eatstoomuchjam

No, it is outrageous, but it's not an easy change for a lot of people to move from Adobe products to others. I've tried several times to use Capture One instead of Lightroom and I'm just too accustomed to Lightroom. Capture One feels clumsy and awkward. To make it worse, when working with scans from very large negatives, neither Lightroom nor Capture One can handle them so I'm stuck with Photoshop - and no other product I've found is able to handle such enormous files (and Photoshop does it badly/slowly). Anyway, this is already old news and Adobe backed off on it after so much user outrage. Whether you believe Adobe when they say they won't do it, that's another story. https://www.wired.com/story/adobe-says-it-wont-train-ai-using-artists-work-creatives-arent-convinced/#:~:text=Late on Tuesday%2C Adobe issued,opt out of content analytics.

That's also assuming that the color temperature settings in the camera are a match for your color meter - and that's definitely not guaranteed.

As far as I remember, Panasonic don't develop sensors. They integrate sensors from Sony. But to answer the question, no. Unless technology has improved, going to 8K on M43 is likely to make the image noisier and I couldn't care much less about 8K vs 6K.

Well, it's not efficient for photos and it won't be efficient for video either. 🙂 As already mentioned, there is an eyedropper tool in Resolve that you can use in one of the earlier nodes to click on a grey card. Otherwise, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, get a color checker and use the color checker tool in Resolve if you want a quick way to get nice/accurate colors as a starting point.

You can shoot two clips. The second can be of any length as long as the card is in the right place. I don't know what everybody else does! There are plenty of options like doing a custom white balance in camera using a grey card or using the eye dropper (or a color checker) in post. Your mileage may vary, best to experiment to figure out a workflow that works for you before trying it on a shoot that matters.

The second clip would need to be at least one frame long. For the most part, I just do them in the same clip. I taped a color chart to the back of my slate and I ask the person who is using the slate to flip it around before clapping.

I've been over "shallowest DOF" for a while now. For quite a while, I've been more interested in "proper DOF." The right DOF is the one that fits the story that you're trying to tell with the right amount of detail in background areas. Want to express the subject's extreme isolation? You might actually be wide open with a very fast lens. Want to draw attention to the subject? Probably better to stop down a little bit so that the background is identifiable, but still oof. Want to present the subject occupying a place, such as in a wide establishing shot? Stop down a bit more. Similarly, lens choice should be driven by desired look/impact. Shooting futuristic sci-fi? Maybe you want some really sharp glass. Shooting something a bit more romantic with lots of high-key lighting and close-ups? Probably better to choose something a little softer. Making a short film starring a can of beans? Maybe don't overthink it.

Yes, you can absolutely use a gray card as the starting point for a grade. If you want a shortcut for it, Resolve even has an eye dropper tool. If you want to go one better than that, get an X-Rite (or whatever they're called now) color checker passport and grab the color chart on it (which has a gray card on the opposite "page"). Then in Resolve, use the color checker tool which lets you draw a box around the checker with the squares aligned with the patches. Then choose your input and output color space/gamma.

As to the original topic, many of the people I know who insist on FF for video will say that they like it because they want "shallow DOF." For me, the most recent video-centric cameras that I've purchased were both S35. F2 or F2.8 on S35 is, for me, usually shallow enough. And unlike the other person, I don't think focal reducers are garbage so I am happy enough to use them in lower light or for a shallower DOF look.

I've already said that "magical" is my own summarization of how people seem to describe their imagined "medium format look" since requests for any sort of functional definition seem to result in things that are demonstrably false or claims that the look is ineffable. So this special term which defies all definition, but is to be considered useful in discussion must be pure magic.

What are you talking about? As long as you can hit infinity focus with the extra rear extension of the camera adapter + distance to camera sensor, you can use any lens that you want. I've taken a bunch of panoramas with the GFX 100 mounted on the back of a speed graphic with an Aero Ektar. After stitching, one gets an image which is around 44x120mm (around 400 megapixels in theory, but the AE is definitely not resolving that from edge to edge). I could use a number of my other lenses too - the AE is about 178mm and is nearly the shortest lens that one can use on a speed graphic with a GFX->Graflok adapter (and good luck with a lot of movements) - but a 250mm or so lens would be almost ideal. With a Crown Graphic or any other LF camera without a built-in focal plane shutter, I'd imagine you could get down to 135mm or so and still be able to focus a GFX to infinity.

I've found that with just about any raw format, if I change the white balance in the raw developer tab in Resolve, it works just fine, but I'm going at most from like 5600k to 3200k. If you're going more than that, YMMV.

FWIW, I've been arguing exactly the opposite of that. There is no special look intrinsic to larger sensors. 😃

The look of the Fuji GFX system? Sure, but that's not common to all medium format. The 110/2 wouldn't even come close to covering a 6x9cm negative (doubt it would even cover 6x4.5cm). If excellent lenses are part of the look, I have an old Schneider Angulon 47mm somewhere around here that would defy any suggestion that every lens made for medium format is excellent. Like the Angulon 47mm? How about the meniscus lenses in old Kodak box cameras? They're medium format and kind of terrible (sometimes in a charming way). Or something like an old Duaflex? I ran some film through one of them once. Looked pretty different to what I get from my Mamiya 7 which, in turn, looks pretty different to what I used to get from my RB67 which didn't look that much like what I used to get from my Fuji GSW 690 III. It's easy. Go anywhere where you can search user images by a format (flickr used to be good for this, not sure about now). Look up every image taken between a 6x4.5cm and 6x17cm camera of every type. Is there any common thing that makes all of those images look the same? I can save you the time. There isn't. If there is a medium format look and I am capturing images on 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17cm film, there shouldn't be anything about my style that would prevent me from capturing it. We're talking about something described as "medium format look." It's hard to get more "medium format" than a 6x7cm or 6x9cm negative.

Repeatedly by multiple people. References to "the medium format look" are, in fact, how this discussion started. It didn't metastasize from out of nowhere. Camera movements are not unique to any format. They are just more common on larger formats where they are useful for restoring some depth of field. Tilt-shift lenses exist for smaller formats, giving some of the more commonly used camera movements. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, I can easily mount a smaller format camera on the back of a 4x5 and have access to the full movements of that camera. Plus there are numerous medium and large format cameras that supported extremely limited (or no) movements. Glad to talk about creativity and aesthetics, but that can be done without resorting to the use of phony useless phrases which cannot be defined and which have different meanings to just about everybody participating in the discussion.

100 megapixels is more than 61 megapixels. That's an advantage. The 110/2 is my favorite portrait lens for any system. In fact, every lens made for the GF system is excellent. Also, because I like the ergonomics and I like any number of other things about the system. It's possible to like a thing without inventing imaginary characteristics to apply to it. With film, I like my large format gear especially because I enjoy the contemplative experience of shooting with it. I like using gear that by its very nature demands slow and deliberative composition/shooting. It's a great contrast to gear that invites me to shoot hundreds of photos and end up with only a handful of keepers. If you mean the word "magical," that was my embellishment. As far as people applying various inconsistent and fanciful attributes such as "you can walk right into the image," various people in the thread have done exactly that. With a given focal length and aperture combination, for a given field of view, a larger sensor will obviously provide shallower depth of field. This is not controversial. But there is more than one lens in the world so it would be silly to limit oneself to just those variables, especially when it's simply math to determine which combination will provide nearly identical results on a different format. It is also not controversial that with large film formats, one can achieve a depth of field that is shallower than is possible with any lens ever made for a smaller format. As I said before, a 450mm f/5.6 lens on 8x20 inch film yields ridiculously shallow DOF (unusably so, even). However, that is not traditionally why anybody shot larger formats - in fact, photographers like Adams used to stop down to tiny apertures in order to regain depth of field with large format cameras - to the point where their club was called "f/64." If the medium or large format look is defined by shallow depth of field, it is certainly ironic that history's most famous users of those formats did everything in their power to not have that look, including using camera movements to increase depth of field (one of the reasons I brought up Scheimpflug earlier). Later in his career, Adams also frequently preferred to use a 6x6cm Hasselblad to his 8x10 field camera and even sometimes shot on 35mm film. Guess he must have just grown sick to death of feeling able to walk right into his images.

Again, I can know something about a thing without knowing everything about a thing.. And yes, unless you have exposed and/or examined thousands of images on medium and large format film over many years, I know more about it than you do. Similarly, you know more about color space transforms than I do. The main difference is that I don't suffer from Dunning-Kruger enough to think that I should argue with you about the thing that you know better. If you're in a crowd of people saying that all vaccines don't work, they're not right. If you're in a crowd of people who tell you that the earth is flat, they are not right. If you're in a group of people who interpret the bible literally and think that a huge flood killed all life on earth except for the pairs of animals that a single man put on a boat, they are not right. They don't know facts that you haven't learned to see yet. They're just victims of incorrect groupthink. Vaccines have been demonstrated safe and effective. Earth is an oblate spheroid. There was no enormous flood that simultaneously impacted every continent on Earth. There is no magical "medium format look" that is common to all medium format camera/lens combinations (or even a decent subset of them).

Andre Bazin, the film critic/theorist? Yes, I am familiar. Why? Is he relevant to medium format film? It does mean that I'm not talking out of my ass. I've likely taken far more images on medium and large format film than anybody else in this discussion which, I feel, is a pretty decent qualification for talking about what those formats look like. I've also built several medium and large format cameras over the years. What are your qualifications in discussing the look of medium and/or large format film? FWIW, I also have spent a lot of time with others who shoot medium and large format film. Wanna guess which phrase they never use? "Medium format look." The discussions tend to be a lot more around what specific lenses look like/do, whether those lenses will cover a certain format, and lately, how much film costs. A box of 8x20 is just about enough to send a person to the poorhouse.

It's a great lens!

Come on, now. I'm not claiming to know everything, but it's also clear that after 20+ years of shooting medium and large format cameras, I have more experience in the format than people who have never touched one and yet are talking about the "look." I don't have to know everything to know anything at all which is a lot more than the majority of people chiming in on this topic know. Have you shot thousands of images over the last 20 years with medium and large format cameras? How many of them have you ever used? Or even touched? Without looking it up, could you even tell me what the Scheimpflug's principle is? What about reciprocity failure? Somebody doesn't have to be omniscient to know more about a topic than somebody else.

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.