All Activity

No, this is ignoring everything I've said. Obviously the same lens on different sensor sizes at the same FOV will look different. That's not controversial. The point is that the FOV and DOF of a 12mm f/1.4 lens on a M43 sensor will be nearly identical to that of a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame sensor. Will the specific characteristics of the lenses influence the overall look? Sure. If the 24mm f/2.8 is from the 1970's, it will certainly look a bit different from a 12mm lens made in 2018. But that has nothing to do with the sensor size. As I already said, I have done plenty of side-by-side tests over the years. If you believe that a bigger sensor is really giving you a different look, that's fine. I hope you enjoy it. It's just not a position that is supported by any actual facts.

That has just as much to do with bitrate than resolution. No one said that there isn't a difference between shooting 4K and FHD, merely that there is not much difference when watching them on the televisions most of us have, at the distance most of us watch them at. I've been filming in 4K instead of FHD for nearly 10 years at this point for a reason. But 4K displays were mostly a gimmick. While most people now have them almost all content watched on them is FHD because most people have thus far decided that 4K isn't worth the premium they want you to pay (example: Netflix's most popular tier by far is the Standard tier which is only FHD.) That's why I bring it up: you're already worried about 8K and whether or not 6K will look good on it, when 4K hasn't even become the primary resolution in which people consume content and still, most of us don't even have big enough 4K displays to appreciate 4K content all that much more than we do FHD. LOL. Man, 5' is way too close to be watching an 85" TV whether it's 8K or 4K. Seriously, don't ever do that. But to answer your bigger question: 6K will look fine on an 8K... and so will FHD and 4K, assuming you buy a reasonable TV size for your room and seating.

And the body:

TBH you should not even be allowed to try matching the same FOV... All the same EXACT variables, distance to subject included (isn't it to be scientific?... so, let's follow a scientific method then, rather than mere tricks to get the same outcome changing the premises), with an only difference: The sensor size format of the capture device is the only variation. Now repeat again to yourself the theory that different sensor sizes have the same look : P

It's useless, you are focused in your own theory... you're right, the other ones have the wrong point : D But why don't you do a favour to yourself and above all, do a test by your own? Put the same lens, same resolution, all the same, trying to match the same FOV and tell me what you'll find... ; ) If the only variable to change is the sensor size format, you'll keep to say that different ones won't have their intrinsic look of their own?? Really? LOL ;- )

i agree with you that mf lenses like mamiya are different from hassalblad ones or pentax ones or bronica ones. but larger sensors have smoother tonality, this is for sure. i put my mf lenses on kodak 645 pro and on 5d3 and on apsc cams. kodak 645 pro image just is a totally different level. very noticeable.

Nope. You're flat-out wrong. The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format. Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc. They don't have a unified and monolithic look. They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer. You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera." That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous. Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more. People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else. Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

The BrightinStar 28mm pancake is actually better in terms of image quality on full-frame thick-stack sensors, and it's a fraction of the price. The MS Optics has a focusing tab and I actually love those for manual focus. You develop a sense of where you are in terms of focal range by the position of the tab; this is how street shooters do zone focus, by the feel of where the tab is. Quite a few rangefinder lenses have that tab; some people hate it but as a focusing aid I love it and it's very fast.

How does it handle MF for video work? This thing is tiny and they make you pay more for less.😊

in terms of sensor, in the photo world, I think the best sensors are from kodak. fuji super ccd sensor is also very unique. unfortunately, they are not available to the video world. Sony F3 sensor is outstanding, f5 sensor is also very good. but canon c300 sensor is good too, and 5d3ml (c100 mk 2 is little bit lower). so are r1mx epic-x. it is hard for end users to assess sensor quality, as there are other factors kicking in like aa filters, olpf, raw acquire method, etc. I can say that go pro 12 sensor is just at consumer level. you can see that clearly once you try to get good color from it. I suspect Panasonic m43 sensors are also consumer level. Panasonic varicam line cams have excellent sensors.

I've had good luck making pretty radical changes in white balance in ProRes HQ 422, like from 3200 to 5200. I haven't been able to break ProRes yet, although I'm sure it's possible, but it's a lot more malleable than I expected. I can shoot CDNG raw with my video cameras but usually just shoot ProRes.

Maybe true for an SLR pancake but my pancake lens is an MS Optics Apoqualia M-mount lens; with the adapter it's so small I can literally slip a Sony APS-C camera in a pocket.

24p is just a frugal choice. nothing more. in the current era, action packed videos or movies with 24p is just no go if you don't acquire with uncompressed raw. once you pan the camera, even c300 f3 f5 which are considered good cinema or high end doc cams, you see blurred footage. only ml raw give me clear panning. r3d cams are close. 24p with thin codecs is just a joke.

I'm sorry, I don't want to look like a dick but the explanation of your point clearly hints that to write "there is no medium format look" is pretty inaccurate : ) If you have some format versus another and introduce (exactly) the same variables to couple with, leading to different results, this OBVIOUSLY means the only variable to markedly change it, identifies a whole distinct look.

That depends on a number of factors and how radically you want to shift the WB. If you're going from like 5600k to 5200k, I wouldn't worry about it with much of any codec. If you're going from 5600k to 3200k, there's more danger of losing some color information with the color already baked-in.

Right, but that is proving my point. There is no medium format look. Maybe there are dozens of medium format looks depending on which lens set somebody chooses, but with a definition like "it means different things to different people," you might as well be saying "I prefer a cinematic look" or "I prefer something that looks more filmic." And of course not all lenses have the same character, but my point is really just that by the definitions given, I have actual large format and medium format film cameras that don't achieve the "medium format look" (as described by people here) and I have smaller sensor cameras that have a real chance of getting there instead, depending on which lenses I put on or whether I mount them on the back of a LF field camera using a vintage lens. And of course 8mm film and any modern-ish phone camera, not just the iPhone 4, will look substantially different. This is, again, a place where there are a number of characteristics which are fairly common among 8mm cameras/film, including 18fps, gate weave, huge grain, and a response curve typical to the film being used - some of which could be simulated on the phone and some not so much.

Right. And in-between minute 23 and 24 (res demo Pt2), it is rather possible to see when resolution counts and does not. Compare IMAX footage from 11K film scan versus Alexa 65 to realize where limits are reached anyway.

If you're in Resolve, switch from the Resolve Canon decoder to Canon Full Resolution (I can't remember the exact terms off the top of my head) in the drop-down on the left and you will have a lot more controls.

Where do I start?

Right now I'm sitting about 5 feet away from a 65" 4K TV. I'll probably be using this TV until the end of the decade. The Samsung QN90B is a very good TV and 4K UHD discs look spectacular. Towards the end of this decade, if 8K is cheap enough, why not? Anyway, I'm not really interested in debating whether 8K is necessary or not. Even if the difference between full HD and 4K is minimal, I'm not going to shoot in full HD. I guess what I want to ask now is will 5.7K/6K videos look sharp from about 5 feet away with a future 85" 8K TV? Will it look softer from the same distance with a natively shot 8K video? Thank you.

My understanding is that a shotgun microphone will be one-directional and may not be good at capturing ambient sound? Let's say you're trying to capture the sound of the waterfall or the ambient sound when you're standing by the edge of a cliff in a forest. I intend to use this with a Panasonic DMW-XLR2. https://shop.panasonic.com/products/lumix-xlr-microphone-adaptor-dmw-xlr2 For microphones, I should be looking at something like this? https://rode.com/en/microphones/on-camera/stereo-videomic-x

I shoot personal projects, so they're really mostly for me, and for the kids later. If you're shooting professionally then your clients will probably have chosen you because of your work, and your work looks like your work because you see what you see and let that shape your projects. If you care about being happy then trying to do the best job you can is how to keep morale and self-esteem up - if you're just going through the motions and don't care about the results then it's dragging down your whole life.

I'm a total newbie when it comes to videography. I know the correct white balance isn't always the most atheistically pleasing, but I just want to have a way to save it in case I need it. When taking pictures, I shoot RAW and capture another picture with a white balance card under the lighting so that I have a way to set the white balance during post. Ideally, I would edit the white balance on the computer rather than setting it in the camera in the field. I'm reading that when changing the white balance on ProRes RAW, there is little to no choice in quality. What about with ProRes HQ 422?

Sadly only two MFT lenses! Strange that they don't offer the 33mm T1 in MFT mount, so that there can be fleshed out a small 3x lens set for MFT. Why bother striving to film things that are not going to be seen at all by your views?? At a certain point in time you hit diminishing returns hard

The GH series has become a very different niche tool from the GH5 GH4 GH3... a bit of a shame ! Not good Instructions for use not yet accessible? Very low autonomy and no battery grip which requires using DC Coupler (dummy battery) but bulky. Who needs prores Raw with an M4/3...? Useless for 70% of people: a bad image will not be better in pro res raw and for what volume!? The SSD requires a more powerful external power supply and the GH6 does not?? The ARRI C-Log is useless for 90% of buyers. Good news : Panasonic says that the 32-bit float is possible directly in jack 3.5 on the GH7... to check because there we remove a module which consumes battery and space, therefore perfect for run and gun. On the contrary, on the audio module, the 32-bit float is blocked if Jack 3.5 is used. The stability seems even better, the AF too...