mercer

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages. Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well. Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit... Probably a little of both. But there's still a medium format look.

All part of the look. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Perhaps your style of photography doesn't lend to the look, so you haven't been able to adequately capture it? Valid point.

Then why spend tens of thousands of dollars, and hours, on a format that doesn't offer any advantage, if it doesn't exist? Anyway, the GH7 seems like a very capable camera. One thing I learned from that video, in the comments section, is that Panasonic changed their color science recently, is that true? It does make sense, when I used the GH6, it did seem to lean toward green a bit but then the S5iiX definitely had more of a magenta look to it and it seems that the magenta has carried over to the GH7. So the LogC profile could possibly work better with the GH6 since the Alexa is known to have a green bias straight out of camera.

I know you are but what am I? Hahaha. I should probably be offended but like me, you're just some guy on the internet. Actually... I feel kinda bad for you. Everything is so binary. You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera. I can only assume you don't believe in movie magic or how a cinematic image can transport an audience into another world. You seem like the type that probably rooted for the government in E.T.

There is differing levels of shallow depth of field. You could stand in a wide open field at infinity focus with absolutely nothing in the foreground and on a larger sensor camera the image will look more vast than on a smaller sensor camera... even if you're able to match the field of view. If there isn't a difference then why would Yedlin shoot Knives Out with the Alexa 65? Why would Tarantino shoot the Hateful Eight in 70mm film? Why were the epic films from the 1960s shot in VistaVision when they all could have gotten the same look with a smaller sensor/film plane camera? You mention there not being a MF look, but one of the biggest statements made about medium format images is how 3D or lifelike it looks... like you can walk into the frame. As far as me using "the better phrase" ... why should I dumb down my comments to appease you? It seems like you are smart enough to know what I was saying. Believe it or not, I don't exist on this planet to be concerned about how you take my comments. Half the people on this forum repeat themselves and are annoying. And this is basically what I said originally until I was attacked with some pure nonsense claim. We could go back and forth about the difference between large and small sensors... I could say that the background is more compressed to your subject with smaller sensors than they are with larger sensors and you could use "science" as your argument and then I could say that if there wasn't a difference than why would manufacturers produce different sized sensors or more importantly, why would somebody pay $10,000 on a camera when they could have gotten the same image from a $2,000 camera and then you would probably say more resolution and then I'd remind everybody of the science and quote Yedlin about the facade of higher resolution... around and around we would go until the other person gets bored enough to quit... So whatever, I'm bored... you're the Jedi Master in all things photographic.

First off, I don't know why you're getting so angry? I'm just another dipshit on the internet. Who gives a fuck what I think? Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field. Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers. I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7. For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing. The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post. One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

Holy Shit... it has an advantage for that test! What the fuck does the C70 have to do with it? And I never said anything about shallow depth of field as being an advantage for full frame.

I didn't say it was moot, I merely said that the LF had an advantage. If anything, I was giving the GH7 some leeway in those tests. I mean, he had to stop down the 40mm lens on the LF to 5.6 and set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7 to get the shots to match. Obviously, he didn't want to pollute the test by putting an ND on the LF when the GH7 didn't need one. I agree, I am not knocking m4/3 or any shitty camera... I still shoot ML Raw on a 5D3. I'm planning on shooting a short film this summer on a 1" Canon camcorder. I had a GH6 last year and may buy another one, or a GH7 eventually. It depends on what you're going for and what impact you want your shot to have based on the story you're trying to tell. Everyone has different styles. Years ago when camcorders were used for indie films, we used to intentionally zoom in and frame something in the foreground to look blurry. All that said, I think there is more to larger sensors than shallow depth of field, there's separation between the foreground and background which invokes more of three dimensional element to the image. With smaller sensors everything is more compressed.

Now that you mention it, someone should tell Yedlin about Yedlin's test... if he had known about it, he could have shot Knives Out on a m4/3 camera instead of the Alexa 65...

The ifs only have a grammatical function if all else is equal, which they are not, so some aspect of the image, no matter how small will be different. I understand the optics element of your point. This argument has been around forever. What I am saying is the problem with your argument is that it requires all elements to be equal to be valid but they seldom are... if ever. Sure you can create a similar image with a crop sensor camera, but something in the image will be different. Or you'll have to make a compromise with the larger sensor camera to get them close to matching. Which you wouldn't do if you were using the camera/lens in a practical way. But even if you look at Yedlin's example, the subject's face is slightly thinner in the Imax and slightly fuller in the Alexa. Obviously, Yedlin went to great lengths to prove his point... that's the point of his article. And I am not saying you can't get it close, I'm saying that something will be different. As I said in my previous reply... use a fast 12mm lens on mft and then a fast 24mm lens on FF and tell me that they have the same separation. With that said... I thought it was clear, but my apologies. My point is that even if you use the same lens, on the same camera, and take a single step forward or backwards, you can hit a sweet spot of the lens and have more pop or separation. In the Yedlin article, it is clear that he stopped down the lenses to create less shallow depth of field. In fact, in one of the images, the bookshelf is almost in focus with the subject... so again not the same. In my original "nonsense" post, I was suggesting it was difficult to make these comparison videos because the LF would always have an advantage. Not only does it have a bigger and better sensor, better color science, it has a lens advantage as well... which is obvious since he had to stop down to f/4 or 5.6 so he could get a match with the lens on the GH7. That guy did a good job making them pretty close, but the GH7 looks more compressed and her face is slightly less angular. Is it enough to affect his test... not at all. You are correct though, I mistakenly referred to the 21mm lens as a wide angle on M43. I'm a fan of them as well. I haven't used the Super Speeds, but I had a small set of the Zeiss Rollei lenses which were supposedly modeled after the Standard Speeds from the late 60s. The 3D pop from Zeiss lenses is something else. Some say it's micro contrast and others say it is more obvious with larger formats... all I know is that it looks amazing when you pull that focus and hit it. Not moving any goal posts and probably not relevant, I was just curious if you were a believer/practitioner in his resolution theories.

A lot of IFs in that statement. The problem with the all else equal argument is that it's rarely applicable because all else is rarely, if ever, equal. Even the same lens on the same camera will have a different look with a couple steps forwards or backwards. With a 24mm at f/2, even 2.8, on FF you can still get some subject separation, I have never noticed that with an equivalent aperture on a 12mm lens on mft. What lenses do you currently use on your projects? I assume, since you're referencing Yedlin, that you shoot in 1080p?

Thanks, I found it in the specs.

So, I assumed that the GH7 had ProRes and ProRes HQ, since the GH6 has it, but when I look at the specs, I am only seeing ProRes Raw? Did Panasonic dump regular ProRes in the GH7? Please tell me they didn't.

Haha, okay. Take a close up with a wide angle lens and then one with a standard lens and report back what happens. There is more field curvature in a wide angle lens due to the ... lens design of a wide angle lens. This field curvature will round out your subject. Just because the FOV changes, the focal length doesn't.

Yeah but he was using the LF which is full frame, and they were matching FOV, so Alexa had a 40mm lens which is closer to the human eye and the GH7 had a 21mm which is a wide angle that will round out your subject. The LF has the clear advantage there. Even a wide angle on full frame will have more spatial quality than an equivalent wide angle on m4/3.

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'm going the other way... based on that video alone, the GH7 with LogC is good and obviously can match, but the LF image with just a LUT is so good. I appreciated that he let the footage speak for itself and it did... nothing beats an Alexa. That said, the GH7 costs 2 grand... so it gets a lot of points for that alone. And with that said, even though the Alexa only needed a LUT to look good, it also looked pretty vanilla, so I'd love to see what a good colorist could do with both versions to create a stylized look.

You have a lot of cameras. What type of stuff do you shoot?

I also use a strap on the camera and pull it taut, so the monopod in the tape measure pouch and the strap taut adds a fairly decent amount of stabilization... for static shots. They make belts specifically for this... I think it's called a MogoCrane... https://kamerar.com/products/mogocrane-weight-support-belt I don't know if it's any better than a monopod by itself, with a strap, but it's quicker to move around for run and gun.

Apple probably has the agreements. It actually helps Red/Nikon to allow it, otherwise these companies would use BRaw which could hurt them more in the long run.

At private events and trade shows, I still see C100s. Don't think I've ever seen an FX camera. I've seen a couple C70s. I saw an Ursa once for a greenscreen/Photo Booth kinda thing, which seemed odd. I've seen Sony mirrorless and R bodies as well, but I'd say 25-40% are still using a C100. That I've seen. But just because I haven't seen any FX bodies, doesn't really mean much. I'm sure a lot of private events, conferences and trade shows are shot with FX cameras. I'm a member of a Discord server where there are a lot of pros... they only cared about the C400 launch with barely a mention of the GH7. To us, the GH7 may be more exciting, to them, Canon cine and FX are their workhorses.

Back in the day when I was testing c-mounts with m4/3, I was able to get full coverage with some 12.5mm lenses. In some respects, that was good enough, but I'd love to be able to use a 10mm Angenieux or Kern... or even some 6 or 8mm lenses, that's why I'd really love a true S16 sized sensor. Unfortunately, Panasonic probably isn't in business to make cameras solely for my interests... BASTARDS!!!

Hopefully, Panasonic has done something to fix their menu system too. The GH6 and S5iiX menus are utter garbage. They were praised for their menus when Sony was getting crap for theirs and now it's a mess. And why do I have to change frequencies to shoot true 24p? I don't have to do that with my FP. When you add the 180 degree shutter benefit in Panasonic cameras... wouldn't it make sense to include a 48p option in that true 24p mode to utilize the benefit of shutter angle? Not including BM, the FP should be the gold standard for camera menus.

These are not the skintones you are looking for.