Panasonic GH6

[kye]

5 hours ago, eleison said:

Thank you for your informational reply.  I'm still digesting the information.  I will not be able to fully reply to a lot of your assertions and to be honest, some of it is probably over my head :-).  In my opinion, lens sharpness wasn't a big deal because historically, directors and editors rarely cropped FILM.  I think the general consensus is that 2k is good enough for theater presentation (regular theaters not IMAX, etc.) (https://nofilmschool.com/2017/08/yedlin-camera-resolution-myths).  Because of this, these classical cinema lenses that were used on film were more than sharp enough even if film stock had more fidelity.  These older/cinema lenses only need to resolve up to 2k images.

I guess I can understand the irony that photographers look for sharpness, only to obliterate it later w/ makeup, soft lighting, etc.. however, that is basically only for one use case:  images of people.  However, if you look at at subjects (cars, buildings, etc), photographers will keep the resolution.

I'm also confused when you say that there are not many lenses that exceed 30mp resolution?  With many high resolution cameras (a7rIV, 5dr, d850, etc.) out in  the market place, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it's folly to buy these cameras because few lens would have enough sharpness for these cameras.  However, this article disagrees with this statement:

https://www.martijnkort-photography.com/what-lenses-to-use-on-sony-a7riv/

There are other articles saying the same thing.  It is my belief that video is only a series of images therefore if these lenses are able to resolve high resolution images of aprox 30MP, they should be fine for 8k video which is aprox 30MP imagines.  Granted 10 years ago, there were very few lens that could resolve that high of a megapixel count -- but back then you don't have high megapixel cameras.  Now you do and manufactures are creating sharper glass -- gm lenses, sigma art, etc.

That is one of the things I hear about photography lens -- they are too sharp.  They don't have character like cinema lenses, etc...  But times are a changing.  As more and more movies do special affects like green screen, it's gets more important to have high resolution imagines that are created by sharp lenses to get better keying.  Not to mention, the previous discussed advantages like re-framing.  But at the end of the day, there's a lot of ways to skin a cat.  If people don't want to shot on larger sensors.  That's fine.  There are people still taking photographs using film stock, and listening to vinyl.  Good for them.  I'm not going to be part of that group though.  Technology waits for no man.  You can use technology to help you, or you don't. 

I appreciate that this is part of a much larger subject, but I think you're still not getting this.

There is a perspective that many people take, which assumes that higher resolution is better, and that back in the day people chose the highest resolution lenses that they could and it was just the tech that limited that.

This is where you (and others) are fundamentally disconnected from the high-end of cinema - the point of me showing you the article on netting is that people are actively going out of their way to reduce the sharpness of fine detail - which is a more technically accurate way of saying that people are reducing resolution.  Deliberately.  They're actually taking what is on offer currently and paying to soften it.  They even used to do that in the days of film too, back when the technology had lower resolution.  Even those older lenses were too sharp!

This is a fundamental lack of understanding - when people say "I want my video to be cinematic" and then they say "I can't do X because it's not sharp enough" they are arguing against themselves.  Part of the cinematic look is the lower resolution.

If you're still unconvinced this is a real thing, then here's an article talking about Knives Out and Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how some/all of these were shot on digital but were processed (including halation, which is a particular type of softening of fine detail) on purpose.  https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography
You cannot possibly think that they didn't have enough budget to do whatever they wanted, and could have shot it in RAW 8K with $100k lenses, so I hope this demonstrates that this is a serious thing that Hollywood actually does.

The people who are talking about resolution and sharpness are in a different world than this, looking in lustfully at the images and then insisting on doing things that will take them further away from the look they want rather than closer to it.  But they don't know, because they're only talking to the stills photographers online.

[ade towell]

Yes eleison I'm not really sure what point you are actually making and to be honest lost interest a long time ago. You say technology waits for no man etc... and as anonim has pointed out, the cutting edge comes to m43 a long time before it does full frame - we're still waiting for that to catch up with much of what the gh5 has been offering for years. And you also say let's wait for the unicorn that is the A7s3 and lets not go chasing the latest and greatest. Am confused...

Anyway always excited to see where a possible gh6 could push what's possible for mirrorless video, Panasonic are always trying to provide the best they can as opposed to Sony's recent regurgitation of 8 bit overheating jello vision

[eleison]

25 minutes ago, kye said:

I appreciate that this is part of a much larger subject, but I think you're still not getting this.

There is a perspective that many people take, which assumes that higher resolution is better, and that back in the day people chose the highest resolution lenses that they could and it was just the tech that limited that.

This is where you (and others) are fundamentally disconnected from the high-end of cinema - the point of me showing you the article on netting is that people are actively going out of their way to reduce the sharpness of fine detail - which is a more technically accurate way of saying that people are reducing resolution.  Deliberately.  They're actually taking what is on offer currently and paying to soften it.  They even used to do that in the days of film too, back when the technology had lower resolution.  Even those older lenses were too sharp!

This is a fundamental lack of understanding - when people say "I want my video to be cinematic" and then they say "I can't do X because it's not sharp enough" they are arguing against themselves.  Part of the cinematic look is the lower resolution.

If you're still unconvinced this is a real thing, then here's an article talking about Knives Out and Star Wars: The Last Jedi and how some/all of these were shot on digital but were processed (including halation, which is a particular type of softening of fine detail) on purpose.  https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography
You cannot possibly think that they didn't have enough budget to do whatever they wanted, and could have shot it in RAW 8K with $100k lenses, so I hope this demonstrates that this is a serious thing that Hollywood actually does.

The people who are talking about resolution and sharpness are in a different world than this, looking in lustfully at the images and then insisting on doing things that will take them further away from the look they want rather than closer to it.  But they don't know, because they're only talking to the stills photographers online.

Yes, part of the cinematic look is lower resolution.  I've never argued against that.  However, having sharp lenses and bigger sensors allowed film makers to easier create films because of cropping, reframing, etc. Once that is done, then film makers can "reduce resolution" to make the actors look nice, and make the film look "cinematic".

There are people in hollywood (quentin tarentino, christopher nolan, etc.) prefer film stock which is fine, but the majority of movies are made with digital.

However,  the majority of hollywood films especially those that are block busters with a lot of special effects do shot in RAW 6k+ with $100K lenses.  Do these movies "reduce resolution" in their final product -- I bet a lot of them do AFTER editing, cutting, special effects.

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-marvel-cinematic-universe-phase-three/

 

[eleison]

46 minutes ago, ade towell said:

Yes eleison I'm not really sure what point you are actually making and to be honest lost interest a long time ago. You say technology waits for no man etc... and as anonim has pointed out, the cutting edge comes to m43 a long time before it does full frame

The cutting edge comes out to iphones/camera phones before full frame OR m43, but you don't see the majority of hollywood film makers use them.  It's about cutting edge technology in aggregate with what is available in order to facilitate creating films.  Right now, those that are truly working day in and day out on making movies for wide release tend to use larger sensor.

Yeah, this subject is starting to bore me also.  People can believe what they want.  I'm old enough that this reminds me of the CD vs analog debate 20+ years.  Or the film vs digital camera debate 15+ years ago.

People can believe what they want, but on major studio productions, you will not see many m43 cameras.  Argue with any DP on those sets that m43 is as good as what they are currently using, and they may not say it directly in your face, but they will think you are an idiot.  So this is where I will leave this.  Perhaps I am wrong, and the DP are just avoiding talking with you because he is just busy with "other stuff".  Whatever, right?  You be you.

[kye]

3 minutes ago, eleison said:

Yes, part of the cinematic look is lower resolution.  I've never argued against that.  However, having sharp lenses and bigger sensors allowed film makers to easier create films because of cropping, reframing, etc. Once that is done, then film makers can "reduce resolution" to make the actors look nice, and make the film look "cinematic".

There are people in hollywood (quentin tarentino, christopher nolan, etc.) prefer film stock which is fine, but the majority of movies are made with digital.

However,  the majority of hollywood films especially those that are block busters with a lot of special effects do shot in RAW 6k+ with $100K lenses.  Do these movies "reduce resolution" in their final product -- I bet a lot of them do AFTER editing, cutting, special effects.

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-marvel-cinematic-universe-phase-three/

 

This conversation started with "MFT isn't as good as FF because MFT doesn't have wide lenses that are sharp enough wide open" and now we're here talking about how softness is something that is actively sought after by the folks that make the best images around.

Apart from cropping or doing green screening, it sounds like your point is that MFT can't be used to make deliberately softened 2K output files because it doesn't have >30MP lenses, which just doesn't make sense.

[eleison]

 

Have you tried to crop/zoom/pan 2k, soft images?????????????????????????????  Yes, apart from green screen, cropping, lens perspective, etc things that we discussed earlier.  M43 is fine.  Gosh darn, it seems like I have killed a sacred cow.

 

Yes, M43 is awesome.  It's better than full frame.  Geeze people. My God... 🙂 you guys win.  hahahah.. crazy...

[kye]

5 minutes ago, eleison said:

 

Have you tried to crop/zoom/pan into 2k, soft images?????????????????????????????  Yes, apart from green screen, cropping, lens perspective, etc things that we discussed earlir.  M43 is fine.  Gosh darn, it seems like I have killed a sacred cow.

 

Yes, M43 is awesome.  It's better than full frame.  Geeze people. My God... 🙂 you guys win.  hahahah.. crazy...

It's not personal..  for me it's about trying to reduce the myths that mislead people.  Like "MFT lenses are soft wide open" and "FF lenses are all sharp wide-open"

There are MFT lenses with way more than 2K resolution wide open, and the P4K shoots RAW 4K so there's no limitation on the codecs either.  

[eleison]

7 minutes ago, kye said:

It's not personal..  for me it's about trying to reduce the myths that mislead people.  Like "MFT lenses are soft wide open" and "FF lenses are all sharp wide-open"

There are MFT lenses with way more than 2K resolution wide open, and the P4K shoots RAW 4K so there's no limitation on the codecs either.  

Bottom line, M43 systems are not widely used in million dollar plus productions where people are professionals and imho, "know what they are doing".  Obviously, there must be a reason.  It can't just be these professionals who get paid $$$$$$$$$$$ "just don't know that m43 is just as good as larger sensors". 

Whatever the case, I leave that as an exercise for the user to figure out because obviously, I am wrong, and m43 is totally awesome, and I just don't understand 😜

[Julien416]

46 minutes ago, eleison said:

Bottom line, M43 systems are not widely used in million dollar plus productions where people are professionals and imho, "know what they are doing".  Obviously, there must be a reason.  It can't just be these professionals who get paid $$$$$$$$$$$ "just don't know that m43 is just as good as larger sensors". 

Whatever the case, I leave that as an exercise for the user to figure out because obviously, I am wrong, and m43 is totally awesome, and I just don't understand 😜

I used a GH5s on a 2.5 millions euros budget production. As a C camera though, but no one ever complained when we edited the footage.

[ade towell]

1 hour ago, eleison said:

The cutting edge comes out to iphones/camera phones before full frame OR m43, but you don't see the majority of hollywood film makers use them.  It's about cutting edge technology in aggregate with what is available in order to facilitate creating films.  Right now, those that are truly working day in and day out on making movies for wide release tend to use larger sensor.

Yeah, this subject is starting to bore me also.  People can believe what they want.  I'm old enough that this reminds me of the CD vs analog debate 20+ years.  Or the film vs digital camera debate 15+ years ago.

People can believe what they want, but on major studio productions, you will not see many m43 cameras.  Argue with any DP on those sets that m43 is as good as what they are currently using, and they may not say it directly in your face, but they will think you are an idiot.  So this is where I will leave this.  Perhaps I am wrong, and the DP are just avoiding talking with you because he is just busy with "other stuff".  Whatever, right?  You be you.

No sorry, still no idea what your point is or the relevance to anything I said. Too many unrelated tangents, but yes probably best if you just continue to be you and I'll just try to be me...

[Video Hummus]

2 hours ago, eleison said:

Whatever the case, I leave that as an exercise for the user to figure out because obviously, I am wrong, and m43 is totally awesome, and I just don't understand 😜

So glad we have some understanding!

And you know...FF is awesome too!

Lets hug it out and then make sure to wash our hands so we don’t get COVId-19.

[eleison]

30 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

So glad we have some understanding!

And you know...FF is awesome too!

Lets hug it out and then make sure to wash our hands so we don’t get COVId-19.

 

Thanks, but regarding the hug, I'm good.  I'm busy with other things right now.  hahahahahah

[thebrothersthre3]

Pretty sure many of the Marvel films which are all big budget SFX heavy were shot on Alexas which don't even do 6k. 

Not sure what using an M43 camera now has to do with not keeping up with the future. Its not like you are putting all your life savings into a 1k camera lol 

All of these consumer cameras will be irrelevant 10 years from now. I am also pretty sure the reason most people aren't using film nowadays is because its not convenient, not due to the lesser image quality. Everyone I know would use film over digital if it was as easy/cheap as shooting digital. 

An 8k camera would be nice for my upcoming project tho, that 3-1 car shot would be a time saver. Would be the only situation where I'd use it on this film so it would be like a day rental but still. 

[newfoundmass]

13 hours ago, Julien416 said:

I used a GH5s on a 2.5 millions euros budget production. As a C camera though, but no one ever complained when we edited the footage.

And the funny thing is, you COULD use the GH5 and the GH5s as your A-cam if you wanted to and it'd look fine. 

The argument that these cameras aren't used on major productions is so silly and really misses the point. 

[IronFilm]

On 3/6/2020 at 11:43 PM, eleison said:

Bottom line, M43 systems are not widely used in million dollar plus productions where people are professionals and imho, "know what they are doing".  Obviously, there must be a reason.  It can't just be these professionals who get paid $$$$$$$$$$$ "just don't know that m43 is just as good as larger sensors". 

So called "Full Frame" also is not used widely on multi million dollar plus productions. 

 

[eleison]

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So called "Full Frame" also is not used widely on multi million dollar plus productions. 

 

 

I would like to preface everything I say in this thread by saying, "M43 is awesome.  It's the best thing ever.  Great movies have been created using this sensor size, and many more movies will be created using this sensor size.  If you have own/rented or even touched a M43, you obviously have touched greatness."  I.e., don't get butt hurt when other people have different opinions.  Don't bite my ear off :-) and make me regret posting in this thread instead of leaving sleeping dogs lie.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/

Looks like the great "new hotness" is either the arri alexa 65 or the LF for big production.  

https://ymcinema.com/2018/07/17/arri-tech-talk-alexa-lf-large-format-explained/

Oh well, as we all know those hollywood people just like to waste money.  They could have just used a smaller m43 mount camera.  I laugh at them for their stupidity and their waste of money.

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, eleison said:

 

I would like to preface everything I say in this thread by saying, "M43 is awesome.  It's the best thing ever.  Great movies have been created using this sensor size, and many more movies will be created using this sensor size.  If you have own/rented or even touched a M43, you obviously have touched greatness."  I.e., don't get butt hurt when other people have different opinions.  Don't bite my ear off 🙂 and make me regret posting in this thread instead of leaving sleeping dogs lie.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/

Looks like the great "new hotness" is either the arri alexa 65 or the LF for big production.  

https://ymcinema.com/2018/07/17/arri-tech-talk-alexa-lf-large-format-explained/

Oh well, as we all know those hollywood people just like to waste money.  They could have just used a smaller m43 mount camera.  I laugh at them for their stupidity and their waste of money.

Not sure that the Oscar nominees are a good reference for the entire industry. Also not sure how it relates to anyone in the market for a sub 2k camera. 

[Julien416]

3 hours ago, eleison said:

 

I would like to preface everything I say in this thread by saying, "M43 is awesome.  It's the best thing ever.  Great movies have been created using this sensor size, and many more movies will be created using this sensor size.  If you have own/rented or even touched a M43, you obviously have touched greatness."  I.e., don't get butt hurt when other people have different opinions.  Don't bite my ear off 🙂 and make me regret posting in this thread instead of leaving sleeping dogs lie.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/

Looks like the great "new hotness" is either the arri alexa 65 or the LF for big production.  

https://ymcinema.com/2018/07/17/arri-tech-talk-alexa-lf-large-format-explained/

Oh well, as we all know those hollywood people just like to waste money.  They could have just used a smaller m43 mount camera.  I laugh at them for their stupidity and their waste of money.

Cinema cameras manufacturers are no different from your usual car dealer. They are here to sell you new shit you don't need. In our case, new cameras, new lenses and gear to support all this.

The truth is that the 22ish mm width sensor has been the golden standard of motion picture for a hundred years... 

Large format is great, and it's probably going to stay but the reason why Arri pushed the LF is because they were not ready to go 4K with a S35 sensor. So they went 4K with a bigger sensor, stitching more pixels to their legacy sensor. Everyone calls the LF, the Netflix alexa for a reason.

Maybe S35 will be sexy again when Arri eventually release their long awaited S35 4K camera. There are still a bunch of S35 legacy lenses that a lot of directors and dops want to use (Cookes, Baltars, Primos, Kinoptiks, etc.).

Also, larger sensors with fast lenses mean one thing : thinner depth of field. And in many (most) cases, a thin depth of field isn't really what a cinematographer or a director is looking for. I like to watch the settings around the talents when I watch a movie. Closing the aperture of your large format 35mm fast lens defeats the purpose of going large in a way... 

Nevertheless I'll gladly use a LF when I have the chance (probably soon) but I am going to use it thinking it's not much more than a nice gimmick.

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Roger Deacons spoke highly of the LF image in comparison to Super 35. Although that was a video shot by Arri so take it with a grain of salt maybe. 

[IronFilm]

14 hours ago, eleison said:

Looks like the great "new hotness" is either the arri alexa 65 or the LF for big production.  

Those are still a very very small niche of the total number of commercial productions made. 

You can't even buy an Alexa 65

  

10 hours ago, Julien416 said:

Large format is great, and it's probably going to stay but the reason why Arri pushed the LF is because they were not ready to go 4K with a S35 sensor. So they went 4K with a bigger sensor, stitching more pixels to their legacy sensor. Everyone calls the LF, the Netflix alexa for a reason.

This. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Arri LF wouldn't even exist if Arri could have launched their 4K S35 sensor first. Unfortunately that is taking them a lot of time, that was meant to come out this year, but has already been pushed back to next year.