Leaderboard

Stupid name - which is part of the problem, but I'm firmly in support of keeping the current rules. The changes are being driven by companies that have monopolies in many communities and are chomping at the bit to charge us more. I've been traveling around the world, we pay more and get less than many countries in Europe and Asia. Same for cell service, there are so many more companies offering service in many places outside of the US. I counted 13 providers in India - all were giving away phones and many were offering 6 months of free service at a fraction of what I pay. How I wish Google Fiber could go nationwide and put a beatdown on the crappy 50Mbps service I pay $100/mo for. The are many issues with the elimination of Net Neutrality, another is the fact that companies like Time Warner or Comcast can charge for access to competitors of their own networks. If you live in a community that's only served by Comcast - which owns NBC - they can upcharge for access to CBS, ABC, Fox and so on. They can charge content providers for access to the network and then charge us for access to the content providers. So we'll pay more to the ISP's and more to the content providers. And there's also an access issue, rising costs are going to impact low income households and rural communities. Ending Net Neutrality will not result in more infrastructure investment since again there is virtually no competition across most of the US. The only places we see significant investments are where there's competition. Cable companies also pay little or nothing for access to taxpayer maintained lands to bury their lines. Then they lobby hard against competitors being granted construction permits to maintain the monopoly. This is a lobbyist driven move so ISP's can squeeze more out of its customers while delivering less. All of the noise is just distraction tactics. The "we're not going to change anything" stuff from ISP's, like AT&T's claims, are just bunk. Prices will spike quickly and there's little anyone can do because there are simply no other options in most places. I don't know what the answer ultimately is - whether its regulation, creating government owned public utilities similar to power and water or something else - but allowing profit driven mega media conglomerates to have a monopoly and the ability to do whatever they want with internet access isn't the solution. Ending Net Neutrality is simply a cash grab by ISP's and nothing else.

Hello guys, these days due to error I lost my codech265 file that ran Premiere pro cc 2015 without cloud, so I took the opportunity to update the operating system of my PC from Windows 7 Ultimate to Windows 10. In checking the update of new programs I came across an attractive media player that plays h265 files smoothly consuming 30% less than MPC-HC, I recommend you try it, I have not detected virus or malware inside and they they only ask for a small optional donation. Who has suggestions come forward! link: https://www.smplayer.info/

I had an X5R Osmo for about 6 months. The image was lovely but I had to sell it because: 1. For the workflow you have to go through DJI’s Cinelight. They barely updated it, it’s full of bugs and is very slow. Crashed a lot. Incredible time waster. 2. The SSD would regularly eject itself, or it couldn’t be read on the Osmo. Sometimes it wouldn’t let me play back the files on the app. 3. The app would regularly not connect to the Osmo. The feed breaks up a lot. 4. The footage was sometimes clearly missing DNG frames. So the footage would stutter and jump when viewing after conversion to ProRes. 5. The X5R eats your phone battery, and the Osmo battery. If using the setup regularly, you need to hook the Osmo up to an Inspire battery and your phone to a USB power bank. Certainly negates the portability. 6. The stabilisation isn’t great. It behaves nothing like other single handed gimbals and is very prone to up / down and side to side movement. There are much better options for the money. The X5R Osmo comes across as a mashed together experiment which doesn’t work well enough for regular use. Image is lovely though.

The forehead is most in focus, which means, erm..... ....the tonal shifts seem deeper and smoother than regular GH5, but who knows, that could just be better grading. Dual ISO seems the most likely, with RAW a big stretch but fun to consider! I do think it’s a new camera AND a firmware upgrade, with the “new” camera probably receiving something a little extra, like the GH4R did.

I often see people constantly engaged with their phones and other devices as if their life depends on it, so companies better not make people to mad by throttling their internet or possibly charging different “preference” rates to some just because they may use a competing app, services or often visit certain sites that are in direct competition to the internet service providers own viewership and other similar services or products that they may also provide. Individuals who use exorbitant bandwidth outside of a fairly normal modern day “connected” usage lifestyle, should of course pay more or be subjected to some limit if it is very excessive and they are not willing to pay more based on the current system. Businesses are in the business to make money and hopefully innovate a bit, but need not be everyone’s friend. Most would understand that. However, it has also been discussed that different possible negative methods could be used by ISP’s (especially in regions with little or no competition between providers) and ultimately implemented without some level of Net Neutrality being retained. One can not be sure of course, but for example the possible manipulation an ISP may impose on those only using “partial” subscribed services in an attempt to favor their own services/products over another companies competing product is one area alluded to previously. Imagine an ISP tracking every website and subscribed services you use (Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, Amazon, etc) over their provided/subscribed service connection and then deciding that since you only pay for one of their internet service plans, rather than some bloated reality TV, Internet, Phone package bundle of theirs, they then decide to essentially punish you for it. The large dinosaur media conglomerates merging with IPS’s is just part of that. Without Net Neutrality it would lead to more structured systems of the past and would then probably lead to exorbitant service fees to “entice” you to then pay only slightly less exorbitant fees for their bloated packages/services type of a structured system from days of olde. They could then essentially charge more and also get “their preferred” advertising sponsors/partners to market to you instead of some other platform you may use over their subscribed internet service that one may be using currently. It is not in the best interest of consumers and the ISP industry would just agree on what is most favorable to them and move on. Let’s not pretend they were ever on the side of the consumer. It has always been a shell and numbers game in the industry. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a large shareholder, works for the industry or is a lobbyist… or a politician who just got paid in some form or another. Go ahead, it’s ok to give your middle finger to the “man” every once in a while or at least feel that you still can. It is ok not to always just accept whatever the implied status quo is or something your being told to do as an only option. It is just good practice to questions things sometimes. Continued privacy issues around ISP’s offering up users info to marketers or getting direct ads that can not easily be blocked coming from an ISP directly would probably be expanded as well (unless you subscribe to their other products maybe). I guess router level VPN’s are going to be more popular then. So, don't make the kids mad either or there will be hell to pay… it may not readily happen, but will sooner rather than later if what I have seen in the past is any indication. Oh, and I think that some areas or categories of both the ISP and healthcare industries in the US should be nationalized. All things in these realms are unfortunately very political it would seem. Politics aside, who is then really representing the consumer’s best interest and concerns? Perhaps not perfect, but Net Neutrality is maybe better than the other idea of absolutely nothing.

While I agree that new locations are always a good thing, I’m sure if you lessened your rig, you would gain access to your usual haunts and can get in and out of other questionable locations without notice. That is one of the beauties of DSLR filmmaking and especially the GH5 with its IBIS. You’re not on a Hollywood set, don’t shoot like you are. But I also agree with @anonim ... your work has been stellar lately. I’d love to see a short film, shot handheld, with one of those Veydra lenses... or the Sigma. Keep it simple... small story, one lens and the GH5.

One if the major things that has not been mentioned is that the loss of net neutrality would allow ISP's to throttle the speed to specific sites. So a company like Amazon will pay a premium price to get a high speed but a smaller site will see it's speed reduced when it can't afford to pay off the ISP. They could decide to throttle sites for any number of reasons. Basically the big corporations will have the highest speeds and everyone else will be slowed down. It's a total cash grab and just about everyone here is against it. Surely the ones who are pushing this through are going to rewarded down the line.

I know, Adobe's support is shite.. For me DNG is about flexibility. I either use Resolve to do a quick white balance and output 12bit DNxHD or get Raw4Pro out of the tool shed and make CineformRaw then quick adjustments in Firstlight metadata before CC but I don't blame anybody who prefers to keep things a bit quicker.

I am in the process of buying the SLR Magic VND which seems to be a good one, yet reviewers are telling about a tiny green tint and I was just asking myself how to correct this in general. In the end, i will just try

Original Zlog DCI 4K clip available for download. See for yourself how it grades.

Yes, but at stills quality of iPhone is not "just" I'm talking about general direction of something that is seems to me as your intention - consciously оr unconsciously - to communicate from inside of your experience and emotions, even with "just" testing.

gorgeous! i LOVE the black and white with the limited motion... ive never seen anything quite like that before really really pretty and very interesting. graphic, striking. beautifully done, thanks for sharing! turns out that less may indeed be more lol

Well this site doesn’t like tifs... especially from screengrabs of Raw footage...

oh god. believe me...it can be that bad. a7s in particular sucks so bad without fine tuning

Agree. The million dollar question is whether removing net neutrality with make more competition or less. I don't know. I will argue the other case that if it wasn't for net neutrality we wouldn't be where we are now. It allowed everyone to develop their services without spending a lot of time negotiating every connection. Anyway, it's like all American politics these days. There are no real issues discussed in the mainstream media. Just good vs evil

Back in 2013 I still used to own a menswear label. For that label we did a collaboration with Gshock, that video was based on cinemagraphs as part of the concept. Directed by Hesdy Lonwijk, DP was Tibor Dingelstad.

@Kisaha I think this is the healthiest way to count your losses, whilst looking at the future in a more positive way. The truth is, there are plenty of NX camera's and glass still in circulation, albeit less than in 2014-2016 and I personally haven't seen a lot of mentions that these products are even close to nearing the end of their build life. The magnesium build, the OS, the proccesor chip, the sensors, the glass and machinary in the lens systems (which I believe were outsourced and rebranded by a big lens maker) were built pretty robustly. Like I said before, Samsung was definitely trying to put a stake in the ground. I've owned other Samsung products that were considered mid-range, and as functional as they were they didn't have premium builds by a long shot. Samsung reserves this for their top-tier offerings, say like the recent Galaxy line of smartphones. World class. @Juxx989 "I think directly or indirectly the other companies(canon, sony, etc) made it clear to big reviewers that they would not appreciate coverage of Samsung NX1 and maybe they would forget to send you the next product for review or forget to invite you to the next swanky New York sony event.." I would venture to say this is most likely a real thing. Even in the cases where the reviewer claims impartiality, you have to remember these companies are sending them free gear in exchange for a favorable outcome. They're not doing it because they like giving away free product to seemingly cool people. And even if a company does not explicitly imply favor, the reviewer knows that if they give a product a poor enough review, or praise a competitor's brand too much, this could pontentially hurt their chances of receiving more gear from said company in the future. For a lot of top tubers, this is the very backbone of their channel, hence income. When your livelihood is on the line, of course you're going to lie a little. I think most of us would. The key is not seeming extreme or too obvious with it. And you'll notice that channels that do don't last very long. A "favored" view here, a couple dings on secondary less important features here. This gives the illusion of being impartial and the manufactures chalk it up to the price of doing business, which is still going to be less costly than hiring an advertising agency to drive a full scale marketing campaign. These manufacturers, including Samsung, are only concerned about brand perception as it relates to sales, not as it relates to trying to give you a quality product because they personally care about you or your own business. No one should be naive about this, and yet consumers wrap up their indentities into these products, and really blind themselves. The only time this formula is broken is when a CEO or other top executive takes a personal interest or pet liking to a product and wants to share that with the world, which is what many suspect the NX line and more specifically the NX1/500 to have been of the previous CEO, which demographically speaking was more intimate and familiar with "older" tech and reportedly loved photography. The RED camera was one of these pet projects by the then CEO of Oakley, a popular sunglass/surf/skate brand in the 80's/90's, who again was very fond of videography and wanted to and had the resources to shake up things in the then celluloid dominated film industry. But these are largely outliers. As impactful as they can be, they tend to be very rare as business objectives are not the driving catalyst.

These are just some examples: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history And keep in mind that an FCC report found that only a little more than one-third of the population had more than one internet provider that offered speeds of 25 Mbps or more, the FCC's minimum definition of broadband. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf Remember how big companies fought Google fiber or other government entity from installing and providing internet? Just one example out of many: https://newrepublic.com/article/102699/rural-broadband-internet-wifi-access Or have divided the areas between them: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16933/how-broadband-providers-seem-avoid-competition Personally I live in the center of one of the largest cities in US and my only choice is ATT. I pay ~80$ for ~25mbps similar to the price that Google fiber is charging for 1gbit. Specifically for net neutrality, expecting companies to be ethical is like expecting Santa to deliver your presents. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

I haven't read the details; however, in general I see "net neutrality" as another name for artificial pricing. There are many problems with free markets, delivering better prices and services is generally not one of them (according to the economics I've read). It seems most people want to keep net neutrality more from fear of the unknown and hatred of big cable companies. I haven't seen any studies, from Wikipedia, that show clearly, with evidence, how it will hurt their service or my access to it. Certainly, things will change, but it can be for the good. For example, if providers can charge by bandwidth than it will be easier for competitors to build network out into rural areas without worrying that Netflix is going to swamp their lines. They can charge one amount for those wanting to occasionally browse FB and those who want to watch Netflix. Right now, it's very easy for Netflix to raise prices, which it is doing, but very difficult for the cable companies, devils that they may be. Why should Netflix get a free ride on someone's difficult/expensive to build out network? I have a hotspot which I use for business. It's part of my cell plan and I pay $20 for the device. It gives me unlimited data, but 15gig fast, then slows down to 600K? Why, because most who use it will end up watching Netflix. There is no way to separate users. There is no 500gig plan or 600K plan because they need to match their pricing to net neutrality. It's quite possible that once they do away with net neutrality, pricing will adjust to usage and for some it will go up, but others go down. More importantly, there will be more levels of service based on bandwidth, not on the expectation that you can use as much as you want. With net neutrality gone, Verizon would be free to make plans based on how much network they have and can sell in different areas. So I guess I'm one person against net neutrality because I'm against anything where there is artificial/forced pricing on services that have wide differences in cost to produce and end-users looking for different value propositions. One last thing. I live in Cambridge, home to Harvard and MIT. We have internet speed issues from phone lines, telephone poles, etc. The highly educated citizens can vote tomorrow for more taxes and the city to build its own network. Do they? No. No one really wants to pay the real cost FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR They're rather have some private company to do it and then they can BLAME THEM and I bitch about it ad nauseum. This is nationwide is my guess. Net neutrality exposes this expectation of getting something for nothing.

The only advantage of being supportive of an anti-neutrality stance is that it might - ironically - be seen as more open and transparent? WYSIWYG. Being pro-neutrality is often only a banner for advocating ones own definition of what is “neutral”.

I've never met someone who is against net neutrality. Only bots, and lobbyists.

99% of photos and video will be shot on your personal life device (PLD), CANIKON CORP (they merge in 2021) has just gone bankrupt and the names Canon, Nikon and Canikon will be picked up for a song by the company holding the "Polaroid" name. There will be much debate as to if the large M43 format is really THAT much better than the standard introduced by the 1mm Senors in most PLDs. PLDs and old fashioned larger sensor ILCs mostly being made by the imaging and communication division of the Indo/Chinese company formed by the government owned company of the Peoples republic of the eastern hemisphere. Then again, I could be wrong since my crystal balls sensor was made by Sony.

Super impressed. One thing I want to mention is that the level of professionalism shown above has more to do with a good story, believable characters, good locations, composition and lighting than the camera. In fact, you don't want your audience to even think about the camera, or any other technical aspect, you want them engaged in your story.

I have used those 3 cameras, and the GH5 extensively for video work (even for TV shows). I would take the NX1 any day of the week. It is amazing how NX1 is still one of the best hybrids in the market, in my opinion, the best HYBRID (a camera 50% for photos and 50% for video), as A7r cameras are photo orientated, A7s video, Sony APS-C lack pro body and features, Fuji is still mostly photo orientated (they are missing a ton of video features vs the NX1), GH5 is obviously video centric etc etc Also, there is a tendency for higher and higher prices, that makes me reluctant to invest to more hardware right now. The big changes will come with the adaptation of the HDR standard in the next few years, but right now the industry has competing standards and technology, so I wouldn't worry about that, yet. As I have said already many times, no one ever has asked me for 4K delivery, which isn't the same as HDR delivery, but you can imagine that HDR - which is brand new, will take a few good years to be the norm in video productions. The only issue I face, is the fact that Samsung is not a player in the industry, so I have to work with a lot of different brands, and I can't "sell" my equipment for jobs or projects with other people directing/producing. Funny thing: in early summer, a camera operator (he uses only Canon D5 and series Cameras) did 3rd camera on a performance coverage I produced, and I gave him the NX1. I explained a few things, and he did his job. He called a couple of weeks ago and asked for the camera because "I liked that little GH4 a lot"! He didn't even understood it was a Samsung, after me mentioned it 4-5 times!

Here's a quick test I've done with an EOS-M using crop mode 12-bit - 1472x796. I colour corrected on Resolve, using a grading method which Juan Melara posted on another EOSHD thread (see link below the video). The music is a fragment from a track I wrote on Ableton Live: Grading tutorial in the Blackmagic thread:

Horrible color?