Fatalfury

Wrong. When it comes to 4K releases compared to blu-rays, I see a significant difference in favor for 4K. Pre 1990 film can easily fill 4k.

Completely different scenario.

Ai or not, the picture is far too similar to BR2049. It's a theft in my view.

Video quality on the E-M10 III is much better than E-M5 II.

60p isn't innovation in 2023, been around decades. How much of Netflix content is 60p really? Been using Netflix for years, can't remember seeing any 60p there at all, apart from stumbling upon some Asian TV series.So I believe Netflix being 60p is bullcrap, not that frame rate conversion in digital age should be a problem at all, like PAL/NTSC is no longer an issue. Netflix in 2023 is unable to stream proper 4k, much less 4K 60p. If you want everything to look like 60p, turn on motion smoothing, looks like horse manure either way.

Yeah, it doesn't look right at 24fps, probably converted from 120p to 24p has something to do with as the shutter speed isn't 180 degrees. ? Your 60p video got a like on youtube and that's why hfr is better than 24p?

To each their own. But better how, smoother? Wouldn't 120p+ be even better then? 60p is still quite limited (as evidenced by pc gaming). I for one think it looks like ass but not as horrid as Hobbit, CGI looks especially dogshit in hfr. Luckily the industry, most users here and I seem to agree. And luckily for you, modern tv's allow turn on motion smoothing for every content, think it looks no better or worse than natively shot 60p. Both can't escape that weightless jello hope I'm not having a stroke look.

But does it look better?

Yada, yada, yada - 24 fps looks great and that's why it's still 99.9999% of filmmakers choice even if they aren't technologically limited to use it. At the same time we are still limited to 50/60p, should higher frame rate is needed, but... ....look at this (the effect is especially noticeable when viewed full screen): For comparison, same director. Isn't it obvious? Here is Gemini Man in 24p if anyone would like to compare: _ Yet interestingly, Gemini Man was shot in 120p. Would really love to see for curiosity sake but it's not available anywhere in 120fps. Is there even a video player that can play 120fps in real time, available at all in 2023?

Agreed. Not to mention OP couldn't probably tell a difference between 24/48 (Titanic being 48p turned out to be factually wrong). I also find it funny when people think 50/60p is anything close to real life, as 50p is technologically still heavily compromised. For human eye it is certainly much smoother than 24p, but it's also it has this weird motion that sits in somewhere between 100 and 24, where the footage somehow ends up looking actually less real and seems hollow compared to the cinema standard. If you want your production to have videogamey/behind the scenes/soapy/whatever look, then go ahead. But no, it doesn't look real. When we talk about realism that can fool the eye, it starts from 100 fps minimum. Yet I think none of the cinema projectors currently in use are technically able to show 100 fps material, most TV's in use also don't have the ability. YouTube is capped at 60, not to mention streaming services. There is a long way to go. But once we are there, even then 24p will have it's place, as it has been said multiple times in this thread, that people experiencing movies crave to escape from the reality and 24p is perfect for that. But don't tell me 50p = realism.

Just got a gaming laptop and have tried some games in 120fps fully synced with the monitor and the difference between 60 and 120 is pretty damn huge. 120 - 200 and the difference is getting smaller. But since it's still a game engine, it doesn't look real but the slippery motion is eliminated. But sometimes I like the slippery motion in games a la fighting, arcade games etc. Haven't tested with any real time high frame rate real life footage yet. My guess the result is the same, slippery look is eliminated. But even then, in the end I guess I will always prefer 24fps as it makes the visuals larger than life. But it will surely gain traction in the future.

You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about or are simply trolling to make 24fps look good - if the latter is true, than you've succeeded. Titanic was shot in 24fps and was always 24fps until artificially converted to 48fps in 2023 for extremely limited cinema release - so chances are you have never ever seen Titanic in 48fps. Hobbit movies looked like absolute dogshit in 48fps - though many theatres screened it only in 24fps and that's the reason why Jedi Master and his mates didn't see any difference. Avatar 2, I was interested to see how the switch between 24/48 panned out, but turned out my cinema showed it only in 24fps. Outside of 24fps cinema standard: 30 fps - tv soap look, also fine for broadcast etc, 50-60fps - makes everything look like a weightless video game. I thought Hobbit looked quite bad in 24fps also but not head ache inducing like 48. 100+ fps in real time - now this is where it gets interesting if the goal is ultra realism. I'm open to it. Anything cgi will of course struggle as the animation needs to be higher quality to be less noticeable as 24fps can mask it a little. I think cgi is nowhere near ready for this so 100fps in the next few years is not worth it.

Bringing a different look/colorful isn't a problem as an idea, and in a way this is what they probably were meaning to do. But did it have to look soapy/cheap and uncinematic, the image h made action feel completely weightless (bad editing didn't help), stupid blur effect also ruined it a bit.

Just came back from the cinema. Film itself aside. What the hell, one of the ugliest uncinematic shot with a phone looking film I have seen in the cinema! Reminded me Hobbits (which looked actually good in 24p) 48fps experience, but this was 24frames and still looked like a cheap tv show. Usually when trailers don't look that great, the films end up looking good in cinemas but this somehow looked worse. Difference was staggering when there were shots from the old trilogy thrown in, why are the filmakers/Wachowski ok with this?

Current times, GH5 Mark II release with little improvement is not at all surprising. As long as GH6 will be released eventually and MFT will not be abandoned, then it's all good in my book. MFT lens collection is incredible and new cameras surely will be made. Though they should have put GH5S sensor it it, might be that the sensor is too big for stabilization to work in MFT mount, but as the mount can house a super 35mm sensor, it's probably isn't the problem.

MFT please! So I could use my MFT, PL and EF lenses. EF is boring and very limiting.

This makes G9 very appealing but with all these improvements they should also remove recording time limit (30min in 25/30p, 10 min in 50/60p). And no 10bit in 24p?

According to Metabones, Speedbooster XL doesn't work with EM1-II, anybody can confirm if E-M10 III is compatible with speedbooster XL?

Anybody happen to know it the speedbooster XL fits the E-M10 Mark iii? Looking for a cheap m43 body, have to decide between this and Panasonic G80, but kinda want the Olympus more.

Sirui is the best, got a carbon fiber version just recently. Got Manfrotto before, but immediately sent it back, fell over far too easily with those tiny legs. But really liked Manfrottos head, so it's a combination of the two. I'm sure Benro is nice as well.

I'm not worthy, this thing is so amazing.

Holy shit!!! This keeps getting better and better, the audio, the USB C, crazy for the money.

Wow, the specs are huge for the money! I'd rather have 1" sensor, since I have loads of s16 lenses. Maybe there is s16 mode with no loss in iq. Nevertheless this cam will kick ass, if the image will deliver. I even like the looks, like something out of the Alien franchise.

Hmmn, Mitakon looks interesting. Never realized they made lenses for the EF mount, iq looks decent as well. Altough for that money i'd rather get a Canon FD 85L. Just loaned a Helios 44-2 85mm F1.4, will so how that pans out.

I'm looking for the best 85mm out there to use with speedbooster xl. Anybody has experience or know if the manual focus is usable on the Canon 85mm F1.2 l mark ii? The new Sigma 85mm is great, but the picture quality is a bit too clinical for my taste. Is the manual focus any better than the mark I version. Honestly i would rather get the FD version, but that won't fit on the EF mount without a conversion.