Emanuel

I'd say this one in the U.S. 😆 and BMCC6K-FF are those the bets of today : ) Don't invite me for higher than that as far as price range concerns especially when overheating issues are far to be solved... : P Those are not professional capture devices, they are a pain in the ass, not a reliable camera for professional use. The use of lower resolution recording modes serves too little, these don't help either or why someone is buying them, after all?! : X

In the first shot, not the 2nd one though. It's some encoding trouble I believe. I don't think it's anything coming from the acquistion, I'd dare to guess... But there are people here more from the technician side than a producer/shooter so let them to speak out... ;- )

VAT... but U.S. in the most part of States also has sales tax, although much lighter...

Well seen, it should be the same, I guess.

Because battery dies... not else. If confirmed, this is the news to my book... Z8 has been outside from my radar because of my doubts on such an issue from user reports heard or read.

I think it's more a case of misunderstanding instead... No one called it magical, someone has decided to coin the expression based on those "feelings" ; ) a few other readers read the interpretation of that but not what people exactly said on topic. At a certain point it is not what people have written but what has been written those people said : D One side doesn't like the name the other side has called to it. And claims any introduction a large sensor size may bring cannot be called a look many identify as a specific one of its own. All that could easily be possible to be refuted if under same variables nothing would be added to couple a larger sensor size when it is actually not. :- )

*MFT (sorry for the dyslexia of my senseless word corrector : D)

Magical "medium format look" is different of medium format look... I'd rather call it larger sensor size look. I actually don't like anything closer of the definition of being categorized as format either. I believe that a small part of @eatstoomuchjam's beef against this manner of speaking is this. I haven't read anyone to call it magical anyway. That said, yet someone praising that route can still be in love for a platform like MTF is ;- )

Funny the way you ended your post... LOL ; ) Just a matter to give names to the things. I took sides because one doesn't invalidate the other :- )

I hadn't noticed of it yet such a loss... Just some minutes ago when I had the chance to search about him and received the shock of the sad news... : ( https://variety.com/2023/film/obituaries-people-news/john-bailey-dead-academy-president-cinematographer-1235787930/ https://theasc.com/news/in-memoriam-john-bailey-asc-1942-2023 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007037/ Got the unique chance to meet him along a workshop made at the Lisbon Film School about a quarter of century ago when his presence and his lovely wife and E.T.'s editor Carol Littleton brought a singular experience with this passionate couple of the world of movies and filmmaking. For a few days, we had the chance to hear them to talk about their work in two respective distinct workshops as Lisbon Film School's visiting guest lecturers throughout their personal experiences of their own, the way they met in the old continent they simply loved and their first meeting IIRC in Vienna, Austria. Ordinary People (1980), directed by Robert Redford in his feature directorial debut, The Big Chill (1983), Silverado (1985), The Accidental Tourist (1988), made with his partner in crime Lawrence Kasdan, Groundhog Day (1993) or Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1985), produced by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas, directed by Paul Schrader with whom he also helped to make American Gigolo (1980)... https://theasc.com/videos/lighting-tech-tips-household-lightbulb-russell-carpenter-asc-1/john-bailey-asc-the-stylization-of-mishima Among a few of the case studies in those memorable days I really miss his input in that week from the bottom of the heart. Long farewell dear John, it was great to have had the happiness to know a bit more of your presence among us. Never forget the humble character typical of yours expressed in the way you addressed to each one of us, your workshop attendees whether classmates or the other film school instructors, you added no distinct treatment as used in those customary elitist circles more often than it should. Your vivid enthusiasm in that close personal and direct communication face to face stands in our memories, as well your helpful advices to bless our careers, always plenty of generosity, love and endless good faith, a big thanks! < 3 - EAG

Things don't need to be uncontroversial to not be or become "imaginary"... : D Other than that, well, who can deny it? Imaginary stuff is what pictures are made of, isn't it? LOL : ) EDIT -- haha @mercer we both didn't let slide... The like button had already been triggered this time anyway ;- )

I really struggle to understand why you insist to not see the fallacy of that... : ) You are accurate on your point. Nobody can deny. No jokes for this paragraph. Magical "medium format look". OK, who has here call it like that? The only point you take your chance to call ignorants to other people and write from a superior position where you don't lose a single opportunity to intend such place for yourself, is the one everyone agrees, yes Master! : D Half way now ; ) So, a larger sensor size introduces zero add-ons when the other variables stand. Right : X

So, time for more show off now? : D I am a professional producer for three decades today. Film and TV producer. I have produced along MORE than only one from those key players of the mainstream of this industry. I will even omit to publicize now the names of them here because feels so ugly such an unnecessary silliness for these boards' sake. This is a reasonable discussion not a decadent show, please. My work and background (not only from a full 4-year program at the film school among a few other postgraduate and craft qualifications with first-rate ASC members used to see their work to be nominated/awarded by the Academy BTW beyond A-class film festivals or BAFTA, among others) are public and at the distance of a single click. As photographer/cinematographer, I have shot since the decade of 80 of the last century since film to digital in practically all main formats used in the business. Narrative and documentary. As closer of pure artistic as possible. Not fashion nor commercials, hence medium and large formats are not formats I am used to, as shooter per se. But... Why Bazin? Because you don't need to ever shoot a single frame to be entitled to give lessons. Yes, I have been hired to cross international borders to teach other people how to work with any single camera in the world. Trust and mark my words, never had to make a single phone call to make it happen ; ) Bazin would be entitled to teach you what you don't know. To you, to me too for sure. About medium and large formats you're familiar with for two decades as you say. The problem with your posts doesn't look like to strictly be from a technical side of the craft. But a craft is far to only be such an important aspect, i.e., it's not the only one. Got your point. I even think no one here fully disagrees with you. You're just claiming both a certain terminology used is wrong and the use of a larger sensor size doesn't add any to the equation whereas glass (or other variables such as distance to the subject I've called tricks and someone else tried to infer as some improper jargon when it is not) may not balance it. The discussion hasn't evolved yet to match the agree to disagree path because of lack of tolerance with and people struggle to figure out. Technique is based on variables. Each one introduces some characteristics for a certain purpose or effect. A larger sensor size no less. What's so hard to accept people may call it something you think as not adequate? LOL : ) Let alone the fact it'is not even far from the reality the adoption of that exact nomenclature. Ah OK, because you see it strictly from a technical POV (we cannot call it exclusively scientific because math is not the only science on Earth ; ) but at same time, that standpoint looks : P to completely ignore perception as some specific reality and TBH subject of some other multiple sciences of their kind. Without mention the case study, coming from a method eminently scientific as far as the introduction of variables into an equation concerns. - EAG :- )

Well posted, thank you! ; ) The fact you have a point doesn't mean some other point about both the use of a terminology or some realm outside the knowledge you have, makes you know about this specific topic more than the other side. That's all about that ;- )

@kye it's useless, the most funny is that people who think this way (I don't mean it's the case of this fellow because I don't REALLY appreciate to say anything about someone I have no clue about, other than this poster knows Tarkovsky exists, so double shame on such a level of arrogancy then... nonetheless, keeps the need for more often the 'fucking' word written everywhere or is not cool enough LMAO : D), they think they are aware of knowledge they usually even have ZERO clue that exists -- hence that remark on aesthetics/philosophy above ; ) The fact is though that we need a microscope to see that imaginary world to only exist in the head of a scientist. @eatstoomuchjam Thanks for introducing Scheimpflug anyway. Never heard about him before. What about André Bazin? Have you ever read anything about him? Because I guess you had heard about this guy who knew more about film than all people after him and as DoP never shot nor directed a single frame we had noticed from. That said, film is far to be mere technology, whether everyone like it or not. - EAG

Those who ignore philosophy as science will struggle to identify any branch of it, namely aesthetics as something non-existent. If it is non-existent, why the hell there's any need to learn or even think about it? : D - EAG

LOL Loved the way you and @PannySVHS address the arena BTW ; ) Speaking of devil, Paul Lockhart, a mathematician, someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in their work, mathematicians so to speak but also everyone of us simple mortal users, he once stated: "Doing mathematics should always mean finding patterns and crafting beautiful and meaningful explanations". Understanding is the ability to catch sight of something aka comprehension. But also sympathetic awareness/tolerance. Yet, math is a language, just not the only one. Math is basics. One doesn't necessarily exclude another one outside. Trouble comes when people see the things solely built on rankings. They lose the sense of ridicule. - EAG

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

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. :- )

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'm sorry, I don't want to look like a dick but the explanation of your point clearly hints that to write "there is no medium format look" is pretty inaccurate : ) If you have some format versus another and introduce (exactly) the same variables to couple with, leading to different results, this OBVIOUSLY means the only variable to markedly change it, identifies a whole distinct look.

Right. And in-between minute 23 and 24 (res demo Pt2), it is rather possible to see when resolution counts and does not. Compare IMAX footage from 11K film scan versus Alexa 65 to realize where limits are reached anyway.