down a street I am recording everyone doing everything at every moment. If I was to walk down a street and exchange greetings with a passerby or shop-keeper or turn a corner and see a wonderful view, I can capture the view looking forwards as well as the view of myself looking back. I can capture the person talking and the person listening and the reaction shots. I can capture it all. .......but at the quality that I will be capturing all of this footage, it would be demoralising. Walking around knowing you're capturing everything in "old budget smartphone" quality would just make me feel shitty. It's like going to a buffet and all the food is terrible but you can eat as much as you want. 360 cameras are capturing every shot at a quality that doesn't make me want to use any in my final video. I mean, look at this shot, from Brandon Lee (who is in the Insta360 promo video itself) in his paid sponsored video for it: and here's his face: With image quality like that, my experience is better to shoot with an action camera that is only capturing a quarter of the action in a scene, but the shots are all much nicer and I feel like I'm capturing usable footage. I mean, we have the P4K which was released in 2018 that wrote 1088Mbps to a card and now we have this camera at about 60% of the price and it's limited to 120Mbps. It's not the resolution that's the problem - it's the bitrate. This camera is more crippled than almost any Canon camera has ever been! It's sensor will be about smartphone quality, which if you look at the image that they're able to make when shooting RAW stills, you'll know that they're nothing like the above image quality, so it won't be the sensors - it's the processing and codec.

Absolutely, colourists often talk about colouring scenes differently to match the emotional tone of the scene. Increasingly colourists and post-production in general is getting brought in earlier in the process to advise and help craft the final look, so they may have some small input into lens choices from that perspective, although it's relatively easy to bump the WB or contrast levels for a scene in post.

Yeah, I saw some footage comparing the ALEXA Mini with the 35 filming an open fire and the Mini clipped on the flames but the 35 managed to capture them without clipping. Needless to say, the cinematographer was pretty excited about it, as it meant that they no longer had to choose between exposing for the skintones or the highlights, and people sitting around a camp fire is a relatively common scene I think.

I love learning things that are true, and are useful.

Plus you get a great external monitor that you can position however you like and is bright enough to view in basically all lighting conditions. That's a huge plus too, as well as the recording options.

That's true, although the wider you make the shot, the higher the quality but also the more specialised it becomes. For example, if you cropped at 90degrees it would be a standard wide angle view which has almost unlimited applications but is almost unusable, but if you don't crop at all then you're getting 6K 120Mbps in all its glory but the shot is literally unusable for anything at all. The problem is that for any real use you'll need the quality to be above a certain threshold and the crop associated with that is only usable in a tiny tiny percentage of applications. To give you a comparison, an action camera might have a 100Mbps 4K image and a 15mm FF equivalent lens. For a 360 camera to replicate that it would need to be a 1,500Mbps 12,000K image. When I film with my GH5 in 200Mbps 10-bit 422 1080p and my Sony X3000 in 4K 100Mbps I think the action camera looks poor in comparison and I have to really treat it nicely in post to try and elevate it from the cheap/nasty/brittle image that it has. A 6K 120Mbps 360 camera cannot possibly hope to compete against that. I mean, I'm filming with my GF3 and its 1080p 17Mbps, which is still more bitrate and resolution than the 360 camera has at a 15mm FF equivalent crop. This brand new 360 action camera when cropped to anything remotely sensible can't compete with a budget MFT camera from 2011. Oh, I never said this was a "meh" update. It's taking something that is woefully inadequate and taking it to merely being quite inadequate - a huge improvement no doubt. But just because a kid improves their math test scores doesn't mean that they deserve to pass.

That's a spec that would get me to buy one. Serendipitously, they're right on track to release one when I want to upgrade my current action camera - in about 3-5 years!

I was referring to solo-shooters who are just technicians. For example Chris and Jordan who review video and cinema cameras and yet shoot only YT videos and a short film every year. Their reviews seem confident and informed, but to people who actually shoot non-YT content it's painfully obvious that they're just reviewing every camera for how good it is at shooting YT camera reviews. You forgot about when I get it all confiscated for shooting in public without a permit or it being held by security at whatever venue I go to until I leave because "it looks professional". A GH5 and small shotgun mic is pushing it as it is!

Unfortunately I think that this is unlikely to resolve itself any time soon. For sports-bros and the GoPro crowd, more than 100Mbps seems to become cumbersome (or at least the manufacturers seem to think so - the GoPro Hero 10 tops out at 100Mbps and hasn't improved much since the GoPro Hero 3 which was about 45Mbps). I don't know why, because SD cards keep coming down in price every year, and computers keep getting more powerful, and the resolution is what kills a computer anyway, not the bitrate. There are higher bitrate 360 cameras available, but they're huge, like the Insta360 Titan, which has 8 MFT sensors and records up to 11K and 180Mbps per lens (1,440Mbps in total before stitching? I'm not sure about this because stitching might create a VR image?). Problem is that it's 23cm / 9 inches in diameter and weighs 5.5kg / 12 pounds. I'm not casually putting that on a selfie-stick and carrying it around! It's the old adage once again - big quality = big camera and small camera = shitty quality.

Absolutely. It's a shame that many (most?) of the camera internet community are not craftsmen at all, just technicians. Or are craftsmen of making camera content for social media, not a skill that really translates to almost any other use of a camera. Absolutely, sound is definitely more than half the video. In my quest to understand good sound design, I've discovered that unfortunately sound-design-related-content is by no means half (or even a single percent) of the camera-related materials found online. In terms of getting sound right, I'd really like to see cameras implement more than two channel audio. Having four channels would mean you could capture a stereo signal as well as a mono signal with a safety track, or two channels where each has a safety track. It's easier to get levels right if you're focused on sound, but as a solo-operator working in uncontrolled situations, this would be a killer feature. I've absolutely clipped audio in the past, even with a safety track(!), and I hardly ever remember to capture stereo on-location sound, so I end up with a mono channel and have to scrounge ambient stereo tracks from all sorts of places. Four channels would be a set and forget setup that I would very much appreciate. I know I can do it separately with an audio recorder, but then media management becomes an issue, plus the rig and battery and charging setups become impractical.

Disappointing and barely improved from previous models (or at all??) Once again, people fail to understand what is actually going on here. The problem with 360 cameras was always that by the time you crop to a FOV that doesn't look like you're on massive amounts of drugs, the image starts to fall apart with lack of resolution and compression (poor bitrate). When you crop into the image, this 120Mbps 6144x3072@25/24fps in 360 degrees equates to: 15mm lens on FF (100.4 deg Horizontally) 1713x723 resolution (16:9) at 7.9Mbps 18mm lens on FF (90 deg Horizontally) 1536x648 resolution (16:9) at 6.3Mbps 24mm lens on FF (73.7 deg Horizontally) 1258x530 resolution (16:9) at 4.24Mbps Realistically, the 120Mbps is the limit, not the resolution. A 1.2K image wouldn't be so bad in the context of a nicely graded edit if it was more than 4Mbps... I'm waiting for a 400Mbps model - that would take that 24mm crop to something approaching 'real' camera territory (15Mbps or so). The challenge is that these are often used in situations where things are moving a lot and really stressing the codec.

Oh, I've been there..... I remember one festival that I submitted to (as co-producer) where our submission didn't get in, but it ended up being won by a charming little documentary that was a thinly-veiled excuse to get old people to talk about sex. The oldies were adorable and the content was gold, but it was shot absolutely terribly. There were shots under and over exposed a bit, maybe one with a poor white-balance. At one point there was a locked-off interview shot where someone bumped the tripod and the whole camera moved about a quarter of the frame and was slightly off-horizon, then about 5s later they slowly straightened it up again, but it was a funny moment in the interview (I understand why they left it in). Sure, it was funny and the concept was great - it deserved to win for best writing or directing or something... but it won Best Cinematography. It beat another entrant that was a music video that was super-clean and where the cinematography felt like a commercial project. It was literally at that moment that my sister (my co-producer and the director of our film) and I looked at each other, sighed, and gave up on festivals. Most festivals I've seen operate behind-the-scenes using a dozen or so categories, normally like this: Film that the judges happened to like Another film that the judges happened to like The next film that the judges happened to like A film that the judges happened to smile at Some other film that the judges happened to smile at That strange film that the judges happened to enjoy A film that the judges happened to laugh at The film that the judges happened to think was cute The film from the people the judges know The film starring the person the main judge is sleeping with The film directed by the person one of the judges wants to sleep with Judges choice

....and yet they're publishing videos and people who don't know what they're doing are "learning" from it.

Yes, this is essential information. One thing that I have noticed about gyro stabilisation vs the normal type where it analyses the video file itself is how it compensates for lens distortion. This not only needs to know the focal length, but also needs to know the distortion profile of the specific lens if it's going to be done seamlessly. Maybe they can just make it work with a generic lens distortion profile and you just specify the focal length, but maybe not. I guess we'll see.

Feature films with decent budgets often have the most resources for a colourist compared to other types of productions (eg, reality tv shows, documentaries, other types of tv shows). As I'm sure you're aware, there are aspects of the image that can be adjusted in post and aspects that must be done in-camera. This means that the colour and contrast differences that can be adjusted in post might be left to the colourist, whereas the lenses might be chosen for the characteristics that must be captured in-camera. I'm in a number of social media groups about vintage lenses and these are full of cinematographers building sets and modding / servicing them for cine use (and often for rental) and these guys still care a great deal about matching. It's common for someone building a set to take years and buy several copies of each focal length in the series and then choose the best / sharpest / best matching ones and then sell the rest. It's also worth mentioning that in big budget features the colour will be heavily stylised in post anyway, so matching things becomes a much smaller task in the overall amount of things to be done, whereas if you're keeping a very neutral look and operating on a tight budget then matching would be of much higher importance (or should be!).

I'm not optimistic about it staying alive very long in here, but anyway.... Is the 18-35 a good lens for AF? I had one on my 700D and when focusing (either PDAF in photo mode or CDAF in video) it was clunky and noisy and felt like it was made of stone-age clockwork.

I'm quote prone to motion sickness myself, but I was more curious about which types of footage you had issues with. I've had a number of hobbies in the past where I knew people who were more sensitive to various aspects and I've found that much can be learned by understanding their experiences more. Images and cinematography is essentially a game of subtlety, so it's like looking at things through a magnifying glass 🙂 For example do you have issues with unstabilised hand-held footage? hand-held footage with OIS? with IBIS? or is it less dependent on the type of stabilisation and more on the amount of motion? I wouldn't be holding your breath for this type of integration. BM deliberately doesn't provide any support for Prores RAW in Resolve, I'm assuming because B-RAW is their competitor. It's a game of thrones style clash where everyone tries to own every part of the ecosystem by using all their products to promote all their other products, like Apple etc. If BM consider Sony cameras to be their competition they may just never include it, especially if it's not something that "the industry" uses.

My point exactly.

I find that a curve with a nice rolloff in post can give a nice highlight transition without too much fuss - it does raise the brightness of the highlights though, so you can either have brighter image or one with more contrast, but if you're willing to do that then I find it's not too much of a challenge. Another trick that is easy enough is to desaturate the highest luma values. It seems like the most common issues with poor highlight rolloffs is the channels clipping at different points and there being banding of colours around the edges (eg, like the sun going through rings of yellow at sunset or cyan if transitioning from a blue sky). This desaturation can often deal with these in a very organic and neat way. Combine the two approaches (curve and desaturation) and you can get quite good results from even poor footage I've found. Is that what ARRI is saying in the link?

I find that photos and video are very different and I don't prize either from a smartphone. My friend only takes stills and the really good ones get printed and framed and put on his wall. He's shot many more photos with his phone than with his ancient Canon DSLR (IIRC it's a 40D?) and yet he's never taken a single photo with his phone worthy of being printed. In terms of video, you seem to love your smartphones but I find the images thin and uninspiring. They have large resolutions and frame rates but I feel they lack all the things required to give them feeling, which is why I shoot in the first place. In terms of overthinking things, that's what this forum is for, mostly. Hardly anyone comes on and says "I shoot this what do I need" gets some technical info and then says "thanks, I've got it all working now, bye....". There are a few, but all the rest of us are really just here, overthinking everything!

Absolutely. I'm not sure this really ever gets discussed here - the effect that the setup has on how well you use it and how creative you are when actually shooting and making directing / composition / lighting / etc choices. I know that the GH5 felt way nicer to use than the XC10 and for me I think a big part of that was how the images feel in post and the 10-bit codec - holding the camera and knowing that when you hit record you're making files you will enjoy editing in post certainly contributes a lot to my experience while shooting. Camera size is one of these things - not only does it change how you use it and how you feel about using it but it also changes how the people around you feel about the situation. Filming in public with a huge camera makes people wary and distracted and on set will make them take you more seriously (warranted or not) and the opposite is true of small cameras.

Interesting that you're very sensitive to the motion. I'm curious to hear more because I suspect it means that you're sensitive to un-natural motion rather than all motion (otherwise you could never go anywhere or do anything!). What types of motion are you more/less sensitive to?

Thanks for trying it.. but I think something went wrong with that test - or the software you're using couldn't handle that particular motion perhaps? The pulsing was terrible! Maybe it would work getting for a more normal shot? I think it's worth pursuing if you were interested in gimbal-like stabilisation, but obviously if you're not chasing that locked-on dead-smooth look then the gyro is definitely good enough.

Actually I was talking specifically about this forum. For example, here we are in a Canon thread and there are now three people who will simply not let a mention of Panasonic occur without criticising the AF. You already explained your opinion, and yet you replied again with many more paragraphs of criticism. If I kept replying, would this conversation last forever? Does the last word in every thread have to be a criticism? This perpetual negativity is the "shouting from the mountaintops".

I'm reminded about the idea that you can't think creatively and analytically at the same time. A quick google didn't reveal any good sources for this, but it's definitely something I've experienced myself. In terms of making good films, I think that the image is actually one of the least important aspects, contrary to the camera-television industrial complex and social media echo chambers. I do wonder if having less 'options' in terms of DR is just related to the fact we have more with 'nicer' cameras. ie, the effect only happens because it's a change from our nicer more capable cameras? Of course, it could also be to do with the relationship between the capture DR and output DR being similar for non-HDR which makes it easier. It also distracts us from the red-herring of pixel-peeing the image, as everyone seemed to do for the first 5 years of 4K being around... "did you like the video I sent you" "it looked glorious in 4K - wow" "but what about the video - did you like the story" "what story? I was looking at the resolution". I wonder if people are shooting with a higher DR camera and publishing in HDR if they no longer have the burden of trying to compress the DR in post if that makes it simpler somehow? I think having less distractions on things that don't matter so much (tech) you're forced to do things that are more creative and that's what gets the creative juices flowing. Think of how the tech-focused 'creators' work is just a cookie-cutter of the same stale creative elements, whereas the folks who aren't tech-focused do new things in terms of camera angles and editing style etc etc. Absolutely agree about the differentiation between personal and paid work. I love the tech, which is why I'm on forums like these. If I was trying to learn how to make good content then people sitting around arguing about codecs and DR and colour science wouldn't help at all 🙂 Due to this, I think I get distracted by the tech and so it's really nice when shooting to be able to put those thoughts to the side and think creatively. It's one of the reasons I shoot with the camera doing the exposure for me - it's a non-creative task (in almost all cases) that isn't worth me putting my energy into at the expense of creative aspects. I have moved to manual focusing, and did so because I found that it's a creative aspect and I really like the aesthetic and what it contributes to my finished films. I'm quite lucky in that when I get out and start shooting for real the tech parts of my brain seem to get pushed to the back and I'm thinking about composition and subject and movement and all those creative things. Well, not all the creative things, but as many as my inexperienced brain can handle. I wish I was able to think about sound more while also concurrently thinking about the other things! I'm getting better on that though 🙂