WTH cinematic means or doesn't mean for such customary crap?

[Emanuel]

Something that really pisses me off is this mania of repeating the same "solution" (?) ad nauseam when something is coming into their empty hands...

Before it was the shallow DoF from 35mm adapters and HDSLR introduction...

Slowmotion came later and so on.

And on and on.

Now it is the 10-bit banding-free skies from people who look like to have found for first time the acronym DR, the word latitude or whatever they call it cinematic. Oh well.

Please do not repeat it or no new resource will produce anything. First definition of cinematic.

Zoom out. Forget the story, sound design and talent of the shooter's sample. The camera. Also. Because to be cinematic is much beyond that. More than resources, the way they're managed.

 

EAG :- )

[Emanuel]

More than the assets, supply, loading or the kit you're using, i.e. the value, it is the ways the outcome is contained. It's all about that.

[Andrew Reid]

The stuff that bothers me about current online content, I could write a 10,000 page book about it...

Camera tests (the ones that grab the most views that is) have become completely meaningless. They're just about undisclosed variables. Everything looks more or less the same and if there's a difference then you can be 99% sure it's due to a random undisclosed variable like somebody grading two LOG formats a bit differently, trying to match but not quite. Tells me nothing about the camera. Any subtly even big differences in texture between uncompressed Cinema DNG and silky smooth H265 just gets completely obliterated on YouTube and most people probably even watching it on a phone!

It is like evaluating MP3 vs FLAC through a $10 bluetooth speaker. Completely pointless.

The format is all so similar now as well. American YouTube clickweasels who chuck a cheap bit of eye candy in front of the lens and think the results are the definitive verdict on image quality!

Manny has a model walking stiffly up to the lens and that is supposed to be definitive verdict on an AF system. Toneh has a pool table in Rec.709 colour profiles and that is supposed to say everything about high ISO performance. Not that simple now there is dual native gain circuits is it?

This is where Gerald at least goes further than skin-deep, but it always ends up being a box specs reading or box ticking exercise that doesn't merge the technical data he collects with the creative appropriation of it through the eye of an artist or story-teller.

So what REALLY looks best out of the Z9 and A1?

All I get out of these videos is... slight colour differences? From different colour profiles? And different grades? Don't even mention what codec and modes they're comparing.

Pointless shit.

If you fall for this shit, you're enabling those high viewing figures. Wonder if what you're doing is just consumerism, entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't pretend anything otherwise or pretend it says anything useful about the current differences in camera technology and performance.

We need a standard benchmark look for cinema as well to judge the mirrorless cameras by too. Perhaps in a useful camera test there should be an appreciation of the grain and texture of film, the imperfections of it, because everything looking technically perfect and clean is not really doing it for me.

[ND64]

For me, cinematic has a straight forward meaning: a quality of cinematography that I never notice the cameraman. What these people do is exactly opposite of that, the only actor I notice during the video, is the cameraman.

[gt3rs]

At this point cinematic = is not a still picture 😂😂