Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chrad

  1. 30 minutes ago, nigelbb said:

    I might be tempted with a MFT as I miss ultra wide angle & fisheye but it would need to be small. My ideal camera at present would be an OM-D EM5 with the EM1 II sensor & 4K video. 


  2. 9 hours ago, Novim said:

    An interesting read:  http://www.focuspulling.com/bmpcc4k-learning/

    For example, "Bob insists that the Pocket 4K’s sensor is not the same manufacturing part as the one in the GH5S", Bob being Bob Caniglia of Blackmagic Design.

    Hard to buy that. There are barely any M43 sensors on the market. Is there really another out there with the same oversized dimensions and dual ISO that we somehow haven't heard about?

  3. 30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Interesting thread.

    I think not having an L-mount on there is going to be a mistake, but maybe they have data from their 10 years in the Micro Four Thirds consortium we're not aware of and it apparently makes sense to break from Panasonic entirely and go their own way.

    I can't see Sigma being too excited about making glass for their camera though, if that's what's going to happen.

    Good point. Sigma is exactly the kind of company they'd be analogous to as a third party lens manufacturer - focus on quality and sharpness, with innovative designs. These days I'd wager that despite the legacy of the brand, Olympus means less to the average Canikon/Sony buyer than Sigma. They're not the company they want to pit themselves against as the market consolidates.

    Will there even be much room for third parties with Sony and Nikon trying to lock them out of their new mounts?

    If Olympus are not to join the L-mount, a partnership would be a nice feather in Sony's cap. It could potentially carry over the Oly fanbase and strengthen Sony's position as 'the winning team' in mirrorless, but does Sony need such a partner alongside Zeiss?

  4. 1 hour ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

    Hmmm. I think there is a big a big difference in form from diamantino to children of men, and I don't compare them on their purpose, I just think it's a relief to see other structures, forms and approaches.  Zoolander ?? Really?! I didn't saw Zoolander so I can't say you are wrong.

    Zoolander/Diamantino is beloved by everyone but suffers a fall from grace and his position at the top of his field at the beginning of the film. He's targeted by right wing conspirers, who choose him for their experiment because he's too stupid to realise he's being manipulated. In Zoolander, he's brainwashed to kill the new Malaysian prime minister who wants to outlaw child labour, but thinks he's spending time at a 'day spa'. Like how the manipulators play on Diamantino's love of refugees, the villain in Zoolander hooks him by claiming he'll help him with his dream of opening a centre for disadvantaged children. 
    Instead of a government agent, it's a journalist who investigates the plot involving Zoolander and falls in love with him along the way. 

    There are too many similarities to the strange and unique plot of Zoolander for it to be a coincidence, although the stylistic approach is a bit different. I did find the freewheeling pacing and tone of Diamantino to be interesting. 

  5. On 9/10/2018 at 11:37 PM, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

    There were at least Lars Von Trier movie and Spike Lee English spoken movies. But there were great movies far more inventive than any movie I've ever seen from Cuaron, Inarritu or Del Toro. Did you saw Diamantino that won la semaine de la critique or Chuva é cantoria na aldeia dos mortos or Lazzarro felice or Dogman or  Ayka or Une affair de famille? All great, and with a  different idea from what cinema can be or should be. I think it's at least refreshing to see these movies in a big festival. Hollywood tends to see cinema just as a medium to tell a story, but cinema can be much more than just this.

    I haven't seen most of those yet, but Diamantino is essentially Zoolander, but with Ronaldo substituted in for a model, and 'topical' references to Brexit. It's hardly pushing new boundaries in cinema. Dogman is pretty conventional. I don't think it's fair to say these are more inventive than, say, Children of Men.
    Heard good things about Lazzarro, seeing it tomorrow.

  6. I recommend David Lynch's Inland Empire. Shot on Sony PD-150s with noise and blown highlights everywhere, but it works for the surreal horror vibe of the film and shows that the ugly imperfections of DV can make for a pretty special look. 

  7. 4 hours ago, anonim said:

    Thanks for concise report... So pity, it seems to me that Blackmagic keeps some black magic veil around this product  :)

    Just one thing I'm starting to dislike more after witnessing preorder euphoria - isn't BM voice once upon a time clearly said that will be never talk about products not instantly ready for selling? It was about fiasco with BMCCC anounce of global shutter and long delaying because they desperately trying to accomplish what they promised... Why BM don't keep the word about "ready to sell"?... Of course BMPCC 4k looks to me as miracle - but after reading the fact that actually it will be distributed at least just after half a year, I must to recall of some previous experience and given word about new anouncing course...

    They said at the press conference that they get asked about the Pocket 2 in every interview, so they didn't want to do NAB this year without showing it, and they felt ready to unveil it because the camera is finished. It just needs to be mass produced. 

  8. A still is probably going to be a much more useful takeaway from a casual shooting environment than a video clip. A good still is more easily singled out and more easily presented to an audience. A video clip usually needs to be contextualised by other scenes surrounding it, or it can feel aimless. There's a lot more work involved there. Generally I'd agree with the consensus that video is better used when you have an idea (or are committed to finding the idea) behind what you are shooting. 

  9. Killing the GX8 and its potential upgrade makes a lot of sense. 

    The camera market is shrinking. Panasonic don't need a pro and enthusiast DSLR style body, a pro and enthusiast rangefinder, pro and enthusiast compacts, and now specialty offshoots of the GH line as well. It's overkill. 

    I don't think the GX8 sold well, and if the G9 really is replacing the G85 as has been rumoured, they need to focus something on the lower end of the market. Pushing a few models that each have a specific section of the market in mind makes way more sense than releasing a whole bunch that trample on each other's intended demographic. Makes it harder to market too. 

  10. 23 minutes ago, jonpais said:

    Not overly fond of bright night scenes that are more intense than direct sunlight. Maybe in small doses? I use lights - in fact, I love having control over lighting - so high sensitivity isn't a big deal to me. 

    Yeah,  I like dark scenes to look dark. And shooting this way means that even if graded to a more natural look, there'll still be blown highlights everywhere. 
    My kind of test for this would be to take it somewhere really sparsely lit and crank up the ISO to approximate what the human eye sees. 

  11. 21 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

    Right. So the reason why they left it out of there? When GH5 battery is much better than any of their direct camera competitors as for instance Blackmagic or Sony.

    Or the business factor in order to not affect native GH5 sales? As their own inner concern... So not product centered. When people can end to buy both GH5 and GH5S bodies as myself.

    That's the (whole) point IMHO :-)

    It probably is part of the point, but I think Panasonic care about their reputation as far as batteries are concerned. GH3 and GH4 could go all day on a single battery, and I like to think they were proud enough of the positive feedback they got for that feature that they'd have been hesitant about cutting it to the level of the GH5. If they cut the battery life further on this model, they'd sacrifice one of their perceived advantages, at a time when other camera companies are nipping at their heels. They did the same with IBIS, but I guess someone at Panasonic perceives 'reliability' as more important to the brand perception than 'stabilised'.

  12. 2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

    Very well, it is not possible to switch it off then. Thanks for the enlightenment.

    So you or someone else will convince me now they are unable to supply such 10MP sensor coupled to Dual Native ISO with IBIS 'always active', please?

    And that we'll never see it on GH6S in any way other than as from upcoming technology to still develop this or also next year(s)?


    Well I can't say we'll never see it, or that it's impossible to do now, but I'd think the two together would be a massive power drain, no? Every Panasonic camera shortened in battery life from their predecessor when IBIS was introduced. GH5 can be powered on for much shorter than GH4. GH5s is only slightly less power hungry than the GH5, suggesting the dual ISO is also a big power drain. If these features were bundled together right now you might be looking at Blackmagic Pocket like battery life.

  13. 6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

    They could always implement to switch it off as user wishes, isn't it? I'm sorry but I don't buy the technical explanation as second thought.

    No actually - IBIS is always active, because the sensor is suspended by springs. When it's turned off in the camera, the system is still operating to hold the sensor still.

  14. I think this guy would overheat like a Sony A7 and have similar battery life if it were running dual native ISO and IBIS simultaneously. Maybe I'm just a sucker for their PR, but it makes sense to me - both features are big power drains.

  15. 25 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

    With luck we'll see the GH6 come out late this year in 2018, other early-mid 2019 is my bet. 

    I can't see it out this year. They released the GH5s just now and updated the GH5 four months ago. It's too soon for a new GH, with two currently supported models being pushed. 
    I think GH models will stick to a two year average cycle.

  16. It sounds like a beautiful camera. I don't have a Sony and I've long wanted a low light specialist but I'm very invested in M43. With other cameras to do what this can't (e.g. IBIS, long battery runs) I think it's a great addition to the kit.

    It's a specialist camera for specific uses - the richest looking 4K images for controlled productions, and a cam that sees into the darkness on a sticks. Given the power draw of the dual ISO (making the camera only slightly more energy efficient than the GH5, down specifically from the GH4 largely due to IBIS), I can believe that IBIS was cut for heat and energy efficiency reasons. 

  17. 18 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

    No reason to take ibis off though so should be fine. 

    There's one reason: to double the battery life. IBIS is a massive power hog. 

    It's kind of ironic that the ultra low light performer (if that's what this camera is) that one would therefore think of as a 'run and gun' camera, may not have IBIS, and the one that's going to be relegated to controlled lighting situations for those with access to this one will have it.

  18. This thread is taking a bizarre turn.

    1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

    Based on what? What moral standard? Who's to say he's wrong? Why are "clicks" wrong? What if that's the new morality and you're just living on the wrong side of history? How would you or anyone be able to say anything definitely without a moral foundation to base your claims on? 

    The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
    Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
    What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

    This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

  19. 1 hour ago, maxotics said:

    @Chrad makes the point that there IS a problem with suicide in Japan (and the U.S. with vets) which is a problem bigger than the ethical standards of any YouTuber or the Alphabet Corporation.  How does society learn about these problems, or guage their significance or scale?  If YouTube were able to block these kinds of videos would anyone ever get emotional about the problem?  I doubt it, it would just be another statistic.  Keep in mind, I am NOT CONDONING the vlogger's behavior, only pointing out that when you stand back, society works in weird ways.  He may have sent the message to get more viewers, but who ever send a message without some self-interest?  I've met no one.  I used to think I was above it, I'm not.   So I always try to focus on the biggest problem, not any self-interest.  The biggest problem is suicide.  The vlogger was society's weird way of having it put under people's noses.

    Think about it, we're all as guilty as the vlogger in doing nothing about the problem--at least I do nothing, but talk.

    Until the bigger problems are fixed first, I want information to flow freely, not matter how distasteful it may be.  All sources are biased and society still works in mysterious ways.


    The best case scenario is that the video draws people attention to Japan's suicide rate and the tragic reality of suicide increasing around the world. 
    The worst case scenario is that the video furthers the social isolation of the suicidally depressed. Older, successful role model Logan Paul sends a message to impressionable youngsters that people who commit suicide are a joke and encourages a lack of empathy for them. 

    I think it's really important that there's been such a backlash, and the morals and ethics that our entertainment reflects are very important - particularly when it's targeted to still developing minds.

  20. 53 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

    Any good documentary maker would likely keep on filming too. Many war corespondents will of course tell tales of exactly the same situation, where they couldn't put the camera down but had to pick it up to capture the story even under horrible circumstances (often quite the reverse, as the more horrible it is, the more important it is they report on it!).
    Now of course Logan Paul isn't a doco maker, he is a "YouTuber". 
    But in a way, that is kinda sort of the "same thing"? As a vlogger he is making a mini documentary, every single day

    Look on the upside perhaps? He is bringing more attention to Japan's terribly high suicide rates, maybe will do his tiny part in helping open a discussion to do something about it. 

    Oh, and as for censorship, I don't believe in any of that. "We don't have free speech to talk about the weather".


    Laughing at a dead body for views is not a beneficial way to raise awareness of suicide rates, and Logan Paul's vlogs constantly cross outside of the ethical boundaries of documentary filmmaking, so he can't be defended under those terms either. Seen as a journalist, he is lower than a joke. 

    Censorship? It's not censorship to reject an entertainer who was violated the trust and morality of the community. If he was a TV star, this would lose him his job. Sponsors etc pulling out isn't censorship... "it' s just business." 

  21. 7 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

    @Chrad I wasn't talking about or referencing you, please don't feel the need to defend yourself or others - there's a hole & you either fill it in or dig deeper.

    If you actually look at a list of BOAN's great revolutionary techniques, you quickly realise that there aren't many that actually relate to modern cinema - the one's that are would have been used at some point anyway in order to serve a different better story & not to help re-enforce racist ideologies.

    Your posts actually were responding to things I wrote - e.g., I mentioned that Griffith made Intolerance as an apology of sorts partially because he was criticised for furthering Intolerance (in the context of mentioning how this had a flow on to developing the Russian technique - yes, it was worthless as an 'apology') and in your next post you wrote "What's really troubling is the way people seem to think that this film's Pros out weigh it's Cons, when really all it's innovation was done in order to propagate & enhance a narrative that is pure & simply racist to its core. It really is of little consequence whether he then made a film to appologise about what he had done."  Another example, at the beginning of this tangent of the conversation I wrote that it was a hugely influential film, and we all know it's racist. Here one of the posts I quoted wrote "To state that we know it's racist, but that's ok because of what it might have given future filmmakers just simply isn't good enough." 
    In both of these cases it definitely does appear you were referencing what I wrote, and I do feel the need to defend myself because both of these things are mischaracterising what I was saying. 
    I don't think anyone is saying that or arguing that the racism of the movie is okay because of its technical advances anywhere, really. I don't think anyone on side with or making allowances for its politics really cares too much about cinema history. 

    What you're saying about other movies doing what Birth did sooner or later is likely true, but how much later would that have happened and how would the winding path that took us to where we were today look different if so? Griffith was incredibly influential in figuring out how to built a grammar around steady cuts back and forward around close ups and medium/wides to depict conversations, and in intercutting different sequences - these are not so much technological leaps forward as they are leaps of imagination. Yes, cinema was going that way anyway but that doesn't mean you can discount the point that this is where it was really starting to take place when talking about the context of cinema history. 

  • Create New...