>>4398725
Nikonbros, is it over?

>>4399102
What are the tricks for getting my video to look like film if I can't afford to shoot on film? I have access to a RED Komodo-X and several Blackmagic cameras

>>4399349
Simplest method use the color space transform to convert the footage from your camera into the cineon film log color space and the apply one of resolves film luts to your footage. This works best if you are using raw footage or 10bit for higher ProRes footage.

>>4399349
Film emulation software has solved this. Next?

>>4399296
Go spread dumb lies somewhere else, faggot

>>4399389
>crush blacks
I agree.

>>4399102
For me it's the best boy

>>4399419
What's he do?

>>4399421
Apparently he's the foreman of a department

>>4399349
Shoot with vintage lenses, compose the way they did in older films, and do the editing tricks other anons have already pointed out

>>4399389
> grain

What’s the point of grain. Won’t YouTube compression kill off the grain?

>>4399424
>compose the way they did in older films
What's changed? Unless you're talking about Hitchcock/Fleming vs 90s filming style.

>>4399427
>Won’t YouTube compression kill off the grain?
Depends how extensively you do it. But you shouldn't focus on what it will look like after youtube compression. Just focus on making it look like how you want.

>>4399427
Are we talking about YouTube compression or are we talking about getting video to look like film? Jesus.

>>4399471
> both

You want to make sure the people seeing your work are seeing what you intended them to see and not something else because YouTube broke your image.

>>4399382
Some people want to know how to get the film look w/o needing to download and/or buy plugins.

>>4399481
Just shoot on film then

>>4399480
That wasn’t initially stated, and in that case I wouldn’t put it on YouTube in the first place because it’s inherently destroyed.

>>4399481
That wasn’t initially stated, and you’re rejecting the best solution for no reason at all.

Christ.

>>4398713
>>4398715
>Nah bro panasonic just isnt as good as canon. Thats it. The features it has over canon/sony are unimportant.
>canon’s reality based featureset

i came from shooting canons, i had a 6d and i want to shoot video, so i bought an a7s. i fucking hated using the a7s so i'm moving around now, and trust me i miss the canon so much. photos straight out the thing looked phenomenal, i love EF lenses, and i enjoyed the ergonomics. if i could just go back to canons i would but its just that the panasonic has so many features it's becoming a glaring issue with switching to canon, the panasonic can do everything the r6ii can but better, with more features, better IBIS, etc. IBIS is a huge game changer for what I do.

what features are you talking about that are reality based? like i said i dont give a fuck about sticking with the panasonic, i just need a good enough reason to go canon and i will. i know it has car AF which is perfect for me which the panasonic doesnt have, and canon AF is better but that seems like that's about it.

>>4399505
Brandfaggots are insufferable. Over the past 20 years I've used Olympus, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, now Panasonic, and every single time there's been a few whiny corksniffing pudgy söyboys with albums full of crooked-horizon-midday-goose-in-flight-pics riding my ass over what I use and don't use. Every. Single Time. I couldn't care less about brands. Does your tech do what I need and how much does it cost - all I care about.

>>4399505
People prefer good colors and in focus footage to the camera nerd saying
>but ok, dude dude, its not just natively shot in DCI 4k… it has 0.5ev less noise in log!
Hence canon wins

>>4399430
If you compare framing and blocking in recent films and then go back decade by decade you will see significant changes

>>4399509
yeah. i've been using canons so long that nothing else is easy for me to just pick up, adjust, and shoot. that alone is better than fucking around with settings forever

>>4399509
yeah. i've seen plenty of videos comparing the canon and panasonic and even though the dude in the video is like I LOVE PANASONIC COLORS!! to my eye, to my tastes, the canon ALWAYS looks better

>>4399505
I'm in a suprisingly similar to situation to you. I used to use a 5div and fucking loved it. R5 was too expensive though and r6 wasn't good enough for its price.
Panasonic s5ii was good enough and scarily cheap. I miss using canons but I never regret moving to panasonic.
The closest thing I have to regret is the lust I have for the blackmagic cine 6k ff. It lacks af and ibis but fuck the image looks so fucking good. It came out right after I bought my s5ii as well.

My dream camera is still a canon r5ii or a c80, but I make do.
There's something wrong with you if you care about brands over actual camera quality (that said, Nikon are garbage and I don't know how anyone unironically buys one of them for video)

>>4399527
i feel like canon is still trying to stick to their old method of trying to fit a camera for every single price bracket without letting them leak over, so they can sell more shit. it's annoying because the 6d lacks so many features that are totally arbitrary. open gate should be standard on every camera really

cameras like the BMPCC and sigma fp are way too reliant on rigging up for me, i'm not a professional videographer or colorist and i just want something i can quickly set up and just shoot, and every time it'll be in focus and look beautiful. im not sure if the panasonic is like that since it still has old style AF and the color science is nowhere NEAR something like BMPCCs or canons, and there's a limit to what you can do with a totally raw image even after you spend hours colorizing it... it's all down to the fundamentals of how that sensor reacts to light and its inherent tone curve. i dont think there's any consumer camera that can have a tone curve like an arri but these BMPCCs and higher end canons are very close, and its only a matter of time until we start seeing consumer cameras being that way

i feel like we're right at the corner of some company making the 'perfect camera' that'll just futureproof itself for the next 10 years and accidentally shooting itself in the foot because they were the first one to man up and do it. panasonic seems to be inching towards that way with pricing their camera like that, all it's missing is some fat to be trimmed and a better AF system.

>>4399531
A modular camera is probably what you’d need. The base camera. An e-ND module for people who need ND. A LiDAR module for people who want good af. A module for IBIS. So you can get the camera of your dreams without forcing your needs on everybody else.

>>4399531
>canon is still trying to stick to their old method of trying to fit a camera for every single price bracket without letting them leak over
I remember the day I left Canon, I don't even remember when it was... early 10s? late 00s... when I put a 3rd party firmware on my Canon and suddenly it started doing magical shit that it should've been doing out of the box. Like... untold amounts of features added, incredible quality of life boost. That was the last Canon cam I ever owned. Fuck you, Canon, I'll happily give money to your direct competitors because your business model is cancerous.

>>4399527
>Nikon are garbage and I don't know how anyone unironically buys one of them for video
Can you qualify this? I only miss the option to make a backup recording to a separate card. Otherwise I cannot fault recent Nikon gear.

>>4399593
The codecs are all dogshit. It started when they first introduced 4k nraw onto a camera with a 6k sensor, still using the full width of the sensor. It took a day for people to realise that they were achieving this by line skipping and that the nlog looked significantly sharper and had less noise.

But if you look at them today, their codecs are all stupidly high storage because nraw has shitty compression and they otherwise stick to prores for "quality" footage. You're talking over a tarrbyte to shoot 2 hours of 10b422 4k footage which is unusuable in practical terms (unless you're a large studio that doesn't care about storage expenses).
I think they had a single codec that wasn't complete garbage but it was gimped in other ways (limited resolution, less bit depth maybe?)

>>4399509
The canon 5d4 shoots c4k (it didn't even have clog when it released). It's unacceptable that subsequent canon cameras don't do this and there's no explanation other than intentional gimping.
If you're happy to accept that then I guess carry on being a consoomer accepting whatever shitty slop is fed to you while because you're beyond salvation

>>4399599
Thanks. I've never had specific issues about disk space or memory.

>>4399599
Speaking as someone who uses the Z cameras for video, the codecs are fine actually. Yes the ProRes files take up a lot of space. Same story for everyone who uses it, it’s not an efficient format, it’s built for speed of editing and taking advantage of hardware decoders/encoders.

nraw is good, but it’s raw, so of course the file sizes are enormous. You don’t need it most of the time, unless you feel like it and have a ton of storage.

I mainly shoot oversampled 4K h.265 10bit n-log, which has been phenomenal in terms of small file sizes and quality when grading. If I’m throwing a bunch of effects on a clip that I haven’t rendered out to a ProRes proxy, then it can start to chug, but the kind of work I do doesn’t have a ton of effects usually just a FLC node in Resolve.

People will bitch about anything I guess. Compared to the Nikons of yore the video functionality is miles better now. Does it compare to an Alexa yet? No, but a Z9 is like $5K and a Burano is $20K, so I’ll accept a few trade offs.

>>4399608
Yeah because you treat storage as a cost of doing business and don’t think about it after that.

Yeah it sucks to spend a couple grand building a NAS or DAS every few years, but that’s the biz.

>>4399427
youtube will destroy any video if you aren't a revenue generating channel. why would you deserve the bandwidth?

>>4399612
> $20k for a Burano

At that much money for a camera just get a used Arri.

How good is a Dolby PRM-4220 Professional Reference LCD Monitor? How much is it worth used? How does it compare to the Stupid Sexy Flanders?

>>4399585
You shouldn’t need to hack your camera to get it to work the way you want it to work; Canon should listen to customers and give them what they want so they don’t have to hack their camera to get it to work the way that they want it to work.

>>4399599
>It started when they first introduced 4k nraw
Nah, it started when they first added video and it has gradually gotten better bit by bit over time. Still not my first choice but good for a backup

>>4399630
Canon's business model is to add user requests into the next model so the user is forced to buy a new camera.

>>4399630
Nowadays, I'll only get a Canon for stills. I would only use Canon for video if it was on someone else's dime and they didn't mind me getting the best one.

>>4399691
If it were on somebody else’s dime, why not use an Arri.

>>4399697
Not him but too big and clunky. Also, it costs in the tens of thousands to make it work properly (buying the right storage devices that will work with it, the arri video recordern module etc etc)

>>4399508
You sound equally insufferable. A man's tool is important after all.

>>4399736
>Yeah that guy's an idiot but have you ever considered that you're just as stupid for pointing it out? I am very smart and better than both you because I think you're both dumb
Wow. So very enlightening

>>4399697
Despite their massive extra expensve, the image quality isn't drastically better than a hybrid you can buy for less than $5k.
And if you're willing to shell out $15k, the ursa 12k ff outperforms the alexa lf in dynamic range and has a better raw codec at a much higher resolution (at the tradeoff of one stop of exposure latitude).

RIP David Lynch

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1290
Image Height	1294

>>4399657
I'm like 90% sure that the people in charge of the r1, 3 and 5 are a completely different team to those in charge of the rest of the cameras.
Their cheaper cameras all have arbitrary software limitations for no reason. But the 1, 3 and 5 all feel like they crammed as much as they physically could. The r5ii even has 2k video - a feature that no one was particularly concerned with but that doesn't cost anything extra so why not?
One of the biggest complaints from youtubers and forum posters is that the r1 and 3 aren't worth the price compared to the r5. And in response, the r5ii is like $200 more expensive and still an improvement in every regard.

Meanwhile the other team is like "well if we're gonna make a cheaper, shittier r6ii, we better make sure it only uses a turd for a battery so that the users have a worse experience"

>>4400085
Canon probably considers the R5ii a pro body, and the R6ii and below consoomer bodies, so it makes perfect sense.

Choosing substandard gear is a rookie mistake.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
where's my broadcast-cinema hybrid that can shoot with b4 lenses at 4K and then swap out for full frame lenses when needed
why has no one built one yet
hell, it could be super35, you would still get more creative freedom than with a 2/3 sensor
I see people jerry rigging b4 lenses unto full frame frames bodies, but only being able to shoot HD at best and then having to rig shitty parts so it all doesn't come crashing down or has some weight balance
why aren't manufacturers of broadcast cameras doing anything like this. They must see the market for 2/3 is shrinking yet the need for ridiculous zooms is still there

>>4400085
>r5ii is an improvement in every regard
Except DR and noise. You know, two of the most important things a camera provides

>>4400387
Dr in stills is a little worse.
Noise reduction is far better though? I'd be curious to see what makes you think the noise reduction is worse.
More importantly, the r5ii shoots clog2 and, along with far better noise reduction, produces much better video dynamic range than the r5.

(Dynamic range is calculated differently for video vs stills)

>Leica SL3-S is literally just a lumix s5ii/x for almost 3x the cost
Wait, what? Am I missing something? Will people actually buy this?

>>4400443
Well, unlike the lumix it says leica on it and has unfixable hardware flaws that overwrite cards and randomly cause the camera to crash. You can also pair it with leica lenses that get outdone by "shitty mogged by sonikon" panasonic glass so everyone can know you’re dumb and want to hang out with rich people.

>premiere cant export my videos
>free resolve cant use 10bit files
what would be easier pirating resolve or converting my files to DNxHR?

>>4400475
You know the answer, anon.
Buy a licence if you're going to sell your video.

>>4400475
This is where it ends for you. No tears, only dreams now.

>>4399349
I use Dehancer. Lots of cool film emulation.

>>4400484
Nooo!!!!! You can’t just suggest to download or buy plugins!!!! Give me another answer!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM3Q6XugT3I
Why does the footage from this camera kind of look like VHS camcorder only higher resolution?

>>4400488
Put a pair of pantyhose over your extreamly sharp lens. This will give you the cinematic filmatic look without you needing to buy a plug-in or a diffusion filter.

>>4399831
How does exposure latitude differ from dynamic range? I thought they were the same thing.

>>4400480
>>4400481
i pirated it now i have to relearn the most basic shit

>>4400494
>diffusion filter
Is an 1/8 cut or a quarter cut the kino?

>>4400494
I always heard they smeared Vaseline on the lens to shoot the romantic scenes but knowing how much they had to spend to rent those lenses I can’t imagine anyone doing that when they could just pantyhose it & not get nailed with an angry extra charge for overhauling & cleaning afterward.

>>4400505
Vaseline a cheap filter

>>4400498
1/8 is enough for most people, 1/4 approaches 80s hong kong film haze. I have a full range and did a test that's in the archive somewhere. If I ever get motivated, I'll do one with vaseline and pantyhose

>>4400505
Vaseline is usually put on an el-cheapo uv filter, not directly on the expensive lens you rented for the shoot.

>>4400475
Why’d you need to pirate Resolve? You get the full version of Resolve for free legally if you buy one of Blackmagic Design’s inexpensive cameras. Adobe I can understand pirating, but what is the point of pirating Resolve.

>>4400516
>I have a full range and did a test that's in the archive somewhere
Damn, would like to see that

>>4400522
Because there's other cameras to buy other than Blackmagic's? What an asinine question

>>4400496
Check out the lab tests on cined and they'll give you a far better explanation than me.
But in short, exposure latitude is how much room there is to recover the image if your exposure is wrong. Dynamic range is the extent of the image captured, adjusted for noise/clarity. Because of this dynamic range is heavily affected by internal noise reduction.
Almost every hybrid camera has near identical exposure latitude of ~8 stops (according to cined). The alexa lf has 10 stops.

>>4400340
>Choosing substandard gear is a rookie mistake.
True, it's worth spending the extra $2 grand or so.

>>4400352
I thought Blackmagic had something like this with their broadcast version URSA?

>>4400494
Yup, net diffusion I think they call it
Video below has a very quick tutorial on how to do it
https://vimeo.com/38670058

>>4400648
Several people have made feature films for less than 10 grand. Some of them are pretty decent.
This idea that quality has to cost a ludicrous amount and so serious professionals aren't allowed to complain about price is fucking stupid.

>>4399926
RIP

>>4400538
There are tests on youtube and boomer forums

>>4400696
I want to see his test

>>4399486
Considering a basic stock is roughly $2 per frame developed, at 24fps x 60secs x 90min, all you need is $260,000, assuming no bad takes. A faux-film LUT pack may be cheaper.

>>4400744
>faux-film LUT pack
So it finally comes out- you just want some easy LUT to slap on the footage. A quick google and YouTube search will get you mountains of that garbage, have fun.

>>4400750
Cunt where are you getting a quater million to make feature length films?
>Durr you're just doing it the easy way, cope cope cope"
Digital + a LUT is orders of magnitude cheaper and easier, so unless you can cite your role as a film maker and post budgets, you can kindly fuck off.

>>4400752
There were also multiple other options to take rather than a shitty LUT, but hey like I said- enjoy your fucking LUT I bet it looks incredible

>>4400475
>>4400480
>>4400481
>learnt resolve
>exports are giving me fucked artifacts
i cant fucking win bros

>>4400756
It could be excessive noise reduction or using fusion. Those two things caused my footage to have a lot of artifacts. If you deliver as glass valley 4444 and then convert that to ProRes using ffmpeg that might get rid of artifacts—that’s what I used to do until I learned it was excessive noise reduction that was causing the artifacts. That conversion works and the footage looks great but glass valley is a fucking huge codec.

>>4400756
this is going to hurt but you need to dial back processing and export sample clips step by step until the weird thing goes away

>>4400756
I had this happen with h264. Decreasing the space between I frames corrected it. Youtube does best with h265 or av1 though.

Any recommendations for good compact camcorders for travel?

Any of you used Dzofilm cine lenses before?

So apparently there are dpaf compatible EF lenses? So if I took and old EF lens with AF with an RF mount on a dpaf Canon and did video with AF, it goes to contrast? It's a firmware thing? Lens AF is AF, the camera should do DPAF and just tell the lens what to fo. Anybody run into problems with this?

>>4401116
Dpaf is a camera/sensor thing, not a lens thing. If the lens has af and the camera has dpaf, it will work. Some lenses are faster and less noisy when using their motors though

>>4401117
See pic, someone said on the forum, they never noticed the difference though

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S916USQS5CXJX
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1207

>>4401118
Never heard of this. No idea. My most used ef lens is a 3rd party Tamron lens that has never had any issue focusing so I don't know what to say.
At a complete guess, I'd assume that the early ef lenses weren't designed for continuous autofocus and the motors can't quickly readjust or something stupid

How good are the lidar systems that turn a manual cinema prime into an autofocus lens using follow focus motors?

>>4401121
Have you used ef to rf adapter? No problems with that right?

>>4401060
Was debating between those and Nisi Athenas, I went with Nisi and enjoy them

>>4401128
Oh no I actually swapped to panasonic about a year ago (no problems with the ef to l-mount adapter besides panasonic af just being worse in general).
Before that I used 2 canons with dpaf though.

>>4401140
Wait, is EF autofocus as good (with the Panasonic limitations you described) as native lenses on video?

>>4401150
Yes?
I don't actually have any l-mount lenses so I can't say for certain. And there have been a few firmware updates that has made the af better than it was, combined with teething problems in getting used to the camera.
I use a sigma adapter, cost like 250 bucks give or take. There was a cheaper one but I couldn't find any decent user reviews and wanted to be safe.
It works in the way it was advertised more or less. But no, I don't have a 100% hit rate. It's especially weaker in low light and with black actors. It's noticeably worse than my canons, mainly because it lacks the touchscreen switch to turn af on or off (I'm using an s5ii) (sidenote: video autofocus as a concept works well when it's not continuous but when you can use it to find focus once and then leave it, and then update it quickly and accurately if the scene changes).
But the lenses themselves aren't struggling, no, and I've gotten some great gimbal shots with them.

There's a reason I've never bothered to buy any l-lenses in the last year, aside from just being poor.

>>4401151
Thank you