GH5 vs Ursa Mini 4.6K

[Geoff CB]

6 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

.most of the creamy Alexa images you see on the big screen in features with a budget have been converted to film, for those beautiful buttery highlight rolloffs, before the final conversion to digital projection...so the final result is rarely judged in equal terms....Fincher still uses RED cameras exclusively (could be wrong hear) but after acquisition everything is converted to film....one could say that RED can't hold a candle to Arri, yet to my taste Cinematography in Fincher's films are simply stunning...visually some of the most beautiful films out there IMO...

Umm... no not everything is converted to film, in fact I'd say most movies are now never converted to film. And I can think of no film that that shot digitally and then printed on film then brought back to digital as you seem to imply.

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I've probably gotten more skilled in the last two months than I have in the last two years, so I know how it feels to use a camera and compare it to other operator's videos and question what I was doing wrong.

Luckily I am too thick headed to quit, but for some beginners they may become overwhelmed and give up... which kinda sucks too.

If a person who had $2000 to spend on a camera came up to me and asked me to recommend a good beginners camera to them, I don't think I would necessarily recommend the GH5, hell I'd probably recommend an 80D or a D5500 or a G85 if they like that Panasonic look. 

For $2000.00 I think I would buy a used Canon C100 with the DPAF in it to be honest. I don't really think we need 4k for the stuff the average person does on here. It's nice to have I guess, but it does not lead to any film look as far as I can see. Maybe down sampled to 1080p does, 4k eh, not so much..

And the C100 already down samples from 4k to 1080p automatically. So less work to do in post with it.

[Emanuel]

12 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

And the C100 already down samples from 4k to 1080p automatically. So less work to do in post with it.

LOL This line made my day browsing over here! :-)

Well, that said, 4K is the new acquisition standard anyway for future proof, not exactly for delivery. Not even need to write today. There's simply no need for certain displays such as film projection, home cinema, etc. I wouldn't dare to say the same for sports, as for instance.

[mercer]

16 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

LOL This line made my day browsing over here! :-)

Well, that said, 4K is the new acquisition standard anyway for future proof, not exactly for delivery. Not even need to write today. There's simply no need for certain displays such as film projection, home cinema, etc. I wouldn't dare to say the same for sports, as for instance.

I think that was a great point. I always downsample 4K footage to 1080p for editing and delivery with EditReady. The fact that the C100 does it in camera with such a small bitrate, with such IQ success, is definitely a pro of that camera. 

[webrunner5]

And I don't have a clue if A1ex at ML will ever do it, but whats not to stop someone from hacking a C100 to shoot 2k, 2.5k, heck even 4k, It has a 4k, or maybe more sensor in it? Same sensor as the original C300, C500 as far as I know.

[Emanuel]

What would the point be then?

Well, seems obvious then, 4K is always welcome or no one would ever bother to request for someone hacking it, isn't it? ; )

Don, buy your mini-Varicam! (E :-)

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I don't understand how they, BM, have picked up the pace as much as they have with just going from 4k to 4.6k? They sure did some good Mojo on their processing to make it happen that is for sure. They are like night and day.

It has nothing at all about increasing resolution from 4K to 4.6K

They changed to a completely different sensor

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, mercer said:

My problem with the GH5, is there seems to be too much of a disconnect between amazing footage and shitty footage. It's like a redhead and since I'll probably be closer to the latter, I am hesitating buying one. For $800 cheaper I can get the D7500 and know I'll get exactly what I am looking for in a 4K image. And the 1080p 24p and 60p is just gorgeous and as cinematic as any camera in its price range... but I'll be losing 4K 60p, slow/quick function, variable frame rate and probably most importantly... 5-axis IBIS. I mean you can literally take a GH5... a small DSLR sized camera out into the world and shoot a guerilla styled short film or feature with most people being none the wiser. It doesn't get much more Indy than that. 

The reason there is so much amazing footage and shitty footage from the GH5 is because it is an amazing but cheap camera.

 

Thus you have both skilled and total n00bs using it! Remember it is not all about the camera, but the hands using it.

[dbp]

The GH5 offers so much in terms of usability, it really gets out of the way and lets you be creative. IBIS, 4K, different slow-mo modes etc..  all allow for this. Even if the pure quality might be exceeded by other cameras, you might be able to shoot more interesting stuff thanks to the GH5 feature set. Which ultimately makes for better looking stuff. 

I was mega on the fence and in a lot of ways it looks like a mildly improved GH4, image wise. But I really want one now. Just seems like it'd be fun to shoot with and there's nothing *wrong* with the quality. In skilled hands, it's gonna look great. 

[fuzzynormal]

18 minutes ago, dbp said:

The GH5 offers so much in terms of usability, it really gets out of the way and lets you be creative. IBIS, 4K, different slow-mo modes etc..  all allow for this. Even if the pure quality might be exceeded by other cameras, you might be able to shoot more interesting stuff thanks to the GH5 feature set. Which ultimately makes for better looking stuff. 

I was mega on the fence and in a lot of ways it looks like a mildly improved GH4, image wise. But I really want one now. Just seems like it'd be fun to shoot with and there's nothing *wrong* with the quality. In skilled hands, it's gonna look great. 

I got two GH5's 'kuz of a film I'm doing, but also to serve a client's demands for 60p video in 4K.

Thats kind of the only reason. If I didn't have that job I would have went with Olympus --as my film is 24p.

Ironically, most people here are trying to run away from the "video" look, but that's what my paying job demands!

On the other hand, my film will be on the other side of the IQ spectrum-aesthetic.  Best of both worlds, eh?

Regardless, it's a nice camera so far and It'll fit my needs just fine. 

[webrunner5]

31 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

I got two GH5's 'kuz of a film I'm doing, but also to serve a client's demands for 60p video in 4K.

Thats kind of the only reason. If I didn't have that job I would have went with Olympus --as my film is 24p.

Ironically, most people here are trying to run away from the "video" look, but that's what my paying job demands!

On the other hand, my film will be on the other side of the IQ spectrum-aesthetic.  Best of both worlds, eh?

Regardless, it's a nice camera so far and It'll fit my needs just fine. 

Olympus, like in the EM1 mkII Olympus?? Really? Why so? Heck of a lot of ? marks here!

[Mattias Burling]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

And I don't have a clue if A1ex at ML will ever do it, but whats not to stop someone from hacking a C100 to shoot 2k, 2.5k, heck even 4k, It has a 4k, or maybe more sensor in it? Same sensor as the original C300, C500 as far as I know.

You need a firmware file to get started. No such file has ever been released as far as I know. Same with the 1DC.

[fuzzynormal]

23 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Olympus, like in the EM1 mkII Olympus?? Really? Why so? Heck of a lot of ? marks here!

I like the way it works and that ease of use is important to me.

I know a lot of people squint as hard as possible at pixels and then do as much to the spec sheet. 

I'm not that guy. Personally my opinion is that almost all IQ from these different modern cameras is suitable for most of my purposes... which is essentially doc films and corporate stuff. 

I'd shoot on a hacked GH1 if for some reason that's all I had --and not be too concerned about the camera.  I'd worry about other stuff.

When I'm doing things that demand more pristine acquisition I just rent.  

[webrunner5]

Well I have to agree. Reason I have a AF100. Gets the job done. Great learning tool also. And hell it looks impressive as hell on a tripod LoL. I live in a college town, you can't believe how many "girls, well women" want to give a old turd like me their Phone Number LoL. They all, "boys, well men" also, mostly drunk by the way, not as many, want to be in the "Movie"   Crazy ass stuff LoL.

[deezid]

worked a bit on the GH5 shot, especially highlights and rolloff which clipped into green.
Still looks too oversharpened, but apart from that quite nice actually.

 

 

This is the latest version, must say I'm actually quite impressed by the color now. :D

[deezid]

1 hour ago, deezid said:

worked a bit on the GH5 shot, especially highlights and rolloff which clipped into green.
Still looks too oversharpened, but apart from that quite nice actually.

 

This is the latest version, must say I'm actually quite impressed by the color now. :D

Here with some slightly changed skintones for more colorcontrast.
 

 

Here's the video, the filtering helps a lot with motion cadence as well (don't watch in Chrome, colorshift):

 

Here

[AaronChicago]

@deezid what kind of filtering where you using for motion cadence?

[deezid]

28 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

@deezid what kind of filtering where you using for motion cadence?

Filmconvert at 16mm, lowered opacity to 0.4 since sharpening is quite strong in this sample. Only used blur and grain, filmcolor and curve deactivated.

[Emanuel]

3 minutes ago, deezid said:

Filmconvert at 16mm, lowered opacity to 0.4 since sharpening is quite strong in this sample. Only used blur and grain, filmcolor and curve deactivated.

Either way, I've downloaded your sample and still find the need to add extra blur... :-)

[deezid]

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

Either way, I've downloaded your sample and still find the need to add extra blur... :-)

It's still harsh and kinda digital filtered, don't know what happened to the source. Seems 8 bit as well.

@AaronChicago do you still have the original clip? Maybe the ProRes conversion harmed the footage. (Using Resolve 14 Studio here, so no problem)