David Del Real
Well-known member
Yes, how soon?
GH4 GH4 V-log?
- Thread starter Kindredmachine
- Start date
Yes, how soon?
Yes!
edmundronald
Member
Yes, yes, that's exactly what everybody used to tell me about AF. But nowadays I use AF constantly - with a manual refocus sometimes - and l get fewer blurry pictures and less eyestrain. AF hasn't made me a better photographer, but it made me a more productive photographer. My experience with Raw in stills was similar - and I would expect that for video too, in normal non-extreme conditions, Raw will help one tune the shot in post. If the light is too dim, Raw won't help - that I agree with.
Edmund
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Thats not my point. My point is that video should always be shot with great care and skill. Technology should never replace skill. Most professional video shooters have done so without the use of RAW and they shoot extremely high quality material. RAW gives the ability to do more with the color of the video once it is shot but is by no means an excuse to be sloppy with how you shoot video. It is not meant as a shoot it and deal with it later sort of thing. I have shot with the RED camera and I still take care in how I shoot.
I understand you come from a photography background but just because the camera is the same doesn't mean you use the same mindset to shoot video. Video is difficult to shoot well and many photographers are starting to realize that. We have so much more to worry about when we shoot video as opposed to stills. It really is exponentially more complex. Auto focus is wonderful for shooting stills but not so much for shooting video because it will hunt a lot. Well at least a lot more than it should. Stills have to have perfect focus for a short moment of time. Video needs to have perfect focus and stay locked in focus for many seconds or even minutes. You just cannot think of autofocus the same for video with a DSLR as you do for stills. Very different ballgame here. I have a deep love for photography but honestly digital photographers today have it pretty darn easy.
My point isn't that RAW is not a nice tool to have and very welcome if we get it but that you should not bank on it or even depend on it to be an artist. Learn the craft first. Think of RAW as just a tool to help mold your vision and not a necessity that you have to have to get the job done. As soon as you become a slave to the technology forever will it consume your soul.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Raw is a nice option but even on relatively big budget commercials can easily become too expensive so most are shot on ProRes or similar codecs.
And when shooting stills with an autofocus capable lens it is often preferable to use that function for a couple reasons. First many AF lenses lack manual focusing precision (i.e. Canon 50mm f/1.4), but more importantly most dSLR's stock focusing screens are optimized for brightness & not manual focus. One way around this is to swap them out for Ground Glass focusing screens but then the image will appear significantly darker.
And when shooting stills with an autofocus capable lens it is often preferable to use that function for a couple reasons. First many AF lenses lack manual focusing precision (i.e. Canon 50mm f/1.4), but more importantly most dSLR's stock focusing screens are optimized for brightness & not manual focus. One way around this is to swap them out for Ground Glass focusing screens but then the image will appear significantly darker.
dustylense
Veteran
Well said.
Here is how I see RAW. I shoot RAW stills because I can and the color bit advantage and such. But lot's of people shoot RAW because they seem to have forgotten how to shoot and light for Jpeg. Meaning, it's become a crutch for people that really don't understand photography be it stills or motion. These are the people that would fail at photography if we were still using film. They might have an eye, but they would not understand color, filtration, exposure, push and pull technique. All of the things you had to do "in camera" and "on site" while shooting. For some today, RAW is shoot the frame and we can apply all sorts of adjustments later on the computer. Never mind white balance, exposure, tint, filtration, and process. They would have never survived the film days.
So when a young gun says, "The camera can't shoot RAW so I won't use it", Maybe you should spend some time shooting in a Jpeg or TIFF (or for motion, Prores) format and hone your skills in.
Yes, I shoot RAW stills. I have a library of well over 200,000 captures. I've calibrated by camera in ACR and they all take a 1 button click preset to process. Because the rest of the image is lit, shot, exposed, with a film type mentality.
And going further, I get a chuckle out of people that "require" 14+ stops of DR. Try shooting some slide film where you had at best 6 or 8 stops DR.
Don't let these things get in the way of the process. Good light, good lighting, onsite judgement of process will forever trump RAW. Learn to control your image behind the camera, not in front of your computer screen.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I can't remember who, but some old timer who did cinematography in the 50's-70's said 'You really had to work to even get an image onto the film in those days. Now any idiot could do it'. I also was doing some research on 3 strip technicolor, and the first implementations of it had an ASA of 5. You read that right. 5! Actors often had their eyesight permanently damaged from working in front of those arc lights they had to use. And yet many of the best films ever made were made with these 'compromised 'tools.
Last edited:
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Sometimes it is the compromised tools that lead to the best creativity.
edmundronald
Member
Look, maybe I've been misinterpreted. I got a GH4, it works, my rushes look ok etc. But nowadays products are always released as a sort of V 0.8 and then firmware "upgrades" prolong the product lifetime. So the FS7 or was it the pxw-x70 or the F5, I forget, anyway one of these cameras was delivered without and then got 4K as an upgrade. Now people are talking about a midlife upgrade for the GH4, and I say "hey guys, my most desired features would be Raw, and an AF-S that doesn't hunt so visibly". But today, I shoot video without AF-S, and without Raw, and I'm not complaining about the result - I know how to set the focus with the touch screen, and I know how to expose with the histogram. But I'd be glad if those added features were there as a safety net. Sometimes my white balance gets the wrong part of the scene right, or exposure is off by half a stop, and in documentary you don't reshoot. Other stuff eg like 200fps is not something *I* would really be using, ever. Now I do try and make the point that I'm asking less forcefully than someone with a $10K or something F5 who now demands and expects 4K when he bought a 1080p camera.
Edmund
Edmund
Rolf Silber
Veteran
I know of no tool in film making that is not "compromised" in one way or the other. And sometimes the compromise may start where a user just does or does not "like" the handling of a tool - a seemingly subjective factor which becomes an objective one once it interferes with his work. For good or bad. But if you have to shoot you shoot with anything you can get your hands on - given it takes images. The prices for sub-pro cameras that still can give us amazing at times absolutely pro results are so low by now that complaining becomes a bit cheap. As a film student we all wanted to immediately shoot with the then brand new ARRI 16SR.... instead they gave us a hand-crank, wooden-body Ernemann from 1913 to shoot our first short flicks.... gives some perspective, so to say.... ;-)
Polaroid22
Well-known member
Hey,
Thats a great quote. However in that time the gear they used was top of the line at that time. Sure we could make a film look as good as a film in the 50's with cheap gear now, but today, if you give Roger Deakins a canon t2i and some mediocre cinematographer a Arri Allexa even Roger could not make it look that good as that mediocre guy with a Alexa. On the other hand if you give Roger Deakins a t2i and some mediocre cinematographer as well a t2i, it would look completely different and it would look that rogers film was shot with a much more expensive camera.
So most of us are trying pursue a career in films that actually hit cinema's and look just as good, we cannot have cheap tools that almost equal those big productions gear in quality.
Simon Shasha
Well-known member
Where on Earth is this firmware update...
Batutta
Major Contributor
Just pretend it never will until it does or doesn't show up.
Batutta
Major Contributor
True, but keep in mind, Roger Deakins became Roger Deakins by shooting 16mm documentaries for years and years, learning how to wring the most from very little. Once he had real budgets and better equipment he knew how to get the most out of it, and even still, his lighting style is very simple compared to many DP's, often using single bounced lights (albeit 18k's) and muslins cloth taped to walls and floors as bounce.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Deakins keys with small lights too.
Simon Shasha
Well-known member
Given that we're talking about the necessity or RAW, and so forth, and that Roger Deakins has been mentioned - here's a little fun-fact: I recently saw an interview with Roger Deakins in which he said that when he shot "In Time", the Alexa was still in beta-stage and RAW hadn't been activated by ARRI yet - and so he shot "In Time" in 1080P ProRes 10-bit (ARRI Log C).
edmundronald
Member
Simon,
I said the *usefulness* of Raw, not the necessity.
And, I bought some Rohmer DVDs, the first stuff done on the cheap in BW with an amateur camera with auto-iris is much more impressive than the full-color stuff with gibs and real cameras a few later. Partly because the first stuff is cut to the bone, he clearly had no money for film
So, I'm not going to defend the point of view that more able equipment means better results.BTW, I like your live event work. Very nice.
Bern, thanx for posting that set image.
Edmund
Batutta
Major Contributor
I saw a panel discussion with the Coens who were asked the difference between Barry Sonnenfeld and Roger Deakins, and they said they were different in every conceivable way. Barry used direct light and a million different fixtures and the set became a thicket of flags and c-stands. Actors had to hit their marks precisely or they'd lose light and just getting him to pan the camera was a nightmare. Roger uses a lot of bounced light and likes a more flexible, open set....I guess we're getting far afield of the discussion....I sure hope this V-LOG comes but I'm not counting on it.
Simon Shasha
Well-known member
Simon,
I said the *usefulness* of Raw, not the necessity.
And, I bought some Rohmer DVDs, the first stuff done on the cheap in BW with an amateur camera with auto-iris is much more impressive than the full-color stuff with gibs and real cameras a few later. Partly because the first stuff is cut to the bone, he clearly had no money for film
BTW, I like your live event work. Very nice.
Bern, thanx for posting that set image.
Edmund
Hey Edmund,
I actually hadn't read through the thread, haha. I just saw people talking about RAW, ProRes, Log profiles, Deakins, and just thought I'd mention an interesting fact about his film "In Time" that I came across the other day while watching him being interviewed
RAW's awesome. I'm making the move towards it (for video, been using it forever with photography) now thanks to Premiere CC's ability to cut RAW as if it were a regular compressed AVI/MOV/etc.
Cool little article and simple workflow here: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/12/super-simple-workflow-editing-grading-bmpc-raw-footage-premiere-pro
Also, thanks for the kind words and compliments, much appreciated
As for the main topic discussion - God knows where this V-Log update is.
This whole NDA secrecy thing is kind of whack. For those that know something, just create a new account using a pseudonym and throw us a bone...
I dunno. I think I'm about to sell my A7s and GH4. I like both cameras, but next to my BMPCC, I can't stand them to be honest. Blackmagic's colour-science is just on another level. If Blackmagic makes a "Pocket Mark II", with the same sensor but with the added ability to shoot at higher-frame-rates (I'd be happy with 48/50FPS), then Panasonic can keep the firmware and all this corny secrecy and hesitation. Ha.