All Activity

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 ?

This is just factually wrong. The Super 35 sensors in my C70 and K-X have a FOV/DOF indistinguishable from FF cameras if I use a focal reducer with them. They can also work great with glass made for S35 film. This could be seen as an advantage. I also have the option to remove the focal reducer and get a second set of focal lengths from my lenses. That's also neat. Sensors larger than VV have disadvantages as well - a lot of wider lenses made for 24x36mm format don't cover well all the way to the edge. Extreme shallow DOF? Sounds great until you are missing eye focus constantly because the talent moved 0.01mm from when you acquired focus. Without using eye tracking AF, the Canon 85/1.2L is completely unusable on my GFX 100 (when wide open). When the DOF is that shallow, it should be considered a special effects lens. The background gets so blurred as to be unrecognizable as anything other than a series of color splotches. Almost every format has some advantages over the others and some drawbacks. That includes M43.

I didn't say it was moot, I merely said that the LF had an advantage. If anything, I was giving the GH7 some leeway in those tests. I mean, he had to stop down the 40mm lens on the LF to 5.6 and set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7 to get the shots to match. Obviously, he didn't want to pollute the test by putting an ND on the LF when the GH7 didn't need one. I agree, I am not knocking m4/3 or any shitty camera... I still shoot ML Raw on a 5D3. I'm planning on shooting a short film this summer on a 1" Canon camcorder. I had a GH6 last year and may buy another one, or a GH7 eventually. It depends on what you're going for and what impact you want your shot to have based on the story you're trying to tell. Everyone has different styles. Years ago when camcorders were used for indie films, we used to intentionally zoom in and frame something in the foreground to look blurry. All that said, I think there is more to larger sensors than shallow depth of field, there's separation between the foreground and background which invokes more of three dimensional element to the image. With smaller sensors everything is more compressed.

or better yet, will there be enough content in the footage?

i dont get this argument? you can get essentially a 95% match across most image formats, but since you can get just that tiny bit shallower with larger sensors that makes it all moot? the reason to get a gh or fx or pocket camera is because its a shitty camera to own. It’s for personal projects where theres no budget, or as a bcam in certain situations, either as an extra angle during scenes, or to rig it on a car so the good expensive camera doesnt break. If you have to use it, a few compromises should be made. In the case of mft that’s mostly not being able to be super shallow on wide lenses, but for normal use cases, you’ll be fine. this stuff should be liberating to know? If there’s budget, why wouldnt you rent a mini/mini lf/35/venice? Its obvious better cameras have advantages! there’s a certain other test by manuel luebbers where he conducts a similar test with a mini and 65, where he shoots more shallow. the same conclusion arises: the large format look is just super shallow depth of field when the lenses are wide open. If theyre not, the look can be matched with different formats. i think theres about a million things more important than hitting the sweet spot of separation in real life scenarios. that being said, with the right choice of focal lengths and distance from camera, you can get pretty shallow dof from any format! i just think they hit a great balance of being sharp and slightly soft at the same time. The vignette you get at t/1.4 is nice too. Zeiss CP2 set is garbage tho, so i’m not going to generalise statements about their brand. i think 1080p is a great delivery resolution, but i’m not always inclined to shoot it. Someone in the editorial suite is probably going to zoom on something without my intention, and then they’ll get mad at me for not shooting in a higher resolution. I’d prefer to avoid that. He likes it because it was twice as shallow as S35. Just like the 2x anamorphic used on moonlight are twice as shallow as spherical s35 “We shot Beale Street on the Alexa 65, a large-format camera. You get a much more shallow depth of field than you would with a Super 35 sensor, or 35mm film if you're shooting film. It's what helps that rack focus to the foreground on Brian to be as dramatic as it is.” https://filmmakermagazine.com/106532-laxton/

Now that you mention it, someone should tell Yedlin about Yedlin's test... if he had known about it, he could have shot Knives Out on a m4/3 camera instead of the Alexa 65...

The Tokina 25-50 F4 zoom and the Canon FD 35-70 F4 are tiny and optically nice zoom lenses for video. I own both. The former was a recommendation by our friend Andy Lee btw. The latter has the typical problem of ageing Fd lenses with dissolving rubber ball bearings, unfortunately. Both are nice and fun for video. Without mount adapters they would look tiny and tidy on the S9 or on any S camera.

Should equal or better the GH5S all in all but especially how it holds onto resolution and colour in lowlight. There is a comparison between GH6 and GH5s demonstrating an advantage for the GH6, though possibly demonstrating more luma noise but less mush and preserving more visual information. @Aaron Smith

Why not pocket 3 over this?

I'm just wondering how this will compare to my GH5S's in low light. The high megapixel count worried me but I heard that this one has a brand new sensor design so I guess we'll see.

is it better than go pro 12? I can make go pro 12 footage surreal looking. will this one have enough info in the footage?

the master was filmed with 65mm film. special look. I especially like the sea scenes in this movie. but there are some other scenes very compelling. the actors performed very well too. a true master piece.