anonim

Yes, having a responsibility for students helps, I think, to understand importance of openly, joyfully, without prejudices, exchanging concrete artistic observations, seeing and thoughts. After all, it is so great always and forever to cherish that curiosity and inquisitiveness from the day we were students or simply young. We are, obviously, on forum, not in the field to shoot. Replicating something will be easier if we each other make more clear and indicate at least base directions where maybe to search, and how to achieve, replicating qualities. Many thanks! (Not at least because I've translated and publish two books of Tarkovsky to my native language ) But you already gave me some valuable informations - I admit, for example, that I didn't no for Kenneth Anger... (Upstream Color, contrary, I quoted somewhere in the forum - because of Voigtlanders lenses.) Concrete suggestions of particular combination of some cameras and lenses for getting concrete and ready-to-be-show visual examples - is exactly one possible and in praxis invaluable answer about "mojo"... I've noted your remarks... if you have some more and find a time to share, please not hesitate...

Thanks, I totally agree, here and in thread where it is used as argument. As I already wrote - this was not my example. But it, actually, doesn't matter - someone may find it as exeptional , what is perfectly ok. I just ask why it so great image. I want also to see something that makes its quality which I don't see, although I'm trying to work in the same field. You say - grade is over-the-top, with shadows pushed up - with such exact remarks somebody could operate and discuss. (At image of Amazon girl I see many clipings at the left hand, lacks of details in the hair etc.) But if someone just say - it must be Alexa, it is so greatly cinematic, it has moyo - it is, I think, just sign of taste, but problem for me is that it was put as irrefutable fact from authority. If we speak and discuss what we see, I think that it might be very helpful for making broader our seeing. Anybody, or close to anybody, didn't know what to look at in the works of Henry Moore before Herbert Read didn't start to speak about its inexplicable qualities instead of finish a job saying - it is not formula ... And now all of us understand them and can used them as an inspiration.

Above posted Image is reposted here from threads about 1DC and GH5s - because @Mkabi used it as stronge argument to ask DaveAltizer how he could leave 1DC which produce such image for GH5s. Some other members immediately thought it was shot with Alexa, etc. My answer was exactly what I'm asking for somebody else - to explain what you see. I tried as such "Aren't these 3 images given in pretty low resolution for any comparatively fair comment? As such low-res, I see slight green or blue-veil cast in all of them and probably some sort of artistically added haze in second - indeed tender with chosen DOF angle and shadows under the girl's eyes to complete coming up of fragile face. Love this composition and its rich but mellow gamma. In full resolution it must be gorgeously 3dimensional. Dave Altizer's sample with singer has, as I see, pretty cold graded tone, clean with unobtrusive but present details and absence of predominant veil. I like how - in globally low saturated context and not so deep focus - that lovely distinctive nuances of white color of shirt discreetly help in leading attention to subject. Fine base, expected from modern 2000+$ camera, of course could be also and different variations of look."

Of course not, another member just ask for effort about some further explanation of claim that something has "mojo" or it is "cinematic". To try again, this image is presented as example of mojo and ultimative cinematic. Simple question - why? What is special to look in it? Or just say - inexplicable, I cant explain, and that's ok. But please - why than exist tone of books explaining and teaching values of Rembrandt's pictures? Say thousand scholars that are searching for formula - when they teach our children why and how to distinguish portraits done by Velasquez and paintbrush on billboards.

Great effort. Thank you for dedication of your time - indeed, such a nice example of behaving...

Thanks - oh no, I'm not at all spending my life searching for it But I'm in this thread and I'm simply by habit trying to maybe learn most of that, that is possible (here) to learn. Of course it is not asking for quantification - just some most important variables to which I can pay more attention... And from my question mustn't be supposed that I'm without experience - I'd say, rather contrary But such is my nature - first, I'm totally not interested for what I already know; second it is quite often possible to find some wonderful and smart insight everywhere - for example, presented wonderful footage from French author you post here first - of course, thanks for that...

Thanks, could you post some footage if you find a time? I didn't yet find any serious of this combination.. I've found that Olympus lenses tend to be less bitingly sharp on GHx than Panasonic's equivalent.

Thanks - and as above, just one question for clarification: what do you think, how is achieved that impression of thickness (not technically but as color quality)? In other words - when you look at footage that has that quality more - what is its origin if there's not any chemical structure as in pigments or emulations, because it is projected 2dimensional image? Relations between saturated area, or better gradation in front and back plan or anything else or some sum of what?

So great... concise and involving many aspects that could be controlled. Just one question - and I know answer might not be easy or possible: play of what most important aspects or variables makes "color science" (and what do you see in quoted Fuji vs Sony regarding that "play")? Thanks - and as above, just one question for clarification: what do you think, how is achieved that impression of thickness (not technically but as color quality)? In other words - when you look at footage that has that quality more - what is its origin if there's not any chemical structure as in pigments or emulations, because it is projected 2dimensional image? Relations between saturated area, or better gradation in front and back plan or anything else or some sum of what?

(Actually, I have 2 dr disertation from Psychology, 2 from Philosophy and one from the History of Art - as about 20 novels, 15 grouped in Collected works - but it doesn't matter, only was funny to mention as answer to your presumption. Even it is not important that I made documentaries, now I'm finishing preparation for one short film, negotiate about one long...) Mostly of what you wrote is consensual between-all-agree theory and correct - it is even impossible not to be correct in such general claims. My interest from you is simply human and here is located in these your word: "For me, I have a barometer of my own... I know what I like..." That's all - just show me and briefly explain (if you have a time and will, if you see any sense in it) or compare what and why you like something in this respected field. It isn't too hard or impossible to explain what is so special in above presented Fuji footage that not exists in Panasonic's - or contrary? If we can't explain anything, even that facts that we feel so vehemently-personal distinctive as Panasonic vs Fuji - it seems to me that we behave or live superficially. I could risk and copy-paste what I like or dislike about some visual materials...

Oh, no, I'm not confusing you, it was San - for me it is just more interesting and symphatic to further write about mr Sadaawi than simply ES! (Power of habit - joy of playing with words

Do you find that second footage is not so good? Why if it is so, in which aspects first surpass second and where it is visible? (Of course, there's no necessity to answer, especially if, as I supposed from your question about Ebrahim Sadaawi, verbal expressing in English is not your native.)

I totally agree, but I constantly meet claims about superior image quality of this or that modern camera. All I wish is that someone who see that first example of Canon is more suggestive or better or "cinematic" explain me why... Or contrary, if somebody think that second example is such. I'll put third also, from Fuji, that also impress me. To sum up: what negatively impressed me at this forum, is quantity of passion for this or that camera model or manufacturer - it goes to the level of rude hostility - but, when somebody ask for concrete explanation in concrete examples to show in vivo that distinctive quality, there's no nothing, no word... I simply want to learn no matter how much I already know... or not know.

Many thanks. Could you, please, stay a little bit more and briefly comment me to recently posted footage that I equally like from two different cameras that are so often here confronted... What to like or not, what could be better or not, at what point in footage it is obvious. I'll be very greatfull to learn opinion of you or anybody else to whom it is not too hard to write in English...

I've tried in thread about GH5s to explain what I distinctly like in some footage of this camera and, I think, one picture from Canon by DaveAltizer. But my English is very awkward and I hardly could succeed. What would be of great help to me, maybe to someone else also, and regarding terms such as "mojo" or "cinematic", is: if there is some unassailable agreement between really competent DP's about that what are (approximаtely) image qualities to search for in standard theater movie, it will be so nice to fixed them (approximаtely) in the words and show in paralel favorite examples. What ratio of sharpness and smoothness prefer any of us? What level of contrast and why? What is pleasant degree of saturation? Etc. It will be so great, I think, not to hide our knowledge and taste behind in-general words/therms/phrases, and help each other with favorite results and comments of reasons for our individual estimating.

I started to think that it is impossible to read something like this. ... the same as above. I'm started to think that I'm as appropriate as ES in English contract low trying to ask or even beg for effort in, at least little bit closely, or more accurate, describing quality of image that somebody like.

I agree... for every topic which involved very smart men who answer to simple human question quoting, with heart full of humor and enjoy, English contract law or pop-reincarnation - yes, chances are great that will be some antagonism.

Maybe, but @DaveAltizer just above suggest that, although mojo is subjective, it exists? He quoted 1DC, Fuji JPEGs, and the digital Bolex. Does he reveal something different Ebrahim Sadaawi?

"You can" is not order - accept maybe in English contract law is written something else.

First, after your explanation, I'll try again - what does it mean abbreviation ES in English if you don't agree that @BTM_Pix's brilliant answer guessed right? Second, I also read ("heard") that Canon has that mojo, in very high frequency ratio respective to other cameras, at least at EOSHD. Maybe it is wrong conclusion, but it looks to me so. Third, this thread drove my attention because I wish more to learn about what exactly people see when claim that something has mojo - because mojo in canon cameras in principal refers to "cinematic" character. I like also greatly Canon look and want to more understand why.

Than you can tell @Kye immediately how briliantly an logical you understood sentence with ES - and simply succeed to be a human at your best level.

I don't understand ES also. Is it so hard to answer politely if someone ask you something? I don't know also who The Bangles are, but I believe it is part of base education which some of us here lack, when @jonpais find it so funny to put a lovely smile... But it didn't help @Kye who ask - except he now know that you didn't want to answer him.

What for stands abbreviation ES in English - Enough said? (imported but often used so) En suite? Erase Screen?

Agree, if @Yurolov indeed found that you are obsessed with 10-bit - it is for me, I have to say, complete nonsense. (But I'm pretty sure it is not such - his arguments and manner of argumenting are too noble for such BS level - if he thought so, I'm sure he would told you that openly.) As about "people" being obsessed - I don't know, as part of his global thinking discourse about topic in form of contrary-view strategy, it may be accepted But hay! - both of you really thought and explained opinions at really-really at high end level not just for local BS-type-accurate often knocking down standard.

I hope that sign :P targeting @jonpais means - Look, I'm little bit salty! Because "Troll on duty" is the last that I could say about character of @jonpais's involving in hundreds of threads here. I never saw that he esteemed his opinions or capabilities above others. Quite contrary - he was always ready, and inspirativelly sober-mindly, to admit his non-interested lack of grading intervention. But he has his without discussion always relevant opinion and - which is for me the most important - always first in detail, and without any grain of lifting up his nose, explain it. Than, if attacked, or as result of misunderstaning, may be salting-add (besides, very witty, I think). Personally, resisting in Indian's subname of @jonpais as "Troll on duty" - to me more speaks about caller.