Grading S1H log footage

[BTM_Pix]

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Sort of like Politicians, if you are all stupid we all appear to be really smart. 

How's that been working out for them ?

[kye]

11 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

That common mantra statement sort of gets into "Ignorance is Bliss" lol. Sort of like Politicians, if you are all stupid we all appear to be really smart. 

I have a sneaking suspicion that when it comes to looking at the colour of an image, the professional colourists aren't ignorant about anything.  Even the tiniest details are discussed like they're obvious, and when the time calls for it, they can often just look at an image and tell you what was done to it in grading.

[webrunner5]

Well I am sure before the movie even starts the producers and the director get with them to tell them what mood they are shooting for in the movie. They don't have the final say on how it looks.

[mercer]

As much as I agree with the statement that if it looks good, it is good, I must question the point of shooting with an S1H if you're not using vLog?

You're probably losing at least a stop of dynamic range. So it's very possible you're getting around 10.5 stops.

You may as well shoot with a Canon or Sony and get excellent AF.

Why make life difficult when there's money involved.

The bride couldn't care less about the cool waveform feature.

[MrSMW]

11 hours ago, mercer said:

As much as I agree with the statement that if it looks good, it is good, I must question the point of shooting with an S1H if you're not using vLog?

You're probably losing at least a stop of dynamic range. So it's very possible you're getting around 10.5 stops.

You may as well shoot with a Canon or Sony and get excellent AF.

Why make life difficult when there's money involved.

The bride couldn't care less about the cool waveform feature.

Hmmm…how about because then I’d need to change an entire system of 3 bodies and 5 lenses, lose a shit ton of money and need to learn a whole new system? 😜

Never say never though… I came very close to flipping to a new OM-1 system but it was too risky on several levels at this point in time.

Like most if not all things, it comes down to compromise and my current compromises are:

A. The tracking AF isn’t the best available.

B. The S1 bodies are slightly larger and heavier than I’d like.

C. I cannot for the life of me get a better looking result using log than I can using my tweaked Natural profile with a mild grade using Film Convert Nitrate…and I have followed meticulously (and played with for good measure) around 1/2 a dozen ‘experts’ instruction.

I think maybe when this season is over, I will pay someone to edjumicate me with my own footage and show me the error of my ways.

But right now, with a packed season about to begin, I have not been able to make it work so I’m going with what does work. For me.

[Mark Romero 2]

12 hours ago, mercer said:

As much as I agree with the statement that if it looks good, it is good, I must question the point of shooting with an S1H if you're not using vLog?

You're probably losing at least a stop of dynamic range. So it's very possible you're getting around 10.5 stops.

You may as well shoot with a Canon or Sony and get excellent AF.

Why make life difficult when there's money involved.

The bride couldn't care less about the cool waveform feature.

I know your comment was addressed to @MrSMW but if I may opine for a moment

I think that the more recent Canon and Sony releases have certainly caught up (and in terms of AF, certainly surpassed) many of the features of the S1H. 

Me thinks that in order to stop losing ground to Sony / Canon / Nikon, Panasonic is going to have to (altogether now) improve their autofocus, and at least have full frame 4K 60p.

I keep thinking of selling my S5 and getting either an R6 or an a7 IV and just using Canon EF lenses on them. The reason I don't is because for the R6, I am still nervous about the overheating, and as for the a7 IV, because it's a Sony. (I own three Sony cameras so I think I have the right to be flippant about this.) And on a more serious note, if I swapped the S5 for an a7 IV, I would just be swapping one version of cropped 4K 60p for another. 

Internal ProRes is great (as in the GH6), but I don't know how many wedding shooters want to bring along 20 CF Express cards and change them out every 10 minutes or so. Now that I think about it, not sure how many of ANY types of shooters are going to want to change out cards that much unless they are getting paid the big bucks.

On the other hand, thinking about my Panasonic FF bodies, being able to shoot in 6K is real nice, the waveforms are nice, the numerous customizable buttons are nice, the IBIS is nice, the LCD screen and EVF are nice (except my S5, which is kind of mediocre...), the option to shoot in RAW if I ever decide to by a Ninja or BMD Video Assist is appealing, the default picture profiles are nice (even if you don't shoot in V-LOG).

 

[TomTheDP]

35 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Hmmm…how about because then I’d need to change an entire system of 3 bodies and 5 lenses, lose a shit ton of money and need to learn a whole new system? 😜

Never say never though… I came very close to flipping to a new OM-1 system but it was too risky on several levels at this point in time.

Like most if not all things, it comes down to compromise and my current compromises are:

A. The tracking AF isn’t the best available.

B. The S1 bodies are slightly larger and heavier than I’d like.

C. I cannot for the life of me get a better looking result using log than I can using my tweaked Natural profile with a mild grade using Film Convert Nitrate…and I have followed meticulously (and played with for good measure) around 1/2 a dozen ‘experts’ instruction.

I think maybe when this season is over, I will pay someone to edjumicate me with my own footage and show me the error of my ways.

But right now, with a packed season about to begin, I have not been able to make it work so I’m going with what does work. For me.

 

12 hours ago, mercer said:

As much as I agree with the statement that if it looks good, it is good, I must question the point of shooting with an S1H if you're not using vLog?

You're probably losing at least a stop of dynamic range. So it's very possible you're getting around 10.5 stops.

You may as well shoot with a Canon or Sony and get excellent AF.

Why make life difficult when there's money involved.

The bride couldn't care less about the cool waveform feature.

Yeah when it comes to making money whatever is quickest easiest option is probably best. 99.9% of people won't pay more for Log footage or even know what it is to begin with. A majority of situations won't even require the extra dynamic range you get with log. Auto focus is cool but if you are used to Panasonic shooting it can be confusing and you'll probably actually miss shots at first.

[MrSMW]

9 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

Auto focus is cool but if you are used to Panasonic shooting it can be confusing and you'll probably actually miss shots at first.

Indeed.

I actually use MF over 90% of the time and with the S1H, close to 100%.

The only time I need and use AF is with the S5, on a tripod, entrances, exits, confetti, ie, maybe 1 minute actual shooting time during a typical 9-15 hour shoot.

The S1H I can't see being anything but MF this year as that's my more 'artistic', on me at all times, filmmaking camera whereas I class the S5 in it's use (as above plus entire duration ceremony and entire duration speeches) as my video camera.

But...and it's the big BUT, that 1 minute or whatever per job when I need reliable AF is what counts.

And based on my most recent tests, the S5 with the 20-60 with my current latest tweaks to the AF set up is not bad at all.

In fact, it worked when my back up Sony ZV1 which has excellent AF, failed.

Answer? Hotshoe mount the ZV1 on the S5 for those crucial moments and double-team it!

17 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I keep thinking of selling my S5 and getting either an R6 or an a7 IV and just using Canon EF lenses on them. The reason I don't is because for the R6, I am still nervous about the overheating, and as for the a7 IV, because it's a Sony. (I own three Sony cameras so I think I have the right to be flippant about this.) And on a more serious note, if I swapped the S5 for an a7 IV, I would just be swapping one version of cropped 4K 60p for another. 

Yep, I wouldn't trade my S5 for an A7iv as it's a sideways step and personally for me, if anything, a slight downgrade in various regards except AF.

The business case for the R6 is very good for anyone with EF glass. Makes complete sense. As long as you can live with the potential or even just the fear of overheeating.

I reckon I could take that punt if needs be and if I shot Canon, would use an R5 for 90% stills and 10% video and use a pair of R6's purely for video, but only one would run for extended periods of time so I could...pardon the pun, hot swap them if needs be.

21 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Me thinks that in order to stop losing ground to Sony / Canon / Nikon, Panasonic is going to have to (altogether now) improve their autofocus, and at least have full frame 4K 60p.

Providing they do bring out the next gen S1/S5 line, I'd say it would be suicide to do anything less so I'd expect the AF to not necessarily be PDAF, but simply 'really quite good and reliable', plus 6k 60p full frame would be my best guess. Probably asking a bit much for them to jump to full frame 8k 60p...and I personally don't want or need it anyway.

 

23 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Internal ProRes is great (as in the GH6), but I don't know how many wedding shooters want to bring along 20 CF Express cards and change them out every 10 minutes or so. Now that I think about it, not sure how many of ANY types of shooters are going to want to change out cards that much unless they are getting paid the big bucks.

I shoot 128GB SD cards and rarely have to use a second on any wedding day and that's over a typical 9-15 hour shoot.

If it's been a pretty heavy day, I might swap the cards out before evening speeches because despite the bride assuring me, "oh it will only be 20 minutes", some 1 hour 20 mins later and the light has faded plus all my additional lighting has run out... 🤪

[kye]

9 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I think maybe when this season is over, I will pay someone to edjumicate me with my own footage and show me the error of my ways.

I'd suggest paying for some 1:1 coaching from a colourist, or someone that is very good at colour.  I'd start by asking them to demonstrate how well they can grade a shot that has some issues - eg, exposure or WB or mixed colour temperature lighting etc.

If footage is 100% properly shot anyone can just put on a LUT, apply some contrast and it will look great.  The test is when things aren't great, and in weddings you'd have those issues from time to time I'd imagine.

8 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Internal ProRes is great (as in the GH6), but I don't know how many wedding shooters want to bring along 20 CF Express cards and change them out every 10 minutes or so. Now that I think about it, not sure how many of ANY types of shooters are going to want to change out cards that much unless they are getting paid the big bucks.

Have we forgotten the people that shoot narrative?  They mostly don't care about AF, don't have long takes, and seriously care about the quality of the image.

This forum has a few very vocal videographers (myself included) but that doesn't mean that no-one is out there shooting shorts or whatever.  Noam Kroll shot a short on a single can of 16mm negative: https://noamkroll.com/shooting-a-no-budget-short-film-in-6-hours-on-ultra-16mm-film/ for a shooting ratio of something like 5:1.  That's extreme, but even his original plan of 10:1 means you can do an entire short on one or two cards.

A huge proportion of the people that I see in the film-making groups online are shooting narrative, which is the perfect situation for a Panasonic camera.

Besides, the GH6 is getting record-to-USB in a firmware update anyway, so that makes things easier.

[Mark Romero 2]

4 hours ago, kye said:

I'd suggest paying for some 1:1 coaching from a colourist, or someone that is very good at colour.  I'd start by asking them to demonstrate how well they can grade a shot that has some issues - eg, exposure or WB or mixed colour temperature lighting etc.

If footage is 100% properly shot anyone can just put on a LUT, apply some contrast and it will look great.  The test is when things aren't great, and in weddings you'd have those issues from time to time I'd imagine.

Have we forgotten the people that shoot narrative?  They mostly don't care about AF, don't have long takes, and seriously care about the quality of the image.

This forum has a few very vocal videographers (myself included) but that doesn't mean that no-one is out there shooting shorts or whatever.  Noam Kroll shot a short on a single can of 16mm negative: https://noamkroll.com/shooting-a-no-budget-short-film-in-6-hours-on-ultra-16mm-film/ for a shooting ratio of something like 5:1.  That's extreme, but even his original plan of 10:1 means you can do an entire short on one or two cards.

A huge proportion of the people that I see in the film-making groups online are shooting narrative, which is the perfect situation for a Panasonic camera.

Besides, the GH6 is getting record-to-USB in a firmware update anyway, so that makes things easier.

Yes, you make good points, but I think that for Panasonic to really keep the line of GH / S cameras viable, they are going to have to reach a bigger market than just those that are doing narrative.

[MrSMW]

53 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Yes, you make good points, but I think that for Panasonic to really keep the line of GH / S cameras viable, they are going to have to reach a bigger market than just those that are doing narrative.

That’s what I think also.

At one end of the scale there is filmmaking.

At the other there is photography.

Cameras such as these sit somewhere in the middle.

Arguably something like this the GH6 sits slightly more towards the filmmaking side of things and something like the S1R, more towards the photography, but both are hybrid cameras.

The S1H is also regarded more for it’s video capability (and is a very underrated stills camera) but for filmmakers, it’s box brother, the BS1H (though why they labeled it BS is beyond me) is more suited to rigging out and being a filmmaking specific camera.

I am in no way a serious filmmaker and no longer purely a photographer as I once was (haven’t been for over 10 years now actually) so I need tools from that middle hybrid/crossover ground and I think if Panasonic’s camera division is not to die, they need to really gun for a bigger slice of the pie.

That can only come with having a great, relevant, competitive autofocusing piece of kit. Plus some at least above average marketing.

It’s just my opinion, but I think they could and should be regarded over and above Sony if they only had better AF and marketing. But they don’t and Sony has been eating their lunch for some time now.

I really hope so anyway because they tick more boxes for me than anyone else and I think the next gen…if it happens, could tick them all.

 

[MrSMW]

5 hours ago, kye said:

I'd suggest paying for some 1:1 coaching from a colourist, or someone that is very good at colour.  I'd start by asking them to demonstrate how well they can grade a shot that has some issues - eg, exposure or WB or mixed colour temperature lighting etc.

That’s what I intend Kye.

I may very well travel somewhere in the world to do so and combine both some kind of vacation with the educational.

I am 100% sure it’s me because you can’t ague with physics but also coupled with the fact that Panasonic’s profiles, like Fuji’s, are great SOOC.

Not that I use them SOOC but have a very unique combo of a tweaked profile, lens choice, filter choice and a grading LUT I have created specifically to suit this footage and the end result I am looking for.

And even then, each individual clip is also tweaked.

And this I think is my problem and was the same problem I had with Fuji before. I developed something that suited me from what is arguably the lower potential source…but then I don’t and never grade hard so…

Finally, it probably helps that I shoot a pretty specific thing in fairly similar circumstances which is a girl getting ready in a bedroom near a window followed by an outdoor ceremony followed by an outdoor party followed by some indoor dancing.

Sometimes the outdoor stuff has to take place indoors either due to weather or choice, but it’s all pretty consistent and takes place mostly Apr-Sep.

I also don’t need to be colour accurate to a clients brief but simply be consistent to my style.

I don’t want to call it ‘rinse and repeat’ but actually, it mostly is; different couple, sometimes same venue, sometimes same venue back to back weekends, but generally the same blue sky, green backdrop, bird in a white frock.

I think all of the above adds up to less requirement to have to try and fix things in post because for me, there is rarely anything to ‘fix’ because familiarity meant I shot for it in the first place. Usually… 😜

[kye]

2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Yes, you make good points, but I think that for Panasonic to really keep the line of GH / S cameras viable, they are going to have to reach a bigger market than just those that are doing narrative.

We all hear about Panasonic "needing" AF in order to stay in business, but my question is, how many people are saying that because they personally aren't buying Panasonic because of the AF, and how many are saying that because everyone else is saying it?

I used to write electronic music in the 90s and 00s and anyone who knows that scene knows that there's a synthesiser called the Roland TB-303.  It was famous for being so highly sought-after and that it was worth so much second hand.  Everyone knew that units were selling for over $1000 second hand (basically 2.5x its retail price) but here's the thing...  no-one could actually provide evidence that it was selling for that amount.  
There were article after article talking about how Roland should re-release it, lots of companies make clones, it was a whole thing.  After years of this being the talk in magazines and stores and forums someone from Roland did some digging and they traced the stories back to a rumour that one sold for more than $1000.  That rumour was so outlandish that it "went viral" and before you know it there were half-a-dozen of these things being listed for sale at that price and no-one accepted anything less.  They couldn't locate a single sale at even remotely that price.  Worldwide.

Am I saying that no-one needs AF?  Of course not.  
What I am saying is that I have witnessed a "fact" known worldwide become truth based on almost nothing at all except people who kept repeating what everyone else was saying.  It was like a virus that needs people to copy itself, like those viral emails saying that everyones telephone number was going to be made public.

I'd appreciate it if basically everyone shut up about it except for the people who actually would buy Panasonic but don't because of the AF.  Otherwise we'll end up with Panasonic going bankrupt for no good reason, and we'll end up with cameras that have 50K resolution but still don't look as good as the 2012 Alexa.

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I am in no way a serious filmmaker and no longer purely a photographer as I once was (haven’t been for over 10 years now actually) so I need tools from that middle hybrid/crossover ground and I think if Panasonic’s camera division is not to die, they need to really gun for a bigger slice of the pie.

You and I are the noisy videographers on here that I think are actually in the minority with how we shoot.  When I compare the patronage of these forums with other film-making / camera places like FB groups and YT channels and Discord groups etc, it is really freaking obvious that the discussions here do not even vaguely represent what most people are talking about in other places.

46 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

That’s what I intend Kye.

I may very well travel somewhere in the world to do so and combine both some kind of vacation with the educational.

I am 100% sure it’s me because you can’t ague with physics but also coupled with the fact that Panasonic’s profiles, like Fuji’s, are great SOOC.

Not that I use them SOOC but have a very unique combo of a tweaked profile, lens choice, filter choice and a grading LUT I have created specifically to suit this footage and the end result I am looking for.

And even then, each individual clip is also tweaked.

And this I think is my problem and was the same problem I had with Fuji before. I developed something that suited me from what is arguably the lower potential source…but then I don’t and never grade hard so…

Finally, it probably helps that I shoot a pretty specific thing in fairly similar circumstances which is a girl getting ready in a bedroom near a window followed by an outdoor ceremony followed by an outdoor party followed by some indoor dancing.

Sometimes the outdoor stuff has to take place indoors either due to weather or choice, but it’s all pretty consistent and takes place mostly Apr-Sep.

I also don’t need to be colour accurate to a clients brief but simply be consistent to my style.

I don’t want to call it ‘rinse and repeat’ but actually, it mostly is; different couple, sometimes same venue, sometimes same venue back to back weekends, but generally the same blue sky, green backdrop, bird in a white frock.

I think all of the above adds up to less requirement to have to try and fix things in post because for me, there is rarely anything to ‘fix’ because familiarity meant I shot for it in the first place. Usually… 😜

I used to do websites and did the website of a (stills) wedding photographer, one of the highest charging and highest reputation ones in the city.  It was a referral after he shot a wedding that I was best-man at, so I'd experienced his services too.  His work was beautiful, but his base package (without prints) cost many times the average cost of a whole wedding, so he wasn't a cheap-and-cheerful option - he was in the top tier.
He took the wedding parties to the same few locations, took the same shots with the same compositions, over and over and over again.  He gave me a selection of his best shots to choose from for the website and I had to go through them super carefully to make sure that I didn't put multiple shots from the same wedding in there (doubles are a sign you don't have many clients) but it was difficult as the shots all looked the same.  There were even couples and wedding parties that had the same clothing and flower designs - weddings are almost as cookie-cutter as actual cookies!
He typically shot the formal shots and had a second shooter who was taking spontaneous shots, which were lovely and very unique, so it was a combination of both.

It might be worth getting someone who also shoots (if they have the skills in post) as they might be able to either understand why you can't nail every shot perfectly, or might give you some shooting tips to improve what's happening in-camera.  

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, kye said:

might be worth getting someone who also shoots (if they have the skills in post) as they might be able to either understand why you can't nail every shot perfectly, or might give you some shooting tips to improve what's happening in-camera.

That’s not my situation Kye.

Not being big headed or anything but absolutely zero issues with capture or exposure.

The opposite. I never come back from a job, look at the footage and say, “Oops, I effed that up. How am I going to fix it?”

Never happens. Or at least not to any degree where it’s a concern ie, some random human mistake we all make from time to time, but never incompetence or any shortcomings in technical ability in that sense.

Instead, I’m more than happy with what I bring back on a technical level and if I am less than pleased with any results it will be due to other factors that were beyond my control…and a lot of fuckwittery can go on at weddings!

Re. log or beyond that, raw, it’s simply a case of something you alluded to above…

5 hours ago, kye said:

What I am saying is that I have witnessed a "fact" known worldwide become truth based on almost nothing at all except people who kept repeating what everyone else was saying.

…but rather than this sentiment regarding AF (and I agree with your sentiment), the same principal regarding log vs shooting a profile.

Accordingly there are 2 and only 2, issues that I wrestle with and these are:

1: Why can I not get correctly exposed clean log footage to look better than I can the same thing shot with a profile?

I guess because I really like what I get from the profile I shoot or because I am not sufficiently skilled in grading to achieve what someone else might from log.

I suspect the truth is both things.

2: This ´truth’ as it were that log is better than a profile just as MF is better than AF or raw is better than Jpeg.

Technically and in the right hands, I do not dispute for 1 second that log has more scope than a profile. How can it not and MF in the hands of a master probably beats AF and I know for a fact that raw beats Jpeg as I do that one week in week out.

So it is ultimately just one single thing and that is whilst I can get more out of raw vs Jpeg, I cannot currently get ‘more’ out of log than I can my tweaked profile.

And I don’t know why that is and the truth is, I am not overly concerned but rather would like to explore further why despite ‘the rest of the world’ saying that log is best, to date, it has not been for me.

My season starts shortly and I have run out of time with log, - I need to start and complete the season with consistency.

What I shall probably do however is shoot the final job of the year as log and then use that as a project to crack the bloody thing!

 

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, kye said:

We all hear about Panasonic "needing" AF in order to stay in business, but my question is, how many people are saying that because they personally aren't buying Panasonic because of the AF, and how many are saying that because everyone else is saying it?

I used to write electronic music in the 90s and 00s and anyone who knows that scene knows that there's a synthesiser called the Roland TB-303.  It was famous for being so highly sought-after and that it was worth so much second hand.  Everyone knew that units were selling for over $1000 second hand (basically 2.5x its retail price) but here's the thing...  no-one could actually provide evidence that it was selling for that amount.  
There were article after article talking about how Roland should re-release it, lots of companies make clones, it was a whole thing.  After years of this being the talk in magazines and stores and forums someone from Roland did some digging and they traced the stories back to a rumour that one sold for more than $1000.  That rumour was so outlandish that it "went viral" and before you know it there were half-a-dozen of these things being listed for sale at that price and no-one accepted anything less.  They couldn't locate a single sale at even remotely that price.  Worldwide.

Am I saying that no-one needs AF?  Of course not.  
What I am saying is that I have witnessed a "fact" known worldwide become truth based on almost nothing at all except people who kept repeating what everyone else was saying.  It was like a virus that needs people to copy itself, like those viral emails saying that everyones telephone number was going to be made public.

I'd appreciate it if basically everyone shut up about it except for the people who actually would buy Panasonic but don't because of the AF.  Otherwise we'll end up with Panasonic going bankrupt for no good reason, and we'll end up with cameras that have 50K resolution but still don't look as good as the 2012 Alexa.

 

Yeah but god damn if you advertise that you have a camera that has AF in it than damnit it ought to be able to AF, it's that simple. Panasonic has just about the worse AF in the world in their top cameras. What the hell.

Big time pros are not using their cameras. It is the little guys who sure as hell are not having focus pullers at their side. It is embarrassing.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but god damn if you advertise that you have a camera that has AF in it than damnit it ought to be able to AF, it's that simple. Panasonic has just about the worse AF in the world in their top cameras. What the hell.

Big time pros are not using their cameras. It is the little guys who sure as hell are not having focus pullers at their side. It is embarrassing.

But the thing is, it does work. Most of the time and in most situations.

Just arguably not as well as it’s main competitors.

As with all things, there is a pecking order.

Such as in F1 motor racing, Ferrari are back up at the top vying with Red Bull whereas the mighty Mercedes are currently running in the middle of the pack.

Lumix cameras currently have this double whammy of having the least good AF coupled with the worst press because of that fact.

The reality is however, it’s not that far behind Fuji which is not that far behind Nikon, but Canon and Sony are arguably the Ferrari and Red Bull of this current time. In AF terms that is.

For stills, I can’t criticize it, but then I don’t shoot F1 or anything even remotely faced paced. 

The fastest action I see and have to capture is a newly married couple strutting up the aisle.

It’s actually highly accurate and I don’t even think about it.

When it comes to video, OK, for the best result you should use native glass and you should take the time to understand how the system works and tweak a few settings.

For general video capture useage, it works pretty well. In real life.

It’s just the forward tracking where it can come unstuck and that I will admit, is an issue.

But most of the negative reviews talk I read is from folks who have never given it the time or never even used it.

If I climbed into an F1 car and failed to drive it, it doesn’t make it a shit car.

It’s the perception of Lumix cameras AF that is their biggest issue. The perception of it. 

Plus their less good than the rest marketing.

But on a positive note, there is a core of folks who own the kit that appreciate what it can do and I think especially in regard to the S5, a growing appreciation.

I’m one of those. Obviously. Not a fanboy or tied in any way (came so close to going OM Systems just a few weeks back) and hope and pray (in an agnostic manner) that there is a next gen and they don’t stuff it up.

[Mark Romero 2]

14 hours ago, kye said:

We all hear about Panasonic "needing" AF in order to stay in business, but my question is, how many people are saying that because they personally aren't buying Panasonic because of the AF, and how many are saying that because everyone else is saying it?

Well... I can honestly say that I did buy an Olympus E-M1 MK II instead of a G85 / G9 / used GH5 due to autofocus concerns. On some projects I have my son second shoot for me, and I tried to get him to use my S5 and Panasonic 24-105 f/4, and it was so frustrating that I literally got on fredmiranda and bought the first E-M1 MK II I saw listed on there.

And I actually WOULD sell all my Sony aps-c gear and invest in native L-Mount glass (or maybe a GH6)  if I was more confident in the continuous AF of my S5 / S1 / GH6 cameras. 

I keep HOPING beyond hope that one day real soon Panasonic is going to release a firmware update that is going to fix everything. 

 

[webrunner5]

Yeah, now Olympus Does have darn good AF. I have had 2 E-M1s and they were wonderful AF wise, stabilization wise, and for photos great color output. Eh not so hot for video but you can't have everything. I would think the E-M1 III might have decent video?

I would imagine the EM1x or whatever it's called would be really good overall.

[kye]

 

14 hours ago, MrSMW said:

That’s not my situation Kye.

Not being big headed or anything but absolutely zero issues with capture or exposure.

The opposite. I never come back from a job, look at the footage and say, “Oops, I effed that up. How am I going to fix it?”

Never happens. Or at least not to any degree where it’s a concern ie, some random human mistake we all make from time to time, but never incompetence or any shortcomings in technical ability in that sense.

I didn't say "effed that up" - I said "nail every shot perfectly".

Gee - you suggest that someone isn't perfect and they go off the deep end like you're calling them incompetent!

How would you know?  Have you done latitude testing across every WB and mixed lighting scenario?  Unlikely.  

You might find that someone worth paying money to might look at a shot and say "see how I can do this on this shot and it looks great but this other shot doesn't quite work as well...  if you had done X when shooting it then it would have been better - I know it's not the proper way but I find it works in this particular situation".

As you said, lots of "fuckwittery can go on at weddings" - maybe there's a better way to deal with some of it.  and if there is, then I'd say that my statement about not nailing every shot perfectly would then apply.

14 hours ago, MrSMW said:

1: Why can I not get correctly exposed clean log footage to look better than I can the same thing shot with a profile?

I guess because I really like what I get from the profile I shoot or because I am not sufficiently skilled in grading to achieve what someone else might from log.

If you're not a professional colourist who has worked for decades at the highest level then (brace yourself for this...) you probably have a lot to learn about colour.  Well, to that I say - don't we all!

It's worth saying that the LOG format typically gets its reputation because:

1. it encodes the full DR of the camera (hopefully anyway!)
2. it allows full support from the various LUTs and Colour Management profiles etc
3. YT bros worked out it was "super pro"

However, capturing something in a more 709-style profile actually has a bit-density advantage.

Imagine that you record something to 10-bit LOG.  It's going to distribute those bits across the entire log curve.  You then apply a contrast curve to bring it to 709, which compresses the shadows and highlights and effectively squishes the bits in those areas together.  That's fine, but it also expands the bits in the midtones, and especially skintones.  This is why shooting 8-bit with flat log profiles can be tricky because of banding.

Recording a 709-style profile to a 10-bit profile will give you more bit-density on the critical areas.  We all love Alexa and RED images, and RAW to a certain extent, and I suspect that one of the reasons those cameras look so much better is the bit-density they have in the critical areas.

I like HLG for that reason - it has the bit-density of 709 from the blacks up to about half-way up the gamma, and then compresses the highlights from there on up, where you shouldn't be putting skintones.  Try doing an ETTR on skintones on a HLG camera and you'll notice that the skintones look terrible once you pull then back down from the highlights - that's because far less bit-density is being used up there by the gamma curve.

11 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but god damn if you advertise that you have a camera that has AF in it than damnit it ought to be able to AF, it's that simple. Panasonic has just about the worse AF in the world in their top cameras. What the hell.

Big time pros are not using their cameras. It is the little guys who sure as hell are not having focus pullers at their side. It is embarrassing.

I think you've accidentally replaced the word "auto" with the word "perfect".

All Panasonic cameras will do the focus automatically.  They don't do it perfectly every time, but it's a pretty good hit rate.  Sony and Canon cameras have a higher hit-rate, but theirs aren't perfect either.  I've seen many instances of them missing focus, focusing on the wrong thing, and even just sitting there not focused on anything.  

Panasonic has better AF than every historical CDAF and almost every PDAF camera from 7 years ago or more.

If a camera should embarrass a manufacturer because a single feature doesn't keep up with the competition, then every camera would embarrass their makes many times over.

4 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Well... I can honestly say that I did buy an Olympus E-M1 MK II instead of a G85 / G9 / used GH5 due to autofocus concerns. On some projects I have my son second shoot for me, and I tried to get him to use my S5 and Panasonic 24-105 f/4, and it was so frustrating that I literally got on fredmiranda and bought the first E-M1 MK II I saw listed on there.

And I actually WOULD sell all my Sony aps-c gear and invest in native L-Mount glass (or maybe a GH6)  if I was more confident in the continuous AF of my S5 / S1 / GH6 cameras. 

I keep HOPING beyond hope that one day real soon Panasonic is going to release a firmware update that is going to fix everything. 

Sounds like you might have also accidentally replaced the word "auto" with something far more rigorous...

Do you think that randomly yelling "autofocus" every time someone says Panasonic is helping the situation?  Or hurting?

[webrunner5]

If you are not using DPAF or  PDAF you are sucking hind tit on auto focus. Sure nothing is perfect but if you are using a gimbal you sure as heck want reliable AF. Run N Gun you need it unless you are shotting surer wide. With Panasonic's AF you really have a hard time using say EF lenses etc. on them.  PDAF is really the way to go other than Canon, it is a lot more useful overall. Even Early Olympus m4/3  cameras were not so hot AF wise other than the original E-M1. It used Phase Detect in them. They are all now pretty good, better than a Panasonic. And in 2022 that has no excuse.

I am sure they are going to lose sales even on the GH6 because of it. If it had awesome AF it would be a nearly impossible camera to not buy. I am going to pass on one. I am too old for dealing with manual focus, even for photos. I want to do birding, and it sure as heck isn't going to cut it for that.