GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

As for the photos I think it can go both ways. I see pros saying how amazing an iPhone photo looks just because they want it to look amazing. I see a ton of excuses made for Smartphone cameras because someone wants to push a certain narrative or they think its neat how far they have come. When I look at a lot of iPhone videos I think they look like garbage. We nitpick the most insane details when it comes to pro cameras and I don't make excuse for Smartphones. I think the video sucks. I think the photo detail looks like mud. I think the fake DOF looks like a five year old did it in Photoshop. When posted to social media nobody cares but without an absolute doubt if I shoot side by side with even my GH4 the GH4 will smoke the iPhone in almost every possible way. I'm not sure how that can be considered a bias. It has nothing to do with price. I feel Nikon D5200 stills look much better than iPhone photos. Has nothing to do with price at all. I paid $250 for my GH1 and its stills look better than iPhone stills.

Maybe you are looking at iPhone 6 photos! My iPhone 12 Pro Max can take really good pictures and video. It is a big improvement even from my last iPhone the Xr.

You can take bad pictures with even the best camera. You can use apps like Filmic Pro or add on a lens.

Sure if you have a nice Nikon or Canon you can take better pictures if you know what you are doing. But you can get some great pictures with the new iPhones and it fits in your pocket.

So if I buy a $10,000 guitar will I be able to play like Jimi Hendrix?
 
Sure but that's another form of the bias that advantages real camera operators over phone operators. Expensive wine tastes better to people than cheap wine. And I bet that photos from expensive cameras look better to them if they know the price

I went to a niece's wedding. I took my Nikon D300s with me just to take a few pictures. They had hired some guy with a bunch of expensive and pretty Canon gear. During the day I was talking to the bride and groom standing by the lake. I saw a great picture to take so I posed them and took it. Well right after the paid 'real camera operator' came over and said "that is a good spot for a picture"
Just having a real camera doesn't mean you know what you are doing.

I could take my iPhone 12 Pro Max and get really good pictures at a wedding. If I wanted to do it for living I would use two cameras with different lenses on them.

I bet Eddie Van Halen could have made my $200 guitar sound awesome too.
 
Theoretically, the camera could become as small as a sensor with a storage bay and you could control it wirelessly

However, I don't think that would be practical. My guess is a high-end camera won't be smaller than the collection of mounting points, handles, buttons, displays, and ports on the Venice 2. Because all that stuff is way more useful in daily operation than shedding the last couple inches or pounds. You could have a tiny specialty camera for sticking in corners or on drones, but I don't think it's desirable for regular use

A friend FB posted a 1994 photo of Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, so I began to search for the current Bullock photos, 'cos she hasn't aged for the last 27 years. I ended up finding a BTS shot from her new rom-com, with a cam-op ... eh, sorry, videographer holding a rig similar to what you see on those large sensor Sony's at the NFL games - a belt, a few rods, a few springs and a small camera, probably an Alexa Mini. It's an an action-adventure-romance film too similar to Romancing the Stone, so jiggling footage is expected. But, drop the size of the cameras, drop the size and weight of the gimbal, add IBIS digital or optical (or frame for it), finish it off with a video wall and you up the speed of production by a lot. And that's going to be the key.
 
. But, drop the size of the cameras, drop the size and weight of the gimbal, add IBIS digital or optical (or frame for it), finish it off with a video wall and you up the speed of production by a lot. And that's going to be the key.

I don't think the size and weight of the camera or gimbal are slowing down production. Or IBIS. IBIS also has drawbacks. But if they have lower standards then it could be helpful. The problem with lowering your standards is that your work is no longer any better than what you can see on TV and streamers. Then there's no Sandra bullock anymore because there are no star vehicles to create her.

Also, the new season of star trek discovery is clearly using video walls in its holodeck scenes, and I can tell because it looks like shit, especially when the camera moves. Whereas they always used to shoot trek holodecks in a physical location or set, which made holodecks seem like magic technology rather than an obviously VR experience. There's room for improvement, but there are limits
 
The whole movie is shot as a faux oner (a la Rope). You can argue that it was the wrong decision. But you can't argue that the effect is the same as montage

I actually called D (I call him D), and recommended he use a drone with a camera on the bottom heading towards earth. It would start up high in the sky and drop down all the way to the ground by the time it's all finished. A different perspective for the running bodies, explosions, location. I animated the sequence for him and added some clouds and even a plane at one point flying into the shot (under the drone) and he loved it but ultimately decided against it. Hot dog.
 
Maybe you are looking at iPhone 6 photos! My iPhone 12 Pro Max can take really good pictures and video. It is a big improvement even from my last iPhone the Xr.

You can take bad pictures with even the best camera. You can use apps like Filmic Pro or add on a lens.

Sure if you have a nice Nikon or Canon you can take better pictures if you know what you are doing. But you can get some great pictures with the new iPhones and it fits in your pocket.

So if I buy a $10,000 guitar will I be able to play like Jimi Hendrix?

I have an 11 pro max. Yes they are getting better but they are still overly processed. Maybe you don't see but I sure do. I'm not talking about viewing them on social media but print quality or being able to zoom into the photos. If you just want images to look at on a phone screen sure they are great. In no way shape or form do they hold up to serious raw photos from a larger sensor and lens. Print a 11x14" from those phone images and see how well it holds up. What about the dynamic range and being able to pull detail out of shadows? Try to get some DOF from a complex subject that can throw off the depth map.

I'm not saying they are crap but they are not in the same league. In many ways they are equal to a $100 point and shoot camera. Its the massive amount of processing that makes it look better. The kind of processing we usually do with tools like NeatVideo in post. Helps a ton but its all processed and digital looking in the end. The NR on the iPhone isn't nearly as sophisticated as NeatVideo either.

The reality is that tiny sensor and lens can only do so much. Its math and calculations that pick up the slack. They sometimes return decent results but thats just it. Decent.

Let me ask you this. If the GH6 put out the kind of stills and video you get from the iPhone would you be as excited about it? Thats what I'm talking about a pass. Like how politicians of one party get a pass by voters of that party and then highly critical of the opposite party doing the same thing. Its called a bias. We all give the iPhone a pass because of what it is and how impressed we are by what it can do.

I prefer to see it what it is and right now thats inferior quality. You can be hurt or upset by that all you want. You have that right to defend it. I'm just stating I think the quality is not there compared to other options. I don't think I'm wrong either. If I compare the stills and video side by side to other cameras I see lots of flaws I do not like. Yes its very impressive considering what it is but I'm not ok with just impressive for what it is.
 
My point is if the iPhone is good enough for some of you thats wonderfully spectacular. Go ahead and use it. I'm super happy for you. Just don't force the rest of us to use it or convince us we should give up what we like just so we all use the same thing. I don't want to use a iPhone for the same reason I don't want to use a video camera or a 1" fixed lens camera anymore. I just don't want to and it doesn't fit my needs.

We all understand the iPhone can do some neat stuff and with care it can create impressive results. Many may not even be able to tell the difference. Thing is I don't care. I want to use better cameras and thats perfectly ok. I will also integrate my iPhone into certain situations. Yes even I use it for video and photos sometimes. Its a great tool to have. But it will be a very long time before its my only tool with no other backup or creative options. We are trying to move away from fixed lens cameras not towards them. Apple needs to solve a ton of problems before myself and others will ever take them seriously for video. A main one being you cannot adjust aperture and can only adjust shutter speed. Any outdoor iPhone video looks horrendous to me because of the shutter speed. There are ND filter options out there that help but how many are going to do that?
 
It warms the cockles of my heart to hear DLD talk of a GH7 :smile:

Here's an idea - Lumix is sold/given away to OMD, which now becomes the sole MFT company. There's some value to Lumix brand name, although it'd have to move on without "Panasonic" attached to it.
 
My point is if the iPhone is good enough for some of you thats wonderfully spectacular. Go ahead and use it. I'm super happy for you. Just don't force the rest of us to use it or convince us we should give up what we like just so we all use the same thing. I don't want to use a iPhone for the same reason I don't want to use a video camera or a 1" fixed lens camera anymore. I just don't want to and it doesn't fit my needs.

We all understand the iPhone can do some neat stuff and with care it can create impressive results. Many may not even be able to tell the difference. Thing is I don't care. I want to use better cameras and thats perfectly ok. I will also integrate my iPhone into certain situations. Yes even I use it for video and photos sometimes. Its a great tool to have. But it will be a very long time before its my only tool with no other backup or creative options. We are trying to move away from fixed lens cameras not towards them. Apple needs to solve a ton of problems before myself and others will ever take them seriously for video. A main one being you cannot adjust aperture and can only adjust shutter speed. Any outdoor iPhone video looks horrendous to me because of the shutter speed. There are ND filter options out there that help but how many are going to do that?

with filmic pro you can lock the shutter at 1/48 and with a ND it looks good. You can adjust aperture too. You should try it.
No one is forcing you. It is one option of many
 
I have an 11 pro max. Yes they are getting better but they are still overly processed. Maybe you don't see but I sure do. I'm not talking about viewing them on social media but print quality or being able to zoom into the photos. If you just want images to look at on a phone screen sure they are great. In no way shape or form do they hold up to serious raw photos from a larger sensor and lens. Print a 11x14" from those phone images and see how well it holds up. What about the dynamic range and being able to pull detail out of shadows? Try to get some DOF from a complex subject that can throw off the depth map.

I'm not saying they are crap but they are not in the same league. In many ways they are equal to a $100 point and shoot camera. Its the massive amount of processing that makes it look better. The kind of processing we usually do with tools like NeatVideo in post. Helps a ton but its all processed and digital looking in the end. The NR on the iPhone isn't nearly as sophisticated as NeatVideo either.

The reality is that tiny sensor and lens can only do so much. Its math and calculations that pick up the slack. They sometimes return decent results but thats just it. Decent.

Let me ask you this. If the GH6 put out the kind of stills and video you get from the iPhone would you be as excited about it? Thats what I'm talking about a pass. Like how politicians of one party get a pass by voters of that party and then highly critical of the opposite party doing the same thing. Its called a bias. We all give the iPhone a pass because of what it is and how impressed we are by what it can do.

I prefer to see it what it is and right now thats inferior quality. You can be hurt or upset by that all you want. You have that right to defend it. I'm just stating I think the quality is not there compared to other options. I don't think I'm wrong either. If I compare the stills and video side by side to other cameras I see lots of flaws I do not like. Yes its very impressive considering what it is but I'm not ok with just impressive for what it is.

My 12 can zoom.
The same as a $100 Point and shoot? Come on man! Now you are being bias.
I might get the gh6 but will keep using the iPhone
 
I actually called D (I call him D), and recommended he use a drone with a camera on the bottom heading towards earth. It would start up high in the sky and drop down all the way to the ground by the time it's all finished. A different perspective for the running bodies, explosions, location. I animated the sequence for him and added some clouds and even a plane at one point flying into the shot (under the drone) and he loved it but ultimately decided against it. Hot dog.

I think that if a person can't discern the difference in emotional impact between how two different scenes or films are made, then OF COURSE that person would assume that the industry will become ruled by iPhones and CGI
 
My 12 can zoom.

I believe that the 12 can't zoom. It just has different focal length lenses (on separate sensors) available. It can switch between them or crop in from a wide (possibly with an assist in center resolution from the telephoto?)
 
I have an 11 pro max. Yes they are getting better but they are still overly processed. .

Agreed. The success of iphone photography is that it has built-in processing to make things look the way we typically want them to (sky, overall exposure, skin). But it does so via automatic processing, not because of some superior optics or sensor. Fixing flaws does not an interesting photo make. And any serious application will want to handle the processing personally, unless they're pressed for time
 
I think that if a person can't discern the difference in emotional impact between how two different scenes or films are made, then OF COURSE that person would assume that the industry will become ruled by iPhones and CGI

Who's to say every scene or film has to have the same emotional impact on everyone? Or why can't multiple solutions work and have the same impact?

RT scores from 2 different criticizers who are considered to matter could be on each end of the spectrum.

Just because something may affect you (anyone) emotionally doesn't mean that another person who isn't affected in the same way has to be categorized into the group of thinking that the industry will be ruled by iPhones and CGI.
 
Two approaches can both work but can't have the exact same impact

There are no critics on RT who matter

If you consider cellulose boosters like Tarantino or Nolan (who want to keep shooting on film), I think that you could make the case that shooting on film doesn't matter as much to their audiences as it does to them. But I would also say that their interest in the qualitative differences of film probably reflects how finely attuned their sensibilities are, which I would argue is the key ingredient for their success as storytellers.

(FWIW I had the feeling during some parts of the 1917 scenes that I just reviewed that it would have looked better on film, probably in part because they weren't able to balance out the exposures during these long takes over huge areas as they would have been able to if doing discrete set-ups. But it may not have been feasible to do this picture on film anyway, I dunno)
 
Here's an idea - Lumix is sold/given away to OMD, which now becomes the sole MFT company. There's some value to Lumix brand name, although it'd have to move on without "Panasonic" attached to it.

Fanciful. But why?

I just pulled this out of you not what, and perhaps I will be criticized again for what I'm about to say, but not every commercial entity on the plant functions according to the way of doing business the American way. Although a small fraction of the overall number of camera users, Panasonic users are still a significant number, and it may not be a perceived burden for the company to continue to serve this client base, if it is not a horrendous drainer of resources. I think it's called good faith. (It's OK to call me an idealistic relic.)
 
Two approaches can both work but can't have the exact same impact

There are no critics on RT who matter

What...?

Two approaches can absolutely work and they can both have the exact same impact because you don't get to define what an impact may or may not be.

What exactly is an impact? Is it a feeling? A thought-provoking action? A measurement of character?

No critics on RT matter because no one really matters, but if the site continues to be an industry-standard source, a source that you have mentioned on this forum at least once or twice, then it has to matter in some context otherwise what's the point of its existence?

We may or may not agree with the scores but it has earned the respect to matter in its form because if not it then something else will because some sort of judgemental system has to exist for everything in life.
 
not every commercial entity on the plant functions according to the way of doing business the American way.

I would argue that every company that gets traded on Wall Street ends up conforming to American business practices by dint of shareholder pressure.

Panasonic isn't traded on an American stock exchange, but it is traded on Japanese exchanges. What that means for shareholder influence on its culture and decisions, I'm not sure

"Panasonic has a primary listing on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the Nikkei 225 and TOPIX indices. It has a secondary listing on the Nagoya Stock Exchange."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic
 
What...?

Two approaches can absolutely work and they can both have the exact same impact because you don't get to define what an impact may or may not be.

It's simple logic. A difference in impact might be a slight change in your emotional state, or a different series of reactions and associations. You're telling me that a rapidly edited montage of coverage of the scene would yield the same series of reactions? How could it possibly? You'd be reacting to each shot separately. And you'll never get the feeling of duration and continuity that you get from a oner. The result may be the same in that you LIKED both sequences. But each will have a different effect. And I'd argue that there will always be a preferred approach for any given viewer.

No critics on RT matter because no one really matters, but if the site continues to be an industry-standard source, a source that you have mentioned on this forum at least once or twice, then it has to matter in some context otherwise what's the point of its existence?.

I don't think critics matter because they're just corporate employees who trade on their credentials and ability to make other people feel stupid. I'm more interested in the audience scores on RT because I often find that they're a better predictor of how much I'll enjoy the movie. Plus, the critics are often influenced by political concerns and not just the quality of the films.

You referred to critics on RT who are "considered to matter," and that point is unassailable. They are "considered" to matter. But they don't matter to me. And they have business incentives to have a hot take on a film, sometimes a contrarian take, rather than an honest take
 
Back
Top