PannySVHS

This depends on the size of the 8k screen and how far you're sitting from it.  If you're 3 meters away from a 27" screen, almost no human is going to see the difference in 4k and 8k regardless of the screen resolution.  If you're 10cm from the same screen, you'll probably be able to see some difference between 6k and 8k on an 8k screen, but...  it's not that important.
Many cinemas are still projecting 2K on their enormous screens.  Do people watching from 10+ meters away notice the difference between it and 4K?  Would they even notice the difference side-by-side?  Maybe.
Anyway, there are declining returns in increasing display resolution - going from SD to full HD was huge.  Going from HD to 4K was a lot less huge (and lots of people are still using full HD TV's all over the world).  Going from 4K to 8K is going to be pretty slow due to the fairly small perceptible gains at a standard viewing distance.

A concept very known and used in music aesthetics BTW, cinema is far to be mere technology. It's actually more perception instead. Just made with tools and they are not the same nor produce the same outcome ;- )
- EAG
 
PS: Jumped to another page, so please don't decontextualise the meaning of it... well expressed my last post from the previous page (pardon my marketing now! haha).

I still feel the main advantage to L mount is the ability to adapt almost anything to it, like you can with MFT, E-mount, Z-mount, etc. If I got an L mount camera the first thing I'd do is buy adapters so I can use my tiny rangefinder lenses, or my Minolta Rokkor lenses, or my Nikon F-mount lenses. I almost never buy native lenses, although I would if I used autofocus.

My vague memory was that the GH2 image was more contrasty and had more edge, more of a look to it.  From that perspective I can see why someone might prefer it, especially if they had something in their mind about the vibe of the footage and that look was better suited.
My experience of the blind tests is that it's all about colour for me, except if there is something obviously wrong with one of the cameras like the codec is breaking or something.  I also don't care about resolution after 1080p because I find 4K etc too sharp unless something has been done to tame it, so in these tests I would actually have a slight preference for lower resolution cameras, but ultimately the colour wins out, and that's why I pick the most expensive ones.  I think that's because I know you can make an image look less nice, but making them more nice is virtually impossible.
Perhaps the only exception to picking the most expensive cameras was the test that Tom Antos did with an Alexa and some BM cameras and others, where I rated the Alexa lower, but that was because it was massively green for some reason, so perhaps something went wrong in doing the test.  I'm not critical of Tom though, actually doing your own tests is completely unforgiving and it's easy to miss something.  It's also not the same as real shooting, so it's not something that you benefit from shooting a lot either.
In the blind tests I must admit that I have really enjoyed the image from the modern BM cameras (P6K and UMP12K and newer) and because this was done blind I know I actually do like them.  The differences in the blind tests are often much less than when looking at footage, I suspect it's partly because of prejudice but mostly because when people have access to an Alexa they mostly know what they're doing and use great lenses and light and grade the images really well, so comparing two tests when one is done by 10 professionals in a studio with $10K of lighting and the other is done by some guy in his garage on the weekend, well, you're going to prefer the Alexa of course!
That reminds me of this test from a long time ago which has many of the worlds most sought-after lenses, but at 54:40 it has the brilliantly named Dog Schidt lens, which is a Helios 58mm with the coatings removed so they flare a lot.  The frames where it's stopped down to F4 (55:32) and without a light creating heaps of flare will show that it's actually a very nice looking lens, and helps you 'calibrate' yourself to the setup they have for the test - very high quality images indeed.
 

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.

if i had the option/luxury to, i would certainly try to shoot with the 65 once. why not? maybe he occasionally wanted easy access to the inherent extra shallow dof that that combination produces?
tarantino has an open bias against digital, and is one of the few directors that has the pull to get the use of more “exotic” film formats financed. I’m sure he likes the extra resolving power you get from bigger film too. that being said, he’s not a very technical guy (and he doesn’t have to be)
 

Literally marketing. Vista vision was a super short lived format, and was competing against 35 anamorphic. Movie studios were in shambles to get people into theatres again, after the rise of the tv, as well as something called “the suburbs” in the us postwar economic boom. their number 1 gimmick to do that was widescreen. This way there was a clear differentiation in what cinema and tv looked like.
Essentially cropping in on the negative and scaling that to a wider screen was called techniscope, and gave you a loss of resolving power. anamorphic was a way of getting a wider image into the same negative, and vista vision fed the film differently into the camera, like on stills, with a similar sized negative. Fyi, this was studio mandated and most of the filmmakers hated this change at the time, since it became harder to frame good closeups. 
 

Moving the camera towards a tasty cocktail would merely give us the viewpoint of a drunk fly drooling over alcohol soaked cherries and mango.😊

Moving the camera towards a tasty cocktail would merely give us the viewpoint of a drunk fly drooling over alcohol soaked cherries and mango.😊

As already stated here before, not only them.
BMCC6K (FF) is another one, as for instance.
Add 2x/1.8x/1.6x anamorphics (offered by a tempting no-brainer affordable piece of glass, designed & assembled, i.e., made by SIRUI, for example) on one of their open gate recording modes and you'll have distinct aspect ratios or even the possibility of reframing @ post.
This is a whole different world. Apples to oranges going along a capture device without it. Almost as near as BMD's UI layout versus all those ridiculous and non intuitive menus of the Japanese mirrorless cameras.

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.

The Tokina 25-50 F4 zoom and the Canon FD 35-70 F4 are tiny and optically nice zoom lenses for video. I own both. The former was a recommendation by our friend Andy Lee btw. The latter has the typical problem of ageing Fd lenses with dissolving rubber ball bearings, unfortunately. Both are nice and fun for video. Without mount adapters they would look tiny and tidy on the S9 or on any S camera.

If Panasonic or anyone from the L-mount would put out any F2.8 pancakes, then we would be talking! 28, 50, 80mm! The true Pocket FF.😊 @Emanuel

the master was filmed with 65mm film. special look. I especially like the sea scenes in this movie. but there are some other scenes very compelling. the actors performed very well too. a true master piece. 
 

After Moonlight James Laxton was again Dop for Barry Jenkins. He photographed "Beale Street", which was filmed with an Alexa 65. He must love the look of a 50mm lens on a larger format.:) There are some desired qualities of larger formats for the look beyond the logic of focal length and f-stop equivalence.

In the current digital age we live all in, it's practically inevitable to not think of that question of Truffaut about why not establishing shots on North by Northwest (1959)... and Hitchcock's answer:
"Planting the camera in the countryside to shoot a passing train would merely give us the viewpoint of a cow watching a train go by."

LOL : ) Who reads you here for a while... more than a decade now, can only send a good laugh but you know something? Don't kill the messenger later on when I've proposed this and most part of you love the game:
 

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.

Looking forward to seeing both, Gh6 and Bmmcc put to action by you. @TomTheDP I've been using my og Bmpcc for six days in a row last week just for relaxation and fun. So much fun, had it coupled with a 25mm Tevidon and some other times with a 0.7 speedboosted Pentax M 28mm F2 non Hollywood version. Colours are magical. During daytime beyond diffraction limit.:)

Everyone agrees. There aren't really enough lenses from Panasonic for this camera.

Maybe it could improve with firmware updates. As of now though its a cool implementation but it's not going to make me buy this camera. Just got a BM Micro though 😅 

I might end up getting a GH6, but I was going to get one anyways. IBIS and internal prores, long battery life and tilting screen. Great for when I just want to get out of the car and grab a shot with no fuss. I'll probably get the LOGC upgrade for it. 

This is the secret sauce, not the brand or whatever marketing sells for ; )
In a word or in a single line, art (because cinema is an art form) is a combo, no less.
- EAG

If Panasonic or anyone from the L-mount would put out any F2.8 pancakes, then we would be talking! 28, 50, 80mm! The true Pocket FF.😊 @Emanuel

I love a 0.71 speedboosted Canon FD 28mm F2.8 lens on a full mft sensor. Maybe I should sell all my stuff and keep the 28, the 50mm F1.4 and the 100mm F2.8. Maybe the Vivitar 90 F2.5 as well.:) It really is about lens and sensor combinations. In theory equivalence is helpful and by that simple translation it yields same results. It yedlins same results, so to say.:)
In practice the specific combinations still paint light differently. I remember listening to the DP of "Moonlight" at a beautiful festival in Poland when he expressed his exitement of using the then new Alexa LF with a 50mm instead of using a 35mm on the S35 sensor with an equivalent, larger Fstop. Both perspectives combined allow an understanding of my lens choices. And restrictions by money.😊

If Panasonic or anyone from the L-mount would put out any F2.8 pancakes, then we would be talking! 28, 50, 80mm! The true Pocket FF.😊 @Emanuel

What it is funny to me is the hype about this release when for same price we can buy a true cinema camera (BMD FF) these days... Apples to oranges.
- EAG