kye

Went back and had another look and yeah, looks like he made a salad out of that... by underestimating! I guess that proves his point even more 🙂

Haven't watched yet, but the idea of a smartphone with its multiple cameras / focal lengths combined with high-quality codecs from third-party apps or Prores is certainly a compelling offering. There are other issues with these of course, such as: you'd want to use the most recent model for the best optics and sensors, but you'd also want to use the latest one as your actual phone, which means putting it on airplane mode while shooting or risking taking a call or messages while shooting phones aren't designed with enough battery to film hours of footage per day not that easy to rig up either, and if you use cases to protect them from drops then that can also introduce thermal issues (I've overheated phones before while shooting) I think phones are the ultimate suckers in the BS specs race though because they have the worst quality pixels because they're so small. If you don't care about the 8K you still pay for it, both in price as well as quality as downsampling still leaves you with brittle images and poor DR. If someone used a 4K sensor that had much larger pixels, or combined them via dual-gain architecture then you'd get a much better outcome. This video clearly shows that the 8K smartphone sensor isn't actually getting more than about 2K in real resolution anyway after being compressed almost to death, so the only thing that the 8K sensor is making look good is the spec sheet, so going for quality over quantity is actually the only path that will yield higher quality results.

Incidentally, anything shot on film would benefit from a 4K release, as they're likely to remaster it and take more care in the digitisation process than perhaps they were able to do when it screened. Plus, the scan might be from a higher quality copy, rather than the more degraded higher generational copy that was actually being projected in the cinema. I've heard people say that film has higher resolution than 1080p, but by the time they duplicated it the copy in the cinema that people got to see was only around 1080p, which is why when cinemas went digital it made sense to project 2K. However, the film scan for a 4K remaster would be from the best quality copy they could find, so may well benefit from being >2K.

Think of 4K equipment as cleaning your glasses before watching a film. If it was shit, cleaner glasses won't help. If it was good but not to your taste, you'll just get a clearer view on why it wasn't for you. Buy what you will enjoy.

Please share more!

True, I noticed that too but then checked a few numbers and he was right (on the ones I looked up anyway). I was half-tempted with this kind of setup too - 24-105/4 OIS lens for run-n-gun, although I would probably just add the EVF instead of monitor. I would like something a bit faster than F4 though, to get a bit more background separation if I wanted it. FF seems to have a bit of a gap when it comes to fast lenses with OIS... I think this is actually a terrible analogy because it's really the other way around. Most camera companies continue to re-release cameras that are larger than required (like when we had DSLRs with huge chasms inside for the mirror) and old sensors (just look at the Canon APSC lineup!). The FP is a modern camera by comparison, with a modern body optimised for heat dissipation and a sensor optimised for image quality and a codec with the highest outright quality (uncompressed). Here's an example of the size vs heat management involved... It even makes the Sony FF cameras look large: and finally, I haven't found the tests that Justin refers to in the video and verified, but he claims that the sensor is MORE accurate than other more expensive cameras. I think the old=analog new=digital thinking is complete bollocks. I think that it's more that the analog feel comes from a lack of digital distortions and artefacts, which is why an iPhone looks far more digital and awful than a cinema camera, despite both being 100% digital.

In the absence of a single thread about the FP, I'll post this here. There is some new content here that I haven't heard before, including references to tests that the FP has more accurate colour than the Sony Venice. For people interested in very high quality images (and uncompressed RAW) this might be of interest. Much more life in this camera yet I think.

Actually, I kind of disagree with this aspect of it. I think the biggest issue with all content is that the creators don't spend enough (or any) time making sure we care about what happens to the characters. The first three jobs in a film are: 1) tell me who the film is about 2) tell me what they want 3) make me care Number 3 can either be the whole "likeable" thing where I care about what the character wants because I like them, or it can be about stakes, but either way, I have to know what they want and care about if they get it. This is the problem with most blockbuster movies and TV shows. I stopped watching LA's Finest the other day, right in the middle of an episode, because I just don't care. The show is relatively well made and has a high budget but I just don't care. The thing is, every human being has things they want, and has things in common with us because we're all human. Any failure to engage an audience is a failure to connect with what is there, rather than due to any absence of it. Great films have been made about everything from the end of the world to the perfectly mundane and (seemingly) trivial. Here's an example I quite like, of someone doing something they like: and it starts immediately with their "why". This video by a YouTuber made me care more in the first minute than a Hollywood TV show made me care over hours and hours... There's this idea that we want to watch movies about ourselves, which is done by showing us what we have in common with the people who are actually in the movie. The idea is that this similarity is why we care in the first place. Failure to tap into that humanity, which is present in all humans, is really failure of the entire concept.

Umm, ok... If you say so!

I'd heavily suggest that you perform a very heavy and serious exercise of "what do I actually NEED" before buying more camera gear. I've read you post (seemingly over and over) about how each camera being discussed doesn't quite fit your needs for one reason or another, and TBH it really just sounds like you're turning your nose up at anything that isn't the space shuttle. Forums and online communities are full of things that "everyone knows" which are, to be frank, complete bullshit. The reason I do so much testing is to sort out what is true from what is "known" (but complete crap), and from my experience about a third of what I read (and subsequently test) fails miserably to be remotely true, and once you look at the results and think it through, fails to even make sense. Your "needs" contain their fair share of these things, so I'd suggest you take every "need" you have and then test it. It will be one of the most freeing things you can possibly do.... once you realise there were all these constraints you were putting on yourself that weren't actually needed at all the possibilities open up before you and instead of feeling frustrated and cornered, you feel that there are options and possibilities to explore.

Nice! Amusing little story too. What lens(es) did you use?

What a fascinating thing it would be to shoot with a curved sensor... I have distant memories of 360degree panorama pictures taken on film on a special setup that actually exposed a thin vertical strip and rotated the whole camera around on a tripod while moving the film behind it. You end up with something crazy wide and no wide-angle distortion. Great stuff.

I agree with @mercer that it's true in my experience. I've shot at length with the GH5, including doing many tests to try and understand the best settings and colour grading treatments, but when I bought a BMMCC, put a lens and monitor on it, and then waved it around at the beach, pulled it into post and did basic adjustments, all of a sudden I had some of the best images I'd ever shot. My level of cunning was no different when shooting on the BMMCC than on the GH5, either before or since, so I think it's a valid test. The images I got from my Panasonic GF3 and vintage lenses also had some magic to them that the GH5 does not willingly provide either. As you know, I've tried and tried to find what explains these differences, designing and executing test after test with controlled and isolated variables, and come up empty on basically every occasion. There are some interesting comments in there from Masanori Koyama, and although a lot of it is "PR level" communication, it is interesting the way he talks about the overall vision and hinting at how they are trading-off features against each other. I'm really looking forward to seeing the 1080p Prores HQ and the RAW files that come out of the GH6 once the firmware update is released.

I'll cross my fingers that it's genuine and fully functional. If it is then that is an absolutely blindingly good price!

There are cameras just becoming available that have sufficient DR to expose the sunset properly as well as get the shadow-side of a face well enough exposed to be able to see who it is and what they're doing, which is ultimately the goal. The GH5 doesn't have enough DR for that, however, and I don't think the P4K does either. That's really more the territory of things like the A7S3 or S1H. I definitely understand the priority of getting the shot over the image quality of it. I shot videos with the OG BMPCC and BMMCC and they were just too slow to work with, and didn't offer enough stabilisation to get the shot. The shots they got were lovely, but the GH5 can get a significant amount more shots just because it's faster to use and so you're rolling with less delay, or the shots are steady enough from the GH5 but not from the others, etc. I've lost count of the various things I've tried, but I wasn't able to isolate any perceptible differences. The conclusions are that: either it comes from a variable I haven't tested yet, or it comes from many variables that when isolated don't provide an appreciable enough bump to be discerned if I can't understand what the variable(s) are, then I can't optimise them, and so if I want it then I have to just buy it Sadly, the cameras that have it are normally impractical (ie, they don't get enough shots in the situations I shoot in) and potentially they're also far too expensive. One challenge that any discussion on camera tech faces is that there are so many variables being discussed. Just off the top of my head, these are (some of) the things that are at play when comparing two cameras: IR/UV filter on sensor OLPF Bayer filter (or X-trans, etc) sensor itself (and the modes it is configured to use) analog processing circuitry ADCs digital processing algorithms (and, if it's not an uncompressed Linear RAW codec) image scaling / down-up sampling NR sharpening colour space / gamma transforms compression (both the bitrate/bitdepth as well as the quality of the algorithm and processor) Needless to say, just because two sensors share the sensor and the "colour science" doesn't mean that those are the only variables at play. Far from it. When you compare two cameras, you're comparing all the factors above and more. Not sure which part you think was out of my ass. I'm speaking from personal experience here. One of the primary things I have done over the years, in videography as well as in other pursuits, is to validate the things that "everyone knows" personally, to ensure that they are true. As I'm sure you're aware, at least a third of the stuff that "everyone knows" is actually total BS, and can be proven so quite easily, should someone have the capability to perform even basic tests and, more importantly, to have a desire for the truth. I could match them sufficiently to intercut them, but I was talking in the context of the mojo of the image from the BM cameras. The match was just fine, but the magic wasn't there. I shoot in very different situations and with very different goals to probably every other person here. I shoot super-super fast. I walk, carrying my camera in one hand by my side, wearing a wrist strap, and with my finger on the power switch. When I see something about to happen (I've done lots of street photography so am anticipating things all the time) I start to raise the camera up to my face, and while on the way up I turn the camera on, and about the time I get the viewfinder to my eye I hit record. The camera is set to auto-expose using SS, so while it is adjusting that I am then finding the composition and manually focusing the lens (I shoot with fast aperture primes for low light and a modest amount of background separation). This takes perhaps 2s. The result of this is that I often miss the moment, because I was too slow. If I don't miss it entirely I am often using a clip starting with the first viable frame in the edit, and sometimes the shot only lasts a second or so. I have in the past gotten only two usable frames and ended up doing a very slow slow-motion transition between them for a time-stands-still kind of moment. To this end, the idea of me modifying literally anything about the shot is beyond ridiculous. This isn't every shot I take, but it's quite a lot of them. I shoot what happens, I don't direct, I don't control, I get what I get and I use what I can. I end up with footage that suffers poor DR, exposure problems, mixed lighting temperatures, stabilisation issues, etc. When I'm shooting, every second counts, so when I say I would like a nicer codec and someone suggests a camera that would cause me to miss entirely many more shots, it's a silly suggestion. The reality is that the GH5, while not the best in any single area, is actually the camera with the most overlap between a range of critical factors that allow usable images to be collected in difficult situations. Any increase in image quality normally comes at the expensive of some practicality that is simply not a factor for most shooters. I know I'm by far in the minority in this sense, but in a way I'm the perfect GH5 user. Anyone that can take a huge sacrifice in something that the GH5 was really good at wasn't really at the centre of the aim for this camera. To that end, the GH6 is really the only replacement for the GH5. The P4K is deficient in so many areas that it makes about as good a replacement to the GH5 as a Mack truck makes as a replacement to a rally car. Yes, but not me. The lust for shallow DoF is really what has ruined camcorders in the marketplace I think. Critics of the GH line who suddenly now NEED great AF (as it it has always existed, which is hilarious) will tell you that you can't possibly film an interview with fixed focus because if the talent flexes a muscle wrong then they'll be out of focus. I mean, if your DoF is only a few CM deep, and you're filming a sit-down interview for heavens-sake, you don't need that DoF at all, just move the talent closer, film them in front of a screen-screen, or *shudder* stop down the lens a little!

Interesting video. Seems lots more people are getting their hands on these in the wild now and really exploring what they have to offer. This guy prefers it to the S5 in real-world use.

Maybe he found an audience more gullible than camera nerds? The politics are probably easier to navigate too, considering that you can make videos about the dead without worrying about lobbyists or PR departments and audience members can't ever fact-check you! I suppose there is always the possibility of getting a fatwa declared against you, but that's nothing compared to the retribution of Canon fanboys when you criticise Canon about, well, anything really.

It's a pretty simple thing for a camera to monitor the current draw and then enable / disable things based on that info, but Canon typically favours reliability (in their cinema camera lineup!) over features, so they might have disabled it to be cautious. Human psychology views losing something as a much more traumatic event than not getting it in the first place. A common sales tactic is to hand the product to the person because then if they don't buy it they have to hand it back. From this perspective it would be a nicer experience for users to not expect a feature and not get it than to think they're getting it and then not get it, so if it did IS for some lenses and not others, the person who plugged in an IS lens and it worked would then curse every time they plugged in any other lens and it didn't work.

Like they say... gotta be in it to win it! I'm just guessing here, but you prefer 4K images don't you? I shoot travel, often on the more adventure side of travel too. I love it when people tell me to control the scene. Please tell me how I can better control: a landscape being shot out the window of a moving helicopter a sunset the buildings and people in a large city a cave while taking the tour a museum or world heritage site (eg, Pompeii) an amusement park with rides a market in an emerging economic country etc Next you'll be telling me I don't need a weather-sealed camera because I should just control the weather! To directly answer your question, yes, I need more DR. and more robust images where I don't have to choose between photographing the sunset or the scene in front of it. I bought the OG BMPCC and BMMCC specifically to study their images, both for the colour science and for their mojo. I have studied them at length - you can find a small proportion of the tests I have done littered all through these forums over a period of years. I am yet to locate almost anything that accounts for these factors that you claim do not exist. No, but I have shot both the OG BMPCC and BMMCC alongside the GH5 and tried to match the GH5 to the BM camera on many occasions (just search). P4K footage looks like GH5 footage, but better. Neither looks much like the OG. You don't like videographers do you? I see this kind of dismissive prejudice all the time from snooty "film-makers". The general tone is that "real film-makers" shoot in controlled conditions and should be free to create images that have nice colour and background separation and images that are expressive, and the people that don't shoot in controlled conditions should be happy with footage that looks like it was shot with a smartphone from 6 years ago. It's kind of like when people say "go back to wherever you came from - you're not welcome here" only instead of 'here' being a place, it's a level of image quality.

I did a quick google and couldn't find (non paywall) stats on how many TVs get sold by resolution, so this isn't something we're going to answer. However, if you look at global income levels I would suggest that TV sales are more impacted by the US and EU than the people living on less than USD$5 per day:

You said "some would argue that is a bit of progress" and I pointed out that the DR hasn't increased and the battery life also hasn't really increased. That was 5 years after the OG BMPCC. Personally, I think that given the huge increase in size and the time elapsed they could have made more substantial improvements to it. If you can't see it then that's fine - more power to you, but just because you can't see it doesn't make it fake. Otherwise, most of the stuff on earth is fake because I haven't seen it. Actually, I think that a staggeringly huge number of people have 4K TVs now. That's the whole point of the manufacturers flogging 4K and then 6K and now 8K and 12K. They aren't doing that to sell more cameras, they're doing that to sell more TVs. Go to your nearest big box store and see if they even sell a 1080p TV above a certain size.... I just went to target.com and looked at TVs from 30" up (they sell tiny portable ones too) and the cheapest one a 50" 4K for $319.

Remembering we're talking about editing here, and not colour grading, the Speed Editor is quite modestly priced, and the jog wheel (which is the thing you're interacting with most of the time) is super high quality. Having something where you can add one-press functions is really useful too. Lots of tasks can be hugely streamlined with this kind of tweaking. Something that saves even a fraction of a second can save hours or even days of work per project - the average feature film contains about 2000 shots per hour of edited footage and when you think about how many times an edit is adjusted and tweaked during the process.... With numbers like that it adds up really quickly.

The % numbers are coverage of various colour spaces. sRGB and Rec709 are almost identical to each other and are the "normal" colour spaces, and Adobe RGB and P3 are the "extended" colour spaces which give more vivid colours (ie, they can get more saturated colours). sRGB and Adobe RGB are standards used for still images and Rec709 and P3 are standards for video. This diagram might help.. the coloured area is the colours perceptible to the human eye:

You can get adapters to screw 1/4-20 threads into the larger one, if that's the issue.

Actually, a number of people that stood out on social media have had offers to transition onto more "mainstream" editing gigs. Remember that there have been a smattering of people that won various Vimeo Editors Choice (or whatever it was called) and that got you real attention. I've heard the odd mention from people saying those lead to getting job offers. Now there's an entire shadow industry of people either shooting/editing for YT on shows where there's room for a camera operator, or just editing when the people shoot their own material. Lots of channels I watch have done a "we're hiring" mention on their channels, even ones you wouldn't think are large enough or have enough followers. So "professional" is taking on a new meaning in that sense. IIRC Casey Neistat used to edit about 1-3 minutes of final edit per hour spend editing when he was doing his daily vlogs, and I've paid attention when other vloggers casually mention their stats and it's something like that. If that was true then a professional editor would get a week to edit a typical "hour" show (40-50 mins), which seems in the ballpark, but I'm not sure if that includes the time spend by the DIT and Assistant Editors also likely involved. More likely they get a 1-week turn around timetable, which is quite different. I also notice that almost no YT people that edit their own work use control surfaces either, which is crazy as a simple analysis shows you that you can get crazy ROI on these things.