Pondering That Special Something.

What is that special something we all chase?

I will have a look at that in a post soon, but part of the answer is in lens rendering.

This is not a lens quality that often aligns with high price, state of the art glass. It is something far more elusive and often runs against the usual current of super lens design.

The five lenses tested below share four things;

1. The same aperture at f2.8 on MFT format.

2. A roughly 50mm full frame equivalent focal length.

3. No post processing from a G9 RAW file.

4. Unfortunately poor focus control.

Lens 1 is sharp, has nice Bokeh and decent, maybe high contrast.

Lens 2 is very similar, maybe a little pinker and warmer. This lens is also a little wider than marked.

Lens 3 has a softness of contrast, but more than that, a more three dimensional, less sharp/smooth look. It is a little cooler as well. I did miss focus on this one (the front leaf), so the more coherent background may be down to that.

Lens 4 is mre like the two at the top, is slightly wider looking than the top, reference image. It does however look a little different to those lenses.

Lens 5 is a mix of less aggressive contrast, but strong smooth/soft rendering.

Lens 1 (left) and 5 (right). To my eye, and it is hard to be totally objective because I know which they are, the left lens has that very modern, brightness and contrasty and flat rendering. The right lens is deeper looking if that is a thing, maybe more three dimensional?

The variable is focus, which I tried to be accurate with (all manual as three lenses were manual only). Lens three copped a miss I feel, but the rest were pretty good.

Lens 1 is the 12-40 Olympus at 25.

Lens 2 is the Olympus 25 f1.8. I know this lens is wider than marked, about the same as the 24 Sirui as it goes, maybe wider.

Lens 3 is the half frame 25mm f2.8 (which is less contrasty wide open)

Lens 4 is the Sirui 24mm

Lens 5 is the Hope 25mm

The same combo below. Highlight detail is retained well by the Hope, detail looks the same and is it me again, but is the Hope ever so slightly more three dimensional?

The reality is, the “cinematic look” comes down to a lot of elements working together. Cameras and lenses are two, but just two.

To create depth, which is the key, you need all of these elements to work together, but each also needs t be addressed. I am keen to explore lenses first, as I have plenty of them and I can control this space in my space.

The Benefits Of Living Where We Do

It is no exaggeration to say, where I sit right now in my living room, is only an hour or so’s drive from two coastlines, some very real mountains, and temperate rain forrest.

We chose mountains thanks to some friends suggesting it.

This pristine and very wild plateau is only one hour from home.

One hour from our near sea level front door and we are in a wilderness that without roads and good weather will kill you.

Because it takes sometimes more than a century for these to grow, board walks have been placed carefully through this wilderness.

Walking In To Form Part 4

Crossing the river again, back towards the Uni.

None of this was here ten years ago.

Same as earlier, just a different bridge.

Big rowing community here.

Last remnants of its old life as a rail yard once employing thousands of multi generational workers.

Just over the old rail bridge towards the car. This area can regularly flood, but still hosts several businesses.

Long Wattle bird caught shopping.

Not technically part of the walk, but later the same day, we got some weird cloud action.

Sometimes it needs forcing, but just getting out can work you into form.

Walking In To Form Part 3

Turning around at the half way mark, we move away from the river and straight into town.

The side door of the little corner store where I had my first job.

A splash of colour on the old Technical College building.

And more around the corner.

A quaint scene hidden just off the street. Launcestn is older than Melbourne, so it is not hard to find those little forgotten corners of post colonial architecture.

Through town and to the main park. In the terrarium, old also, but constantly changing.

Some scenes just make themselves.

Through the park to the new University precinct on the other side of the river. “The Shed” is a science building built on vacant land basically in the city area.

A view through to the old gas works.

Lots of shiny steel.

Next we return to the start looping over the river across the new foot bridge to the car.

Mixing It Up

The RigidPro rig is designed for the G9II nd the S5II with Tilta half cage or Black Mamba cage.

I have both, so go me (not planned, just happened).

Tht S5II made the most sense as it has a fan and the G9II seems so well designed for movement and run-n-gun as is, so of the two, it really did make sense. Perfect endurance cam for interviews, stage productions etc.

I made a little support rig for the GH5s, the G9II was left light and agile, the S5 relegated to stills only, maybe some support work.

It was fine, it made sense but it would not settle for me.

In some ways, other options were left languishing, the S5II, my most capable full frame maybe under utilised.

So, I did this.

Notice anything?

This is the S5, not the S5II and it fits, well kind of, but sometimes wins and losses even out.

It attaches on the base perfectly well, two screws, solid and tight. The centre of balance is fine as shown above, the the weight supported by the handle with very secure anchor points top and bottom, aligned with the solid main block of the rig, so the lack of a joint above the camera is basically irrelevant.

A gap that I felt might have an easy fix, like a plate or space filling washer, something I have plenty of, but no, not to be.

To be clear here also, the camera in this configuration is not going to be used as a hand held rig, it is going to be static, usually manual everything, reliable and capable. If I try hand held, I will be looking for “big heavy camera” micro jitter control, as opposed to in camera stabe.

Given that the whole thing is not super heavy, the balance point is well supported and the cam will not be handled heavily, I do not see a problem other than the strength of the Nato rail handle, rated by Smallrig at 10kg!

The gap?

The gap actually solves an issue.

Running out of real estate even on this large rig, I have been pushed for room for an SSD mount (if using the BMVA), as well as a mic and handle.

This fits neatly, snugly enough to be secure and out of the way.

It gets better though.

The GH5s, my only non-stabilised camera would, it turns out, be an even better fit (so to speak) for the rig. The GH5s is my most specialised video camera option, bought as such, eyes open. It was bought as basically a Pocket 4k alternative to support my growing range of manual focus cinema lenses and is my most video-centric camera (It’s in the “H” you know).

The GH5s fits well, maybe better than the S5, it has a different dummy battery cable-out hole, in the front of the cam instead of the battery door (which needs adjusting to), is maybe better at static interview AF (if used) than the S5 and the lack of any stabe is balanced with the bulk of the kit and it’s intention.

The cage I have for the GH5s is my least inspiring or useful, being a compromise option for the G9 mk1 and GH5 series, something the rig will care little about, but is actually lines up with the RigidPro better than the S5’s and the unlikeable bulk is just a more relaxed surround, so I can run cables through it and the “bumper-bar” is more pronounced, more protective.

The S5 also has it’s small HDMI issues (and fixes that cause their own issues), the GH5s does not, while the GH5s has an older screen and view finder, so less of a hit there. Even the rear button and dial layout seem to be more logical for rig use (more sparse).

Oh, and of course, it is the only cam that does not handle basically the same as any other (S5, 5II and G9II are the same body shape).

The S5 on the other hand was intended to be my “eye” camera, the camera I would follow action with using a deeper eye cup, something I would miss.

Coincidentally, the gap is the same.

As the year progressed, I surprised myself as I drifted back towards MFT format for video.

Low light aside, the G9II, even the older G9’s called me and after buying the Hope glass and the GH5s, things shifted clearly for me. Full frame became more of a stills/video option.

Overheating issues look to be pretty minimal, the GH5s running cleanly and gently, made to purpose, the S5II is in the wings if needed.

The new look kit is now;

G9II for movement and action. basic cage, minimal stuff, touch screen AF, very reliable in that role. This is unchanged.

GH5s is now the “big rig” camera, the interview and video-centric work horse. The G9II and GH5s can share similar glass, so they form the core of the “commercial” kit..

The S5 Mk1 is the “B-cam” for static video and personal projects using cine glass. I get good results from this setup. It can be used with the NP batt option.

The S5II is now the hybrid, filling the role of the G9II as needed, but as a stills cam also. It can also be used with the NP battery bank as the backup to above.

Why?

Because it cannot shoot B-Raw without a paid upgrade (not going to happen), nor All-i, is wasted in a static role, has a half cage that suits hybrid use and the best AF for stills and stabe for video.

It just did not feel right caging it up in the RigidPro rig, where the GH5s feels like it is at home.

Walking In To Form Part 2

From the Uni campus, barely ten minutes into our walk, we continued along the river to the Sea Port region.

The Esk has a long and dramatic history of flooding. The flood walls erected over the last twenty years are part defence system, part memorial.

I cannot remember the name of this old pub, but built on swamp land, it does not share two straight lines in a row.

This earth wall was raised a few feet and only a few years later the “once in a hundred year” flood reached the top, but the suburb behind was spared. As weather patterns change, this is predicted to be more of a “once a decade thing”.

Through the hole is the Boags Brewery and other older industrial buildings but there is a river between.

Tagging comes and goes, a little on the heavy side at the moment.

The river, Boags and Windmill Hill in the background. Hard to belive the rest of the city centre is only s few blocks away.

After crossing the bridge, we came to the Sea Port, a reclaimed industrial warf, childhood memories of the “Cotswold Prince” leaning unhealthily against it always come back to me (later sunk down the river as a divers wreck). This area is tidal, made problematic by the dam up river, so at low tide these boats often sit on mud.

In the background over the river are the old silo’s now a luxury hotel and eating hub.

This shot came after a conversation I had with my wife about the difference between colour and mono images. In mono, the textures and size of the hotel would dominate, but in colour, the two yellow (or red if there were any) elements grab you first. To the right is the massive playground build a decade ago, apparently one of the biggest in the Southern hemisphere.

Moving past Home Point, we come to Royal park and the old flood wall.

Deliberate graffiti foreground, native Aboriginal inspired, less desired in the background, but to be fair, the whole wall at the back is covered with sanctioned graffiti to support the skate park, so a little “bleed” is expected.

To the right is the largest bridge and behind it the oldest (King’s Bridge, just visible on the right), that jon the West Tamar region to the city. The canyon behind is the gorge, a spectacular walk in it’s own right with parklands, athe oldest electric power station in the Southern hemisphere and swimming baths if you do not want to brave the Basin itself.

There are working boat yards on both sides of the river, this classic getting much needed love.

A park ends the official top of the river, with this textural wonder. Heading around to the mill in the image a couple up. The park, like much of the rest of the river’s edge, has been massively upgraded, but is mid re-work at the moment so angles are limited.

One of those images that beg the mono question.

Half way, so I will stop here.

Feeling good.

Walking In To Form Part 1

My wife and I had a nice walk yesterday. I did not take a camera and to my surprise, I really wished I had.

Today we repeated the walk, with cam* and apart from slightly less perfect conditions, it was fine.

Not yet out of the front garden, this exercise in Bokeh and dynamic range grabbed me.

Journey starts, a slightly melancholy view from the old rail lines, that lead to the rail yards, now a museum and university campus.

The rear of the yards is much as I remember it from my childhood, but the bit at the back is new as is much of the complex.

The walk skirts the edge of the city so wildlife is not uncommon.

Much of the original infrastructure has been left as is, partly museum, part waiting to see.

The Tamar is actually the longest tidal estuary in the world, three quarters salt water, so seagulls are common.

Part f the new build fr the university, with alight tower from the city stadium. Our sports stadium can hold one quarter f the city seated, most of the rest standing.

A switch to mono that I feel does so well with modern metals and glass.

The stadium up close.

Stadium on right,

University to the right.

Colour, shape, story.

Not as ‘glowy” as yesterday, but still an interesting interplay of shade, light and colour.

The entrance to the museum section, the first stage of the rail works reclamation.

The campus is also accomodation and a coomunal garden. I was here often for the paper. As a child this was a no-go zone or in kid parlance a “try and stop us” zone, but it is great to see an area once abandoned reclaimed by a city on five minutes walk away.

A decent showing of several crops.

At all stages of development.

Leaving the precinct still sporting an operating tram line and station (trams were once a major part of Launceston life).

From here we followed the river to where the Esk meets the Tamar.

*Camera is my oldest, most beaten up EM1 Mk2 and 12-60 Pana kit lens.

Video Quality, Some Thoughts.

Now that options are available, thoughts are turning to quality and needs.

In stills you have RAW. All cameras shoot in it, better cameras allow you to access it and life is good.

From RAW you get jpeg or TIFF files.

Easy.

In video, thanks mainly to RED cameras, you do not get true RAW, because they own enough of it to make using the term and tech prohibitively costly as several companies trying to sue them have found out. Video also has to balance quality to storage realities.

The question I guess is, what makes a visual difference, is worth the extra cost/storage/effort and what is basically wasted in the long run.

Video therefore has “layers” of quality, best explained by Gerald Undone,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX9KGRHaMEY&t=42s .

Apart from the now dated camera specs being talked about, all this above still holds true, the main difference being direct to SSD recording from camera.

Internal limited users, tend to use LOG as their maximum quality level and those who break the shackles go into ProRes, RAW or similar. My own journey was one of liking standard profiles, feeling a natural draw to LOG, but compromising at Flat profile. My hope is, Flat with maybe a codec lift will give me what I want.

Ok, that is the meat of it handled, now the garnish.

First lets look at file sizes, storage and realities.

This is the key I feel.

Having the best quality available to me (B-Raw) and several levels down previously unavailable (ProRes and All-i) and even 6k, realistic storage is the first issue. Do I really want or need to come back from every little job with 50-100gb or even more eaten up?

Long-GOP or IPB format is the most common capture type, great for relatively stable subjects and a light load on the camera. Long-GOP captures a master frame (the I frame), then “fills in” the next few with mostly recycled information (B and P frames), only adding new master information with the next clean full capture frame. This is a little like traditional animation, the “moving bits” overlayed over the static background plate, although that is an over simplification.

All-intra on the other hand is better for movement and changing subjects, or camera movements etc as it captures a completely new frame every frame. This is a bigger load, so a waste if applied to interviews etc, where most of the frame remains unchanged.

I shot 5Tb of stills last year, but dumped 80% of that as unnecessary (I keep masters of submitted files, but let the rest go unless the event is very important). My video has been limited to 1080/10 bit/422/Long-GOP, but even then a 2Tb drive was swamped in no time and I would not consider myself overly active in this space yet.

Realistically 1GB/minute is plenty, maybe more, but not very often and some flexibility would be great (why record more than needed?). 1GB a minute is Long-GOP/10 bit/422/1080, so not much room to move, but it turns out B-Raw at Q5 is potentially less, but some of the intermediate steps do eat up more space (6k All-i can be a monster 1.6gb according to my G9II!).

So, resolution and basic codecs.

Do I really need 4k or is less plenty?

Keep in mind, my main concerns are smooth footage, no artefacts and good processing flexibility, with low card speed and storage stress for mostly internet use.

It seems 4k is the assumed standard these days for capture producing roughly an 8mp image per frame, 1080 is a lowly 2mp file, so “out of date”. The common logic though seems to be, you cannot see the difference on most screens or even if you can, it is only evident with direct and close comparison, so future proofing aside, which is often not a real world thing, 1080 is usually what people need even if it is not what they think they need.

Also, 6k is generally only a cropping convenience for reels in vertical format.

The key seems to be visual quality in and out, not quantity of quality. Very well recorded 1080 footage can go up, where oversized recordings will likely end up going down in size for storage etc and poorly realised 4k is not better than well shot 1080.

1080 looks to be the smart move for my work, opening up more options at the camera end and heavily reducing file sizes and media stress (4k B-RAW at 5:1 compression is 81mb/s needing a 560mb/s write card or SSD, 1080 is 20mb/s, so a 160mb/s (20x8) card is fine). The cost in cards alone is enticing. It would be great to have all my video from a year stored on 2-3 2TB drives.

Can quality from other elements make up for the resolution difference?

Codecs.

As well as resolution, codecs determine both the capture, processing and output quality and often the options available to you. MP4 is easy to use, small, very versatile, but severely limited (just watch some cat videos for examples).

Apple’s .Mov is better and the most common more serious codec for in camera use, but is not fully supported on all platforms once exported. There is more though.

Codecs are often overlooked, but as we move up the chain, their importance becomes obvious.

After .Mov are a range of less compressed codecs, which offer better quality, but produce larger files. These top out as 422/10bit ProRes HQ, an industry standard and plenty for most projects.

It falls short of RAW codecs in pure post processing flexibility, but if you have cut your teeth on lesser codecs, it will feel like a luxury ride and a reward for good technique. ProRes has competitors, but this level is already a quagmire of options, so I will use PR as a base line and for me it is most relevant.

From ProRes we shift to full ProRes RAW, or in my case B-Raw. Like RAW in stills, these offer maximum post processing power and negate most other quality settings.

I have used .Mov without hesitation, but may also export an MP4 version of my work if I am not sure where it will be used.

Colour profiles.

Colour profiles do effect quality when post processing is considered.

Unless you are using RAW, “baked in” picture profiles are more or less are applied starting with generic Natural, Standard, Portrait, Vibrant etc. These are camera processed profiles, designed to be shot and used as is with minimal post processing.

I have used Panasonic’s “Standard” profile a lot and even pushed it around some. If I get it right it is great.

In modern video empowered hybrid cameras, there are often video specific profiles like Cine-V or Like Rec 709. These react the same, just look more “cinematically” aligned. A common trick is to reduce contrast within these to simulate a “flatter” profile (see below).

They allow you to apply settings and features only the camera can apply like dynamic range boost and sharpness, noise reduction or saturation etc, but are quite inflexible in post and depending on the camera, usually have less dynamic range than un-processed profiles.

Bottom of the food chain, 10bit/422/.Mov granted, but Standard profile, Long-GOP, 1080 from a G9 Mk1. Fine if you get it right (which I did not, losing the shadows completely, but it was not a test of exposure). To get the file above right, I would need to do “front of house” fixes like a reflector or light.

How do they effect quality?

If you have a controlled situation, need to output your footage directly or super fast and trust your processes, these profiles are fine, because at the end of the day, they are often where you end up anyway.

The reality is, they do not effect potential maximum quality overly (the codec does), but fall apart quickly if heavily processed.

Elements such as white balance and exposure are critical to get right here because they are too hard to adjust in post processing, most adjustments being destructive. Control at the point of capture is important.

Next step, editing friendly profiles.

After these come “flatter” profiles which include Cine-D, HLG, Flat etc with reduced contrast, saturation and sometimes sharpness to allow for more aggressive colour grading in post and wider dynamic range.

If your subject may require some post processing, but is still in a reasonably controlled space especially dynamic range, then quite often this is enough.

Flat profile on a Lumix is my “work horse” profile and plenty for most basic shooting. I will use this with Long-GOP for most interviews etc, switching to All-i if I have it for moving subjects. For added longevity, the BMVA can be used with the non-upgraded S5II in ProRes codec (LT probably), but this is overkill quality wise, just an enabler. The advantage of Flat for me is it has a little wriggle room, but still behaves like a standard profile type allowing me to apply idynamic range boost.

The king of internal profiles.

Becoming more common and often seen as the high water mark for most videographer’s needs are internal LOG profiles, in fact often the move to LOG is seen as the step from amateur to pro video production.

Flatter even than the flat profiles above, giving us a RAW-like look, these can reward the user with quite powerful results for a little more effort, but are generally too flat to be used out of camera.

For some, LOG is not worth the effort or trade-off (it shows RAW realities like more noise etc), but the support network for LOG is substantial, so sometimes it can actually be easier to use.

Each brand has their own LOG or light-LOG profiles and they tend to remain quite consistent, so processing software can usually apply pre-set LUT’s (look-up tables of pre-set settings) to them by brand as a start in their processing chain.

LUT’s are often seen as the beginning and the end of LOG file processing, but should be seen as a step only, especially LOG to 709 conversions. The reality is, with LOG as the high water mark for many video creators, there is a massive support network for most LOG formats. Standard and less flat profiles get little if any..

At some point, most serious videographers will end up using LOG profiles occasionally or maybe even always as they allow for both the maximum post processing flexibility and the most support of out of camera footage.

Personally, I find this is confused often by poor grading and over reliance on Luts (and the sale of same), leading many to think the smokey-milk look is a thing.

When cameras are touted as having “x” dynamic range, it is with their LOG profile used, capturing more highlight range.

If your footage is important, difficult to capture due to mixed or strong lighting, needs to be delivered in a post-processable form, or you want to push it hard in processing, then LOG is probably the way to go.

External (sometimes internal) capture.

Once LOG has been mastered usually in .Mov codec, there may be a desire to go “full noise” and seek out the codecs most professionals use. With these come added processing difficulty, often larger files (but not always) and usually with mirrorless cameras they require some sort of off-board recording device.

This is changing and in the next generation coming in camera ProRes in particular will become considered standard.

The Ninja-V or Black Magic Video Assist units will allow compatible mirrorless cameras to record in ProRes or various “RAW” formats as well as some other formats I am not familiar with.

A still taken from some 1080/V-Log-L/ProRes/422 footage from my S5. Standard 422 is the second from best PR codec and considerably more powerful than .Mov. This footage was under exposed, but recovered nicely. Non RAW ProRes is probably the most a videographer would need as a day to day codec and a clear step up from internal codecs. It gives more quality, but still uses the camera’s internal picture profiles and has the benefits of processing noise and sharpening internally,

Apple ProRes comes in several types, from very light Proxy to 422/HQ and are All-i formats, but still responding to colour profiles*. ProRes 422 HQ is the maximum quality most cameras can provide short of RAW and is an industry standard.

According to Black Magic, B-Raw 3:1 or Q0 compression and ProRes HQ are similar sizes (B-RAW at 33mbs, PR at 27.5), so the choice really comes down to a more flexible file or a more ready to use out of camera codec.

Even though they are not true RAW file type in the still photography sense, these still offer vastly superior control of white balance, dynamic range, exposure and even ISO in post processing.

At the bottom end you still have theoretically superior capture to most internal codecs, at the top end you max out what 422/10bit colour depth can record.

File sizes are huge and hardware needs to be capable of handling that. ProRes is an Apple product, so for best hardware value, Mac’s are often a smarter move.

Some more S5 1080/LOG/PR/422 footage. This grades very nicely and has good baseline quality.

RAW, which is usually pseudo-RAW, like B-Raw or ProRes RAW is for most of us and the movie making industry the holy grail for capture and processing using 12 to 16 bit colour depth.

B-Raw has various compression rates, but even 12:1 seems to be better than the equivalent ProRes and a lighter load on a computer. Big files to record, RAW files are actually easier for a computer to process because the computer does not have to “unpack” the compressed file, it just has to deal with the sheer bulk.

ProRes Raw is even more “pure” using an alpha channel, so it is 4444, not 422 colour depth and 16 bit over 12. This is the real deal, but massive and a huge strain on hardware.

For me?

My S5II is set up for endurance and static recording being fan cooled and V-mount powered. In 1080/Long-GOP/10 bit/422 in Flat or LOG it is enough and can be handled by pretty pedestrian V30 cards. I can record out to my Video Assist to ProRes and an SSD, but that would be an extreme case for that camera.

Some S5II and Lumix 35mm f1.8 talking head footage from a shoot recently. Long-GOP/1080/Flat/422/10bit is fine for this sort of thing, more is probably overkill. I shot some footage at the top of this pathway into stronger light and Flat was not wide enough DR to handle it, so I should have used a light or reflector then. Maybe B-Raw could have handled that.

The G9II is my movement camera so it needs to be flexible and fast, but also to be able to handle busy, complicated scenes. Great slo-mo options, the best stabe and AF of my kit, and importantly the ability to record All-i internally or ProRes to an SSD without any added weight or bulk make it the camera for this role.

A cage, a pair of side handles, a top handle, a weighted or shoulder rig and I am set (no screen as I want to use it’s touch screen focussing, but maybe a phone as screen if I can get that sorted). I could use the big rig from the S5II, but it is not that camera. In a nutshell, the easiest path to better quality, with minimal rigging.

If I could have only one camera, this with the RigidPro rig and BMVA is my power house, but too much for most things.

The new (older) GH5s is a bit of fun and a bit of a sleeper. Behaving like the love child of the G9II and S5 mk1 producing a pseudo Black Magic Pocket 4k, it has reliable AF, excellent low light performance, All-i internal recording, full compatibility with the BMVA for B-Raw or ProRes (in C4K, not 6K, which is better for me). I will use this as a static cam or a traditional weight assisted hand held rig with cine lenses (which it was bought for) as it has no stabe.

I bought this over the BMPCC4k (or BGH-1) for its more practical operability and compatibility with my existing gear, but otherwise much the same camera with a BMVA mounted with better battery life.

As a minor but real consideration, it could simply be used as a stills cam at a pinch, my “let’s drop this video crap” release switch**.

The S5 mk1 is a very capable video cam, in some ways better than the S5II, so at this point I will press it into service as the second static camera.

The S5II will be used as a stills/hybrid, like the G9.I’s. I think this will often be the really light job video cam option with Lumix lenses.

If I go down the B-Raw path, this will switch with the S5II (I cannot use it in RAW without a paid upgrade) as my stills hybrid.

Another of the shots lifted from ProRes footage taken with the S5.1. Nice control of flare.

So;

422/10bit is not negotiable. Less here does much harm for little gain. All my cams can handle this, so I will accept this gift as offered.

1080/Flat is a solid base and grades easily. I have four cams that can handle this, several others with similar profiles (Cine-D, Natural with contrast reduced). Flat also allows idynamic range to be applied as it is a processed format gaining abut a stop. LOG is slightly better and better supported, but Flat is a faster “eye” grade.

Long-GOP with the S5II empowered by a fan and V-Mount battery, with the GH5s or G9II (NP batts) as support, will handle interviews and static endurance work. It is efficient, though a tough ask for my computers. If I keep it linear and do not mess with it too much, there should not be an issue.

All-i is for movement, slo-mo and available on the GH5s or G9II. This will not be long connected reels so the extra depth or shorter endurance will not be harmful. Potentially ProRes (1080 HQ or 422) may replace this as it is actually better and I can use it with the same number of cams or potentially more if I add a much cheaper BMVA 3g (the non B-Raw or 4k capable Video Assist).

4k will only be employed when (1) requested specifically or (2) for zooming in post, mostly for sit down interviews for zooming in etc. The fact that I can use 1080 Q1 B-Raw or ProRes HQ for similar strain on my system as 4k 12:1 B-Raw or ProRes Proxy is compelling.

ProRes+LOG or Flat will be used for special projects and important stuff, which is currently limited to two cams, three if I get a 3G BMVA. The extra quality of LOG/ProRes would be noticeable on close inspection, but that will rarely be needed.

or

B-Raw at Q5 or Q3 if heavy post processing flexibility is required, but this is limited to one cam unless I get another BMVA 12G and is most powerful with white balance fixes. I am torn here, but need to do more of each to see.

ProRes is so much more accessible, B-RAW potentially more powerful and system friendly, 1080/Q5 needing surprisingly little space or processing power, as low as 4 mb/s (or 32 Mb read speed).

Ed. It is important to note, video RAW is not the fix-all stills RAW can be. Stills RAW and jpegs compared are two very different fish, on a 12-14 bit full information capture file, the other a highly compressed 8 bit file with most of the highlight and shadow detail compressed. Video RAW, usually a slight compromise anyway, is up against comparison with much more flexible and robust “jpeg-like” processed files, designed to give you some processing power more or less. My own observations after 15+ years shooting RAW stills are processed video files are surprisingly malleable and RAW files are mildly disappointing by comparison.

The reality for a single person crew is to use more than one camera generally means a static subject like an interview or performance, so ProRes would be fine, B-Raw reserved for passion projects or very difficult subjects.

Questions still to be answered, but will be as I explore are;

Is ProRes/Log better than All-i/Log?

Is ProRes/Log good enough to match B-Raw?

Is B-Raw/Q5 good enough for basically everything and worth getting another 12G for?

Is ProRes 1080 good enough so I can get a 3G recorder (or two) for the same price?

Is simple Long-Gop good enough for multi cam interviews etc?

Etc as I go along.

*A question I need answering is there a difference between a Standard profile in ProRes as compared to LOG or a flat profile in .Mov?

**I only have a few things that would be considered truly useless if I moved out of video, something I like to keep in mind.

The Big Shoot.

Recruited again to shoot wine for friends at their East Coast vineyard, I was keen to do something different.

On pondering the options, we retired to the old cellar tasting room, set up some mono blocks set to warm colour and tried some ideas.

One bottle was ok, the ancient walls adding much, but there was something missing.

More bottles maybe?

A splash more light on the wall behind.

A change of angle?

Then another few with single bottle and the green cloth with a vat behind.

And a few more singles with different light.

The crew were happy, I was also, especially the change of style from previous outdoor shoots.

Ok, time to ‘fes up.

Looking for a better idea than previously, armed with a Pen-F, a couple of primes and a small 60cm 5-in-1 reflector/diffuser, I noticed walking up the hall from our bedroom, that the shower cubicle was pebble walled with a reasonably flat concrete base.

Grabbing my “crew”, consisting of a clever 10 year old and my meagre kit, we played around with several angles with the gold, then silver reflector, settling on the gold, using window light.

The whole job took 20 minutes in a 6x6ft space, with minimal gear, a team of two and no, there is no ancient “cellar”. The bottle, more often than not, is covering the outlet drainage hole.

Every Day You Waste Is Gone......... But You Also Need To Relax

Casual visitors may have noticed I am not blogging a lot at the moment.

I find it relaxing and need the reflective power it offers, but sometimes I just fail to follow through.

Subjects can vary widely or I tend to get fixated on the current “thing”, but either way, sometimes it comes easily, I stop doing it when it does not (the benefit of not being sponsored).

As I get older, my ability to waste time is softening, my awareness of that time wasted hardening. It may be a “time is running out” thing, or simply a change in work habits, but one thing is for sure, I am finding it hard to switch off.

Self regulation.

The first of my “holiday” images, made with zero planning and little thought, just taken as I see them. A good sign.

I must start to regulate my work time as a self employed person. This is the key, but it tends to come down to working at break neck pace for weeks, then nothing. The nothing in winter is hard. The short days and general darkness that comes with winter often leads to depression. Not the clinical depression many espouse to, but regular, daily, controllable depression.

In summer, which by it’s nature, being connected to schools is going to be quiet, I really, really need to just relax.

I worked for a wage for most of my life, full or part time, I had a regular income, I was “reliable”. Now I count my wins against my losses and to be honest, with a regular human brain wired for stress and fear over relaxation and confidence, half a dozen wins never make up for a slow period.

Another nothing shot that had to be taken.

Some good signs so far these holidays. I have remade and perfected my hobby painting space, moving it to a spot closer to a window and making more shelves, which almost instantly got me painting some figs.

My video work space is waiting for key elements, but is ready to go and my old desk top computer, back from the dead is giving me depth and room to move.

Relax, enjoy it and let the strength gained empower later work.

Reverse Engineering

Most of my video purchases, really all of them until recently have been reversible*, which is to say, they could all be additions to my stills range if video becomes too frustrating or pointless.

Lenses are interesting here. What would a cine lens add to my stills kit, now that I have 8 of them and it is a thing?

The 7Artisans Hope 25mm wide open on a G9 (ISO 1250). Focus was easy to acquire, the heft of the lens both reassuring and helpful for s sharp image at 1/40th.

Something I have noticed with all of them is a feeling of old fashioned comfort when handling them and sometimes even a little nostalgic rendering.

For me, one of the advantages of manual focus is framing off centre, so it follows a lens needs to be roughly as sharp on the outer frame as the centre, which this lens is.

The Spectrum glass has been directly compared to my Lumix-S lenses and apart from their opposites being true opposites in colour (1 warm 35, one cool etc), the cine lenses are gentler in contrast, but not massively less sharp or less capable in rendering.

The Hope, Sirui and Vision lenses are all capable of holding their own in my MFT stills kit, as crowded as that range is, but nothing wasted.

Specifically, I would use them as studio portrait lenses making the most of their smoother, less punchy contrast in the world of hard and soft light.

Overall rendering is usually good with cine glass. The inability to easily change things is post means their simpler designs can be focussed on classic results, Bokeh and draw being some of these.

Rear Bokeh is pleasant enough.

As is foreground.

Close focus is very good. I have a lot of MFT lenses with decent close focus, but even so, it never hurts.

I doubt I will be getting out of video as my path seems to be more determined than ever, but it is nice to know that only a few bits would be useless apart from the odd video job regardless.

*My sound kit, the Video Assist and the recently purchased gimbal.

So, Have I Betrayed Everything I Believe In?

Bit dramatic, but after several post on the subject, I now have a feeling this year of getting it right, of dotting my I’s and crossing my T’s, so I have relented and accepted a gimbal into my kit, just like the reality that LAV mics are needed..

The Zhiyun Weebill 3S combo pack is on sale for half price at $399au* (less than the DJI RS3 mini and without all of that gimbals short comings** or the cut down 3E), right when I decided to look tentatively at the idea of adding a capable, is restrained gimbal into my otherwise complete kit.

The handle, arm rest and backpack all make a difference (now irrelevant if I get the M3s).

I do have opinions and techniques that support never going this way, but to be honest, I am sick of dodging client requests and trying to sell them on other ideas. If I have one, then I can say ”hey, how about this instead” with no ulterior motive assumed.

What price peace of mind?

The whole kit costs less than the 7Artisans 16mm I bought recently with little thought, half as much as the Video Assist 12g that I felt would add much to my video offer and only twice as much as a set of M2 Lark mics I bought simply to hide them on a suit jacket!

Several reviewers rated it as best in price class, a little dated in interface, but not capabilities and it should last, being over powered for my intended kit (MFT body, probably the GH5s, with a cine prime on or the G9II with an AF 8-18).

I have several tripods, a slider, a heavy hand held rig, top notch internal stabilisers, top, side and under handles, shoulder and chest rigs and other tricks, but now I also have a gimbal.

Unlike some I do not expect it to be the first thing used, but I also have an open mind as to the things it may bring like “Vortex” mode (360 degree roll) and some pan arounds etc. I promise not to over use it, because then I would be a hypocrite ;)..

Ed. I cancelled it. The second order also went on to extended back order, so I took the hint. Betrayal avoided.

*Later changed to the M3S combo pack for $349 as stock is limited in the extreme. This actually feels better as it is enough, but not a “crutch” to use all the time.

*The DJI RS3 mini would have been plenty, but has a flawed base plate arrangement that requires accessories to fix, comes with no accessories in the box and will only just handle the weight of my gear needs. Some reviewers criticise its fiddly-ness when setting up due to strain on locks and motors and for little gain in size and weight.

Mics Evolve

I have the little Hollyland Lark M1’s in white. White I thought would be good for hiding on clothing, but it turns out I was wrong. Most men wear dark suits, but at the moment, few wear white shirts or it seems, have top pockets.

They have been good the few times I use them, which unfortunately is anytime we use a teleprompter at the school, so quite often. I much prefer a good shotgun mic like the MKE-600 mounted on cam, with a workable range up to 6ft, but needs must as the shotgun on camera is lost in the prompter’s light hood and running it out is less handy (but possible).

I just picked up the M2 combo pack for a reasonable price in black.

These magnetic button type mics will be the perfect “other” mic for me.

I now have a choice between magnetic or pocket friendly, white or black, both reliable and handy, the pair tiny and easily carried and as any pro should have, they are each other’s backup.

I did not need the combo set, but it seems hard to get the basic RX+TX set for less, so a handy option I guess especially for running a backup to a phone or similar. They even come with a set of stickers to cover up the logo.

Reviews have been positive and have to be accepted with the reality, the mic’s sound is only the beginning not the end. Their only negative is the wind cover that obscures the direction the mic is pointing, but I will work something out or use the M1’s or my shotgun is needs be.

Ironically, the M1’s tiny little “fluffies” are black not white so problem solved, or shared maybe, I dunno.

I will find out when I have them if I can use both together, so mic up three speakers or more.

The GH5s, An Odd Choice With My Many Other Options?

With the Black Friday deals around at the moment, it may seem odd to go for the ageing GH5s, a camera with dated specs maybe, but let me explain (hope I can anyway, ‘cos it’s done).

The cage was already floating around, a rare and poor fit for the G9.1, a better one for the GH series. Obviously too busy to find the right body cap :).

I bought the GH5s for a little less than the BMPCC4k (it is usually dearer). I could have bought a G9II for a little more, but as I said at the beginning of this journey, I was after something that grew my space and the GH5s adds a low light MFT, All-i capable camera, with a different crop factor (1:1.8) and BMVA compatibility.

It is in effect a third low light option, a P4k with AF and another decently priced, but quite powerful MFT option. It does offer something that I did not have.

To be honest, if the G9 Mk1 could record longer and had Log, shutter angle and wave forms built in it would have done, but as it does not, the GH5/GH6 or GH5s were the best cheap options.

The P4k was frustrating.

Native B-Raw, was the lure and the chance to buy the camera and a Video Assist to give me two B-Raw cams at a premium price was a strong incentive, but the P4k was annoying me with it’s needs and the shape of my kit was fighting it’s relevance.

The GH5s gives me 3x better battery life out of the box, a lot of “lesser” codec choices than BRaw or ProRes (All-i, VLog-L), the equal best MFT low light performance available, the ability to shoot stills and comes with decent AF and a view finder, in other words it is a hybrid, but a video-centric one. I also liked the smaller profile, the swivel screen and compatibility with existing accessories (several G9 batts and a cage at hand).

Another small benefit, the GH5s is a 1.8 crop, so the Hope 16, 25 and 50mm lenses become 28, 45 and 90mm’s which to a lens are a better fit for my needs than the 2x crop of MFT.

Matched to the new Hope lenses (I have added the 16), it sits well. The slightly older interface, curves and layout are refreshing, reassuring even.

When comparing the two, I often responded better to the P4k B-Raw footage, looking for that tell tale sign I guess, the secret special sauce, but sometimes I did not, I liked the sharp and clean look of the Panasonic and that was regular All-i V-Log-L footage vs B-Raw. With the GH5s and BMVA, I can have both options with colours and curves that match my other cams.

My intent is to go with 10bit/422/.Mov/V-Log or V-Log-L as my realistic bread and butter, 1080 or 4k as needed, the G9II and GH5s in All-i (B-Raw or ProRes as an option) and the S5’s in Long-GOP.

This will give me a good baseline and that cinematic footage option and if I want it later, another BMVA will give me matching B-Raw cams or three with ProRes.

It is a little more expensive this way, but the above options, as well as the option to not do this at all and just go with the Lumix cams as is, or even go down the Ninja-V/ProRes only road, are a justifications.

*

In other news, the struggle to make the G9II a gimbal camera without a gimbal went a step further today.

It seems that if I use a handle on either side of it, I can walk and pan very smoothly. This came from often getting better results with the top handle and also steadying with a side handle. I mounted two in a moment of inspiration and found the elusive “Ninja” walk was much easier to do with two hands on the camera. Not perfect, but a little weight may help.

On that walk, shoes make the difference. I was practicing bare foot and found the jolt almost uncontrollable, then put on my Merrill MOAB’s and true smoothness was realised.

*

Looks like “mr no rigs” here has had a major turn around.

With no fewer than 4 serious video options (bought as such), my thoughts have turned to making this semi random cluster into less of a cluster ………, well you know.

The Commercial kit, meaning the kit that I can trust no matter what.

The S5II is the endurance machine.

Complete with the brand spanking new RigidPro full rig, this thing is out to impress. The rig allows power for everything needed with 4x D-Tap outlets from the master V-mount unit, as well as several outlets from the battery itself.

I have grabbed a Smallrig 99 watt/hour battery and a few Blue Kondor cables, so the camera (dummy batt), mic (C-type) mic (via camera) and monitor (7.5V) are all powered for literally hours on one battery.

Being fan cooled, it is now the “all day” camera, limited only by card life (256gb at the moment, which is about 4 hours of good quality 1080p).

This will be the general purpose work horse my “ground zero” for commercial jobs and I will use the solid and easy to use Lumix-S lenses.

The G9II is the movement specialist.

With the best stabe and AF, lens selection and the best baseline internal video specs (ProRes, All-i, full Log) and high frame rates plus plenty of slo-mo options, the G9II is the logical camera for all movements.

The rig is a simple cage and three handles as well as the option of a weighted base.

This is the second work horse, mated with fast primes and the Leica zoom.

The Cinema kit, the support kit to above, but more for artistic and personal jobs.

This kit has the potential to outshine the more reliable set above, being able to record in B-Raw or ProRes with the Video Assist, but it lacks the easy pathways of above.

The S5 mk1 is the “eye” camera with an extended eye cup, a basic rig designed to be either hand held (held to the eye) or used on a tripod, it’s weaknesses are mitigated and it’s strengths supported. It will be the cine-lens specialist as the S5II is better with AF glass, but either can support the other as needed.

The GH5s is a little like the S5.1, a tripod and manual focus lens specialist, although there is nothing stopping it from using AF glass or being hand held. Like the above kit, this is the All-i capable movement specialist, not so much moving itself, but handling a busy scene.

A thoroughbred video option, it can mate with the BMVA for B-Raw or ProRes or simply be used as another MFT machine. It stabilises fine with a stabilised or heavy lens. It is effectively a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k.

Mixing formats is odd I know, but it is how it is, so best make the most of it.

A Camera Just For Me........ Or A Reality Check.

My last post touched on the processes I have been going through to expand my MFT video camera options and my video growth path generally in some depth.

I have high ISO, stabilising and AF options, tons of lenses and three formats to choose from, but I do not have a powerful codec to call on.

The choice, it seems, has come down to this;

BMPCC4k and a BM 5” 12g Video Assist ($2800au with a cage), so I can have basically any camera as a decent, if not perfectly matched B-cam. BRaw in two cams, one in MFT and one in L or MFT mount, with AF, stabe, high ISO skills etc. All good. This would be the cine-commercial-interview rig, the Pana’s either supporting or as their own thing for other jobs.

This feels like my heart choice, to go “all in” at the budget cine end.

Fears are real, but addressed head on;

The BM could be an occasional use specialist item.

Any time that extra quality assurance of BRaw is needed, it will be a no-brainer. BRaw is the key, not the camera as such. I have more capable cameras in other ways, but not one with access to the “real thing” (ProRes RAW is no good to me as a Resolve user).

The BM could conversely become addictive and my Lumix stable sidelined.

If this is the case, then great, the BM was a good move, but the Lumix cams will still be of use for all the things they do the BM cannot and of course also as stills cameras. With one or more Video Assists, they all get a lift to basically the same quality, so even as faux BM’s or not they will all be useful.

The BM4k is old for a modern video camera.

It seems lately that the shelf life of most hybrid cams is 2-3 years. They have a lot of change to go through as the landscape of sort-of hybrids turns into genuine ones. The P4k is mostly immune to this need for evolution. It is also one of the most explored cams on the market.

What actually is there to upgrade?

Unlike most video cameras in this price point, it does not have stabilising (other than lens or Gyro in post) or any form of AF expectation to improve upon each generation, nor does it need more codecs. Maybe a flip screen, or better in-camera battery life, which would never be enough anyway, a body update, the sensor maybe, but to what end?

It was released as a revelation, well ahead of the pack and not stupidly expensive. It has stayed relevant, but also has dropped in price to the point where there is still no other RAW capable camera in it’s price class.

BM has supported it all it’s life because they know it is suited to it’s intended purpose and as they do with all their products, they give, support and share, often for free.

You are buying into a very real and very relevant Black Magic work flow, with the camera and free software as the key.

With one or two BMVA’s, I can choose from 3 options as BRaw B-cams. This means the matched 7Art Hope lenses can be used together or the Hope and a Spectrum and so on. I need to buy a code, do a firmware upgrade etc, but basically, ready to go.

Pretty happy with this test image from some G9.I test footage from a Hope lens.

This is sitting well and in my shopping cart.

The kicker is, I just want to explore something new, scratch an itch I have been wanting to scratch for a while. A true cinematographers tool, even if a base model and limited, it is still the real thing.

I have been looking at a lot of P4k vs “X” videos, some pitting it against cameras three times it’s price and half it’s age (FX3), some closer to it (GH5s, BGH-1) and it is apparent to me that even now, a veritable age after it’s release, it is still what it was designed to be, a real player in the entry level cine camera space.

Highlight roll-off and colour science is the key I feel. It does this so much better than the equivalent Panasonics, which can look “snappier” but not as smooth or rich.

The Video Assist answers the big issue, which is what camera would be a decent backup for the BM if required. The G9II, S5II and S5 all can.

Buy a pair of Video Assist’s, which of course give me two BRaw/Lumix cams for under the price of the P4k (or three for little more than the P4k), but not fully and not as cleanly, as well as still needing another MFT body. There are a few things kept as proprietary for the BM cams that the BMVA cannot support in other brands, but it is close enough probably.

The only real contender is the GH5s, a camera more practical in some ways, but lacking the magic codec and any form of stabe, but with reliable AF and plenty of cross-compatibility. If I wanted to skip BM and just get a capable M43 camera, this would be it.

Power is always a concern, but that also goes for anything as 1.5hrs is outside of any normal internal camera batts safe range. Only external batteries or DC power will help. I can use NP’s in a rig or even a V-Mount.

*

Ok, how about this.

The reality or maybe the “Head” choice check.

I have two full frame cameras with naturally wider DR than my MFT cameras, three that can potentially take a BMVA if needed, but have been getting by with Flat or Standard profile in .Mov for a while now, V-Log in the reserve and 5 matching cams with access to 10 bit/ProRes/422, and All-i in my G9II.

Below are some recordings of ProRes 422 HQ in Flat and V-Log profile, with no Luts, just the un-graded footage, then a light grade. To be honest, I would not do this. I would use a reflector or lights, or exclude the window, accept the loss, or use a full frame.

The top pair were exposed for the highlights (window) in Flat profile. Good highlight retention and decent shadow recovery (ISO 400). I did not see any real noise at full screen, so “expose to the right” which with wave forms is actually expose for the top line. I found grading this was pretty easy.

The second row is exposing for shadows, the whole window area was well blown in the wave form monitor and there was not recovering it. This was a pain to grade. No highlight recovery, offset or other trick worked without washing out and it did not like white balancing either. Bringing up shadows in Flat looks like the better option.

The last row is V-Log, with both window and shadow detail retained. Enough? My needs would suggest so, but are my skills up to it?

BRaw has a cleaner and more powerful pathway to good quality files from poor quality captures, especially with BM cameras. Poor quality captures are the key.

If this was all you had, Standard profile from a G9.I, would it do the job? If the lighting was set up correctly, white balance and exposure done well, then yes, it would. Would I need Braw in this situation when the end product would be the same?

Question is;

Is there any point in having a single camera that can handle extreme DR and ISO/exposure mistakes, if all the other supporting cams cannot. This is the same reason a GH7 does not appeal. One with Arri-Log is pointless.

Is there much point in getting an MFT cam that could handle interviews well, when I have two FF’s that can?

Would I be regularly running ProRes422 HQ or BRaw in my normal work flow?

I shy away from All-i due to the load (Raw formats are easier to grade though as compression does the harm, so if I were to go higher…….), I even avoid Log when I can because I prefer simpler grading pathways, so it seems that the safety net of BRaw is at odds with my usual work flow (that much effort would deserve better thinking up front anyway) and I have options in the process before shooting that need to be considered (i.e. don’t shoot bad footage).

With a GH5s, I would have a BMPCC4k-like MFT cam, a second G9II (Black Friday bargain) would give me a second ProRes option with BMVA’s possible also.

Ironically, the time I could use the BRaw capable cam is for run-n-gun work (G9II+VA), when light might bite me, but the BMPCC4k is not that cam. For settled and stable situations, any cams would do.

The choice?

GH5S, new from my local chain who had stock for less than the BMPCC4k body. I also have a cage (G9 multi fit), batts (4x G9.1), it has great battery life (2hrs in 1080p), great dynamic range with V-Log-L, All-i recording, full frame-like low light performance, all the video stuff I want and it can go out to a BMVA as boxed.

The AF is solid, better than most other DFD cams and the P4k, the stabe is lens or software reliant, but so was the P4k. At a push, it is also a decent stills cam. With a BMVA I have a long life P4k with AF, but I feel I may never do that. Like the P4k, it offers a cheap high grade MFT video cam, without more of what I have already (I can apparently only hand hold one cam at a time…who knew). This will be the static third cam, the MFT interview and the cine rig cam and the “learn to do without stabe and AF” cam.

New Camera Options, Computer Surprises And Fun

I need a better computer option for video.

The 13” laptop thing is not great with Resolve, simply too much going on and both M1 machines are getting slower. Fine for stills processing, but video is pushing them.

I have a nice 27” Mac Retina screen out front of a sick iMac that will not update any more and is running soooo slow. I thought I would use it as a screen with a M4 Mini which can run into older (High Sierra) machines like mine and use them as a screen. It turns out mine is just not old enough by a few months. The good news for me though is it can still be upgraded a little in software and tech.

I had a chat with the tech in Apple and he thinks there is something going on with my iMac, maybe a faulty hard drive not just age, so I went home, investigated and found that for some reason it was backing up to and from Dropbox, the back-loading and my hard drive, reading as 356gb out of 1TB used, it is actually 100% full and every time I deleted stuff, it filled up again. No wonder so slow, but now much better.

So, more money for cameras.

What and why?

I would like to support and flesh out my MFT video choices, especially have a solid platform for the Hope series glass I am slowly collecting. The G9.I’s are perfectly capable backup cams if needed, but they are my wide angle lens stills cams and one is a little beaten up (I did however get some lovely footage out of one with the 7Art Vision 12mm and it seems a great fit for walking stabe).

I had my eye on a third G9.1 sitting in my local shop at $999au, but it went the other day, bargain missed or distraction removed, not sure yet?

An Image quality lift and/or cost to relevance are the main priorities.

Many choices, some logicial some sentimental, head, heart and gut choices.

The main thing is, I do not want it to get out of hand or have ridiculous special needs that I know will never be met. I would however like to leave a door open to a better baseline quality, something I have to be fair (V-Log and ProRes HQ at least).

It needs to make sense to my already convoluted eco system and add something, even if that something is not completely compatible with my Lumix stable, as there is plenty there, not just add another camera and I hope expand my options. This may seem weird on the strength of a couple of cheap cine lenses, but the reality is, I have justified high hopes for the Hope’s (!), but feel that just adding another basic Lumix video hybrid to the mix will only balance format numbers, not grow my space.

The GH5.2 was close.

This adds live streaming, a true video camera interface, the same batts and cage as my G9’s, 400mbs All-i and decent AF and stabe, but these are not so good that relegating the cam to MF/static use would be a shame. I am also keen on the slightly older Lumix look which I like.

I almost went this way before the S5 and it still haunts me. It seems to be a camera almost perfectly aligned to my real world needs at a bargain price, even more so now and a good backup to my other offerings.

I dabbled with the idea of the BGH-1, BM micro G2, even the Z-Cam E2, GH7 and others, but they all come with “considerations” or were too dear for their return and my real world needs. Even the G9II is only $2500au, which is a grand less than I paid was a chance, but too much of the same for the price.

Random grab from a school gig last night.

The two that are calling, call me crazy, are the BMPCC 4k (P4K) and the GH5s.

Both have fallen away from the pack a little, but both companies are still supported them and they are true cinema-centric cameras. The BGH-1 was also in the mix, but fell away as it starts dearer and needs more, while offering the least overall.

To P4k is a better package than the BGH-1 for my needs, more complete out of the box, the BGH having a better processor than the GH5s, but the P4k has BRaw. The GH5s offers better than average MFT sensor performance for video in an inoffensive hybrid camera offering at abut the same price and actually needs nothing to go on with, so the best price.

One very revealing comparison, found chased up samples of BGH-1 footage, showed both the P4k and BGH side by side and two things came out. Even using basically the same sensor, the BM had much more highlight retention and more natural roll off and the colours looked less “digitally” punchy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0W1VqboEg0

More video good stuff or more hybrid praticality?

The GH5s has better low light performance and even dynamic range than the G9II, has decent AF, but no stabe. For under $2000au, it is good value and unlike the BM, it needs nothing. The thing I like is, it is a Lumix, so all will make sense.

The price of the P4k has held and the physical cam has not been overtly updated. This is in part to the reality that it was ahead of it’s time and it has a minor cult following as well as it’s design is fit for purpose then and now. Some complain about the screen, so get a monitor, the lack of stabe or usable AF (again, a cine camera, but it does have options), poor battery life, but again a ton of options.

The P4k good;

• Cinematic (real cinematic) colour, tonal roll-off and smoothness.

• Codecs including ProRes 422 HQ, BRAW etc. The straightest and cleanest line to these. BRaw gives me the most quality lift, with a clean and reasonably light footprint.

• The “key” to Studio edition DaVinci Resolve is included which is a double win, lifting my processing and aligning perfectly with the camera.

• It is known and supported and to be honest redundancy-proof. In this space, cameras like this stay relevant, because what they offer is always wanted and the shortcoming understood and even leaned into, so they avoid the constant hybrid upgrade pressure of better AF etc. Even the older model is still well loved and dates back over a decade. A decade of Hybrids has taken us to the GH7 which is only just in the true junior cinema camera class at it’s best.

• They are well enough made to be a decent second hand option (but no key).

• There is an L-mount equivalent so I can in future match all my lenses to the one camera system, just like my Lumix.

• I can add a Video Assist 12g for under $1000 which would net me a superior screen and BRaw for one of several other cameras (S5II into a P6K, G9II as GH7 equiv).

• Lumix cams are, it seems, decently compatible with BM’s as is especially in ProRes. The difference is more one of the BM having a different look, a smoother, more mature one, so a Lumix as B-cam only needs to match the colour, the extra cinematic quality thing is a benefit not a problem.

• For under $3000au, I could have two BRaw options over two formats.

My current static cam is the S5, but probably that is a poor alignment of that cameras capabilities to its potential. I could add a BMVA to that one and have closely matching machines, although the S5II is a better match.

The negatives are many, but any relevant ones can or have already been overcome in my kit. I do not think in this day and age there is much room for this as your only video camera in a mixed work space, too many little things that can be easily avoided by going in other directions, but in conjunction with a stable of Lumix cams, it is everything they are not and vice-versa.

The GH5s, already fading as I write this, but is the best option if I want to stay in Lumix only territory and cost is the main driving factor. A very decent video-centric Lumix that already has spare batteries and a cage, with a sensor capable of bridging the gap between MFT and full frame, all the nice stuff like wave forms and vector scopes, shutter angle and full V-Log with reliable AF (but no stabe) for under $2000au.

If I can lay my finger on one thing that still unsettles me in my video work, it is that feeling that all these hybrid cams are missing the point a little. True cinematic footage has that “special sauce”, that nearly indefinable look that more resolution, a faster sensor readout, great rolling shutter control, dynamic range and general smoothness.

There is an effortlessness that a genuine cinema grade camera brings, even a dated base model like the BMPCC4k. The combination of the very sharp Hope glass and smooth sharp BM may be ideal.

In other words, it looked more like a cinema footage.

So, where would it fit?

• Stabilising and movements? G9II.

• Video AF? Any mk2 Lumix or even EM1x.

• A light weight weather sealed run-n-gun kit? Any Lumix including the G9.I.

• Low light at the extremes of sensible? S5’s.

• Static or hand held cine grade footage? BMPCC4k.

• Maximum quality with choices and workflow advantages within that? BMPCC4k

• Wide dynamic range and white balance fixes for critical work? BMPCC4k.

I guess the questions are;

Is there anything the Lumix cams can do that the BM cannot? Yes, lots in the form of best in class stabe and AF, flexibility and hybrid needs.

Is there anything the BM can do that the Lumix cannot? In the realms of dynamic range and post processing and that special cinematic “mojo” that come with Braw or even ProRes.

When compared the difference in image quality and processing win out logically. Small qualms about the relevance of the camera in my work flow are calmed by the desire to have better IQ and smoother, more robust processing pathways.

Hope Is Good, Hope Is Life.

A lot of my thought regarding MFT have come down to one thing.

The Hope cinema lenses that seem so good need some support. The G9II is doing a lot of the work, but to be honest, it is a video camera supporting all the modern needs of a commercial video maker, someone who needs stabilising, AF, good out of camera files and flexibility.

The G9II, S5II and S5 are my cameras for this and when needed, the G9I’s are no slouch (10bit/422/4k is my base line). ProRes HQ is probably my processing limit, my computer killer format, so no real need to look past that from Lumix. Three of the five cams offer that.

Braw would be nice occasionally, for special projects, to please the cinematographer in me and to add a level of professional safety.

.Anyway, back to Hope.

The 25 came today and like the 50, all is good. Sharp corners wide open, a tight mount, beautiful focus throw and nice heft.

I am tending to look at these lenses like stills lenses. All my gear is packed up at the moment, so the Pen F was the unlikely test camera. Nice Bokeh, nice colour.

Corner grab, hand held and obviously manually focussed, but all good.

Close focus is very decent (this is a mini whisk, about 5” long). Also a decent CA and Bokeh torture test.

I now have a more than functional MFT cine lens kit, the 12mm Vision, 25 and 50 Hope and the super fast 24 Nightwalker to match my decently well covered L-mount set (35/50/150).

What Is A Cine Lens And What Makes It Budget?

In this age of perfection and the illogical push to reduce it, what makes a cinema lens and why are some considered budget, when others are the price of a house?

I have gone into the basics of cinema lenses in previous posts, such as mechanical structure and consistency across the range, so this is more about the why of the huge disparity in lenses.

I have watched a few comparison videos lately and my main take away has been, even the experts cannot tell from raw images alone unless (1) they are overly familiar with the look of one lens over the others or (2), depth of field or other factors give them away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TSkj1AK8qs

Another good video on a lens set comparison, and much dearer ones than the Hope lenses is this, especially the colour matching etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blkaxl78FGk

Sharpness.

It is accepted that moving pictures are not as needy as still pictures when it comes to sharpness. The movement to add mist or glow filters to even the dearest lenses is proof that as things get sharper and more detailed, we crave the more realistic reality that we personally do look at things that critically unless we are forced to.

Our eyes are amazing (truly), but even perfect vision does not match in reality what we can be delivered on a huge, high reslution screen and when we do, to what end? I can be blown away by a scene with every pore sharply rendered, but I d not need to see that and when I do, does it distract from the story itself?

Sharpness and a very good filter do add something, the ability to perceive high sharpness under a veil of smooth unsoftness is like the effect of a sharper image in news print. You could tell, even if mathematically the print is the limit. A less sharp lens and/or poor filter do not look the same, but they look a way of their own that is also acceptable, which is why many old lenses are being used in modern productions, be they re-house Russian stills lenses, or ancient cine glass. Is it just a very expensive exercise of two steps forward and one back?

A tight crop from a IRIX 150mm cine-macro image. Too sharp, too contrasty?

The reality is sharpness in moving stock only needs to be non-distracting as the fact it is moving at 24 fps will rob you of the ability to see high detail anyway. Freeze the frame and you can see it, revealing that too much and too little can both be bad. A decent budget lens can be sharp, a stills lens, even a kit one can be sharper. The key seems to be “perfect” sharpness balanced with other factors.

Contrast.

Sharpness and contrast often get lumped together as a more-is-more-is-good thing. Contrast, even more than sharpness needs to be cinematic, which is to say, controlled. Moving stock often lacks the dynamic range of a stills image or if not, it lacks the controls and in the field control. The camera will determine the theoretical dynamic range, but the lens can also help determine the contrast coming down the lens.

Another reason mist filters are used is to add a stop or two of DR, by blooming highlights and lifting shadows. This both reduces contrast and makes the retrieved information nicer to look at.

Cinema lens “magic” is often found in contrast. Smooth highlights, open shadows, “softer” colours are all cinematic signatures and make the crafting and watching of the medium easier.

Can a budget cinema lens offer contrast that makes a difference to just using a stills lens?

Ironically, lower contrast is easy to achieve. Whether it is special or not comes down to a lot of other factors, but theoretically, there may be a cheap lesna out there t match the look of a much dearer one.

The mid tones are where cine lenses need to do most of their work as highlights are often controlled or avoided, shadows lifted or crushed. If the story cannot be told in the mid tones, it is lost. Maybe this is why older glass cuts it. Older lenses needed to get as much as they could out of the fairly rigid film media.

Colour.

This is not really down to the lens as much as many other factors, the camera most importantly, but the lens can contribute a temperature, contrast (see above) and flare control (see below). Probably more important here, budget lenses do fall short with lens to lens consistency, but sometimes dearer glass is less than perfect also.

The colour of this file is to my eye clearly less punchy than many of my stills lenses, which for video is ideal.

In the making if “The Creator”, famous for using consumer grade cameras, the lens, a rehoused antique Kowa 75 Prominar anamorphic was used the bulk of the time. This is a professional lens but nt a cutting edge design. They use multiples of the same lens, to match perfectly, an easy fix and in these days of multi format mounts and cameras and high resolution, it is even possible to get different focal lengths out of on lens.

I bought two Spectrum lenses (35 and 50), that do not match in colour. I could have in hind sight bought the same lens twice (the warmer 35), used one as a 35 and the other as a crop frame 50.

Distortion and vignetting.

This is an odd one. Cine lenses are as often as not chosen for their distortion characteristics, especially anamorphic lenses. Just look at Shogun (shot with Hawk and Vantage anamorphic) or any Wes Anderson films to find odd, even broken edges and corners of the frame and bent horizon lines.

Vignetting, like flare and distortion is often used for it’s negative effects as much as avoided.

That old TTArt 35 again, with all it’s faux cine lens goodness.

Are budget lenses too well corrected? Are they lacking a distinctive feature?

Flare.

Like distortion, flare can be a more is more, less is more or different is more thing. Generally there is a limit to how much can be accepted, but the shape, colour and proliferation of flare is an art form in and of itself. In the making of “Saving Private Ryan” for example, uncoated lenses were used to mimic the older glass used at the time, exaggerate flare, reduce colour and contrast.

Even when I tried to break my budget 12mm, it managed to produce this.

Most stills lenses treat flare as the enemy, making us look to older glass or software to get that “vintage” look. Cine lenses are more of a balancing act of some effects to taste, hopefully without loss of contrast and control.

Again, many cheaper cine lenses actually have their own flare signature and more recently they are reliably controlled. Better or worse? Up to the viewer I guess.

Rendering.

A bit of all of the above, rendering is a subjective and often ambiguous thing. Bokeh, colour, contrast, “draw”, distortion, sharpness all contribute along with other factors. This is probably the base line of what makes a better lens better, something that is hard to put into words, but easy to put a price tag on.

This scene, regularly shot be me, is rendered gently by the Vision 12mm. The Bokeh is pleasant, contrast strong enough without looking like a stills image and the shadows are open, the sharpness is more than enough for moving stock, distortions are visible, but in video, so what?

In testing I have seen a clear difference between my stills lenses and my budget cine glass in rendering. The cine glass is usually gentler, smoother and more controlled, less punchy and “hard” sharp. Is that difference enough of what we need?

The $400au Hope 50mm. Ignoring all the other elements that can effect an image, is this decently rendered? What exactly does that mean and when does it mean more than the subject itself?

So, can a cheap cine lens be justifiably called cheap?

Cameras make more difference, true cinema cameras giving smoother footage and the application of a skilled and experienced crew cannot be under estimated (see the add for the iphone 15 making a movie).

Is the main thing against budget lenses, the fact that as budget lenses, they do nit get the best rides. Are they perfectly valid, just so cheap, they are not given the best treatment overall? Some (most) do not even come in the right mounts, like PL for the best cams, so I guess it’s impossible to test. Any car can drive at the speed limit, so if the speed limit of “cinematic” viewing is the viewer, what is the speed limit.

Could the most basic of budget lenses actually be technically better than many of the older lenses used in film making, which are in turn re-housed for modern works? Could “Ryan” have been filmed with cheap glass for much the same result?

A $75k Arri with a $400 lens? Seems crazy, but would anyone really notice? A consumer FX3 and an antique Kowa fooled many and I would argue that was the wrong way around.

From a technical perspective, many of the things that make a stills lens measurably cheap are irrelevant, even contradictory. AF is absent by design, visible flare and distortion are often sought out, reduced colour and contrast desirable or retro fitted. Even the mechanics are easy to do, with designs often clones of classics, consistency is desirable but there are work arounds.

So why is one lens, a mechanical monster with no electronics, probably a simple design, little thought put into weight or size limits or even materials and modern needs often reduced and then controlled by reduction devices like filters, a steep $15k or more, and another with very similar performance only $400?

Relativity

If you watch a lot of Tv, YouTube and even movies with a critical eye, something becomes apparent after a while.

What you are told to do and what you see can sometimes be a long way apart.

Take for example the shower curtain.

If a DP wants to reduce light in a scene from a window or other strong light source, they will use a lot of tools to get the job done. A multi hundred dollar sheet of balanced white cloth to a cheap shower curtain. Can you ever honestly say you could tell the difference.

The internet is full of examples of people jury-rigging or cheeping out on gear to show it can be done, but the reviewer probably still spent hundreds on the “real” thing.

Lenses are amazing, even bad ones. Every lens has a point of use-ability, better lenses have more, last longer and in the video world tend to come in matching sets, but if the film is shot, the look accepted by the viewer and the elements sharp enough, do we care beyond that?

I still find it bizarre that the better our lenses, cameras and processing techniques are becoming, the stronger the reflex is to reduce that contrast, sharpness and overall quality to emulate a more organic, less perfect look.

White balance is another tricky one.

There is perfect white balance, where you make the scene look “right” or more specifically to match a sheet of white paper for example look accurately white, but how often do you see perfect white balance in cinema, documentaries or even adds. Getting it right aides processing, but that processing these days seems to be aimed at a distinct look, often the “teal-amber”, glowy look or a washed out one that defies not only natural light, but also superior sharpness and contrast.

The most important thing is skin tone. They must look right to the eye in the light they are in.

This file looks yellow, but the room is, the light was and the mood it invoked really was. I could have balnced it to a more neutral colour, but would that have been accurate or more to the point would it have looked how I wanted it to?

Light is light, white balance is in the eye of the colourist, lens quality is elastic, perceptions are the realm of the viewer.

This to me look right when we shot a promo video for the school. Pure white, slightly cool, but it suits the space that I am familiar with and what the white card reading coughed up.

This fits the common teal-amber look that can be all pervading. If you look at it for a while, you can and will normalise it.

This is what I submitted as it looks nice, if not accurate. If you stuff up your white balance too badly things get tough, but if you land close, even in a fairly restrictive base colour mode, there is room for some opinion to be added.

I guess where this random thought is going is, get your technical stuff sorted to the point you need, but do not ever let an obsession with technical considerations hold you back or dominate your vision.

Right is right, but it is also subjective.

The Importance Of The 7Artisans Hope Series Of Cine Primes

My first of two, maybe three Hope prime lenses arrived today.

Early tests look to prove out what I hoped, that it is a very well corrected cinema lenses at a very nice price.

How good are they and what does it mean?

I fully expect to start to see some comparisons to the DZO, Nisi Athena and IRIX lenses and for these to be surprisingly close. A $400au lens vs a $2000au lens?

How else would you do it? They are already showing a better pedigree as well corrected cine lenses than their cost aligned competition, even their own stable mates the Spectrum and Vision series, so they need to be compared with better glass.

The Hope lenses are not perfect, but cinema lenses tend to shun absolute perfection. Sharpness and contrast deliberately controlled, even some flaws like distortion are rarely deal breakers, sometimes these are even pursued.

They are however often well corrected in all the ways you would want them to be for a solid “pure” enough base to work from, unless the maker is after a truly slanted look at the world.

Most budget cine glass suffers from inconsistencies between lenses in the same set in colour, tone or look and even T-stops and mechanics (the last two of which are unforgivable). This can be problematic as rigs, post processing and handling speed all benefit from these and time as they say, is money.

Usually they also have a specific weakness in poor chromatic aberration control, obvious focus breathing, a lack of sharpness, vignetting, poor build or sometimes a little of all of these, but not always across the range, sometimes different lenses have different flaws.

These can still make for excellent lenses, but often the user needs to be aware of these inconsistencies or they may even avoid certain lenses in a set if they are too weak or too different. The 7Artisan Vision lenses for example have a 25 T1.05, that is liked or loathed for it’s soft and dreamy character, something that the 35mm in the same range does not share.

These lenses are budget, beginner or curiosity lenses, especially the re-purposed legacy glass. Their character is less meant, but is more a result of price compromise and acceptance of that for cine use, than engineering intent. but if used well, few can tell which took what (in cinematography, most flaws and quirks are assumed to be intended).

The heaviest of this group by feel alone is the Spectrum 50mm, which just feels like a stumpy little lump of metal and glass. The Spectrum is a good lens, decently sharp and corrected. The Hope is next upgrading looks and adding balance across the board it is just solid and reliable. The Sirui feels lighter in all ways by comparison, making it the best run-n-gun option. The Sirui has more mood, more speed and a little funk.

The next tier, the semi-pro glass, the likes of IRIX, DZO or Nisi, as well as the cine-hybrid versions of Canon, Sony, Panasonic and Sigma glass, are usually where the true movie maker and serious commercial shooter meet.

They are very good, usually consistent enough to buy and use in sets and still manage some personal creative space of their own. The IRIX are clinical, the DZO and Nisi have some character and the re-housed stills lenses are often super (over) sharp, but nothing a filter cannot fix.

Cost is their biggest strength and weakness. Out of the range of the hobbyist, they are also seen as a budget option by top tier shooters, so often they are considered “transitional” lenses, a commercial shooters creative option, a video school’s best choice or for the well heeled studios as muck-arounds. I would guess most are in the rental sphere.

The Hope lenses are important here because they are the closest budget set made so far that share these second tier lenses traits. Almost invisible chromatic aberration, distortion, flare, focus breathing and decent, although not perfect colour matching (4 match, one is slightly warmer, one slightly cooler), as well as exceptional close focus all at the low end of the budget range. These are very similar traits to the dearer glass in the next category up. Very close.

This is achieved by keeping the T-stop in the more realistic range (T2.1), only covering crop frame (S35) formats, applying all the lessons learned in the several series before and I feel a genuine attempt to lift the class to heart breaker level.

A lift from some video tests on an old G9. Very nice to use and the results are as good as stills lenses.

It may well be evident in the future to users of these compared to other glass that they lack character (i.e. beautiful flaws) , but character is available all around, stability is elusive for less than three or more times the price.

$75 buys you character. Thankfully “character” is not holding my veranda up!.

The widest aperture of T2.1 is perfect for me. An adherent of the T4 (full frame) as perfect the cinematic depth aperture, I will use T2.8 on an APS-c lens, T2 on M43, which is where these lenses are employed and they are fully functional there. If I need faster, I have options, but in their space, the “no excuses” space, they are just perfect.

Sharp wide open and just the right amount of depth of field.

It will be interesting to see what the competition do in response, even the higher end makers when the inevitable comparison video start to come out.