Leaderboard

Lots of cool ideas there, but for video shooters, only having 512gb internal storage before off-loading would be a nightmare. Got to keep the card slots. In my opinion, they have to do a couple of BIG things. Those would be: - Internal eND - Be the first - Internal BM Raw or ProRes Raw - even if this was available out the USB-C to an external SSD (like the Sigma FP), that would be HUGE. Being able to bypass the Ninja V would be so great. Then also some : - PDAF - They have to do it at this point. Or figure out a way to make DfD/Contrast aas good as the competition. - 5.9k or 6k like the S1, S5, S1H would be fine, but they'll probably go for 8k. - Timecode - Get that Netflix appoval - 180-240fps in 4k - Just to beat the full-frame models Some other cool ideas would be to have a battery grip also have two mini XLRs, or have one mini XLR on the body. We'll seee.

Hi all I just thought I'd share this with you, for those who may not know about these new lenses. They are called Dulens APO Miniprimes and come in PL or EF mount (they have interchangeable mounts) and cover "full frame" (as in 24x36, and apparently some even cover the 44x33 MF sensors). All are f/2.0 and the T-stop (which will be marked on the lens) varies from T/2.3-2.6 depending on which lens. 72mm thread, 80mm OD. 270 focus rotation marked in both metric and imperial. Right now they have/working on 21mm, 31mm, 43mm, 58mm, 85mm, and are discussing a 24/25mm and 120mm macro. "VC coating" described as "very special rainbow flare and creamy bokeh." Their aim is to make lenses with some character and a more vintage aesthetic as opposed to clinical perfection. THEY ARE NOT REHOUSED LENSES OR REDESIGNS. They are designed from the ground up. The 43, 58, and 85 are shipping first in batches - right now they're only selling the 3 lens kit. It says "the Final market price for third batch would around 750USD" - unclear if this is for the entire batch or per lens. Wording sounds like the entire set, but that seems too good to be true. Unless they mean $750 each in the third round (batch) of sales. The first two rounds have sold out. The first batch is due to ship out after this month but COVID may delay it a bit. The third batch is still open for pre-orders as far as I know. Here's what they say to get on the list: They have no website but here is a link to the Facebook post in their group that explains everything (including what I've described here). You can join the group there. That seems to be the only "website" presence they have, though you can email them obviously. https://www.facebook.com/groups/406961286682447/post_tags/?post_tag_id=707462599965646 They seem to be working on a lot of different options and seem to be asking for a lot of feedback from people - regularly posting pics of lenses and different colors of the barrel/markings, etc, asking for input. I'm very excited to get my hands on one and try it out. It's even cheaper than the SLR Magic APO Microprimes (which are my favorite budget cinema lenses) - those also cover "full frame" and are apochromatic, with a vintage-esque drawing style. *I am not affiliated with them whatsoever, I just came across them and thought I'd pass it along*

https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_1_ii_receives_the_external_monitor_app_from_the_xperia_pro_as_part_of_the_android_11_upd-news-47654.php

This is just a Wishlist, not even speculation what a potential GH6 might have. But if I were Panasonic -- which I'm not! -- I'd go bold: micro 4/3s is always going to have a perceived, though not necessarily actual, image quality deficit versus 135 and APS-C formats. So play up your strengths and use the cost savings from the cheaper sensor to bundle in better tech. For the body, pick up the refinements from the S series like that gorgeous 5.7m dot viewfinder, highres touchscreen, and 8 way joystick. Also sweat the details, for example, calibrating both the EVF and touchscreen from the factory. Emphasize connectivity. I'd like to see the latest Wifi 6 and Bluetooth 5.1 or 5.2. Then add 2 thunderbolt 4 connectors. Aggressively ditch the legacy stuff. Cut the card slots and instead offer 128 or 512GBs of internal storage. Make transferring data off via thunderbolt or wifi simple, fast and dependable. Push the boundaries on tech. How about H.266 as an option? For stills, 10 bit HEIF and Display P3. And please, toss the proprietary raw and go with DNG. Adopt the latest 1.6 spec and use that semantic and tone mapping Apple's done on the iPhone 12 Pro (ProRAW is just a DNG file). For autofocus, I doubt Panasonic will go with phase detect. But maybe this'll be the update that makes DFD great. Drive that at 240 hertz with improved algorithms and processing power, especially for subject recognition, and it could be pretty good. While you're at it, profile the Olympus lenses (I suspect they may have done this but don't advertise the fact. But if that's the case, make it official. You want m4/3s to be as attractive a platform as possible).

On the topic of grain and the "film look" - one of the best examples of a digitally shot movie looking like film in recent times, for me, was LADY BIRD. And they did some work to get it that way, which I haven't heard other DPs talk about (this process). They (Greta Gerwig and DP Sam Levy) shot on the Arri Alexa Mini. They did NOT shoot in ARRIRAW because they felt the 3.4K was too sharp. So they shot 2K ProRes (goes to show that RAW isn't everything - WHIPLASH also shot ProRes according to the gaffer). Then the *grain* in the movie, which is substantial for a modern digitally shot movie. It's NOT artificial grain. What they did was record a black signal and pulled the noise out and amplified it. Basically boosting the gain from the noise floor and finding the right amount. This way they could get the amount of grain they wanted without boosting the gain in the footage itself, which would have other (some negative) consequences. And I think it goes to show how great Alexa does with their noise - it's extremely film grain-like.

@kye You might want to have a look at the Dehancer colour grading suite of tools for Resolve. https://www.dehancer.com/ Aside from the film stock emulations, it also has emulation control of specific aspects such as halation, grain, gate weave and film breath so you will really be able to dig in to see the cumulative effects of all these elements on your own footage. It is free to download and try out (watermarks the image) and has an input profile for your GH5. Incidentally, the CEO of the company has also started publishing a series of lectures on how to see colour on their YouTube channel which I suspect will be right up your street.

@elgabogomez @Django The controlled tests I have seen all show that 35mm motion picture film can't beat 4K and IMAX motion picture film does better but still isn't as good as a 6K sensor like the Alexa LF. Did you watch the Resolution Demo that I linked in my first post? I know it's long, but it might have more real information in it than years of reading forums. I'm curious if you can link to any demos that show, under controlled conditions, direct comparisons between motion picture film and digital cameras. Or any kind of calibrated resolution test would also be good. Sadly, everything else other than controlled tests are worthless for actually being able to understand what is going on. The more I think about this stuff, the more I think that sharpness is the problem. Reality has infinite resolution and no sharpness. Both digital and film images obviously have less resolution than reality, but for some reason film doesn't look objectionable but digital often does. Of course, RAW video, or very high quality codecs, also don't have this objectionable quality. This all leads me to think that it's about sharpness and not resolution. Resolution is fine - reality has so much of it that if it was at all objectionable then it would be awful to look at, but it's not. I agree, however I still think we have a massive blind spot. I don't think that anyone in this thread is interested in applying Gate Weave to their images, and I'd suggest that some of the people here talking about how film is desirable don't even know what it is. This proves exactly my point, that our one-sided rose-coloured-glasses view of film is getting in the way of a useful conversation about what is great about film and what is not, what is great about digital and what is not, and what might have been great about tape and what wasn't. Until we start breaking down the various attributes of each then we're going to have discussions where someone less educated in the medium talks about "the film look" as a proxy for everything nice about an image, and the people who have deep knowledge about what is really going on react in ways that don't make any sense to the newcomer, and the discussion never makes any progress. If we had a different phrase, then maybe it would create space in these conversations to discuss the good parts of every medium without the newcomers inadvertently implying they love gate weave. Actually, I think the cinematic vs video look argument hasn't been argued well at all, which is kind of the point of this thread. The state of the debate is this: People almost universally claim to like the colour and DR rendition of good film stocks People almost universally claim to like the colour and DR rendition of well-shot and well-graded Alexa images A huge amount of technical knowledge accumulated over decades went into developing film stocks A huge amount of technical knowledge about film and digital accumulated over many years went into developing the ARRI colour science The few people who have demonstrated the ability to flawlessly match digital to film do so with Alexas, are able to do so after years of personal testing and research and talk about making complex adjustments that are often not known about or discussed in the public domain, and use specialist and even custom written software tools to do so So I'd say that a better summary of "cinematic vs video" is that film-like colour and DR are an attribute of "cinematic" and only a selection of people on earth know how to do that. ...and good luck if you "only" have Resolve. Are you talking about blurring images or softening contrast? The BPM filters soften contrast but don't blur. Vintage lenses often do both, with the lens optical tolerances accounting for the resolution of the lens (blur) and the coatings accounting for the macro and micro contrast of the image, which is actually called halation. Fascinating how different the colour reproduction is on those images, even with two coming from the same film stock. Funny how no-one in this thread has mentioned that they're chasing images that vary in colour reproduction from shot to shot like film can do. The point of this conversation (and these forums in general I believe) is to try and get smarter are getting better results with more modest equipment. Anyone can just say "oh well, if you want good colour then go buy the Alexa 65... byeeeeee" but it's not really of much help. Any ideas about what BM did in the new U12K that improved the image and got it closer to film-like? I'm a big fan of trying to learn by picking apart good examples of things. For example, I bought a BMMCC just to be able to experiment with the colour science as it has a good reputation. A few questions for thought around the U12K: Does it keep its magic at lower resolutions? If so, it's not the resolution creating the magic. Does it keep its magic when blurred? If so, it's not the sharpness creating the magic. Does it keep its magic when sharpened? If so, it's not the lack of sharpening that is creating the magic. you get the idea.... Do you do this just to make them look nicer? or for a particular aesthetic effect? I know what you're saying but I'm going to disagree with the way you outlined it. There are two competing sets of priorities, one set that makes an image with the organic aesthetic, and one set that is all about resolution and high frame rates and other specs. I think these priorities only conflict when a person doesn't know enough about what is going on. For example, in this thread I've linked to evidence showing that film has quite limited resolution, and yet we've heard from others that film has heaps of resolution. For those that understand how much resolution film really has, then there is no conflict, they aren't tempted by the allure of increased resolution because they know that the aesthetic they desire doesn't have that resolution. Other parameters have different status, for example, film has almost infinite bit-depth, all the way through the entire signal chain, so having greater bit depth is in alignment with a more organic aesthetic. Knowing which parameters are which is the point of trying to have these conversations. Any modern camera that jiggles the image around slightly from frame to frame or subtly varies the exposure from frame to frame would have to take this crown, considering these are attributes of film that no other camera is replicating. That conversation is the one that inspired this one. Another reason that we should move beyond film being a proxy word for "good". Is anyone asking if the kids will stop liking good images because they never saw film in a theatre? No, that's ridiculous. Therefore, good does not equal film. Are there desirable attributes that film has, yes absolutely, but many aspects of film are only desirable because of association and nostalgia.

35mm motion-picture film doesn't struggle to match 4K. It can resolve up to 8K. 70mm can resolve up to 18K. It's part of why top Hollywood filmmakers like Nolan & Tarantino still use it. Even 16mm can resolve 4K fine which is why The Last Dance looks so good even though the footage come from the 90s. Same with pre-digital NFL Films. While there are certainly a lot of constraints with shooting film, scan resolution is no problem by todays digital standards.

Definitely depends on the film. Many of the currently available 35mm color films aren't great at all with skin tones. Portra, which has pretty much always been a go-to for people photos, is the best. But I've found pretty much any others are totally off - in a wide variety of different ways depending on the stock. Anyway, just wanted to add that because (IMO) Portra (all flavors are great - 160, 400, or 800) is the only one that gives me pleasing skin tones. Some quick examples, straight scans with no editing (1st is 35mm Portra 800, 2nd is medium format Portra 160 on a Fuji GA645Zi, 3rd is medium format Portra 160 on a Bronica GS-1)

Rent an R5 if you can and test it out to see if it'll work for you. The Panasonic S1 or S5 might be a good option. Great video and stills. The Pocket 6k takes beautiful images. You can mount a little NPF battery sled on top of it and get pretty good battery life. You can do it without the cage as well for an even lighter setup. Pretty janky looking though....

Thanks Chris - yes, I think I will just have to accept defeat and go with a small consumer solution like that. There were a few others previously mentioned that had slightly better geometry for me, but I think that's the general idea. I'll be running the risk I can't mount it to whatever they have if it's slightly larger in diameter, but I guess having a clamp that's slightly bigger teleports me to a different universe where people think I'll be destroying the universe if I mount an action camera on a sheet of drunk-person-proof and gale-force-wind-proof toughened glass! I also saw some magnetic mounts that looked interesting too, so they might be worth a second look.

This is exactly how I mount for most of my remote camera work. Add a safety lanyard to the camera strap holder, super clamp etc just in case that super clamp get loose for whatever reason. The critical part is when mounting and dismounting as if something fall it can injure. Normally I prepare all in the ground, fix the lanyard first and then mount so that nothing can accidentally fall. You should also check the insurance, here in stadium if you don't have a professional insurance you cannot mount anything anywhere (rightly so). Again in all top league hockey in the world we mount the camera in the goal with a single super clamp, it never happen to me that it did come completely loose.... and yes goaltender hits it, puck hits it, the whole goal is moved out some time..

This is a pretty cool small solution - a clamp with the platform adapter and a ball head. https://digital-photography-school.com/manfrotto-super-clamp/ I feel your pain, I travel a lot and wind up carrying more support gear than needed, and something like a gorillapod just isn't very solid. I recently sold my 1kg Siuri CF travel tripod for larger, more sturdy setup that I can add a flat base video head to - and at times I really wish I would have kept the smaller one as well. So now I'm looking for another LOL! Chris

Yes the morale is down. Some went in far too deep at too high price. Many did not know what they were doing and gambled just far too much money. However the real problem is the brokers preventing buys to protect their big clients and pals at the hedge funds. Sadly it wasn't just Robinhood. Almost the entire marketplace shut down the stock and blocked retail investors. That needs a massive legal enquiry. People wanting to go in with their $100 should be allowed to.

Looking at the development of this GME/AMC story very closely - put a couple bucks in both to see what hapṕens. In fact, if I was a financial journalist, would start right now to get deep in the events to make a book, for sure will be a good one, with a lot of lessons - and probably a bad taste in the end. But would be very good to show how the gears of the machine works. About the stocks behaviour, purely from a trading point, between the Redditors and the funds. At friday, the prices were remarkbly stable after the usual jump in the pre-market - looks like the reddit had won. I guessed that probably the funds would spend the weekend developing a tactic together, and it looks like the case. Friday was a critical day because was the last day to trade a lot of stock options - granted, did not research to see the gross numbers of the options. This options are a big part of the Redditors strategy - the other (and probably bigger) are the shorted stocks, which did not have a due date but you have to rent them and pay interest rate, that probably is going higher by the day too. These are their assumptions. Yesterday both stocks dropped their price very sharply and continuously during the day. And are having another huge drop now in the premarket (GME at 156 and AMC at 9.91). To know what exactly happend you have to do a lot of digging in stock statistic sites - which I don't have the knowledge or time to do. Could be sells from people that cannot handle the losses (the late ones that arrived at the party) or, most probably, short ladder attacks orchestrated by the funds, since it looks like that the volumes are not very big. Don't know exactly the NYSE timings for the exercise of the options, which will make the funds that have put options buy GME/AMC shares; in teh WSB some people say that it is today. If it is the case, probably the funds will spend the day on the phone coordinating operations to make the price drop the most that they can, before having to buy the stocks to cover their puts and lower their losses. But if I was a hedge fund, besides the short ladder attacks, I would have used the high volatility created by WSB to profit, shorting even more GME stocks before the orchestrated actions that they know will make the price go down - WBS have millions of user, but hedge funds have billions of money. Or even mounted a straddle option operation, which will profit if the stock goes very high or drop a lot (don't know the actual volatility numbers to see if it would be profitable, probably would be). Rooting for WSB, but the odds probably are not on their side. And if the SEC would take a side in the question, for sure will be in the funds side - at least saying that "intervention was needed to prevent a sistemic risk to the market" or something like that.

Let me ask you a question? 2 years from now will GME stock be above US$250 or below US$250 a share. I think we can both agree it will be below US$250 a share. So if you currently hold GME stock valued at US$250 a share you have already been 'pumped and dumped'

I get it, I just think it's important to look at all of the factors. If it's only a few hundred bucks, no big deal. I've known people that got tens of thousands into a crypto days before it dropped and they were stuck for years trying to recoup. Listen, I'm ALL for crypto and decentralization. I started a stock video site and cryptocurrency to try and decentralize stock video. A platform where creators get 100% of the commission. The problem is...even crypto is monopolized. Guess how much it costs to get a crypto onto any decent exchange? 40+ BTC. At least. Then the exchanges take a fee every time you make a transfer. Monopolization follows innovation, inevitably. Remember...Robinhood was supposed to be decentralized.

Inequality of wealth is not the problem. Its inequality of rules!

Agree with you - I use a very unknown brokerage and even them are blocking AMC and GME eventually. And legal actions will be refuted in the sake of the "sistemic risk" and "liquidity of the markets" argument. I live in a country (Brazil) that make bails with this argument in each 3 to 4 years. The "club" is always protected. And be sure that when this story were not in the front pages anymores, new "market manipulations" laws will be created to make WSB foruns unlawful (here a Telegram forum was created with the same logic and the creators shut it down in 2 days after a direct threat from the CVM, the local SEC).

Ugh our US broker informed us they are halting buying share of GME/AMC/NOK until further notice, but you can still sell, so I guess Oz/NZ is out GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Those institute is bloody corrupted to the core! 🤬