Bhima78

Lives in United States Sacramento, CA, United States
Works as a Outreach Director
Has a website at www.paulfdesign.com
Joined on Mar 27, 2010

Comments

Total: 727, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Panny... seriously, no one wants a 16:9 EVF. No one.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 03:42 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Tom_A: Soderbergh is one of the top directors. Provided the script is good, it may well look good enough.

You can put Claire Foy in front of a 360p Canon Elph circa 2000 and it would still be interesting to watch.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

rockjano: Really WHY????

If he wants to go cheap it could be a mirrorless Sony or Panasonic on a gimball or similar. Why a tiny sensor phone???

Because it is smaller??? (not that much)
What is the reason???

He wanted a specific look for the film. A Sony or Panasonic will give you a look that is closer to actual cinema which is not what he is going for. He is going for a look as if someone actually is stalking the main actress because it looks like everyone's phone camera video.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:50 UTC
In reply to:

mikey fried: This is ridiculous. For less money you could use a very capable dslr or mirrorless camera from say Panasonic to produce a higher quality image without the limitations of it being a phone (storage capacity, fixed lens, small sensor, iso performance etc). What advantages does it being a phone have? The use of a phone for movies like Tangerine could be justified as it needed to be inconspicuous.

The advantages of the smartphone:
1) First and foremost: It forces you to lock in your focal length and explore your filming options with a limited set of features. This sounds horrible at first, but it can be extremely liberating, and some of the best creative work is done when a heavy dose of restrictions are put on the creative process.
2) It has a look that everyone is familiar with as being "phone video quality." This actually makes sense for a movie about a person that believes she is being stalked. Sort of like how the original Blair Witch Project was so successful as an arthouse horror because the camera work felt like real people holding the camera. This feels like the antagonist is watching Claire Foy while we are watching her.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Vik2012: I actually enjoy reading the comments from triggered iPhone haters under each new movie and photo shot on the device.

The more capable the device becomes, the more these haters want to pretend that the technology is not going anywhere and they can stop it with their keyboards anyway.

They are like people trying to keep the tide out with a beach bucket and spade. Watch them paddle and splash. It's comedy.

@minababe

You are being ridiculous. If someone's iPhone movie is on par or better than Soderbergh's, what does that matter?

And you are completely wrong about the field not being opened up by tech that has given the masses access to good quality. There are so many more young people trying to make films and shows today than there was just 10 years ago. This is largely to do with the accessibility/cost of the tech being within reach of the masses. Or do you think there were just as many filmmakers before digital was a thing?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

minababe: Soderbergh is right on the money that this will be a "gamechanger." It will just teach a new generation to devalue his industry and the craft that goes into it and to see the work of their own work and their peers as being just as good as his.

Not even sure what point you are trying to make here.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

Lichtbild: Game changing? Maybe. How long is the movie? 8min?

This is likely a full, feature-length film. Doubt Soderbergh's production company wants to bankroll Claire Foy and only get 8 minutes out of her.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:30 UTC

Not much is new here right? Take an accomplished filmmaker, give him arguably the best actress of this generation, and his usual tech crew to handle lighting, sound, editing and camera movement and you will end up with a great product regardless of what it was shot on.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 19:29 UTC as 21st comment

Interesting. This camera isn't better at high ISO in stills than the EM1ii at all (a bit worse-solid half-stop behind. Set it to Comp)... but somehow it competes with the A7Sii in video high ISOs (6400 and 12800).

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 14:29 UTC as 44th comment
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (583 comments in total)
In reply to:

Life recorder: Just talked to some friends who make independent films.
They mentioned that the people they know who use the GH5 always shoot with speed boosters. The 0.64x adds a 1 1/3rd stop advantage.
So either way this camera is going to get better results than the Sony. If you want the same DoF the Panasonic wins with the 2 stop advantage in low light. If DoF is not a concern, use the speed booster and the 1.3 stop advantage also pushes the GH5s past the Sony (As well as the 10 bit output).

I can now see why that Sigma F1.8 zoom is so popular (though I think you need the .71x speed booster to work).

Yes you can only use the 1-stop speedbooster with the Sigma, and even then there will be some vignetting at the widest focal lengths. Its still a killer combo though. It does however turn your m43's camera into a pretty heavy machine, and can get taxing if you are hand-holding it for most of the day. I use it, but I find myself easily using the 12-40 even more because it is easier to hold on a small rig for a longer period of time and I can self-stabilize it better since its not so front heavy.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 15:09 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (583 comments in total)
In reply to:

Life recorder: Wow. think of this.

You need a super low light video camera to shoot at a good distance.
You could get an A7SII with the Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 zoom which is going to be awkward and expensive.
OR you could get the Panasonic 35-100mm F/2.8 which is small and portable. Oh it costs less than 1/2 the price too.
It appears that at many ISO, the Panasonic would be as good or better!

@panther fan
Except, this GH5S is as good or better than the A7SII up to ISO6400. Can't use an F4 lens equivalent case for that.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 22:29 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (583 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gimli son of Gloin: I can't feel to shake the feeling that Pana shot themselves in the foot with this release. Who is this for? Those who want 10-bit 4k will go for the GH5, those who want proper dynamic range and that "full frame look" to their videos will go with the A7sII and for the rest of us almost all other implementations of 4k with some LOG will be more than enough, heck I would be pressed to see the difference of 4k 10 bit in YouTube.

Panasonic essentially will cannibalise its own sales since no one shooting A7sII that did no change to a GH5 will actually change again. This is more of a "me too" attempt to copy Sony with their brilliant A7sII than to create anything new.

Also, forget this for photographic purposes. This is not 2001 anymore. The 1 inch sensor cameras are eating the lunch of the Micro Four Thirds system in photographic competence and it seems that Oly is standing still while Panasonic is playing catch up with other manufacturers both in terms of lens quality and features.

Which 1" camera is competing with modern m43's cameras? The Oly EM1ii's IQ performance is on par with most APS-C cameras and only falls behind 2 of them and not by much (0.5 stops).

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 22:27 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S Review (583 comments in total)

It is seriously impressive that this camera can shoot ISO6400 as clean or even slightly cleaner than the A7SII. Its not until ISO12800 and beyond that the A7SII jumps ahead. That is some serious tech to get that kind of performance out of such a small sensor.

If it just had that great Panny IBIS this camera would be an absolute no-brainer.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 22:22 UTC as 126th comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Abu Mahendra: Bigger and heavier than, say, a Canon 35/2 IS. Probably more expensive too.

@Abu
Absolutely will be sharper in the corners at f1.2:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/review/

This is a function of 2 things:
1) Its a better constructed lens than the Canon with almost double the number of lens elements and...
2) It is easier to manufacture a lens to be sharper in the corners on a smaller sensor

Combine those two, and you get the performance you see in the link I sent you.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 01:17 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: So is Olympus now the #1 Best lens maker in the world with this lens? Leica & Sigma fanboys in 1,2,3 ☺️

@Branko
Not true
Canon 50mm f1.8 (use the slider to go to F2.8):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-50mm-f1.8-stm/blur/canon-1dsmkiii/

Olympus 25mm f1.2:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/blur/panasonic-gx1/

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 01:12 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: So is Olympus now the #1 Best lens maker in the world with this lens? Leica & Sigma fanboys in 1,2,3 ☺️

Branko,

Find a $200 lens that performs like this wide open at f2.8 let alone F1.2:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/blur/panasonic-gx1/

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 22:10 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Abu Mahendra: Bigger and heavier than, say, a Canon 35/2 IS. Probably more expensive too.

@Abu

No, the Canon 35mm f2 lens is not very sharp wide open:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-35mm-f2-is-usm/blur/canon-1ds-mk3/

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 22:06 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris2210: I find it hard to be excited about this lens and NOT to be more than just a bit annoyed.

I'm sure it's a good lens. But let's just imagine this was going to be your principal lens for the system, on an EM1 II. In equivalence terms [yes equivalence DOES matter - it's why you need faster primes for MfT in the first place], it's a 35[ish]mm f2.4. If an f1.2 is always an f1.2, then a 17mm lens is always a 17mm lens - you can't have it both ways. It isn't just a DoF issue either, the equivalence is a sound principle because it also gives a guide to the total amount of light gathered. It's 2 stops in both instances.

Having got that out of the way you can buy 35mm format 35mm f2.0 [yes, not exactly the same - it's half a stop better in terms of equivalence. The Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM Lens, is substantially less than half the price and what's more it's a lighter, shorter lens.

@Chris2210
The Canon 35mm f2.0 is not a sharp lens wide open at all:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-35mm-f2/blur/full-frame/

Compare that to the Oly 25mm f1.2 (don't have the 17 yet, but since the designs of the 17, 25 and 45 are all so similar, they will likely all perform roughly the same):http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/olympus/25mm-f1.2-pro-m.zuiko-digital-ed/blur/panasonic-gx1/

Also, there are some great, F2.4 Full Frame lenses that are more expensive than this (Zeiss 85mm), and much more expensive than the Canon 35mm--but then again, they are better lenses than the Canon.

Also, the 2-stops rule is a general rule based on THE SAME technology. In reality, it can be more or less than 2-stops between m43's and Full Frame. With Canon as the example, it is much less than 2 stops, and if you use a 6Dii as an example, its more like 1-stop at best:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%206D%20Mark%20II,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: No sarcasm, I don't see why they are stopping there. Give each color channel and luminance an individual module and combine that info. Do away with the Bayer filter completely. Phone camera modules are cheap... probably even cheaper if they are monochrome with lower MPs (since combining them will equate to higher equivalent MPs). But I'm glad to see things moving in this direction.

Because parallax is a thing and it would be quite difficult to compensate for if your sensors cannot be either:
1) stacked on top of each other or,
2) shifted like Oly/Pentax's pixel shift

I wonder if it is possible to create a GRGB 4 sensor square, each with their own lens all slightly tilted to cover the same view as each other. Would likely make the phone quite a bit thicker if its even possible. Plus software would have to unskew the image, likely resulting in quite a bit of softness that might make this whole exercise not worth it at all.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 18:13 UTC
In reply to:

Bhima78: She needs to round out her collection with an Oly 2100UZ.

oh yeah... smartmedia is total garbage. I think my mom has my old Oly 2100UZ, I might have to dust it off and give it a whirl if I can find it.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 18:07 UTC
Total: 727, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »