kye

Same impression for me during the opening few scenes in Trigger Warning which is new on Netflix. The VFX shots were very budget, but the footage had a real video look to them. It was shot on real equipment so I'm also not sure what it was. Also, the trailer on YT looks much better than the early parts of the film. I had noticed this "ingredient X" appearing on random things previously, and tried to ignore it because once you learn to see something you can't un-see it, and I was pretty sure that my preferred cameras wouldn't look good in this regard, but now I've seen it to the degree I can't ignore it, so I've reluctantly started investigating.

For artists... it could win many Oscars and Academy Awards. For technicians... well, just keep reading this thread to find out.

See - the question was wrong from the start!

People that make cinematic videos on YT that cut my eyes have clearly never been to the cinema. The difference might as well be iPhone 4 and Alexa. If you can't see that your jagged harsh digital and clinical cinematic video has nothing in common with cinema, then the level of blindness is almost complete. The deeper into this I go, the more I realise that not only are most answers online wrong, but the questions don't even make sense. Asking "what is the resolution of film?" makes little more sense than asking "how many bananas are in sadness?"... and the discussion is nonsensical right from the start.

Modern "cinematic" videos cut my eyeballs, but actual cinema doesn't. Please don't cut my eyeballs.

Riiiight.. so you're not a critic, you're a recovering addict! I gather this is yours then? It's.... A vibe.

When you are in any mode (that I've tried) the camera is taking the full width of the sensor and downscaling it to the output resolution you have chosen (assuming you're not using the full open gate mode which obviously doesn't need scaling). The horizontal FOV is the same regardless of the output mode. If you engage the 2x or 4x mode, it will crop into the sensor by 2x or 4x, then scale that to the output resolution. These crops are independent of the output mode. If you engage the ETC mode, it takes a crop of the sensor that is the same size as the mode you have selected, so the crop is a 1:1 crop with no down or upsampling and is obviously dependent on the mode you have chosen. Cropping 1:1 in ETC mode when you're in a 4K mode into the ~5.2K sensor gives a total crop factor of 2.7, which is pretty close to the 2.88 crop factor of Super16. The ETC crop of FHD is double that, and close to the crop factor of Super8. +1 I think if you do it well then you either look like a you're covering an action sport or selling fast food ads, and if you do it poorly you look like an influencer. Really neither of these lend themselves to the wedding vibe..

Sure does! Both in 29.97p and 23.98p (which is probably 23.976).

I tested a bunch of modes and was really impressed that the only times it cropped in were when you explicitly told it to do so (the ETC and 2x and 4x digital zooms) and everything else was downsampled. That even included things like the FHD 60p mode in 2x digital crop - it was still downsampling from an area half the width of the sensor ( ~2.5K ) down to the FHD output resolution. It made all the modes I tested really high quality. I still read about the hodge-podge of gotchas and limitations on current generations of cameras and just shake my head.

How odd, I just checked and the GH5 3.3K 4:3 mode and it's the same horizontal FOV as the 16:9 modes, so downsampled not cropped.

Just fired up my GH5 and it has 3328x2496 at 59.94p, so I'd be surprised if the GH5ii, GH5S, GH6 and GH7 didn't have at least one >30p mode in open gate..

It's never too late for a rebrand and a fresh start!!

I think the answer really depends on your individual circumstances. People tend to give advice based on their own situation, which is fine, but almost always underestimate how different the situations of others can be from their own. Some key considerations to frame the discussion should include: If you are going to be collaborating with anyone else obviously, if you're planning to collaborate then having the same platform makes certain things 100x easier. What your workflow is like Some people shoot, edit the footage with a simple rec709 conversion, then Picture Lock, then sound design / music / VFX / colour grading / etc all get done, then output and distribution. Others may do the edit but will go back and fine-tune it as colour grading and VFX and sound design etc are all being integrated. Others my do all the stages simultaneously, in workflows where the concept of Picture Lock makes no sense whatsoever. How well your footage is shot Some projects have complete control over lighting etc during filming and need basically zero colour grading in post. Others need a lot more finesse, which is well beyond the scope of FCPX. What the turn-around times are for the project If you need to turn something around in 3 days, but need to do round-trip the colour, get Picture Lock before the composer can start composing the score, etc etc then good luck, but if you're in Resolve and editing in the cloud (or with Resolve Server) then you can have the whole team working on the project literally at the same time What codecs you're using What tools you need for VFX / colour grading / audio What tools you're used to using and how much time (if any) you can devote to switching I feel like there is an increasing divide between the formal "industry" way of doing things, where (in theory) everyone does their bit in a sequence and (in theory) the process doesn't go back to an earlier stage, and everything can be done in separate pieces of software.. and the way that small teams or solo operators might sculpt an edit, with everything done within the same package and where everything is able to be finessed right up to hitting Export.

You're still thinking about the GH8...? I'm wondering if the GH9 will have 12k120 in 10-bit 4:2:2. I have given up on it being internal raw in that mode, but my cat videos won't be cinematic if it's only 4:2:0 and doesn't have at least 17 stops of DR. As an astute poster recently commented, if ARRI can do 17 stops with the Alexa 35 then why not Panny? I don't think I'm asking for too much when I expect the cameras specs to compensate for my complete lack of skill.

Another comparison I pulled the video into Resolve and did a little grading on the GH7 LogC image to match the Alexa, and it wasn't too hard to get this: Obviously colour grading a Log image that has been through YT is an abysmal image pipeline, so take that into account. It would be interesting to play with the files and see how they feel. I suspect the vast majority of people would be looking to get the LogC upgrade in order to get a nicer image, rather than match an Alexa, so shooting Vlog and LogC and then trying to work with the images would be interesting.

like any other camera: if you're an artist then it's fine. if you're a technician then not fine because it doesn't have 750MP and 22 stops of DR.

Sharpness and resolution are misleading measures if you care about aesthetics. The things to pay attention to are the MTF curve of the final images. Both film and classic lenses all had a natural fall-off where finer details were present but became lower contrast - a low pass filter essentially. Digital has no low pass filter (except nearing nyquist), and with most processing, it actually exhibits a high-pass pattern, where the contrast of fine detail is higher than that of larger details.

Skateboarders don't care about helmets, or safety of any kind whatsoever. See the below video, which they spiced up with slow-motion........ and explosives.

OG BMPCC and 45-150mm f4-5.6 zoom... The cinema flows from the people through the equipment into the edit. No excuses.

....and far more friendly than the HK416.

Now this is marketing... clicked on an S9 thread? Here's a product you might also be interested in... the ARRI 416!

I am growing more and more fond of the saying I invented recently, which is that the art/cinema flows from the people through the equipment to the final film. It is simple, but seems to capture the heart of the matter..... and explains a great deal about the quality of work that we see from various people online.

Maybe you would benefit from using back-button focus? I use it on the GX85 and it works brilliantly because you have full control over when the AF is enabled.

I must admit, this thread really makes me laugh. No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it. I've been spending my time more and more elsewhere and I can tell you, there are places where people discuss aesthetics, creativity, productivity, and try and help each other out and encourage each other.