Don Kotlos

I don't think anybody said this. If you have MF lenses then this adapter makes sense. But buying MF lenses + the adapter to achieve the "MF look" makes no sense.

Many people have done the equivalence tests including many people on this forum (here, here, here, here & here). See at my following comment why most (relatively cheap) MF lenses will not give you a better result than modern FF lenses.

Exactly. Moreover perspective only depends on the distance from the camera and not the focal length nor the sensor size. Strap on a modern 35mm f/1.4 on a FF camera and it will be miles better than most ~50mm MF lenses with the speed booster.

Yes it does look nice indeed. Though, there is a huge variability in quality between all these low light samples. Can't really figure out why. Maybe the 4:3 anamorphic mode? I want to trust this sample of course but it would be great if he threw a face in there as well

Andrew if you ever make a review about the E-M1ii it would be really interesting to compare the HDMI output as well. I wasn't that impressed by the quality from Cinema5D sample, but if you can get something better out of it, it might be a decent solution if you primarily shoot stills.

I don't know what that contrast setting does to the image, but underexposing a very high contrast scene in order to protect the highlights can irreversibly push everything into the noisy shadows.

I agree, splitting into smaller files makes sense since even if one gets corrupted or you connection gets interrupted you don't have to re-upload the whole thing.

Stage lighting often creates very high contrasts requiring higher dynamic range settings.

It looks like CGI to me, and by that I mean out of a sci-fi movie

Yes definitely the result of grading. You can see the difference at 11:42 with the LUT applied. It was by choice, but I also believe the should ease a bit the contrast on the shadows. Pretty funny that he went in all the trouble not to crush the blacks and then they used an LUT that crushed everything up to midtones Yes but still very good. Maybe one of the best skintones out of GH5 that I have seen.

Good to know, I always called that macroblocking. S-log with A7* has the same issue. In the second link he mentions that sometimes it can occur in higher quality profiles as well. Hopefully the 400mbps intraframe looks better.

Color banding and macroblocking are related. "encoding blocks" are small clusters of the same color, so for example the 8bit banding of the sky can get exaggerated with the macroblocks of compressed bands in the sky. If WB is far off then color tonalities will be off and that can also create banding & macro blocks, but in this case WB was correct. In the specific example the bunk posted (4th picture) there is a lot of macroblocking on the skin.

Can't see any ghosting, only motion blur.

Yes but for cinematography = cinema(movement) + graphy(writing) sometimes you want to capture the motion with a deep DoF which needs a sensitive sensor even at typical indoor events. Then there is the moonlight . But jokes aside, I don't think anyone here is arguing for A7s level sensitivity but for less processing. For example, I used to get very nice footage from the BM pocket even at low light, mostly because I ended up with a nice looking noise and not an overprocessed image. So I believe GH5 can be even better once they allow us to turn these artifact generating algorithms off .

When you have to use high ISOs then it is easier to deal with noise than noise reduction once you have sufficiently high bit rate. The problem with GH5 right now is that it does now allow us to override NR settings completely in video mode, but Panasonic people have stated in one of their interviews they might allow it if there is demand. And that is what we are doing now, we are being vocal and we are demanding to be able to turn NR down!

I agree, it is just too aggressive. I have seen similar levels of NR in the high iso video samples, with an additional temporal component that sometimes seems to create artifacts. I just hope they allow us to turn it all the way down, cause what they claim as an "extra stop" just makes the image unusable.

Looking again at the 3200ISO footage from Pampuri, the amount of internal noise reduction is appalling. Not only does it produce plastic looking footage, but the temporal noise reduction produces some nasty artifacts like on the trees in 5:16. I would much rather have noise than NR smoothing/artifacts. I believe with the 400mbps bitrate it should look better.

If you need premiere I would stick to a windows laptop because 1. You get better hardware for your money 2. Premiere works better under windows right now. XPS 15 9560 and Razer blade should be good, but take a look at the hp zbook studio G3 that is officially supported by Adobe: That being said, I edit 4k videos (with proxies) on a macbook 12 with FCPX

With sony it's hard to predict anything really, but if you " really need a camera badly right now" get one. A7sii, A7rii, A7s are great cameras and once you play a bit with the settings the color can be really amazing. The only thing that I believe is needed is some kind of 10bit output to make log profiles a bit more useful. If are the kind of person that needs the latest tech but still cares about cost, then buy used and sell it 3-6 months after the release of any new camera that you want to buy.

With 4K? We are here to learn and from what I hear apple most of the time gets it

Apple released a software bundle for education: http://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/product/BMGE2Z/A/pro-apps-bundle-for-education "The total cost of Final Cut Pro X ($299.99), Logic Pro X ($199.99), Motion 5 ($49.99), Compressor 4 ($49.99), and MainStage 3 ($29.99) is usually $629.95, so the bundle offers educational customers over $400 in savings." PS I have been running FCPX on a Macbook 12" to edit small 4K projects and I am very very happy with the performance with such a low powered machine, so I was eyeing FCPX for quite some time.

Apparently this not a fair poll, cause DT keeps reminding us every single day what a clusterfuck this election was for the whole world. Unfortunately, humanity tends to fuck things up really well before improving them again. But I guess that means that there is hope. Unless we annihilate ourselves.

Ok then I guess we can agree that once an equivalent focal length and aperture is used, the famous MF "look" comes down to just a difference in exposure which can be adjusted with either the shutter speed, ISO or an ND. Then you must excuse my response which was based on this sentence:

I feel you are the only one that brings this false belief no matter how many times it gets explained (here, here, here). Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF. Here is an example from dofmaster: As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. The only differences that might arise is just because of the lens differences in quality. For example, wider lenses are more prone to distortion artifacts so to keep the same field of view at the same distance with minimal distortion (typical senario in portait/landscape photography, it would be easier to do so with a larger sensor/film and a longer focal length. That is one of the reasons larger sensor cameras were preferred for this type of photography, the other being quality based on just the sheer area of the film used. Another example is the resolution of the lenses which affects the quality depending on the circle of confusion. So it is easier to create lenses for larger sensors that have larger circle of confusion. Now, many things have changed since then. Quality of lenses has vastly increased and especially for FF sensors there are very very good choices for relatively low price. Also distortion is very well controlled, and most of them give excellent quality even at larger apertures. And that is exactly the problem that this adaptor faces. Getting a MF lens that can offer similar quality to the current FF offerings for even the same price is very very hard. So unless someone has many good MF lenses lying around, this adapter makes little sense. So in the end the reason that small sensors cannot have the look of larger format sensors is a) As stated before its very very hard to design very sharp lenses with equivalent to larger sensor (very very small) focal lengths at equivalent (very very large) apertures with minimal distortion. b) The image quality still depends on the sensor size, so even though FF sensors have come pretty close to MF sensors, the sensor area difference between FF and 1" sensors, and thus quality is HUGE. That also provides little incentive for companies to overcome point a).

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY Hell or High Water La La Land The Lobster Manchester by the Sea 20th Century Women Cause we tend to forget