Emanuel

Things don't need to be uncontroversial to not be or become "imaginary"... : D Other than that, well, who can deny it? Imaginary stuff is what pictures are made of, isn't it? LOL : ) EDIT -- haha @mercer we both didn't let slide... The like button had already been triggered this time anyway ;- )

I really struggle to understand why you insist to not see the fallacy of that... : ) You are accurate on your point. Nobody can deny. No jokes for this paragraph. Magical "medium format look". OK, who has here call it like that? The only point you take your chance to call ignorants to other people and write from a superior position where you don't lose a single opportunity to intend such place for yourself, is the one everyone agrees, yes Master! : D Half way now ; ) So, a larger sensor size introduces zero add-ons when the other variables stand. Right : X

So, time for more show off now? : D I am a professional producer for three decades today. Film and TV producer. I have produced along MORE than only one from those key players of the mainstream of this industry. I will even omit to publicize now the names of them here because feels so ugly such an unnecessary silliness for these boards' sake. This is a reasonable discussion not a decadent show, please. My work and background (not only from a full 4-year program at the film school among a few other postgraduate and craft qualifications with first-rate ASC members used to see their work to be nominated/awarded by the Academy BTW beyond A-class film festivals or BAFTA, among others) are public and at the distance of a single click. As photographer/cinematographer, I have shot since the decade of 80 of the last century since film to digital in practically all main formats used in the business. Narrative and documentary. As closer of pure artistic as possible. Not fashion nor commercials, hence medium and large formats are not formats I am used to, as shooter per se. But... Why Bazin? Because you don't need to ever shoot a single frame to be entitled to give lessons. Yes, I have been hired to cross international borders to teach other people how to work with any single camera in the world. Trust and mark my words, never had to make a single phone call to make it happen ; ) Bazin would be entitled to teach you what you don't know. To you, to me too for sure. About medium and large formats you're familiar with for two decades as you say. The problem with your posts doesn't look like to strictly be from a technical side of the craft. But a craft is far to only be such an important aspect, i.e., it's not the only one. Got your point. I even think no one here fully disagrees with you. You're just claiming both a certain terminology used is wrong and the use of a larger sensor size doesn't add any to the equation whereas glass (or other variables such as distance to the subject I've called tricks and someone else tried to infer as some improper jargon when it is not) may not balance it. The discussion hasn't evolved yet to match the agree to disagree path because of lack of tolerance with and people struggle to figure out. Technique is based on variables. Each one introduces some characteristics for a certain purpose or effect. A larger sensor size no less. What's so hard to accept people may call it something you think as not adequate? LOL : ) Let alone the fact it'is not even far from the reality the adoption of that exact nomenclature. Ah OK, because you see it strictly from a technical POV (we cannot call it exclusively scientific because math is not the only science on Earth ; ) but at same time, that standpoint looks : P to completely ignore perception as some specific reality and TBH subject of some other multiple sciences of their kind. Without mention the case study, coming from a method eminently scientific as far as the introduction of variables into an equation concerns. - EAG :- )

Well posted, thank you! ; ) The fact you have a point doesn't mean some other point about both the use of a terminology or some realm outside the knowledge you have, makes you know about this specific topic more than the other side. That's all about that ;- )

@kye it's useless, the most funny is that people who think this way (I don't mean it's the case of this fellow because I don't REALLY appreciate to say anything about someone I have no clue about, other than this poster knows Tarkovsky exists, so double shame on such a level of arrogancy then... nonetheless, keeps the need for more often the 'fucking' word written everywhere or is not cool enough LMAO : D), they think they are aware of knowledge they usually even have ZERO clue that exists -- hence that remark on aesthetics/philosophy above ; ) The fact is though that we need a microscope to see that imaginary world to only exist in the head of a scientist. @eatstoomuchjam Thanks for introducing Scheimpflug anyway. Never heard about him before. What about André Bazin? Have you ever read anything about him? Because I guess you had heard about this guy who knew more about film than all people after him and as DoP never shot nor directed a single frame we had noticed from. That said, film is far to be mere technology, whether everyone like it or not. - EAG

Those who ignore philosophy as science will struggle to identify any branch of it, namely aesthetics as something non-existent. If it is non-existent, why the hell there's any need to learn or even think about it? : D - EAG

LOL Loved the way you and @PannySVHS address the arena BTW ; ) Speaking of devil, Paul Lockhart, a mathematician, someone who uses an extensive knowledge of mathematics in their work, mathematicians so to speak but also everyone of us simple mortal users, he once stated: "Doing mathematics should always mean finding patterns and crafting beautiful and meaningful explanations". Understanding is the ability to catch sight of something aka comprehension. But also sympathetic awareness/tolerance. Yet, math is a language, just not the only one. Math is basics. One doesn't necessarily exclude another one outside. Trouble comes when people see the things solely built on rankings. They lose the sense of ridicule. - EAG

Egos are a bitch. A bloody trick. The competition of dicks is of no use as a methodology for learning.

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own. The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available. I love the format and I don't see it as anything inferior to other larger ones with a distinct look : D I think this is the type of statements to bother you and I understand where you're coming from : ) I even salute your approach to make your point, a valid one TBH, but this doesn't mean the other ones are wrong on their correct assumption either. I think it's not necessary to cite again my fav Niels Bohr's quote BTW ;- )

When we need to put our hands on different variables to mimic anything, it is because some sensor format has a look of its own. The leftover are just tricks. The one we call 'look' stands though. So, there's nothing wrong to say there's a large format look or MFT's and so on. Despite the fact, MFT is a pretty awesome for format where we can do a lot of things with a myriad of inexpensive and light glass available.

The problem is as said before, both of you/us are saying the same. You just don't admit this is an intrinsic quality of the sensor size format when it is. You insist in a different nomenclature... The fact you'll be in trouble to reproduce on MFT the look of a f/1.2 look on FF (keeping the remainder variables) is a fine example of the whole thing. :- )

TBH you should not even be allowed to try matching the same FOV... All the same EXACT variables, distance to subject included (isn't it to be scientific?... so, let's follow a scientific method then, rather than mere tricks to get the same outcome changing the premises), with an only difference: The sensor size format of the capture device is the only variation. Now repeat again to yourself the theory that different sensor sizes have the same look : P

It's useless, you are focused in your own theory... you're right, the other ones have the wrong point : D But why don't you do a favour to yourself and above all, do a test by your own? Put the same lens, same resolution, all the same, trying to match the same FOV and tell me what you'll find... ; ) If the only variable to change is the sensor size format, you'll keep to say that different ones won't have their intrinsic look of their own?? Really? LOL ;- )

I'm sorry, I don't want to look like a dick but the explanation of your point clearly hints that to write "there is no medium format look" is pretty inaccurate : ) If you have some format versus another and introduce (exactly) the same variables to couple with, leading to different results, this OBVIOUSLY means the only variable to markedly change it, identifies a whole distinct look.

Right. And in-between minute 23 and 24 (res demo Pt2), it is rather possible to see when resolution counts and does not. Compare IMAX footage from 11K film scan versus Alexa 65 to realize where limits are reached anyway.

https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=61084

This is what you have with slowmotion captured on BMD FF 1080p: I defy you to compare with some other native original 8K on your 8K display and tell me what looks better!

This is original 8mm film transferred to digital nowadays in this decade: The native acquisition resolution then is not the most crucial premise with the tools we have today.

With hard work and knowledge you can, but the intrinsic characteristic look of its own is distinct indeed. The more unlimited and wider you can the more diverse you naturally go. - EAG

This North American obsession is kinda funny... WTH matters the stuff people have sitting in their homes?! They will watch it anyway, no matter the resolution you have for them. The key is your master and... product/content. Resolution is only a small portion of the equation.

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 ;- )

Now a tip for fitting your 8K display... Buy some lower resolution camera other than 8K but with open gate and add anamorphic glass. Don't squeeze it vertically but extend your pixels, making them wider to correct the aspect ratio and... voilà, you'll be there, your device fulfils the standard ;- )

BTW part II, how will they have audiences from now on? ; ) BTW part III, yesterday, I had the possibility of a screening of footage shot in glamourous 'low' 35mm resolution from 1991 but checked on a 4K screen of nowadays... y'all learn something? : D Looked like shot on 8K but not with a flagship smartphone... LOL I know, this stuff can be a bitch, requires a lot up to arrive somewhere :- ) - EAG

Damn it, if I had read it before I would probably have bought a 8K camera instead rather than the BMCC6K (FF) I've just received it today! LOL ; ) Why have you chosen this day to post it! LMAO : ) Sorry my friend and other folks in general but I simply couldn't resist... :- ) I just think every single filmmaker who has made the history of cinema in the last century is crying in 2024... Poor artists! hehe : P BTW writes who is now transfering 16mm, S8 and even regular 8mm film with the help of an URSA Mini Pro 12K... if this says something in order to provide a good input on your wondering! If anything else still helps, what about 'soft is sexy'?!

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).