eatstoomuchjam

No, I'm sorry. That's bullshit. If a term has no clear definition, then the term is just plain useless. Otherwise we're just shouting at each other that the images aren't "old-timey" enough. Also, even in your example of two different grades, if the 100 people you show things to are not video nerds, I think a lot fewer of them are going to rate the second "film look" than you think. They might say the second one looks older, especially because of gate weave. Ad of course it's that I'm not seeing "the medium format look." You can't see what doesn't fucking exist. I was pretty sure it did exist when I started shooting medium and large format over 20 years ago. Over years and using many different combinations of lens and film, I've realized how there's no look intrinsic to any format. Lenses definitely have different looks, but if I have medium and large format film cameras that wouldn't fit the descriptions people give for "the medium format look" or "the large format look," those descriptions are wrong and/or imaginary.

At the risk of jumping in on a question that was basically made for @IronFilm, if your goal is to capture ambient sound as a 360 degree soundscape, you probably want an ambisonic microphone. Look into something like the Zoom VRH-8 or the Rode NT-SF1.

No, this is ignoring everything I've said. Obviously the same lens on different sensor sizes at the same FOV will look different. That's not controversial. The point is that the FOV and DOF of a 12mm f/1.4 lens on a M43 sensor will be nearly identical to that of a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a full frame sensor. Will the specific characteristics of the lenses influence the overall look? Sure. If the 24mm f/2.8 is from the 1970's, it will certainly look a bit different from a 12mm lens made in 2018. But that has nothing to do with the sensor size. As I already said, I have done plenty of side-by-side tests over the years. If you believe that a bigger sensor is really giving you a different look, that's fine. I hope you enjoy it. It's just not a position that is supported by any actual facts.

Nope. You're flat-out wrong. The only meaningful difference that has been presented is in the characteristics of different lenses which is real, but has nothing to do with medium format. Pentax 645 lenses look different from Mamiya 645 lenses which, in turn, look different from Mamiya 7 lenses, etc. They don't have a unified and monolithic look. They won't have the same look when adapted to work with your digital camera, with or without any sort of focal reducer. You could say "I like the look of Mamiya 645 lenses with a Kipon focal reducer on my full frame camera." That's totally valid, but if you say "Now my camera has the medium format look," you sound ridiculous. Your camera has the look of Mamiya 645 lenses, nothing more. People won't magically feel like they can now "walk into the image" and it won't be any more 3d than anything else. Using a bigger sensor, likewise, won't make the image more 3d.

That depends on a number of factors and how radically you want to shift the WB. If you're going from like 5600k to 5200k, I wouldn't worry about it with much of any codec. If you're going from 5600k to 3200k, there's more danger of losing some color information with the color already baked-in.

Right, but that is proving my point. There is no medium format look. Maybe there are dozens of medium format looks depending on which lens set somebody chooses, but with a definition like "it means different things to different people," you might as well be saying "I prefer a cinematic look" or "I prefer something that looks more filmic." And of course not all lenses have the same character, but my point is really just that by the definitions given, I have actual large format and medium format film cameras that don't achieve the "medium format look" (as described by people here) and I have smaller sensor cameras that have a real chance of getting there instead, depending on which lenses I put on or whether I mount them on the back of a LF field camera using a vintage lens. And of course 8mm film and any modern-ish phone camera, not just the iPhone 4, will look substantially different. This is, again, a place where there are a number of characteristics which are fairly common among 8mm cameras/film, including 18fps, gate weave, huge grain, and a response curve typical to the film being used - some of which could be simulated on the phone and some not so much.

If you're in Resolve, switch from the Resolve Canon decoder to Canon Full Resolution (I can't remember the exact terms off the top of my head) in the drop-down on the left and you will have a lot more controls.

For the most part, I have smaller format film such as 120 developed at a shop and I process my own LF and ULF film because processing costs get ridiculous for it. I scan it all myself - up to 6x9 on a Coolscan 8000 and bigger than that on an Epson V750. There's no MF or LF look to disappear, though. Camera movements can certainly create specific looks, but they are hardly confined to large format. I have at least one and maybe a couple of medium format film cameras which support some movements. I can also stick a roll film back on a 4x5 camera - or even a mirrorless camera adapter (I have one for GFX on 4x5 with Graflok) and take full advantage of camera movements. I may even still have an EF mount to 4x5 Graflok adapter, in which case, I can have full view camera movements on a 24x36mm sensor. If you want to make the point that there are no lenses for M43 that can achieve the shallow DOF of something like an Aero Ektar on 4x5, that is also certainly true. This is why Media Division built a a rig to record video off the GG of an 8x10 camera (and so did that one other YouTube channel). That's not what people mean when they talk about the "large format look," though. Also, there are many large format cameras that don't support movements. I have a Cambo Wide 470. It takes 4x5 film and has barely any movements at all. Does it not have a "large format" look? Again, if you want to say that a given lens has a look associated with it, that is completely true and accurate and real. But that's not a "medium format look." I have a Mamiya 7. It uses sharp, modern, high-contrast lenses that are basically optically perfect. Does it not have a medium format look? Does my Fuji G617 have a large format look despite not supporting movements and having a modern sharp lens and (at best) moderately shallow DOF due to the 105mm f/8 lens? When I put my 50/1 Noctilux on my camera, do I instantly get a medium format look when it's wide open? That lens has lots of character/design flaws and extremely shallow DOF. Does the Noctilux have more of a medium format look than the Mamiya 7's 65mm f/4 does on 6x7cm film (equal to about a 32.5mm f/2 lens in FF terms)? What if instead I use the v1 Canon 35mm f/1.4L? Shallower depth of field + seems to be loved by the "3d pop" crowd. Is Army of the Dead the most medium format-looking film of all time since it was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open? That lens is LOADED with character and the DOF in that film is shallow to the point of being obnoxious. By many of the definitions that are being bandied about, I have medium and large format cameras that cannot have a medium or large format look and I have smaller format cameras that have a ton of it.

Which adjustable options did you want?

No. I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20). I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look." As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device. Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

I'm in North America. You can go walk into a Best Buy right now and buy a 42" Full HD TV. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?_dyncharset=UTF-8&browsedCategory=abcat0101001&id=pcat17071&iht=n&ks=960&list=y&qp=verticalresolution_facet%3DResolution~Full+HD+(1080p)&sc=Global&st=categoryid%24abcat0101001&type=page&usc=All+Categories So no, 4K hasn't fully taken over. It's also not a question of "what can you go into a store and buy right now" anyway - it's "What do people actually have sitting in their homes?" And while I have a 4K TV, many people who I know are still using Full HD sets and aren't upset about it. Abroad, that's even more the case.

Canon raw is also supported in just about every NLE. Braw is supported via plugin in Premiere and FCP. ProRes RAW is supported well in Premiere and FCP (just not Resolve). They're all practical enough, just with the annoying extra step of using an app to extract PRR to cDNG if you want to use it in Resolve.

This depends on the size of the 8k screen and how far you're sitting from it. If you're 3 meters away from a 27" screen, almost no human is going to see the difference in 4k and 8k regardless of the screen resolution. If you're 10cm from the same screen, you'll probably be able to see some difference between 6k and 8k on an 8k screen, but... it's not that important. Many cinemas are still projecting 2K on their enormous screens. Do people watching from 10+ meters away notice the difference between it and 4K? Would they even notice the difference side-by-side? Maybe. Anyway, there are declining returns in increasing display resolution - going from SD to full HD was huge. Going from HD to 4K was a lot less huge (and lots of people are still using full HD TV's all over the world). Going from 4K to 8K is going to be pretty slow due to the fairly small perceptible gains at a standard viewing distance.

Just plain wrong. Yedlin: Because he wanted to Tarantino: Because he wanted to, and also is far from an expert in optics/imaging 60's films: Resolution and marketing Nope. It's no problem. Your comments are already more than dumb enough. No need to dumb them down further. Why produce different-sized sensors? Different use cases, history, any number of other reasons. Why pay $10k for a camera when the exact same image comes from a $2k camera? Any number of reasons including ergonomics, personal preference, and the fact that the exact same image won't come from both cameras. By your reasoning, anybody would be a complete moron to buy an Alexa with a S35 sensor for $20-40k when they could just go buy a used GFX 100 and get full-width 16:9 4K video for $3k used - since the GFX, with its 44mm wide sensor, will magically produce an amazing image that a person can just walk into, unlike the shitty Alexa with its puny 28mm wide sensor. The GFX will produce huge sweeping images that you can just walk right into where the Alexa will produce a poor image with no depth, usable only by complete amateurs.

That depends on your definition of shallow DOF. If I'm focused to infinity while wide open, something that's only 5 feet from me will be completely out of focus. As far as "lack of a better phrase," the "better phrase" is "stopping down the lens a bit." But again, they were also avoiding the use of focal reducers which would give the M43 camera a much more similar look to the larger sensor when using the same lens. You shouldn't. A larger sensor doesn't intrinsically offer a "spatial 3-dimensional quality." I can barely tell any difference between my full frame cameras and my APS-C cameras with focal reducers. Does the GFX 100 with 110/2 look all that different from a FF camera with an 85/1.4? Not really, other than that the 110/2 is IMO one of the best lenses ever made for any camera system in history. Even on my 8x20 inch film camera, these principles hold true. I decided to see how silly the shallow DOF could be. I took a picture of a row of 4 very old tombstones using a Nikkor 450/5.6 wide open. The tombstones were about 2 meters from where I was sitting. The indented text carved into the stone is sharp on the outside edge where I focused and is a little bit soft on the inner edge of the indentation (just a few mm away). Does the image look 3d? Or does it just look unnatural and sort of out of focus? A bit more the latter. Would it have looked nicer at f/32 or f/64? Yes. You keep trying to make it over and over again and it's getting old. Everybody understands that absent a focal reducer, you will need a much faster lens to get the same DOF at the same FOV on a Micro 4/3 camera as you get on a full frame camera. Beyond that, though, a 12/2 on Micro 4/3 will be nearly indistinguishable from a 24/4 on FF, give or take some differences in the qualities of the lenses themselves. This has been proven/demonstrated hundreds of times. If you feel like you see some differences, then that's fine, but your positions are not supported by science.

As I said before, Oculink is soon to come on laptops. GPD already have it on some of their mini laptops. Now the big vendors are getting into it too. https://videocardz.com/newz/lenovo-thinkbook-14-2024-laptop-to-feature-intel-core-ultra-cpu-and-oculink-connector You're not using the computer without a monitor, keyboard, and mouse/trackpad. For portable computing, a laptop is generally very much superior to a mini PC. For sitting in the house, a desktop will be much cheaper than a mini PC with external GPU (and usually perform better).

There is no such thing as a "medium format look." If you like the way your medium format lenses look when speed boosted, that's fine, but an 80mm f/4 lens on a 0.71x focal reducer will be nearly indistinguishable from a 57mm f/2.8 lens that's made for FF (aside from lens character considerations, etc).

No, you refer to having to stop down the lens on FF to achieve the same DOF as on M43 without a focal reducer and you call it "dumbing down." But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever dumbshit point you seem to think you are making.

This is just factually wrong. The Super 35 sensors in my C70 and K-X have a FOV/DOF indistinguishable from FF cameras if I use a focal reducer with them. They can also work great with glass made for S35 film. This could be seen as an advantage. I also have the option to remove the focal reducer and get a second set of focal lengths from my lenses. That's also neat. Sensors larger than VV have disadvantages as well - a lot of wider lenses made for 24x36mm format don't cover well all the way to the edge. Extreme shallow DOF? Sounds great until you are missing eye focus constantly because the talent moved 0.01mm from when you acquired focus. Without using eye tracking AF, the Canon 85/1.2L is completely unusable on my GFX 100 (when wide open). When the DOF is that shallow, it should be considered a special effects lens. The background gets so blurred as to be unrecognizable as anything other than a series of color splotches. Almost every format has some advantages over the others and some drawbacks. That includes M43.

It might have been the S9 or the GH7 (or both). It would make a lot of sense on the S9, a camera being heavily marketed at people who would actually enjoy that functoinality.

You can attach an eGPU with an RTX 4090 to just about any PC laptop with either a Thunderbolt or USB 4 port. I'm not sure if there are any Oculink laptops yet, but if there aren't, it's only a matter of time. As for the processor, nearly every one of those mini PC's uses a laptop processor so... a decent laptop will have a similar processor. And still, if you're going with a desktop, you should probably just save the money by going with a normal-size one with a GPU in the case.

Why do you want a mini PC with an external GPU? It'll cost more than a normal desktop PC and most people who want/need something portable just go with a laptop.

Also keep in mind that the giants have become so giant that it somewhat flips the usual rules when it comes to improving the user interface to delight users. If YouTube make the interface worse, will you stop using it? How many people will? Does the new UI somehow result in people staying on their site and seeing ads longer, even if that time is spent frustrated and clicking on things? If so, they get more revenue. This is also why sites like instagram and facebook so strongly prefer the algorithmic feed to a chronological feed (despite that most users seem to prefer chronological). If you catch up on a chronological feed, you stop browsing facebook. If they randomly show you new posts mixed in with a bunch of garbage that you already saw, you spend more time clicking around and searching for the new posts, during which time they can send you more ads.

Open gate recording is available on a number of cameras, not just Fuji and Panasonic. Some cameras even have a 17:9 sensor so open gate is 17:9. As far as using a 3:2 or 4:3 sensor to capture for 9:17, 1:1, and 17:9 delivery, it's intended to save time for people who want to deliver to multiple platforms and don't want to have to reshoot. Plus the ergonomics of many cameras are impaired when turned on their side. I would also worry less about capturing for vertical in the highest possible resolution - if your camera is 6k pixels wide on a 3:2 sensor, the vertical resolution will be close to 4k - which is more than enough if people are watching vertically on their phone. Part of what's tricky is that many cameras only allow a single box to hint at the final frame so you'd need to guess at the vertical frame or use tape on the screen to indicate it (or something like that.

To start with, "raw" is not capitalized when referring to "raw video." However, it is when referring to specific codecs such as "ProRes RAW" because somebody at Apple said it would be. Second, to answer your first question, no. Even "raw" on many cameras is less raw thatn you expect. Anyway, there will always be a certain amount of navel gazing and discussions about which format is and is not really "raw." If applying "visually lossless" compression would make you consider raw not to be raw enough, you'll have to take that up with the likes of Red, Canon, Apple, BlackMagic, Cineform, and just about any other company who has sold a camera with a raw option. Most of the time, what people care about is the ability to change white balance/color in a pretty big way without loss of quality - that and in most cases, getting 12+ bits per color channel can be nice. They'll also say that you can change ISO, but there are a lot of asterisks around what that actually means. If the raw format allows those things, then that's effectively enough.