Emanuel

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).

LOL Each side is actually trying to say but not seeing the same... Of course, there are differences to the size of the exposure surface. There are distinct looks, yup, sorry to have to confirm it! : D Or 70mm movies would never be shot as already stated here despite some other aspects which don't deny whatever a few egos look like to show off. Can we mimic a certain look with a smaller sensor size format? Yes, we can. Like an average female can look like a diva but stands the same. That said, try to mimic a FF f/1.2 aperture from a MFT... : P It's not impossible even though where's the glass 2x faster to begin with? But under certain variables it is feasible, just not 'the same'. And, oh yeah, with some limitations whereas distinct tools don't tell the same story. Without mention, bokeh varies under many layers from thinness to thickness (aka density). They are not synonymous. Texture is nothing but real. And reality is subject to be transformed by the medium under certain circumstances which can make a whole world of differentiation (difference and differentiation can be synonymous but are not the same or am I* the only one to have firm perception of it?) in skillful hands and knowledge for. So, formats are not identical at all. No matter how much convinced or convicted we are. Need a metaphor? A million dollar bank account will bring more room to pay a restaurant bill of 100 bucks other than to only have a grand as balance there. * you too @mercer

To the argument of monitor, here is the future now: https://www.sightful.com/spacetop-g1 https://www.techradar.com/pro/tiny-startup-bets-that-you-will-spend-dollar2000-on-a-work-laptop-with-no-screen-spacetop-g1-uses-ar-glasses-to-deliver-a-virtual-100-inch-display-but-it-runs-on-google-chrome-os Add this and works like a charm: https://anydesk.com/en/downloads/chrome-os

OCuLink is welcome but it is just more one way to operate. Monitor, mouse and not rarely keyboard too (I left mine for a touchscreen keyboard instead with my PC tablet as daily computer) are already personal accessories usually customised as add-ons inside the backpack. Nothing against laptops, on the opposite, but this insistence to ignore Mini PCs as something really useful makes little to no sense at all. Listen, this is not a competition to infer who has the bigger dick as self-esteem booster. Your links and contribution to the discussion are always rather pleasing anyway.

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...

Monitor is not even the deal when people are used to already travel with more than a single monitor (so inexpensive these days) in the luggage ; ) eGPU, yes, it's the deal if not with a beefy price request. From past : ) https://technical.city/en/cpu/Xeon-E3-1535M-v6-vs-Core-i9-14900HX And we don't even need to bring a desktop-class processor to the equation... it's a bargain with decent RAM anyway :- )

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.

Here's another one invariably from the usual suspects' playground... https://9to5google.com/2024/05/07/google-search-hides-number-of-results/

We're not here discussing use cases the same way we don't discuss why people choose some umpteenth alternative to those ones people see it as their own bubble's mainstream. The same way... What can't be met by a powerful Mini PC attached to an external portable eGPU to replace an equal powerful workstation? I can answer you. Definitely not an affordable powerful laptop with the graphics power of a non-mobile version of RTX 4090, as of June 2024, coupled to 24GB VRAM as minimum requirements for certain tasks tailored to the needs of a portable powerful editing/grading workstation to only say a few. People used to fly every single week spread all over distinct countries and studios/offices without budget to have a personal workstation for each and not interested to rent/use someone else's gear, as myself included, would tell you why ;- ) A fair display doing the trick is enough and easier to find.