All Activity

Egos are a bitch. A bloody trick. The competition of dicks is of no use as a methodology for learning.

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math? jesus fucking christ man if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.

my purpose is to adapt my ff manual focus lenses on this camera for handheld shooting. I know gh7, om1 mkii are good for ibis. but they are maybe only good <100mm. or can they stabilize lenses of 200 mm well?

I get it now. even though people are experienced, they look for different things they like or they emphasize. for example, some one may emphasizes motion cadence of 24p much more than the blurred or jumpy panning, he then focuses on 24p even using thin codec cams. probably he avoids the panning so that to cover the weakness of the cams. I emphasize on clearness of the panning, and I like to do panning, so I use external recorder for thick codecs, and prefer 30 p or 60p, to avoid the bumpy panning. another example, some one emphasizes 3d looking. actually Zeiss c/y 50 mm f1.7 is a very 3d looking affordable lens. sensor size does not contribute much to the 3d looking. so he assumes that there is no mf lf look. I emphasize on the whole image, like tonality, gradation, etc, so I can see the difference. it is good to understand others' perspectives, as sometimes there is no reason to argue at all. but, hey, let's make up something so we can argue and talk. it is fun to debate anyways. lol.

thanks for the info. good to know.

you are an open mind man. I think you are very good to work with in a team, which is a critical factor for a successful dp career.

At the risk of jumping in on a question that was basically made for @IronFilm, if your goal is to capture ambient sound as a 360 degree soundscape, you probably want an ambisonic microphone. Look into something like the Zoom VRH-8 or the Rode NT-SF1.

First thing I'd say is, it's up to you and your own eyes to determine where your threshold is for what is acceptable. So my recommendation is always to do as many tests as you can to figure out what you personally find as a good workflow, and don't worry too much about what other people say is or is not good enough. On most controlled shoots, I set a white balance for the scene and use that throughout. When possible, I'll shoot a color chart in the same lighting for reference later. I have found that on my current camera, I get MUCH better results when I set to a specific kelvin value, rather than a white card. I've used cameras in the past that were the opposite. If you do find that you need to make adjustments in post, you will get the best results if you adjust white balance in linear gamma. The easiest way to do that is by transforming the color space using Resolve's color management. If you don't want to worry about that for now, that's okay! I always like to just try different things to see what happens, and eventually I find what I like.

Unless you need 32 bit float audio or are using an XLR microphone you don't need the XLR adapter. There are a lot of different mics you can go with to get good ambient sound, with different configurations. The Stereo VideoMic for example has an XY configuration, while the Sennheiser MKE 440 has a more directional dual shotgun configuration. Which is better comes down to preference and what you're looking for.

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own. The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available. I love the format and I don't see it as anything inferior to other larger ones with a distinct look : D I think this is the type of statements to bother you and I understand where you're coming from : ) I even salute your approach to make your point, a valid one TBH, but this doesn't mean the other ones are wrong on their correct assumption either. I think it's not necessary to cite again my fav Niels Bohr's quote BTW ;- )

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own. The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome for format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available.

The problem is as said before, both of you/us are saying the same. You just don't admit this is an intrinsic quality of the sensor size format when it is. You insist in a different nomenclature... The fact you'll be in trouble to reproduce on MFT the look of a f/1.2 look on FF (keeping the remainder variables) is a fine example of the whole thing. :- )

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.