Vienna Golf shot on Ea-50

[Chris Harding]

Hi Dave

My exact problem as well. I modified my PP3 profile and lifted the colour up two steps and it gives a decent indoor shot but of course outdoor is somewhat de-saturated so I have to lift that in post.

The big question now is : Is it better to shoot no profile and get rich outdoor shots and then de-saturate (and kick out the red) in post for all indoor shots OR is it better to use an indoor profile like PP3 and then boost your outdoor shots.

I wonder which would work better??? I have been told that PP3 lifts detail in dark areas so I'm now wondering if that would end up with too much shadow detail when you shoot outside with the profile?

I have an almost dead month coming up as it's Winter here ..cold and wet and windy so only one wedding! Maybe a comparison is worth a shot but does anyone know which is the better route to go??

Chris

[Dave Vickers]

Chris

I'd go with percentages, for me its a no brainer, only 20% of each of my golf shoots is indoors. So its 'no profile' for me all the way. Weddings is different I guess, and editing weddings is completely different. My post production on this video was minimal though, really like seconds on exposure for outside shots and a few more seconds to tilt the reds on the indoor shots. You can more or less copy/paste your efforts and put them right across your indoor/outdoor timelines. On the other hand imagine using 2 profiles on the day and forgetting to switch em half the time - you'd be screwed.

[Steven Digges]

Dave,

Great stuff!

The 5D guys may have walked past the gatekeeper but how much crap did they need to shoot once inside? I'll bet their kit bag had accessories in it yours didn't. You had a monopod and you were ready to go.

Chris, If you have not tried "no profile" or "Profile 1" (I don't see much difference if any) give it a serious consideration. This video is a testament to it. Look at the latitude he was dealing with. Indoor shots with a wall of windows, hats shading faces outside etc. I did not see the tell tale signs of a reflector on the faces and the exposure was still right on. I don't get too much saturation with no profile for my taste. Not at all?

My kit lens is surprisingly sharp, even open at 18mm.. I must have been lucky on the draw. I read about the complaints and I just don't have the issues. I put it up against my Canon "L" glass all the time and it holds its own. I expected it to be mediocre but it is a damn nice lens for a kit lens.

Steve

[Noa Put]

My kit lens is surprisingly sharp, even open at 18mm.. I must have been lucky on the draw. I read about the complaints and I just don't have the issues. I put it up against my Canon "L" glass all the time and it holds its own. I expected it to be mediocre but it is a damn nice lens for a kit lens.

Having owned the camera and lens I did like shooting with it a lot, as long as it was not too dark, After switching to panasonic I noticed all lumix/leica lenses where much sharper, at least in resolving fine detail which I found the ea50 pretty average at and in combination with a 4k gh4 body makes the ea50 footage look pretty soft. But, when looking at Dave's film, that all really doesn't matter as it's the person behind the camera making the difference, no matter what camera or lenses are used. There is actually no bad camera anymore today and anyone thinking a better camera, having 4k, raw, 4:4:4 or whatever will make them a better cameraman, should stop dreaming :)

[Steven Digges]

Well said Noa.

[Steven Digges]

Disclaimer, I was doing some post just now and decided to refine a comment. I do not mean to imply the no profile setting is low saturation, it is there but I like it. Maybe it is a matter of preference ;)

Steve

[Chris Harding]

Thanks Steve and Noa

Maybe it's just my eyes but shooting with my Tamron lenses on the camera, especially wide the image "looks" way way sharper to me. But then again that's my eyes OR something I never reckoned with it that I use the stock lens only in AF mode so the focus could quite easily be a fraction off as even when I'm using the lens in MF I tend to use auto to get me in the ball park and then trim in MF

I have shot in virtually all the profiles and yes default is great for outdoors (like PP1 ) but indoors even during the day I do find the blacks are a bit heavy and it's a tiny bit contrasty. Apart from PP5 and 6 which are the "film look" profiles, there isn't a huge amount of difference between none, and 1 to 4 and each can normally be corrected to suit. I must admit that PP3 that I use is flat so I need to lift saturation even on indoor shots. I simply use that one so I don't have to change profiles at weddings ..everything is shot flat and then I correct in post based on where it was shot. PP3 also gives a tiny boost to exposure so in dingy churches the stock lens at F5 looks a little better but moving over to fast and sharper generic lenses profiles seem to have less of an impact on the image ...I did a few tests with the Tamron on the camera and there was little difference from default thru to PP4 although 5 and 6 were contrasty

On my Panasonic HMC cameras I never used profiles (they call them scene files) as default was really nice but when I upgraded to AC-130's the default setting was awful so I had to play a lot in the 3 months I had the cameras but never got the picture looking really good!

Chris