All Activity

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...

This might become more of a pressing issue for more people on Monday when the Nikon Z6III is launched so it is quite prescient for Color Finale to be releasing the new version of their Transcoder product. This now allows you to import N-RAW files (as well as BRAW, ARRIRAW and cDNG files) directly within FCPX without transcoding. (Yeah, that seems a bit of an anomaly that it doesn't need transcoding when the product is called Transcoder but it does now function as a standalone version too if required.) It works up to 8K on N-RAW so it works for the Z8/9 obviously but I'm guessing the Z6III won't be 8K but then again we didn't expect Nikon to buy RED so who knows really until Monday. Price seems to be an introductory $139 (usually $179) but there is a fully functioning 7 day trial available too. It remains to be seen what the performance is like so that 7 day trial will be invaluable to asses how it works with your particular flavour of Mac. Full details here https://colorfinale.com/blog/post/cft2-announcement-05-24

I think it's simply a matter of who can see the differences and who can't. When I first started out in video I couldn't tell the difference between 24p and 60p video. Not even a little. Now it's 6 years later and I can even tell the difference between 30p and 24p, and I REALLY don't like 30p. There are enormous differences in what people can and cannot see in images. Lots of things that are debated.... motion cadence 14-bit RAW vs 12-bit vs 10-bit 24p vs 30p vs 60p shutter angles Sony sensors vs others CMOS vs CCD I suspect much of the debate is that people simply can't see the differences, or can and just have different taste.

You can actually adjust WB and exposure of LOG images just like they are RAW if you have the right colour management setup. It's complicated, but there is a lot of good info out there if you're curious.

I know what you mean. At one point of time, a lotta TV series (especially low budget food, and travel and living kinda), were shot on the 5D. And the majority of the time they were not in focus. It just looked unnecessarily soft and terribly blurry. P.S.: Hope someone creates a speedbooster for the RF mount. Those could make it look wild on M43 cameras

Laowa have announced a range of T1 cine lenses in FF, APS-C and, yes, MFT format today that will narrow the gap for GH7 owners looking to emulate the “hang on, is any of this in focus?” look of the larger formats. Well, not exactly a full range when it comes to MFT as it currently only includes 18 and 25mm and not the wide option of the others. Full details here https://laowacine.com/product/laowa-argus-t1-cine-series-mft/

it is interesting to see people with good hands on experience have different opinions. I don't know why. people argue if there is ccd look. both sides are experienced. I was curious and jumped in. I tested myself that ccd actually renders magic in certain light conditions. then I bought dozens of ccd cameras. in 2012, when af100 just came out, people argued about if avchd is as good as prores. both sides were experienced. one guy was even in bbc's avchd committee. I tested af100 with nano flash at 280 mbps I-frame. nano flash footage has wider dr, smoother gradation. I guess that I will stick to my user experience. will see later if there is something more.

a lot options

No, they won't look soft. You'll never own an 8K screen big enough to truly see much difference between 4K and 8K, just as most folks don't really see that significant of a difference between 1080p and 4K screens, in part because the majority of the content consumed today is still 1080p. All my TVs are 55 inch 4K. To see the difference between 4K and FHD I need to be uncomfortably close. 10 feet away I can't really tell much of a difference, and neither can most people. They'll push 8K on us to get people to unnecessarily "upgrade" but it'll be even less necessary than the switch from FHD to 4K.

Are you familiar with Steve Yedlin´s Demos about Resolution: https://yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html

There are no definitions of looks. You can't assess if something has the medium format look with a checklist. Ask different people what the look is and you'll get different answers, because people notice different things. There are commonalities, sure, but it's not a precise thing. Also, not all lenses have the same character. Your Noctilux 50mm F1.0 lens might have completely different optical aberrations than the average vintage MF lens, so the feel of it would be very different. It's like cooking. If two people make cakes with the same ratios of flour and water and sugar and eggs, and then all add "flavouring" then will they taste the same? Of course not. The "flavouring" matters, and can vary hugely. Imagine comparing 8mm film and iPhone 4 video. We could go through every category of image assessment and rate them and maybe we'd conclude they both had video quality at 5/10. Do they look the same? Of course not, because the individual characteristics that make up the "8mm look" and the "iPhone 4 look" are very different, despite the fact they've both got a similar amount of imperfections / character / aberrations / etc. It's like if you're making a horror film vs a rom-com. In the horror film you don't just use "horror lenses" or "horror angles" or "horror lighting" or "horror music" or "horror dialogue" or "horror sound design" or "horror colour grading" etc. The horror in the film comes from using all of them. Hopefully the rom-com uses completely different elements in all departments too.. the "look" or "feel" of the final film comes from the combination of many subtle elements combined together. Same with images. People that are into lenses look at sample images and can read them like a book. Some people can even tell what optical formula the lens uses from looking at a single image. The clues are very subtle, but they're all there.

For the most part, I have smaller format film such as 120 developed at a shop and I process my own LF and ULF film because processing costs get ridiculous for it. I scan it all myself - up to 6x9 on a Coolscan 8000 and bigger than that on an Epson V750. There's no MF or LF look to disappear, though. Camera movements can certainly create specific looks, but they are hardly confined to large format. I have at least one and maybe a couple of medium format film cameras which support some movements. I can also stick a roll film back on a 4x5 camera - or even a mirrorless camera adapter (I have one for GFX on 4x5 with Graflok) and take full advantage of camera movements. I may even still have an EF mount to 4x5 Graflok adapter, in which case, I can have full view camera movements on a 24x36mm sensor. If you want to make the point that there are no lenses for M43 that can achieve the shallow DOF of something like an Aero Ektar on 4x5, that is also certainly true. This is why Media Division built a a rig to record video off the GG of an 8x10 camera (and so did that one other YouTube channel). That's not what people mean when they talk about the "large format look," though. Also, there are many large format cameras that don't support movements. I have a Cambo Wide 470. It takes 4x5 film and has barely any movements at all. Does it not have a "large format" look? Again, if you want to say that a given lens has a look associated with it, that is completely true and accurate and real. But that's not a "medium format look." I have a Mamiya 7. It uses sharp, modern, high-contrast lenses that are basically optically perfect. Does it not have a medium format look? Does my Fuji G617 have a large format look despite not supporting movements and having a modern sharp lens and (at best) moderately shallow DOF due to the 105mm f/8 lens? When I put my 50/1 Noctilux on my camera, do I instantly get a medium format look when it's wide open? That lens has lots of character/design flaws and extremely shallow DOF. Does the Noctilux have more of a medium format look than the Mamiya 7's 65mm f/4 does on 6x7cm film (equal to about a 32.5mm f/2 lens in FF terms)? What if instead I use the v1 Canon 35mm f/1.4L? Shallower depth of field + seems to be loved by the "3d pop" crowd. Is Army of the Dead the most medium format-looking film of all time since it was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open? That lens is LOADED with character and the DOF in that film is shallow to the point of being obnoxious. By many of the definitions that are being bandied about, I have medium and large format cameras that cannot have a medium or large format look and I have smaller format cameras that have a ton of it.

https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=61084

Which adjustable options did you want?

I'm fairly certain (without bothering to look it up, just from memory) that famous scene in Citizen Kane was filmed not with deep focus but with a split diopter. But yes, I agree with your general point.

It's wrong to assume that just because a person is famous that they're immune to "big = better" hype. Larger sized film stock was an easier way to get better technical performance, they didn't have 6400 ISO cameras back then

This is what you have with slowmotion captured on BMD FF 1080p: I defy you to compare with some other native original 8K on your 8K display and tell me what looks better!

Exactly. I use L mount and don’t own a single native lens. I shoot mostly cinematic video though so no need for autofocus most times. The new Kipon L mount to EF speedbooster gives you autofocus though if you need it and lets you use some of the canon pancake lenses with a slim profile. That or a small nifty 50 and you’re golden. Personally, I can’t wait to try my Konica Hexanon 40mm f/1.8 pancake on the S9, it’s tiny even with the adapter/focal reducer.

Why?