The M43 Cinema - 3 Way Battle

[webrunner5]

5 minutes ago, jonpais said:

If it’s got V-log, you can still shoot HDR, so better off finding one without. ?

I don't like HDR at all. It is not Cine, Filmic looking. It is just like HDR Photos, I hate them. Over done from hell. But that is me, and I know you like it. So you shoot it, and I won't, pretty simple concept. I like a film look you like a Digital look. I am in the minority. and you are not. So I guess you are doing what most people want. That is fine.

[anonim]

22 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yes I believe you are right. You have seen the light.

Wow light also is in the game? Normal and abnormal, talented and talentless, seeing the light or staying into darkness - all of that to catch your level of estimation about GH5

[jonpais]

3 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't like HDR at all. It is not Cine, Filmic looking. It is just like HDR Photos, I hate them. Over done from hell. But that is me, and I know you like it. So you shoot it, and I won't, pretty simple concept.

Like all of your concepts. ?

Arri seems to think that once the client has seen the HDR grade, they will dislike the SDR. But hey, what do they know, right?

[webrunner5]

7 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Like all of your concepts. ?

 You are getting a lot better grading and I have stated so before. But that deoesn't mean I like the overall output you have. But like I said a lot of people like it on here I guess. That is fine, no problem. But that doesn't mean what I like is bad either.

I liked the output from the GH2, but the GH3, GH4, GH5 ehh not so much. Sorry.

[jonpais]

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

 You are getting a lot better grading and I have stated so before. But that deoesn't mean I like the overall output you have. But like I said a lot of people like it on here I guess. That is fine, no problem. But that doesn't mean what I like is bad either.

Thanks, I suppose that’s as close to a compliment as I can expect.

[jonpais]

23 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't like HDR at all. It is not Cine, Filmic looking. It is just like HDR Photos, I hate them. Over done from hell. But that is me, and I know you like it. So you shoot it, and I won't, pretty simple concept. I like a film look you like a Digital look. I am in the minority. and you are not. So I guess you are doing what most people want. That is fine.

Why do you say I like a digital look? I realize Resolve isn’t for real pros, but it supports HDR. Arri has given workshops on HDR. Sony, Canon, Panasonic - all cameras will soon support HDR. Sony makes HDR grading monitors costing $35,000 or so. Does all this signal a shift toward a digital look? Is the film look doomed?

[anonim]

13 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Why do you say I like a digital look? I realize Resolve isn’t for real pros, but it supports HDR. Arri has given workshops on HDR. Sony, Canon, Panasonic - all cameras will soon support HDR. Sony makes HDR grading monitors costing $35,000 or so. Does all this signal a shift toward a digital look? Is the film look doomed?

I think that you just haven't been around the block a few times in right direction

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Why do you say I like a digital look? I realize Resolve isn’t for real pros, but it supports HDR. Arri has given workshops on HDR. Sony, Canon, Panasonic - all cameras will soon support HDR. Sony makes HDR grading monitors costing $35,000 or so. Does all this signal a shift toward a digital look? Is the film look doomed?

I have shown this on here I took before. It is SDR but the same concept. Some people Like it, I think it is Digital looking, but I think it is Way over the top. So I don't like it.

 

Now there is this Cartoon, I will call it an animation, which it is in HDR and it is pretty jaw dropping good. One of my Favorites.  But it is a Cartoon with Cartoon colors over the top. Would I call it Filmic, Nah I don't think so at all. Impressive yes. Oh and it was created by using Blender.

https://www.blender.org/

 

[Cinegain]

You might be used to associating HDR with photos and have been programmed to dislike that, as we all know that can be way overdone. HDR with video is nothing like that though, you should give it a fair chance. It's got little to do with extreme gone wrong photoshops... and more with actual high dynamic range, which is more about nuance than it's about something screamish.

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

Yeah, even his conclusions are strange to say the least:

"The only way the Blackmagic Design Pocket Camera 4K can beat the GH5 is in terms of sheer image quality – dynamic range and color science." 

But really, aren't all the comparisons of cameras that haven't been even released rushed? 

 

 

I mean so rushed he can't even get the basics we already know right 

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, Cinegain said:

You might be used to associating HDR with photos and have been programmed to dislike that, as we all know that can be way overdone. HDR with video is nothing like that though, you should give it a fair chance. It's got little to do with extreme gone wrong photoshops... and more with actual high dynamic range, which is more about nuance than it's about something screamish.

You are probably right. I agree with that.  But I have a Note 8 Samsung phone that has a 4k or better screen and can see HDR content. I can tell you a Lot of the GH5 HDR stuff ain't exactly laid back stuff. But the trouble is most people, well a lot do it in 4k. And I think 4k is too digital looking to be honest. It is too good. Now for certain types of shoots, on average most shoots, I think it works. And the GH5 is damn good at doing it. Documentary, interviews, vacations, stuff with the family is sharp it is the hot setup. And a whole lot more. If I was doing any of that I would grab the GH5 over this new 4k BMPCC. That new camera is not what it is made for.

But this thread is about Cine cameras and to me Cine cameras are used to get a more subdued look, a softer diffused look. Now maybe for a Action movie they are doing the over the top HDR, crank up the saturation to 12 look to it. But if they are going for a Film look, an Arri look is the best at it. And I think that is one of the reasons Arri did not really want to go to true 4k sensor. They, in a sense, are too good. I like my A7s in 1080p better than I do the GH5 1080p. It has a more grungy filmic look to it. It is the old Horses for Courses thing. But calling the GH5 a Cine camera, not in my book it is. Now is it a good, well even a great camera for most stuff, sure it is.

[webrunner5]

5 hours ago, jonpais said:

Why do you say I like a digital look? I realize Resolve isn’t for real pros, but it supports HDR. Arri has given workshops on HDR. Sony, Canon, Panasonic - all cameras will soon support HDR. Sony makes HDR grading monitors costing $35,000 or so. Does all this signal a shift toward a digital look? Is the film look doomed?

Yes I think it is doomed. I said in a Post a few days ago saying the same thing. When the Baby Boomers die I I think memories of real Film movies will die also, and there won't be any movies shot on film, and the only place you Might be able to see a film movie will be on TCM , hell even it may be gone when Ted Turner dies, and even those have been Digitally enhanced for preservation reasons.. 25 years from now you will have to go to the Library of Congress to actually look at a film movie LoL.

And Resolve is for Pros. It is a lot more Pro now than FCPX. It is a damn powerful program. It basically was started as a high end Colorist program. One of the best. BM keeps buying out top compny's like Fairlight etc, and now it has evolved to a one stop solution. I can't say it is the Best yet, but I bet in a few years it will be. Blackmagic is trying to be the top dog out there, and I think they might do it in not too many more years. They get a few more top end cameras out, and make a FF Mirrorless that can Kill when it comes to a Cine look and they could pull it off,  and for not a lot of money for their products, just like the 4k BMPCC is now. They seem to have the Color Science,  and not hold back on anything, and actually listen to the people that shoot, and not try to kill you on the price, and a damn nice Free editor. A pretty winning way to go at it.

They are not going to put Canon out of business, but they will make them look like a pretty out of touch company.

[jonpais]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

You are probably right. I agree with that.  But I have a Note 8 Samsung phone that has a 4k or better screen and can see HDR content. I can tell you a Lot of the GH5 HDR stuff ain't exactly laid back stuff. But the trouble is most people, well a lot do it in 4k. And I think 4k is too digital looking to be honest. It is too good. Now for certain types of shoots, on average most shoots, I think it works. And the GH5 is damn good at doing it. Documentary, interviews, vacations, stuff with the family is sharp it is the hot setup. And a whole lot more. If I was doing any of that I would grab the GH5 over this new 4k BMPCC. That new camera is not what it is made for.

But this thread is about Cine cameras and to me Cine cameras are used to get a more subdued look, a softer diffused look. Now maybe for a Action movie they are doing the over the top HDR, crank up the saturation to 12 look to it. But if they are going for a Film look, an Arri look is the best at it. And I think that is one of the reasons Arri did not really want to go to true 4k sensor. They, in a sense, are too good. I like my A7s in 1080p better than I do the GH5 1080p. It has a more grungy filmic look to it. It is the old Horses for Courses thing. But calling the GH5 a Cine camera, not in my book it is. Now is it a good, well even a great camera for most stuff, sure it is.

I think you’re confusing rec709 with the film look you hold so dear. There are plenty of so-called grungy looking HDR movies on Netflix.

rec709 is a twenty year-old standard for HD televisions that has got nothing whatever to do with the cinematic look. Having more than six stops of dynamic range and greater color space does not instantly transform everything into garish cartoon colors. Chef’s Table is just one example.

And making judgements about HDR based solely on your smartphone is little different from determining the image quality of an Arri while viewing it on a 4”’ iPod. You can get a soft, diffused, painterly image in HDR, just as you can get a brittle, mushy image in SDR.

I will bet you a plane ticket to Vietnam that if I show you two movies side-by-side on my LG OLED, that you will no longer think the same way. 

Incidentally, the Pocket 4K shoots HDR, just as the original Pocket does.

Finally, with rec709, you are confined to six or seven stops of DR; with HDR, it’s completely up to you how much dynamic range, or contrast, you want to deliver. That’s what all those little curves, wheels and sliders are for.

[anonim]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

But this thread is about Cine cameras

Just to little bit more take advantage of opportunity for more serious argumentation than what is in whose book by experiences collected during haven't been around the block a few times ... Regarding posted abnormal usage of camera in "Die Somnum" I'd like just to add - as maybe learning case for someone similar to me - nice author's comments about challenges and flaws with which he met during this nice cinematic filmmaking - for people who maybe missed it earlier... As addition, there is also author's own opinion (in the public comments) about great usability of IBIS for handheld shots in this concrete undertaking - which, of course, differs from elitistic comments about giving s... or c.... for its usability for cinematic task or session.

 

[jonpais]

12 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

He had damn good Anamorphic lens also.

FWIW, that set of three lenses is about as inexpensive as it gets when it comes to new anamorphic primes. 

[sam]

16 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't like HDR at all. It is not Cine, Filmic looking. It is just like HDR Photos, I hate them. 

If you have Amazon prime you can watch "The only living boy in New York" in uhd (hdr) and also the regular version.  It's shot on film.  Its an example of what hdr is and is not.  (Also an example of film originated material vs digital, as are some of the most popular shows like breaking bad(uhd version on netflix) walking dead and west world)

I saw a post of yours elsewhere that stated all the movie theaters were closing.  A reply was then made "where in the world do you live with no theaters?"  The quite obvious answer was posted next.  "A pirate ship".

Also, Is this you from a few years back?

[sanveer]

Some of us seem to have lost the plot.

And the discussion seems to be all over the place.

HDR for photos is not the same as HDR for video. In photos they combine multiple exposures (from 2 photos upto 9), and have a single photo with the colour, dynamic range, and other information into a single image. Some smartphone do it actually pretty well, compromising only on very fine detail. But they are 4-2-0 8-bit JPEGs. Another issue is that smartphone users want their photos to pop.  So their colours are a bit exaggerated, thereby destroying scope for post work.

HDR in video, on the other hand, may or may not combine multiple exposures, but it keeps colours as bland or washed out as possible. The Entire purpose of HDR in video is to prepare video for post work, retaining as much dynamic range and information as possible, in a photo that is Not a RAW photo. The codec could range from 8-bit 4-2-0 to 10-bit 4-2-2, and the bitrates could also vary within a very large range.

Another interesting thing that Jon has already mentioned is that Rec709, the television standard (and the standard for most monitor that didn' cost a small fortune, until about 10 years back), contained 7 stops and under only for viewing. New HDR standards like HLG too have about 10 stops at most, whether they are for recording or for viewing on HDR ready TVs and monitors. I have sat on a few feature film edits, but I didn't quite figure how many stops the high end monitor are actually capable of displaying.

 

About the GH5: It is a Superb camera, especially for the price. The only thing it lacks IMHO is the low light capabilities of the newer GH5s Sony Sensor. Though it does have a 20MP photo advantage, along with a 6k Anamorphic Mode and that great IBIS.

 

Let's stick to the topic.

btw, I saw a German video of the BMPCC 4k and the employee said something very strange. He said that the camera has vents for air intake at the top, and the air exits from the bottom portion of the camera. I found it hilarious if its true. I wonder if people are actually able to notice this gush of hot air blowing on their hands, while shooting. 

[webrunner5]

43 minutes ago, sanveer said:

btw, I saw a German video of the BMPCC 4k and the employee said something very strange. He said that the camera has vents for air intake at the top, and the air exits from the bottom portion of the camera. I found it hilarious if its true. I wonder if people are actually able to notice this gush of hot air blowing on their hands, while shooting. 

I think you have it ass backwards.   It vents from the top from what I read and heard. Hot air rises. It would be pretty inefficient to do it the other way.

[jonpais]

wow.

[webrunner5]

9 hours ago, jonpais said:

IAnd making judgements about HDR based solely on your smartphone is little different from determining the image quality of an Arri while viewing it on a 4”’ iPod. You can get a soft, diffused, painterly image in HDR, just as you can get a brittle, mushy image in SDR.

 

 

I would imagine the screen on my Samartphone is just as good as your LG TV. I would guess it is a lot better. A Lot more PPI. TV's look good from 20 feet back, But your nose up to them and they look like hammered dog shit!