Panasonic GH7

[mercer]

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7.

For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing.

The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post.

One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

[John Matthews]

On 6/12/2024 at 1:56 AM, kye said:

 

One thing I learned from watching those videos was that if you take 2 Alexas and film the same thing at the same time with the same WB, you still have the possibility of having visible variations in color. This was a big surprise to me and it's no surprise to me that there would be even more variations with a GH7. I guess even $100k cinema cameras have copy variation and DP's continue using Alexas. The real question is: does it really matter so much? I think if you're a pro colorist, you can make any cameras appear similar enough that only a pro colorist would know the difference. In short, I don't think it really matters for 99.9% of the time. This is probably more about workflow.

On a side note, I thought the GH7 looked better than the Alexa in most of the shots with a simple 709 Lut. Blasphemy?

[IronFilm]

10 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

On a side note, I thought the GH7 looked better than the Alexa in most of the shots with a simple 709 Lut. Blasphemy?

Nope. 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/ 

[Emanuel]

Need to go a little back in time to realise what all this means and why geek and filmmaker in the same line is not an easy marriage...

 

[John Matthews]

28 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Nope. 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/ 

Yes, I remember. What's funny is that the results are so clear that they decided to never do it again. And that was exactly 12 years ago.

[kye]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

One thing I learned from watching those videos was that if you take 2 Alexas and film the same thing at the same time with the same WB, you still have the possibility of having visible variations in color. This was a big surprise to me and it's no surprise to me that there would be even more variations with a GH7. I guess even $100k cinema cameras have copy variation and DP's continue using Alexas. The real question is: does it really matter so much? I think if you're a pro colorist, you can make any cameras appear similar enough that only a pro colorist would know the difference. In short, I don't think it really matters for 99.9% of the time. This is probably more about workflow.

This is why I have emphasised colour grading to folks.  Over. and. over. again. lol.

I know you finish your images in post and don't expect the camera to create completely finished images, so you're one of the few who understands that a file on the card isn't a finished image, but there aren't that many of us in amateur circles.

It really goes to show how ridiculous it is when people are nit-picking straight 709 conversions, as if this is what matters - as if anyone professional would ever use that for literally anything.  Even the BTS would get a LUT or basic 5-minute look applied over it.

For most high-end films and TV shows, the final grade is more different to a straight 709 conversion than the differences between the 709 conversions of completely different brands of cameras.

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

On a side note, I thought the GH7 looked better than the Alexa in most of the shots with a simple 709 Lut. Blasphemy?

Not at all...   with colour if it looks good, then it is good.

The rest is preference and the creative vision for the project.

[kye]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Nope. 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/ 

I did that test, blind, scoring and taking notes and reviewed my answers.

Then I looked up which was which.

Then I looked up what each of them cost.

Then I cried.

I wish there was some kind of prize for being able to sort them in descending order of price, blind, but no reward came.

Sadly, I've done that more than once in blind tests.

[John Matthews]

19 minutes ago, kye said:

I did that test, blind, scoring and taking notes and reviewed my answers.

Then I looked up which was which.

Then I looked up what each of them cost.

Then I cried.

I wish there was some kind of prize for being able to sort them in descending order of price, blind, but no reward came.

Sadly, I've done that more than once in blind tests.

Let's remember the great Francis Ford Coppola Preferred the hacked GH2 image! That must have pissed someone off. In my opinion, pissing people off by shooting "lesser" gear is a good reason to continue to do so. I still use my GH2, old reliable, and get paid for it.

[zlfan]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Nope. 

https://www.eoshd.com/news/zacuto-revenge-shootout-part-2-results-revealed-francis-ford-coppola-and-audience-majority-give-win-to-gh2/ 

I don't have hands on experience with the Alexa ev and f35, but basically most of others listed in this test I own and tune with my hands.

I have to say, they all look good in their own ways. each its own. you really need to own these cameras and lenses for several years to get what you want. renting them for a weekend, even top dps don't have enough time to know them to get the best out of them. 

so, although this test was ground breaking, it still had its bias. 

I don't know why people sell their gears. I rarely do that. after spending so much time knowing them, they are like my friends, part of my life, why should I sell them and get something new yet unnecessarily better but definitely less familiar gears?! 

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

Let's remember the great Francis Ford Coppola Preferred the hacked GH2 image! That must have pissed someone off. In my opinion, pissing people off by shooting "lesser" gear is a good reason to continue to do so. I still use my GH2, old reliable, and get paid for it.

My vague memory was that the GH2 image was more contrasty and had more edge, more of a look to it.  From that perspective I can see why someone might prefer it, especially if they had something in their mind about the vibe of the footage and that look was better suited.

My experience of the blind tests is that it's all about colour for me, except if there is something obviously wrong with one of the cameras like the codec is breaking or something.  I also don't care about resolution after 1080p because I find 4K etc too sharp unless something has been done to tame it, so in these tests I would actually have a slight preference for lower resolution cameras, but ultimately the colour wins out, and that's why I pick the most expensive ones.  I think that's because I know you can make an image look less nice, but making them more nice is virtually impossible.

Perhaps the only exception to picking the most expensive cameras was the test that Tom Antos did with an Alexa and some BM cameras and others, where I rated the Alexa lower, but that was because it was massively green for some reason, so perhaps something went wrong in doing the test.  I'm not critical of Tom though, actually doing your own tests is completely unforgiving and it's easy to miss something.  It's also not the same as real shooting, so it's not something that you benefit from shooting a lot either.

In the blind tests I must admit that I have really enjoyed the image from the modern BM cameras (P6K and UMP12K and newer) and because this was done blind I know I actually do like them.  The differences in the blind tests are often much less than when looking at footage, I suspect it's partly because of prejudice but mostly because when people have access to an Alexa they mostly know what they're doing and use great lenses and light and grade the images really well, so comparing two tests when one is done by 10 professionals in a studio with $10K of lighting and the other is done by some guy in his garage on the weekend, well, you're going to prefer the Alexa of course!

That reminds me of this test from a long time ago which has many of the worlds most sought-after lenses, but at 54:40 it has the brilliantly named Dog Schidt lens, which is a Helios 58mm with the coatings removed so they flare a lot.  The frames where it's stopped down to F4 (55:32) and without a light creating heaps of flare will show that it's actually a very nice looking lens, and helps you 'calibrate' yourself to the setup they have for the test - very high quality images indeed.

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

And I never said anything about shallow depth of field as being an advantage for full frame. 

No, you refer to having to stop down the lens on FF to achieve the same DOF as on M43 without a focal reducer and you call it "dumbing down."

But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever dumbshit point you seem to think you are making.

[mercer]

3 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

No, you refer to having to stop down the lens on FF to achieve the same DOF as on M43 without a focal reducer and you call it "dumbing down."

But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever dumbshit point you seem to think you are making.

First off, I don't know why you're getting so angry? I'm just another dipshit on the internet. Who gives a fuck what I think?

Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field.

Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers.

I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

[eatstoomuchjam]

29 minutes ago, mercer said:

Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field.

That depends on your definition of shallow DOF.  If I'm focused to infinity while wide open, something that's only 5 feet from me will be completely out of focus.  As far as "lack of a better phrase," the "better phrase" is "stopping down the lens a bit."  But again, they were also avoiding the use of focal reducers which would give the M43 camera a much more similar look to the larger sensor when using the same lens.

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers.

You shouldn't.  A larger sensor doesn't intrinsically offer a "spatial 3-dimensional quality."  I can barely tell any difference between my full frame cameras and my APS-C cameras with focal reducers.  Does the GFX 100 with 110/2 look all that different from a FF camera with an 85/1.4?  Not really, other than that the 110/2 is IMO one of the best lenses ever made for any camera system in history.

Even on my 8x20 inch film camera, these principles hold true.  I decided to see how silly the shallow DOF could be.  I took a picture of a row of 4 very old tombstones using a Nikkor 450/5.6 wide open.  The tombstones were about 2 meters from where I was sitting.  The indented text carved into the stone is sharp on the outside edge where I focused and is a little bit soft on the inner edge of the indentation (just a few mm away).  Does the image look 3d?  Or does it just look unnatural and sort of out of focus?  A bit more the latter.  Would it have looked nicer at f/32 or f/64?  Yes.

37 minutes ago, mercer said:

I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

You keep trying to make it over and over again and it's getting old.  Everybody understands that absent a focal reducer, you will need a much faster lens to get the same DOF at the same FOV on a Micro 4/3 camera as you get on a full frame camera.  Beyond that, though, a 12/2 on Micro 4/3 will be nearly indistinguishable from a 24/4 on FF, give or take some differences in the qualities of the lenses themselves.  This has been proven/demonstrated hundreds of times.  If you feel like you see some differences, then that's fine, but your positions are not supported by science.

[PPNS]

14 hours ago, mercer said:

Years ago when camcorders were used for indie films, we used to intentionally zoom in and frame something in the foreground to look blurry.

 

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. 

14 hours ago, mercer said:

All that said, I think there is more to larger sensors than shallow depth of field, there's separation between the foreground and background which invokes more of three dimensional element to the image. With smaller sensors everything is more compressed.

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

14 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

This is just factually wrong.  The Super 35 sensors in my C70 and K-X have a FOV/DOF indistinguishable from FF cameras if I use a focal reducer with them. 

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

[mercer]

44 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

That depends on your definition of shallow DOF.  If I'm focused to infinity while wide open, something that's only 5 feet from me will be completely out of focus.  As far as "lack of a better phrase," the "better phrase" is "stopping down the lens a bit."  But again, they were also avoiding the use of focal reducers which would give the M43 camera a much more similar look to the larger sensor when using the same lens.

There is differing levels of shallow depth of field. You could stand in a wide open field at infinity focus with absolutely nothing in the foreground and on a larger sensor camera the image will look more vast than on a smaller sensor camera... even if you're able to match the field of view.

If there isn't a difference then why would Yedlin shoot Knives Out with the Alexa 65? Why would Tarantino shoot the Hateful Eight in 70mm film? Why were the epic films from the 1960s shot in VistaVision when they all could have gotten the same look with a smaller sensor/film plane camera?

You mention there not being a MF look, but one of the biggest statements made about medium format images is how 3D or lifelike it looks... like you can walk into the frame.

As far as me using "the better phrase" ... why should I dumb down my comments to appease you? It seems like you are smart enough to know what I was saying.

50 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

You keep trying to make it over and over again and it's getting old.

Believe it or not, I don't exist on this planet to be concerned about how you take my comments. Half the people on this forum repeat themselves and are annoying.

51 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Everybody understands that absent a focal reducer, you will need a much faster lens to get the same DOF at the same FOV on a Micro 4/3 camera as you get on a full frame camera.  Beyond that, though, a 12/2 on Micro 4/3 will be nearly indistinguishable from a 24/4 on FF, give or take some differences in the qualities of the lenses themselves. 

And this is basically what I said originally until I was attacked with some pure nonsense claim. We could go back and forth about the difference between large and small sensors... I could say that the background is more compressed to your subject with smaller sensors than they are with larger sensors and you could use "science" as your argument and then I could say that if there wasn't a difference than why would manufacturers produce different sized sensors or more importantly, why would somebody pay $10,000 on a camera when they could have gotten the same image from a $2,000 camera and then you would probably say more resolution and then I'd remind everybody of the science and quote Yedlin about the facade of higher resolution... around and around we would go until the other person gets bored enough to quit...

So whatever, I'm bored... you're the Jedi Master in all things photographic.

[PPNS]

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

If there isn't a difference then why would Yedlin shoot Knives Out with the Alexa 65?

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?

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

Why would Tarantino shoot the Hateful Eight in 70mm film?

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)

 

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

Why were the epic films from the 1960s shot in VistaVision when they all could have gotten the same look with a smaller sensor/film plane camera?

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. 

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

There is differing levels of shallow depth of field. You could stand in a wide open field at infinity focus with absolutely nothing in the foreground and on a larger sensor camera the image will look more vast than on a smaller sensor camera... even if you're able to match the field of view.

 

Just plain wrong.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

If there isn't a difference then why would Yedlin shoot Knives Out with the Alexa 65? Why would Tarantino shoot the Hateful Eight in 70mm film? Why were the epic films from the 1960s shot in VistaVision when they all could have gotten the same look with a smaller sensor/film plane camera?

 

Yedlin: Because he wanted to
Tarantino: Because he wanted to, and also is far from an expert in optics/imaging
60's films: Resolution and marketing

1 hour ago, mercer said:

You mention there not being a MF look, but one of the biggest statements made about medium format images is how 3D or lifelike it looks... like you can walk into the frame.

Nope.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

As far as me using "the better phrase" ... why should I dumb down my comments to appease you? It seems like you are smart enough to know what I was saying.

It's no problem.  Your comments are already more than dumb enough.  No need to dumb them down further.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

could say that if there wasn't a difference than why would manufacturers produce different sized sensors or more importantly, why would somebody pay $10,000 on a camera when they could have gotten the same image from a $2,000 camera

Why produce different-sized sensors?  Different use cases, history, any number of other reasons.  Why pay $10k for a camera when the exact same image comes from a $2k camera?  Any number of reasons including ergonomics, personal preference, and the fact that the exact same image won't come from both cameras.

By your reasoning, anybody would be a complete moron to buy an Alexa with a S35 sensor for $20-40k when they could just go buy a used GFX 100 and get full-width 16:9 4K video for $3k used - since the GFX, with its 44mm wide sensor, will magically produce an amazing image that a person can just walk into, unlike the shitty Alexa with its puny 28mm wide sensor.  The GFX will produce huge sweeping images that you can just walk right into where the Alexa will produce a poor image with no depth, usable only by complete amateurs.

[zlfan]

There is no doubt that size matters, if everything is acquired in raw. But there are other things to consider in the whole process, like olpf, sensor design, acquisition method, dsp, codec, nle, lens, etc. So, it has to be all things considered. 

Right now GFX 100 line or other MF hybrids seem to me still are not mature, no raw, no 444, not 12k, no tuned olpf, etc. If all of these are implemented, yeh, medium format look is certainly better than smaller formats. Probably in another 20 years. 

[PannySVHS]

Puny Alexa:) I sense a puny tendency to impress wholeheartedly with inviting manners. Let's make that tendency impressively overwhelming just like the og Alexa still is. Why not, we all deserve to. I find calling names to be unnecessarily unpleasant.

"Nonsense" as a statement did not seed any more sense into a friendly exchange. It made it nonsensically difficult to feel at ease and welcome.

When Laxton talked about the Alexa LF he did not talk about S35 eq of 35mm to 50mm on the LF. He talked about liking his 50 and having THAT 50 show him more of the image than it does on S35, larger fov, if one wants to put it less poetically.

Anyways, Laxton and Yedlin would get along fine, I imagine.

[Emanuel]

LOL Each side is actually trying to say but not seeing the same...

Of course, there are differences to the size of the exposure surface. There are distinct looks, yup, sorry to have to confirm it! : D

Or 70mm movies would never be shot as already stated here despite some other aspects which don't deny whatever a few egos look like to show off.

Can we mimic a certain look with a smaller sensor size format?

Yes, we can.

Like an average female can look like a diva but stands the same.

That said, try to mimic a FF f/1.2 aperture from a MFT... : P

It's not impossible even though where's the glass 2x faster to begin with?

But under certain variables it is feasible, just not 'the same'.

And, oh yeah, with some limitations whereas distinct tools don't tell the same story.

Without mention, bokeh varies under many layers from thinness to thickness (aka density). They are not synonymous. Texture is nothing but real. And reality is subject to be transformed by the medium under certain circumstances which can make a whole world of differentiation (difference and differentiation can be synonymous but are not the same or am I* the only one to have firm perception of it?) in skillful hands and knowledge for. So, formats are not identical at all. No matter how much convinced or convicted we are.

Need a metaphor? A million dollar bank account will bring more room to pay a restaurant bill of 100 bucks other than to only have a grand as balance there.

 

* you too @mercer