วีดีโอ

Thanks so much

Thanks! So the Orions are engineered for a super 35 sensor, which is what the Komodo has. So if you’re using the anamorphic modes on the camera, you’ll get the 2.39 aspect ratio without any cropping or steps in post. You’re correct in so far as on some cameras, such as open gate on the Alexa SXT, you get almost a 3.1 aspect ratio if you don’t post crop.

So the video was shot on a Red Komodo with Zeiss Otus lenses, not on the GFX. So you’re seeing 6k with a global shutter shot in R3D. I’ve not explored the GFX video capabilities.

@@jonpearsdp Thanks for the information!

@@jonpearsdp It's a shame there are no images of the gfx50s' video capabilities. I suggest that in the future you use the same camera for when you make the video, so you show 2 features in one, since it can confuse other people like it happened to me. Just constructive criticism

Thanks Saimen, glad it was useful!

Hey Coby, thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. What you’re tapping into is exactly the right thing to focus on, but also the hardest which is why TH-cam is flooded with gear reviews and ‘how to’ lighting content, but few to none are offering up insight into the creative process outside of the gear. With regard to lenses, your comment about being immersed in the world of old films, part of that is down to some of the technical choices the filmmakers are making, and there are certain looks that do require a 30k lens rather than a 3k lens - which yes the audience don’t much notice from a quality point of view, but may do from any potential disconnect from the world that the filmmakers have created etc. But the main point is that the things that really made a difference on an audience are subjective, and come from places in filmmakers that are hard to rationalize. One of the points in the video regarding not shooting anamorphic to still achieve a 2:40 aspect ratio is a technical reality to what we’re talking about here, that for the vast majority of the time, the audience want a world to be in, not a technical process to be experienced.

Hi Cory, you made some excellent points. I did a past life regression and turns out I was Gloria Swanson in my past life. You should watch my films! Haha! I just wanted to comment on the point about audience members that you made. I agree that audience members don't have the words or the ability to recognize glass and aspect ratio and all that, but coming from my experience as a semiotician, I do believe that audiences have a sense of all these things and what they mean, on a preconscious level. I think it's our job to do what Jon was saying: to use the write tool based on the job. You're right that it starts with the story. Everything else that comes after that is to help tell that story to a *particular* audience. So the glass is vital, the aspect ratio is also important too. The "look" of the camera you're using is a huge factor too, the mount, movement -- everything. The audience won't "notice" it, but they will feel it, because of the meaning of those choices that has imprinted onto their subconscious from consuming content where those choices have been canonized. For example, when the camera cranes all the way up past the horizon, audiences know that a film is about to end. When audiences see a Dutch tilt, they know something "crazy" is about to happen. When they see 4:3 from a film made in 2020+, they know it's gonna be an experimental/art film. When they see blue lens flares, they know it's gonna be JJ Abrams 🤣. I think a great example that sums up everything I'm trying to say is the music video by Jewel "Intuition". I think that video plays with the idea of camera shake; and smooth movement; and static shots within the right contexts. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk

@@ScribblebytesWorldwide Thank you for referring me to that music video. I just watched it on mute. I realize that the intentional video look is exaggerated and that not even entry level filmmakers have footage that looks that . Footage that looks like that almost screams “this is not going to be a good movie.” I like the point that Jewel and or the director are making with the video that there is something to be said for packaging and presentation when it comes to video content. There has to be balance and putting too much of the budget into actors, locations, or lighting etc. while neglecting other aspects would be an unbalanced. It makes sense for a million dollar film to have the best gear, and a $1,000 film to use different gear. I really appreciate you referring me to the music video as it serves as a cautionary tale and reminder to me that production value can have a significant impact upon audience perception of the quality of the story that they’re about to see, at least until they become interested in the characters and story being presented. Thank you 😊 👍

@@jonpearsdp "the audience want a world to be in, not a technical process to be experienced." Perfectly said.

There aren't any credits for anyone :)

Hey Andy, thanks so much, glad you liked it. I would say that regardless of the lens, my thoughts would be the same, it's all what you do with it that makes the only meaningful difference. The gear itself is just metal and glass etc

Thanks so much for the kind words, I’m very familiar with your work too and I’m a fan, so thanks for doing what you do!

Thankyou!

Thanks Anthony

Thanks, glad it makes sense :)

Thanks!

Thanks so much!

Source 4 Leko with someone on it changing focus.

Thanks Matt, good luck on the shoot!

@@jonpearsdp thank you!

The kit lens is great, it’s still designed to resolve the high resolution images the camera shoots. I wasn’t using any film look for the Mercedes’ image, just white balance adjustment in camera.

Thanks!

Seems like you read my mind. Hoping for an answer as I am very curious about it

I'm not who you're asking, and maybe you've already decided, but I've been on the the MF digital journey and pulled the trigger on the 50sII for budget reasons more than anything. the 100s is hands down better at AF. There's no question about it. Can you do faster stuff with the 50s, yup, but be ready for 1 photo to be useable out of the 3 you get per second if you're lucky. Really lucky. It's just not good like that. The 100 has a different AF system and it's widely regarded as significantly better. If you're ok with a more slow and more deliberate shooting style, the 50sII a perfectly capable camera that will do just fine, by all accounts.

So i've used both the 100s and the 50sii, and for me the performance of the cameras in the real world are very very close. Even the 100 vs 50 megapixel out is, again to me, not all that significant. If you're printing and shooting for billboards, for sure the 100 will have its benefits, and the depth of information in the image is so much so that you can dig into it a little more - but for most purposes, viewing images on computers and phones, the 50s is already too much in places. They're much more usable pixels than a 50mp full frame camera, as the pixels are bigger, therefor taking on more significance within the image. The 100s is back to that smaller pixel approach across the same sensor, so just depends on how you 'use pixels' in that regard. I had a X1d mk2, but jumped to the 50sii and haven't looked back. No issues with autofocus, especially when you turn 'all' of them on.

Thankyou!

Thanks so much!

Much appreciated

Filmed with a Zeiss Otus, the GFX had the kit lens on it

Wicked, love it man. I watched your video and bought a 50s II with a 32-63 F4 the next day, this wasn’t an extemporaneous purchase, it was planned but your video helped my choice. Coming from years of using a 5D MK IV and a few thousand actuations behind a R5 (which has a lot to love in the animals & sports category) I’m totally speechless with the 50s II, the color and range of the GFX is just so beyond Canon. Thanks

The Mercedes shot and why it stands out to me has less to do with its composition, and much more to do with the format and the way the camera processes light. It would be incorrect to say that the same Image could be exactly replicated with a different imaging format, from the engineering fact that it is a different format. Digital medium format would not look the same as 4x5, and full frame is different from medium format etc