Jump to content

Viscount Omega

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Viscount Omega

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • My cameras and kit
    a7sII

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Color is the obvious difference. I don't debate that. But I can grade anything in S-log3. I just think there's something tricky going on with the amount of info gathered. Like I said, 600 Mb/s , right? Same codec? Right? Doesn't look the same to me.
  2. I can think of a lot of stuff that ruin an image. You think it's the noise reduction on the A7SIII vs. the FX-9? C'mon out and say it.
  3. Well, yeah. But that has been worked on for years and continues to evolve. Noise reduction is only part of the equation.
  4. Hey, I'm just drinking Yuengling and doing shots of Cinnamon Fireballs now and then. Whatever trip you're on, have a good one.
  5. Trying to decide between this and the FX9. Forget the sound. That's done externally anyway. They both shoot at H.264/XAVC S-I 4:2:2 10-Bit UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p [240 to 600 Mb/s] 600 Mb/s. So, same as FX-9. What is the difference between 600 Mb/s on an A7SIII and an FX-9? So, 7K for Venice color? Don't care about slow motion. Not one bit. Rolling shutter IS an issue. Image stabilization. Yeah, that's a factor but not a deal-breaker. Why do I like the FX-9 footage better in the videos I've seen? 600 Mb/s is 600
  6. I'm sorry Andrew but I'm going to have to report you to the authorities. Your article is misleading in that it features a young, attractive Caucasian woman that does not fully reflect the diversity of Manchester. You should know better. Be more inclusive next time. Get the Manchester Experience. Live it. Learn it. Love it. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/experience/
  7. "The other adapter I will be trying in the full review is the Sony A mount range, both for full frame Alpha glass – of which there are some rather nice ones, indeed some of my favourite of all time, and the superbly cinematic Minolta AF range." I also think they have a distinctly cinematic quality. It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that. Ya know, when you mention the word "Minolta" some cinematographers are like, "What are you crazy?" Fuck them. LOL.
  8. It's not even worth it to argue. It's like that guy is still talking about sensor sizes, DOF and equivalence from 5 years ago. It's like me against the world so when I say "Fuck this", I mean I'm going to stop reading this thread. It's like being lectured to by a homeless guy drenched in his own urine. Your Aunt Sally can't tell the difference between formats anyway.
  9. Do I have to go back to square one with someone like you? It's like trying to talk to a fucking grad student who thinks gov't creates jobs. Fuck this.
  10. Eh, more stills. How 'bout an animated .gif or a 3D pie chart? Doesn't look like anything special I couldn't replicate (close enough) with my A7SII using regular full-frame vintage lenses. (of course certain people will howl that "all formats are the same" after I said that). That said, your distance from your subject in the previous video "Michaela" exploits the "look" very well. I defy anyone in the "all formats are the same" camp to match the perspective you had there and replicate what you did there with their Iphone. I've been shooting terabytes of full-frame stuff for a coup
  11. That's because you're not using a larger lens circle. When you put a full-frame 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you're not using a full-frame lens the way it was intended. You're only using the center section of glass in the lens.
  12. I'm being a little sarcastic here (maybe not hard enough for some people). As if a little thing like "lens aberrations" could account for what I (and others) are seeing. Anyway, still waiting for an answer. p.s. sorry you were offended by the "vignetting" comments earlier but I did think it was funny and insane. Still do.
  13. Thanks. Your explanation seems to focus strictly on distance to explain perspective and ignores the huge difference in lens image circle sizes between the two formats in the comparison. Are you saying that difference is irrelevant in regards to perspective? That it has no impact on perspective in the comparison? Does it have any impact on anything then? I was under the impression that perspective was also the way objects appeared spatially and that's why I initially agreed with the DP's assessment--it seemed to jibe with my real-world experience--especially the bit about the sense
  14. Well, anyone could chime in, I don't care. I'm looking for a rebuttal or counter-argument against this explanation. (I didn't write it, btw. It's from a DP in another forum). Here, I'll copy/paste it again: "Say you shot with a 24mm APS-C at f/4 and 36mm full-frame at f/6.3 both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? What would account for any differences?" "The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your re
×
×
  • Create New...