Theatre of noise - Seite 2

Homepage  Xml - Vorschau mit Bildern

Building a film look PowerGrade
In this article I will develop a Film Look PowerGrade for Resolve, which you can download and freely use on your own projects. This is the last of four articles. In the first I conducted a practical test of Lumix S5 footage and stabilisation. The second article walked through an ACES workflow for DaVinci Resolve. The third article explained the film look and how to set up your Lumix S camera to shoot optimal footage.  Check out the video below, which compares the plain grading in my original installment with the new Film Look. Then read on for details. Managing multiple clips Before we get to the grade, I need to mention this fantastic way to manage clips in Resolve. While in the Color Workspace, right-click one or more video clips. You can assign these to a new or existing colour group, as shown below. How does this help? Check out the tiny almost-hidden pulldown menu in the node tree panel. Each of these four options reveals a different part of the workflow. We can add nodes to the entire group Pre-Clip, or add nodes to this specific clip only, or add nodes to the entire group Post-Clip. The flow proceeds from one workspace to the next. We can also add nodes to the entire Timeline. This gives us an enormous amount of control! The power! The power! Ahem. As you can see, I use the PowerGrade in the Group Post-Clip panel. This way I can "set and forget" this look, before going back to correcting exposure on individual clips as needed. Node by node explanation This workflow assumes that you are using the ACES project settings as previously described. This frees us from needing to transform footage, which is why we don't have CSTs in this chain. (Actually there are hidden CSTs, as we shall see, to enable access to a special effect.)There are six nodes in a serial chain pictured above. This is a fairly minimal node tree, which you can extend as required. For example, if you need noise reduction, add this to the beginning of the chain.  Node 1 is where we can pull back the highlights and the shadows, adjust our overall gamma, and otherwise change exposure. Though we are working in a Cineon-like gamma, a few adjustments can help this look more like the film we desire.  The second node uses the built-in Gaussian Blur effect to remove that digital sharpness. Here the strength is set to around 0.14 but judge this amount by eye. It will depend on the resolution and other characteristics of your footage.  Halation is a glow around high-luminance, high-contrast areas of the image, for example trees against a bright sky. With this effect, the light seems to leak out of its normal boundaries. With film stock this is associated with a red tint. Though halation is technically a defect of the photochemical process, it has become associated with the look of film. Here I use the built-in Halation effect with threshold at 0.19. There are many other properties to experiment with here. Or you might not want this effect at all.  The fourth node uses the Glow effect. This has the Shine Threshold set to zero and the Composite type changed to "softlight". In the Qualifier panel both Hue and Saturation are turned off. The luminance channel has been modified to not effect bright areas (The High boundary is set to 65 and H.Soft to 30). The sixth node uses the Film Grain effect with several parameters changed to get a subtle effect. In fact, I used stronger settings than these in the demo video.  Applying the LUT Now we can address the fifth node. This is actually a composite of three nodes required to apply the look of Kodak 2383 print film. This famed chemical recipe produces neutral highlights, saturated colours, and rich blacks that many associate with projected film. You can read about it on Kodak's own page.  Resolve comes with a built-in LUT for Kodak 2383 (in fact three, for different white points). But in order for this to work properly, we must be in the correct colour space. First we use the Color Space Transform (CST) effect to map from ACES gamut and ACEScct gamma (as defined in our project settings) to Rec.709 gamut and Cineone Film Log gamma. Now we can apply the Resolve Film Look LUT that we prefer. You can either choose this from the context menu of a node (as pictured above) or drag it from the LUT panel to that node.  The third node provides a CST back to the ACES/ ACEScct space.  Because I find the LUT a bit strong in its default implementation, I use the Key panel to dial this down to half. This interface is one of the middle panels. I've ignored everything here except the Key Output, which is set to 0.5. That's the grade finished! Stills and PowerGrades Resolve uses some peculiar terminology when referring to grades. To proceed, open the Gallery panel and also toggle open Still Albums using the little window icon. It should look like the following. To save all the nodes used on a given clip, right-click on the viewer and choose "Grab Still". Of course this is not a still at all, since the grade applies to motion video. It's simply a snapshot of your grade. By default this is placed in the Stills album, but you can move this to the PowerGrade album. This allows you to use this particular Still between projects. Again, there's nothing powerful about a PowerGrade, it's just a daft name for a preset.  To share this PowerGrade with you, I right-clicked on the thumbnail and chose "Export". Resolve created two files in the target folder, with extensions .DRX and .DPX. Both files are required. You can now download this PowerGrade as a ZIP archive. Unzip this somewhere convenient. To use the grade on your project, simply drag the .DRX file into the Gallery. Then you can apply it to footage as you wish.  In conclusion When first starting out with colour grading, it's convenient to simply apply a LUT and say you've created your own look. But there's a lot more to emulating film than that simple process. A PowerGrade allows much greater control over your pipeline, with every parameter ready for you to change as required. The process I've presented here is based on best practices of colourists such as Jake Pierrelee and Juan Melara, both of whom share tutorials online. I have simplified what is usually a much more involved process, since for me this is a good starting point.

The film look and Lumix S cameras
This is the third of four tutorials on optimising DaVinci Resolve for Panasonic Lumix footage. In the first article I conducted a practical test of Lumix S5 footage and stabilisation. The second article walked through an ACES workflow for DaVinci Resolve. This post will provide specific camera settings for you to use. The final article develops a Film Look PowerGrade that you can use in your Resolve projects. We begin by asking what makes the film look in the first place. What is the film look? Back in analogue days, film-makers struggled to get clarity and dynamics into their footage, with deep depth of field being a signature of an exceptional cinematographer. Now that digital perfection is at our fingertips, it's common for film-makers to introduce errors, glitches, and other artifacts of optical film.  Thin depth of field is the rage. Irony aside, there is something appealing about a more organic aesthetic, since digital video can be too sharp, harsh, and revealing. There are several characteristics of film that we can mimic in digital recordings. First, the aspect ratio. The original film ratio of horizontal to vertical lengths was 4:3. But when television standardised on the same ratio, feature movies increasingly promoted a widescreen look. This began in 1953 with a trio of films from different studios, the most famous of which is Paramount's Shane (dir. George Stevens). Today it's become trendy to use anamorphic lenses even on domestic cameras.  Second, the frame rate. While sports footage can benefit from rates at 60 frames per second, the film standard of 24 fps remains ideal for narrative and other work. By setting the shutter angle at 180 degrees, the blur between each frame has an appealing look similar to optical film. Third, the exposure curve. The luminance of a digital video signal is normally mapped linearly from pure black to pure white, which is not at all how optical film works. One of the appealing characteristics of film is the soft roll-off of highlights, avoiding those horrid burnt-out white areas. Similarly the curve in the shadows has a "toe" that preserves detail. (Though film doesn't treat the darker regions as well as digital can.) We get a film look by adopting a logarithmic curve that preserves more usable exposure information. This is especially important if we are trying to cram all that exposure information into only 10 bits per colour channel. In camera, log footage is low contrast and desaturated. But it offers much latitude in post-processing. (You can read Panasonic's own explanation.) Setting up your Lumix camera Using the Lumix S5, we can easily meet these criteria. To set up your camera, ensure the PASM dial is set to the "video M" setting. Enter the menu and choose the first icon (video camera). In the second column, also choose the first icon (Image Quality 1). You will want to change "Exposure Mode" to "M" so we can control our exposure parameters explicitly.  Now, change the second setting, "Photo Style" to "V-Log" in order to get Panasonic's version of the log exposure curve. This is also called Varicam log or some variation. It also changes the colour space to V-Gamut, though this is not explicitly acknowledged. The third setting on this page is "SS/Gain Operation". Change this to "ANGLE/ISO" so that the shutter readout will be in angles and not fractions of a second.  Now move to the third icon in the second column, "Image Format 1". Three settings need changing, but these are not provided in a logical order. First go to "Rec. File Format" and choose MOV, as this container gives you more options. Second, choose "Switch NTSC/PAL" and choose "NTSC". This determines the available frame rates. Finally you can choose "Rec Quality" and set this to the highest possible quality at 24fps. This should be the fourth selection, labelled "C4K | 24p | 422/10-L". C4K is what Panasonic calls DCI 4K, a frame 4096 by 2160 pixels. This gives us a widescreen 17:9 ratio. The frame rate is actually 23.98 fps due to drop frame shenanigans. This setting gives us 10-bit colour (4:2:2) using LongGOP compression. This is easy for software to handle, since the data rate is "only" 150 Mbps. At least on my computer there's no need for proxies in Resolve. But if you are using a laptop, you might have a different experience!Here's a summary of the menu settings: VIDEO > Image Quality 1 > Exposure Mode = MVIDEO > Image Quality 1 > Photo Style = V-LogVIDEO > Image Quality 1 > SS/Gain Operation = ANGLE/ISOVIDEO > Image Format 1> Rec. File Format = MOVVIDEO > Image Format 1> Switch NTSC/PAL = NTSCVIDEO > Image Format 1> Rec Quality = [C4K | 24p | 422/10-L] Besides these settings, I ensure that the front dial will control aperture. Though not explicitly stated in the menus, this assigns shutter angle to the back dial. Unfortunately there is no way to prevent this. I don't want shutter angle on any dial, since I would never wish to change it during a shoot. Mixing different visual flows is only needed if slow motion or some other special effect is required, in which case the entire recording mode and frame rate is changing anyway. I consider this a significant deficiency of the Lumix S interface. I shouldn't be forced to have shutter angle on a dial! It's too easy to mistakenly touch and move this control.  While it is possible to assign a button to lock the dials, this locks both front and back. There is no way to simply lock the rear dial. OK, our camera is set up. We can now shoot footage similar to that in my demo videos. In the next article I will explain how to further the film look through colour grading. 

ACES workflow in DaVinci Resolve
This article explains how to set up an industry-standard ACES workflow in Resolve. This removes the need for colour space transforms (CSTs) and look-up tables (LUTs) while ensuring consistent colour processing from beginning to end. There is really no need to use any other workflow. The ACES model The advent of digital recording gifted us a huge variety of cameras, displays, and other equipment. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (those folk who give out the Oscars) began a project to standardise this confusing mess... way back in 2004. Today the Academy Color Encoding System (ACES) is all you need to know for an easy post-production workflow. ACES uses an RGB color model with a huge colour space and over 30 stops of exposure. This model can represent visual perception in its entirety. This image data is "scene-referred", which means that the data refers to the lighting and colours as they actually existed in front of the camera. To do this, an idealised "standard camera" is referenced. When you bring footage into an ACES workflow, the profile of the camera you used is mapped onto this reference. This mapping can happen automatically if the camera footage is tagged appropriately.  In fact, ACES offers several different colour spaces. ACEScc applies a Cineon-style log encoding, which helps colour wheels and other controls respond to footage in a "film-like" way. This makes experienced operators comfortable, but I wouldn't know, having never edited film. ACEScct goes further by adding a roll-off at the toe of the image to improve shadows. This colour space is nonetheless larger than the ITU Rec.2020 colour space, so we lose nothing by using this. Setting up ACES in ResolveThe setup is easy once you know how, though I had to read several chapters in the enormous Resolve manual to figure this out. But that's why you are reading this article... to benefit from my investment and save your own time.When starting a new project, go to the "Project Settings" and click the "Color Management" tab. Set up your "Color Space & Transforms" as follows. We use the ACEScct colour science and the latest version 1.3. The Input Transform should be chosen to match the footage you most often expect. For a Panasonic Lumix camera, set this to "Panasonic Varicam VLog VGamut". For a Blackmagic camera, choose "Blackmagic Design Film Gen 5", assuming you shot with the "Film" profile in camera.  Since I am producing output for screen, I choose "sRGB" for the output transform. If instead you are producing output for standard broadcast, choose "Rec.709". For digital cinema choose a version of P3 as specified by your distributor. Now we can specify the space we'll be using as an intermediate between input and output, which is to say the space in which our processing takes place. Confusingly, there is no "ACEScct" so instead choose "ACEScc". (The terminology is not always consistent in different places in Resolve. This should be fixed.) That's all you need to change in the settings. But there is one check you should make when ingesting footage. In the Media workspace right-click on a clip and confirm the "ACES Input Transform". This should be automatically identified as Panasonic Varicam. But if not, you can change the transform manually.  And that is all! GradingWhen colour grading, you have nothing to do! There is no need for CSTs or LUTs. The ACES workflow automatically transforms your clip from the input space to our intermediary work space, and then to the output space for delivery. Simple! If you do want to use a LUT for aesthetic reasons, be sure to note what colour space that LUT expects, since all tables are locked to one space. The LUTs supplied with DaVinci are made for Rec.709. So now you need three serial nodes. On the first node, apply a CST to transform from ACES to Rec.709. The second node applies your LUT. The third node transforms back from Rec.709 to ACES. About gamut and gamma It's important to realise that for every transform, there are actually two characteristics that are being mapped. The first is gamut, the range of colour available in the colour space. The second is the gamma, which specifies a luminance (brightness) curve. The broadcast standard Rec. 709 has a gamma of 2.4, which specifies a logarithmic curve that allows for greater resolution in the most important range. To accommodate this, the midpoint of the luminance curve is shifted to 18% gray. But computers with sRGB colour space have a gamma of 2.2, which was design for the brighter viewing conditions of an office space. Output designed for one gamma will not look the same on a device set to a different gamma. Alternative workflows ACES is not the only possible workflow system. Blackmagic offer their own methods. The first of these was "DaVinci YRGB" which is "Display Referred". This means that accuracy can only be judged using a calibrated display; Resolve has no absolute knowledge of the colour. This mode requires that you manage all transforms from one colour space to another manually. The second system is "DaVinci YRGB Color Managed" which, like ACES, is "Scene Referred" and requires matching ingested media to a known colour profile, after which Resolve manages the workflow. I've had difficulties ensuring consistency using this method. While this is likely due to user error, the ACES method presented no such impediments. Thanks to CharlesH on the L-mount Forum for encouraging me in this direction.

Sample video from the Lumix S5
With the summer weather upon us, I took out my Lumix S5 to shoot some random video, in order to get a feel for the footage, how it takes a grade, etc. This ended up also being a good test of the built-in stabilisation. Read on for some practical information. This is the first of four tutorials on optimising DaVinci Resolve for Panasonic Lumix footage. In the second article I describe how to set up an industry-standard ACES workflow in Resolve. The third post explains the film look and provides specific settings for Lumix cameras. The final article develops a Film Look PowerGrade that you can use in your Resolve projects. One short trip to the canal turned into quite an extensive tutorial series! First, a link to the video, which you might wish to watch first. I will then add details in this article.  I shot using the V-Log Photo Style in the highest resolution possible on the camera that preserves 10-bit colour. This is as follows: resolution: DCI 4K (which Panasonic calls C4K), 4096 x 2160frame rate: 23.98 fpscolour: 4:2:2 10-bitvideo format: LongGOP compression in MOV containerapproximate bit rate: 150 Mbps The gain was the lowest possible in V-Log, ISO 320. The camera was on continuous auto-focus using all points (224-Area) mode. All clips are hand-held using the built-in body stabilisation (IBIS) but without using the additional modes available for video. I've read that these options can introduce artifacts, so didn't rush to try them. The lens is the standard kit zoom, 20-60mm. I shot at f/8 and f/11. In order to control exposure I used an SLR Magic variable ND filter. To protect the large front I mounted a classic old Contax Metal Hood #2. Though this is short, it does cause vignetting if the focal length is wider than 24mm. But I am happy enough with that restriction. Please note that the paid Resolve Studio version is required to edit this footage, since the free version of the software is restricted to 8-bit colour. The editing experience was very smooth. Though I didn't have so-called "RAW" or 12-bit footage, the 10-bit colour range proved enough for this grading, enough even for more extreme manipulations (which you can read about in my next article). As you can see from the video, stabilisation is quite amazing on the Lumix S5 and tightens up wonderfully with some modest settings in post-production. For my casual work I would never need a gimbal, which suits my minimal approach. I trust that this video demonstrates how easy it is to get decent footage. If you need an extra stop or two of light, the kit lens will prove restrictive. But it gives up nothing on image quality, as various online tests and thousands of photos have proven.There are plenty of fashion videos showing off how good the Lumix cameras are in the hands of professionals. This video demonstrates what an amateur can do with no planning or forethought. 

Lumix S5 video noise comparison
I recently performed a rough-and-ready test of the noise performance of video shot on the Lumix S5. My aim was to compare the Natural and V-Log profiles at four different ISO settings in very low light. This last condition must be emphasised since the harsh conditions are not typical of those where you might otherwise shoot V-Log.  Parameters: still life shot on a tripod with the Lumix S 35/1.8 lens constant artificial light in my kitchen used ISO 4000, 8000, 16000, 32000 shutter angle of 180 degrees, so only aperture changed resolution of DCI 4K in 10-bit colour I chose ISO 4000 since this is the higher base ISO for V-Log. The camera has effectively no noise below this point, so there was little need to test. The goal was to test noise rather than colour balance or other factors. Watch the video for the actual footage, but I will summarise my conclusions here: Natural has distinctly less noise at high ISOs than V-Log. This might have been partially alleviated by over-exposing the V-Log footage in camera. But in situations where I also have bright light sources (e.g. concerts) this would be a bad solution.  The Natural profile is far easier to technical grade, basically requiring no work at all, unless one needs to white balance. You should shoot your own test footage for the shots you need to optimise. The internet tends to hype V-Log with the belief it magically leads to better footage. But this doesn't apply to all situations, and doesn't pertain to noise performance in extreme situations like the low light regime I used. Film sets are supposed to be appropriately lit for good exposure, and V-Log is designed with that in mind.There are certainly many scenarios where you might wish to use V-Log:1. When the environment has very high dynamic range that won't be captured in Natural. 2. If you need to match footage from other cameras. 3. If you know how to work with technical grades. My later video series shows exactly how you can optimise the Lumix series for excellent V-log footage. Find those articles by starting with the landing page. 

Why I'm loving the Lumix S5
It's the photos. Here is a shot SOOC (straight out of camera) which for me means only the slightest development in Affinity Photo. The detail, colours, and rendering are superb. Trees. 20-60mm kit lens at 20mm. Pink ishka. 85mm at f/2. SOOC. Fixer-upper. Pentax FA 43mm Limited at something like f/4. Processed. And many more to come!

Lumix S ergonomics and menu, oh dear
I need to rant about the Lumix S5 interface. As a hybrid photography/video camera, this inherits all the worst features from photo cameras, which are stuck in the1993 era of nested menus and cryptic labels. This system is confusing to use and lacks essential features.Before commenting on the menus, I will briefly examine the physical interface, since both are entwined.I will end with a list of recommendations that I trust Panasonic will read. The ideal copyNo doubt I am spoiled by Blackmagic and their elegant touchscreen approach. All cinematography settings you need to access while shooting are immediately accessible with one touch. A swipe takes you to a slate screen, a feature not even available with Lumix. Another swipe takes you into the configuration settings. It's all so easy. Certainly the BMPCC4K has an advantage in that it doesn't need to deal with a plethora of photography-oriented features. But the design paradigm could readily be extended to these needs. I do hope that Panasonic will consider completely revamping their archaic menu interface. In the meantime, I will make suggestions that can be accommodated within the current paradigm.Note: I do realise that other camera manufacturers have equally poor menu systems. That's no excuse for not improving! Physical interface The main problem with the physical ergonomics is that there are too many controls for the surface area. I counted 24, including the four directions of the rosette. Twenty-four controls! That results in cognitive overload. The proximity of buttons makes accidental changes likely, especially in dim light. Tiny position differences make it difficult to train muscle memory. The larger S1 bodies might be OK with 24 controls, but not the S5 models. One example: the White Balance, ISO, and Exposure Compensation buttons are rather too close together. Though the middle button has a small bump that your finger can feel, this doesn't help when gloved. The front dial is placed around the shutter button rather than being set forward on the housing, where it would be easier to use definitively and without error. The rear dial has a very different feeling the front dial, with distinct texture and movement resistance. I believe they should feel the same. But at least it's placed conveniently for the thumb. I am not sure why we need the left dial, which is dedicated to timer and multiple exposure features. Why not add these to the menu? The back of the camera again has a plethora of dials and buttons. The biggest problem is that the AF ON, unlabelled joystick, and Q buttons are too close together. If we really need a joystick in addition to the large control dial, it should be more prominent and easier to find when one's eye is to the viewfinder.I won't show the front of the camera, but amazingly it has two more buttons! Q menu limitations The Q Menu is potentially a nice feature, since it elevates 12 settings of your choice from the depths of the menu system to a physical button on the back of the camera. But several settings I most wanted to use are not available. You cannot assign aperture and shutter speed/angle to the Q menu. But you can access ISO and exposure compensation... two setting that already have dedicated buttons! You cannot assign screen brightness, something that would be very helpful when stepping from a dark interior to a sunny exterior. The confusing menu system The menu itself is a hierarchical maze of different features, some being operational settings you might wish to change regularly, others being configuration settings you'd rarely need to see. Some have icons; some have confusing text labels. There are obvious ways to improve this poor design. First, hardware and configuration settings that are rarely needed should be partitioned from settings that control commonly needed operational functions. Divide these features into two different menu systems. Next, split the settings clearly into operational categories (photo or video) by making the context sensitive to the position of the mode dial. Immediately this would reduce complexity. Customising dials is limited and confusing In photo modes, you can customise the front and rear dials to control different exposure factors. You can also change the dial directions, so that reducing exposure (for example) can correspond to a turn to the left. But the system for doing this is inexplicably cumbersome. In the menu "GEAR > Operation > Dial Set" are several submenus. "Assign Dial" (see below) lets you choose between five presets that allocate the dials across the PASM modes. But what if you wish to set one of the dials to control exposure compensation? That is determined in a different submenu, "Exposure Comp". I mostly use aperture-priority. So what I do is choose SET 2 from "Assign Dial". Now the front dial is aperture and the back dial does nothing. Then I choose the back dial in "Exposure Comp". Bingo, I have what I want, after navigating a menu system designed by some evil elf. But wait. There is no way to assign either dial to control ISO. Sure, there's a dedicated ISO button, but what if I prefer different ergonomics? Isn't that what dial customisation is all about? Then there's the mysterious setting "Dial Operation Switch Setup". Let me explain, since the manual doesn't. This submenu allows you to assign the front and rear dials to ISO, Exposure Compensation, or many other items. Yippee! A solution to the previous problem. But no, wait, this setting seems to have no effect. There's a trick: this function is only active while you hold down some other button that you've previously defined for this task. To do this, go to "GEAR > Operation > Fn Button Set", choose the button you wish to assign, and select "2 > DIAL > Dial Operation Switch". In practice this functionality is almost useless, since there is no button anywhere on the camera that you can hold down while also manipulating both the front and rear dials. This entire dial system should be scrapped. All we need is a submenu for selecting the front dial function. And a submenu for the back dial. With all possible operations provided. That's a more flexible and simpler arrangement. No dial settings in video The title says it all. You can configure dials for photography, but not when shooting video. The front dial will always control aperture and the back dial will always control the shutter. This introduces cognitive dissonance if you are moving from a photo mode where you have different dial assignments. Poor shutter angle implementation Thankfully the Lumix S cameras allow you to set shutter angle instead of shutter speed. This is ideal for video, because shutter angle is independent of frame rate. For most purposes you can set a shutter angle to 180 degrees and then forget about it. To ensure you are using shutter angle, go to the menu "CAMERA > Image Quality 1 > SS/Gain Operation" and choose "ANGLE/ISO". This feature was added to the S5 in firmware 2.0 and is still rough around the edges. The big problem is how this ability combines with the previous complaint, the lack of dial customisation. No matter what you do, the back dial will always change the shutter angle. Even though while shooting you never need to change the shutter angle! It's a "set and forget" setting. Panasonic provides a feature that might help us here, the ability to lock out certain physical controls. If we can lock the rear dial we can prevent accidental changes of the shutter angle in the middle of our production. The menu "GEAR > Operation > Operation Lock Setup" contains five categories of controls that can be locked: cursor, joystick, touch screen, dial, and Disp. Button.  But wait... there is no way to lock just one dial while allowing the other to operate! OK, let's think this through. If the dials are locked, why not access aperture somewhere else on the interface? Say, the Q Menu. Oh wait, I've already described how this is impossible. Neither can you assign any of the function buttons to aperture. Now I am really missing that simple Blackmagic Iris button! The only solution I've found is to use the touch screen to change Aperture. Press "Disp" until the current settings are displayed. Tap the screen to change aperture. This is far from immediate but does function with the dials locked. A better solution is to use a lens with an aperture dial, but that's a feature Panasonic left off their Lumix S line of lenses. A pity. C settings and lack of customisation The Custom settings on the mode dial provide three slots (C1, C2, C3) where entire configuration sets can be stored for recall. You can even name these, which is handy. The first setting I wished to save was a configuration dedicated to the use of adapted manual lenses. I started in M mode on the dial and set manual focus, function buttons, Q menu, configuration settings, shooting settings, dials, etc. Then I saved all of this to C1. This custom can now be easily recalled, independent of the M dial setting. Now I wanted to have an identical setting saved to C2 that would be different only in being aperture-priority. So I saved the current set to that slot and went looking for how to change the mode to aperture. Well, you can't! To add salt to the wound, you can easily do this in a video mode. For video, the very first menu setting is "Exposure Mode", allowing you to choose one of PASM. But this setting is missing in the photo modes. Update: Thanh Pham has kindly provided a solution. Go to the A (or other) mode using the top dial. Load in a custom setting here: "SPANNER > GEAR > Load Custom Mode". This will overwrite all the current settings with those in the custom slot, as previously defined. But the mode will still be A. Then save this as a new custom setting. Helpful hint Deep in the menu there's an obscure setting that couples your photo to your video settings. Go to "GEAR > Image Quality > CreativeVideo Combined Set" and change each of the submenus to the video icon. This allows photo and video settings to be set differently. Since it doesn't prevent you from setting these modes to the same choices, there's no downside. Why this exists in the first place is a mystery to me. And apparently to many others, judging by the number of confused Lumix users online.  Please Panasonic In summary, these are my recommendations. 1. Customisation1a. Improve dial function customisation. We should simply select a dial, then choose the function to assign (shutter, aperture, ISO, exposure comp, etc.). Remove the confusing interactions between different settings.1b. Allow customisation of dials in video as well as still modes.1c. Allow us to assign locks individually for front and back dials.2. Q menu2a. Allow us to add aperture, shutter speed/angle, and screen brightness to the Q Menu.2b. Allow us to add shooting modes to the Q Menu: Multiple Exposure, Live View Composite, High Resolution, Live View Composite, Self-Timer, and Time Lapse. 3. Menu3a. Simplify the menu by moving hardware and configuration settings that are rarely needed to a different menu entirely. (This can default to a long press of the menu button.)3b. Simplify the remaining menu items by making the items context sensitive (photo vs. video, record vs. playback). 3c. Improve cryptic labels and document each function properly in the manual.4. Other4a. Remove the "CreativeVideo Combined Set" feature and simply decouple photo and video settings.4b. Add Exposure Mode to the stills menu. This should be greyed out if the PASM dial has a mode selected. But it would be useful in the Custom modes.Updates13 March 2024 rewrite for clarity with recommendations reordered. 15 May 2023 solution added, plus clarifications. 

Low light photography and a rebuttal to a strange article
The other day I stumbled upon a strange article entitled "Micro Four Thirds cameras are better at Low Light" by Mark Wieczorek. And since the Medium comment system makes coherent responses impossible, I decided to post a response here. This allows me a longer and more thoughtful response.  I will also present some test images, so read on for that. The rebuttal We can begin with empirical evidence. Cameras with larger sensors have demonstrably better low light capabilities, all else being equal. Millions of photos by tens of thousands of photographers attest to this. If you are going to call this a "myth", you'd better have compelling evidence! But in order to justify that full-frame cameras work better in bright light, Wieczorek writes: "The larger photosites of Full Frame cameras allows them to gather more photons. When do you need to gather more photons? During the day when there are more photons to gather." The logic here is strange indeed. When there is plenty of light, there is no difficulty in gathering that light and forming a decent image. Any sensor will do, even the tiny one in your phone. But the technological challenge begins when there is less light. "Having larger photosites allows the camera to operate at a lower base ISO. Having a lower base ISO makes them better for bright light situations." While this may be true, it says nothing about low light situations, which is what the article is about (if we believe its title). Besides, base ISO does not correspond to sensor size. In the default mode, my Lumix S5 also has a base ISO of 100. So at best this statement is a non sequitur. Having larger photosites means that each site on the sensor gathers more light, but this has no direct correspondence with the ISO you are using. ISO concerns how much gain is required to get to the desired exposure level. The base ISO is an engineering decision that cannot be compared across cameras. It is wrong to attach further significance to these numbers.  When changing ISO, what matters to photographers is a) how much noise is introduced into the image and b) how much usage dynamic range is available. Below I will test the first property. To quantify light gathering, we need to compare the sensor area to the number of photosites. This allows a calculation of the pixel area for each. My full-frame camera (Lumix DC-S5) has a sensor area of 847.28 mm² in which there are 24.2 Megapixels. The pixel area is hence 34.93 µm². My MFT camera (PEN E-P5) has sensor area 224.90 mm² and 16.10 Megapixels for a pixel area of 13.99 µm². So each site on the FF camera is gathering 50% more light. Other cameras will be different, as manufacturers trade off capturing detail (more pixels) vs. low-light performance (fewer pixels).  But knowing that I have 50% more light per photosite doesn't tell me how much better (in terms of noise, dynamic range, etc.) my camera is, since different cameras have different engineered components and pipelines. Factors such as the level of temporal dark noise, presence of back illumination, and processing power all matter. Manufacturers themselves compile information on such subjects in their engineering white papers (example) so there's no need to guess how this works. In response to a previous comment, Wieczorek erroneously claimed that the total light received is not a function of the sensor size but of the lens. But if I use a FF lens on an MFT system (which I do!) then the smaller sensor does not magically get more light. Only the central part of the lens' image circle will be used. The rest of the glass does nothing... because the sensor is not large enough to gather all the light the lens transmits.  Back in the article, the author continues with daylight / night-time examples that point to practicalities of shooting, but say nothing about low light quality. Ditto the example from Black Swan. The discussions of aperture are also off topic. None of these diversions address the topic. All they say is that some cameras (and some camera settings) are better for certain types of photography or cinematography. I think we can agree to that! A sensor noise test Wieczorek argues without presenting a single image, but I don't wish to repeat that error. So I made some test shots in a dark living room, using the Pentax FA Limited 43mm lens adapted to two camera systems. To represent full-frame I used my Lumix S5 and for micro-four thirds (MFT) my Olympus PEN E-P5. Certainly these are two different generations of cameras, but they are what I have available. I do not claim that this is a scientific test, only an indicative test. A fully fair comparison would require two cameras identical in every way except their sensor size.  Please note that this is not a test of equivalence. I realise that no matter how large I write that statement, readers are going to get confused. I am fully aware that in order to get the same shot I need to match field of view, depth of field, and exposure. Since the MFT sensor is half the size of the FF sensor, the "crop factor" is 2. This means that a 50mm lens shooting at f/4 and ISO 1600 on full-frame requires a 25mm lens (to match FOV) shooting at f/2 (to match DOF) and ISO 400 (to match exposure) on MFT.  But that is not the test I am conducting. I am not trying to get the same shot, since no photographer is ever trying to match some other camera system when they are doing real work. Instead, I am trying to get the best shot possible in the circumstance. Consider shooting a gig in low light. An aperture of f/2.8 is required to get as much light as possible. Though any less than that and the DOF will be too small to accurately capture action on stage. I can move around, so I don't care about FOV. If I want the subject bigger in the frame I simply step forward. Since I need to hold the camera by hand, I won't set the shutter speed to slower than 1/30 of a second. (IBIS will handle it.) This is a typical low light scenario.  For my test, some of the parameters were held constant. I used a tripod and timer. I shot an unmoving subject (my bookshelf). I developed images without any processing. Using a non-native lens from a different mount ensured that neither the camera nor the software could perform any magical invisible corrections. Besides, this was the only way to get the same optic on both systems.  Here's the FF image at ISO 25,600. I was not directly parallel to the shelf, so the angles are a bit off. Also, the shelves are in reality not straight under the weight of all those books! And here's the MFT image at the same ISO. The field of view is obviously different. The exposure is poorer, since the Lumix is much better at that task. Ignoring these facts, the noise, even at this reduced size, is obvious. (You should click through to Flickr to enlarge the shots.) But to make it easier, here's a crop 1600 pixels square from the FF image.  And here's the same from the MFT image.  Finally, for completeness, we can match the FOV and then compare. The FF image: The MFT image: ConclusionsSo long as we have enough light, we might choose to use a smaller sensor camera for various reasons: convenience, compactness, etc. But if we want good low light performance, we need a larger sensor with larger individual photosites. Engineering, logic, and our eyes all support this contention. A larger sensor also often comes with a better image pipeline. So photos might well have more natural colours, better exposure, and other qualities. All of these are evident in the sample shots above... as they are also evident in my everyday shooting. 

Panasonic Lumix S: camera models and video mode comparison
The same questions come up far too often online, so I decided to convert more of my own tech notes into public articles here on my blog. Comments and corrections are always welcome.  Since 2019 Panasonic have released six models in their Lumix S camera line. Read on for a handy comparison of features and video modes. This can help you make a purchase decision. All six models have a full-frame sensor, are weather-sealed, use the Leica L mount, have excellent IBIS (stabilisation), and store to dual memory cards. The S1 cameras are larger and were initially more oriented towards professional use, with a better viewfinder and higher video modes (to 6K). The S5 line is smaller but has recently leap-frogged the S1 feature set in several ways. You can find exhaustive feature lists on many other sites, including Panasonic's own pages. Here I provide a compact overview of key differences between the models (PDF file). I priced the cameras today at a German web store, since it's useful to have some sort of a baseline.  The second resource I have for you compares the best video modes across the models (PDF file). This took me quite a while to collate! All of the models can now (or will soon, as firmware is rolled out) be upgraded to write RAW files out through the HDMI. You can target the ATOMOS Ninja V/V+ recorder for ProRes or the Blackmagic Video Assist 12G for BRAW. This makes the Lumix S product line viable as cinema cameras. I consider it noteworthy that Panasonic has not ignored older models with this feature.  The brand new Lumix S5M2X (AKA the S5 Mark II X) can also write to an SSD drive using the USB port. This is a unique feature of that model.  If you want extremes of resolution or frame rate, this line of cameras may not suit you. But if you think that 4K is already a lot of pixels, then Panasonic provide excellent value for money.  I am going to spend a bit more time on the stills side of the S5 before I venture out to shoot video. But you will see footage from me eventually!

The correct way to think about focal length
Wow, that title sounds a little click-baity. Maybe I should start my own YouTube channel telling everyone what to think! Instead, I'll just deliver information, in the following handy chart. You'll need to click through to see a larger version. And read on for an explanation. I read interminable debates about which zoom lens to purchase/use. When it comes to Panasonic these all have similar handling and good image quality. So the distinguishing characteristics are a) the maximum aperture, and b) their size and weight, and c) the range they cover. Here's a list of the currently available zooms: Lumix S Pro 14-28mm f/4-5.6Lumix S Pro 16-35mm f/4Lumix S 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6Lumix S Pro 24-70mm f/4Lumix S Macro 24-105mm f/4Lumix S Pro 70-200mm f/4Lumix S Pro 70-200mm f/2.8Lumix S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 The "Pro" line have a fixed aperture across their focal length range, but are more expensive, larger, and heavier. I'll go out on a limb and say that in practice there's little difference between a fixed f/4 and a variable aperture, since we have tons of usable ISO to make up the exposure, and neither f/4 nor f/5.6 makes much difference in terms of depth of field. (The singular f/2.8 zoom is a different matter.) So let's for now consider only focal lengths. What's the best way to compare these? My argument is that the focal length in millimeters is the wrong way. Because focal length is a secondary characteristic when actually taking photos. What's more important? How much of the field in front of you the lens frames. The Field of View (FoV) AKA angle of view tells you how wide your vista will be. And that's important not only for what fits into the frame, but for how objects are rendered in relationship to distance. (That's a different article.) So here's that same lens list, replacing focal length with diagonal FoV. These are the numbers on Panasonic's spec sheets. They may not be the actual measured FoVs... but no-one actually tests this any more. (They should.) Lumix S Pro 114-75°f/4-5.6Lumix S Pro 107-63°f/4Lumix S 90-40°f/3.5-5.6Lumix S Pro 84-34°f/4Lumix S Macro 84-23°f/4Lumix S Pro 34-12°f/4Lumix S Pro 34-12°f/2.8Lumix S 34-8.3°f/4.5-5.6 That will look pretty strange for anyone used to reading lens stats. But look what this new perspective (sorry, hard to avoid puns) tells us. The telephoto lenses have much bigger numbers for focal length and so appear as though they cover a larger range... but they don't. They have a smaller difference between their close and far FoVs than the wider lenses. Now we come to that graph at the top of the article. It's pretty clear that there's a smooth relationship between FoV and focal length, but this is not a linear curve. We get more "bang for the buck" at the wider end of the spectrum. Now for a practical application of this knowledge. It's common to read people recommending that a good replacement for the kit lens, the Lumix S 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6, is a 24-70mm zoom. A naive photographer might think, "Hmmm, giving up only 4mm on the wide end but gaining 10mm on the tele end. Nice!" But from now on I want you to compare the kit FoV range of 90-40°with the potential replacement, 84-34°. Both actually have the same 50° range. But is it better to have access to 6° more on the wide end or 6° more on the tele end? The extra width makes the lens more versatile for interiors, group shots, architecture, etc. Whereas you can compensate for the difference between 40° and 34° by stepping one pace closer to your subject. You can't take one step backwards if there's a wall behind you. Start thinking in FoV and make better decisions.  A note for other systems The data here applies to any so-called full-frame (135). I gathered focal length data for each fixed prime lens in the Panasonic Lumix S line-up, and included the short and far extremes of each zoom. I decided not to incorporate third-party lenses, but leave this as an exercise for the reader. If you are on APS-C, MFT, or some other sensor size, the numbers will differ. But exactly the same thinking applies. How I made the graph Not liking any of the available plotting tools, I wrote some Python code. This uses the Plotly library, which is open source and free. The result is an interactive graph on an HTML page, which is nice! There is also a library to produce a fixed image, but this kept hanging with no error. So instead I grabbed a screen shot. Here's the code. It took me a while to figure out how to display labels for each data point.


1 2