seanzzxx

Canon 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern.

Do you know the word humility? Yedlin's not just any old dude on the internet... the guy's an industry insider with butt-loads of films to back it up. I think he might know something on the topic of resolution.

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.

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.

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉

@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).

What cameras don't use Sony sensors? Arri, RED, obviously Canon, Sigma (Foveon, anyway, the Fp is a Sony sensor), and by all indications, the Blackmagic Ursa 12K.
And I'm unclear about some older sensors, like the Panasonic Varicam/Varicam LT (guess that isn't "old" - it's still being made). That camera was the first true dual native ISO (vs. dual GAIN, which is what most cameras actually are despite being described as "dual native ISO") and predates anything Sony did with dual native ISO tech. So, my guess is they did not make that one - maybe Panasonic themselves or TowerJazz. Someone more internet savvy than I might be able to figure it out.
I don't put much stock in this whole "did Sony make the sensor or not" as it relates to how the image looks. Sony makes multiple sensors used in Hasselblad, Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, Blackmagic, etc. And every single one yields completely different raw output in a number of different metrics. The processing pipeline that Nikon/Fuji/Panasonic/whoever implements matters infinitely more.
Looking at images from, say, the original Blackmagic Pocket vs. the Pocket 4K/6K and preferring one over the other has far less to do with who made the sensor and more to do with what Blackmagic is doing (advancements from their Gen 1 color science to their new Gen 5, for example). Exceptions would be comparing CCD to CMOS; Hasselblad's Kodak CCD sensor clearly is very different from Sony's CMOS sensor, no matter what Hasselblad does. But that's a bit apples and oranges.
Now, should someone (like a big company) start making sensors? Absolutely. Competition is f***ing great, and Sony is bulldozing the sensor market. Samsung is probably best poised to do something like that, and I hope they do.

I really hope this and the Ursa 12K drive the prices of the Ursa g2's down to be honest.

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.

I’m just here for the bronzed MILF’s.

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.

Absolutely love how people like you immediately hop to "cancel culture" the instant someone has a dissenting opinion, as if I even alluded to him being cancelled, have the power to do so, or am attempting to do so. Y'all love to cling to "free speech" and say things like "if you cannot accept a differing opinion" while literally not being able to accept a differing opinion.
His article was written and posted on the internet. With a link to a forum discussion specifically about the article. I guess I missed the disclaimer that to post in that forum you had to (ironically) keep your differing opinion to yourself.
"Bronzed Hollywood MILFs" is a degrading, gross, misogynistic description of - among others - amazing veteran actors like Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright. This disdain for working professionals isn't the first time to appear on this site from Andrew, however.
The movie is bad. For so many reasons. Hell, many feminists have brought attention to the very weird and borderline rape aspect of Steve's character inhabiting someone else's body. But, oh, wait... that can't be... this is a movie that "has nailed itself to gender equality, and female identity, thus putting itself beyond criticism."
Maybe if people around here actually, I don't know, SPOKE to working film critics - both men *and* women - you'd know how absolutely, insanely nonsense that statement is. I can link you to *at least* a dozen different essays/pieces about how bad or problematic this movie is just from critics I know... probably more than half of them from women. Frankly, the idea that this movie is immune from criticism by "woke" circles is the most laughable thing I've read all week... and it's been an insane week here in the US.
I'm sure all of this will, once again, be dismissed as being a "Little Hitlerite" or "cancel culture." Apparently those things are just when you respond to someone on a forum that they created specifically for an article they wrote and posted publicly on the internet.
Orwell is indeed laughing. Just not for the reasons you think.

This is absolutely unhinged.
I actually know and talk to *dozens* of working film critics and I don't know a single one that really liked this movie - and easily half of those critics are women. Maybe one or two said they enjoyed it just fine but it's not great, while the VAST majority have talked about its many, many issues, including a lot of xenophobic/racial nonsense.
But this.... is just, I have to say, the writing of someone who needs to really look at themselves. The off the scale irony of complaining about how men are portrayed while consistently railing against all the women involved here ("bronzed Hollywood MILFs" is a real nice line, very cool and mature and not sexist or gross at all).
Man, you write this shit on the INTERNET. You do know everyone can read this, right?
The movie sucked, but holy hell, seek some help. Or maybe this is just who you are.

These things can both be true:
Wonder Woman 1984 was blockbuster garbage. A man crying sexism because one shitty blockbuster (out of how many hundreds?) dares to portray men in an unflattering light is whiney, entitled, pathetic, microphallytic nonsense Do you write internet diatribes every time you see a movie that shows woman as oversexualized? As objects of ownership? As conniving bitches? As ditzy morons? You don’t, because if you did your wrists would break because there are so many of them. 
Look around you, the world is full of awful men doing nightmarish things. Why shouldn’t a clumsy blockbuster get to play with that trope as much as all the tropes about women? The film is absolutely terrible, but loads of terrible films are made by men all year round, filled with cliches and destructive stereotypes. It’s not other people making this an issue about sexism-it’s you. You have drawn a line that says stories by and about women can’t employ the same lazy filmmaking that is rife in Hollywood blockbusters. How is that not the definition of sexism?

Also: I’ve seen literally zero hesitance in the media to call this movie lousy. Not sure what you’re reacting to, but nobody I’ve read is hailing this film as a milestone of feminism. Or even trying to defend its sheer awfulness from a filmmaking perspective.
Like many small men, you’ve made a little internet fiefdom for yourself by spewing anger on a blog. Yawn. Perhaps turning that angry, critical eye on your own perception of women would prove instructive. Grow up, little piggy.

You build what you want to an acceptable baseline that satisfies you and then release it into the wild.  What happens after that is anybody's guess.
If you think video is bad, you should try making music recordings and then giving it over to the world.

I haven't seen any footage from a hybrid camera that can match the filmic look of BM. Yes Fuji's have nice color but BM just has the most organic look. Plasticky?? nope.

Another year over and what a shit one it was, to be quite frank about it. We all deserve a bit of peace and happiness at Christmas after this, to get our spirits up so that's my hope for all of you - have a good one, and cheers for your EOSHD-ing all year through thick and thin, keep the passion and let's keep our heads above water!
And I hope all your front rooms look as great as this...
 

I recently received my Mac mini M1 with 16gb. I love it but has its limitations. 
Sony A7Siii - Everything runs perfect until 120. I get a little lag with some 120 clips. I am running the M1 resolve. Grading is easy. Adding grain or NR does drop frames in 100%.
BM - Runs perfect with grades. Less drop frames when adding NR or grain 100%.
I am so happy with the purchase. I shoot more photos and the system burns through any file. The system is almost silent which is helpful. 
Another thing to note is while rendering video I can still use other programs. On my other system I had to wait until the file was completely finished to work on anything else. 

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).

LOL!
 
Well, I think that some of the images that I linked were actually shot on Ektachrome and Kodacolor, but I mostly gave Kodachrome examples, as it is the "extreme" of the color emulsions.
 
Also, I said early in the thread that color depth was probably the key variable for digital "thickness,"  so I agree that "dense" digital images can be (and have been) achieved with digital cameras.
 
 
Both trailers look good, but the Red footage looks thin/brittle compared to that of the Alexa footage.  Of course, much of these looks could result from the grade.

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.

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.

This is seriously great, thanks for sharing haha!

I'm here if you need to talk.
 
 

10 years just about EVERYBODY on the planet that can afford a phone will have the same motion picture IQ power we currently have.
Best to question "what exactly do I bring to the table when offering video production services?"  If your answer is "the camera" you need to start getting really paranoid.  Most clients are not going to fret about DXO scores. If that's where your attention lies (and there's nothing really wrong with that) I hope you're aspiring to a much higher echelon of production than I am!
I'm pretty close to retirement so my day in the sun with all this stuff is coming to an end.  Looks like I'll be riding the imaging technical wave as it crashes onto the beach.