GH13 GH5 Rumors

malibudutchie said:
I like the comparison of video with painting. Maybe VT would argue here that the best brand of paint will give you the best painting. The most expensive brush will make a better painting than a cheap brush. Pixel peepers are like art critics - wannabees that coulda been and shoulda been but didn't, so they blame the medium, blame the tool.
Click to expand...

Can you please quote my post that stated that only the best, most expensive cameras/paints are required?

Seriously Malibu, you have nothing to contribute yet make up rubbish that I have not said.

You're nothing but a troll.

PS: care to answer any questions I ask you or would you rather dodge any conversation that asks you to back up or reveal your contradictions. Go for a surf dude.

PPS: I agree that pixel peepers on forums are generally a bunch of wannabes. I don't blow up my footage to look at 200% crops. Finally, something we agree on. Scary eh!
 
Last edited:
Zephyrnoid said:
What's neat about 4K is that it leaves a lot of room for cropping in post. So I can see that it's double the framing flexibility of 2K. Not a bad advantage in many cases.In an ideal world we shoot with two focal lengths a Slightly wide and a Tele ( mostly for foreshortning effects ) then crop as we please for all the intermediate framings.
Click to expand...


4K is 4 times the size of 2K, not double the size. Hearing you have a BFA explains why you're so bad with numbers. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 

Attachments

  • Digital_video_resolutions_(VCD_to_6K).jpg
    Digital_video_resolutions_(VCD_to_6K).jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 0
It's very close, But keep in mind, 2k down resd to 1080 is usually better than straight up 1080, This is why many sensors are much bigger than what they actually deliver. 2K offers a tiny bit of re-frame ability.
 
malibudutchie said:
I like the comparison of video with painting. Maybe VT would argue here that the best brand of paint will give you the best painting. The most expensive brush will make a better painting than a cheap brush. Pixel peepers are like art critics - wannabees that coulda been and shoulda been but didn't, so they blame the medium, blame the tool.
Click to expand...

It's a commonly known fact that paints are rated for their archivability ...i.e. the better paints i.e. the more expensive paints simply last longer. The same with brushes. More expensive brushes not only last longer, they have better hair characteristics. The same analogy , actually more appropriate , is digital printing. Would a great photographer choose to print on inks and paper that have terrible archiving characteristics, or using inks and paper that have long lifetimes ?
 
Bern Caughey said:
Beta paint.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/chauvet_cave_art.php
Click to expand...

Yes. It was beta paint but the Chauvet artists were fortunate in that they probably didn't know what an archive was or what it would be useful for. They simply lived for the moment, just as beta users today do ;)
Another point to ponder is value in archive. This is a separate discussion but one worth discussing in another thread.

At what point do we decide that content is worthy of archiving? It's an important question because to an extent, it drives the author's choice of 'paints'.
 
I believe the longest archivable digital inkjets are epsons pure carbon inks for b&w ...approx. 400 years. No coincidence. Cave artists lucked out with their choice of carbon, but also their work survived because they were stored in temperature and humidity controlled vaults.

Of course , upgrading $4ooo printers is in another category from $1000 cameras. Most photographers use their wide format printers until they wear out.

And it's true about the validity of archiving everything....but I'd bet we all shoot on the highest available quality settings , when every camera has lesser abilities built in !
 
keylight said:
Actually the discussion on paint is pretty interesting. More than non-existent rumors about a non-existent camera at least!
Click to expand...

Yes it is interesting. I was just being facetious. But then again one might argue this new discussion deserves its own thread. Just sayin.... :)
 
keylight said:
Actually the discussion on paint is pretty interesting. More than non-existent rumors about a non-existent camera at least!
Click to expand...

Actually from a philosophical point of view a non-existent camera could be seen as existent the moment we discuss it. Just not - yet - arrived in physical form. Or never arriving while heavily expected and discussed (and dismissed). Something like Schroedinger's cat in camera form.
 
Ian-T said:
:undecided:undecided....um....what r we talkin bout again????
Click to expand...

we were talking about Public Beta vs finished products ;) and the joke came up that among the very first drawings know from the stone age, were made with what some might consider... the mother of all beta imaging systems- charcoal! ;)

There's beta
and then there's
Kaizen
 
Rolf Silber said:
Actually from a philosophical point of view a non-existent camera could be seen as existent the moment we discuss it. Just not - yet - arrived in physical form. Or never arriving while heavily expected and discussed (and dismissed). Something like Schroedinger's cat in camera form.
Click to expand...

..you know their formula , right ? You subtract the camera they already have from the camera we theoretically want, then divide by 2 !
 
kurth said:
..you know their formula , right ? You subtract the camera they already have from the camera we theoretically want, then divide by 2 !
Click to expand...

That was the part I missed in high school it seems. Have been under the impression it was more related to morphic field theory which might allow - by inducing positive camera-related thoughts and energies - to bring into being the camera you want .... thanx for clearing this for me.
 
Rolf Silber said:
Actually from a philosophical point of view a non-existent camera could be seen as existent the moment we discuss it. Just not - yet - arrived in physical form. Or never arriving while heavily expected and discussed (and dismissed). Something like Schroedinger's cat in camera form.
Click to expand...
Haha exactly Rolf, paint, pixels, Panasonic and philosophy....phascinating !!
 
If only Peaking was one of the P's. Would have a good ring to it!

Malibu, you didn't end up finding that quote of mine I asked for....... :rolleyes
 
vtwiz said:
If only Peaking was one of the P's. Would have a good ring to it!
Click to expand...

While morphic field energy plus - and here I totally agree with the Zephyrnoid - constant complaints gave us 25p with the GH2 in the end, I think focus peaking seems to be the slightly deader version of Schroedinger's cat. A pity it won't meow nor peak.

Apart from that: If Olympus really comes with the rumoured high-end version of their MFT camera Panasonic will need to respond a bit sooner maybe. I will go BMC Pocket though very probably. Rumour have it, it becomes available now....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top