Jedi Master

I got what I needed from the link posted above and don't need your footage. I appreciate the offer!

I see that now that the 21.5GB ZIP file has downloaded. Time to try grading them in Resolve and look for a workaround to the fact that there's no Fujifilm F-log input transform in either ACES or DWG color spaces.

DOS hasn’t been “sitting underneath Windows” since at least the Windows 95 days 28 years ago. If you’re just talking about a command shell, then yes, the old command line interface has been obsolete for a long time now. It’s replacement, PowerShell, is as capable as bash, or any other shell on a UNIX box.

Thanks. 21.5GB -- that's going to take a while!

Pretty much anything will do. I'm trying to get a handle on color grading its footage in DaVinci Resolve. My usual workflow doesn't work in this case because there's no F-Log input transform in Resolve for either ACES or DaVinci wide gamut. Looks like the only option is to use a LUT.

Anyone know where I can find some sample F-Log or F-Log2 footage shot on a GFX100 II to download? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything.

"Worse" is subjective. What's worse for you might be better for me, and vice versa.

I believe it's just legacy, and the studio's desire to use the minimum feasible frame rate to save money on film.

For the same reason I occasionally use binoculars and spotting scopes: to get a different view of an object.

They are. 😉 Too many moving parts. Too many things to break. A 911’s six cylinder engine has six pistons, six connecting rods, 24 valves, a crankshaft, water pump, oil pump, timing chain, and more. An electric motor has one moving part. And then you have the pollution they all produce…

Fair enough! I took the opposite path: as soon as I got my first CD player, I took all my LPs down to the local music store, sold them, and bought CDs to replace them. It took almost a decade to replace everything, but I eventually did.

Ah, you mean the faddish "orange and teal" look? I find that weird. To me, it adds nothing to a movie. I hope that trend goes away soon, and it takes shaky hand-held footage, and artificial grain with it to the rubbish heap of history. Movies, IMO, are about plot, dialog, and, secondarily, action (when appropriate). I couldn't care less about what some production designer thinks is high art. Asteroid City was an extreme example. I guess I'm just different than most people on this forum. While others prefer movies to be art above all, even if it deviates from reality, I prefer technical accuracy.

It never occurred to me that some people purposely don’t want their films to look realistic. That’s a completely foreign concept to me. I also find this whole dreamlike concept puzzling. When I watch a movie, I imagine myself looking through a perfectly clear window, not some kind of dreamy view.

The funny thing about all this is that if, back in the early 1900s, movie makers adopted another frame rate, say 46 FPS (which Edison advocated), people today would be saying that to simulate emotions and dreams you need 46p.

You have to carefully divorce any discussion of the technical merits of CD (as defined in the Red Book) and vinyl LPs from how individual recordings are mastered and produced. While technically CDs are unquestionably better than LPs in all of the important technical specs (dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, channel separation, etc.), it’s possible that poorly recorded and mastered CDs can sound inferior to better mastered LPs, despite vinyl being an inherently inferior medium. I only listen to classical music, which isn’t subject to the regrettable loudness war that has been plaguing rock and pop recordings on CD for the past few decades, so I’ll only comment in the first recording discussed on the link you provided, since that score, although electronic music, is probably the closest to classical than the others. The CD recording of Chariots of Fire was released in 1984 (I have a copy), at a time when CD’s were in their infancy. Recording and mastering equipment weren’t as sophisticated as today and techniques such as dithering and noise shaping were not yet in use. It doesn’t say on the CD whether it was originally recorded on analog equipment or digital, but since it was recorded in 1981 I’ll assume it was an analog recording, and that may have been responsible for a higher noise floor on the CD recording than what might have been had it been recorded digitally (I have dozens of CDs released around the time CD audio emerged in the marketplace, and the ones recorded digitally have an exceptionally quiet noise floor). I really don’t want to argue this to extremes, but my professional experience in signal processing gives me the tools to understand the nuances involved. There’s also a big industry devoted to selling snake-oil audio products (such as magic crystals you tape to speaker cables, $5000 power cords, and $150,000 turntables), and they have a vested financial interest in getting people to buy this stuff, so push all sorts of outlandish claims in audio publications to that end.

I have no idea! If I knew, I’d buy it. 😂

LofR was never in HFR. You’re thinking of The Hobbit. Those three movies were shot in 48FPS and shown in 48FPS in some theaters.

My four friends who saw the movie with me were all engineers and they knew I wasn’t asking costumes or anything like that. After they said they didn’t notice anything different, I told them the movie was shot and projected at 48 FPS, and they still said they didn’t notice that—they all said it seemed just like another movie in that regard. Yes, this wasn’t a scientific test by any means, but it did indicate to me that 48 FPS didn’t stick out like a sore thumb to my very technically-minded friends. The gold standard in audio testing is double-blind testing with accurately matched levels, etc. Something similar could probably be arranged with projection video or film. One difference would be that people participating in a test like this would be looking for differences and probably more attuned to them, whereas my friends were not.

Yes, I want to get technical. 😉 That’s factually incorrect. An LP has a dynamic range of, at best 70 dB, with most lower than that. A CD has a dynamic range of 90 dB, which is significantly more than LP since the dB scale is logarithmic. What I said above applies to the baseline capabilities of the two formats. However, lots of rock and pop music gets the living hell compressed out of it to increase the overall loudness level. Wikipedia has a good article on this so-called “loudness war”. The CD format, with its inherent better dynamic range, makes it possible to push this to extremes. You can’t do this to such an extent on vinyl because the stylus would skip out of the groove. So yes, some recordings on LPs have more dynamic range than the same recording on CD, but that’s the fault of idiot producers who demand that the audio engineers crank up the overall volume to ridiculous levels, not any inherent limitation of the CD format. Cleaning an LP is tedious and has to be done before every playing, and even then it’s difficult to get rid of all sources of clicks and pops. Every play of an LP results in wear that results in degraded sound that cannot be fixed and only gets worse the more the LP is played. If an LP pressing is not perfectly flat and the hole not perfectly centered, this will also affect the sound. With mass production, such imperfections are inevitable. Inner tracks on an LP sound worse than outer tracks because the LP format uses a constant angular velocity and inner tracks have to fit the same amount of information into a shorter length of track. I’ll stand by my position that vinyl LPs, from purely a technical perspective, are inferior to CDs in every measurable aspect of audio performance. To claim otherwise is audiophoolery. Lots of people like LPs for various reasons, including nostalgia, the larger album art, the physical act of playing an LP, and the “warmer” sound that’s the result of the peculiar distortions of the format, but they’re only fooling themselves if they think LPs are superior technically.

I went with four friends to see The Hobbit in a theater that showed it at 48 FPS. I knew it was at 48 FPS, but my friends didn’t. I asked them after the movie if they noticed anything different and none of them did. I liken this nostalgic liking of 24 FPS with hipster’s liking of vinyl LPs over CDs. Technically, CDs are much better in every measurable way than LPs, but these people somehow prefer LP sound despite the snap, crackle, and pops and the obvious distortion and wow and flutter. I suppose that’s because that’s what they’re used to or because they’re lemmings following the latest fad.

I’m not interested in RF lenses. I plan to get a set of prime cine lenses in PL mount.

That's a defeatist attitude that will impede progress. When The Hobbit came out a few years ago, some people were ready to break out the pitchforks and torches and march on Hollywood, but I loved it--those movies looked much better to me than the typical 24 FPS stuff.

I agree with you. I don’t want footage that looks “cinematic”, I want footage that looks good, and higher frame rates look better to me. The only reason we were stuck with 24FPS was because film costs were lower at lower frame rates and the studios were cheap. I don’t like a bunch of other things that have become more or less standard in Hollywood. The biggest thing that irks me is hand-held footage. Some of it is so jittery it’s nearly vertigo-inducing. It wasn’t used in the old days because cameras were massive and not hand-holdable by any stretch of the imagination. Now that cameras are smaller and lighter, the trend is to use more and more hand-held footage in movies. Some claim it offers more of a “you are there” first-person experience, but I disagree. When I see the world with my own eyes, I don’t see a jittery, shaky view at all—it’s like my vision system has built-in IBIS. Another thing I don’t like, but seems to be gaining popularity is to add film-like grain to digital footage. This can only be due to some misplaced nostalgia for the old days, because why make the footage look worse? I prefer the pristine look of good digital, again because when I look at the world with my eyes, I don’t see any grain. I don’t need to be reminded that I’m watching a movie—I already know that.

Interesting. I made the move in the opposite direction because my Mac Pros would always get slower and more unstable with every new version of MacOS. In the decade since I switched, I’ve had practically zero issues with Windows. I think the statement that you need to be a part time system administrator to use a Windows computer is hyperbole. If you have good, mainstream hardware, Windows doesn’t require any more sysadm work than MacOS. If you have weird, or old hardware, then yes, you’ll probably have more issues than with a computer where one company controls both the hardware and the OS.

I sync more than two without much hassle (I have seven desktop computers scattered around the house). It’s easily done with the right software (although mine are all Windows and FreeBSD boxes, but I’m sure there’re similar tools for MacOS).