Leaderboard

Hey gang, over the last month I upgraded my camera gear to 4K with a used NX1 and NX500 (replacing my old trusty GH2 and a6000). Since I regularly make videos for the Carry Trainer YouTube channel, I thought I'd start a thread here to share my experiences with these two camera's. First, I tried both versions of the Samsung firmware. The Kino-Seed hack worked on my NX500, but not my NX1. Anyway, I settled on Vasile's nx-on-wake mod... it is worth the little extra work to install. For the picture profile settings, I am generally following the recommendations from Andrew Reid's guide. For the NX1: Gamma DR, .95 Green 0-255 Luminance Level. On the NX500 I don't see any video controls... the picture profile is set to standard. As Reid suggested, I set resolution to 3840x2160 with a 24p frame rate. Getting started testing my gear, I found my Fotodiox adapter wasn't triggering the sensor on the Samsung camera mount. Since I only use vintage manual lenses, I decided to just super glue the mount sensor down and avoid any future hassle (see attached photo). The glossy spot with the glue on the bottom of the mount is covered by the adapter, in case you were wondering about my sloppy work. I did my first shoot with these cameras last week, Dec. 19, 2016... filming a few new Carry Trainer episodes. I work as a one-man band on multi-camera shoots, usually running two or three cameras. The classic Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K remains my A Camera. The NX1 is now my B Camera... and the NX500 is the C camera. Anyway, on set I quickly discovered my NX1 couldn't handle the 210 MB bit rate. I dialed the NX1 back to 180... then it worked flawlessly for two hours. Battery life was good. Surprisingly the NX1 was only down to 50% battery at the end with 100GB of 4K video on the SD card. Meanwhile, the 64GB SD card on my NX500 filled up really fast. I was only able to use that for about half of the filming session. I'll wrap up this first post with my transcoding experience. I do my editing with the free version of DaVinci Resolve, so transcoding the H.265 is a must. I used After Effects to line-up all the clips and rendered them to HQ DNxHR (I use windows). 98 GB of video off my NX1 SD Card grew into 433 GB worth of DNxHR footage. As a point of comparison, I came away from that same filming session with 370 GB of RAW footage on my BMCC. So serious 4K video eats up a lot of hard-drive space. In my next post I'll talk about how the NX1 footage looked in the grading process...

Biggest thing I could hope for from Panny on the GH5 is if they move to the newer H.265 format. That would really free up space for a looser, better Codec.

I am glad that's been cleared up. Thought for a moment we might be heading for a ten page debate similar to the senor crop factor / light gathering fiasco from last year. This is the most excited I have been about a camera that I have no intention of buying since first taking an interest in video three years ago. The GH5 was on my immediate radar before settling for the a7sii and I might well have bought it had it arrived a year earlier, or a large sum of money I was owed had arrived a year late. I like Panasonic and hope that the GH5 is a huge success for the company and for those who buy it. Certainly, 4k 60p will become the standard for prosumer cameras from now on and I expect that the a7riii and a7siii will both need it in order for Sony to remain on the same pitch.

Alright, would any experienced color graders share their wisdom as to how i could grade these shot better? some tips please...still learning...

The Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 is a great lens. Of course the 42.5mm f/1.2 is one of the best MFT but it comes with a large price tag!

ISO performance will be the most eagerly awaited aspect of this camera (for enthusiasts who love gear but don't do lighting, of which there are millions).

There are some examples of the hacked NX at the NX sub-forum. Even Samsung's early (and rather "weak") H265 implementation, is great for live performances and other byte consuming jobs. There is always the option of 160/180 even more, Mbps which grades better and holds more information. The codec is not that great though, because Samsung probably used a very basic one (do not forget that was back in 2014). In anyway, H265 will be the future for the next multiple K generations (I think it supports up to 8K?) and that's it was created by the same H264 consortium.

Wait hold on folks, I apologize I am totally wrong on the bit size increase! I just cleared up my brain fog! Of course, while the information quadrupled the required space is only 10/8 more, a factor of 1.25!

My first Shooting forum post! It's all Samsung NX1 (except for a couple of drone shots) with the Kinoseed bitrate hack (180mbs), using Andrew's Gamma DR profile. Lenses: Samsung 16-50 S, Rokinon 12mm and 85mm, plus some lensbaby. I used a couple LUTS by luts.iwltbap.com and FilmConvert in post. Filmed in 4K converted to ProRes for editing in Premiere. Yes, I know Premiere supports H.265, but I've had nothing but problems with H.265 files since the last update. Exported to 1080. What's it about? What do you call a ghost town that still has people living there? This documentary is a peek into the world of some folks that live in what others call a "ghost town." Haunted kewpie doll, boot fence, dream cowboys, custom caskets, and stories of healing are all there in the Dreamworld.

I think the idea is that it adds some much needed blush to Gh4 skintones. I have noticed this, GH4 can do clean extremely well- but it sometimes is so clinical. It is a great beauty cam, although beauty folk prefer Canon, but they should use the GH4 - look at Curtis Judd, the cleanest looking reviewer out there and he is using GH4. But Canon skintones straight-outtta-cam-ton are a quick fix for amateurs, and Andrew spotted this and offered a quick-fix solution for us pro-summers. enjoy it, but don't over analyse it - the cam is still the cam.

I I had the XC10 and recently sold it... great camera with great features and awesome color. The C-Log is really nice with the 4:22. My major issue with it was the tremendous price drop they were taking on the used market. I understand taking a hit and that cameras depreciate but for it to lose 35-40% of its value in a couple months is a little too much for me, especially since I am mostly a hobbyist. I also never owned such an expensive camera, so I sometimes didn't want to take it certain places out of fear it would get damaged or stolen. With that being said, if I had them side by side and could only keep one... I would probably keep the FZ2500 for the reasons stated above. But YMMV. No Auto ISO or exposure compensation if manual mode. I did another short test today with Shutter Priority and AF and also some shots with all manual. With Shutter Priority, I had the ND Filter set to Auto but it showed no nd on the screen... I have to read the manual about that. But again the Touch AF worked pretty damn good in normal light... it was actually spot on. The files seem to handle some decent amount of color work... if only I were better at color work... I will be heading out again on Friday, if there is anything specific you would like to see, let me know, and I should be able to test a few things... I will be testing the 4K which I haven't really messed with yet.

I'd love to see 10bit V-Log in 4K 24FPS, 1080P 24FPS, but also, want to specifically see if 10bit is available in 1080P at 60FPS (or higher) and what bit-rate that 10bit is. 10bit at a low bit-rate is virtually useless (depending on the codec).

Following another viewing session of footage from both the D16 and Scarlet X this past week or so, I'm now definitely leaning more towards the latter. I've actually not been overly impressed with what I've seen from the Scarlet X, or more so for a system in such a price-range, though this probably hasn't been helped by mistaking it for Scarlet W footage at first, which is in another league entirely. It's difficult not to fall in love with the D16 image, the more footage you view, and the longer you ponder on it. That CCD sensor .. Yes, it's not 4K, and yes, it's not a low-light camera either, but a fair argument can be made with the latter that such an inconvenience forces you into more considerate lighting, which can only benefit you down the road. It's also worth noting how easy the transition from the pocket camera to a D16 MTF will be, kit wise. Can you record ProRes externally via an Atomos Ninja with the D16? I'm by no means set on a decision, and won't be until purchase time, which is a fair few months away yet, but it's interesting just how far I've swayed from my original image appetite, which I guess speaks volumes for the D16.

That looks great and much more alive with people! Well done.

With bad lighting even a million dollar camera will not look good. A good looking video needs good lighting, always! It used to be different but lighting is now easy, cheap, safe and of good quality. And entry level LED panel starts under $100.

Sony a6500 I changed a few settings to the profile but this was pretty much eoshd pp with eoshd wd1 Lut.

Again, here's my set up that I edit hour long 4K time lines with. Yes I do have my bus set to 1/4 and if working with lots of effects maybe even 1/8 resolution (e.g. not even proxy!). I have zero crashes or hick ups. Don't understand how the graphics cards 4 years later could be worse than the (perfectly fine) ones I'm working with at the moment...

No.

AF-C in 4k 30p and 60p please..:-)

Footage is good enough already! When? DR and ISO performance are probably most interesting to me right now as lots of other details have already been announced or (potentially) leaked. The other thing that I am wondering about is the codec.

Many of us prefer that form factor and modularity -- in fact being a documentary filmmaker, I don't need any rigs at all, just use it on monopod or gimbal most of the time. Being inconspicuous often is the only chance to get your shots and it's always a convenience; plus size matters a lot for a single/small crew production, especially when shooting abroad. Sure, there's no built in NDs, decent audio preamps and useable AF that would improve its run and gun capabilities, but that's not really related to form factor (although it is to the size). Handling wise, it's as convenient as it gets. My previous camera was EX1 and I've never looked back since getting GH4 in 2014. There are plenty of camcorder-type video cameras, why do you want every one of them be like that?

I have been testing the LUT and are some what disappointed in the huge red shift int he highlights on all my test shots. I have been using the LUT One by Paul Leeming up until now. It preserves skin tones beautifully while Andrews LUT add too much red that has to be dealt with as an extra step. I have the settings configured per the instructions that came with the download. The only thinng I am not doing is using Auto WB. I do nt see why that would matter. I use a custom WB on every shot and have done so for 30 years. I also have a color reference in most of my shots, as was the case in these tests. The first image is un adjusted. The WB is correct as evident in the 90%, 40% and 10% traces of the grey scale swatches in the RGB parade. The second image is right after I apply the EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic LUT. Notice the 10 IRE increase in red in the highlights. Does anyone notice this extreme red shift?

This pack is concluded, but im already making a few more to be released in the future, but they will have a different overall look, less faded and more contrasty. I will also be making some creative ones that will shift colors and so on, but thats a work in progress.

I still edit all my work on my mid2012 retina MBP. e.g. first generation and I have zero problems. So reading through here I'm kinda laughing at what you people are considering problems. I can tell I'm gonna love working on my new late 2016 MBP!

Yeah I really doubt the GH5 will have 10bit 60fps 4k either, will probably be 8bit for that. Might be able to external though?? It sounds like it is going to be hard to beat for the money, but I am just not into non camcorder bodies much these days. For stealth they are great, but to use them like they need to be they look like some Frankenstein contraption. The Canon C100, C300 is probably as good as it gets on the way video cameras ought to be designed for run and gun and semi pro stuff. Probably be my next purchase with a small external recorder doing 10bit ProRes for my main camera. My Panny G7 is good enough for having in the glove box sort of stuff for spur of the moment or casual things. For as few of bodies Panasonic sells with the GH4 compared to the others they sell, I have no clue why they are sticking again to the same body shape. Just admit it is a Video camera and make it look like a Video camera! Hardly anyone buys a GH4 to take photos 90% of the time and videos 10% of the time. For 500 bucks more everyone would still buy one if it was way better shape and operation wise to use.

a7S is not a very good photo camera, for quite some reasons. I would never thought of using one for photos. The obvious solution is to wait for the GH5, it must be pretty obvious really, and maybe the best value for money being the new G85/80 (GX85/80 is even a better of a deal, but for video and ergonomics, I would prefere the G). Have you seen the threads here about the X-T2? Great camera, I would say 60% photos - 40% video (completely unscientific numbers of course!) and the lens options are the best in APS-C sensors. Another such camera (more photo than video) would be the new Olympus as well. With the same money of X-T2 (+ battery grip, you would need that for video) you can buy a slightly used NX1+16-50 S 2-2.8F ( I saw one earlier on ebay with an excellent and almost 500$ flash, grip+3 batteries, the aforementioned S, + the excellent portrait 85mm 1.4f for 2400$ or something, there are similar deals almost every week). There is a whole sub-forum here about that camera and the advanced mod/hack bitrate (up to 180Mbps H265, even more for some, but 160-180 seems very stable), but of course it is a discontinued camera which complicate things, but still is a very capable hybrid with 28megapixels BSI APS-C sensor and 4K video (it can be an advantage, even for 1080p projects) and really great ergonomics and touch screen everything.

Thanks! Fall is great in the woods. Just wondering, do you plan on adding any more to the vellichor lut collection in the future?

Went with a couple of friends to an amusement park and took the G7 did some shots and tried out Andrew's LUT and it works beautifully, it really makes the little camera something else! PS- Sorry about the flickering

wow! I like this a lot, you got some really nice colors over there!

LOVING the images I'm getting with this Lut! Gives you a great looking image with one step, and if you want to grade further the images just sings!! I feel that it works great with my grading style! I like to lift the shadows first and extra detail by inverting the image with an adjustment layer, then adding the Pro Color, then grading to taste! Such a great time saver! I'm happy to have this in my arsenal now.

Just grabbed the LUT pack. I really like how they are customized for your NX1 settings, @ricardo_sousa11 . Really liking the stylized looks. I put Lisbon and Denver on a couple random test shots I had from the fall season when I also happened to be trying out your NX1 settings. Thanks!

Sorry but I can't agree with this - if you mean 'save' in the sense of preserving their current/historic size and market penetration. The fact is that there is certainly no technology available today that would let the vast majority of, say compact P&S camera users, produce watchable video. To produce anything of that nature still - and will for some time - needs practise and acquired skill. That majority of consumers neither want nor need to take the time and make the effort to build those skills. Given the steady improvement in smartphone cameras, which very much allows consumer-level users to produce stills that look fine without skill or knowledge, I can't actually see anything that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in their current forms. FWIW my prediction is that within a couple of decades we'll either have less than half the current number of manufacturers, or a similar number, but less than half their current sizes/values. Without the cash engine of a large consumer camera market we'll also see a relative rise in prices of the kind of cameras we want as fewer sales have to support the same level of R&D and tooling.

I think we are a generation or two away from Canon having perfected autofocus for video where we will see a shift where most people will start relying on the quality of autofocus for video. And they will start releasing STM L lenses with better performing glass. So whether you buy Canon or Sony, buy the lens that will get the job done now. And whatever the case, you will be upgrading the lenses regardless when they come out, especially for video.

Not nothing in general however advertising and marketing material can not be trusted, thus the need for independent reviews.

Video is the one and only thing that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in the long run. It is just about to explode and you had better be able to do it pretty damn well. Hear that NIKON! There is about to be a war going on, and that is the mirroless, dslr makers pushing the hell out of the Pro video makers to to reach a price people with pay. Canon, Sony Red, Arri are not going to sell 30 grand cameras that have a bit better codec wise that a 4 grand mirrorless camera can do 90% as good. The hell with form factor, I want a Great output for a cheap price! There is only so much money to be made, and only the smarter company's will take the cake. Hell a iPhone is no slouch now, what the hell will it be 3 generations from now!

I had a few minutes this evening to run a handheld test of the FZ2500 in Shutter Priority mode, with +1 stop exposure compensation, auto ND filter, with Single Point Touch AF. This was shot in true 24p with the All-I 200mbps 1080p...

Maybe I am wrong in absolute data increase cause I don't really know what exactly goes into describing each pixel but certainly 10 bit value doesn't take four times as much storage as 8 bit value. Computer memory is measured in bytes, each consisting of 8 bits. You can read the whole value as well as specific bits, so to store a 10 bit value, you'd use a byte plus 2 bits of another byte, still having 6 bits of that byte available for the next value (of course, you have to keep track of where your bits are as there is no address in the computer memory for separate bits, only bytes). At most, if you just leave a full byte for the extra 2 bits, it will still take only the double of amount.

Sure, will do!

No young filmmaker is going to spend 4,600 dollars on a 35mm T1.5 Canon Cinema lens, as I noted above. At least they had the decency to leave a shot in the video showing the lens and the whole rig used in the video, which when summed costs far, FAR, more than the 80D with a kit lens. If Canon places clear and readable texts of the lenses used on the videos used to promote other cameras, why did they not do it here? Seems a bit too deceptive, no?

Well if it is like the EM1 mkII low light and DR will not be much better. And that is where it fell on it's ass before. Those are really 2 things I want the most to BE better. I like the idea of the 6k photo, and better AF and IBIS nice also. But Low light and DR is what makes a Video camera work for you including a better Codec, which it looks like we may get an improved Codec. That is good.

Sharing a small clip that I shot in Aug. on a trip to the US with a fellow NX1 user, that is also a user here on the forum, Mr. Adam Bradley :D

I recommend a PC desktop for video editing.

You're not wrong about Oly. And I shoot Fuji as well, so all these things are part of the mixed bag. The thing is, when we're talking price, when we're looking at cameras within similar classes, the difference is typically a few hundred bucks. At a certain point, determining my camera purchase can turn into a "penny wise and pound foolish," decision. A few hundred, or even a grand, is a small price to pay to own and use a camera that I'm comfortable with and does the things I need it to do. You know how it is. You balance liabilities of the gear with the needs of your work and one's own biases. For instance, I just did 6 30-min documentaries in 6 months. I did it with the GX85 and EM5II. I'm not lying when I say that I'm glad I did the job on these consumer cameras rather than something like an Arri. One would look INCREDIBLY better than the other, and I would love to use that camera for many many many things, but I wouldn't have been able to do half the work load (nor the radically informal work that yielded a lot of good results) without the flexibility of these goofy, small, hybrid, IBIS, 8-bit, cams. I know it's hard to fathom among a forum like this, but having the best IQ is not always a priority. My favorite industry idioms comes from the National Geographic guys. It's simply, "f8 and be there." And I think you can understand the sentiment of that saying. That's why I can't get caught up to much in the IQ debate. My factors for my particular work rely on a lot more than just IQ. You'll have other needs. Someone else will have other requirements as well. For instance, I'm doing a cinematic doc/narrative in 2017, and I plan on using a Sony F5 and 100% static shots, so it's always always an "it depends" sort of answer with tools one decides to use for a project.

It just goes to show that some pros will say anything. Literally just bullshit misleading drivel to get a pay cheque. It's as if reality TV is the new advertising blueprint for Canon. To think this video now has over half a million views and a sales spike in 80D's because of it... All because some dick is prepared to bare face lie through a sponsored video so he can enrich himself. And it totally undermines what we're trying to do, passing knowledge between us on the forum, testing cameras, putting time and money into reviews without any support from Canon at all. They can all go and fuck themselves. The video is so cynical. I hope Canon's dumb pro customers who don't know better do what Scott DickWanker says he does.... selling all the pro Canon gear for an 80D! That would be funny. If Canon want to encourage this, they could have at least fixed the moire and aliasing on it!

Thanks! Kinoseed bitrate hack (180mbs), using Andrew's Gamma DR profile. Lenses: Samsung 16-50 S, Rokinon 12mm and 85mm, plus some lensbaby. I used a couple LUTS (8690 and 8181) by luts.iwltbap.com and FilmConvert in post. Filmed in 4K converted to ProRes for editing in Premiere. Yes, I know Premiere supports H.265, but I've had nothing but problems with H.265 files since the last update. Exported to 1080.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space. That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country. Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it. I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

Hey Scott. This sums up quite well what I loved about DPReview's editorial and why I was so proud to be contributor for those years. I looked upon DPR as something of a leading light, the most respected review site for digital cameras, one of the first, and that's why I hold it to a higher standard than others. I care passionately enough about it to get upset and to shout about it when it goes wrong and I think it's in danger. DPR did go in-depth, especially on the technical side and still does. If the new advertising in the form of sponsored content also did this to the same standard, then the quality would remain and not hurt the brand as much but even then there's a problem, because it would only work as long as it was impartial, which advertising never is and never can be. Flick through an old fashion magazine from the 1970's and it is almost ALL advertising yet readers still bought it in droves.... you'll see a lot of high quality advertising, fantastic photos (David Bailey, Helmut Newton) and minimal words, minimal editorial pieces! I am not against advertising culture entirely or with zero tolerance of ads and I'm not a communist although I do live in Berlin The problem I have is that more and more the manufacturers seem to be the boss, the paymaster and the editors, if not directly then certainly in subliminally controlling ways like with the PR organised events and it is wrong that this appears to be our only choice as reviewers if we want to get our hands on new gear at the earliest opportunity. We join the hype train by doing this and we trade our credibility, or at least it looks that way for the readers. I am open for a civilised debate on what we can do in the industry to recover some integrity in what we do. There needs to be some collective action. So the PR companies and manufacturers are after our jobs Scott. And we are going to just let them take over on the content side? But their purpose, if sponsored, is to sell a camera. For me that is not the purpose of what we do. I hate this insidious influence. If we for example are to put out educational content for instance and it is paid for by Canon, then whichever manufacturer sponsors us the most or pays the most, the more content on that particular brand there will be, and there's yet another form of bias. Even if the content itself had zero bias, the money still control the agenda. It's our job to create excellent content that's worth watching, not Intel's. By taking their money, you are trading your position as a content creator with them and one day you will be without a job. Of course! I understand that and always have. That's because it's being traded in bit by bit. Your voice replaced by somebody else's. If it's only a 3% increase in ad revenue and you're owned by Amazon, why do it at all? Why take such a big risk with the brand for the sake of bowing to the manufacturers and 0.001% of their overall ad spend budget? Tell them to fuck off! Thanks for the message on here Scott, I do appreciate it. If I can ever mend my relationship with DPReview I would. I have friends there and the only bad words exchanged were with Barney and Simon Joinson. In the end the buck stops with them. If they are going to take the site in this direction, they know my opinion on how wrong this is and why it won't turn out the way they hoped. They have a responsibility as the senior figures to change tac. Their responsibility to the readers should come before their financial obligations to advertisers anyway, because without any readers there won't be any advertisers!

Hey all, I work at DPReview, so figured I chime in and perhaps dispel a few myths. sponsored content and the end of the world as we know it... Yes, we do sponsored content. Most for-profit publishers do now, as banner ads do not work, and marketers are realizing this and switching gears. But it is not some clandestine operation, a complex web of ethical quagmires. DPReview hires scientists, PHDs, literally, to design our camera tests. We then perform those tests and write about real world usability to create a review, which is a combination of facts and opinions. Whether our camera testers get everything right (with their real world usage opinions) is up for debate, but we strive to ensure our reviews align with the science in such a way that questions about editorial integrity (very common well before we started sponsored content) do not hold weight. Go back to any review we've done and look at the data. You will bore yourself to death looking at test charts before you discover any bias towards a brand. Taking a step back, I can speak personally to how the advertising campaigns (including sponsored content) come to fruition because I manage them (I am the product manager). The reality is that camera manufacturers, if they are smart, realize they cannot put lipstick on a pig, no matter how hard they try. So they are resorting to finding ways to actually engage people. It's the early days, so a lot of the sponsored content is still shit. But the vision is that publishers influence brands to actually make content worth looking at, with the goal that the quality of their product, the soul of their brand (if there is one), actually resonates in an honest way. But it will always be, in some way, advertising. Maybe one day they will turn the corner and actually make content people want to watch/read on the regular, but only time will tell. So when we decided to go down this road, we asked a few basic Qs. What could we make that would be worthwhile? How could we do it in a way that we were able to make videos we wanted to make, but could not afford to do so. And one of the first roads we went down was having pro photographers use cameras in the real world, and make little short films showcasing their experiences. On the whole, I think those videos have worked out well, we have been able to showcase photographer workflows, tell stories about real people and places, have cameras used in real world shooting situations, and on the whole, do all of this with almost zero manufacturer interaction. There is a ton of room for improvement, and I talk with visitors all the time about what else we could try. But alas, the topic at hand, we also decided to do "Native Advertising", where we have no role in creation of the content, and simply provide real estate for a brand to promote content they have created. As I mentioned above, the vision is that this type of content will get better over time, but the camera industry is a few years behind the broader CE industry. I remember a good 4-5 years ago Intel sponsored a series of short films telling the story of a handful of creatives that were excellent, beautifully shot, and overall just worthwhile to watch. There is no reason the Camera industry cannot get there, but as I said above, time will tell. DPReview staff are photographers, no really, I swear. We are not winning any World Press Photo awards by any means, that's for sure, but we are enthusiasts just like our visitors for the most part. It's an important point because I think when the topic of editorial integrity, advertising, relationships with the brands, and all of these themes come up, it gets lost. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I like to think that generally people are "good", and difficult to corrupt, and that set of assumption definitely applies to my coworkers at DPReview. Our guys are using cameras every day, shooting photos, and spending a ridiculous # of hours every year thinking about cameras. The last thing they would ever want is to feel like everything they were doing was compromised, without purpose. It would be soul crushing, demotivating, and completely unsustainable. So yeah, I understand the need to be skeptical, critical, and diligent in pushing for transparency in journalism, and we are no different. But aside from the more potent reasons I just mentioned, there are also the legal realities of sponsored content; we are legally required to disclose when a brand is involved with something that goes on our site, and we follow it to a T because, quite frankly, the world of hurt we'd face if we didn't would be far worse than a 3% increase in advertising revenue. DPReview hates EOSHD, and had a bitter falling out with Andrew Reid. Simply put, this is just not the case. We obviously respected EOSHD and Andrew as we tapped him to be involved in our efforts to begin talking more seriously about video capture. The reality of our publishing process is that it involves several layers of editing, and Andrew is not the first writer we've worked with that experienced this process as frustrating, and wont be the last. Hell, I even tried to write a few articles when I first joined DPR and definitely pulled out a few hairs when my words and voice were changed to be in line with DPR's style. But editing is a necessary step in the publishing process, and in the end, even if DPR and Andrew didn't align on how to do this, none of us here view the situation as anything other than a freelancer not working out, it happens ALL THE TIME. There doesn't need to be a villain. Blogging is a much less rigid workflow and half of the writers we work with are much happier in that context. It makes sense. No hard feelings are needed.

The thicker ones could be achromats, the thinner could be simple one glass diopters ?