Leaderboard

I didn't realise you had access to every camera. I realise now that this makes every statement you make correct! I'll learn my place eventually....

Art is conceit. Cinema is a altered from reality by default. Because of that, it's perfectly fine when some filmmakers decide for it to absolutely fail to be accurate in certain ways. Flaws are beautiful. They invoke an alternate reality. Some filmmakers like 48 or 60fps. So be it. I like 24fps and a 360 degree shutter. My preferences ain't wrong, they're simply mine.

And how many films followed the lead? You were in the minority. Most people hated it and most theaters showed it in 24 fps because of complaints.

That's a defeatist attitude that will impede progress. When The Hobbit came out a few years ago, some people were ready to break out the pitchforks and torches and march on Hollywood, but I loved it--those movies looked much better to me than the typical 24 FPS stuff.

No. 60p = sports 30p = TV 24 = cinema Sorry Tony, some things will never change.

I agree with you. I don’t want footage that looks “cinematic”, I want footage that looks good, and higher frame rates look better to me. The only reason we were stuck with 24FPS was because film costs were lower at lower frame rates and the studios were cheap. I don’t like a bunch of other things that have become more or less standard in Hollywood. The biggest thing that irks me is hand-held footage. Some of it is so jittery it’s nearly vertigo-inducing. It wasn’t used in the old days because cameras were massive and not hand-holdable by any stretch of the imagination. Now that cameras are smaller and lighter, the trend is to use more and more hand-held footage in movies. Some claim it offers more of a “you are there” first-person experience, but I disagree. When I see the world with my own eyes, I don’t see a jittery, shaky view at all—it’s like my vision system has built-in IBIS. Another thing I don’t like, but seems to be gaining popularity is to add film-like grain to digital footage. This can only be due to some misplaced nostalgia for the old days, because why make the footage look worse? I prefer the pristine look of good digital, again because when I look at the world with my eyes, I don’t see any grain. I don’t need to be reminded that I’m watching a movie—I already know that.

If Lumix wants to blow everyone out of the water ( now they have decent AF) they should release a S1H2 and a GH7 with some kind of ND. The S2 would be fine being a high res photo centric version without ND. Also 6K open gate 50p no crop. If they can do that for around 4000€ along with all their other strong points then I’m in.

I think mine and many others, is the dream ‘do it all’ lens which would have as big a range as possible and the widest constant aperture possible, but without being too big or heavy. The closest to that ideal right now for me would be: FF = Canon 28-70 f2 and 28-105 f2.8 plus Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 APSC = Fuji 16-55 f2.8 and 50-140 f2.8 M4/3 = Lumix 10-25 f1.7 and 25-50 f1.7 Focal ranges are quite personal/dependant on individual needs but for me these are: Indoor, 20-70 and outdoor 35-150. Funnily enough, lenses with those specific focal lengths exist! For Sony and Nikon users at least… My preferred candid focal length is 40mm. It’s just a sweet spot to me that isn’t quite as wide as 35 and not as tight as 50 can sometimes be. But specifically for M4/3, I would struggle to see past that Lumix f1.7 pairing despite their relavent weight to the format. On a G9ii, easy choice for me. On a GX85, maybe not. When it comes to M4/3 glass, I have always preferred the Olympus offerings. Their f1.2 ‘pro’ primes especially. As a one lens to do it all though, I’d struggle to see past the 12-40mm f2.8, the most recent version. Had that on the OM-1 that I had for a short time and other than say shooting sports or going on safari, for which a longer lens would be required, the FF equivalent of 24-80mm with a constant aperture of f2.8 is great for landscapes and people. It’s the one lens that along with Fujis 16-55 (24-83 equivalent) has FF beat IMO, because the ‘traditional’ 24-70mm f2.8 is just a bit short at the long end. Unless you have a lot of megapixels and can crop, but that is another story…and personally I like to see in frame the end result without cropping. That OM-1 paired with the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 75mm f1.7, for me would be the ultimate travel camera combo. I could make an argument for myself for any sized sensor set up and happily shoot with any of them from M4/3 to medium format. For my work though, I am uncomfortable (for want of a better term) with anything other than FF.

Where's the double like button?! ; ) oh God, how is it possible you to be me? ;- ) Isn't it? Yes, it is possible. Why? There's a name for: Windows by Microsoft. Two people in separate parts of the world having exactly the same feeling, ipsis verbis. Their achievement! These stupid professionals there think we live for them. They take the money from us for their daily job and put us to work on their behalf. We who have paid for it.

When I made the move from Windows to Mac, the primary reason I did that was I wanted to use a computer, but not have a part time job as a systems administrator, which is what Windows forces you to do in order to just use the computer. I was stunned at the time how much time I used to have to spend on the computer not doing the things I wanted to do, but doing technical things to enable those things to be done. TBH I'm over that, so while I'm perfectly capable of managing the IT of a medium sized business, I'd rather just use the computer for what I want to use it for, and not have to troubleshoot an array of file and network management infrastructure.

Gotta love a demo video that starts with a world-famous model / actress... All else being equal, products like this probably help to keep film alive. There's a chance the rich might adopt things like this, and perhaps burn through film like they're rich (because they are). For the rest of us, if you wanted to shoot on 8mm film then get yourself a second-hand real film camera and then benefit from the film consumption of the rich to give economies of scale. Personally, I think that the iPhone / smartphones have finally gotten here. The compression artefacts (and even the crushing over-processing) are made invisible by the time you add enough blur and grain to get a semi-decent match, and they've finally caught up in terms of dynamic range, so you can have contrasty mids with strong saturation but gentle and extended rolloffs. Also, the more these images trend on social media, the more my OG BMPCC and BMMCC go up in value!

These things can be done. I just configured my video shooting bank A for Prores 422 HQ 25 fps and 1/50s SDR, and bank B for h.265 4K 50 fps 10-bit 1/100s with N-Log, and I can now switch between banks by pressing and holding Fn3 (which I programmed to act as shooting bank selection button from the video custom settings custom controls menu) and rotating the main command dial. Very handy.