All Activity

No. I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20). I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look." As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device. Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

I'm in North America. You can go walk into a Best Buy right now and buy a 42" Full HD TV. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=UTF-8&browsedCategory=abcat0101001&id=pcat17071&iht=n&ks=960&list=y&qp=verticalresolution_facet%3DResolution~Full+HD+(1080p)&sc=Global&st=categoryid%24abcat0101001&type=page&usc=All+Categories So no, 4K hasn't fully taken over. It's also not a question of "what can you go into a store and buy right now" anyway - it's "What do people actually have sitting in their homes?" And while I have a 4K TV, many people who I know are still using Full HD sets and aren't upset about it. Abroad, that's even more the case.

thanks for the info. seems to me canon raw does not have many adjustable options? b raw in fcp may have similar issues?

I know you are but what am I? Hahaha. I should probably be offended but like me, you're just some guy on the internet. Actually... I feel kinda bad for you. Everything is so binary. You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera. I can only assume you don't believe in movie magic or how a cinematic image can transport an audience into another world. You seem like the type that probably rooted for the government in E.T.

I have some Dvds which look fantastic on my HD TV, not too far off from Bluray, even though Blurays offer 5 times as many pixels as Dvds. 8K TVs offer the same pixel number in height / y-axis as the Gh7 in 5.7K open gate mode btw.:) Width is 1.32 of the GH7 pixel count.

Because it's not a plain subject. Trust me, this is not as simple as a bloody number. And mainstream technology means too little or people shooting in B&W would have switched to colour when that was introduced by then. It's worldwide. Geolocalization means too little if any for that. We are in 2024 now. To not respond you in a weird manner under your request : ) I think you're just missing the whole point of it why you've heard people to tell you so. Far to be a dumb idea. It's just not what your interpretation made from :- ) Of course. Once you're going after a standard, start from there ;- )

I don't know where you're located, but in North America, 4K has taken over. I don't even know if Walmart sells Full HD TVs anymore. Reminds me of the early days of digital when people said RAW and higher resolution wasn't worth it when in hindsight that just turned out to be a dumb idea. Anyways, looking at your post, it sounds like 6K videos will look good on a 8K display when viewed from a standard distance.

Uh, if 8K was available then, I'm sure they would have picked it. I'm talking now. Not sure why you're getting all weird about this subject.

Canon raw is also supported in just about every NLE. Braw is supported via plugin in Premiere and FCP. ProRes RAW is supported well in Premiere and FCP (just not Resolve). They're all practical enough, just with the annoying extra step of using an app to extract PRR to cDNG if you want to use it in Resolve.

This depends on the size of the 8k screen and how far you're sitting from it. If you're 3 meters away from a 27" screen, almost no human is going to see the difference in 4k and 8k regardless of the screen resolution. If you're 10cm from the same screen, you'll probably be able to see some difference between 6k and 8k on an 8k screen, but... it's not that important. Many cinemas are still projecting 2K on their enormous screens. Do people watching from 10+ meters away notice the difference between it and 4K? Would they even notice the difference side-by-side? Maybe. Anyway, there are declining returns in increasing display resolution - going from SD to full HD was huge. Going from HD to 4K was a lot less huge (and lots of people are still using full HD TV's all over the world). Going from 4K to 8K is going to be pretty slow due to the fairly small perceptible gains at a standard viewing distance.

Now a tip for fitting your 8K display... Buy some lower resolution camera other than 8K but with open gate and add anamorphic glass. Don't squeeze it vertically but extend your pixels, making them wider to correct the aspect ratio and... voilà, you'll be there, your device fulfils the standard ;- )

BTW part II, how will they have audiences from now on? ; ) BTW part III, yesterday, I had the possibility of a screening of footage shot in glamourous 'low' 35mm resolution from 1991 but checked on a 4K screen of nowadays... y'all learn something? : D Looked like shot on 8K but not with a flagship smartphone... LOL I know, this stuff can be a bitch, requires a lot up to arrive somewhere :- ) - EAG

prores raw is good for rcp, b raw is good for resolve. seems to me they are fighting and not mature enough. I use resolve so I don't care much if the camera has the prores raw. r3d is supported very well by all major nles. I think r3d is the way to go if you really want to shoot raw. I think red cams are very practical raw cams. for ml raw, you need a computer with many cpus to process using mlv app. resolve seems to me is not as good as mlv app to process ml raw. otherwise, resolve can use cuda, so it is faster (about 3 to 5 times faster on the same computer). other raw codecs, they are just not mature enough to be practical.

Damn it, if I had read it before I would probably have bought a 8K camera instead rather than the BMCC6K (FF) I've just received it today! LOL ; ) Why have you chosen this day to post it! LMAO : ) Sorry my friend and other folks in general but I simply couldn't resist... :- ) I just think every single filmmaker who has made the history of cinema in the last century is crying in 2024... Poor artists! hehe : P BTW writes who is now transfering 16mm, S8 and even regular 8mm film with the help of an URSA Mini Pro 12K... if this says something in order to provide a good input on your wondering! If anything else still helps, what about 'soft is sexy'?!

when I started videography, I naively thought that a hybrid vDSLR would cover everything in the photo and video worlds. One camera to rule them all. With time passing by, I accumulated all kinds of formats, especially in the photo world, 4x5, 6x9, 6x7, 645, 135, m43/43, apsh/apsc, 1 inch, super8. and also the video cams. later I realize all of the popular formats and cameras have their unique niches. It is very difficult to replace them with one format and one camera. I just keep them all. For example, in the current era that bokur is the king, super 16mm still is very suitable for documentary and in depth news reports. A famous scene of the Citizen Kane is that the young Kane played behind on the snow field outside of the house, their parents talked to the banker in the front in the living room, and his future was determined. Actually this is very suitable for S16. s35, vv, 65/mf will bokeh the background, which is an addition to the story. This is often the case in news and documentary, you want the background layer to have more information more layers to make the whole scene dense and impactful.

I always want to shoot at the highest resolution possible. The Fujifilm X-H2 is probably the cheapest 8K capable camera on the market, but the Panasonic GH7 and a bunch of other cameras can shoot high-quality 5.7K/6K videos. 8K displays will continue to get cheaper and better. It is the future whether people like it or not. Reminds me of all the naysayers about how 4K was useless in the era of 1080p displays. I know the quality of the upscaler will be important. AI upscaling software will only get better in time. Even right now, will 5.7K/6K videos look soft when viewed on an 8K screen?

So the reason why ProRes RAW has my attention is because the Panasonic GH7 has it. It seems like more and more consumer/prosumer cameras have some form of ProRes recording rather than CinemaDNG. I guess whether it has "true" RAW or not isn't really the issue. I want to be able to adjust the white balance on my videos in post with little to no loss in quality like I can with RAW images. This is why I never shoot in JPEG. I have never really worried about file sizes. Storage is cheap even though I deal with video.

I'm not good at imagining how a video will be displayed on a screen. If I want to record ProRes RAW without a crop, I'll have to shoot in 5.7K, which has a 17:9 aspect ratio. When watching a 17:9 video on 16:9, 16:10: and 21:9 screens, what would the black bars look like, and where it'll be?

Afaik adapting a SLR pancake makes it still stick out more than the native 14mm pancake on MFT fi. @bjohn So I would love some native pancakes. Options of lenses with unmotorized MF and AF would greatly add to the pocket fun on the S9. Leica M39 and M-mount is another interesting route for adapting some small lenses, of course, as shown before by @BTM_Pix on various occasions of our search for small lenses.:)

A concept very known and used in music aesthetics BTW, cinema is far to be mere technology. It's actually more perception instead. Just made with tools and they are not the same nor produce the same outcome ;- ) - EAG PS: Jumped to another page, so please don't decontextualise the meaning of it... well expressed my last post from the previous page (pardon my marketing now! haha).

LOL Each side is actually trying to say but not seeing the same... Of course, there are differences to the size of the exposure surface. There are distinct looks, yup, sorry to have to confirm it! : D Or 70mm movies would never be shot as already stated here despite some other aspects which don't deny whatever a few egos look like to show off. Can we mimic a certain look with a smaller sensor size format? Yes, we can. Like an average female can look like a diva but stands the same. That said, try to mimic a FF f/1.2 aperture from a MFT... : P It's not impossible even though where's the glass 2x faster to begin with? But under certain variables it is feasible, just not 'the same'. And, oh yeah, with some limitations whereas distinct tools don't tell the same story. Without mention, bokeh varies under many layers from thinness to thickness (aka density). They are not synonymous. Texture is nothing but real. And reality is subject to be transformed by the medium under certain circumstances which can make a whole world of differentiation (difference and differentiation can be synonymous but are not the same or am I* the only one to have firm perception of it?) in skillful hands and knowledge for. So, formats are not identical at all. No matter how much convinced or convicted we are. Need a metaphor? A million dollar bank account will bring more room to pay a restaurant bill of 100 bucks other than to only have a grand as balance there. * you too @mercer

Puny Alexa:) I sense a puny tendency to impress wholeheartedly with inviting manners. Let's make that tendency impressively overwhelming just like the og Alexa still is. Why not, we all deserve to. I find calling names to be unnecessarily unpleasant. "Nonsense" as a statement did not seed any more sense into a friendly exchange. It made it nonsensically difficult to feel at ease and welcome. When Laxton talked about the Alexa LF he did not talk about S35 eq of 35mm to 50mm on the LF. He talked about liking his 50 and having THAT 50 show him more of the image than it does on S35, larger fov, if one wants to put it less poetically. Anyways, Laxton and Yedlin would get along fine, I imagine.

There is no doubt that size matters, if everything is acquired in raw. But there are other things to consider in the whole process, like olpf, sensor design, acquisition method, dsp, codec, nle, lens, etc. So, it has to be all things considered. Right now GFX 100 line or other MF hybrids seem to me still are not mature, no raw, no 444, not 12k, no tuned olpf, etc. If all of these are implemented, yeh, medium format look is certainly better than smaller formats. Probably in another 20 years.

Just plain wrong. Yedlin: Because he wanted to Tarantino: Because he wanted to, and also is far from an expert in optics/imaging 60's films: Resolution and marketing Nope. It's no problem. Your comments are already more than dumb enough. No need to dumb them down further. Why produce different-sized sensors? Different use cases, history, any number of other reasons. Why pay $10k for a camera when the exact same image comes from a $2k camera? Any number of reasons including ergonomics, personal preference, and the fact that the exact same image won't come from both cameras. By your reasoning, anybody would be a complete moron to buy an Alexa with a S35 sensor for $20-40k when they could just go buy a used GFX 100 and get full-width 16:9 4K video for $3k used - since the GFX, with its 44mm wide sensor, will magically produce an amazing image that a person can just walk into, unlike the shitty Alexa with its puny 28mm wide sensor. The GFX will produce huge sweeping images that you can just walk right into where the Alexa will produce a poor image with no depth, usable only by complete amateurs.

To the argument of monitor, here is the future now: https://www.sightful.com/spacetop-g1 https://www.techradar.com/pro/tiny-startup-bets-that-you-will-spend-dollar2000-on-a-work-laptop-with-no-screen-spacetop-g1-uses-ar-glasses-to-deliver-a-virtual-100-inch-display-but-it-runs-on-google-chrome-os Add this and works like a charm: https://anydesk.com/en/downloads/chrome-os