kye Posted April 24, 2022 Author Share Posted April 24, 2022 2 hours ago, newfoundmass said: No one forced you to respond to my initial post about dynamic range, and no one forced you to be rude because others think differently about it than you do. Everyone has different philosophies when it comes to filmmaking and video. This forum would be much better, and much more informative, if we moved beyond just talking about specs and also shared our philosophies, knowledge and experiences. Those are my favorite posts. Give me the threads where people actually share their experiences and thoughts about a camera they're using instead of yet another discussion about dynamic range, and why a camera is no good because it doesn't have 16 stops when camera X does for less money. I think I'm just sick of the polarised way we talk about specifications. It seems that every specification that gets mentioned 1) spawns an entire tangent where we MUST descend down into a rabbit hole talking about the spec rather than letting it be part of a larger context, and 2) we MUST express only opinions that it is absolutely critical or irrelevant, and nothing in-between is mentioned or even tolerated, with usefulness comments treated as particularly heinous. This all-or-nothing mentality applies to resolution, AF, low-light, stabilisation, etc. People jump down that rabbit hole with all the nuance of Dr-Jekyll/Mr-Hyde. I'm talking about DR because it's an active problem I have on my GH5, for the real-life situations I shoot in, and it's something that the GH6 improves upon with a headline feature. Specifically it's something I've noticed that is dramatically less of a problem on the BMMCC than on the GH5, and they only have a stop or two of difference, so it's not an Alexa-or-bust type of situation - it's a situation where a small improvement would give a very large improvement in how many situations aren't capturable. In terms of people talking about usage and thoughts and experiences, yes, I really enjoy those discussions, but they're almost never held here. There's no reason they couldn't, but there are a bunch of subtle factors at play that discourage these discussions from happening more often. I've tried to start more than my fair share of them, and mostly they just die with people typing, frankly, ridiculous replies that almost couldn't be designed better to take the conversation off-topic or to discourage meaningful discourse. I think that's why a lot of great people leave these forums - they get sick of endlessly talking about specs without context and move into other places where the higher-order topics can be discussed, or stop talking about them at all. It's definitely a challenge to get people on here to talk about anything outside the camera department (have a look at the level of engagement in the colour grading and editing threads I've tried to maintain) but we don't even talk about lighting here, and even the lenses section is relegated to a subforum where we know that topics go to die. This is a camera forum at best, and a camera specification forum most of the time. And most of the discussion is in threads about cameras that no-one here will ever own, and probably can't afford (Z9, R5C, etc etc). Then a thread about the GH6 appears, and everyone makes fun of the technology behind the AF, and when a video comes out they don't like they write the entire camera off entirely, like somehow a poor image is the cameras fault, when others have previously posted great looking images. The more I concentrate on everything other than the camera box (lenses, colour grading, editing.... story *gasp*) the more I realise that the camera plays a very small part in the overall picture. The whole "camera social media echo chamber" is perfectly designed to make you concentrate on the camera. The image from a camera is more noticeable the better it is, great colour grading is credited to the camera not the colourist, great editing becomes invisible rather than standing out, great audio is completely invisible, great sound design is at-best subliminal if not invisible, and story is so deep a subject that there's no way it's going to get discussed here. Cameras are where the action is from a specs point of view because the specs are really obvious. The best camera videos actually have really rudimentary editing - compared to what I'm seeing in high-end TV the camera videos might be 10% on the editing scale, maybe 5%, or even less, sound design is similar - may 0-20%, story is often non-existent, but these camera videos are delivering cinematography at 80% or occasionally more of professional standards. This teaches you to think of the camera as being the star of the show. If the images looked poor then these videos would be laughed at almost universally, and yet the image quality of every award-winning anything from 20+ years ago would be worse. I think the echo chamber is just losing its hold on me and I'm getting more frustrated by the specs-first polarised way that these things are discussed. Sorry if I'm a bit rude amount it, but the more I learn about film-making, the more I realise these conversations are fundamentally missing the point, and wasting the opportunities to have a meaningful discussion. As such, let's change it up from "no-one cares about DR" and "MFT is doomed due to its low DR compared to FF". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.