seanzzxx

I have one, planning on selling it only because I have so many EF lenses and only are getting further into that ecosystem (being primarily an ef-mount videographer), and the AF with an adapter is getting a bit long in the tooth. I think I'll go for an R6 to get a good camera with video-capable autofocus, but that's really only because of my lens situation. The image quality of the A7R II is still amazing, almost best in class, which really says something!

To be clear Blackmagic vehemently denies the above statement and says that any noise/detail differences are due to the different debayering.

The a6300 is a good example of exactly the point he’s trying to make, the distinction between resolution and fidelity. I had a shoot with a Sony a7sii and an Ursa back to back. The Ursa was shot in 1920x1080 prores 444, the a7sii shot UHD in mega compressed h264. The difference in PERCEIVED resolution between these two cameras is night and day, with the Ursa kicking the A7s it’s butt, because the image of the former is so much more robust in terms of compression noise, color accuracy, banding, edge detail, and so on. One is more resolute but the other camera has a lot more perceived resolution because the image is better. If you blow up the images and ask random viewers which camera is ‘sharper’, 9 out of 10 times people will say the Ursa.

@Beritar the OP stated they're using a Pocket 4k, which does have a native DCI 4k sensor, so your remark is not really relevant to them (just to avoid any confusion ahead of time).

Yeah, Sigma Art lenses 100%. Which I really like. The few modern Zeiss lenses I've used definitely qualify as well.

That's right UncleBob.

As to your premise, Kye, I think it is simply not true. The Ursa 4.6k G2 uses a Fairchild sensor, yet it matches almost perfectly with the Pocket 4k, which uses a Sony one. Like previously stated, Sony produces the sensors in an insane amount of photography-oriented cameras yet these cameras produce different images, sometimes wildly so.

Jesus Christ can people stop invoking Orwell whenever someone on the internet disagrees with them. My God, how serious do you have to take yourself to even consider doing that. Not everything is part of some epic clash of civilizations (looking at Andrews piece as well). If you'd actually look around you as opposed to just screaming about whatever you have predetermined reality to be, you'd see that the overwhelming majority of people all across the political spectrum do not think Wonder Woman 1984 is a good movie. In that sense you guys should be thrilled, because it actually should relieve some of your fears with regards to the ominous cultural post-truth hive mind that you so clearly worry about. Ironically, instead of actually, you know, looking at our cultural response to this movie, you instead preemptively project your fears unto reality, get angry about it, and call it a day. Come on folks, we're better than this.

On 12/28/2020 at 4:50 PM, filmmakereu said:

There are reports the fast h.265 handling is faster but lower quality comparing with the Intel capabilities.

Will ProRes or other have the same issues?

I also had asked it there but no answers so far:

 

I also wonder if h.265 transcoding / encoding with software isn't possible to overcome those issues of M1 hardware?

Where are you seeing the news of poor encoding?

What's people's experiences with the m1 so far bang for buck? I'm really doubting between the 16 gig pro and a Omen 15 with a rtx 2070

Lol because the box office has been famously dominated by thoughtful, high quality movies.

I find conflicting info on this. Anyone know how these do with Resolve?

It doesn't, camera nerds on fora have a hard on for it, that's all. In the extremely unlikely event that you would ever need to show your movie on a projector that doesn't support 23.98 fps you'll have to speed up your footage by some imperceptible amount. (I'm speaking from experience here).

How's the color accuracy of the Nanlite?

eh I think I'll just wait for Tupp to show up and say that it cannot have a dense image as long as it wasn't shot on Kodachrome(tm), seeing how that has been this thread for the last month or so.

Also just to be clear, your tone of voice during the comparison footage is an Epic Light Media impression, right?

I can change the timeline resolution on Davinci Resolve 16?

This is seriously great, thanks for sharing haha!

9 minutes ago, Django said:

So I finally got a chance to test drive the R5. The 8K & 4K HQ image quality is just stunning imo.

I'm now planning on acquiring the camera, despite the overheat issues (defeatable with the hack).

That said the 10-bit h265 log footage doesn't run on my 13" MBP, only on my iMac Pro.

Kind of a major bummer when I'm editing/grading on the go. What's the workaround? Any software to transcode h265 into h264?

You edit on Mac, why not just convert into ProRes 422 or use ProRes 422 proxies? That'll edit a lot better than h264.

There is no Ursa with a dual gain sensor by the way. Also all the people here touting the ML M50 as anything other than an interesting technical achievement (comparing it to an incredible workhorse camera) I just cannot comprehend. If anything I'd say the FS7 is the modem equivalent: super well priced for the time and an all around workhorse camera that is EVERYWHERE (and to be clear, I don't really like the image it produces, I'm just commenting on its position in the field right now).

Your terminology seems confused: image density refers to how well exposed a (film) image is. A well exposed negative will literally be denser/thicker than an underexposed one, which will be thin.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

The exceptions, not the norm. 

This is all anecdotal but in my experience the Pocket 4K is EVERYWHERE in the low budget circuit, with its entry price of 1400 dollars and great image.

4 hours ago, tupp said:

Or, it provides the argument that such comparisons should be conducted by someone who understands the fundamentals of what is necessary for such a test to be valid.

PLEASE point me to that test then, because I feel like whatever magic properties that should be inherent to sensor size should manifest in sóme way under a controlled test. So far you are just shooting down any test provided as not being rigorous enough (why on Earth would foreground unsharpness matter in any way when according to your last example provided the special properties of large format are abundantly clear in a shot that has just as much elements in front of the focus point, that is a nose, as in the examples provided by Yedlin), but if the differences were significant so as to be meaningful there should be a way to test for this relatively easily right? I

29 minutes ago, tupp said:

Thanks for the link!

 

I doubt that he is talking about this exact issue.  Like most other folks who do equivalency tests, he likely limits his attention to mathematical DOF, and his tests use wider angle lenses and there is no delineation of the front and rear DOF limits with a lot of other detail thrown away or ignored.

 

 

I don't have time right now to read the linked page, but if the images shown are the extent of his comparison, his tests are invalid.  He does not show how the limits of DOF are delineated.  He seems to be using wide angles focal lengths, and I can see a difference in one of the images with just a glance.

I feel like you are kind of moving the goalposts. This guy has a use case where he has shot hundreds of shots on cameras with all kinds of film backs (for camera comparisons), and somehow this does not count because his lenses are too wide? This is based on real-world experience with everything from an IMAX down to a super 35 camera. He even admits in the article that his matching is not perfect due to practical limitations (t-stops and f-stops not aligning, lenses not matching exactly to their equivalent counterparts, etc.), but his argument is that the likeness between shots is so convincing and consistent that the sensor size obviously does not play a role in the actual image, and that any perceived difference is due to bias or particular (non image circle-related) lens characteristics, not due to the size of the film back. In fact, where you have been previously arguing about recognizing a larger format due to increased lens blur (in your examples where you are circling a number of shots), the Alexa 65 actually seems to have slightly LESS lens blur in the examples provided by Steve Yedlin, likely due to my aforementioned reasons. This, again, seems to provide an argument that any perceived differences are more likely to be due to individual lens characteristiscs or other uncontrolled variables which are not related to the film back size.

EDIT: I hope this does not come off as argumentative, as I do appreciate -and enjoy- the discussion!

There is an interesting post from cinematographer Steve Yedlin talking about this exact issue. As far as he's concerned, there is no unique 'look' to larger formats unless using a different format somehow forces you to set up your camera differently. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html

He has some pretty rigorous testing to go with it.

10 hours ago, Resonance said:

Dear Andrew, because I got errors trying to post links here. I also got errors trying to post images. The system seems a bit clumsy, the error messages sometimes missing and otherwise not informative. Can you please remove my two negative ratings by Canon shill accounts seanzzxx and Coffe ?

The only reason I downvoted you is because I intensely dislike your post-truth, conspiratorial worldview: I think it stands in the way of productive discussion. You calling me (a yearlong, very inactive member who has basically only posted about Blackmagic and RED during his time here) a Canon shill, instead of applying even a modicum of Occam's Razor and just assuming I'm someone in disagreement with your tone and ideas, really goes to prove my point. Anyhow.