Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,134 visits to this link)
17,274 topics in this forum
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.8m views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 452k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 700 replies
- 298.7k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 738.6k views
-
- 8 replies
- 188 views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 61 replies
- 32.1k views
-
- 9 replies
- 885 views
-
- 0 replies
- 183 views
-
- 4 replies
- 290 views
-
- 10 replies
- 1k views
-
- 44 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 1 reply
- 211 views
-
- 56 replies
- 4.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 297 views
-
- 14 replies
- 7.9k views
-
- 1 reply
- 263 views
-
- 59 replies
- 18.3k views
-
- 32 replies
- 5.6k views
-
- 122 replies
- 23.8k views
-
- 10 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 5 replies
- 631 views
-
- 470 replies
- 136.7k views
-
- 16 replies
- 963 views
-
- 8 replies
- 698 views
-
- 27 replies
- 5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 362 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 121 replies
- 54.1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 4 replies
- 516 views
-
- 61 replies
- 9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 443 views
-
- 1 reply
- 259 views
-
- 558 replies
- 254.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 512 views
-
- 1 reply
- 433 views
-
- 5 replies
- 720 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.5k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By Aussie Ash · Posted
colour movie film in the 1960s was only ASA 50 so they used extra lighting out doors on sunny days !! This is on set Hitchcocks "The Birds " 1963 with two carbon arc lights in the back ground now Fijifilm make a colour film rated at 1600 ISO (5 more stops beyond 50 ISO) and full frame sensors are way beyond the limitations of 50 ISO so yes it is far easier now ! -
When it comes to things like the extra DR, I think about practicalities. Back in the day they had a certain amount of DR, so they filmed what they fit into that DR, modified scenes with too much DR where they could, simply didn't film other scenes with too much DR, or accepted sub-optimal results. They often had far more budget and leeway for lighting etc than you or I have. They also didn't tell some of the stories that you or I might want to tell. You and I are filming things they might or might not have filmed, we are doing so with far less resources than they would have had (*), and are doing so for an audience that is far far far more discerning than audiences used to be. (A note on resources.. Anyone who shot film automatically had a pretty large budget as just the line-items for negative film, development, and printing were absolutely huge compared to the entire project costs for what you and I are doing. As such, for them the cost to add a light here or modify something there was drastically less percentage of their production. I also suspect that back in the day the simple fact that someone was shooting on film gave them a sort-of legitimacy that would have meant they could get away with a more invasive shooting environment (adding lights etc) whereas now that level of legitimacy doesn't really come unless you're getting official permission.) I think of extra DR as being the thing that lets me bridge a gap between the worse conditions I shoot in, the lack of ability to control or modify the scenes I'm shooting, and the far greater expectations of myself and anyone else watching. Another note on DR, this is the curve from 250D: This has easily more stops than the GH5 has, potentially more than the GH7 has, and is likely to respond to high-DR scenes in a more pleasing way as well. Of course, the print stocks had far lower DR, like 2383 which only had 5-6 stops: But they were still capturing the greater range and depending on how fancy they wanted to get in the darkroom (or if they had a DI to play with) they could definitely print the 5-6 stops of DR they wanted from the negative (essentially adjusting exposure in post) or they could extend the DR by printing different areas of the image differently, using graduated filters and all kinds of other tricks. I sort-of feel like comparing film-making now to back in the day is a apples-vs-oranges kind of thing, so comparing the specs directly without acknowledging the situations were vastly different doesn't really make much sense. However, to return to your situation in the present, I look at several factors to assess if equipment is good enough: Does it allow you to shoot what you want to shoot? Does it provide the speed / efficiency / convenience you need to create the work in the budget / schedule limitations you have? Does it provide a pleasant-enough experience while using it? Does it create the quality of results you are looking for? If these things are all true, then why change? -
By Aussie Ash · Posted
This guy has what appears to be Viltrox E to Nikon Z auto focus with PL mount adapted onto that better still would be Nikon F to Sony E to Nikon Z -
By fuzzynormal · Posted
Yeah. Fair. And I'm actually to the point where I'm like, "Do I even want the extra DR"? The modern look of digital imaging seems almost too pristine to me anymore. So I guess my reticence is actually morphing into a stylistic choice; which is a place I never thought I'd be when using consumer gear, honestly. After all, we usually think "more is more" right? Maybe it's just me being a stick in the mud because of my age. However, when I watch old movies I'm always left thinking, "Well, I have more imaging power than they had. What am I really chasing with this modern camera in my bag?" -
Not the GH5, but I am also at 'peak camera' with Lumix. If I ever made any changes in the future now...and none planned, it would not be based on need, - the gear I have just does what I need it to do. There's still a lens that does not exist for me and one day if it comes along, I'll pick it up, but otherwise, never really been that interested in the gear, despite waffling about it for over 2 decades. It was always a means to an end.
-
