Davide DB

About 8K, from Camera Beta: The news about the previously registered Leica new machine has been updated: it is rumored that the new machine uses a 60 million pixel sensor, which can achieve 240 million pixels, equipped with 6.5 levels of anti-shake, equipped with phase focusing, a continuous shooting speed of 9 frames per second, and supports 30 Frame 8k video shooting.

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie. Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I. But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change. As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals. The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it. The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison. In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go. Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.

Nine pages of comments... Who saw the movie?

You are right. It's a Sony. Could be A7SIII or R or A1. Without seeing the upper part, it's hard.

The cinematography of the frogs part is stunning

Hi all, Is it a R5C used here? A C70? O neither of the two? ISO 12800

I agree with what you write, and even here in Italy I see that rental services are focusing so much on Sony FX and more and more independent productions are renting Arri. But for what is my passion (underwater documentaries) and nature documentaries I see that REDs are still the most popular. Even looking at the BTS of big productions (BBC) in nature footage there are almost only REDs. I am not very experienced but maybe because of more availability of high frame rates. BTW I read that the latest episode on the African jacanas was filmed with a remotely controlled "Z-cam". BBC rarely mentions camera models and they are usually only seen in BTS footage. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/planet-earth-three-episode-4-freshwater

I see that in the reviews everyone uses the 12-35 or the 12-60 or telephoto lenses. I'd like to see how it performs with older lumix lenses. I use the 20 mm F1.7 and the Leica 45 mm F2.8 macro a lot. They have terrible motors and are very slow in focusing. I don't know how they will behave with PDAF and whether Lumix has released FW updates yet. If they haven't, they would be junk.

In the meantime, in a galaxy, far, far away... https://ymcinema.com/2023/08/24/panasonic-develops-a-variable-built-in-electronic-nd-filter/ I don't know if the choice to go on a larger "uni-body" could help to have this feature on all lines... I think this feature could go live on a next S1H II

My GH5MK2 uses the same battery. No problem so far. After two weeks it loses maybe a 5%. My Wi-Fi is always off. never used. IIRC the camera creates Wi-Fi network of his own, does not connect to your Wi-Fi. BTW if your camera is connected to your WiFi network you should see it on your home router admin page.

Regardless of Petapixel, what's your feedback? GP11 submerged in a 10°C water (so no overheating problems) lasts about 1h filming continuously at 4K@50p

Which version do you have?

Yes, a robbery indeed. it could have been a simple FW update. I'm using several GP11 for scientific diving and an improved (real) battery duration would be nice. 10-15% doesn't worth it.

I'll stick with the 11s then. Thanks

In the meantime, somewhere in Japan... https://www.43rumors.com/ft3-new-gh6-successor-with-phase-detection-af-is-in-the-works-and-will-be-named-gh7-and-not-gh6ii/

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/sony-fx3-and-fx30-get-anamorphic-de-squeeze-dci-4k-at-24fps-more/

This film is a 20th Century Studios > Disney production so Sony competitor. CGI is by ILM, Industrial Light & Magic, same owner.

@markr041 how does a battery last? It is true that it's doubled from GP11?

I'm not a pro. On screen it is very pleasing. Many scenes shot at night or otherwise with a dark effect. Flares very very controlled compared to other films where the flash effect is almost sought. Unfortunately, the weakest part is really the story. Trite concepts, dialogue that is at times impractical and some holes in the script. But visually it is really a joy to watch. P.S. At the end credits I discover that the soundtrack is by Zimmer. I didn't even realize there was an original soundtrack. The main theme is Debussy's Claire de lune and here and there are pop rock tunes by different artists. For me, a gray-haired kid, remarkable is a scene with Apocalypse Now-style airborne assault troops with Radiohead's "everything is in the right place."

https://uproxx.com/movies/gareth-edwards-the-creator-visual-effects/

I just saw the film in a good theater. Not Imax but latest technology. I believe that, before continuing to puzzle over the whys and wherefores, one should see it 🙂 Long story short: There is so much CGI that having Atlas Mercury and P+S Technik lenses AND a good DOP, the film could have been shot with a GH2 🙂 No Spoiler The plot is not bad and the movie is not bad. IMHO if you like sci-fi, it deserves to be seen if only for not being yet another Marvel crap or third-hand Star Wars junk. The script occasionally swerves but I can live with that. There are scenes without CGI, of course but the cinematography is nothing much. IMHO the real beauty are the CGI scenes and the worlds imagined by the designers. Some of the landscapes are really striking. The futuristic Nepalese Buddhist temples are outstanding. I haven't seen such fascinating landscapes since the second Blade Runner. They reminded me of some of the gems among the DUST channel shorts. By comparison, the sets of the various Star Wars spinoff series are South American soap operas. Bottom line: perhaps we underestimate the quality that the cameras we keep in the drawer (in the right hands) can express.

Sorry I meant Venice II From: https://www.xdcam-user.com/2021/11/sony-launches-venice-ii/

Advertising aside, this series is really interesting to get info on the choices of the various DOPs https://pro.sony/en_GB/cinematography/cinematography-tips/scene-deconstruction-homepage

Does Sony A1 (IMX610AQL) use same senor of Venice?

Yes. From some BTS photos it seems they even went lighter than that https://www.provideocoalition.com/did-the-creator-use-the-sony-fx3-as-an-a-camera/