tomekk

PP + after effects can make cool things:

I can't imagine how you wouldn't be able to earn money on your current level if you wanted. I wonder how much Rob Whitworth is charging then :O. Have you tried incorporating his technique?

First of all, I love it, congratulations! :). Could you point to some resources that helped you the most with learning this technique?

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just pointing out that raw, in photography, will let you push the photo to it's limits further than jpeg will - if you know how to do it properly. There is a point where jpeg's flexibility ends but raw's doesn't. That's where you see the difference. If you don't know how to make it past that point, there is no point in using raw.

This doesn't mean raw is the problem. Check 500px for the type of photo you tried to process, sort the list by "pulse" and you'll see what properly processed raw file looks like. There is a difference.

So I can vote on cameras I've never used in fields I've never worked in... makes my vote really credible.

Not only interview. Pretty much everywhere it looked flat to me. Shadows are pretty much the only thing that give depth/dimension to people's faces in a 2d image. The part when both of you talk together in a studio could've used a bit more lighting variation, IMHO. It's a controlled situation after all. Random video I've found just to show you what I mean. Content aside, pay attention to how the light falls on his face.

As I said it depends. My point was that 4K alone won't replace the need for DSLR and that the question is too broad to answer. It might, but only partially and in certain situations depending on a lot of variables. Shooting sports for a newspaper might be one, because it doesn't require a lot of post processing. High end modelling is all about light, posing, retouching, grading so 24fps+ is not the only factor (if at all) and is hardly pushing boundaries. I didn't say that average Joe will be taking stills from 4K footage. I just said the quality of a 4K 8bit image is good enough for this type of person. I thought it's clear because average Joe is not using DSLR in the first place nowadays, anyway. Well, it makes sense if you're shooting a video and don't have another pair of hands doing still photography but want a still photo, doesn't it?

I think this question doesn't make sense. 4K is resolution. There is much more to photography than resolution. In this sense, it obviously can't. On the highest level, photography is all about pushing boundaries in every aspect. On your average joe level, 4k still grabs are easily good enough, though. So it depends on a lot of factors ;).

The lighting looks a bit flat, imho. Content is not my type of thing so I don't comment on it.

One thing that keeps me with Adobe is their ecosystem around the software. If I want to do something I haven't yet learned, I just type it in in google/youtube and get plethora of resources about the subject. I'd guess Resolve is still too young to provide community support like this. Isn't it the case guys? It might not be important for advanced guys but it's extremely important for beginners/enthusiasts crowd. Software could be wonderful but it doesn't matter if you don't know how to use it.

Unfortunately, though, popular =/= top quality. "Popular" may at best be somewhere in between. This is because top end of almost anything meaningful requires a lot of knowledge/thinking/experience/time/money. Therefore, audience is very limited. Popular youtube vidoes are a good starting point, but advanced knowledge on most topics is not in the most popular vidoes. Movies: popularity makes $$$ so they can't be too hard to understand. For maximum profitability they have to attract the biggest audience. Unfortunately, this means they can't be too complicated. If there is an interesting concept, then, it needs to be dumbed down for the average viewer. Don't get me wrong, some of them are a good starting point for the minority if they want to educate themselves further with QUALITY sources on certain topics. Like with anything, there are always exceptions to the rule.

What about using today's high quality, hardware-based camera technology with computational photography. There is no reason they can't work in tandem to up the game.

Wouldn't that work sort of similar to a brenzier method? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method

​FF look never meant to me that I'm shooting with sensor only without lens attached to it and without other things of the system taken into consideration. If it was only about the size... why do you even buy something bigger than smallest sensor available?

​If you set them up at overlapping settings. There are settings where they diverge, thus the systems are not equivalent overall at this point in time and space. Right? I am not talking about sensors only as I said before and don't disagree with that at all.

I agreed the whole system matters, not only sensor size. The thing is there is no equivalent system to LF now, same with MF vs FF.

​This is very flawed test. It tests basically one condition (although I don't have time to read it thoroughly at all). I can test iphone photo vs LF and conclude the same thing

FF tilt shift is a TOY in comparison to what LF gives you. Read up on it. I don't own them all to give you side-by-side comparison unfortunately. Ansel Adams is one evidence though . I'm assuming a lot of highly regarded photographers don't use them just for kicks too .

​As you said it's the whole system and + what Nick said: what you want to use it for. For example, LF absolutely destroys smaller systems in terms of creative freedom it gives with perspective manipulation which is a key for architectural photography, imho MF destroys smaller systems on wide end, imho. I look at it from a different point of view. Pro's strive for the best - which is at extreme ends where no-one else can match it. I definitely would if I was one. I wouldn't buy LF for shooting flowers in my garden ;). As for MF goes FF can't touch it when you want for example beautiful environmental portraits. Try taking that with 85mm 1.2 for beautiful rendition of people and environment at the same time. You can't. It's too long on FF and if you go wider you get distortion, it's subtle but picture just looks nicer. Have you heard of MF feel ? ;). Now check out MF with equivalent lens. There is this brenzier method which tries to mimic MF where you stich a lot of frames grabbed with long lens on FF (don't remember, but it's something like 30+ stitched frames from 85mm 1.4 or 1.2): Well, it's a nice attempt and probably as close as you can get on FF but obviously there is too much background compression. On MF you would have same FOV with much better sense of depth. Just examples.

​I don't agree. It's a big difference in the end if you add it all up. It's just very subtle that's why people can't define it but see that something is different/nicer/better looking. Producing bigger digital sensors than FF is still a big deal, same with better lenses than what it is now.

Damn, too bad I have a wife and a baby so can't experiment with stronger stuff nowadays... and when I was younger I was too <del>smart</del> stupid to try...

​Yeah, sensor + lens defines the look but can you really match bigger sensor system with smaller one? On the smaller sensor system you have to stand back further to frame the same portion of the subject, thus changing perspective distortion or go wider, therefore changing optical properties. Is it correct? So I guess, sensor size doesn't have a direct impact on the "look" but it has an indirect one.

I was thinking more about ​perspective distortion

I haven't read the thread, just last jcs's post. I don't think bigger sensors are about shallow DOF. For me they're about LESS distortion @ same FOV. Everything looks much more flattering People don't know how describe it and call it "FF look" because it's hard to describe without seeing proper comparisons and larger formats (especially LARGE FORMAT ;)), IMHO.