IronFilm

i dont get this argument? you can get essentially a 95% match across most image formats, but since you can get just that tiny bit shallower with larger sensors that makes it all moot?

the reason to get a gh or fx or pocket camera is because its a shitty camera to own. It’s for personal projects where theres no budget, or as a bcam in certain situations, either as an extra angle during scenes, or to rig it on a car so the good expensive camera doesnt break. If you have to use it, a few compromises should be made. In the case of mft that’s mostly not being able to be super shallow on wide lenses, but for normal use cases, you’ll be fine. this stuff should be liberating to know?
If there’s budget, why wouldnt you rent a mini/mini lf/35/venice? Its obvious better cameras have advantages!
there’s a certain other test by manuel luebbers where he conducts a similar test with a mini and 65, where he shoots more shallow. the same conclusion arises: the large format look is just super shallow depth of field when the lenses are wide open. If theyre not, the look can be matched with different formats.
 
i think theres about a million things more important than hitting the sweet spot of separation in real life scenarios. that being said, with the right choice of focal lengths and distance from camera, you can get pretty shallow dof from any format!
 
i just think they hit a great balance of being sharp and slightly soft at the same time. The vignette you get at t/1.4 is nice too. Zeiss CP2 set is garbage tho, so i’m not going to generalise statements about their brand.
 
i think 1080p is a great delivery resolution, but i’m not always inclined to shoot it. Someone in the editorial suite is probably going to zoom on something without my intention, and then they’ll get mad at me for not shooting in a higher resolution. I’d prefer to avoid that.
 
He likes it because it was twice as shallow as S35. Just like the 2x anamorphic used on moonlight are twice as shallow as spherical s35
“We shot Beale Street on the Alexa 65, a large-format camera. You get a much more shallow depth of field than you would with a Super 35 sensor, or 35mm film if you're shooting film. It's what helps that rack focus to the foreground on Brian to be as dramatic as it is.”
https://filmmakermagazine.com/106532-laxton/
 
 
 

The ifs have a grammatical function. I’m explaining to you how optics work. A 24 at 2.8 on a 36x24mm sensor and a 12mm at 1.4 on a 18x12mm sensor will look exactly the same when placed at the same spot, with exactly the same separation.
that is also the reason i linked yedlins article: you get to see example images where he matched the look of 1 certain FOV and DOF on different imager sizes and lenses. this is just pure math that you’re trying to disprove.
“Even the same lens on the same camera will have a different look with a couple steps forwards or backwards.”
not sure what you’re trying to say here. Flaring and a different focus point tend to have an influence on the image, sure.
I agree that 1.4 lenses on mft are more rare, but that’s a different aspect in this argument (manufacturers not wanting to make high quality mft gear anymore). 
if the client is broke, i use my pocket 4k and meike lenses or olympus zoom. If theyre not, i rent an alexa and some lenses (i like zeiss super speeds a lot). I don’t see why resolution is relevant to this discussion though. are we trying to move goalposts again?

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s
- very wide on MF
- wide on FF and s35
- a widish medium on mft
- mild telephoto on s16
- regular telephoto on B4 broadcast.

lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. 
https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
 
 

i guess its a nicer starting point than the v log conversion.
 
 
Pure nonsense. human eyes are not closer to 40mm on FF than 21 on MFT. FF only makes it easier to get shallower DOF. Focal lengths dont “round out” your subjects, lens design does. FOV is created between relationship of the focal length and the film back size. Dof by the size of the aperture. 
 
If the colors of the cameras, as well as the dof and fov, were matched, you wouldn’t see a difference. Read the yedlin articles again.

I think a big bonus for this for GH7 owners will be being able to use Arri's free online Look Library tool to preview and download pre-made authorised LUTs to get fast and painless results in camera.
A bit of a downer for the LUT peddling bros though.

https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/image-science/look-files#/ict/looks/view/sw/ref/3/a/0/b/4/fav/r55i
 

I'm also not a huge fan of this new airy Midtone look that everybody seems to be doing. It looks like some kind of Bravo reality show about LA real estate.

I bought the original iPad, and what a toy that was. It took them until the 5th generation, (insanely expensive) iPad Pro to make a useful tablet, for me. A lot of that is software and a platform maturing. These headsets are way more ambitious devices to deliver high quality at a moderate cost.

But when you realise you lost your charger and you have a wedding in 2 days and live in a rural location…
It’s a convenience.

Did it fail?
Have you tried one and watch one of your work on a high res big screen and you may change idea?
I was very skeptical but I’m now a believer.
Just watching my own movies on a big screen is impressive. The immersive stuff is scary good.
Quest 3 is at the right price and already quite good much better than what I thought, now that finally there is competition fast forward 2-3 years and we will get Vision Pro quality at 500$.
We may even change how we consume video no more low res vertical crap but this is more an hope than a prediction😂😂

At least you have an Amazon!!! (not the case for me) 

As posted a few months ago after my haha moment while trying the Vision Pro 3 months ago I brought a dual fisheye (already had the R5c) and a Meta Quest 3 (kind of Vision Pro for the poor 🙂)
So far I have filmed:
-Bungee jumping on the James Bond Goldeneye jump, probably the most impressive so far that I did.
-Basketball 
-Horse showjumping
-Bike
-Car
-5 Star Luxus Hôtel

Everybody that I have filmed, and I show them on the Quest they just say "ohhhh wow just incredible it seems to be there". It is definitely an early stage, but I feel the tech is finally mature enough for early adopters.
 
Every time I look at the footage it seems unreal.... yet you need to wear a heavy and clumsy device to experience so the 1M$ question is: will Vision Pro style devices become mainstream and if yes when?

I also started filming some family moment, not really a lot of work as the camera is normally static just to have some memories in case the tech will really take off.


Anyway, I'm happy that Resolve will have tools for immersive (VR180) as right now is a bit of a pita the process, some stuff is quite complex like stabilization...
 
What I would dream of an Insta360 X4 but VR180... I watched some of this year Alaskan Snowboard 360 trip video on the Quest and is just wow, but 360 is not as great as VR180...

Seems like the BMD EVF works on the Canon C400's USB-C output? Or that is what I've read. 
 

Makes it very easy to fit in with established workflows using ARRI cameras. (if that's not your world, then it's much less of a big deal this particular announcement) 

Official certification by ARRI is surprising indeed!
If anything can cause an explosion in seeing Panasonic mirrorless on film sets I work on, it would be THIS! 
Would instantly make the GH7 the #1 choice for crash cam / B Cam / etc, anything that needs very awkward mounting, such as mounting a camera for a shower scene or riding a motorbike or a snorricam. 
 

That BM aquascooter looks pretty wild and you'd hope they are producing the lens system as a separate swappable option for the 17K camera rather than it just being a single unit.
Its certainly got the resolution to make the most of shooting VR and commercially if you are one of few people shooting for a content starved device (and consumers) like the Vision Pro then it makes more sense maybe than being A.N. Other shooter of "regular" content.
Its a risk though as you'd be gambling on this being the trigger for more widespread adoption of a very expensive device that has received far higher praise for its technology and conceptual aspects than its actual utility.
Of course, the "consumer" priced version may be just around the corner but, again, thats a bit of a risk and the whole thing is very chicken and egg.
The R7/3.9mm dual fisheye is a very different proposition entirely though.
I think this is something where you have to forget about a wider audience or naysayers ("Its too low res bro") and likely any commercial use, particularly at the current time, and look at your own needs and say will creating stuff with this please me ?
 From content that I've watched on my Quest 2 that is made by its bigger brother R5/5.2mm combo then I'd say, yes, it does please me, particularly considering the price differential.
The R7 is a very capable and compact camera that is great for travel and this (along with events) is what I would use it for to capture nice looking immersive 3D memories.
Years ago, I had one of the Sony TD20 3D camcorders and I actually thought it was pretty great for that stuff but then, like a lot of people, got sucked into the "I'm going on holiday to France, I simply cannot shoot anything that doesn't look like it was shot by Roger Deakins" bollocks. 
I just don't enjoy a packing list that reads "Swimming shorts, sunglasses, flip flops, sunscreen, three lenses, ND filters, matte box, follow focus..." for holidays any more.
Thats why I've gravitated towards the Osmo (if indeed I take any camera) these days and I think this combo would give me some way to bridge the gap and make something more interesting. 
With the option, of course, of taking one of those small RF primes or zooms if I felt like using it as a regular camera.
However.....despite being far cheaper than the R5 equivalent, the R7/3.9 mm has a combo price of around £2300 which is way over the top for me these days for a "that might be fun" indulgence but I certainly look forward to enjoying what other people do with it.
In this video, Canon are advocating using it the 4K/30/25 fine mode for maximum quality (as its from oversampled 7K) but it would be interesting to see it what it does in the R7's 4K/60/50 mode.
 

I think you're discrediting the French. They were probably expecting a message from Nikon over Minitel, not fax.

You can attach an eGPU with an RTX 4090 to just about any PC laptop with either a Thunderbolt or USB 4 port.  I'm not sure if there are any Oculink laptops yet, but if there aren't, it's only a matter of time.
As for the processor, nearly every one of those mini PC's uses a laptop processor so...  a decent laptop will have a similar processor.
And still, if you're going with a desktop, you should probably just save the money by going with a normal-size one with a GPU in the case.

news and events can be at this level. you still can break the bank account too. lol
 

canon cinema line is designed for handheld shooting. I tried many different configurations. once you mount a big zoom lense, and a zacuto top handle and a zacuto base plate, the rig is too heavy to hand hold. it is only for tripod. in that case, other cameras are better, like f3. 
now I set one of my c300 ogs with an efs 10-18 stm is, I don't use the top handle and the xlr lcd unit at all. I put on a small battery based mike with 3.5 mm plug in. I put on a rail based v mount mini battery to power the nano flash. I use the evf as one contacting point, the v mount battery against my chest as another contact point. my left hand hold the buttom of the c300 og, use the left thumb to touch the hard buttons at the left side, and use the right hand to hold the grip,  the right index finger to touch the start button, and the right thumb to touch the nipple and the button 7 which I set as the af lock. I use continuous af as this c300 og unit has the dpaf upgrade. the footage looks very stable.   
 

Panasonic S line has the option of a crop for pixel to pixel HD. It provides a width between 16mm format and S16, of about 11.4mm. Height is smaller than both, ca 6.4mm vs 7.46mm / 7.5mm.
I would love more cropping options on cameras, like S16, 2/3", 16mm, S16 width with 4 to 3 ratio and so on.

So Nikon Z6iii is going to get released on the 17th. 
 

No Z cameras have a s16 mode. I could see that changing with a Nikon that has bought RED, but I would still be surprised if it showed up in the Z6III. Do any FF mirrorless bodies have it? Canon does on their cinema cameras; but don't remember reading it as a feature on any Sony or Canon FF models.

I had a hard time listening to the dude next to the Panasonic man, but the interview is intercut with logC footage from the GH7 and a longer bit in the end of the video, shot in auto exposure for some daft reason. But the colors look really good to me, better and more Alexa-like than a color space transform in DaVinci, for sure.

if you shoot 5.8k raw, there is no extra crop, 8 mm is 16mm ff. 

If you using an 8mm lens on your GH5, it will be the equivalent of about an 11mm lens on the GH7 in DCI 4k RAW mode. Open Gate 5.7k RAW will have the same FOV as there is no extra crop in that mode (so an 8mm lens will still be 8mm).