anonim

But I really take and respect your word for it, as also Andrew's... But maybe problem is that I dare to take word for it ("cinematic" image) also from somebody else? (Or, that somebody feel something fishy or uncomfortably to perpetually read corrective cautions type of "viewing something in normal way" as part of argumentation.)

What if, to put it just logically, some other manufacturer's aim is not at all to mimic "cinematic" look of minor player in high end cinema industry, but, say, legendary Alexa?

Or we all have to think about Alexa's image also just as little bit more Canon-ish?

13 minutes ago, Django said:

Yet i dunno why we are suddenly referencing cinema cameras or the entire history of film when clearly the subject comparison are hybrid mirrorless cameras of a sub $2500 range.

Maybe because suddenly on every single topic about hybrid mirrorless cameras somebody (from above perspective) referencing exactly "cinematic" image as exclusively default property from manufacturer that takes minor part in cinema (and cinematic-image defining) industry?

5 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

The detail of "rRoma" is almost too dense for me as a home viewed film.  I feel I really should have watched it in a theatre.  The small living room screen couldn't hold the info.

One of the better, IMHO, B&W films from the past few years is "Ida."

That was a masterclass in composition and static beauty.... done by a young dude too.

I think you are totally right... such abundance of details has to be perceived at level of involving spectator as traveling-process of identification. What seems interesting to me, is that it is not appeal to identification through story, or perceptive suspense, even not through moving emotions in strict sense - but through, I'd say, reactivation similarity of constructed images from our own memory, manipulating (and making topic of question) core base of phenomenology of perception, time and sense of "really" being real (through power of using similar sensible perception).

I agree also, Ida is very nice... If you maybe haven't seen yet, I'd dare to suggest also Cold  war from the same author, it seems to me even better.

But, distinction is, IMO, that in both of that movies visual/paint aspect is in the function of accentuating narrative. It seems to me that Roma tries something more ponderous - with success or not.

(BW movies about - it's such pity that Bela Tarr doesn't make movies any more... As also that Western public is not so acquainted with works - at least last two - of Aleksey German Sr. Comparing to indeed high level of Cuaron's or Pavlikovsky's movies, just after watching cameraworks ideas of Hrustalev or Hard to be God, I remembered that indeed existed very few whole-art genius also in cinema...)

5 hours ago, mat33 said:

Heck a lot of films shot on actual 35mm use a lot of extra diffusion with nets etc, are they more organic than other films shot on film without diffusion?

It depends if they I are shot with Canon - it's first that has to be checked before any answer. Actually, there's no need for answers (as also for samples), just to check if it is/was Canon or not.

... for me interesting because of attempt/goal to touch everyday/transient metaphysics through aesthetic of the most austere hyper realistic images - that then I'd call "pure phenomenological poetry" 

Brief and full of interesting remarks dialogue between Cuaron (as own dop) and Lubezki

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/roma-emmanuel-lubezki-alfonso-cuaron-cinematography-1202028167/

E.L. - "It does produce a feeling — hard to describe — the camera becomes almost like a consciousness revisiting the story. The camera knows something the actors do not. It’s very powerful... It feels like the camera and the cinematography are not there to illustrate; they are the film itself."

A.C. - "It’s a ghost of the present visiting the past, objectively without getting involved, just observing, not trying to make a judgment or a commentary, that everything there would be just the commentary itself."

6 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

The last thing I don't understand is the supposed non cinematic image of the camera.

IMO because it is above understandable for mortal, uninitiated mind. Obviously you have yet to learn most profound true - cinematic image is just that coming from Canon, and although it may have some subsidiary following attributes as "fat" or "natural", all of that is actually misguiding attempt to express something inexpressible that belongs only to especially gifted perception. Personally,  after struggling to understand and carefully reading perpetual states - in almost every thread - frome most passionate gurus of that question, I have found logical peace in such formulation: where the specs stops begin cinematic image, exclusive companion of uber-specs Canon.

I'm not sure if this test between two Prores HQ results was posted before. If yes, sorry for repeating, if no, to someone may be useful, it seems simple and balanced, there's also link to the written notes from the tester. 

www.tide.film/blackmagic-pocket-cinema-camera-4k-first-impressions-and-comparison-against-the-panasonic-gh5s/

My advice for few minutes watching is to completely turn down sound and just look at Tony's hand and dancing  fingers. He sometimes does very interesting pantomime movements, sometimes even like an conductor. Combine it with innocent sugar-like mouth mimic, and you get pretty quality, live lesson "how to be suggestive speaker".

I think that it is wrong direction of thinking to compare Tony N's one person's youtube exhibition and eoshd concept of existence.

Two totally different approaches that at any means can't be comparable in term of quality - that means reality - of influence. Here we have hundreds of personalities becoming from the whole spectre of competency, background and usage, endless devoted testing and retesting, thousands contributions from different angles and points of view - and in the other side is just one man and one woman with all of their simply human prejudices, assumptions and often contradictory daily opinions, obviously urged to pump new reviews every week as important material resource. Here we have very live pattern of society, and there just classical self promoting show. Tony is better half of its presentation just showman who - as all showmen - actually lives on giving people opportunity to kill boring time.

So, any dispute with Tony N. about camera is wrong as premise. That's because his ultimative goal is not at all objective review, but publicity. Nothing especially wrong with it in world founded on fakery - he just tries to swim in it as notorious and less or more skillful conformist.

Saying that - it maybe good idea to see again Bertolucci's The Conformist

17 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 do you miss the RAW recording?

As with most of my great (to the raw roots) and unhappy interrupted loves - it is best for me to pretend that we never met, but I know very well that big parts of me are still there...

43 minutes ago, Phil A said:

Also, and this probably sounds dumb, I am not sure I could ever go to a camera without IBIS again after the GH5. The fact that you can handhold static shots so well massively changed how much I actually use a tripod for casual stuff.

Hey, reckon on me, there are at least two dumbs then!

I can't say anything new and original that isn't already at massive quantity all around net  Maybe just an idea - if I got again Pocket, I'll try to match it with Laowa 7.5mm lens... each time when I had Pocket that lens didn't exist yet, and seems to me very interesting combo. Pretty capable, greatly keep whole package  small and, most important, keep absence of IBIS under control for discrete shooting, being somewhere around FF 21mm, my beloved focal distance.

10 minutes ago, mercer said:

... until then, I’ll use lights if I need better lowlight. 

Simply, I didn't yet see any camera that can make shots of equally/enough high level above (or even including) iso 3200. It's just matter of choice - what sort of compromise/degradation will be applied and estimated as acceptable for given personal task and goal. (Keeping always in mind that the most important factor is size of the screen for projected image.)

And one more for thinking about lowlight solutions

31 minutes ago, mercer said:

@anonim I have really been warming up to the GH5s lately (except for the yellowish greens) and if I was seriously in the market for another camera, the GH5s would be at the top of my list... or if Panasonic would give it Raw signal output.

For the time being, what I have is more than enough. 

Yeah, I think that most of us have more than enough equipment for encounter with beauty! Maybe just not enough time, contacts, opportunities, will, imagination or something of your famous countryman message: "Stay foolish, stay hungry"

(But I bet I'm not the only one here that patiently and eagerly expect born of your Ghost story from majestic camera obscura of your already legendary Canon 5DIII... Actually, meeting so often gladly with your passionate comments here, I'll surely feel and cheer your success partly as my own... Just go on till the end!)

(BTW I shoot both with GH5 and GH5s so - keep eye on GHa lut  In a meanwhile one more example of unpretentiously balanced, well done work for imo studying and enjoying   - GH5s + SLR Magic Anamorph. lens and bit more graininess 

More serious samples in natural light (or nice level of its absence) - GH5s and Terra 4k

8 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 If you are used to shooting with a 2.8 lens a .95 lens gives you 3 more stops of light. That's like going from 3200 iso to 25,000 iso.

Actually, I'm used to exclusively shoot with Voigts, so even in the middle of suburban night I am rarely, if ever, above iso 800  (That's the reason for question about rethinking matter of lenses.) 

How to catch balloon in the dark

On 2/9/2019 at 8:24 PM, Xx123456xX said:

I’m new here, so I’m sorry if this topic, or a similar one, has been done before.

After having used the GH5 for roughly two years, I want better low light performance. I’ve been eyeing FF, in particular the A7III, for this reason. However, due to the vast price difference and internal 10-bit, I’m also considering the XT3.

If low light is my primary reason for switching, does the XT3 offer enough of an advantage over the GH5, or would it be wiser to go straight to the A7III?

To help others in answering I shoot 120fps which I convert to real-time (I have a 120Hz laptop). The XT3 does 120 at 10-bit, but it is automatically slowed in-camera. The A7III only does 8-bit, but it can record real-time 120.

Maybe to include as variable relevant to question: exploring choice of appropriate lenses? 

44 minutes ago, Marco Tecno said:

+1. My nx1 is for sure a more capable camera than I am as a photo/videographer.

Thanks, it's so nice to hear voice of modesty, out of endless verbal judging what is future or what is dead. Actually, it seems that inner peace and modesty are the most important talents to make a gems such these - with NX1. (And it is great to see that Black Pencil still use NX1... last post is just one month old one).

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/rangefinder-wide-angle-lenses-on-a7-cameras-problems-and-solutions/

@Kye Little bit or little bit more thinking about 3d, microcontrast, blur, creative effects etc. Of course, for video usage order of values might be different. (Story telling greatly benefit from interesting 3d separation.)

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

That's true you can be much more in tune with your camera when using IBIS. I love your knowledge of film history though most of it goes right over my head ? 

I'm just intentional dreamer (I have yet to find better way to oppose to so often nightmarish surrounding)

Not strange at all, my problem with gimbals and glidecams is bulkiness, although there are the must for some narrow usage.

I firmly believe that most important and successful element (and advantage ) for indie artistic direction is possibility to more completely melt into scene and vision, to forget technical burden and calculation. With high budget we can achieve everything but at the massive budget expense and expense of  endless negotiation. That's, I think, a question of specific balance between spontaneity and preparing. Of course, it's not everyone cup of tea - I'm just trying to provide and reinforce what I feel as my inner preference (or "quality"): as mush as possible fluid stream of unrestricted imagination, letting to it to find best forms of its adaptation. (And there's a secondary gain: stronger and refreshing feeling of existence of some other center of gravity-being than boring reason in myself... but of course, it is some kind of mystical philosophy :)

10 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Yeah I shot a whole short with IBIS, definitely a completely different workflow. Though I discovered it couldn't replace a gimbal for walking shots. 

Yes, totally steady walking shots is hard to achieve, maybe closer with UW lens as, say, Laowa. (It even be more natural in Dogma manifest sense.)

But, further evolving previous post, I'm close to conclusion that IBIS actually is not at all replace for gimbal (I even see it more as vice versa attempt - gimbal as unperfect substitute for perfect ibis :) - it has its own original using signature, because of psychologically higher level of unlocked free movements. With gimbal I'm still aware of instrument and I'm still greatly depending of its dictating rules and positioning limitations. IBIS is far more to the serve of free gestures, some sort of shooting calligraphy. Of course, to my feeling and eye, which are so often prone to be in mistake 

20 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Replacing a tripod is one of the strong points of IBIS. Though for really long shots I'd rather use a tripod. 

Yes, what I'd mostly wished to point out is how subtle, slightly more freedom in moving, provided with capable ibis, may totally redefine whole shooting and then aesthetic approach. Always depending on tripod forced us to think at one direction in construction and resolving task. Being able to easy lay down, sway, move with camera not being afraid of unusable shaky footage open gate for more freely probing  and some, to say so, more kaleidoscopic visual as whole. So, IBIS is not just add-tool, but carefully crafting its usage it may become different instrument in conveying ideas in poetical way.

To OP question, just suggestion over regular in-camera settings - I think that GH5 with its 10bit quality+IBIS combination provides some yet unbeatable benefits of our own movements and bodies-in-time/space as stylistically original composing frame.