Leaderboard

Adobe Creative Cloud finally has some competition. Communist Creative Cloud has been launched today in Berlin! The three PC terminals are subscription based, and are wheeled to you once per month for the important competition of your communist propaganda leaflets. Each terminal comes with a Nikon 1 series mirrorless camera with extremely large format sensor developed in Sochi by the renowned soviet scientist Mr P. Utin. As you'd expect for subscription software, pricing is extremely low starting at $0*. The true price you pay for this is in your committed allegiance to the "Die Linke" party and a green tax where you have to dissemble your entire apartment piece by piece and replace each brick with wood. You may also offer blood. In keeping with the famous Moto "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", the software ships only with the level of tools for your feeble abilities. YouTubers get a version of Communist Premiere Pro with a thumbnail creator containing two special presets - "Amazed face" and "Shocked expression". A special Chris and Jordan mode is available which gives all ex-camera-salesmen the belief they are famous filmmakers for the glorious region of Kamerastalingorsk. All editing tools are removed apart from the digital zoom. Wedding photographers get a special Communist Photoshop that only allows photos shot wide open at F1.2 and a clarity slider that ends at -20. *The use of the terminal is limited to 1 hour due to radioactive emissions from the special CRT monitor. EOSHD hands-off report On a tour of the Communist Creative Cloud offices in Berlin today, I could see a hive of activity. Proud workers huddled around a machine (of course adhering to the mask policy of the German C.C.C.P regime) putting images of Stalin into a transform tool. The beta test programme had gone well with only several deaths, and minor spillage of radioactive material from the Robotron CPU. I was not allowed to go near the software but was informed by a member of the Stasi CC that the Communist Creative Cloud doesn't just feature apps like Premiere and Photoshop. Office productivity tools are included and these I'm told are expected to be a big hit with the Berlin city authorities, like the municipal vaccination coordination offices. Meanwhile you may sign up to Communist Creative Cloud by creating a special personalised profile of yourself and uploading it to the Communist Cloud server based in Moscow moderated by Mr V. Puttit. Dubbed "Sputnikbook", it is part social media photo sharing website and part personal activity tracker. Already 100,000 people have gladly taken part all on their own accord. I am told Communist Creative Cloud (CCC) Premiere Pro can handle 12K video, the K standing for Kosmonaut. For videos not shot with 12 Kosmonauts you are limited to a standard resolution of just 12 green lines and the standard CRT refresh rate of 1 frame per month. Still, more productive than the average leftie! Long live Communist Creative Cloud!!

Clog 1 is 400, not sure about clog 2 though.

Like everything in life, context is paramount. The example of the ursa/a7sII is (without context) quite misleading. First it depends on what Ursa, 4k, 4.6k, pro, g2. Second it’s not useful to compare one shoot with one camera with a shoot (even if it’s the next day) with another camera (unless you are shooting exactly in the same conditions. And thirdly, I wouldn’t use an ursa for any shoot that I would consider using an a7sII, the Sony in log starts at iso1600, most ursas you wouldn’t want to use 1600 for anything. The size and weight of both is a great differenciator for the types of use of each one. On the other hand, I agree resolution isn’t everything and a 1080p image of anything blackmagic is quite a good image, mainly (for this tread about “k”s and resolution) because it’s not as compressed and in every ursa, it’s downsampled from bigger sensor resolutions. And that’s precisely why I bought the a6300 in 2016 for, it downsampled 6k sensor info to give a 4k image, which at the time I wanted for a 1080/2k delivery. Now the context is this: I use anamorphic lenses and they are not “sharp” and with a 2x lens in a 16:9 sensor you crop a lot on the sides and I wanted as much resolution as I could cheaply get for that. The gh5s was not out yet, the bmpcc4k was very limited in dynamic range or iso, there was no 4k mirrorless canon, nikon or Fuji cameras.

Wow, this sounds way less oppressive than Adobe subscription plan! I’ll have to look into it!

Welcome to the conversation. I'll happily discuss your points now you have actually watched it, but will take the opportunity to re-watch it before I reply. I find it incredibly rude that you are so protective of your own time and yet feel so free to recklessly disregard the time of others by talking about something you didn't care to watch and also by risking the outcome that you were talking out your rear end without knowing it, but I'll still talk about the topic as even selfish people can still make sense. A stopped clock is also right twice a day, so we'll see how things shake out. Watching is not understanding, so you've passed the first bar, which is necessary but not sufficient. This is an excellent example and I think speaks to the type of problem. Light bouncing off reality is of (practically) infinite resolution, and then it goes through the air, then: through your filters lens elements (optical distortions) and diffraction from the aperture sensor stack and is then sensed by individual pixels on the sensor (can diffraction happen on edges of the pixels?) it then gets quantised to a value and processed RAW in-camera and potentially recorded or output at this point In some cameras it then goes on to be non-linearly resized (eg, to compensate for lens distortions - do cameras do this for video?) rescaled to the output resolution processed at the output resolution (eg, sharpening, colour science, vignetting, bit-depth quantisation, etc) then compressed into a codec at a given bitrate Every one of these things degrades the image, and the damage is cumulative. All-but-one of them could be perfect, but if one is terrible then the output will still be terrible. Damage may also be of different kinds that might be mostly independent, eg resolution vs colour fidelity, so you might have an image pipeline that has problems across many 'dimensions'. Going back to your example and the Sony A7s2, if you take RAW stills then I'm sure the images can be sharp and great - in which case, the optics and sensor can be spectacular and it's the video processing and compression that is at fault. This is yet another reason that I think resolutions above 2K are a bad thing - most cameras aren't getting anything like the resolution that high-quality 2K can offer, but they still require a more and more powerful computer to edit and work with the mushy and compressed-to-death images. Any camera that can take high-quality stills but produces mushy video is very frustrating as they could have spent the time improving the output instead of just upping the specs without getting the associated benefits.

The a6300 is a good example of exactly the point he’s trying to make, the distinction between resolution and fidelity. I had a shoot with a Sony a7sii and an Ursa back to back. The Ursa was shot in 1920x1080 prores 444, the a7sii shot UHD in mega compressed h264. The difference in PERCEIVED resolution between these two cameras is night and day, with the Ursa kicking the A7s it’s butt, because the image of the former is so much more robust in terms of compression noise, color accuracy, banding, edge detail, and so on. One is more resolute but the other camera has a lot more perceived resolution because the image is better. If you blow up the images and ask random viewers which camera is ‘sharper’, 9 out of 10 times people will say the Ursa.

In all seriousness, at the time of his postulates, Netflix was rejecting the arri alexa for not being native 4k (and other platforms were following suit) and in Mr. Yedlin’s line of work it was really creating issues during pre production or in pitch meetings. On the high end there was the alexa65 but not everyone wanted the hassle of it (limited sets of lenses, a lot more power hungry) and for many pro cinematographers it felt preposterous for the producers to select the camera package on specs basis instead of them proposing a package based on the artistic look. I think it was not meant for lower budget photographers/videographers/Indy dps to stop us from buying a 4k or higher resolution camera. At least at personal title it didn’t deterred me from buying a sony a6300 at the time his first video came out.

This is fantastic! The use case I'm scoping out with the GO II is walking tour of a college campus. It will be great to be able to have a single audio source for the on-camera segments and the scripted, voiceover stuff with b-roll. I did something similar a couple years ago with a traditional wireless set. The presenter would meander through talking points making the constant starting and stopping of recording on video a bit of a pain, so having the full recording will be helpful. Super specific use case, but useful for me haha.

Really cool that they listened to feedback, with the new firmware you can use the transmitter as standalone recorder: 'Always' recording mode: When this mode is activated, the transmitter will start recording audio as soon as it is switched on. It will continue recording until it is switched off, regardless of whether is it connected to the receiver. This means that you will have a continuous recording from the moment the transmitter is switched on, making this mode suitable for using the Wireless GO II as a standalone field recorder. Note that in this mode, the ‘mute’ function will not affect the on-board recording (although it will still mute the wireless transmission).

If you're doing this commercially and making money from it (which is the only type of person who should buy an FX6, unless you're a rich playboy getting a toy, in which case price doesn't matter... just get the FX6!), then the price gap between an a7S mk2 + basic accessories vs an FX6 is under two grand. In the long run, seems like a slam dunk decision to go the extra cost for the FX6.

There was a recent reaction video that @Tito Ferradans posted, reacting to a video about anamorphic lenses that was published on another YT channel. Apart from fact-checking the other video, almost to death considering that it got a lot of information wrong about anamorphic lenses, Tito also mentioned that the other video had used shots from his video without permission, and that he went through the process to have it taken down as they used his content without his permission. So I think you're meant to get permission, regardless of the circumstances, and if you don't then you leave yourself open to take-down requests. I've heard instances where people had their own content taken-down by other people who claimed their content as their own, and the mechanisms seemed to be skewed towards taking the content down, instead of leaving it up by default. Also, considering I mentioned Tito and anamorphics, go watch his channel - it's awesome! https://www.youtube.com/user/tferradans

Was considering getting an EVA1 to compliment my S1 but I am kinda waiting on Panasonic to make its next move before I do.

Very nice bit of work - especially nice to see those colours in freezing March!

Why, how much do they pay at a Wendy's these days?

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉