Leaderboard

Nope. https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/

Let's remember the great Francis Ford Coppola Preferred the hacked GH2 image! That must have pissed someone off. In my opinion, pissing people off by shooting "lesser" gear is a good reason to continue to do so. I still use my GH2, old reliable, and get paid for it.

This depends on the size of the 8k screen and how far you're sitting from it. If you're 3 meters away from a 27" screen, almost no human is going to see the difference in 4k and 8k regardless of the screen resolution. If you're 10cm from the same screen, you'll probably be able to see some difference between 6k and 8k on an 8k screen, but... it's not that important. Many cinemas are still projecting 2K on their enormous screens. Do people watching from 10+ meters away notice the difference between it and 4K? Would they even notice the difference side-by-side? Maybe. Anyway, there are declining returns in increasing display resolution - going from SD to full HD was huge. Going from HD to 4K was a lot less huge (and lots of people are still using full HD TV's all over the world). Going from 4K to 8K is going to be pretty slow due to the fairly small perceptible gains at a standard viewing distance.

I still feel the main advantage to L mount is the ability to adapt almost anything to it, like you can with MFT, E-mount, Z-mount, etc. If I got an L mount camera the first thing I'd do is buy adapters so I can use my tiny rangefinder lenses, or my Minolta Rokkor lenses, or my Nikon F-mount lenses. I almost never buy native lenses, although I would if I used autofocus.

My vague memory was that the GH2 image was more contrasty and had more edge, more of a look to it. From that perspective I can see why someone might prefer it, especially if they had something in their mind about the vibe of the footage and that look was better suited. My experience of the blind tests is that it's all about colour for me, except if there is something obviously wrong with one of the cameras like the codec is breaking or something. I also don't care about resolution after 1080p because I find 4K etc too sharp unless something has been done to tame it, so in these tests I would actually have a slight preference for lower resolution cameras, but ultimately the colour wins out, and that's why I pick the most expensive ones. I think that's because I know you can make an image look less nice, but making them more nice is virtually impossible. Perhaps the only exception to picking the most expensive cameras was the test that Tom Antos did with an Alexa and some BM cameras and others, where I rated the Alexa lower, but that was because it was massively green for some reason, so perhaps something went wrong in doing the test. I'm not critical of Tom though, actually doing your own tests is completely unforgiving and it's easy to miss something. It's also not the same as real shooting, so it's not something that you benefit from shooting a lot either. In the blind tests I must admit that I have really enjoyed the image from the modern BM cameras (P6K and UMP12K and newer) and because this was done blind I know I actually do like them. The differences in the blind tests are often much less than when looking at footage, I suspect it's partly because of prejudice but mostly because when people have access to an Alexa they mostly know what they're doing and use great lenses and light and grade the images really well, so comparing two tests when one is done by 10 professionals in a studio with $10K of lighting and the other is done by some guy in his garage on the weekend, well, you're going to prefer the Alexa of course! That reminds me of this test from a long time ago which has many of the worlds most sought-after lenses, but at 54:40 it has the brilliantly named Dog Schidt lens, which is a Helios 58mm with the coatings removed so they flare a lot. The frames where it's stopped down to F4 (55:32) and without a light creating heaps of flare will show that it's actually a very nice looking lens, and helps you 'calibrate' yourself to the setup they have for the test - very high quality images indeed.

I don't have hands on experience with the Alexa ev and f35, but basically most of others listed in this test I own and tune with my hands. I have to say, they all look good in their own ways. each its own. you really need to own these cameras and lenses for several years to get what you want. renting them for a weekend, even top dps don't have enough time to know them to get the best out of them. so, although this test was ground breaking, it still had its bias. I don't know why people sell their gears. I rarely do that. after spending so much time knowing them, they are like my friends, part of my life, why should I sell them and get something new yet unnecessarily better but definitely less familiar gears?!

Yes, I remember. What's funny is that the results are so clear that they decided to never do it again. And that was exactly 12 years ago.

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7. For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing. The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post. One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

As already stated here before, not only them. BMCC6K (FF) is another one, as for instance. Add 2x/1.8x/1.6x anamorphics (offered by a tempting no-brainer affordable piece of glass, designed & assembled, i.e., made by SIRUI, for example) on one of their open gate recording modes and you'll have distinct aspect ratios or even the possibility of reframing @ post. This is a whole different world. Apples to oranges going along a capture device without it. Almost as near as BMD's UI layout versus all those ridiculous and non intuitive menus of the Japanese mirrorless cameras.

The Tokina 25-50 F4 zoom and the Canon FD 35-70 F4 are tiny and optically nice zoom lenses for video. I own both. The former was a recommendation by our friend Andy Lee btw. The latter has the typical problem of ageing Fd lenses with dissolving rubber ball bearings, unfortunately. Both are nice and fun for video. Without mount adapters they would look tiny and tidy on the S9 or on any S camera.

Moving the camera towards a tasty cocktail would merely give us the viewpoint of a drunk fly drooling over alcohol soaked cherries and mango.😊

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s - very wide on MF - wide on FF and s35 - a widish medium on mft - mild telephoto on s16 - regular telephoto on B4 broadcast. lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html

I know you are but what am I? Hahaha. I should probably be offended but like me, you're just some guy on the internet. Actually... I feel kinda bad for you. Everything is so binary. You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera. I can only assume you don't believe in movie magic or how a cinematic image can transport an audience into another world. You seem like the type that probably rooted for the government in E.T.

Because it's not a plain subject. Trust me, this is not as simple as a bloody number. And mainstream technology means too little or people shooting in B&W would have switched to colour when that was introduced by then. It's worldwide. Geolocalization means too little if any for that. We are in 2024 now. To not respond you in a weird manner under your request : ) I think you're just missing the whole point of it why you've heard people to tell you so. Far to be a dumb idea. It's just not what your interpretation made from :- ) Of course. Once you're going after a standard, start from there ;- )

when I started videography, I naively thought that a hybrid vDSLR would cover everything in the photo and video worlds. One camera to rule them all. With time passing by, I accumulated all kinds of formats, especially in the photo world, 4x5, 6x9, 6x7, 645, 135, m43/43, apsh/apsc, 1 inch, super8. and also the video cams. later I realize all of the popular formats and cameras have their unique niches. It is very difficult to replace them with one format and one camera. I just keep them all. For example, in the current era that bokur is the king, super 16mm still is very suitable for documentary and in depth news reports. A famous scene of the Citizen Kane is that the young Kane played behind on the snow field outside of the house, their parents talked to the banker in the front in the living room, and his future was determined. Actually this is very suitable for S16. s35, vv, 65/mf will bokeh the background, which is an addition to the story. This is often the case in news and documentary, you want the background layer to have more information more layers to make the whole scene dense and impactful.

Afaik adapting a SLR pancake makes it still stick out more than the native 14mm pancake on MFT fi. @bjohn So I would love some native pancakes. Options of lenses with unmotorized MF and AF would greatly add to the pocket fun on the S9. Leica M39 and M-mount is another interesting route for adapting some small lenses, of course, as shown before by @BTM_Pix on various occasions of our search for small lenses.:)

A concept very known and used in music aesthetics BTW, cinema is far to be mere technology. It's actually more perception instead. Just made with tools and they are not the same nor produce the same outcome ;- ) - EAG PS: Jumped to another page, so please don't decontextualise the meaning of it... well expressed my last post from the previous page (pardon my marketing now! haha).

Just plain wrong. Yedlin: Because he wanted to Tarantino: Because he wanted to, and also is far from an expert in optics/imaging 60's films: Resolution and marketing Nope. It's no problem. Your comments are already more than dumb enough. No need to dumb them down further. Why produce different-sized sensors? Different use cases, history, any number of other reasons. Why pay $10k for a camera when the exact same image comes from a $2k camera? Any number of reasons including ergonomics, personal preference, and the fact that the exact same image won't come from both cameras. By your reasoning, anybody would be a complete moron to buy an Alexa with a S35 sensor for $20-40k when they could just go buy a used GFX 100 and get full-width 16:9 4K video for $3k used - since the GFX, with its 44mm wide sensor, will magically produce an amazing image that a person can just walk into, unlike the shitty Alexa with its puny 28mm wide sensor. The GFX will produce huge sweeping images that you can just walk right into where the Alexa will produce a poor image with no depth, usable only by complete amateurs.

if i had the option/luxury to, i would certainly try to shoot with the 65 once. why not? maybe he occasionally wanted easy access to the inherent extra shallow dof that that combination produces? tarantino has an open bias against digital, and is one of the few directors that has the pull to get the use of more “exotic” film formats financed. I’m sure he likes the extra resolving power you get from bigger film too. that being said, he’s not a very technical guy (and he doesn’t have to be) Literally marketing. Vista vision was a super short lived format, and was competing against 35 anamorphic. Movie studios were in shambles to get people into theatres again, after the rise of the tv, as well as something called “the suburbs” in the us postwar economic boom. their number 1 gimmick to do that was widescreen. This way there was a clear differentiation in what cinema and tv looked like. Essentially cropping in on the negative and scaling that to a wider screen was called techniscope, and gave you a loss of resolving power. anamorphic was a way of getting a wider image into the same negative, and vista vision fed the film differently into the camera, like on stills, with a similar sized negative. Fyi, this was studio mandated and most of the filmmakers hated this change at the time, since it became harder to frame good closeups.

First off, I don't know why you're getting so angry? I'm just another dipshit on the internet. Who gives a fuck what I think? Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field. Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers. I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

No, you refer to having to stop down the lens on FF to achieve the same DOF as on M43 without a focal reducer and you call it "dumbing down." But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever dumbshit point you seem to think you are making.

It's not that recent is it? My Sony Mavica camera from 1999 which records photos and video onto floppy disks shoots 4:3 open gate full sensor video natively with no cropping. My Panasonic FZ7 bridge camera from 2006 can do the same. Any modern Canon DSLR or the EOS M with Magic Lantern installed has been able to do this since about 2012. Even my hacked Canon 50D from 2008 can record video with the entire 3:2 sensor area. I was recording open gate all the time when I was using Magic Lantern. I currently shoot open gate with a Panasonic full frame camera paired with a speed booster and medium format lenses as that gives it more of a medium format look:

I did that test, blind, scoring and taking notes and reviewed my answers. Then I looked up which was which. Then I looked up what each of them cost. Then I cried. I wish there was some kind of prize for being able to sort them in descending order of price, blind, but no reward came. Sadly, I've done that more than once in blind tests.

This is why I have emphasised colour grading to folks. Over. and. over. again. lol. I know you finish your images in post and don't expect the camera to create completely finished images, so you're one of the few who understands that a file on the card isn't a finished image, but there aren't that many of us in amateur circles. It really goes to show how ridiculous it is when people are nit-picking straight 709 conversions, as if this is what matters - as if anyone professional would ever use that for literally anything. Even the BTS would get a LUT or basic 5-minute look applied over it. For most high-end films and TV shows, the final grade is more different to a straight 709 conversion than the differences between the 709 conversions of completely different brands of cameras. Not at all... with colour if it looks good, then it is good. The rest is preference and the creative vision for the project.

Need to go a little back in time to realise what all this means and why geek and filmmaker in the same line is not an easy marriage...

Yeah, but you could just do also that with a laptop and a eGPU, and it would be an even more convenient setup to be traveling with than one without a monitor like this Beelink Exactly, I could get a dirt cheap but still high performance laptop such as a Thinkpad P71 for just US$550 then pair it with a beefy eGPU. Oodles of power! https://www.ebay.com/itm/116213947999

This is just factually wrong. The Super 35 sensors in my C70 and K-X have a FOV/DOF indistinguishable from FF cameras if I use a focal reducer with them. They can also work great with glass made for S35 film. This could be seen as an advantage. I also have the option to remove the focal reducer and get a second set of focal lengths from my lenses. That's also neat. Sensors larger than VV have disadvantages as well - a lot of wider lenses made for 24x36mm format don't cover well all the way to the edge. Extreme shallow DOF? Sounds great until you are missing eye focus constantly because the talent moved 0.01mm from when you acquired focus. Without using eye tracking AF, the Canon 85/1.2L is completely unusable on my GFX 100 (when wide open). When the DOF is that shallow, it should be considered a special effects lens. The background gets so blurred as to be unrecognizable as anything other than a series of color splotches. Almost every format has some advantages over the others and some drawbacks. That includes M43.

i dont get this argument? you can get essentially a 95% match across most image formats, but since you can get just that tiny bit shallower with larger sensors that makes it all moot? the reason to get a gh or fx or pocket camera is because its a shitty camera to own. It’s for personal projects where theres no budget, or as a bcam in certain situations, either as an extra angle during scenes, or to rig it on a car so the good expensive camera doesnt break. If you have to use it, a few compromises should be made. In the case of mft that’s mostly not being able to be super shallow on wide lenses, but for normal use cases, you’ll be fine. this stuff should be liberating to know? If there’s budget, why wouldnt you rent a mini/mini lf/35/venice? Its obvious better cameras have advantages! there’s a certain other test by manuel luebbers where he conducts a similar test with a mini and 65, where he shoots more shallow. the same conclusion arises: the large format look is just super shallow depth of field when the lenses are wide open. If theyre not, the look can be matched with different formats. i think theres about a million things more important than hitting the sweet spot of separation in real life scenarios. that being said, with the right choice of focal lengths and distance from camera, you can get pretty shallow dof from any format! i just think they hit a great balance of being sharp and slightly soft at the same time. The vignette you get at t/1.4 is nice too. Zeiss CP2 set is garbage tho, so i’m not going to generalise statements about their brand. i think 1080p is a great delivery resolution, but i’m not always inclined to shoot it. Someone in the editorial suite is probably going to zoom on something without my intention, and then they’ll get mad at me for not shooting in a higher resolution. I’d prefer to avoid that. He likes it because it was twice as shallow as S35. Just like the 2x anamorphic used on moonlight are twice as shallow as spherical s35 “We shot Beale Street on the Alexa 65, a large-format camera. You get a much more shallow depth of field than you would with a Super 35 sensor, or 35mm film if you're shooting film. It's what helps that rack focus to the foreground on Brian to be as dramatic as it is.” https://filmmakermagazine.com/106532-laxton/

The ifs have a grammatical function. I’m explaining to you how optics work. A 24 at 2.8 on a 36x24mm sensor and a 12mm at 1.4 on a 18x12mm sensor will look exactly the same when placed at the same spot, with exactly the same separation. that is also the reason i linked yedlins article: you get to see example images where he matched the look of 1 certain FOV and DOF on different imager sizes and lenses. this is just pure math that you’re trying to disprove. “Even the same lens on the same camera will have a different look with a couple steps forwards or backwards.” not sure what you’re trying to say here. Flaring and a different focus point tend to have an influence on the image, sure. I agree that 1.4 lenses on mft are more rare, but that’s a different aspect in this argument (manufacturers not wanting to make high quality mft gear anymore). if the client is broke, i use my pocket 4k and meike lenses or olympus zoom. If theyre not, i rent an alexa and some lenses (i like zeiss super speeds a lot). I don’t see why resolution is relevant to this discussion though. are we trying to move goalposts again?

If Panasonic or anyone from the L-mount would put out any F2.8 pancakes, then we would be talking! 28, 50, 80mm! The true Pocket FF.😊 @Emanuel

i guess its a nicer starting point than the v log conversion. Pure nonsense. human eyes are not closer to 40mm on FF than 21 on MFT. FF only makes it easier to get shallower DOF. Focal lengths dont “round out” your subjects, lens design does. FOV is created between relationship of the focal length and the film back size. Dof by the size of the aperture. If the colors of the cameras, as well as the dof and fov, were matched, you wouldn’t see a difference. Read the yedlin articles again.

I think a big bonus for this for GH7 owners will be being able to use Arri's free online Look Library tool to preview and download pre-made authorised LUTs to get fast and painless results in camera. A bit of a downer for the LUT peddling bros though. https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/image-science/look-files#/ict/looks/view/sw/ref/3/a/0/b/4/fav/r55i

I actually like hassy's 6x6. that is real open gate. lol. just no equivalent in the movie world. it is interesting that about 20 years ago, 4:3 was considered old fashion and nobody liked it.

Open gate recording is available on a number of cameras, not just Fuji and Panasonic. Some cameras even have a 17:9 sensor so open gate is 17:9. As far as using a 3:2 or 4:3 sensor to capture for 9:17, 1:1, and 17:9 delivery, it's intended to save time for people who want to deliver to multiple platforms and don't want to have to reshoot. Plus the ergonomics of many cameras are impaired when turned on their side. I would also worry less about capturing for vertical in the highest possible resolution - if your camera is 6k pixels wide on a 3:2 sensor, the vertical resolution will be close to 4k - which is more than enough if people are watching vertically on their phone. Part of what's tricky is that many cameras only allow a single box to hint at the final frame so you'd need to guess at the vertical frame or use tape on the screen to indicate it (or something like that.