newfoundmass

I've tried using clip settings to make my 60p footage playback at 24 fps, which works, but is it really better than using the re time option? Is Resolve smart enough to know that my clip has more frames it can use instead of having to create new ones for slow motion when using the re time tool?

Sheesh, I was just kidding around. I'm not criticizing anyone for re-framing or cropping in, most of us do it. But if someone ever finds themselves in a situation where *8k* is necessary (or even "useful") to do it on a *1080p* time line then something probably went terribly wrong during shooting or the person was very lazy. That's way more resolution than you should ever need for that purpose.

No offense but if you need *8k* to crop and re-frame for 1080p editing you got bigger issues than resolution! ?

There really is no reason for 8k for 99% of us even if you're editing in 4k or 1080p. Most cameras already are downscaling down to 4k. I've never felt like I've needed more detail when working with 4k. If anything there have been times when I felt like there was too much detail that it looked too sharp.

I don't want or need 8k.

I'm finding Resolve to be frustrating. I feel overwhelmed. But I'm trying to finally rid myself of Premiere and Adobe's shitty subscription model once and for all. What are the best resources to learn Resolve?

Is rolling shutter really all that bad on M43? I've been fine with it on my GH3, G85 and GH5. Is a global shutter camera really even necessary at this level of hobbyist and indie filmmaking/videography?

Honestly the G85 at the current price that you can find it at is a great deal for all you get. I don't know that we'll see it go too much lower in price, at least not G7 low, for awhile. Probably not until they release a successor. Panasonic got a lot of praise for it but I actually don't think they got enough praise for how jam packed the G85 is. What a wonderful camera.

I got my G85, lightly used, for $650 with two Olympus lenses that I sold for $200, so I ended up getting mine for $450

Yeah, I've had the same experience with audio people. Granted I know that wireless will get used for these, but I can't think of a single audio person I've worked with that opted for wireless unless they needed it.

But why? Granted they're probably using high end systems but it seems unnecessary when you can simply use a wired connection to a recorder or the camera.

Why use a wireless system for a (presumably) sit down interview? That seems unnecessary.

Honestly shame on F Stoppers for contacting the company and offering not to review it because it'd be a negative review. If they're going to accept products to review they shouldn't give the companies that option and should just release an unbiased review, whether it's good or bad.

I own my own wireless lav, the Azden PRO-XD, which I purchased on sale from B&H two years ago for under $150. It was worth every penny, though I only use it when absolutely necessary and with a different lav than what came with it. For a lav mic I use the Polsen OLM-10, both into a Zoom H1 and straight into the camera. It has a 20 foot cord, which is nice when you need it. The bad news is that it was a 20 foot cord when you don't need it. ? But I think the sound is decent for the price, especially with little tweaks in post. It works wonderfully with my GH5 and G85. Most times though I'll just use a shotgun mic that is just out of frame and close to the subject. It usually provides nicer sound than lav mics, especially lower end ones. Hope this helps!

I still find it to be very difficult to get over the learning curve with the magnetic time line. Certain things just feel very backwards and different than what I'm used to after 20 years of working on NLEs. It just feels so awkward.

And with their awful batteries they'll last... What? 50 or so minutes, assuming it doesn't overheat? And they'll still lack decent stabilization, awful Sony colors, low bit rates, and all the other features the GH5 introduced. And don't get me started on the rolling shutter I'd have to put up with for something as fast paced as wrestling or other sports! It's so weird that people always try to sell me, and other satisfied users, on FF and Sony in particular. Part of it is they don't get my production situation, which is understandable, but part of it also feels like they just can't understand that there are legitimate benefits to MFT and that sensor size really isn't that important. Wrestling events are generally 3-5 hours, with an 15 minute intermission in the middle. I NEED a camera that can shoot 90 to 120 minutes straight. I can't worry about batteries, overheating, etc. because every second I'm not recording during the action is a bad thing and creates issues in post. Sure I can work around them but why not avoid them completely if possible? I'm also constantly moving around the wrestling ring, so that stabilization and the weight of the lens and camera is a godsend. I don't want to have to use my gimbal or shoulder rig on these shoots, the simpler and lighter my set up the easier it is on my fat ass for the 3-5 hours I'm on my feet and shooting! ? Maybe I'd feel differently if I wasn't regularly just a 1 to 2 person crew. But I have way too many responsibilities and things to worry about when shooting events and these MFT cameras make my life a lot easier.

Everyone offers the same? There are still things that none of these full frame cameras can do that the GH5 can. But yes, cameras released nearly 2 years after the GH5 should have most, if not all, of the same features as a nearly 2 year old camera. And no FF stabilization is as good as MFT and is unlikely ever going to be. Things like DOF can be easily attained with MFT with a little effort if I need it. Given E-Mount lenses alone weigh about as much as most MFT cameras with a lens do, I'm happy with the weight difference. With any luck it'll get even better. As I said before, when I'm shooting 3-5 hour pro wrestling events I'm quite happy only having to carry a camera and lens combo that weighs 2 pounds, has excellent stabilization, doesn't have recording limits, and all the other advantages the GH5 still has 2 years after release. Better AF or not, I have no desire to use a camera and lens combo that's almost double the weight as my GH5 set up and will require repeated synching in post because it can't record longer than 30 minutes, especially if I have to stop and start recording in a match that goes longer than 30 minutes. And I'm happy that I can hand a second shooter my G85 and all they really need to do is hit record after I set it up for them and let it roll. If the GH6 doesn't continue down the same road the GH4 and GH5 have paved then maybe it'll be time to look elsewhere. But as long as they remain ahead of the curve on the features that are important to me I'll be happy.

The bodies may be as small / light as MFT cameras but the lenses are totally different. A GH5 with the 12-35 is about 2 pounds total and my G85 with the 12-35 is even less. Heck the weight of most E-Mount lenses are almost as heavy as the G85 and 12-35 are combined! The weight of both cameras with lenses on them would only slightly weigh more than one Sony A7 III and lens! When you've gotta carry a bunch of gear around, often by yourself, one of the key benefits of MFT becomes obvious. I have zero interest in shooting a 3-5 hour pro wrestling event with a heavier camera and lens after using MFT for so long.

MFT will die when people cease buying MFT cameras and lenses. People will stop buying MFT when it no longer has benefits over larger sensors. I'm invested in MFT and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I think it will continue to lead the way in video features, will continue to offer better stabilization, and will continue to improve on its weaker points, like low light and auto focus. I'm keeping an eye on full frame, of course, but even if a full frame equivalent of the GH5 came out tomorrow I have no real need to upgrade. It's just not that important to me and I don't really get why it is for everyone else.

Are you watching the 4k stream windowed? That might be why, though I haven't had that problem in years.

If it's simply the file name that's the issue why not use a batch rename tool you can download to change all the desired file types to mp4 from mov? Most batch file renamer tools allow this.

Why comment then?

I think it looks decent, but I think you can get better, or at the very least equal, looking footage from cameras that are significantly less. The only thing that really intrigues me is the 4k 120p, but not enough for me to consider buying it at this price. ProRes, unless they are able to add ProRes Raw, isn't really a big selling point for me these days given how well I'm able to edit and work with GH5 and G85 files.

I've seen a few videos showing significant improvement with auto focus.

I think one of three things happened: Sony got cocky and thought that they were more ahead of everyone else than they really were, making them think they had more breathing room than they really had. That could also explain why the A7 III was beyond pretty much everyone's expectations. Or The A7S III was nearing the end of its development when all the sudden everyone else started circling them, daggers drawn. We started hearing rumblings around April and May that big things were on the horizon, and by mid-Summer things really picked up steam as September approached. Then in the span of 3 weeks you had Canon, Nikon, and then almost out of nowhere, Panasonic announcing full frame mirrorless, with Panasonic promising 4K 60p. Even the advances Fujifilm has made might have concerned them. It seems entirely possible that after all of this they realized they needed to continue development. This would explain why (if I remember correctly) Sony reps had indicated not that long ago that the A7S III was close to being announced. And/or They haven't figured out how they can implement key features due to hardware/design limitations. I've been very skeptical about their ability to have 8-bit 4K 60p, let alone 10-bit 4K 60p, because of overheating issues. Really though, none of those would surprise me. If the A7S III were ready to go, as some people still believe, there is no reason to hold it back, especially given how fast the landscape has been changing. It'd be better to get it on the market sooner rather than later before it falls behind technologically before its even released.