Tom Goodman: At the end of the day this is a forgettable photograph, fungible like so many others. Those posters who say it is art have never seen art. Those who criticize critics of the image are simply jealous of the technique, not the vision, which is pedestrian. No matter how impressive the technique, this sort of photograph is the visual equivalent of an internet joke: read 'em (or see 'em in this case) and delete 'em!
There isn't anything indelible here. What most of the enthusiasm for is the how-to. That's great as far as it goes, which in an age of countless and relentless imagery ain't much.
Ill never fully understand why people feel the need to disparage other peoples work like you have. It really adds nothing to the discussion and speaks more of the insecurity in the detractor, rather than the shortcomings of the work in question. Opinions are subjective and the author of the image has taken the time put together a very informative article, even if not to you.
utphoto: "Is 100 Mbit/s 4k downscaled to 1080p really better than 200Mbit/s 1080p24 GH4 can record? Especially when fast panning or a lot of movement in the scene is present?"
Yes, 24 fps, no matter what the Mbit rate, sucks for fluid movement.
HFR was a proven failure with LOTR. People hated it.It looked unnatural and cheapened the look of the experience. There is no indication that the film industry is moving away from 24p capture. There is no indication that the general public want to adopt higher frame rate, the major tv brands put high scan rates in their TVs and it looks absolutely ridiculous, and most people with a modicum of taste turn it off. Eliminating motion blur doesn't look natural in the slightest and makes the moving image look terrible.What people want is more RESOLUTION, through processes like IMAX and 4k projection/display. HFR doesn't get you anymore clarity or resolution.
You do realise that motion pictures are filmed at 24fps don't you?
bmoag: I just looked critically at a bunch of images from a brand new large iPhone 6. When it comes to smart phone cameras that emperor is buck naked: these are jpeg crushed noisy things with no dynamic range that are useless for anything but viewing on the phone screen itself, Kodak Instamatics for the 21st century. There is nothing wrong with that but they are nothing more than that either. It is astounding technology that these things can also record hi def video but again that is snap shot quality video best viewed on the small screen of the device itself.
Totally disagree. I think these new phones outperform most low-midrange compact cameras available these days and are EASILY acceptable to view large on a retina screen or a tv. The only reason i would EVER spend money on a <$500 compact camera these days is for the zoom capability.
Wye Photography: £174 for ONE filter. Are you taking the P!$$?
Its a very reasonable price for a filter of that size. Look it up.
papa natas: Lee Filters...OMG!!!These guys have been there since forever.I bought a couple of their polarizers and masks for blue skies back in the late 70's.They made good old Technicolor movie films come alive & with pure colors.Great British know how.No, I'm not being paid for this.I just admire good, enduring, no bull products.Is the Spitfire coming back?
@ Boxbrownie Don't you worry, Cooke still make the best lenses in the world. Highly sought-after and highly regarded by top cinematographers around the world http://www.cookeoptics.com/l/products.html
Its a great camera. Not for everyone obviously but it generates beautiful stills that have a very different look to what you might be used to from nikon or a canon. Oh and you don't need all that computer hardware to make it work in post. My macbook pro easily lets me look at the footage at 1/2 debayer (resolution) and do frame captures as 60MB Tiffs.
Sangster: Only US$4490!
@princecody It is a fact that anytime you add a convenience you will also take something away. I don't believe the basic philosophy and purpose of this lens, which lends itself to uncompromised image quality, would have the same optical results if it had AF implemented. It is likely possible but probably impacting on size and price.
I think you'd probably need to feel the way the focus mechanics work to understand why AF wouldn't be possible in this beast.
xfoto: What a beautiful woman
It seem someone else thought so too :-)
Photoman: Why? I feel the Pana/Oly are better lenses than Canon, plus the weight saving alone. If I want to shoot FF for video, than use a FF camera.
I have a hefty selection of Canon L series lenses as well as a bunch of Zeiss ZE ef mount lenses. Being able to put these on my new GH4 for video jobs is a godsend. I confidently refute your opinion about Panasonic lenses beating the quality and range of L series canons.
This is just a natural evolution away from the 5D and 7D canons, which have been used extensively in film production for several years. as well as the hits being tricked out by rental houses for professional use (google 'panavised Canon 5D' ) The big sensor and small form factor body is whats attractive to film makers, and now Its no big deal really.
I do like the idea of lens babies, but they are SO distinctive in their effect, that it turns the lens into a novelty. Ive found most people use it a few times and put it in the cupboard.
Shadowww: GH4 produces different files when it is connected to the interface unit? Huh, interesting.. I wonder what is reason for that.
Maybe it changes the file ID only and not the actual file contents, and as such may not be recognised by CR
Ben Stonewall: Maybe an 'M-III' that works and that people actually want to buy, but only for sale in India.
Whats an MIII ? A mirrorless?
nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.
@TheChefs. Hey i couldn't resist looking at your website. Stunning work mate. Film or digital, keep it up. The Japan and Nepal galleries are terrific.
The capture medium is much more important than the projection medium. Projection standards have surpassed print film, but not the case in capture medium.
Sorry but your wrong. I work with cinematographers every day and i do look at this stuff. I do love digital, but its not close enough (yet) to a great film scan, frankly an 8k film scan digitally projected on a 4k projector is simply breathtaking. It feels like reality and definitely looks more natural. Film goes deep in its complexity. As far as the storage argument goes, yes prints fade, but neg when looked after properly will outlast any digital medium and you have the advantage of having all that untapped information locked away for a very long time, until our scanners catch up. My jaws argument is reinforced by saying, in 50 years jaws will look amazing, where as say Star Wars the phantom menace which was shot Sony HD CAM, will never look any better than it does now.
>>Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had<<Thats simply not true. A high res scan of even an old film negative will yield results superior to digital capture even by todays standards. There is also the other issue of archiving. Classic films stored on film will virtually last forever. The films shot recently on digital will only ever look as good as what the current technology will allow. If you shoot in HD, you will never be able to view in better quality than that. EVER. Not to mention that the playback medium may be unavailable in the future. (There are currently thousands of hours of tape stock sitting on studio shelves that can't be played because nobody makes or services the tape machines anymore. If you think film is inferior have a look at the remaster or JAWS on blu-ray. It looks better today that it ever did. Thats the magic of film right there.