All Activity

For those interested in small setups, in modestly priced gear, in non-clinical rendering of images, in very fast lenses, in vintage lenses, or older equipment, we exist in a space that has no quantitative reference. There are no numbers to look up and understand things from. It applies to the equipment: Questions like "how sharp is that lens?" don't have an answer (that is intuitive anyway - MTF charts aren't intuitive and often aren't reliable or even available). Even if it did, that answer would only be true at one aperture setting, and even then, is only true for the middle of the frame or the edge of the frame, but not both at the same time. If we shoot at base ISO with a 4K camera then we'll likely get an image with roughly 4K resolution, but at higher ISOs the effective resolution will likely drop due to ISO noise, NR, compression, etc. If we use filtration, like diffusion filters, then these lower the effective resolution of the image. It's literally what they're designed to do. How much do they do this though? Not only is there no published answer to this, but the answer changes depending on focal length, sensor size, etc. It applies to the look we're creating: Any colourist working creatively will be trying to create an image with the right amount of resolution / sharpness / noise / etc, not just "the sharpest" or "the highest resolution". How much is desired? What are the references? I've been struggling with many questions from my own equipment and projects, including: My TTartisans 17mm F1.4 is less than half the weight of my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, but the TT is quite soft at F1.4. How soft is it though? Is it too soft? If I want to shoot low-light with the GX85 (which has terrible higher-ISO NR) then what ISO setting is too soft, and then which lenses do I need to use in which environments to get enough light into the sensor? My Takumar 50mm F1.4 on my generic M42-MFT speed booster has pretty soft edges, but how soft? You'd think the solution to these would be to look at the footage and decide, but (for me at least) it's a double-edged sword because I also don't know what final images I want! I have spent a good amount of time looking at Hollywood films and big budget TV shows (see the original The Aesthetic thread) but apart from just going "I like that" and "I don't like that" we have the problem once-again of there being no way to quantify things. Saying "this show is softer than that show" really doesn't help. My solution is to reference things back to film. I originally did this with my Panasonic GF3, which shoots 1080p so soft you could cut it with a wet noodle, by comparing it to the presets in the Film Look Creator tool for 8mm and 16mm film I concluded that when the GF3 didn't show macro-blocking due to the (very low) bitrate, it was about the same as 8mm film. This was actually a really useful reference for me, because the associations I have for 8mm and 16mm film are quite useful. 8mm film has an aesthetic that is very nostalgic and low-fi, but was never good enough for TV shows, let alone the cinema. My new plan is to reference everything back to film, across quite a number of ways... Texture, which is what I've talked about so far: - I will be trying to "map" my lenses and cameras and codecs to a specific resolution of film (16mm, 35mm, somewhere in between) - I will be trying to "map" my aesthetic preferences to film too, like wanting a certain project to have the resolution of 16mm for example, but further than this - the size and amount of grain can also be a useful reference. These are useful references for me because a lot of the aesthetic references of cinema I have were actually shot on film and so by associating these things back to film it's a relevant reference, not just some arbitrary scale that isn't directly related. Dynamic Range and Contrast: - How does the DR from the GX85 look when put through an image pipeline in Resolve compare to the contrast of a 250D -> 2383 process? - What about the iPhone vs a 16mm process from the 90s? or a B&W process from the Italian Neorealism or French New Wave period? Contrast and DR should be relatively easy to match to various film stocks by just shooting some over/under exposure tests and adjusting my standard Resolve colour pipeline to match what is in the spec sheets. Speaking of spec sheets, not only do the spec sheets for motion picture film contain the Sensitometric Curves that show DR and contrast, but they also contain the MTF curves too as a reference for resolution. When it comes to resolution you don't need to look at the charts though - I asked some film geeks I know to comment on the FLC presets and they said that the 8mm / 16mm / 35mm presets in the Grain panel have about the right amount of image softness and amount of grain (but that the character of the grain isn't accurate), so the FLC is a reasonable reference for the texture of film in a very broad sense. What else? Image stability is another one. 8mm film cameras were larger than modern compact cameras so were more stable with the lenses they were normally fitted with, but 8mm had pretty terrible gate weave (alignment from one frame to the next) so having micro-jitters from hand-holding is compatible with the look. Whereas 16mm would have had more mass and less gate weave but at least at first would have probably been shoulder mounted or on a tripod, so some types of shots / angles will be more compatible with the aesthetic than others. Depth of field is another one. Lots of people think the "Super 16mm look" just means deep DOF, but it's more nuanced than that, as the lenses typically used would have some separation in low-light when focused closer, but due to the lenses at the time the shots might have been softer wide-open, so that's another relationship to understand. There are lots of other parameters that make an image that aren't covered here, but I am finding that getting some kind of reference for texture and contrast fills a very large gap in the landscape for me. The goal isn't to accurately emulate anything, its to develop a keener understanding of the spectrum these things exist in. Where I'm hoping to get to is to be able to develop summaries like: The GF3 is about 8mm at base-ISO, which during the day is equivalent to <some particular F-stop>, so I can put basically any lens sharper than 8mm onto it and the result will still look like 8mm. I can hand-hold this tiny camera with an acceptable level of shake up to about Xmm and it'll still fit the 8mm vintage / amateur / nostalgic vibe. The GF3 is tiny but once you add a lens that is larger than a pancake then I may as well use the GX85, so the only sensible lens is the 15mm F8 bodycap lens. Any other combo doesn't make sense. (This is an actual example I've worked out through testing). The GX85 at base-ISO is equivalent to <film size of some kind.. 16mm? 24mm? 35mm? 50mm?> which requires lenses of <F-stop> during the day and <F-stop> in well-lit night environments. This amount of resolution is suitable for projects with a vibe of <gritty street? vintage? night cinema? high-end commercials? etc?> but not other vibes. (This is still yet to be tested, but once I've worked out the camera then certain lens combinations will reveal themselves to make sense and others will obviously not work) iPhone? Where does it sit in all this? It has huge resolution and very strong codecs (4K Prores HQ or even Prores RAW) but poor DR and even worse ISO performance. GH7. What are the aesthetics I want to create that I can't create with the above (because the above is too limiting). What lenses and shooting styles and approaches are required for these aesthetics? The ultimate thinking is developing "constellations" where there is compatibility / alignment between: a camera, one or more lenses, certain shooting situations and techniques, an image pipeline, and a target aesthetic. I've been working on finding these "constellations" by starting at the camera and working forwards, but also by starting with the end aesthetic and working backwards, and I've identified a number of partial matches, but I think that by relating everything back to motion picture film, I can make more progress fitting the pieces together.

Wow. Thanks for letting us know pat!

Rushes vimeo killer

Surprisingly modern sounding name for a Stone Age artist. I was expecting something more like Og.

Right! And (those) slowmo features, no less : ) Without mention the lovely Sirui anamorphics line ; ) The perfect no-brainer :- )

This is why, for me, there are two likely ways to use it: 1) My small bag full of C-mount and D-mount lenses and possibly attach it to the smallest 5" monitor that I have (which is quite small) 2) Throw it in my bag where it takes up almost no space and attach it to the back of existing short telephoto lenses which now function like long telephoto lenses

There's a realisation I keep hitting in my setups, despite me trying to keep a small kit. It goes like this: Start with a small camera body Think about the lenses I'd use with it for that project Think about the shooting style and approach and think about extra rigging and accessories that would require ----<realisation occurs>---- If the setup is going to be that big - why not use a larger body with better features / quality I'm having that realisation with this GoPro. Not that there's a ton of small bodies with 10-bit recording, which we've all complained about at great length, but just having a camera body with more than 3 buttons and a screen that is larger than a postage stamp etc is actually quite useful.

Womens From Your City - No Verify - Anonymous Sex Dating https://SecretPrivat.com [url=https://SecretPrivat.com] Womens In Your Town [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Verify New Girls [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/evelynn-110.html]Evelynn[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/bia-bangs-60.html]Bia Bangs[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/putri-51.html]Putri[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/emmeline-24.html]Emmeline[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/hailey-sinclair-77.html]HAILEY SINCLAIR[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/linda-warners-134.html]Linda Warners[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/shadow-kitsune-108.html]Shadow Kitsune[/url]

the ancient cave art far exceeds a 5 minute "doodle" in a boring algebra lesson ! It is highly probable the location were meeting places that held spiritual meaning .Also a lot of planning and time and effort to create them even involving "spray painting" ! The creation of prehistoric cave art in France, such as the masterpieces found in Lascaux and Chauvet, was a highly labor-intensive, complex, and "painstaking" process that required immense skill, preparation, and specialized knowledge. Artists worked in dangerous, deep-underground, and pitch-black environments using only flickering torchlight or fat-burning stone lamps. The creation process involved several steps: Preparation: Artists often scraped or smoothed the irregular limestone surfaces before painting, and sometimes used scaffolding to reach high ceilings, as indicated by post holes and rope marks in caves. Sourcing Materials: Pigments were sourced from local minerals, including iron oxide (red and yellow ochre) and manganese dioxide (black). These had to be found, transported, and ground into fine powders. Techniques: Artists utilized multiple methods: Painting: Brushes were likely made from animal hair, twigs, or plant fibers. Spray Painting: Pigment was blown through hollow bones or reeds to create a spray-painted effect on the wall. Engraving: Sharp flint tools were used to incise outlines into the rock. Has anybody been to see the IMAX film "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" ? photo is attributed to wikimedia

Why should we limit what we consider art, though? Is that not gatekeeping, saying one thing is art but something else isn't? Going back to cave drawings, do you think the folks who made those thought they were creating something that would stand the test of time, or do you think they were just expressing themselves using the medium available to them, with zero regard for people who would later find them to be soul-moving and spiritual? Art is art, regardless of the impact or scale. Just some art holds more value than other art. Also, if we are judging content and it's merits on the profound impact it has had on people, for better or worse, there are a lot of 30 second reels that have had an enormous impact on society. My old snow plow guy, who never even graduated high school, thinks he knows more about vaccinations than medical professionals because he watched a couple 30 second TikTok reels that told him they are bad. He also thought Donald Trump was going to free thousands of children from sex trafficking, that Joe Biden and the deep state stole the 2020 election, and that COVID was a man made disease meant to depopulate the earth and enslave the rest of us.

"Matt Irwin Photography" on you tube has just done a video on "Nikon ZR making your ZR better" with lots of coverage of Zine control starting at 10.5 minutes .I have not put a direct link because of affiliate links.

Ok I'm more interested, now that its got a mft mount. I feel that alone will elevate the litle gopro to next level for a lot of people. The open gate mode sounds interesting and i would like to pair that with my 24mm sirui anamorphic. No idea how that would turn out but it does sound interesting and then there's 3 other mft lens i own and a whole bunch of vintage glass to play with as well. Looks like gopro have a whole range of accessories to buy as well, tailored to fit, for that integrated look. Cant blame them for that i guess and it kinda cuts out the others from getting a slice of the pie... I like the concept so far.. still unsure about the photo and video file types. Apart from saying its 10 bit, there's not much to go on. I just hope theres some flexibility built in and the ai doesn't just burn a lut in 🙄. Abit pessimistic i know, but i'm not a fan of the default settings from gopro for things like sharpness and saturation. So i'm still not preordering. I'll wait for some initial reviews, and then hopefully wait for some more before i do anything rash...

Simply irresistible coupled with this: When not with gems like this: https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/10/15/olympus-15-8-body-cap-lens/ Letting the daylight reach that sensor and so many variable fast frame rates... A perfect no-brainer. Hope free of the usual GoPro issues anyway *fingers crossed*

Oh, thank goodness Zoom finally have a reasonable accessory for timecode shoots. For a bit now, the worst thing to hear from an audio engineer has been "I use a Zoom F3." "Guess I'll hope waveform sync works in post, then..." 😅

Well, well, well - for $50USD maybe I don't need to sell my Zoom F3 and upgrade to the Tascam FR-AV2 after all? 🤔 https://www.newsshooter.com/2026/04/24/zoom-tca-1-timecode-adapter/

I agree. It would be unwise to try and gatekeep it. Personal tastes factor in and everyone has the right to produce or consume whatever artistic product feels right. Just to clarify, it's not what appeals to "me", it's just the concept of art in general. There are canons and 1000s of books written about this subject. I'm just saying art should be a category reserved for something truly special, epoch-making, just like the ancient murals discovered thousands of years after they were drawn you mentioned. I've seen the larger examples of these ancient cave paintings in Europe 4 to 6 meters wide drawn 10 or more meters above cavern floors and they are truly awe-inspiring. Anyone entering those places will never be the same thanks to that experience. It's soul-moving and deeply spiritual. I'm not sure a 30 second reel has the same profound impact on the soul though LOL

The colour 16mm movie film used by George Stevens in 1944 and 45 is Kodachrome and very slow only ISO 10 or ISO 16 so only worked well in bright daylight.Here is a frame capture -the colours hold up very well.

There was also support for other models, like z6 iii, but after latest update the developer seems to have purposefully removed it. Ita a shame, it was working fine too!

I mean, the people who drew simple cave drawings probably didn't expect people to view their doodles as art pieces thousands of years later, but here we are. Gatekeeping art is silly because it's not just wrong to do but its such a futile thing to do. Art isn't just what people will remember, it is expression! And it's all around us, from beautiful architecture, to statues, to murals, to kids drawing on the sidewalk with chalk. It's in the biggest music halls, all the way to the local dive bar or coffee shop hosting a singer-songwriter who just likes to sing his songs on a Friday night to a couple dozen listening ears. It's in the giant cineplexes playing the biggest films, to the small theaters that show foreign or low budget films, all the way to the phone someone is holding on the bus plays a random YouTube or TikTok video. Not all of it has the same value or meaning, but it's all still art. Don't try and gatekeep it, or try and tell someone that what they created isn't art just because it doesn't appeal to you.

Sorry friend, but in 100 years neither G.U.'s videos nor your doodles will be interpreted as art pieces. The first aspect of any artistic endeavor is of course the personal emotion or intent, as Andrew said. But that's the bare minimum. It's all uphill from there (technique, movement behind it, people you know, trends followed by the masses, etc.). That's a less than 0.01% chance of actually making something the world will remember, generally by channeling a huge amount of personal pain into something concrete. And it's ok. That's why artists are so special and, generally, tortured souls.

YouTube revenue is probably down compared to the highs of a couple years ago, but I imagine he's still doing pretty good between it and the deals he has, plus whatever revenue he was generating via luts, merch and stuff. A lot of that content will generate revenue in perpetuity, so he'll still be making ad revenue off it for as long as it's up. A month ago he released a video ranking the color accuracy of every camera brand. It has, to date, gotten almost 100,000 views. He could, realistically, continue creating content like that forever and ever. He has decided not to. So I agree it probably has a lot less to do with financial considerations and more to do with just not enjoying the box he put himself in. And honestly, good for him. Hopefully he'll do something that is more fulfilling. I am happy for anyone who decides "fuck this, I just don't want to do this anymore" and steps away to do something else that makes them happy. With the way the world (and the economy) is going, most of us are going to have to work until the day we die, so we might as well enjoy what we're doing while we can.

And Sam Hamper/Think Art Loud's entry about the man behind the 'machine' and the AI technology itself... side by side with his «baby» and «first real way into YT long-form» on his own words.

It's a really interesting quote and comes down to how much of your hand and heart you're willing to delegate to a machine that doesn't know what art is, but the paradox is it has absorbed and computed into numbers nearly every piece of art in the world ever made. Interesting times to say the least. I doubt it's about money, I think his existing camera channel was doing superbly well in terms of bringing in the cash. I really just do think he's had enough creatively, because he built a creative dead-end for himself.