Andy J

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 
Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.
You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.
FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

No man, it would be pretty hard to hurt my feelings over something as silly as a camera. It's not like I personally designed and developed the thing. I just laugh because I now approach things from a different perspective than you and that's ok. I will respond to your post, but I doubt it will change your perspective. Even if not, hopefully someone will find it useful.
Filmic is an overused term imo. There have been hundreds of thousands of films made and somehow filmic is supposed to mean one single thing that no one can quite put their finger on but is definitely (definitely) a thing. It's as if footage from any camera is either filmic or it isn't. simple, right? Black or white.
I argued that you dismissed most of what made that particular footage look nice by saying something like, "Of course it looks nice, he had good light, color, compositions, movement, etc. but that doesn't mean the camera looks good."
You dismissed the very things that are actually important and instead want to talk about non-tangibles like, "It's also thin like the pixels are spread over a sheet and if you blow on it it will move."
Expert wine tasters have been called out time and time again for this type of talk, because when it comes down to it they can't consistently tell the difference between supposedly great wine and average wine.
I'd bet in a blind side by side test you'd also have a hard time figuring out which camera has the pixels spread over a sheet that are in danger of being blown away and the one with the "thick" pixels or whatever adjective you "feel" applies to the good pixels. And in case it sounds like I'm totally dismissing how something feels, I'm not. I'd just argue that the way to make an audience feel something is to use all of the techniques that filmmakers have used for over a hundred plus years to manipulate their audiences into feeling this way or that. While people feel all sorts of things inside a theater including happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust; I doubt feeling like the pixels are too thin has ever had any sort of serious impact on a movie-goers experience. That's the type of bull that's saved for over anaylizing in a forum such as this one. I've participated before, but now I see the error of my ways and have to laugh when someone like you reminds me.
You don't have to like the GH5 or any camera for that matter, but don't make up stuff like spread out pixels over a sheet to convince yourself and others that one camera is bad and another is good. All cameras are different and I'd bet in a blind test of projected material with the same subject, light, composition, dof, camera movement, colorist, etc., etc. it would be difficult to tell most modern interchangeable lens digital motion picture cameras apart. Even the cheap wines...oops I mean ones and the expensive ones.
If you were to say the footage looks over-sharpened, over-saturated, too contrasty, 60p instead of 24p, highlights too magenta, too much macro blocking, or any other actual physical characteristic and for that reason it's not for you, then fine. At least we're talking about real characteristics. Or heck, prove me wrong and setup a test that shows "stretched out sheet like" pixels that can be blindly identified. That would be fun.
Oh and don't take any of this too seriously, except for the serious parts. You should take them very very seriously.  And sorry for picking on you. You seem like you can take it though.

I'm all for the test, the observation, and the progression through understanding, but it always goes way past that because people are just way too sensitive, and emotional about cameras. Grown adults spending thousands of dollars for gear, over, and over again to argue over brand bias  
This camera VS ( your camera choice here ) The camera fraternity wars are at full steam, LOL! Someone might get shot!!! ( it'll be OK if it's cinematic )
You're either with us, or against us. Canon runs this side of the tracks, We don't like your tiny sensors, and we don't like your camera's AF system, you're not welcome here.   Street gangs fight over silly things like street signs and clothing colors, Camera gangs fight over camera brand support... It's comical that so many adults have no issue wasting time arguing over camera's they never planned to buy. On both sides, people are way too emotional, It's like they need others to cosign the camera  THEY CHOSE so THEY can feel justified with the decision to purchase their choice of camera. 
AF use or Strictly Manual... isnt that personal preference.
Creating art... choice of tools really doesn't matter because it's always going to be subjective. As always carry on!
 

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 
Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.
You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.
FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 
Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.
You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.
FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 
Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.
You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.
FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.

"But that's not fair! He shot it in a 'cinematic fashion'! It shouldn't count! I want a camera that looks cinematic when I just point it at stuff without taking any forethought about lighting, composition, camera movement, dof, color, etc." 
Sorry, but I just found your comment too funny to leave alone. I hope you don't mind me teasing you just a bit for it. It's all in good fun I promise.
You're totally on the right track, but just haven't quite connected all the dots possibly. Everything you mentioned and more is what MAKES something look cinematic. How much worse would it have looked if he made poor decisions in regards to all of the things you mentioned? I think it would look much worse. He obviously is talented and has good taste. Now let's pretend that he actually shot it on an Alexa with cinema glass and ask how much worse would it look if he instead shot it on a GH5 with ok glass. I'd argue that it would take a fairly small hit to the overall look and feel. Worse? sure, but compared to shooting the same thing with mediocre light, compositions, camera movement, dof, and motion it wouldn't even compare. And what if he used the Alexa to shoot a mediocre version of this with bad light, composition, etc? Would it all of a sudden look "cinematic"? Not a chance! We'd be commenting that it looks too video-ish. So what's the common factor here? I'd say it's not really the camera (maybe a very small percentage to the overall look) and that it's everything you so easily identified and dismissed about his footage.
FYI, an Arri Alexa is simply a digital video camera. It's a very nice digital video camera, but that's what it is. The world seems full of nice digital video cameras these days. It's probably best to choose one that works for you and treat it as if it's the best digital video camera in the world. Relatively speaking, as far as the history of digital video cameras goes, your choice will probably be in the top 2-3 percent.