Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eleison

  1. 46 minutes ago, ade towell said:

    Yes eleison I'm not really sure what point you are actually making and to be honest lost interest a long time ago. You say technology waits for no man etc... and as anonim has pointed out, the cutting edge comes to m43 a long time before it does full frame

    The cutting edge comes out to iphones/camera phones before full frame OR m43, but you don't see the majority of hollywood film makers use them.  It's about cutting edge technology in aggregate with what is available in order to facilitate creating films.  Right now, those that are truly working day in and day out on making movies for wide release tend to use larger sensor.

    Yeah, this subject is starting to bore me also.  People can believe what they want.  I'm old enough that this reminds me of the CD vs analog debate 20+ years.  Or the film vs digital camera debate 15+ years ago.

    People can believe what they want, but on major studio productions, you will not see many m43 cameras.  Argue with any DP on those sets that m43 is as good as what they are currently using, and they may not say it directly in your face, but they will think you are an idiot.  So this is where I will leave this.  Perhaps I am wrong, and the DP are just avoiding talking with you because he is just busy with "other stuff".  Whatever, right?  You be you.

  2. 25 minutes ago, kye said:

    I appreciate that this is part of a much larger subject, but I think you're still not getting this.

    There is a perspective that many people take, which assumes that higher resolution is better, and that back in the day people chose the highest resolution lenses that they could and it was just the tech that limited that.

    This is where you (and others) are fundamentally disconnected from the high-end of cinema - the point of me showing you the article on netting is that people are actively going out of their way to reduce the sharpness of fine detail - which is a more technically accurate way of saying that people are reducing resolution.  Deliberately.  They're actually taking what is on offer currently and paying to soften it.  They even used to do that in the days of film too, back when the technology had lower resolution.  Even those older lenses were too sharp!

    This is a fundamental lack of understanding - when people say "I want my video to be cinematic" and then they say "I can't do X because it's not sharp enough" they are arguing against themselves.  Part of the cinematic look is the lower resolution.

    If you're still unconvinced this is a real thing, then here's an article talking about Knives Out and Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how some/all of these were shot on digital but were processed (including halation, which is a particular type of softening of fine detail) on purpose.  https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography
    You cannot possibly think that they didn't have enough budget to do whatever they wanted, and could have shot it in RAW 8K with $100k lenses, so I hope this demonstrates that this is a serious thing that Hollywood actually does.

    The people who are talking about resolution and sharpness are in a different world than this, looking in lustfully at the images and then insisting on doing things that will take them further away from the look they want rather than closer to it.  But they don't know, because they're only talking to the stills photographers online.

    Yes, part of the cinematic look is lower resolution.  I've never argued against that.  However, having sharp lenses and bigger sensors allowed film makers to easier create films because of cropping, reframing, etc. Once that is done, then film makers can "reduce resolution" to make the actors look nice, and make the film look "cinematic".

    There are people in hollywood (quentin tarentino, christopher nolan, etc.) prefer film stock which is fine, but the majority of movies are made with digital.

    However,  the majority of hollywood films especially those that are block busters with a lot of special effects do shot in RAW 6k+ with $100K lenses.  Do these movies "reduce resolution" in their final product -- I bet a lot of them do AFTER editing, cutting, special effects.



  3. 2 hours ago, kye said:

    Not ideology..  we're all chasing an image that's as high-end or highest quality as we can.

    The issue that we have here on this forum is that we are very out-of-touch with what techniques are used to get the images that we admire, from large budget productions, or from classic films anyway.  There is a lot of stuff that isn't spoken about online, and it kind of exists outside of the internet, or at least is hidden behind paywalls.  It's easy to spend a long time consuming content and interacting with people online without ever really knowing that this stuff exists, especially now with social media 3.0 actively creating echo-chambers.

    In order to move out of the realm of ideology completely, let's look at some data.  I'm going to assume that you know how to read an MTF chart, since you seem to value resolution so highly.  If you don't then I'd highly recommend you look into them, they're invaluable.

    One thing you may not be aware of however, is that lenses don't have a "resolution".  To say one lens is 14MP and another is 16MP is oversimplification to the point it's misleading, because it's not that simple.  The resolution of a lens will blur detail, which essentially has a softening effect, lowering contrast of that detail.  Yes, there does get a point where if the detail is fine enough then the lens has lowered the contrast of that detail to zero, but the transition from it being very sharp (ie, high contrast) to very soft (ie, low contrast) is actually a progressive one.  MTF charts show this softening effect by measuring contrast at varying lines per mm, lp/mm, and obviously the higher the lines per mm you use to measure, the less contrast a given lens will have.  This is an important distinction, as we will see later.

    Amongst the most popular workhorse cinema lenses are the Zeiss CP.2 primes.  Here is how they measure: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-mtf-charts-zeiss-cine-lenses/

    Here is one of the MFT charts:


    This indicates that with fine detail they have very low levels of contrast, ie, low resolution.  

    Here's a chart from the Xeen testing article: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-xeen-and-schneider/


    This is even lower resolution again.

    Lets compare a 50mm Zeiss CP.2 to a high resolution lens:


    The Zeiss is obviously inferior in resolution terms to the other lens by quite some margin.  Also, that other lens also happens to be an MFT lens.  

    So why are cinematographers happy with such poor resolution.  Well, there's two factors that I can see, one is that digital video has been low resolution historically, and the other reason is that cinematographers actually like lower contrast lenses and will go to reasonable lengths to lower it.  Remember when I said above that a "lower resolution" lens is actually a lens that has relatively lower contrast on finer details than another lens.  Have a read of this article: https://www.provideocoalition.com/the-secret-life-of-behind-the-lens-nets/

    This article talks about how cinematographers are deliberately putting netting / fabric between the lens and the camera, in order to lower the contrast of fine detail.  ie, to lower resolution.

    Some examples from that article...  A close-up with no net:


    Black sparkle mesh:


    Silver sparkle mesh:


    Cropping is indeed a thing now, especially on lower budget productions where multiple cameras or multiple takes with different focal lengths are beyond the budget, and in this case, people may now move to controlling image softening in post.  Film halation effects also do this.  

    To go one step further, softer light sources do this, especially for skin texture, which is where the desire for lower contrast is typically expressed.

    In photography there is a very strange set of behaviours:

    • Insatiable desire to get the highest resolution lenses and the highest resolution camera and the highest quality image format (RAW) in order to capture the finest details, then....
    • Get the model to put on makeup (which lowers the contrast on larger skin features like lines, wrinkles, etc - it's called "concealer" for a reason)
    • Cart around ridiculously huge soft boxes in order to smooth the skin (lowering the level of contrast across all detail sizes)
    • Now we go into photoshop and we:
      • dodge/burn with a brush (lowering the contrast of medium sized details)
      • paint over skin areas with filters that lift shadows, or similar (lowering the contrast of all skin details)
      • and then potentially we do frequency separation, where we literally seperate the frequencies, which correspond to small, medium and large detail, and then basically eliminate medium sized detail

    What is left after all this contrast reduction (lowering resolution) seems to be that we have the models eyes and hair rendered in glorious detail, but skin at detail levels approaching 720p with a Petzval lens.

    I'm not sure about you, but in the context of all that, I've kind of lost the logic as to why we need a wide angle lens that is 36MP wide-open (8K resolution).  They do exist, but go have a look at DXOMark and tell me how many lenses there are that exceed 30MP that anyone here can afford.

    Thank you for your informational reply.  I'm still digesting the information.  I will not be able to fully reply to a lot of your assertions and to be honest, some of it is probably over my head :-).  In my opinion, lens sharpness wasn't a big deal because historically, directors and editors rarely cropped FILM.  I think the general consensus is that 2k is good enough for theater presentation (regular theaters not IMAX, etc.) (https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yedlin-camera-resolution-myths).  Because of this, these classical cinema lenses that were used on film were more than sharp enough even if film stock had more fidelity.  These older/cinema lenses only need to resolve up to 2k images.

    I guess I can understand the irony that photographers look for sharpness, only to obliterate it later w/ makeup, soft lighting, etc.. however, that is basically only for one use case:  images of people.  However, if you look at at subjects (cars, buildings, etc), photographers will keep the resolution.

    I'm also confused when you say that there are not many lenses that exceed 30mp resolution?  With many high resolution cameras (a7rIV, 5dr, d850, etc.) out in  the market place, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it's folly to buy these cameras because few lens would have enough sharpness for these cameras.  However, this article disagrees with this statement:


    There are other articles saying the same thing.  It is my belief that video is only a series of images therefore if these lenses are able to resolve high resolution images of aprox 30MP, they should be fine for 8k video which is aprox 30MP imagines.  Granted 10 years ago, there were very few lens that could resolve that high of a megapixel count -- but back then you don't have high megapixel cameras.  Now you do and manufactures are creating sharper glass -- gm lenses, sigma art, etc.

    That is one of the things I hear about photography lens -- they are too sharp.  They don't have character like cinema lenses, etc...  But times are a changing.  As more and more movies do special affects like green screen, it's gets more important to have high resolution imagines that are created by sharp lenses to get better keying.  Not to mention, the previous discussed advantages like re-framing.  But at the end of the day, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat.  If people don't want to shot on larger sensors.  That's fine.  There are people still taking photographs using film stock, and listening to vinyl.  Good for them.  I'm not going to be part of that group though.  Technology waits for no man.  You can use technology to help you, or you don't. 

  4. I'll just leave this here since we have now moved to a place of ideology:


    "Putting aside the many aesthetic reasons, I told him that there are a great many benefits that come with the increased sensor size. There was the luxury of reserving an area outside of the theatrical release, for visual effects. A big consideration for a movie like this. There would also be a need to extract an IMAX (1.9:1) format from the sensor area. Lastly, the greater resolution would allow flexibility for reframing in post."



    Lets agree to disagree... U be u and lets create awesome content.  Nothing says you cannot use M43 for filming.  Remember its not the size that matters, but how you use it. hahahah

  5. 1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

    1) there is not true whatsoever in being possibly just with FF, you can do this exactly just the same with S35/APS-C/MFT/S16

    2) shooting to intentionally be cropping later in post is baaaad for sound, bad for the art department, bad for lighting, bad for the actors, etc... don't do it!


    A lot of people reframe.  While I don't like Red, here's an example.


    You can ALMOST do the exact same thing with M43, if you have a SHARP AND FAST enough wide lense; good enough light, and adequate distance from the subject to the camera.  Unlike full frame cameras, I can barely find the equivalent SHARP and FAST M43 lens.  An M43 camera gets close to full frame with the metabones adapter, but you do lose some sharpness.  With respect to reframing, M43 is possible, but why make it harder for myself?  There will be situation a smaller sensor will not be able to create the same video due to the lack of distance from subject to camera, or the large aperture that does not exist for a wide angle lens on the M43 system which does exist for full frame.

    For example in the above footage, an M43 camera would have to be position further away from the subjects than a full frame camera to make sure that the people are both in frame (while at the same time necessitating the compressing of the image).  Sometimes this would mean they would have to extend the car hood.  Perhaps, there isn't enough distance (like in a very small set), and the shot would just not be possible unless walls are broken down (film makers did this a lot in the golden age of movies) or without building custom camera rigs.

    In addition fast wide angle lens, give the director an easier way to blur the background of the cropped video.  Most M43 wide angle lens are not really that fast (when the smaller sensor size is taken into account) so the reframed shots will usually have a larger dof.  These are the reason I'm excited about full frame 8k cameras and why M43 isn't for me.  I can do any shot that a M43 camera can do with full frame, but it's not the same for the M43 camera (mostly due to compressed perspective, blackground blur, and IMHO digital noise; cropping from a smaller sensor is never a good idea).  The shots that the M43 can do, is close.. but not close enough for me.  1.5x crops is very demanding on lenses.  Nothing right now says to me that M43 wide angle lens can handle that much sharpness especially once we start moving to 8k.   That' what??? 3X crops at least.. Instead of cropping just to her face in the above video, you could crop into her eyes conveying a different type of emotion.  Or in some shorts, cutting into the drivers fingers conveying nervousness.  So many situations where that would be helpful.  Not to mention, you can more easily match cut when editing because you would have so many more things on screen you can match cut to.

  6. 5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    But by the time FF gets everything there is in a GH5/GH5S/GH6 then I'm sure the MFT system will have moved further on as well!

    But isn't waiting on FF the "chasing rainbows" option?

    Just for example, how many people are still waiting for a mythical "a7Smk3"? (some folks have been waiting YEARS for this!)

    Meanwhile we've got a GH5(or GH5S) which is better in many regards! (Waveforms/TC/4K60fps/10bit/240fps/etc)

    That's the thing.  People are "waiting" for the A7smk3.  We aren't chasing the next greatest and latest.  When (and if) it comes, we might buy it -- if it is good.  Instead of concentrating on switching systems (canon RF, nikon Z, etc..); we wait for the market to come to us.  The focus is on using a little bit of patience instead of giving more and more money to camera manufactures year after year.  Spend of some of that money on more important items with a higher ROI -- lights, acting, production values, etc.  Bleeding edge camera technology is expen$ive.

    Even at this point, the GH5s still doesn't trump the A7III for low light.  At least not definitely.  The general consensus is that the GH5s is good, but the A7III is better for low light.  The a7sii (a really old camera), still trumps the latest and greatest M43 cameras with respect to low light.  

    Yes, there have been improvements in m43 that the hybrid full frames are slow to adapt ((Waveforms/TC/4K60fps/10bit/240fps/etc).  But these advantages do not in aggregate trump the biggest (imho) advantage of the full frame sensor -- the viewing perspective.  To me that is the biggest advantage.  The viewing perspective allow me to digitally crop, pan, zoom, etc.  This also allow me 2X more cut points while editing.  Perhaps, with a newer M43 camera I can over/underexpose by 3 stops instead of the 1.5 stops.  Perhaps, I can't do 240fps with an older full frame camera, and have to settle with 120fps, etc..  That's fine. For most stuff that I do, I don't really need those items that often.  I also don't do extreme grading.  The 8 bit seems adequate for me to match scenes and it's very seldom I can't get the exposure within 1.5 stops (I'm not blind - hahahah).

    It seems like we are rehashing ourselves :-)  you be you.  And I'll be me.  Whatever people use, just create a bunch of cool content for people :-)  

  7. 46 minutes ago, sanveer said:


    @eleison this is for you. 

    It's far easier to re-crop from 6k, than 4k. It has almost nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with the resolution. 

    I guess that's a good thing since cell phones are starting to shoot 8k video now 😉  You be you.

  8. 1 hour ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

    Lack of lens options is a valid objection, but Voigtländer does have 10.5mm f0.95 lens as long as you don't rely on autofocus.

    If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit...


    Dude, seriously I tried to move to the M43 ecosystem.  The A7iii has it's limitations (8bit color, IBIS is just ok,  flickering in certain light -- gh5 has the ability to fine tweak the fps so no flickering, also some FE lens don't have linear manual focus, etc.)   The fine adjustment of fps is important.  There are times I will not be able to shoot UNLESS I bring in lights because of the flickering.

    The voigtlander seems interesting, but I doubt it is sharp enough for me.  I crop to 1.5X sometimes even 1.7X to export in 1080p.  With that extreme cropping, you will see the lack of details and sharpness.  My friend doesn't crop as much, so he doesn't really care about tack sharp lenses.  

    Because the gh5 is M43, the starting field of view is already very narrow.  Cropping in 1.5X will be like shooting on a telephoto lense.  With the full frame, a 24mm F1.4, the aprox 1.5X, the crop will be like taking a video on a 36mm lens which is acceptable.  Because of this, there's more opportunity to crop with a full frame field of view.  Basically, I can film two people talking to each other and punch in to the actors faces separately and it would seem like I have two cameras shooting each actor separately.  I could do that with M43, but I would have to make sure I had the distance to get both into frame initially and/or they are standing fairly close to each other.

    Dude, I'm just so excited about all the cool stuff we have right now.  Granted if M43 was the only mount, I would be excited too.  But full frame digital is giving us so much benefit as compared to just a few years ago.  I was listening to Roger Corman talk about his days as a director/editor.  What a loser.  he didn't have the cool stuff we have now :-) hahahahhaha  

  9. 1 hour ago, UncleBobsPhotography said:

    I think you are reading too much into this. I am one of the persons who have been praising the GH5 in this thread, but I have 3 times as many full-frame bodies and probably 3 times as many full-frame lenses as well. Even though one guy had a good shoot with the GX85, I'm pretty sure most of us would prefer full frame for photography. Most of the FF advantages disappear when you get into video, which is why I go FF for photo and use my GH5 for video.

    If Canon's next mirrorless ticks all the boxes I will probably switch to FF for video as well, but I think it's more likely that the GH6 will be a better video camera.


    Yes, I am probably "reading too much" into this :-)  also, another advantage for FF for video.  Cropping (panning, punching in, etc.).  I love cropping from 4k to 1080p on wide full frame lenses.  It basically turns full frame view into an APSC field of view.  I been using the 24mm 1.4; I love that lens.  M43 equivalent would be something like a 12mm F0.7 assuming you don't use a metabones adapter which slightly degrade imagine quality (which is of extreme importance because IMHO cropping in is very demanding on lenses) and adds bulk.  Actually, does the M43 ecosystem even have an equivalent lens?  There are 12mm lenses but none of them seem very fast in the M43 ecosystem.

    Oh well, whatever.  Like they say, "you, be you".  My friend has a pocket 4k, but I still use my a7iii.  Having 10bit is nice, but there's just too many things that I find much more important in aggregate.  I would rather buy lights, pay actors more, add to the production value, etc...  than "upgrade" to a pocket 4k right now.  That being said, I can't wait unit the full frame hybrid cameras get their act together -- where the F is the next a7siii?   hahahahahah

  10. On 2/29/2020 at 4:59 PM, Video Hummus said:

    To be honest, sounds like the “lowly” GX85 punched above it’s weight.

    There is much more to photography and videography than the fucking sensor size. “Oh, buts it’s not Full frame”. “Oh, it doesn’t have that FF look”.


    Take a look at Chris Eyre-Walker or James Popsys. Think they care that they aren’t using FF? Nah, they don’t give a fuck.

    So strange.  Why do some small niche of people hate on full frame so much?  If you like M43, so be it.  Just because a person is "all in" with m43 doesn't mean they should start putting down other technology.  Just go out there and shoot.

    I tried M43 especially on the earlier cameras (owned gh2, gh3, rented the gh4 several times) .  It's just not for me.  To many compromises in my humble opinion.  Perhaps things have changed with the gh5.  I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  I have also own several apsc image camera (10d, 20d, 7d), I am an keenly aware of the field of view of smaller sensors.  If a person wants to shot their stuff on M43, I don't really care.  When I see someone with a M43 I think lower quality image acquisition (photographs), wide dof unless you buy something like a 18-35mm (which I owned) which makes the M43 camera system even bigger; bad autofocus; and you have to be cognizant of your setup if you want a shallow dof.. and also bad low light.  Perhaps the gh5s is good low light, but then its are missing ibis.  The M43 is really a mess for what I like to shot.

    At the end of the day, full frame is what I choose and a lot of people want.  Do your own thing and if it works for you, fine.  However, as a previous m43 user, even with the touted advantages of the system NOW; it's just not for me.  Whatever technology that can make a smaller sensor better than a larger sensor (gh5s), that technology can be transported to the larger sensor and greatly improve that technology.  It's all about waiting a bit and full frame will get that technology.  Full frame will always be better in that respect.  I'm not wasting my time chasing rainbows.

  11. 41 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

    If he got what he needed at the show then any advantage the A73 has wasn't needed. 

    True... It wasnt needed for him.  Other people may find having those advantages indispensable.  After all, my sister thinks her gopro is good enough.  To each his own :)

  12. 1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

    It's amazing to me how dismissive people are of the benefits of M43. To me the only "insurmountable" negative of the system, at least on the Panasonic side, is the auto focus but even that, in my opinion, is overblown. Everything else can be pretty much remedied. Poor in low light? Throw a little light on your subject/scene! Need shallow depth of field? Just use the right lens! 

    I understand why people love full frame. I really do! But you don't NEED full frame, you just WANT full frame. There's nothing wrong with that either but are you incapable of creating your vision using a smaller sensor? I doubt it. 

    Two weeks ago I filmed a pro wrestling event with my 3 camera set up. My buddy did stills using the A7iii with the Sony 70-200mm. I blew his mind when I showed him the GX85 with the 35-100mm f/2.8. The two side by side was comical. Cost of his set up, by the way? $4,600. I paid $250 for the GX85 and $400 for the 35-100mm on the used market. Even if I bought them new though it'd have been $1,500. I know it's not the best comparison, but my buddy could've easily done his job with a G9 instead. Price of that new? $1,200.

    I'm rambling, sorry, ha ha, but hopefully some of that makes sense! 

    Pros of the a7iii:

    better low light (I hope the pro wrestling event had good lighting)
    better slow motion (because sensor is bigger) - epic slow motion of body slams (120fps; try that in low lighting with a small sensor)
    more accurate focusing.
    better follow focus - epic shots of wrestlers walking into the stadium
    better image if a large DOF was required due to fast moving action and the camera man was not sure where the focus of the action will be at any one time.

    To be honest, the a7iii is the better tool for THIS job than the m43.  there are a lot of shoots that would be  difficult for the M43 camera to capture if not impossible as compared the the a7iii.  Almost every shot the GX85 did, the a7iii could easily reproduce.  The only positive I can think of is that the stabilization on the GX85 I think is a little bit better.

  13. 6 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

    As atm if you are born less fortunate (handicapped, lower IQ, ugly or just even in the wrong country)  you are discriminated. 

    This has always been the case.  No time in history has those born handicapped, lower IQ, ugly or just even in the wrong country NEVER been discriminated against for any real length of time.  From the promise of "equality" for all during the Russian revolution which lead to millions of average Russians to mass graves to Venezuela's "government knows best and destroy the capitalist" -- those that are stupid, ugly, handicapped have borne the brunt of the food shortages, murders, rapes, etc.  Those that are smarter, more cunning, ruthless, takes advantage of the less fortunate.


    HOWEVER, as the world moves away from the mentality that a central government (dictators, rule by fiat, socialism, etc) should rule; the average citizens quality of life has gotten better.  Nobody starves anymore.  In western culture, for most average people, instead of being forced to go to war or have your home taken away, one of the biggest issue of the less fortunate is not famine, disease or mass murder through unpractical policy; but eating too much.  There is an obesity problem for the less fortunate now.  And well, that's usually an issue with self control.  One of the benefits of the policies enacted in Venezuela is the obesity rate has gone down.


    I'm not quite sure what the point of my post is... but I have to get lunch now, soooo... whatever...

  14. Great.. I just got an expensive OLED TV a few years; I guess it's only going to be good for the next 10 years before I need to upgrade. Perhaps instead of find new technology, they could try to find new ways of creating OLED panels so they are only a few hundred dollars to buy. When burn in sets into the screen, just buy a new one.  Obviously, this will not work with cameras.

  15. 1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

    IBIS is great for handheld work in my opinion. I don't know why people expect it to replace a gimbal though.

    Isn't it great enough to be able to take the jitter and hand shake out of a steady handheld locked-down frame?

    I remember the time when a tripod or shoulder mount was necessary for just about anything.

    We are getting spoilt!

    Just use a neck strap like the good old days.



  16. 3 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

    Yes if only they had a mirrorless fullframe camera shooting 8K when they made Pyscho. ;)

    Things are definitely a lot better now.  Hitchcock and his film crew would be amazed.  Since they were shooting film,  they would have to stop and reload every 5 minutes.  I think each roll/ cassette of film only shot 8minutes at most.  Imagine having to switch sd cards every 8minutes, and store them somewhere.  They also had to figure out how to build a set, and than actually build one - now, if they were shooting equipment that we have now; they can probably get away with just shooting on location if they wanted.  Also, I'm not 100% sure, but sensor technology has eclipsed film technology from the 60's so less light is needed; and you don't have to carry several different "box speed".  Not too mention all the grading options that we have now compared to the super35 film days.  Lets not also forget the ability to crop.  It's really hard to crop  film so it wasn't widely done.  I don't really remember an instance that they did. 

    I do declare, if Alfred came back from the dead today, he would get a stiffy followed by a heart attack muttering to his grave saying "what a bunch of stupid gear heads" shaking his head at this forum.  Laugh all you want, but Alfred would give his left nut for a full frame 8k camera.  When George Lucas started with digital filming, a few decades ago; he paid like 1 million dollars for a 1080p camera?  I'm not sure what it was, but it was expensive ----- for 1080pm.  Let that sink in. 

    But than, who knows?  He might have also given his right nut for a MFT 8k camera.. hahahahahahah

  17. 34 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

    Had no idea people at the level of Dave had agents! My mind is kinda blown. 

    Well, Dave does share an agent with 4-5 other guys so  I'm assuming the cost of an agent split 4-5 ways isn't so bad ;-)

  18. 39 minutes ago, mkabi said:

    I'm not trying to pick a fight here.

    But, I don't know... I felt the same, but after trying out mft...

    I got to call it as a I see it... Most of the above is mostly B.S. from online pundits.

    1) <-- Very subjective and its content based not related to sensor size.

    2) <-- Well, watch this video and tell me that 3 feet is really a big deal (may be switch out the lens for the 16-35mm):


    3) <-- Plenty of bokeh on mft here (by the way thats my video with the stupid Yi Camera):


    4) <-- This I agree with - but manipulating light with reflectors, external soft boxes, LEDS, flags, etc. even time of day (the golden hours) and working within their limitations is half the fun.

    5) <-- This matters if you are not using any editing tools at all, but I've taken some amazing pictures with the 7D. And, they looked great straight out of camera. Funny story, I was working with a friend for a wedding, I told him... man its just a 7D + a couple of L lenses, he said that it will be fine. He was shooting with a 5D mark 2, and the groom wanted all my pictures instead. After reviewing my photos, my friend was blown away by them too, mostly because I captured a lot of those "intimate" moments. 

    1) Environmental portraits are very popular now a days;  it's just a lot harder with crop cameras.  Given enough distance from the subject, it's possible -- but in certain situations, it's just impossible.  I'm not sure what you mean it's "very subjective and content base"; either you can shot those type of clips or you can't.  Back in the day, I had a gh2 and the 18-35mm; and there were shots I just couldn't take - the combination of bokeh, and subject matter.

    2)  3 feet is a big deal. That is why a lot of sets were built in the past because you had to be able to fit the camera.  Try shooting a bathroom scene in a typical Chicago or NY apartment - damn near impossible without breaking the walls with a super 35 or MFT camera or creating an artificial set (and that is one of the MOST important reasons big hollywood directors created sets - and they created alot of them).  For the small production or these that want to shot on location, crop cameras will not allow you to shot those scenes especially if the DOP wanted a certain DOF.

    3)  There is boken on Mft, but its harder than full frame.  Also, Boken is based partly on the focal length and distance.  Once again, try to shoot bokeh in a small set, and some scenes will be impossible to shot without breaking down walls or having a larger DOF.

    4&5) A lot more work than necessary on the crop cameras.  I think we can agree on that.


    In either case, the public has already chosen.  They want full frame.  You may want crop/MFT, etc.. but even the manufacturers are trying to get into the Full frame game.  I'm not saying MFT is bad.  I believe it's all about the story.  However, at the end of the day MFT is more limiting than full frame.

  19. On 2/11/2020 at 8:13 AM, heart0less said:

    a7S still impresses me, too. These shorts aged well, IMHO:



    Even today, the above shorts would be hard to replicate.  The A7S is a monster in low light.  I have the a7iii and the A7Sii.  When you cannot bring your own lights, the A7S will destroy other cameras.  My friend has the pocket 4k, and it will definitely destroy the pocket 4K.  Basically, the only way a lot of the newer cameras can create the above shorts would be to add more light and than "make it seem darker" in post.  It's the "grain" quality for low light shots that make the A7S the legendary camera that is now and even though it's 5 years old, larger Hollywood productions still use it because of this.

  20. 1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

    The obsession with the “large sensor look”. Which, ok granted, you can get shallower depth of field with wider lenses with a larger sensor. But the quest to blur the background out is definitely missing the point of “cinema” and while we are not all chasing to do “cinema” the extreme shallow depth of field is becoming almost cliche and meme worthy.

    Not to mention there are other concerns at play like overall weight, packability, friction-to-use. 

    Benefits of a larger sensor:
    1) Environmental portraits in film subjects causing shots to be more intimate.
    2) In general, you don't have to break down walls because the lens are wide enough to cover the subject.
    3) Obviously, bokeh; when the film/story calls for it, you will have it in spades.
    4) in general, low light is better in bigger sensors.
    5) taking pictures on a full frame sensor has the same aesthetics as taking pictures with a "quality" full frame image camera (5d2, d850, etc..) - basically, the full frame sensor acts like a hybrid image acquisition tool (both images and video).


  21. 1 hour ago, heart0less said:

    My God..

    Clickbait has gone from bad to worse..



    .... and he's still probably making more money from his videos than most of us; this is getting me more depressed.  Where are the new darn camera reviews? Come on man!!! one more hit.. I feel like there is this cloud of procrastination slowly engulfing me...  Like anxiety.......... Go out there and create stuff, you say.  Forget that you.. .you vile voice in my subconscious; hello people, we need new camera reviews... 10bit; RAW; IBIS.. come.. come on, people!!!


  22. 8 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    I am 100% biased.

    I am ok with anyone liking the camera if it works for them.

    When you have been treated like shit direct by Blackmagic reps and employee, and you read stories from others and certain whistleblowers on GlassDoor, it's a total turn off. I don't think I'll buy another product from them.

    Separate to that I just think the cameras are overhyped and under-featured compared to mirrorless cameras like the A7 III, X-T3, S1, Fp and many more.

    Lastly there is the form factor, I don't like to rig my small cameras. I like to keep them small and integrated as a single unit.

    I don't want to have to add basics like an EVF just to see what I am shooting outdoors, and that screen goes invisible in anything but darkness.

    So in my opinion a PITA to use, overhyped, from a company who has treated me like shit.

    So yes I am based, make of that what you will :)

    Well, any reviews that has the BMD camera will now be suspect.  Sad.  Oh well, objectiveness was fun while it lasted.  Well, BMD better start sucking soon because if they continue to be "good", Andrew will be that kid who has his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed mumbling -- "I don't care; you suck.. I don't care; you suck..."  After a while, he will lose credibility and people will stop caring about what he says.  People will then ask why Andrew hates BMD so much, and Andrew will yell out "I didn't get invited to BMD's bday party; other kids (fuji, panasonic, sigma, etc..) invited me to their bday party.. and BMD is a poopy head."


    Hhahaha.. just kidding, Andrew's forum, his rules :-)  It's just gear after a while.  It just seems so emotional to me.

  23. 32 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

    Different people have different experiences with. So is life. I just think their arrogance might be addressed and Andrew has no saved mince words about that either.

    BMD don't make enough margin on their products.  They are selling the best value possible because they are a small company - that is their competitive advantage.  They are eschewing support, and a little quality control.  If they included good support like Apple products, we would be paying Apple prices.  Name another camera that is better than the pocket 4k for the price.  There isn't one.  Especially if you consider they are giving resolve for free.  

    If you want good support buy a +$10K canon cinema camera or a +$10K FS9.  In addition to good support, you get good auto focusing.  Most people (and there are a lot of them) understands this and they live within the limitation.  

  • Create New...