Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aram
    replied
    Thanks for the ahalpert and for the clarification, Thomas Smet , I did not realise that it was about playing at 24fps but without slowing the footage down. That makes total sense!

    Leave a comment:


  • OnSet
    replied
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

    Good idea - do you know of a way to do that in FCP? What would also be cool is if you could shoot 120fps with a 360-degree shutter and then if you want to take it down to 100% or 80% speed, combine every frame with the frame following it. So instead of 1/120 shutter you end up with 1/60 shutter for 24fps or 30fps (80% slow mo in 24fps timebase). Of course, if you use it at 20% slow motion, it would be a bit blurry. Nevertheless. But I'm not sure of a way to combine frames systematically like that. Maybe you could program it in AE
    I don't use FCP, but I would suspect you would do it in Motion.

    I believe you can create blurs in Premiere Pro using the shutter angle feature in the Transform effect, though it's probably better done in After Effects when in the Adobe realm.
    Motion blurs can also be added in the Color Correction tab of Davinci Resolve Studio (the paid version), and I think there may also be some fusion workarounds in the free version.
    My main interest in blurs doesn't derive as much from speed change as from wanting to be able to improve green screen keying by using a faster shutter to freeze movement, then motion blur it after creating a clean key. (Think about shooting a dancer or a gymnast in a green screen stage.)

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by OnSet View Post
    Of course you're probably going to want to enable the motion blur feature in your postproduction system because of the shortened exposure time!
    Good idea - do you know of a way to do that in FCP? What would also be cool is if you could shoot 120fps with a 360-degree shutter and then if you want to take it down to 100% or 80% speed, combine every frame with the frame following it. So instead of 1/120 shutter you end up with 1/60 shutter for 24fps or 30fps (80% slow mo in 24fps timebase). Of course, if you use it at 20% slow motion, it would be a bit blurry. Nevertheless. But I'm not sure of a way to combine frames systematically like that. Maybe you could program it in AE

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas Smet
    replied
    Originally posted by aram View Post
    ahalpert, I do not think I understand. 24 is 40% of 60, so speeding down to 24 from 60 needs no interpolation, unless we are talking about the 23.9 and 59 frame rates which are terrible. Am I right or am I missing something?
    60 divided by 24 is 2.5 and not a whole number. That means it is harder to conform 60p to 24p besides a slow down. 60p divided by 2 for example is 30 and no whole number can get to 24p. That makes mixing 24p and 60p kind of cumbersome. 120p is divided by 24 as a whole number so one could skip exactly every 5 frames of 120p to get a perfect 24p. 60p means skipping every 2.5 frames which translates to 2 frames then 3 frames then 2 frames and so forth. It creates an irregular pattern and looks odd.

    If one only uses higher framreates for slow motion then yes any framreate can be slowed down by a certain percentage to get 24. Even 30p can be slowed down to 24p. Heck even 25p can be slowed down to 24p. But conforming higher framerates to a lower frame rate for normal speed motion is where it gets problematic.

    I used to do conversions of 24p projects to 25p PAL by doing a small speed change. Altered the length of the projects slightly but it created a superior 100% perfect motion conversion. The alternative method of 24p to 25p is to just drop a frame every second. Kept the same length and speed but it obviously created a tiny hiccup every second. I much preferred the slight speed change method. I only bring this up because there is a speed change and then a conversion change. Conversion is much more difficult to convert perfectly. I also really wish PAL countries would have moved away from 25/50p. Its so difficult to work with. They could have easily just moved to 24/48 and the whole world would have been much better off.

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Originally posted by stoneinapond View Post

    I do think that they have larger interests in the audio/visual sphere and the world of entertainment, and to that end having some sort of visual capture devices fits into that paradigm. But it seems the S1H fills that need and is cheaper to produce than high end cine cameras.
    BTW, I am not sure if people know or remember this but the company then known as Matsushiita (with one I) used to own the Universal Studios (that's right, and not CBS). It was the big deal back in the early-mid 1990's. They punted half a decade later. Hollywood just wasn't meant for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • OnSet
    replied
    Originally posted by aram View Post
    ahalpert, I do not think I understand. 24 is 40% of 60, so speeding down to 24 from 60 needs no interpolation, unless we are talking about the 23.9 and 59 frame rates which are terrible. Am I right or am I missing something?
    Agreeing with ahalpert!

    A different way of thinking about it is that to get from 60 to 24 without combining frames you do so by alternately throwing away either one or two frames out of your sequence. So your used frames shot at 60 might be 1,3,6,8,11,13, etc... This produces a slightly uneven motion.
    The other way to do it was the old tv system of alternately combining fields (the 3:2 pulldown) - again producing an irregular cadence.
    Going from 120 -> 24 would mean using every fifth frame. So no uneven aspect to that cadence, simply frames 1,6,11,16,21,26, etc...
    Of course you're probably going to want to enable the motion blur feature in your postproduction system because of the shortened exposure time!

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by aram View Post
    ahalpert, I do not think I understand. 24 is 40% of 60, so speeding down to 24 from 60 needs no interpolation, unless we are talking about the 23.9 and 59 frame rates which are terrible. Am I right or am I missing something?
    Right, what I meant was that if you shoot something in 60fps and then want to play it back in real-time in a 24fps timeline, then you're forced to conform the 60fps framerate to 24 either by repeating and skipping frames or by interpolating frames. So, if you want to shoot in slow-motion but reserve the option to play back the footage at regular speed, then you're making a big compromise. 60fps can only play back at 40%, 80%, 120% while using only recorded frames playing at the correct times.

    Whereas if you shoot 120fps, you can play it back at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% without interpolating frames or playing any frames twice or doing anything to screw up your motion cadence. So, aside from the fact that your shutter speed will need to be at least as high as 1/120, you're not making any compromises for using the footage as slow-motion or regular speed in the edit

    Leave a comment:


  • Zim
    replied
    Originally posted by stoneinapond View Post

    Weird. Unless they are going to rename it?
    New camera new name. Maybe

    Leave a comment:


  • aram
    replied
    ahalpert, I do not think I understand. 24 is 40% of 60, so speeding down to 24 from 60 needs no interpolation, unless we are talking about the 23.9 and 59 frame rates which are terrible. Am I right or am I missing something?

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by Thomas Smet View Post
    the reality is most FF cameras can barely manage 60p right now and 120p is just not possible at all. Even for a few minutes.
    .
    It's coming. I recently shot a music at 120fps the whole way (except for the ultra wide angle shots, because the distortion is awful and you can't use in-camera distortion correction at 120 so I dropped to 60)

    The beauty is that you can fold 120 into 24 without having to interpolate frames. But you also have 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% slow motion available without frame interpolation. 60fps doesn't fold into 24.

    A7siii and fx3 can do unlimited 4k120. It should be even easier heat-wise in M43

    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    Originally posted by stoneinapond View Post

    I hear you. And my feeling, and it's just a feeling, is that the company has ceded the high end cine market to the likes of the Venice and Arri. And it seems the EVA has gone that way too.
    Eva and Varicam certainly look gone. And if the company exit one portion of the market - especially, a rapidly falling market - the rest is pretty much tying up the loose ends. I have mentioned this before too - at some point, the photo video industry will be a two horse race. And Panasonic will only be the reminder that they shoot horses. Don't they?

    Leave a comment:


  • stoneinapond
    replied
    Originally posted by DLD View Post
    ....but they have so many things cooking at once they don't need it for the purely financial reasons.
    What a delicious pun.

    I do think that they have larger interests in the audio/visual sphere and the world of entertainment, and to that end having some sort of visual capture devices fits into that paradigm. But it seems the S1H fills that need and is cheaper to produce than high end cine cameras.

    Leave a comment:


  • stoneinapond
    replied
    Originally posted by cyvideo View Post
    From an imaging point of view very little to raise the hopes of Panasonic camera users. A very short reference to the LUMIX 20th anniversary at around the 51-minute mark of a 54-minute press release video. Not even a vague reference to the Varicam/Eva camera futures. Is it the end of their cinema lineup? Where are they going I wonder?
    I hear you. And my feeling, and it's just a feeling, is that the company has ceded the high end cine market to the likes of the Venice and Arri. And it seems the EVA has gone that way too. Sad in many ways.

    My reason for asking about watching the presentation wasn't about the camera business per se. It was after all a CES presentation that tried to highlight the many sides of the company's business. The camera side was obviously a scattering of crumbs fto the hopeful. And I do understand that companies are interested in making money and therefore much of what was presented was self serving. But I was impressed with the tone of the presentation focusing on a global issue that affects us all. The idea that a company would calculate the carbon footprint of its worldwide consumers and strive (at least in words) to mitigate it gave me some hope, especially after the apparent failure of the world's political elite to do something substantial about an existential crisis. Whether it really does anything is another matter.

    (Hope this isn't considered political...)


    Leave a comment:


  • DLD
    replied
    I mentioned this before. Panasonic has about $70B of revenues annually. It's a huge company. The photo-video portion of their assets is peanuts compared to the overall enterprise. They can keep it or they can leave it. I'd say that having a solid camera lineup gives them some publicity in the consumer sector but they have so many things cooking at once they don't need it for the purely financial reasons. The photo-video lineup probably takes a small loss but gives their sales representatives one more reason to contact the various retailers across the globe. That alone may be worth it but would require the latest technological innovations. Or they might as well fold the tent. Being in similar circumstances, that's exactly what Samsung did and no one was wiser for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    A storm's brewing...Panasonic is realizing Canon and Sony have made them into nothing...left barely anything on the bone...this is the last straw...

    BH.jpg

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X