Axel

You are right. A gimbal is just one tool among others to make shots stable. Particularly if the operator tries to show off, it gets boring.

Well, it should be called a gimbal zoom then, shouldn't it. As John Hess knows, there are different names: Since the first use of the effect, in Vertigo, was achieved by foreground, center (not moving) and background layers of the staircase with a multiplane camera and so strictly speaking was neither a travelling nor a zoom, I find it appropriate to use that name, Vertigo.

https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/01/egpu-acceleration-internal-display-mac-apps-macos-video/

Vertigo zoom of course (as they say in the video). Brandon Li uses it a lot in Hong Kong Strong, only there he zooms out digitally, resizing a UHD image to 1080. You *could* name the rotation around the zero anchor point (around 1'20") a 2001 shot ...

Fantastic review, Dave! Now I really want that thing ...

Yes, it isn't: As for the performance of the eGPU with Resolve, no guess work is needed: ... and Resolve performs as good (and in some respect even better!) as FCP X on those iMacs. Another thing to keep in mind is that for GPU performance, the said eGPU doesn't need a *new* MBP: That Apple and BM are still busy with such joint ventures may be a good thing insofar as in my very humble opinion ProRes Raw could substitute CDNG on the long run. Got FCP and Resolve both on your computer? Then you can download snippets of both from here. Grant Petty argued that they could get DNG data rates down through compression to almost match those of PRR. Be it as it may, they won't be able to achieve the same performance with that. So it's possible that at Christmas time, when relevant numbers of BMPCC4ks are being shipped, they will have the PRR firmware ...

Bokeh actually is a rather esoteric term because it doesn't mean blur, but the aesthetic quality of the blur. In the same way bouquet does not mean stinky wine. That's why there are so many criteria to judge the bokeh of a lens. It had been a trend for long, but it's nothing special anymore. Last but not least, why is it a flat medium? There are other factors to make us feel depth: We don't *see* it in real life, but something very similar happens. Apart from the fact that our vision has a permanent vignette at the borders, we only see the momentary object of interest really sharp and clear, even if the other objects/persons are optically in focus. If you want to focus on something/someone, it's therefore justified (if also often crude) to throw the background oof.

I entertain myself with niceties of visual perception ever since. It all comes down to what german poet Goethe concluded: (clumsy translation) He had written on perception of colors early on, and we are talking about the 18th century! As William Gladstone proved later on, we may all *see* the same things, but we take completely different things *for real*. His finding: if you don't have a word for blue, you can't (yes: canNOT) distinguish blue from green. The sky turned blue the instance the color could be artificially reproduced, and the sky and lapis lazuli were no longer the only blue things in the world ("blue" flowers are always light or dark purple, and they are described as such in earlier times). So the least we can say is that our perception is way more flexible than we are aware of. But what is still questionable is whether or not ISO grain does convincingly look like scotopic vision. The answer is, it can. Everything that signals a purpose, an intention, a calculated effect, and be it drastically distorted and stylized, will trigger the suspension of disbelief. On the contrary, if an image surrounded us 360°, had 20k resolution, 200fps and 30 stops of DR, we would be smart enough to find it reality-like, but ultimately unreal.

@BenEricson Sigh. That's analog to having wine served from bottles with cork instead of Tetra Paks. I told one story already. We had a very worn print of Time Of The Gypsies in the cinema where I was projectionist. A thick layer of scratches, rumble in the (analog) audio, hundreds of splices. It was a morning performance for two school classes, kids of fourteen, fifteen. I was certain, they wouldn't stand it. Much to my surprise, they were deeply immersed. Their faces were red, their eyes shone when they gathered in the foyer afterwards. Sure, it's an unbelievably good film, but I think the presence of he medium added, well, something. Did you read Flicker?

Like we saw in the thread/video F*** the numbers!, a film from the 50s or 60s could top 8k RED footage with ease, quality-wise. But that's only because analog film is still seen as the superior medium. Digital is limited in unexpected ways, heavy compression being the worst. Apart from that, it's quite impressive how far we came within one decade. A 35mm mass print, projected with the average projector to the average (white) screen, showed comparatively poor quality, resolution 1k, around 4 stops dynamic range, many charming artifacts added like dust and scratches. With digital HDR and HFR and of course ever higher resolution, the image quality could be far superior to analog film. But it might take another generation before 24p die, and the reasons for that are not *just* nostalgia.

I absolutely hate my test shots. If there is an idea, a purpose, a plan behind what I'm doing, then it also is much better in every way. My cats also hate my test shots. Testing AF, exposure and gimbal skills with a one-shot. On the TV runs a loop of the intro of Rear Window. I make a long travelling shot over items I arranged in my living room (like in the film), then finally I pan over to the window front, where I have almost the same backyard theater. It's much brighter outside (aperture/ND transition). Need to find he right speed so that vertical edges don't stutter @24p. Need to program AF and see how it reacts. Also: weddings!

I'm going to sell the Sigma 19mm. Sharpness and overall look is top notch, really on par with Sigma 18-35 Art (at least @f5.6), and that means a lot! But it has two and a half shortcomings: 1. Bad manual focus ring (fly-by-wire, slippery) 2. Very fast, completely quiet AF, but, and that's the main problem, it breaths or hunts: background permanently and annoyingly focusses and defocusses, no matter the aperture, no matter the AF setting. Does so not all the time, but you won't notice the behavior on the display. 2½. Too short and lightweight to balance properly on Zhiyun Crane V1 without additional base plate.

Update: Sobering early review that revealed serious shortcomings for ambitious editors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWPYLJQ-tKk Offline already, as you can see.

The 18-105 would be *the* perfect lens, spec-wise. If it didn't have that kit-lens-look. With OIS and an additional monopod, it's indispensable @105 mm. Also good for gimbal work, because it doesn't protrude. Good starting point. I have the Sigma 16mm f1.4 only since a month or so now. Never would want to go any wider (24mm FF equivalent), that's nailing down this side of the spectrum. Manual focussing is perfectly possible with EVF (and not so much with shitty display), but it definitely is more precise and more fun with an external monitor. Just practise and see how good you are. May I suggest a "rig"? See attachment. Made of these parts, all Amazon: Didn't find this on Amazon.com. On Amazon.de it's called Nicna universal bracket and costs €8,99. The Arri-rosette and the grip both are Smallrig products (the brand name fits, since I want to "reduce to the maximum"). That particular grip is also not available internationally, it seems, but imo you don't need all those mounting points, and the Camvate grip is 10 bucks cheaper anyway. That cable is USB to microUSB. Like I wrote, I feed the camera with an external powerbank on my belt the whole day, and then it's still charged. The little cut-out on the "base plate" is for the cable of a dummy battery.

Sorry, I had to make this reference ... Here are three scenarios, you decide how far-fetched you find them: 1. Just another app in the portfolio. It's true. If you are a CC subscriber, you frequently see new little applications come and go. Edit on mobile devices. Why, not bad, is it? Did you hear her say "take it further into Premiere Pro"? You could qualify, organize in the field. Not bad, is it? Probably an app that's going to stay. 2. Premiere is EOL. With it's ancient source code, it had become ever harder to optimize PP for modern hardware and modern requirements. Also the stuffed and stuffy GUI looks outmoded, despite brave attempts to make it up with "dark mode". But what to replace it with? That's risky, Adobe has learnt that from Apples FCP X inauguration disaster. So they start as a modest little add-on, with the typical Adobe PR understatement ("if a big NLE is too intimidating"). Because this app is so streamlined, it will have stellar performance and stability. Indeed, the faster and more responsive Rush turns out to be from the start, the more you can bet that this second scenario is true. Allegedly they have put Lumetri into Rush. The limitation to four tracks on the one hand (a deception, also perhaps they subsequently cut them down until no tracks remain, see point three), the crown jewel in the glove department on the other hand. WTF! Adobe watches anxiously how it is received and then - lets PP die in dignity. 3. FCP X is EOL At WWDC, Adobe was mentioned several times, FCP not once. FCP (you buy it once and for all) has reached market saturation and doesn't generate more money. Also it may be fast approaching the state of rigor mortis Premiere is currently in, in that it's bloating with new features. But clients must have a reason to buy Apple hardware. So this could be a revival of the very old times, when Apple and Adobe worked together to have that synergetic effect: pricey (no longer overpriced) elitist software on specialized, highend hardware. The design similarities of Rush with iMovie are just too obvious. Perhaps it's a joint venture?