I think 24-26 was popular with great cinematographers long before smart phones. Also, I hate the look of small sensor smart phones. So I can say, personally, that is not the reason I like 24mm. Haha.
This subject always fascinates me. My favorite focal length, on super 35 or apsc, is 24mm. It just feels right for most everything. I say this as a master of cinematography...hahaha NOT! But seriously, I like 24.
on one hand I get annoyed at people for 1)making vertical videos and 2) watching them and not noticing how annoying it is.
but, on the other hand, these producers are not letting that get in the way of meeting people where they are and using a (what i see, snobbishly, as faulty) trend to their advantage.
kind of like how ad agencies use "home-made" looking video footage for online videos. people are more likely to watch it because of the cultural association with "home-made" videos as relatable, immediate, and "the footage is terrible so the content MUST be amazing" principle.
yeah...yikes. whoever wrote this seems to have no idea what they are talking about. I like no film school, i've enjoyed the articles, but this is a little disconcerting. to not know that the GH4 had internal 4k (which was a major competitive selling point to sony) is a problem.
I've always had to set my GH4 to a luminance range of 16-135 in order for the video assist to display the live image correctly.
This update says "increased HDMI luminance range", however, the GH4 still has to be set to the diminished luminance range, as before. Does anyone else experience this?
(in layman's terms, the video assist crushes the blacks and blows out the whites, when the GH4 screen still shows lots of details, but once you set GH4 luminance range to 16-235, instead of 0-255, the displays match nicely.)