All Activity

I still feel the main advantage to L mount is the ability to adapt almost anything to it, like you can with MFT, E-mount, Z-mount, etc. If I got an L mount camera the first thing I'd do is buy adapters so I can use my tiny rangefinder lenses, or my Minolta Rokkor lenses, or my Nikon F-mount lenses. I almost never buy native lenses, although I would if I used autofocus.

That depends on your definition of shallow DOF. If I'm focused to infinity while wide open, something that's only 5 feet from me will be completely out of focus. As far as "lack of a better phrase," the "better phrase" is "stopping down the lens a bit." But again, they were also avoiding the use of focal reducers which would give the M43 camera a much more similar look to the larger sensor when using the same lens. You shouldn't. A larger sensor doesn't intrinsically offer a "spatial 3-dimensional quality." I can barely tell any difference between my full frame cameras and my APS-C cameras with focal reducers. Does the GFX 100 with 110/2 look all that different from a FF camera with an 85/1.4? Not really, other than that the 110/2 is IMO one of the best lenses ever made for any camera system in history. Even on my 8x20 inch film camera, these principles hold true. I decided to see how silly the shallow DOF could be. I took a picture of a row of 4 very old tombstones using a Nikkor 450/5.6 wide open. The tombstones were about 2 meters from where I was sitting. The indented text carved into the stone is sharp on the outside edge where I focused and is a little bit soft on the inner edge of the indentation (just a few mm away). Does the image look 3d? Or does it just look unnatural and sort of out of focus? A bit more the latter. Would it have looked nicer at f/32 or f/64? Yes. You keep trying to make it over and over again and it's getting old. Everybody understands that absent a focal reducer, you will need a much faster lens to get the same DOF at the same FOV on a Micro 4/3 camera as you get on a full frame camera. Beyond that, though, a 12/2 on Micro 4/3 will be nearly indistinguishable from a 24/4 on FF, give or take some differences in the qualities of the lenses themselves. This has been proven/demonstrated hundreds of times. If you feel like you see some differences, then that's fine, but your positions are not supported by science.

As I said before, Oculink is soon to come on laptops. GPD already have it on some of their mini laptops. Now the big vendors are getting into it too. https://videocardz.com/newz/lenovo-thinkbook-14-2024-laptop-to-feature-intel-core-ultra-cpu-and-oculink-connector You're not using the computer without a monitor, keyboard, and mouse/trackpad. For portable computing, a laptop is generally very much superior to a mini PC. For sitting in the house, a desktop will be much cheaper than a mini PC with external GPU (and usually perform better).

First off, I don't know why you're getting so angry? I'm just another dipshit on the internet. Who gives a fuck what I think? Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field. Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers. I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

There is no such thing as a "medium format look." If you like the way your medium format lenses look when speed boosted, that's fine, but an 80mm f/4 lens on a 0.71x focal reducer will be nearly indistinguishable from a 57mm f/2.8 lens that's made for FF (aside from lens character considerations, etc).

No, you refer to having to stop down the lens on FF to achieve the same DOF as on M43 without a focal reducer and you call it "dumbing down." But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever dumbshit point you seem to think you are making.

Isn't it getting a 4k sports version now.

My vague memory was that the GH2 image was more contrasty and had more edge, more of a look to it. From that perspective I can see why someone might prefer it, especially if they had something in their mind about the vibe of the footage and that look was better suited. My experience of the blind tests is that it's all about colour for me, except if there is something obviously wrong with one of the cameras like the codec is breaking or something. I also don't care about resolution after 1080p because I find 4K etc too sharp unless something has been done to tame it, so in these tests I would actually have a slight preference for lower resolution cameras, but ultimately the colour wins out, and that's why I pick the most expensive ones. I think that's because I know you can make an image look less nice, but making them more nice is virtually impossible. Perhaps the only exception to picking the most expensive cameras was the test that Tom Antos did with an Alexa and some BM cameras and others, where I rated the Alexa lower, but that was because it was massively green for some reason, so perhaps something went wrong in doing the test. I'm not critical of Tom though, actually doing your own tests is completely unforgiving and it's easy to miss something. It's also not the same as real shooting, so it's not something that you benefit from shooting a lot either. In the blind tests I must admit that I have really enjoyed the image from the modern BM cameras (P6K and UMP12K and newer) and because this was done blind I know I actually do like them. The differences in the blind tests are often much less than when looking at footage, I suspect it's partly because of prejudice but mostly because when people have access to an Alexa they mostly know what they're doing and use great lenses and light and grade the images really well, so comparing two tests when one is done by 10 professionals in a studio with $10K of lighting and the other is done by some guy in his garage on the weekend, well, you're going to prefer the Alexa of course! That reminds me of this test from a long time ago which has many of the worlds most sought-after lenses, but at 54:40 it has the brilliantly named Dog Schidt lens, which is a Helios 58mm with the coatings removed so they flare a lot. The frames where it's stopped down to F4 (55:32) and without a light creating heaps of flare will show that it's actually a very nice looking lens, and helps you 'calibrate' yourself to the setup they have for the test - very high quality images indeed.

It's not that recent is it? My Sony Mavica camera from 1999 which records photos and video onto floppy disks shoots 4:3 open gate full sensor video natively with no cropping. My Panasonic FZ7 bridge camera from 2006 can do the same. Any modern Canon DSLR or the EOS M with Magic Lantern installed has been able to do this since about 2012. Even my hacked Canon 50D from 2008 can record video with the entire 3:2 sensor area. I was recording open gate all the time when I was using Magic Lantern. I currently shoot open gate with a Panasonic full frame camera paired with a speed booster and medium format lenses as that gives it more of a medium format look:

I don't have hands on experience with the Alexa ev and f35, but basically most of others listed in this test I own and tune with my hands. I have to say, they all look good in their own ways. each its own. you really need to own these cameras and lenses for several years to get what you want. renting them for a weekend, even top dps don't have enough time to know them to get the best out of them. so, although this test was ground breaking, it still had its bias. I don't know why people sell their gears. I rarely do that. after spending so much time knowing them, they are like my friends, part of my life, why should I sell them and get something new yet unnecessarily better but definitely less familiar gears?!

Let's remember the great Francis Ford Coppola Preferred the hacked GH2 image! That must have pissed someone off. In my opinion, pissing people off by shooting "lesser" gear is a good reason to continue to do so. I still use my GH2, old reliable, and get paid for it.

I did that test, blind, scoring and taking notes and reviewed my answers. Then I looked up which was which. Then I looked up what each of them cost. Then I cried. I wish there was some kind of prize for being able to sort them in descending order of price, blind, but no reward came. Sadly, I've done that more than once in blind tests.

This is why I have emphasised colour grading to folks. Over. and. over. again. lol. I know you finish your images in post and don't expect the camera to create completely finished images, so you're one of the few who understands that a file on the card isn't a finished image, but there aren't that many of us in amateur circles. It really goes to show how ridiculous it is when people are nit-picking straight 709 conversions, as if this is what matters - as if anyone professional would ever use that for literally anything. Even the BTS would get a LUT or basic 5-minute look applied over it. For most high-end films and TV shows, the final grade is more different to a straight 709 conversion than the differences between the 709 conversions of completely different brands of cameras. Not at all... with colour if it looks good, then it is good. The rest is preference and the creative vision for the project.

Yes, I remember. What's funny is that the results are so clear that they decided to never do it again. And that was exactly 12 years ago.

Need to go a little back in time to realise what all this means and why geek and filmmaker in the same line is not an easy marriage...

Monitor is not even the deal when people are used to already travel with more than a single monitor (so inexpensive these days) in the luggage ; ) eGPU, yes, it's the deal if not with a beefy price request. From past : ) https://technical.city/en/cpu/Xeon-E3-1535M-v6-vs-Core-i9-14900HX And we don't even need to bring a desktop-class processor to the equation... it's a bargain with decent RAM anyway :- )

Nope. https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/

Yeah, but you could just do also that with a laptop and a eGPU, and it would be an even more convenient setup to be traveling with than one without a monitor like this Beelink Exactly, I could get a dirt cheap but still high performance laptop such as a Thinkpad P71 for just US$550 then pair it with a beefy eGPU. Oodles of power! https://www.ebay.com/itm/116213947999

One thing I learned from watching those videos was that if you take 2 Alexas and film the same thing at the same time with the same WB, you still have the possibility of having visible variations in color. This was a big surprise to me and it's no surprise to me that there would be even more variations with a GH7. I guess even $100k cinema cameras have copy variation and DP's continue using Alexas. The real question is: does it really matter so much? I think if you're a pro colorist, you can make any cameras appear similar enough that only a pro colorist would know the difference. In short, I don't think it really matters for 99.9% of the time. This is probably more about workflow. On a side note, I thought the GH7 looked better than the Alexa in most of the shots with a simple 709 Lut. Blasphemy?

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7. For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing. The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post. One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

Holy Shit... it has an advantage for that test! What the fuck does the C70 have to do with it? And I never said anything about shallow depth of field as being an advantage for full frame.

As already stated here before, not only them. BMCC6K (FF) is another one, as for instance. Add 2x/1.8x/1.6x anamorphics (offered by a tempting no-brainer affordable piece of glass, designed & assembled, i.e., made by SIRUI, for example) on one of their open gate recording modes and you'll have distinct aspect ratios or even the possibility of reframing @ post. This is a whole different world. Apples to oranges going along a capture device without it. Almost as near as BMD's UI layout versus all those ridiculous and non intuitive menus of the Japanese mirrorless cameras.

Here's another one invariably from the usual suspects' playground... https://9to5google.com/2024/05/07/google-search-hides-number-of-results/

We're not here discussing use cases the same way we don't discuss why people choose some umpteenth alternative to those ones people see it as their own bubble's mainstream. The same way... What can't be met by a powerful Mini PC attached to an external portable eGPU to replace an equal powerful workstation? I can answer you. Definitely not an affordable powerful laptop with the graphics power of a non-mobile version of RTX 4090, as of June 2024, coupled to 24GB VRAM as minimum requirements for certain tasks tailored to the needs of a portable powerful editing/grading workstation to only say a few. People used to fly every single week spread all over distinct countries and studios/offices without budget to have a personal workstation for each and not interested to rent/use someone else's gear, as myself included, would tell you why ;- ) A fair display doing the trick is enough and easier to find.

A mini PC will still need a monitor, what is your use case here that can't be met by a beefy gaming laptop / workstation ?