Panasonic GH7

[Emanuel]

13 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

(...)

Without mention, bokeh varies under many layers from thinness to thickness (aka density).

A concept very known and used in music aesthetics BTW, cinema is far to be mere technology. It's actually more perception instead. Just made with tools and they are not the same nor produce the same outcome ;- )

- EAG

 

PS: Jumped to another page, so please don't decontextualise the meaning of it... well expressed my last post from the previous page (pardon my marketing now! haha).

[lsquare]

I'm not good at imagining how a video will be displayed on a screen. If I want to record ProRes RAW without a crop, I'll have to shoot in 5.7K, which has a 17:9 aspect ratio. When watching a 17:9 video on 16:9, 16:10: and 21:9 screens, what would the black bars look like, and where it'll be?

 

 

[zlfan]

when I started videography, I naively thought that a hybrid vDSLR would cover everything in the photo and video worlds. One camera to rule them all. With time passing by, I accumulated all kinds of formats, especially in the photo world, 4x5, 6x9, 6x7, 645, 135, m43/43, apsh/apsc, 1 inch, super8. and also the video cams. later I realize all of the popular formats and cameras have their unique niches. It is very difficult to replace them with one format and one camera. I just keep them all.  

For example, in the current era that bokur is the king, super 16mm still is very suitable for documentary and in depth news reports. A famous scene of the Citizen Kane is that the young Kane played behind on the snow field outside of the house, their parents talked to the banker in the front in the living room, and his future was determined. Actually this is very suitable for S16. s35, vv, 65/mf will bokeh the background, which is an addition to the story. This is often the case in news and documentary, you want the background layer to have more information more layers to make the whole scene dense and impactful.  

 

[mercer]

4 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

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

I know you are but what am I? Hahaha.

I should probably be offended but like me, you're just some guy on the internet.

Actually... I feel kinda bad for you. Everything is so binary. You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera. I can only assume you don't believe in movie magic or how a cinematic image can transport an audience into another world.

You seem like the type that probably rooted for the government in E.T.

[eatstoomuchjam]

27 minutes ago, mercer said:

You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera

No.  I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20).  I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look."  

As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device.  Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

[zlfan]

58 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

No.  I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20).  I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look."  

As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device.  Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

Interesting. You don't believe that mf or lf look exists? This is totally against my experience. I mostly shoot photos with ff and apsc/apsh and 43/m43 cams. When I use Kodak 645 pro, the look is so distinct and so much better, I am happy in heaven. I did not believe that mf or lf look exists. My user experience tells me that it exists. 

[zlfan]

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

No.  I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20).  I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look."  

As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device.  Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

do you do development and print by yourself at home, or send to print shops? 

i ask this question, because improper pp may be where the mf or lf look disappears. 

[zlfan]

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

No.  I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20).  I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look."  

As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device.  Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

Also, when 5d2 and 7d just came out in 2009, I spent nights and nights watching almost all of the videos on vimeo shot by these two cameras. I can tell you that they are different, even with the same crappy in stock codec. 5d2 footage just shows some magic eye-catching things there, the color, the gradation, that magic touch that 7d2 footage is lacking. 7D2 footage looks dry whereas 5d2 footage looks juicy. In other words, full frame vv look exists. 

[zlfan]

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

No.  I own more than a dozen medium format cameras and if we're counting everything described as "large format" and/or "ultra-large format," more than a dozen large format cameras too (everything from 6x17 & 4x5 on up to 8x20).  I've been doing this for a long time and I have done enough side-by-side comparisons to be certain that there is no magical "medium format look" or "large format look."  

As far as how a great image can transport the audience to another world, that is certainly a thing, but it has nothing to do with the size of the sensor in the acquisition device.  Stalker was shot on standard 35mm film, mostly with a relatively slow Cooke zoom lens, and it's far more beautiful/immersive than just about any film you'd like to name that was shot on Vista Vision or 65mm.

I can also say that mf lenses on ff or apsc cams have different looks than ff lens on ff cams. The major disadvantage is a little bit loss of sharpness from the former one, but there are many gains. i actually like mf lenses on ff or apsc cams much better. some of my best shots were taken by a hassy 80 mm f2.8 on an apsc cam. all are manual, including the exposure. the exposure meter does not work in this configuration. yet it gives one of the best images i have ever seen. 

[hojomo]

I gotta chime in here and say that there most definitely is at least a large format look. You have control of both the lens and the film/sensor planes independently. You can apply any number of adjustments to the axis -- and achieve images that a tilt-shift lens + fixed sensor (ignoring IBIS as not applicable in way I am describing) cannot. And I'm sorry, but M43 cannot achieve as shallow depth of field (at comparable fov) that my 4x5 cameras can. These formats have all been developed for a reason and equating them all in this way is bogus.

[Emanuel]

25 minutes ago, hojomo said:

I gotta chime in here and say that there most definitely is at least a large format look. You have control of both the lens and the film/sensor planes independently. You can apply any number of adjustments to the axis -- and achieve images that a tilt-shift lens + fixed sensor (ignoring IBIS as not applicable in way I am describing) cannot. And I'm sorry, but M43 cannot achieve as shallow depth of field (at comparable fov) that my 4x5 cameras can. These formats have all been developed for a reason and equating them all in this way is bogus.

With hard work and knowledge you can, but the intrinsic characteristic look of its own is distinct indeed.

The more unlimited and wider you can the more diverse you naturally go.

- EAG

[kye]

There is absolutely a difference of looks between the formats, but it doesn't mean lens equivalency is false.

Lens equivalency says that "all else being equal, a 28/2.8 will look the same on FF as a 14/1.4 on MFT" but the thing is, actually making a 28mm F2.8 lens and a 14mm F1.4 lens would end up with subtle differences in how you would do that.

The "look" is really a combination of the subtle differences in lens design.  The MF look is probably just as much an artefact of history and would incorporate the lens design quirks of the time.  A modern MF camera with optically pristine lenses wouldn't have as much of the look as an MF film camera with vintage MF glass.  A FF camera with a super-fast lens that has the same design flaws as the common MF lenses would have a lot of the MF look.

Lenses aren't perfect, and much of the "look" is due to the imperfections.  Reducing the discussion down to FOV and DOF is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[IronFilm]

9 hours 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?

It's wrong to assume that just because a person is famous that they're immune to "big = better" hype. 

9 hours 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?

Larger sized film stock was an easier way to get better technical performance, they didn't have 6400 ISO cameras back then

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, zlfan said:

For example, in the current era that bokur is the king, super 16mm still is very suitable for documentary and in depth news reports. A famous scene of the Citizen Kane is that the young Kane played behind on the snow field outside of the house, their parents talked to the banker in the front in the living room, and his future was determined. Actually this is very suitable for S16. s35, vv, 65/mf will bokeh the background, which is an addition to the story. This is often the case in news and documentary, you want the background layer to have more information more layers to make the whole scene dense and impactful.  

I'm fairly certain (without bothering to look it up, just from memory) that famous scene in Citizen Kane was filmed not with deep focus but with a split diopter.

But yes, I agree with your general point. 

 

[Emanuel]

https://learn.saylor.org/mod/page/view.php?id=61084

[eatstoomuchjam]

4 hours ago, zlfan said:

do you do development and print by yourself at home, or send to print shops? 

i ask this question, because improper pp may be where the mf or lf look disappears. 

For the most part, I have smaller format film such as 120 developed at a shop and I process my own LF and ULF film because processing costs get ridiculous for it.  I scan it all myself - up to 6x9 on a Coolscan 8000 and bigger than that on an Epson V750.  There's no MF or LF look to disappear, though.

3 hours ago, hojomo said:

I gotta chime in here and say that there most definitely is at least a large format look. You have control of both the lens and the film/sensor planes independently. You can apply any number of adjustments to the axis -- and achieve images that a tilt-shift lens + fixed sensor (ignoring IBIS as not applicable in way I am describing) cannot. And I'm sorry, but M43 cannot achieve as shallow depth of field (at comparable fov) that my 4x5 cameras can. These formats have all been developed for a reason and equating them all in this way is bogus.

Camera movements can certainly create specific looks, but they are hardly confined to large format.  I have at least one and maybe a couple of medium format film cameras which support some movements.  I can also stick a roll film back on a 4x5 camera - or even a mirrorless camera adapter (I have one for GFX on 4x5 with Graflok) and take full advantage of camera movements.  I may even still have an EF mount to 4x5 Graflok adapter, in which case, I can have full view camera movements on a 24x36mm sensor.
If you want to make the point that there are no lenses for M43 that can achieve the shallow DOF of something like an Aero Ektar on 4x5, that is also certainly true.  This is why Media Division built a a rig to record video off the GG of an 8x10 camera (and so did that one other YouTube channel).  That's not what people mean when they talk about the "large format look," though.

Also, there are many large format cameras that don't support movements.  I have a Cambo Wide 470.  It takes 4x5 film and has barely any movements at all.  Does it not have a "large format" look?

 

3 hours ago, kye said:

The "look" is really a combination of the subtle differences in lens design.  The MF look is probably just as much an artefact of history and would incorporate the lens design quirks of the time.  A modern MF camera with optically pristine lenses wouldn't have as much of the look as an MF film camera with vintage MF glass.  A FF camera with a super-fast lens that has the same design flaws as the common MF lenses would have a lot of the MF look.

Lenses aren't perfect, and much of the "look" is due to the imperfections.  Reducing the discussion down to FOV and DOF is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Again, if you want to say that a given lens has a look associated with it, that is completely true and accurate and real.  But that's not a "medium format look."  I have a Mamiya 7.  It uses sharp, modern, high-contrast lenses that are basically optically perfect.  Does it not have a medium format look?  Does my Fuji G617 have a large format look despite not supporting movements and having a modern sharp lens and (at best) moderately shallow DOF due to the 105mm f/8 lens?

When I put my 50/1 Noctilux on my camera, do I instantly get a medium format look when it's wide open?  That lens has lots of character/design flaws and extremely shallow DOF.  Does the Noctilux have more of a medium format look than the Mamiya 7's 65mm f/4 does on 6x7cm film (equal to about a 32.5mm f/2 lens in FF terms)?  What if instead I use the v1 Canon 35mm f/1.4L?  Shallower depth of field + seems to be loved by the "3d pop" crowd.  Is Army of the Dead the most medium format-looking film of all time since it was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open?  That lens is LOADED with character and the DOF in that film is shallow to the point of being obnoxious.

By many of the definitions that are being bandied about, I have medium and large format cameras that cannot have a medium or large format look and I have smaller format cameras that have a ton of it.

[kye]

6 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Again, if you want to say that a given lens has a look associated with it, that is completely true and accurate and real.  But that's not a "medium format look."  I have a Mamiya 7.  It uses sharp, modern, high-contrast lenses that are basically optically perfect.  Does it not have a medium format look?  Does my Fuji G617 have a large format look despite not supporting movements and having a modern sharp lens and (at best) moderately shallow DOF due to the 105mm f/8 lens?

When I put my 50/1 Noctilux on my camera, do I instantly get a medium format look when it's wide open?  That lens has lots of character/design flaws and extremely shallow DOF.  Does the Noctilux have more of a medium format look than the Mamiya 7's 65mm f/4 does on 6x7cm film (equal to about a 32.5mm f/2 lens in FF terms)?  What if instead I use the v1 Canon 35mm f/1.4L?  Shallower depth of field + seems to be loved by the "3d pop" crowd.  Is Army of the Dead the most medium format-looking film of all time since it was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open?  That lens is LOADED with character and the DOF in that film is shallow to the point of being obnoxious.

By many of the definitions that are being bandied about, I have medium and large format cameras that cannot have a medium or large format look and I have smaller format cameras that have a ton of it.

There are no definitions of looks.  You can't assess if something has the medium format look with a checklist.  Ask different people what the look is and you'll get different answers, because people notice different things.  There are commonalities, sure, but it's not a precise thing.

Also, not all lenses have the same character.  Your Noctilux 50mm F1.0 lens might have completely different optical aberrations than the average vintage MF lens, so the feel of it would be very different.

It's like cooking.  If two people make cakes with the same ratios of flour and water and sugar and eggs, and then all add "flavouring" then will they taste the same?  Of course not.  The "flavouring" matters, and can vary hugely.

Imagine comparing 8mm film and iPhone 4 video.  We could go through every category of image assessment and rate them and maybe we'd conclude they both had video quality at 5/10.  Do they look the same?  Of course not, because the individual characteristics that make up the "8mm look" and the "iPhone 4 look" are very different, despite the fact they've both got a similar amount of imperfections / character / aberrations / etc.

It's like if you're making a horror film vs a rom-com.  In the horror film you don't just use "horror lenses" or "horror angles" or "horror lighting" or "horror music" or "horror dialogue" or "horror sound design" or "horror colour grading" etc.  The horror in the film comes from using all of them.  Hopefully the rom-com uses completely different elements in all departments too..  the "look" or "feel" of the final film comes from the combination of many subtle elements combined together.  Same with images.

People that are into lenses look at sample images and can read them like a book.  Some people can even tell what optical formula the lens uses from looking at a single image.  The clues are very subtle, but they're all there.

[zlfan]

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

For the most part, I have smaller format film such as 120 developed at a shop and I process my own LF and ULF film because processing costs get ridiculous for it.  I scan it all myself - up to 6x9 on a Coolscan 8000 and bigger than that on an Epson V750.  There's no MF or LF look to disappear, though.

Camera movements can certainly create specific looks, but they are hardly confined to large format.  I have at least one and maybe a couple of medium format film cameras which support some movements.  I can also stick a roll film back on a 4x5 camera - or even a mirrorless camera adapter (I have one for GFX on 4x5 with Graflok) and take full advantage of camera movements.  I may even still have an EF mount to 4x5 Graflok adapter, in which case, I can have full view camera movements on a 24x36mm sensor.
If you want to make the point that there are no lenses for M43 that can achieve the shallow DOF of something like an Aero Ektar on 4x5, that is also certainly true.  This is why Media Division built a a rig to record video off the GG of an 8x10 camera (and so did that one other YouTube channel).  That's not what people mean when they talk about the "large format look," though.

Also, there are many large format cameras that don't support movements.  I have a Cambo Wide 470.  It takes 4x5 film and has barely any movements at all.  Does it not have a "large format" look?

 

Again, if you want to say that a given lens has a look associated with it, that is completely true and accurate and real.  But that's not a "medium format look."  I have a Mamiya 7.  It uses sharp, modern, high-contrast lenses that are basically optically perfect.  Does it not have a medium format look?  Does my Fuji G617 have a large format look despite not supporting movements and having a modern sharp lens and (at best) moderately shallow DOF due to the 105mm f/8 lens?

When I put my 50/1 Noctilux on my camera, do I instantly get a medium format look when it's wide open?  That lens has lots of character/design flaws and extremely shallow DOF.  Does the Noctilux have more of a medium format look than the Mamiya 7's 65mm f/4 does on 6x7cm film (equal to about a 32.5mm f/2 lens in FF terms)?  What if instead I use the v1 Canon 35mm f/1.4L?  Shallower depth of field + seems to be loved by the "3d pop" crowd.  Is Army of the Dead the most medium format-looking film of all time since it was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open?  That lens is LOADED with character and the DOF in that film is shallow to the point of being obnoxious.

By many of the definitions that are being bandied about, I have medium and large format cameras that cannot have a medium or large format look and I have smaller format cameras that have a ton of it.

 

it is interesting to see people with good hands on experience have different opinions. I don't know why. 

people argue if there is ccd look. both sides are experienced. I was curious and jumped in. I tested myself that ccd actually renders magic in certain light conditions. then I bought dozens of ccd cameras. 

in 2012, when af100 just came out, people argued about if avchd is as good as prores. both sides were experienced. one guy was even in bbc's avchd committee. I tested af100 with nano flash at 280 mbps I-frame. nano flash footage has wider dr, smoother gradation. 

I guess that I will stick to my user experience. will see later if there is something more. 

 

 

[BTM_Pix]

Laowa have announced a range of T1 cine lenses in FF, APS-C and, yes, MFT format today that will narrow the gap for GH7 owners looking to emulate the “hang on, is any of this in focus?” look of the larger formats.

Well, not exactly a full range when it comes to MFT as it currently only includes 18 and 25mm and not the wide option of the others.

Full details here

https://laowacine.com/product/laowa-argus-t1-cine-series-mft/

[sanveer]

15 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Laowa have announced a range of T1 cine lenses in FF, APS-C and, yes, MFT format today that will narrow the gap for GH7 owners looking to emulate the “hang on, is any of this in focus?” look of the larger formats.

Well, not exactly a full range when it comes to MFT as it currently only includes 18 and 25mm and not the wide option of the others.

Full details here

https://laowacine.com/product/laowa-argus-t1-cine-series-mft/

I know what you mean. At one point of time, a lotta TV series (especially low budget food, and travel and living kinda), were shot on the 5D. And the majority of the time they were not in focus. It just looked unnecessarily soft and terribly blurry. 

 

P.S.: Hope someone creates a speedbooster for the RF mount. Those could make it look wild on M43 cameras