Leaderboard

Great rundown Kye, and to add, @Jedi Masterstated in an earlier reply that he watches movies for escapism, yet he wants them to look as real as possible? I also question the motives, or rationale, of people who consistently argue in favor of HFR filmmaking/exhibition because they base their opinions on practically no films that exist since 99.9% of all films have been shot at 24fps. So maybe they just don't like movies.

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want. But take this thread as an example. It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better. Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned? The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better. What does better even mean? What goal are they trying to achieve? They haven't specified. They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is. You prefer 60p. But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic. Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism. If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us? Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake. Do you think there was any learning here? I am under no illusions. I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion. I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose. A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist. I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV. Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Man I wish I was confused with a lot of money...

If you give GFX 100 II's for Christmas presents to your spouse, I think a number of members of this forum are going to try to woo you away from your wife!

Probably… Back in the day, rangefinders for film photography were the thing. To some they still are, but perhaps these days in a digital format such as the Leica M8/9/10/11, Q2/3 and the rangefinderesque Fuji X Pro-1/2/3 and X100 line. In recent years, they have become video capable, often to the same level as their mirrorless ‘SLR’ style siblings, but are they the best tool for the job? Probably not but will either work in a pinch or can be made to work… I’ve had a string of the Fuji X cameras from the Pro1 to the Pro2 and all of the X100 cameras except the the V, ie, all of them except their most recent incarnations which are the most video capable. I personally would not choose any of them for video work regardless of capability because unless rigged out, they don’t work very well ergonomically for video compared with their siblings, ie, I’d take an XH2 over an X100V as a video tool every time. For stills though, either with a built in pancake or interchangeable compact lens system such as the X Pro line or the Nikon Zf, they are nice to use. For stills, in my career, the two cameras I have enjoyed the most have been the X Pro1 and X Pro2, the second version fixing the somewhat tardy AF issues of the first version. I never went to the 3 because though I would have welcomed a tilt screen, the one they went for was not for me. So the Zf is a return to that style of shooting (stills) for me and with a fixed lens approach as another…and perhaps my favourite ever stills camera, was the original X100. The 35mm focal length was/is pretty good, but 40 is better still. 12mp back in the day was OK, but 24/25 is far better. And it has excellent AF and all round operating speed including start up from cold. And then there is fantastic class leading IBIS and almost the same level of video capability as my S5ii. Almost because it doesn’t allow for 6k shooting though technically could. But would it make a decent or even good video camera? Actually yes, for my needs at least and this is something I will be exploring in 2024. In standard format, it’s ergonomically shit for holding out in front of you style video, but the Smallrig grip improves things considerably. I don’t think it’s the kind of body to be using bigger zooms or longer lenses on, but I will be interested to see how it handles with my (adapted) Tamron 70-180mm when it turns up, but again, more from a stills perspective. But as a pure video camera? Probably not. For one thing, it doesn’t really offer anything you’d want to shoot externally so whilst you could add a cage, handle, monitor etc, why would you? That would possibly be a case of forcing a tool to work better for you than it otherwise might, but more suited tools exist in the first place. But compared with the Z6ii, it’s moved the game on in the AF and IBIS department so it sits between it and the Z8. Kind of. At least capability-wise, though not ergonomically. I’m looking forward to using mine more. I never saw it coming but when it was announced ‘out of the blue’, knew instantly it would be a good fit for me. There’s quite a bit of hype, both positive and negative, around it right now, but that kind of thing doesn’t influence me, - it either works for me or does not and for me, it’s the 2023/2024 version of the Fuji X100 I always wanted. Criticisms so far… Only one and that is I would rather it had a tilt screen than a flip out but understand why they probably went this route, - to try and please 2 markets. Market 1 being the casual video shooter/content creator and Market 2 being ‘The Photographer’ who can turn and close the screen and use the viewfinder only and never use the video function. It’s not for everyone, but it is for me. Which topic is this again? Z8 I think… 🤔😉 Still sitting on my fence over that one… It depends on if Nikon pop out a Z6iii any time soon and how that 70-180 works on my Smallrig gripped Zf, but otherwise leaning back towards the Z9 for the following reasons in no specific order: A. It’s arguably more ‘pro’. B. It’s undeniably ergonomically better and a better larger lens platform. C. Better cooling. D. Longer battery life. E. Twin CF Express card slots. The negative is it costs more than the Z8, is heavier and less discrete, but these compromises do not outweigh the sum total of A-E for me.

The FX30 is a very fine camera in it’s own right but would be a sideways…or even backwards move for me, so no, not going to happen.

Sure, but how does this relate to what I posted about?

Try this site: https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ Every time you refresh it it creates a photo of a person who doesn’t exist using AI. Looks pretty realistic to me. The big tech companies are pouring billions into AI research right now and progress is rapid. Imagine where it’ll be in a decade.

Of course, 24p doesn't make the magic of cinema! But, the counterpoint is pretty strong - for many/most (as evidenced by this thread) the absence of 24p sure destroys it. I think that perhaps one of the most overriding (and infuriating) principles at work here is that to make something truly cinematic requires that everything be at a high standard - there's very little room to move on the knife edge. Of course, how much you can deviate from perfect and not ruin the whole thing is different for each element - the quality of acting or production design or sound design or writing might be more or less important than other elements, and are also going to depend on the viewer as well - one person is tolerant of mediocre acting and the next person will walk out of the cinema because of it. For whatever reason, these forums tend to focus the discussion on the image. At our best we talk about it with a certain emphasis over other aspects, and in our worst moments we talk about it like no other aspect of film-making exists. For better or worse this often attracts people to drop into the forums who have no concept that the other aspects even exist, then the resulting discussions are just separated from the reality that almost everyone else lives in. I think AI will replace the farcical comic-book blockbusters that the Hollywood sausage-factory is currently configured to create, but to confuse the seemingly infinite stream of Insect-man and the Saviours of the Metaverse sequels for the entirety of "movies" is a mistake. Cinematic "realism" is a much more nuanced concept than you might think, because I want movies to be intellectually "realistic" and/or emotionally "realistic". People don't react well to serious movies with shallow and contrived plot lines, nor do they react well to bad acting, these are both forms of the movie not being realistic in other ways that do matter. I've been contemplating this concept of "realism" and to be perfectly honest, the more I think about it the more I realise the entire concept is completely non-sensical. If we take "realism" to its logical conclusion then: Gone With The Wind, a movie that takes place over the course of the US Civil War and its aftermath, would have been over 5 years long - jumping forwards in time to just look at the "important" bits isn't even remotely realistic. During screenings the audience will be made to partly starve due to the war-torn conditions. John Wick would be awful. Making it realistic would result in something like this: You get told to go kill John, you are nervous on your way there, you see him and run at him yelling, he almost immediately shoots you in the head, the movie is over in 17m42s. The theatre has specially designed seats that break your legs at the 17m12s mark. or, You are John Wick, to be realistic from the perspective of almost every audience member worldwide, the 78 people in the first scene who are sent to kill you succeed. You die in 3m27s. The seats stab you from 5 different directions to simulate being shot. etc. If you think these are completely preposterous, which they absolutely are, then you need to accept that some aspects of film-making are not best when made more "realistic". From there it is possible to start to have a sensible discussion. Human beings are exceptionally finely tuned animals when it comes to certain things like facial expressions and how things move in 3d environments etc, so I suspect that the uncanny valley will take a while to cross, probably a lot longer than most would imagine. However, I think it will be crossed eventually because people are also great at personification and interpretation, as things like the Kuleshov effect show, especially if we are invested in the subject matter. With enough data, AI will get there. I find that people mis-interpret AI. Here's how I suggest that you think about it. The CPU of a computer has about as much sophistication as a pocket calculator. I'm not kidding, they can literally only do binary logic operations. Modern computers are billions of tiny little pocket calculators built to go screamingly fast. AI is us programming them to analyse a bunch of input data and then make output data that fits the pattern. ChatGPT is literally trillions of screamingly fast tiny calculators playing a game of "what comes next?" with a gargantuan database. If the tiny calculators can learn to write a doctoral thesis, in English, or learn to make a photorealistic image of a monkey climbing a tree, then there is no logic in saying that it can analyse and mimic those things but not a nice edit. In my mind it's like saying that someone has walked 10,000 miles and has made it to the outskirts of the city, but that there's no way it could ever make it to the central train station.

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong. I concede that AI right now can do automatic editing better than some people in general, but these are typically the content creators that just want to slap some shit together. The standards are lower. But, seriously, how could AI ever surpass some gal or guy that has earned wisdom (plus the context of it) and knows how to use that experience artistically? I mean, I'm in edits all the time where I'm debating the need to drop or add a single frame --or knowing when to use a flawed shot because it has more "heart" than a previous take where the camera didn't loose focus. Now, what happens when you're the creative and you're doing the artistic 'algebra' where you have to consider how various takes combine over multiple edits to create a scene... Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe. Maybe.

Filmmaking will remain an art for more careful consideration. AI will be for bland content. AI will (and does) significantly help with the technical aspects of craft, but actual art is an intangible. Even if AI eventually learns how to manipulate the various elements of filmmaking into emotional "beats" --I still think it'll feel fake. That'll be good enough for non-discriminating people, but it'll remain in an emotional uncanny valley for others.

I don't. One of the nice things with using an external drive is that the cost is usually not huge. If I find myself in a place where the drive can't keep up with the footage, I'll go buy another faster drive. It's been a while since that came up, though - modern external drives are awfully fast and it's unlikely that I'd intentionally shoot anything more than 8K in the foreseeable future. As it is, just about the only reason that I shoot 8K is because the R5 doesn't have a 6K mode - that and I've been playing around a little bit with Laowa Nanomorphs with the GFX 100 II since its 8K mode crop is almost perfect for them. By the time 12K becomes mainstream, it's very possible that Thunderbolt 4 will seem antiquated. Adoption is likely to be slow since most people (me included) can barely see a difference in 4K and 8K from a reasonable viewing distance. 😄

Give him a week or two and it will be the best camera for him. 🤪

Sorry posted at the same time. I always try and buy lenses etc 2nd hand so yes new prices will be much higher. I think whichever camera you choose will be great there isn't that much between them all. Just feel that the S5ii is the best deal at the moment and size and weight wise it is about right if you plan to use long zoom lenses handheld. And that IBIS is amazing

Can you immagine now he accept even 1300!!i might say i get it and then in case resell it...but i don t feel like reset something that has a doubtfull provenience.. That said all this, about bulky are just my idea, as i never see one, but i think it is not far from real And i terribly agree with kye speech about how people reactnin front of a big or small camera. Yes the real problem with s5 is 24 105...big heavy and expensive. But 1300 for combo camera and lens...i need to erase my mind from it😄

Hey guys, I don't really shoot any video, or stills, but I am really into barbecue... can you recommend a cinema/stills camera for me so I can convince my wife that spending $2500 on a barbecue grill is a good deal.

Ditto all of the ☝️ Some folks read too many YouTube comments or even opinions from certain channels that are often based on diddly squat. Never had banding or AF issues with my S5ii. For video, it’s a f**king excellent piece of kit and way above most folks needs or skills. And for the price, silly value.

I accidentally shot 8bit cDNG 4K RAW on the internal sd card (I forgot to switch to the external drive):