Emanuel

Well, the point was, the EOSHD forum is not much different from a bunch of other online forums, be it a stills or video oriented one, they're all filled with the same gadget geekery and nerdy-nam-nam these days, and it's normal these days. Going on a crusade in defence of the pure craft of filmmaking is pretty futile, and waste of your time.

 

You could assume the role of the noble king anointed by some watery tart distributing swords from a lake and go on a quest for the Holy Reel, along with the noble Knights Who Shoot Cinema, but in threads like this you might end up being taunted by those outrageous French soldiers throwing down cows wrapped in DXOMark spec sheets over the wall of their castle time and again. So why not letting them be and go looking for the light on your own instead?

 

Those with a genuine interest in the pragmatic side of photography, video and filmmaking will get bored with the DXOMark specs eventually, anyway. Then they'll start following you and knight Andrew on the quest for the Holy Reel. 

 

But meanwhile, let the French soldiers keep their outragous geek accents and their cows wrapped in DXOMark sheets.  After all, this thread is their castle, it's only a model, and they're minding their own business behind it peacefully. Save your Holy Hand Granade for the killer rabbit, which is much more dangerous to all of us, you know.  :P

 

Life online isn't supposed to be too serious, anyway, is it. Carry on. 

/OT

I guess life online is only part of the real XXI deal. There's no exactly B&W or there shoudn't be. I see Andrew's work as fair serious enough, though. Or you woudn't see people like me or Noah Yuan-Vogel, as for instance, posting in the same page. There's absolute zero of cruzade over here. Just a complementary attempt to give meaning to certain discussions people entertain themselves to have in such boards ;-)

There is a need because if you read most of the comments here people think that its 13 stops in video mode.

hahaha True. But I think people will easily conclude by themselves to read between the lines. And a number is only a number. Like Fahrenheit or Celsius to be read from different angles and in opposite readers/sides of Atlantic. There are no magical numbers, that's part of my try to elaborate here. A GH4 can equal a Dragon (under control of certain variables), except on price :D

A comparative approach based on comparative terms is what can bring some light from there.

Actually, you are overlooking one little tidbit, namely the fact that ever since cameras became digital, not all cameras are being bought for making great still or motion pictures. Sometimes the digital gadget itself is the core of the hobby. Or sometimes the camera buyers are just a bit geekier than you. In such a case, the scores matter to the intended target audience. You quite apparently aren't in that target audience, so you might just want to ignore the scores, as well as the discussions around them.

 

You are right, the DXOMark scores don't tell much about the devices as a whole, and most people do realise that, but reading and comparing them is a popular form of socialising for the right target audience. Nothing wrong with that per se. 

Besides, the nature of this thread, and thus the main target audience, is clearly marked right in the header. Not much point in delving into such a thread, if that's not your cup of tea. You might as well let the intended audience just have their geeky fun without disrupting it. Even though you did have a point in your comment. Whatever floats your/their boat.

Just sayin'.

You've 51% nailed it : ) On the leftover, I confess I can respond to your point much focused in a filmmaking forum I believe Andrew is intending to, as the filmmaker I see on his eye. And if I've always defended this corner as one of most valuable for indie filmmaking on web nowadays, it is exactly because of that. Where symbiosis between technical and aesthetical sides of the game are closer than separate realms.

I salute your vibe to put the things on perspective, anyway. Cinema is made of that ;-)

This is the real problem in this industry, in any artistic industry tbh. Injecting your ideals of how anyone should go about learning their craft, with such brazen arrogance and reverence for your experience, aren't the kind of conversations we should be having. 

Again, if you want to talk craft, go to a forum post about craft. If you want to provide meaningful conversation, to the point at hand, then chime on in. I for one appreciate these kind of tests. The bulk of my knowledge is in computing. As I transition to film, namely digital film, I've found dynamic range information incredibly useful.

No one here intends to be arrogant, I believe. And I am giving the benefit of doubt for both on the spot. Perspective, you see? That's my purpose with my entries, to put everything in perspective. If not, all this might sound rather useless if not taken in perspective and altogether. Technical aspects can be passionate, for sure. If not, why would we be here discussing it? I just think my own POV and experience out there can be useful to others who come here to read this.

That said, the activity is not so diversified as it seems from the complexity itself which defines this business. I also appreciate these tests and no one is putting such in doubt. On the contrary. Again, trying to give accurate perspective in order to make them more useful, if well contextualized.

E :-)

Here's a pretty fair concept: usable... ;-)

Usable dynamic range is almost identical.

You just came to a forum posting about technical specs and complained about people caring about technical specs. We don't need another obligatory "it's not the tool that matters, it's the artist" post.

 

Did you read the article in the first place? 

Hello, it is about sensor ratings...

I surely read it. Reason why someone needs to introduce some common sense and real scope over such geek questions. If you are in these forums for a decade, you should have crossed yourself with my posts for sure. And also prevailing the technical aspects of business when needed, aside others (other aspects count: they must be seen altogether; that's an usual mistake). Take a look in one of my links at my signature or both.

A few of you were probably in the high school, I was feeding myself from high end technology inside this industry. Trying to convince people to shoot 1080p 3:1:1 rather than 35mm film.

This doesn't mean we have to lose the sense of proportion of technical aspects. That's the whole point. When we lose it, we lose any basis for our wondering. A discussion about cameras serves if balanced. If not, if we distort the blanket only for one side of the bed, we will lose the whole purpose for.

E :-)

PS: I can give an example. My favorite camera is GH series, but before I was using my 5D2, out of order later on when I replaced it for a GH1. Before I had read 4/3" format was not the best for still photography...  because of this misconception exactly about what photography is. No more no less in any way other as the exact acquisition device from several variables which conduct to a possible outcome.

Try to go with a RED ONE to the middle of the crowd and you'll see the street photography you'll get ;) Who doesn't understand this, it can only be a good theoric sit behind the desk :)

Sony's A6000 is so much better than GH4 as a stills camera.

I'm pretty sure that it is very close in video as well and all that for less than half the price!

Sony is gonna say good bye and get past everybody else pretty soon...

oh God, a camera is NOT only sensor or test rates!

At times, I wonder if this geek idea of a capture device has anything to be with real photography... (E :-)

Catch the ferry to France for an afternoon?

LOL You love to annoy other dudes, no? ;-)

All this craziness on high ISOs comes from his legacy, among others, such as Kubrick or Storaro, of course. I guess all of them loved the 'film noir', actually, the German Expressionism to have moved to Hollywood. Also a minimal concept of light and shadow brought to the mainstream, never seen before except with the italians or french (or Cassavetes in America) three, two, one decades before. But not strictly for aesthetic reasons. To us, arrived as the 'light fimmaking' possible to conquer the world today in Sundance. Even if my mom complains the movies are too dark nowadays... : D Those were golden days when men like him changed forever the way the movies could be made.

We also owe this to him.

Emanuel

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/the-godfather-cinematographer-gordon-willis-dies-at-82-1201185649/

Indeed, Andrew you make this camera singing (outcome counts, not a set of limitations) and who is used to defend you outside being proud now to see that's not in vain

; )

It is a truly professional amateur cinema camera, I've always believed in both talents! (E :-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1044728-REG/sony_ilce7s_b_alpha_a7s_mirrorless_digital.html

If you want to not bother with the audio bug at all, here you have:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/907000-REG/Panasonic_dmw_ms2_External_Stereo_Mic_For.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/943375-REG/panasonic_vw_vms10_stereo_microphone_plug_in.html

I suggest this one to add:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/929347-REG/tascam_dr_60d_4_ch_track_linear_pcm.html

"Auto tones can be added to the beginning and ending of the recording and a button can be pressed to add a slate tone to the audio at any time. These tones are also output to the 3.5mm camera out jack so they can be recorded to your DSLR camera's audio recorder for timing reference."

I'm curious if anyone has tested 1080p 10bit 4:2:2 with an external recorder. This should be possible with the current models on the market, right?

Actually, not 1080p but 4K this one:

*Sigh* (...)

Not only based on that cool comparative with the GH3 but one of the finest GH4 reviews over there. If not of ever to committed buyers once directly addressed on the camera not exactly outcome as usual. I'll put the controversial (?) reviewer as at least here seems so in my follow-up list for sure. Without your contribution, I wouldn't notice the beardy fellow hence my thanks to both of you Michael Ma and jonpais for sharing your open-minded heads-up (E :-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/907000-REG/Panasonic_dmw_ms2_External_Stereo_Mic_For.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/943375-REG/panasonic_vw_vms10_stereo_microphone_plug_in.html

And for different kind of budgets... LOL If possible to say it : ) you can always add one of those:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/929347-REG/tascam_dr_60d_4_ch_track_linear_pcm.html

Please, for your own sake start focussing on something else. 

I understand him, though. On past, I mean. I can't hardly express, your mixed emotion at their current thoughtlessness :D
 

E que Portugal seja campeão em terras de Vera Cruz ! :)

This will be THE video camera for doing sex tapes :)

LOL you can bet! :)

Crossposted out there (once people at times tend to forget they become camera geeks because of filmmaking) :

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?288192-Just-got-a-new-camera-Sony-F35&p=1986436076&viewfull=1#post1986436076

Andrew, you well know I am an admirer and defender of your web corner outside of here and here is the proof, the way you end your article:

"For now I recommend sticking with the official Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster if you’re a GH4 owner! This still gives you a approximately Canon APS-C sized 1.56x crop rendering of your full frame lenses and is a perfect match to APS-C lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8."

Where you, after so much experimentalist craziness :D you end with the wisest advice on topic ;)

Frankly, no idea why your naysayers go to pick up so much hate to spread wherever they can... your resources are becoming the most interesting location for indie filmmaking along dvxuser.

E :-)

Extra detail is good, however detail in the background can be distracting.  You will have to step up your game in composing shots in a major way

Indeed. Anything to bring a significant contribution for filmmaking must be regarded as a bless instead, such as affordable 4K.

The sharpness of the GH4 is ridiculous (in a good way).  You know when you look at old video, and it has a blurriness to it?  I think that's what HD is going to look like in a few years compared to UHD.  Even 4K down sampled to 1080p is a lot sharper.  The 1080p cameras never put out a full 1080 in image detail, while 4K down to 1080 does.

 

Michael

You just said it shortly what a lot of others are unable to admit to themselves because their multi-thousand camera only records 1080p :D But you will only need a bit more than a grand to be updated, no more excuses for that gimmick prosumer / broadcast / professional / cinema (cough cough) camera :P

GH3+4 are sharp (4 is sharper), but they both look like video cams - just nasty to my eyes.

BMPCC should've been shot in ProRes (RAW really isn't the way to go) & it looks way more film-like than the GHs. Also, there's tons of resolution in the Pocket image & any noise that you do get looks v.grain like.

Nowadays it is possible to put any videoish outcome to shine as film stock from your home computer, so it is such a mute point, actually ;-)

please not this madness again ;-)

 

the general public does not have the technical vocabulary to describe the image issues they dislike.

but they will non the less appreciate a good quality image and dislike a bad one.

 

gh4 clear winner here.

terrible raw from the bmpcc but everybody knows that now, prores is better and would have made more sense to compare from to begin with.

 

thanks for sharing!

I second that, pointless is to embrace the aliasing and moiré as a new trend of filmmaking (E :-)