Leaderboard

Wait a minute... Ebrahim is that you?

I agree! And I wish there were more women on this forum. Why aren't there?!

They have a relentless posting rate now on the front page news feed... 20 articles PER DAY and sometimes more?! That's crowding out the last few good remaining writers and reviewers there like Richard Butler... crowding them out of their own damn site. They have hired click-bait writers from FStoppers like DL Cade. Indeed the In The News column that runs all the way down the right of the site is populated by articles from other sites like FStoppers and Petapixel. Is there anybody I respect left in the photographic blog community? I don't know! They have almost all gone down the drain. It's so sad. I want competition, I want to like and respect the work of others. The internet is going to implode under the weight of it's own shittyness at this rate, with this much quantity of clicks over quality, it isn't sustainable.

Ebraher!

Your translation is maybe wrong. More like; white men that blames others that they are losers, and voted on the latest president because they belied he will save them.

You sound a bit like what we is Sweden call a "vit kränkt man"

I was on a construction site shoot this weekend where a perfect shot materialized suddenly after we had just packed up the camera for the day. I pulled out my iPhone 6s and recorded it in 4k 100mpbs with Filmic Pro. Add a little simulated motion blur in after effects and you are golden. I've cut in filmic pro iphone footage to videos before and no one has ever noticed. Great iPhone gimbals are $130 now. These kinds of situations are where I see a phone being useful for filmmaking.

It is just ignorant to pretend that there are only "camera hardware" issues in this world. This forum is closer to an "eclectic" community than a "mass general discussion's forum", people are free to pass on such a topic though, but in general from time to time it is good to discuss a different subject matter. It makes this forum's experience more complete in my opinion.

On most forums and mainstream sites, you aren't even allowed to discuss issues of sex, race and politics so you're lucky I'm chilled out about it. If things get divisive and out of hand, only then will I stop it.

People are probably sick of me recommending this, but definitely check out Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX 2. It takes the edge off without blooming highllights like the Pro Mist filters.

For the stuff I do, there isn't a ton of return on an investment that high. A bride and groom don't give a crap about the resolution or whatever. YouTube content doesn't need to be perfect either. It's a luxury camera for sure for what I do. I think a C100 mk3 would suit my price range and needs better. Or a 90D with 4k .MP4 or something. With the release of the XF400 I'm hopeful that the same chip in that will carry on to C100 mk3 and potentially a 90D or something. Gonna hold out. In the mean time... I'll continue to rent the C200

For my taste the image out of the EVA1 is fantastic....to bad about the mount, but image wise it's what I'd be looking for!

Hey, I've been lurking for a while now, and now it's time to post something. I have a GX80 for a few months now. Last week I found the following video about a DIY windbreaker for the built in MIC. Now I thought that I could design something similar that could be 3D printed. So I did tonight. I still need to find some fabric to test it, but if it works I'll share the files.

I fucking hate YouTube and am done working with clients wanting to use it. That's my New Years resolution. Don't get me wrong. I love it as a monetary platform. I almost-maybe-kinda make a living off a few channels I run. But as someone trying to deliver a great product it makes me want to cry. Feed it whatever the fuck you want: DNxHDProResHigh bit rate h.264Crazy compressed formatsAbide a 100% to the recommended spec It does NOT matter! The YouTube encoder will take your work and compress it to shit. Case in point, the last shot I delivered looks awesome on desktop and laptops. It was encoded right out of the gate to VP9. Video has netted twenty-ish thousand views. A few night ago I get an e-mail from the client complaining about how the video looks. Sure enough, YouTube is delivering h.264 for iOS and Android. The 1080P looks like complete crap. Macroblocking, banding and tearing EVERYWHERE. Knock it down to 720P and it's perfect.

I like Goto's modded Df but if all his criticisms of his own camera are valid then why the hell wasn't he voicing them during development, saying 'the metallic feeling needs to be better' and so on. Nikon seem to do everything by committee. A Steve Jobs-type manager would have taken more control. That's what they need on the product side. The comments about pros not using Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm are laughable as well all well know! I am sure Mr Goto knows as well, not sure why he feels it's ok to lie about it! "I have considered many options. Mirrorless cameras can be made thinner body but without the mirror shutter sound and vibration are gone, although they can be simulated electronically. How to integrate these technologies and ideas is one thing, how to execute and to build products is another." Well get on with it then... or should I say, Goto it. Vibration simulated electronically? No thanks What are they waiting for? We need that Nikon mirrorless range. I think they should build a real competitor to their DSLRs with their prosumer mirrorless camera and not try and do a Df with some Leica-mimicing piece of fashion fluff.

Here's what needs to happen - Google and Facebook should take on more editorial responsibility, have actual humans boost quality content up the ranking, rather than leaving it all to machines. They don't even curate the front page of YouTube, it's all numbers, maths. Facebook should allow content creators to reach 100% of their followers for free with each post. Those followers are not for sale. I don't want to have to pay Mark Zuckerberg a cent to speak to you guys. Next up, the aggregator sites (Nofilmschool, 43rumors) should be demoted down the Google search rankings every time they post non-original content and the content they post should go UP in the search ranking. Eventually you will get the original creator on the first page of Google and SonyAlphaRumors on page 26. Finally, for privacy reasons there should be an opt in on every single banner ad on a page. If you go to SonyAlphaRumors and it has 27 ads on the front page, every one of them stuffing a cookie in your mouth to track what you do on the internet. Browsers should pop a dialogue box up saying OK / Confirm to tracking for every single one of those 27 advert cookies. The more ads, the more hassle for the user, the more people turn to cleaner sources of info. Finally, I'd like to see YouTube PAY FOR ORIGINAL CONTENT like Netflix. No, not $1 cent from a million advertising impressions... A real contract, written on paper, mega bucks. Otherwise, fuck the entire internet, it is going down the drain.

And I think @Andrew Reid response was just a pun on Ebrahim as in its a female so would be Ebra-her rather than Ebra-him

I believe it was just a joke to lighten the mood.

B has the most natural colors for me.

Oh, I see...Discrediting people, only because you don't agree with them? Mattias, it's NOT you who define the term "sexism"...I simply communicated my and my moms non-mainstream opinion. BTW: @Andrew Reid knows about my real identity, so no worries.... In one of your posts you say, you were teaching marketing...that's probably your problem in this case: you simply refuse to understand, that journalism is NOT the right place for emotional investment and activism. Journalism should be impartial (marketing and PR guys don't like this, as they want to manipulate) - a journalist can not be an activist, as - by doing this - he would give up his objectivity and credibility. This "article" we talk about should have been called "column" or "opinion"... @Andrew Reid OMG...I bought things from you and by my mail adress with which I registered here, you should know my website and real identity. But it seems, your culty credo doesn't allow any objectivity. No problem.

You did a great job with the S-LOG 3 shot as well. Prefer the hair tone on Pro LOG S / WideDR though!

Brother, apologies if what I wrote sounded accusatory - That was not my intention. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I was simply suggesting that it is just as valid to investigate assumptions that we've never questioned before as it is to leave them be. That is what I was attempting to illustrate with the "opposite ends of the spectrum" example of Catholicism and Atheism.

Yes, it makes more sense to use longer FL's form an actual usage standpoint because in reality its silly to shoot a 12mm portrait from three blocks away to get the same look as a 135mm - but all this lens compression stuff is just nonsense. The article I previously linked explains it perfectly, so I don't need to rehash anything. Its distance to your subject, and nothing else. Side note - for stills you could use the Brenzier pano method to replicate the look of any larger format with smaller sensors, even theoretical ones. I shot a promo image of a car in front of a museum with a 85/1.4 wide open on a FF camera and stitched 8 frames together, giving the look of something like a 32mm f0.45 on FF and something no MF lens can do - though my memory is a little fuzzy on the exact FL/aperture as its been a few years.

Hehe...And your claim sounds as you were caught in the scandalization trap of frustrated editors who always offer solutions for problems people don't have. (BTW: Next week I'll get 17 years old...so no old man out here...) My mom works for more than 20 years in the health industry. My grandma - till retired - worked as physician in Bavaria. Every 2-3 years armchair editors wrote about "discrimination" and "sexism" against women in the health indistry. The truth? There was none...Brainwashing at its best... I understand, that it might be some sexism in our society. BUT it is not a general / major problem without artificially constructed scandalization. "No scandal? Let's create one..." My mom took a look at this thread...She was laughing. Her claim (she could confirm this by sending you a mail from her official real name mail account): "I didn't meet sexism. Neither in the health industry, nor in photography...That might be some singular cases in Central Europe, but I didn't EVER have any problem with sexism. I have more problems with exagerations and hallucinating media editors." EDIT: She will create an own account @EOSHD in some days to officially express her opinion (mainly photography and filming)...

Cuda cores, raw processing power and RAM. Pascal GPUs are the standard right now, and for many good reasons (less power consumption= less heat = more durability = less money for cooling options = less noise etc). You also need a more recent CPU that does H265 decoding internally. I would say a 6700 or a 7700(better) with a 1060 GPU (value for money right now, no need for anything less). I do not know about AMD cpus. For financial reasons I went for 6700 and 1060 recently (for an editing laptop). For 600€ more I would have gone for 7700 and 1070 gpu (that is the combo that I consider as best value for money/perforMande right now), but as I upgrade/renew a lot of my equipment and office space, those extra hundreds were needed elsewhere.

It's easy for everyone to agree that the out of box settings are not optimal. Less easy for everyone to agree what they should be. And that, presumably, is the problem facing Sony, LG, Panasonic et al. I know several people who have bought new 4k TVs only because the picture looked so good in the shop (including a couple who assumed that it was the TV which made things "4k" rather than the broadcast...)

That's not my point. Of course, the original creator will want the extra views and exposure. It's easy for big sites to "repurpose" other peoples content. But in Googles eyes, the higher ranking site is often credited as the original source. It would have taken all of about 10 mins to create that article. A lot more effort went into the original video. It's not exactly fair. My point is that DP will get many benefits by doing so. Often more benefit than the original. Its lazy but it works. We are now bombarded by thin content, repurpose content, click bait etc. Google does not care as long as we keep typing shit into Google and clicking on those ads. And now its so easy to get rankings using these techniques it's not going away anytime soon.

200D look tiny compare to 80D

JCS: I think you need to step back and reflect a moment. As, I suspect, you well know, there is no way to answer your question - it is impossible for "me" to prove anything to "you" if you are suggesting that everything exists only in your imagination. Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't profound philosophical discourse, it is merely rather silly. Not dissimilar to a child asking "why is the sky?" Why do you ask the question here I wonder. Why not join a philosophy forum and debate the issue (although simply quoting Cogito ergo sum might not impress!). If you are genuinely interested in this and similar questions why not study on a mooc or enrol on a philosophy programme? (Yale offer one which is closely linked to cognitive science which is, I recall, another interest?) To some extent you actually do answer your own question - the very fact of posting such a (in my opinion, ridiculous) question indicates a need you have to receive external stimuli. The "fact" (it's not really a fact because you are imagining it) that you ask the question presupposes that there is an "outside". Or, rephrase your question - If nothing external to "me" actually exists then does anything matter? (So why post?) Jonesy asked you a question - are you alive yes or no?

Hey, I have time on my hands, and I do like to spend it here.

Hey guys! I made these footages in order to test the new EOSHD Pro Color 3.0 and I'm loving it, by the way, It was a sunny and really warm day.

How can we determine if reality is real, a dream, a simulation, or something else? I think therefore I am- René Descartes.

This is straight from the "new age" SEO play book and Googles recent algorithm changes loves this kind of shit. An example is the "The pros and cons of natural light vs off-camera flash" article/video they posted. Take someone else's content and embed it, put a couple 100 words around a video. Because of the size of DP it already out-ranks the original video post on Youtube for the term "Natural light vs off camera flash" which is the name of the youtube video. Next, they will start blasting social channels, reposting stuff often "in case you missed it" blah blah blah. Signal, signal and more signal. Its thin content but if you have the audience and you don't piss them off too much their search rankings go through the roof. And what about the original poster? They are probably happy with the extra views anyway so they might not complain.

Been shooting all day today with the C200 and I love it!!! The ergonomics of it are fantastic handheld and with the SmallHD Focus monitor you can vlog with it! nice small files in 4k 60fps Also, I'm in love with the manual focus aid! Uses dual pixel af to confirm your focus. When it goes green, you're in. This camera stripped down like this feels about as light as my 1DC. Maybe lighter once you rig it up with evf and cage and stuff. Is the C200 worth $7500? Nope.

How do you know you're alive? How will you know when you are dead?

Women are different. I have three girls. The middle is close to a "rocket scientist" and recently said, "if Apple doesn't get its shit together I'm moving to PC". She also dropped her state-of-the-art smartphone and instead of replacing it with the next model bought a model 2 revs back because she said the new phones weren't worth the money. Like it or not, many men do buy cameras as statements of their power, or whatever you call it. It makes them feel good. Makes me feel good. Just like many women feel good with the right shoes or handbag. This is what I see; I don't understand all the fuss. What shouldn't be confused is that women understand what's important about the tech just as much as men. The only difference is they don't make a fetish of insignificant technical differences. So @Arikhan 's Mom is moving towards Nikon because (I assume) she focuses on the one thing she wants--stills image quality. She doesn't care about video, doesn't care about skin-tone "color science". She just wants the best dynamic range camera she can get that won't die by a single raindrop (like the Sonys). The ONLY people who knock Nikons are the ones that 1) don't have those priorities and 2) haven't used a Nikon camera. Nikon probably also considers this--men talk cameras. They write blogs. Show me one big camera GEAR blog-site run by a woman. Again, it's not that a woman may not be as good as a man to represent Nikon, it's just that they won't talk up the cameras the same way. So Arikhan's mom tries Sony because of her son (I assume again) but she knows her own mind. At the end of the day, I'd wager there are more successful photographers that are women, or just as much as men. Who Nikon wants to push their gear has nothing to do with that. In short, women don't push cameras but they do recognize when the camera gives them what they want. Nikon should include women. Not because they deserve a spot, but because I ACTUALLY want their take because I do feel they're often more practical. When my daughter gives her verdict on some piece of tech I don't second-guess it for a nano-second. Same thing for movies btw. My youngest has an uncanny ability to predict whether I will like a movie or not just by lookng at the advertisement.

I can do it tomorrow. I might have to adjust the choice of fruit since Im not much for bananas Recommend me a good hoast site and I will upload raw samples for download.

Nope...My mom claimed months ago, beeing tired to carry around "dinosaurus bricks" - aka CanoNikon cameras and lenses...Further saying "I will NOT hire some Sherpas to carry around my gear..." Now months after using the A6500 and trying out the A9 for a week she says: "Shooting with minuscule and unbalanced (with big super tele primes) plastic crap is not funny..." She gets more and more a Nikon fan... BTW: She wants to buy a D5. The Nikon rep came to our house to give us a test device and was very nice & polite. No sexism...When it comes to money, there is no sexism. When it comes to money, even Nikon machos transform to bootlickers...Manufacturers lick everyone's boots for money....

Portra 400 pushed is better in lowlight than portra800. But portra 800 has impressive Reds in daylight, perfect for autumn sunsets brick alleys in New York.

@TwoScoops has the right idea...as it's best to get an accurate reference of the material surface in the same lighting as your actors face. Best practice is to indeed use a dark or black glossy ball or marble (whatever you can find or make to emulate the glossy black eyeball) - then shoot a few frames of that object as close to your actors real eye area as possible....one reference per eye as the highlight pings will be slightly different - This will act as your reference plate. In post, you will have to roto the actors eyes and effectively replace with the reference still of the glossy black sphere. if your actor is turning their head - the highlight ping should stay at a constant point, relative to the lights in the scene....so additional roto and tracking of that area of the real photographic plate may be required if your lighting is more dynamic. It is easy to see what to replicate by looking as the real highlight ping reflection from the original live action plate of your actors real eyes. the other way of doings this is to shoot a 360 degree spherical HDRI map of your environment, then use that as an IBL or reflection map to a CG sphere that is tracked and rendered into your live action plate. That is more of an involved process, and would be the 'proper' way to do it...but the comp method mentioned above can work perfectly well for many setups like you have described.

To get the catchlight accurate from your scene you could take a pic/video in a dark christmas type ornament that reflects light similar to how an eye would and then mask it in. Photographers sometimes use that as a way of remembering where lights were. (taking a pic of the lights would seem easier!)

Yes, you are right ?

footage looks beautiful. nice camera.

Will do

Can't believe how 'robust' the 4.2.2 10bit files are - even in V-LOG they are virtually unbreakable (Blue skies remain banding free) even with very heavy adjustments. Coming from a Sony A7s and A7r2 where skies band without any processing this is nothing short of a miracle how Panasonic have done this with a 150mbs codec. Still prefer Cinelike-D for most scenes unless they contain huge contrast ranges as the highlight roll-off is smoother and light shades have more tonal detail.

You are just using the wrong tool. Youtube is not made for delivery. It's a free video streaming platform and you get what you paid for.... For your client use dropbox, Gdrive or any other online storage services to send them the full quality source file. Plus most people watch video on cell phone or tablet now with the low resolution default or adaptative mode....

Thank you so much for those kind words. Really means a lot! I'm happy to have helped you! Isn't the internet amazing? Haha I believe you have read me well. A 1DX II really would suit me well since that form factor is what I prefer. I'm wanting to rent them both soon! May be doing some tests with the C200 in a few weeks

Funny, I have the inverse problem. Clients complain that Vimeo is too slow. Even with a fast connection, HD is still very inconsistent.

Vimeo is as bad or worse than YouTube in my experience, so I don't agree with the "you get what you pay for, and YouTube is worse than Vimeo because it is free and Vimeo is not." I have the PRO account on Vimeo, and EVERY ONE of the videos I uploaded to Vimeo turned out to be similar to or worse than on YouTube, so I just don't get what you guys are talking about. To be sure, there are other benefits (no ads, can replace video, have custom links, etc.), but WRT to picture quality I don't see any benefit. If you guys can show a single example of the exact SAME FILE uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, with Vimeo generating better PQ, I'd love to see it.

At least (until things change) you are not the only one. I suspect the problem with YouTube is that their goal is to service all platforms at all connection speeds at all times. Consistent high quality playback is always the trade off until the whole world has sufficient affordable bandwidth to support HD/4K streams on billions of devices. Just as they do, I suspect some people will then complain that they can't view 16k HDR video on our watches. Current Codec developments can only improve web video presentation so much, the ultimate fix is with speed of connection and its lowering of cost for mass implementation. I'm old enough to remember in 1999 having to wait 30mins+ for a 480x320 QuickTime download of the Phantom Menace trailer on an average speed dial-up modem. 6 years before YouTube even existed - so don't forget how good we have it now, back then there was no macro blocking...it was massive blocking.