kye

I watch a lot of YT and I think it behaves in similar ways to any other marketplace. More specifically: Those with more money / resources / connections can get access to things that aren't available to many/any others, which leads to unique content, which leads to more views, which leads to more money / resources / connections There are gaps where a lack of competition exists and there are openings to new players, and the only way to find these is to either get very lucky, or do a lot of experimentation, which of course is easier when you have more money / resources / connections because a few failures doesn't mean you go broke or get excommunicated altogether Those two are what separates the successful from the unsuccessful, but there are other factors in play too, such as talent and authenticity and hard-work which can give you an advantage, but this is difficult but the separation between rich and poor is bound to expand when the successful people also work hard and try to be as authentic as possible too.

Softer vintage lenses?

Maybe the resolution will give it away? If it's RAW then we can just work out what percentage of the normal resolution it is and then apply that to the normal crop factor of the P4K? Oh I don't know... Those new fangled computars are gonna run the world one day boy!! OK, from the BM page, the P4K sensor is 10mm wide, and that is 4096 pixels. I think the new mode is the "2688 x 1512 (2.6K 16:9) up to 120 fps" one (also from P4K specs page), which means that it's using an area of the sensor that is 6.56mm wide. Referring back to this image again: a FF sensor has a width of 24mm, so therefore the crop is 24/6.56 = 3.66 I used the width as that stays constant when you choose different aspect ratios, so it's easier to work out. Did I do that right?

They're so close to each other I'd suggest confirming somehow, rather than relying on the accuracy of their marketing department!

This thing looks useful... So, S16 looks like it's a diagonal of 14.33 and FF is 43.27, which makes the crop factor of 3.02

Of course, after all this, does anyone actually pay attention to this figure anymore? I mean, in most situations you're using an ND anyway, so throwing away the vast majority of the light. Then in those rare cases when there's no ND because it's low light (scene lit by candles, outdoor night scenes, etc) we simply adjust aperture / ISO settings (according to the priorities of the production, equipment performance, and artistic direction of crew) and then adjust the NR processing in post to match amounts of grain. Even in cine-lenses, I'm only looking at the T-stop and thinking "the F-stop is at least that large" to try and understand what DoF the lens will have when wide open.

Of course he didn't.... he typed a search query into the Search form (which is strangely called Start New Topic on these forums), hit Post and waited for a few hours for the hits to start showing up ??? It's common practice - everyone knows this!! Searching for "t stop vs f stop" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" and you get this: https://petapixel.com/2016/12/30/f-stops-vs-t-stops-difference-explained-plain-english/

Fair enough. I thought you were saying that they can afford the camera because the ad revenue from the videos is significant, which didn't really make sense, but the idea that they have so much money it doesn't matter makes much more sense

Makes sense. That's potentially a difference between Tonys audience of photographers who love razor thin DoF and cinema where the idea is to direct attention using focus (and other methods) but not make it seem like they're in a parallel universe where the air somehow limits visibility by blurring everything

I'm curious to know what you mean when you say that the F8 was a game changer, as in, what did it allow that previously wasn't possible, or what thing was made very significantly easier? Genuine question - I'm not a sound guy so I don't really know. For my suggestions of the GH5 I think it enabled professional results in a huge range of situations in a single lightweight package. I know people were already doing the things that the GH5 is great at, but it pushed a decent amount in many many directions, like I can now shoot 100% hand-held without my films looking like I'm on a boat or shooting an action film, but also low budget doco makers could reliably shoot whole productions for TV from a suitcase thanks to the 10-bit internal, people that needed great slow-motion could get it, the anamorphic modes made scopes accessible for much less money, etc. I also mentioned the early BM cameras as they put RAW (and therefore cinema quality results) into the hands of people for radically less money than it was previously available, essentially giving access to professional distribution channels (and their quality standards) to huge numbers of people that didn't have the funds to utilise these previously.

My point was that just because they're making money doesn't mean they can automatically justify spending it on new equipment. Firstly, because the differences between this cam and previous ones probably doesn't matter to a lot of people, and secondly I was saying maybe they're spending all the income paying rent and bills and trying to save for their kids education. Having a high revenue business doesn't equal having large profit margins, and even large profit margins doesn't mean that the business case to spend lots of money doesn't have to be made.

It means less light gets through. Same bokeh though. If you're wondering how less light can go through an aperture the same size then think about coatings reflecting or diffusing some light, the glass isn't perfectly clear (although it should be quite neutral) etc. In todays world of great ISO performance I wouldn't worry about it. T-stops were much more important when people were filming on film and needed to match exposures between lenses so they could swap lenses without having to adjust their whole lighting setups, so that's where it comes from.

This is a fascinating video.... What's fascinating about it is that while he's talking about how no other FF camera has autofocus like the EOS-R and DPAF, I'm having a hard time listening because the glorious DPAF is completely screwing up the whole thing with these strange jitters and what looks like hunting pulses. I understand his sentiments about HD, but man, that AF meant I couldn't finish watching the video. Wow. I guess the moral of the story is that even DPAF isn't good enough for a 50mm f1.2, which I would have thought it should be, especially by the way he was talking!

Interesting... I was half expecting another 24mm equivalent FOV, but 14.4mm is crazy wide, so that's pretty cool. I'm assuming the lens will be fixed focus, but I guess you can't be sure - the Sony RX0 wasn't fixed, and that is the other significant "larger sensor / action camera size" contender, although with the 24mm equivalent lens the RX0 is a very different offering. 100Mbps h265 5K video is quite interesting. I was actually thinking when I saw the "modular action camera" promos that it would be truly modular in the sense that you could put one module facing forwards, one backwards, stack the extenders, have ones pointing sideways, etc etc.. you know, actually modular, but obviously not. Still, interchangeable camera modules is a start.

@DaveAltizer agrees with you on that... EVFs are fantastic, I use the EVF on the GH5 all the time. Partly it's for shooting in full sun, partly it's because it's slightly higher res than the screen, and it also gives you that third point of contact for stabilisation. Of course, it makes getting more creative camera angles much less convenient. Back in the day EVFs were bad because they were too slow and stills shooters would miss 'the decisive moment' and I wonder how much the die hard DSLR shooters still think that OVF is better than EVF and just haven't caught up yet. I highly doubt that. You'd have to be living in a one-bedroom apartment right next to a race-track to be able to regularly feature supercars in your videos, otherwise $7K will get eaten up pretty quickly when you factor in transport, hotels, and all the other things involved. Most of these channels are either run by trust-fund-kids or kids who are couch surfing with a laptop. The people with families and rent are doing sponsorships, which pays so much more than ad revenue that some channels don't even enable ads on their videos. I second this! I have it on my list to do a 4K 10-bit h264 vs 1080p RAW comparison to see how that goes. Of course, recording 4K Prores HQ would be pretty nice!

Hooray! They'll finally have to invent smell-o-vision!! ???

Of particular interest to me was this section: and one thing they forgot to mention - declining rides to people who have been blacklisted. The point that ridesharing starts being offered by automated vehicles is the point when your ride might show up covered in whatever bodily fluids were put there by the last passenger and there was no driver to realise something was wrong... maybe I should buy shares in manufacturers of those sensors that detect dust and fluids because there will be so many of them they'll basically be weaving the fabric and carpet out of them!

Agreed. Although Canon fans aren't the only ones here, also of note is that Marquis Brownlee (MKBHD) shoots 8K RAW for his projects (IIRC). Go Red!

Good plan. Please share your findings. Someone commented in another thread that the transition to 8-bit files wasn't a pleasant one, but then again I see great footage coming from them regularly, so I guess it depends on the situation

I was making a joke about the A7Siii release date not being in 2020.... obviously not a good joke though!

Interesting, thanks for the info. The article I got the MFT lens charts from is this one: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/ In it they say: So, assuming I read that right, they're testing the optics only?

Sounds like he's talking about movies that are most appealing because of the cast, rather than anything else. I seem to be in the minority amongst my (non-film-making) friends because when I ask about a film they are inclined to tell me who is in it, whereas I tend to want to know what kind of film it is and what it's about. I do this even to the extent that I respect people like Johnny Depp not for their ability to act but for their taste in choosing scripts to work on. Many of the films and TV shows I have liked were from no-one famous in-particular but I was attracted because of the genre, or favourable reviews. Many a good movie was made by unknowns, and many a bad movie was made by a dream-team of cast and crew. I suspect that this doesn't extend as much to box-office performance, and I'm pretty sure that it definitely doesn't extend to getting distribution for a film. I've heard stories that the way to make a film is to get / write an idea / pitch / treatment, cast your leading actor and have them above the line as both cast as well as executive director, then have them help you pitch to distributors and writers (in whatever order makes sense) then once you've got some level of interest and commitment from a financier then actually write the script. "Did you see the latest Scorsese film?" "I love Denzel" "Robin Williams is absolutely hilarious" ... but not so much "did you see the latest rom-com?"

Hang on.. isn't the question about how to FILM the doc, not edit it? If it's a case of FILMING it, then my suggestion is to: work out what are the things that are important to include (history of the location, history of key people, people's opinions, where is the drama?) include these key points in the interviews you do work out how you're going to show these key points - are you interviewing the right people, will you get shots of certain locations, do you need historic materials or footage, etc then work out what your constraints are, what is the most difficult aspect of the project? Is it a person, a location, the weather, scheduled events like festivals, certain natural phenomena aligned with the seasons, etc plan / schedule how to get your most difficult shots, and keep the easier ones as backups For example, if you're shooting an inside and outside film then you might be limited by the weather, so you can film outside on days with the right weather and inside when the weather is bad, or at key locations when they're available and interviews with people who are flexible in the gaps, etc.... Remember that you don't have to shoot things in order, and to keep your mind open and utilise the unexpected when it occurs.

Good points. A note about the above charts - my impression is that they're tested by lensrentals with a specialised piece of testing equipment, not just by connecting a camera and looking at the files on the SD card. Here's an article showing their setup and talking about it, but I'm not entirely sure how it works as they don't appear to explicitly state that: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/06/developing-a-rapid-mtf-test-for-photo-and-video-lenses/ This is a later article on the subject: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/11/using-rapid-mtf-testing-how-we-test-monitor-our-lenses/ However, regardless of how they perform the tests, you're not going to get better results than the charts indicate, unless a manufacturer has worked out how to up-res an image, in which case, woohoo! I'll be filming in SD, saving heaps of storage space and battery life, and I'll deliver in 8K to get the best YT quality

I think that there are three levels of AF involved in film-making: Can the AF focus quickly and reliably? Can the AF choose the right thing to focus on reliably? Can the AF transition between focal points in the most aesthetically pleasing way? Most of the AF conversation seems to be focused on the first one, but in reality it's split between the first two (and sometimes the third with older CDAF systems). PDAF / DPAF are great at the first one, and CDAF isn't too bad now (with the latest Panasonic cameras for example). Face detect and eye detect (and animal face/eye detect) are great advancements in the second one. The third one is also somewhat supported with the firmware offering some control of focus speed. So for example, Canon seems to be pretty good on their DPAF cameras - they normally detect a face and focus on it and not the background. With multiple actors in a narrative scene this may not work so well, but broadly it's not too bad. They also seem to offer a more organic focus transition too. Panasonics like the GH5 are actually relatively good at the first one, but seem to have issues with the second one - the out-of-focus shots you see in vlogs and lower-quality-more-disposable content aren't actually out-of-focus, typically the background is very well presented and looking lovely, it's just a pity that the presenter was a big blur! I also see some very mechanical transitions to acquire focus occasionally, like the focus mechanism is directly taken from a stills camera where it seeks at full speed, hunts for a bit, then locks on. Very unpleasant. My MF performance isn't that great at the first one, and I'm somewhat let down by the low-resolution of the focus peaking available, or by screen brightness if I'm using the LCD outdoors. On the other hand I have zero problems with either the second or the third. At no point do I ever find myself not listening to myself in terms of what I want to focus on! I'm pretty good at doing the third one, and certainly if I'm not rushed and it's not a difficult focus pull then I'm fine, and I have no limitations in doing a slow focus pull during a shot and then immediately after that doing a fast-as-possible focus pull to catch something else that might happen unexpectedly. With one of those menu-based settings things you're limited by the current settings and it takes a long time to change them. I also find that the aesthetic suits my style of film-making, but that's a creative choice and wouldn't be shared for many productions.