PPNS

hey we’re actually posting our work on here again, finally! some nice looking stuff there marty! while it looks decent, i do think this is incredibly vapid

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math? jesus fucking christ man if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.

if i had the option/luxury to, i would certainly try to shoot with the 65 once. why not? maybe he occasionally wanted easy access to the inherent extra shallow dof that that combination produces? tarantino has an open bias against digital, and is one of the few directors that has the pull to get the use of more “exotic” film formats financed. I’m sure he likes the extra resolving power you get from bigger film too. that being said, he’s not a very technical guy (and he doesn’t have to be) Literally marketing. Vista vision was a super short lived format, and was competing against 35 anamorphic. Movie studios were in shambles to get people into theatres again, after the rise of the tv, as well as something called “the suburbs” in the us postwar economic boom. their number 1 gimmick to do that was widescreen. This way there was a clear differentiation in what cinema and tv looked like. Essentially cropping in on the negative and scaling that to a wider screen was called techniscope, and gave you a loss of resolving power. anamorphic was a way of getting a wider image into the same negative, and vista vision fed the film differently into the camera, like on stills, with a similar sized negative. Fyi, this was studio mandated and most of the filmmakers hated this change at the time, since it became harder to frame good closeups.

Zooming in = going telephoto. You can’t get shallow DOF on wide angles on small sensors. Telephotos always inherently give you a shallower dof at the same aperture compared to wider angles at the same distance from subject. you’re just describing depth of field again (and maybe the corresponding vignetting, since that’s harder to correct on larger format glass). Going wide open on a 24, 35, 50, 75 on FF at 1.4 for example, is a level of shallow dof that didn’t exist on moving images before 2007. I’m excluding anamorphics here, since their distortion has significant other impacts on visual language, as well as vista vision and 70mm, because you’re not gonna shoot at 1.4 on some of the most expensive film stock in the 50s and 60s. shooting f1.4 on any focal length on FF or f2 on alexa 65s is the ‘unique look’ of larger sensors, since manufacturers aren’t particularly interested in making f1 lenses on s35 (even though they could) if you limit yourself to f2 on FF, you can recreate the whole look with super speeds, or certain leicas on an alexa mini or 35 (and even voigtlanders on mft) limit yourself to 2.8 on FF, and you’re in the same ballpark as most s35 lens sets dof wise. limit yourself to f4 on FF, and the look becomes completely recreatable on mft, and even on s16 with arris ultra primes. Just make sure to scan it well if you’re trying to fool people that you’re going for a modern look i think its worth mentioning that contrary to people’s belief, the magnification number of focal reducers is there to explain what it does to your lens, instead of confusing you even further with crop factor mental gymnastics. A 0,71x focal reducer turns a 35mm f2 lens with a FF image circle into a 25mm f1.4 lens with a super 35 image circle. Its a wide angle adapter that converges light at the aperture. An f2 at 35mm gives you the same size of aperture as an f1.4 at 25mm, and thus the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size. Optics is just math. Not that crazy. If you know this, it’s easier to know, pinpoint and elaborate what you like. In most cases for you guys it’s just shallow dof. also, if you understand the relations between the numbers, you can also understand that manufacturers can just scale down certain lens designs/sets to get the same super shallow looks for smaller sensors. they just don’t want to, because some asshole called 36x24mm “full frame” and accidentally created one of the most successful marketing/disinfo campaigns ever. Also speedboosters suck

i dont get this argument? you can get essentially a 95% match across most image formats, but since you can get just that tiny bit shallower with larger sensors that makes it all moot? the reason to get a gh or fx or pocket camera is because its a shitty camera to own. It’s for personal projects where theres no budget, or as a bcam in certain situations, either as an extra angle during scenes, or to rig it on a car so the good expensive camera doesnt break. If you have to use it, a few compromises should be made. In the case of mft that’s mostly not being able to be super shallow on wide lenses, but for normal use cases, you’ll be fine. this stuff should be liberating to know? If there’s budget, why wouldnt you rent a mini/mini lf/35/venice? Its obvious better cameras have advantages! there’s a certain other test by manuel luebbers where he conducts a similar test with a mini and 65, where he shoots more shallow. the same conclusion arises: the large format look is just super shallow depth of field when the lenses are wide open. If theyre not, the look can be matched with different formats. i think theres about a million things more important than hitting the sweet spot of separation in real life scenarios. that being said, with the right choice of focal lengths and distance from camera, you can get pretty shallow dof from any format! i just think they hit a great balance of being sharp and slightly soft at the same time. The vignette you get at t/1.4 is nice too. Zeiss CP2 set is garbage tho, so i’m not going to generalise statements about their brand. i think 1080p is a great delivery resolution, but i’m not always inclined to shoot it. Someone in the editorial suite is probably going to zoom on something without my intention, and then they’ll get mad at me for not shooting in a higher resolution. I’d prefer to avoid that. He likes it because it was twice as shallow as S35. Just like the 2x anamorphic used on moonlight are twice as shallow as spherical s35 “We shot Beale Street on the Alexa 65, a large-format camera. You get a much more shallow depth of field than you would with a Super 35 sensor, or 35mm film if you're shooting film. It's what helps that rack focus to the foreground on Brian to be as dramatic as it is.” https://filmmakermagazine.com/106532-laxton/

The ifs have a grammatical function. I’m explaining to you how optics work. A 24 at 2.8 on a 36x24mm sensor and a 12mm at 1.4 on a 18x12mm sensor will look exactly the same when placed at the same spot, with exactly the same separation. that is also the reason i linked yedlins article: you get to see example images where he matched the look of 1 certain FOV and DOF on different imager sizes and lenses. this is just pure math that you’re trying to disprove. “Even the same lens on the same camera will have a different look with a couple steps forwards or backwards.” not sure what you’re trying to say here. Flaring and a different focus point tend to have an influence on the image, sure. I agree that 1.4 lenses on mft are more rare, but that’s a different aspect in this argument (manufacturers not wanting to make high quality mft gear anymore). if the client is broke, i use my pocket 4k and meike lenses or olympus zoom. If theyre not, i rent an alexa and some lenses (i like zeiss super speeds a lot). I don’t see why resolution is relevant to this discussion though. are we trying to move goalposts again?

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s - very wide on MF - wide on FF and s35 - a widish medium on mft - mild telephoto on s16 - regular telephoto on B4 broadcast. lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html

i guess its a nicer starting point than the v log conversion. Pure nonsense. human eyes are not closer to 40mm on FF than 21 on MFT. FF only makes it easier to get shallower DOF. Focal lengths dont “round out” your subjects, lens design does. FOV is created between relationship of the focal length and the film back size. Dof by the size of the aperture. If the colors of the cameras, as well as the dof and fov, were matched, you wouldn’t see a difference. Read the yedlin articles again.

tastelessly shot and lit imo. they really couldve used olan collardy again

In the context of commercials: - you frame for your main aspect ratio (1.78/16:9 for tv). At the same time, the soc media versions will be 9:16, and thus they have more vertical height to work with, instead of using the 16:9 portion of the sensor. You also gain a bit of reframing lattitude if you mess up. in the context of narrative: - you can use a taller aspect ratio like 3:2/1.5 (EO) or 4:3/1.33/1.37 (Ida) without cropping too much of your sensor. - you can use anamorphics without cropping too much of your sensor. - if you’re shooting for a wider aspect ratio (1.85 or scope or whatever), you get to look around more of the frame in the viewfinder. hard to explain, but its handy.

yeah some youtuber vs ollan collardy is basically coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb.

yes. And i’m saying that even if you could take advantage of it, you would still have to put in the extra work to get it to match.

since i’m working as a DIT again on a feature, this time with an alexa35 as an A cam, and alexa mini as the B. both are shooting arriraw, we have custom log to log looks made for C4. davinci can debayer c3 raw footage into log C4. that being said, even with matching iso, WB settings, lens sets, and the mini debayered to C4, i still have to do a considerate amount of work of getting each shot to match from the same scene. nothing is ever seamless. you can only hope for a bit of saved time.

its a spec to brag about rather than being truly useful. Ive not used any previous gh series cameras, but they were probably already fairly easy to match to a ‘better’ camera if shot in a 10bit 422 (or higher) mode.

i have fantastic news: the a35 has log c4, which is quite different from c3. so you have to put in the same work as before if you want to match the cameras. it’s strange that panasonic licensed log c3 imo when Arri is abandoning it for something newer.

can it do 3:2 open gate?

fantastic. the problem is that its just 1 light, and that its not particularly strong enough to be a keylight unless you’re in a studio environment or you can block out as much ambient light as possible. For 455 euros you can also rent an aputure 1200d, some 6x6 butterflies, bounces, negs, stands and even more for 1 day. the other issue is that those amarans are built kind of shittily. Every time ive used one of those i was afraid i was going to break it.

renting tends to be the most affordable option

I’m gonna add this opinion: i dont like any of the of the stock r709 profiles or luts from any cameras, including arris. so what’s the best sooc looking camera? None of them imo. I almost always shoot with a custom LUT because of that.

you realise that this is contradictory, right? in those situations people shoot with amiras,fs7s/fx6/9s, or even the big bulky ENG cams with a r709 profile and just kinda let it go that it looks kinda shitty. that's part of the trade off if you shoot in these conditions/that kind of turnaround. while it would probably look a bit different, it would also not look very desirable if you were to shoot that exact shot with an amira. sensors aren't magic, and even the best don't handle random street lights at night very well.

im going to be very honest, i think its crazy you can see the difference between cameras with their stock 709 lut. To me they all look samey, boring and bland.

what else would you call it?

you don't have to, your value judgement is irrelevant. the fact is that nikon now gets to control red's patent, and now gets to decide who gets to use "compressed raw" on their terms: either we get more more cameras with internal raw from other companies, where nikon will be profiting from the income of licenses (imo unlikely) or nothing changes. instead of red going after other companies in court, it's going to be nikon, and thus having another source of income by claiming damages (imo more likely) this was red's business model after all. nikon probably doesn't care all that much about making products or entering the cinema market. my prediction is that red as a brand, as well as their cameras will cease to exist in a few years. nikon will probably keep making hybrids with a focus on photography, and i doubt that any of the red tech will trickle down. why would it after all? Who's going to buy a nikon branded camcorder in a world where sony dominates the market? reds are kinda dead in the european high end rental market, why would nikon even start? here's a value judgement from me: lol

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

does the gh5s have worse DR than the P2k? it uses the same sensor as the p4k/micro studio