Axel

Did they only invite Philip Bloom? Or could you lay hands on the GH3 as well, but had to sign a non-disclosure-contract? Because I think you deserved most to be involved in this, keeping in mind how many bought a GH2 on your recommendation. However, I can't wait to read and see what PB and you have to say. Let the review be of the same bluntness as PBs review of the BMCC. [color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] [quote name='Max' timestamp='1347648253' post='18035'] Its [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]9 Mbyte/sec. So for 60P each frame will be 150Kbyte only. its about 10% quality jpeg compression. Take a photo to photoshop resize it to 2M pixel and save it with 10% quality then you will get [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]150Kbyte image.[/font][/color][/quote] These maths don't work with AVC, because a lot more parameters than in good old Jpeg or Mpeg2 are being connected. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

Can anybody explain the bent, wrinkled bottom? Is that supposed to be a soft collapsible battery grip? Looks weird. Nobody would design a new camera with such melting-tar creases.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1347556223' post='17905'] Image in the data requirements you'd need to make it look good. 3D is one thing, but making the actual perspective change when you move your head would require a retarded amount of information. [/quote] With current technology there is no way to make this fly. I own a book from 2001, [i]Digital Effects in Modern Cinema, [/i]with the computers of that time no dentist would hold his clients' data nowadays. Nothing changes so fast than these things. When DCPs today use light wavelet compression (JPEG2000), a 3-dimensional 'film' could use stronger compression with a lot of vector data, moving away from the concept that an image needs to be composed of a mosaic of pixels, each representing an individual 2-dimensional coordinate in time. Either the processing speed multiplies, and unbelievably complex moving forms in space (no longer 'images' then, no?) are reconstructed during playback, or the storage is multiplied. Of course both will happen. And since we know that it will happen, this development is the [i]next big thing[/i], not just a lame quadrupling of pixels. By then the agitation about [i]Hobbit @ 48fps[/i] will resemble that of the bibliophilists of early last century about the paperback editions. What the heck was all this about?

Speaking of 3D: What if someone invented a 3D technique without the need for glasses? For the big screen? No swords protruding from the screen, but if you moved your head, the [i]perspective[/i] would change slightly, you would be able to see the side (technology already exists for stills, millions of tiny lenses are connected like in a compound eye, and various angles, also on the z-axis, are stored). That could be similarly successful as surround sound. A mono movie is not accepted anymore. The same could happen with flat images. What do you do with your old 4k recordings then?

And what is more, the cameras in 2020, even in 2016, will be so far advanced in so many respects that there is no telling if the content [i]now[/i] labelled 4k will be considered sufficient then. Does anybody remember the Sony FX-1? Cinema especially is a 'business on demand'. Films have to make profit within weeks, and, as you said, really NOBODY cares about 4k right now. We don't know, if in a decade or so people will expect HFR rather than greater resolutions. The broadcast formats are still 1080i in many countries, who can tell when this old dinosaur interlace will finally be allowed to the museum? [i]Future proof[/i] is only foreseeable for two or three years. Or, as you said, way longer. The richest broadcaster in my area uses XDCAM SD still.

[quote name='antonmansa' timestamp='1347394957' post='17783'] [font=courier new,courier,monospace][i][color=#0000ff]"Don't bother with Cameron. His obsession with technology and big budgets, at the expense of story is going to bury him with an[i]Intolerance[/i] like failure. "[/color][/i][/font] Wow, the most delusional statement in this thread. Having no merit and based on nothing. Jump onto the Cameron bashing bandstand little nobody. The first director in over 50 years to tie Ben-Hur for Academy Awards, holds two of the greatest world wide box-office records. Yea, I don't think Cameron has to much to worry about. Luckily, most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and the like (small) minded. Those who can, DO, those who can't just have big mouths. Wikkipedia "A [b]delusion[/b] is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief"]belief[/url] held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary". [/quote] In an interview Cameron once sketched the roadmap for future cinema, 3D, 4k, HFR. He said there was no need for any filmmaker to adapt all of these, or any. Because digital cinema allowed one projector to handle it all. Everything depended on the need of the story. And even with one film (referring to [i]Avatar[/i] then) the audience should be able to choose, i.e. 2D or 3D, analog or digital. It was 'like ordering at Starbuck's', he said. The comparison is helpful. Cinema in the early years of the 21st century was suffering from a variety of maladies. Everyone who had insight in the economics acknowledged that 3D pushed digitalization tremendously, that digital cinema set higher standards for image quality, and that both, DC and 3D, were a blessing.[color=#ff0000]*[/color] Like when people bought coffee machines that made better coffee than their little café. Starbuck's, the soulless chain, set higher standards. The films of Cameron are not particularly original. The recipe is for blockbuster successes, and successful. What he says about filmmaking as a means of expressing yourself controversially, until the shit hits the fan, is nothing. He is not despicable, he is just too business-oriented to give any advice on 'setting your neurones on fire'. Typical for him, he uses this strong figure of speech only in the strictest pavlovian sense, kinesthetic impulses. Good for understanding how effects can trigger 'emotional' responses, but rather for Disneyworld than for me. [quote]Luckily, most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with you and the like (small) minded. Those who can, DO, those who can't just have big mouths.[/quote] I apologize for belonging to the minority who dares to 'bash' Cameron. I didn't know this forum was reserved for the big guys only. Now I stop bothering You, who DOES, and keep You from working on Your next blockbuster masterpiece. [color=#ff0000]*EDIT: [/color]With DC, the [i]technical[/i] problems were solved temporarily. The problems of the dumb stories, the remakes, sequels and prequels and the overall superficiality were not only not solved, they were deepened. There [u]are[/u] very strong elements in [i]Terminator[/i], [i]Titanic[/i] and [i]Avatar[/i] (in the latter not the fashionable and pretentious civilization criticism, but the question which world is real, the world of the humans or the half-virtual world of the Na'vi[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]?). [/size][/font][/color]But is anything more hollow than the hype about watching a movie stereoscopically? Does it add to the [i]quality[/i] of the film? The monoculture of modern mainstream cinema should not be a model for any of us. Or only if all you are interested in is financial profit. The big budget cinema is dead, revivals of old, 'established' concepts.

[quote name='EOSHD']They are like gold dust! [/quote] Like when you were a brave christian believer, who suffered all his life, passed through the gates of heaven [i]finally[/i] and found it to look like purgatory. They tell you, yeah, it's being renovated, under construction for quite a while now, does anybody remember how it looked before? Just wait, just a little while longer and it will be, well, [i]okay ...[/i] [quote name='Simco123']Even those who decide to stick with the EF admit that if they had a choice between MFT and EF when they place their pre orders the majority would have chose MFT. [/quote] Is MFT hip or hype? Seems people see MFT mostly as a chance to adapt other mounts. The GH3 and the BMCC of summer 2013 could share a new acronym: EVIM (Electronic viewfinder with interchangeable mounts). Joking ...

On the other hand: Are the options with MFT sooo much better? Do the MFT lenses (the ones that allow manual control of aperture and need not be camera-software-corrected for distortion) for wideangle (12 mm equal 31 mmm related to FF) really top Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 8-16? The 7-14 cannot be used, the SLR magic is not perfect, the Nokton 17,5 equals a 45 mm and is wide no longer.

As a bloody amateur filmmaker, I consume [i]a lot[/i] of films and [i]a lot[/i] of music. I am a lousy photographer, my framing skills are non-existent. I am a passionate editor, I sample bits and pieces, combine them in a new, personal way that makes me aware of how and why I relate to others. In my view, 'filmmaking' can be defined very strictly as publishing an audiovisual statement as a product or work of art. For me it is a way of thinking, feeling and enhancing the flow of inputs and outputs, a way of perceiving life, even if never anything of it is published. Opinions come and go, I don't care. What counts for me are emotions and how I can set them free. And meanings. We are like the prisoners in Plato's cave analogy. There is a way to the light, and art struggles to find it.

The review is invaluable for all who already bought the BMCC and for those who consider it for the future. You shouldn't underestimate the problems though. Somebody wrote (or did PB say it in the video?) the camera was [i]user friendly[/i]. Okay ... [quote name='cameraboy' timestamp='1347003638' post='17498'] @markm excellent observation ... and surprise from BMD ... [url="http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera"]http://www.blackmagi...giccinemacamera[/url] BMC with MTF ... [/quote] Now are the early buyers left out in the rain or can they swap ('[color=#333333][font='Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][b]Now[/b] the Blackmagic Cinema Camera comes in two models')[/size][/font][/color]? My credo: Never buy the prototype! [i]Dungeness[/i] may be beautifully shot, but honestly, these are [i]stills[/i], animated in a Ken Burns fashion by the Kessler (but very carefully). I do like PB, I don't want to sound like a 'hater', but am I the only one who would skip calendar shots in a vimeo playlist? Let alone endure them in a [i]cinema[/i]? Because this is what the camera is allegedly designed for. I have the imagination to tell how a real film [i]might[/i] look with the BMCC.

[quote name='Tzedekh' timestamp='1346935347' post='17445'] This one's definitely wrong, at least the reason it might not be 10-bit. AVC-Ultra supports a [i]range[/i] of bit depths up to 12-bit, so this codec "family" definitely includes 10-bit. However, if Panasonic wanted to include 12-bit as an option on the GH3, that's great. [/quote] It could be 10-bit easily, if Panasonic only wanted. The 4:2:2 rumor was a guess towards a more professional profile of the GH3, because it would make the video fit for broadcasting. A reason for 10-bit could be that any HDR signal is better spread over 1024 values than over 256. It would make the quantization easier for the processor. Why people remain skeptic is not out of technical necessities, I think it's just that they can't imagine such a huge step forward.

[u]With the lens used[/u] the resolution of the BMCC stops between 'D' and 'E', whatever that means (if it is a '4k'-chart really, the narrowest lines would indicate 4k, where are E and D, could you explain, Andrew?). Nobody really believed the resolution of the BMCC to be 2432 x 1366 in the first place, or did you? Read the ancient [url="http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20"]article[/url] about what resolution means from DVXuser. Moire is always poor resolution, it's the tip of the iceberg indicating that a lot of false detail is in the image. But what contributes to this to a seldom discussed degree is the lens. My english vocabulary is not big enough to explain it properly. Read what Wiki says about the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion"]circle of confusion[/url] (a.k.a. video forum) and combine this with the comprehensible concept, that the coc must be within the spatial dimensions of a 'pixel' on the sensor. If it is 1:1 - which is practically impossible (the lens on the Canon might have had a better calculated frequency), you still could depict a natural grain of sand only if the signal of the one pixel could describe all three RGB values at once - which it obviously can't. So please stop raving about the 2,5k the BMCC has. On the other hand, resolution is overrated. You want an image to show all the necessary detail without aliasing and without looking too harsh. That's pretty much it. The figures are window dressing.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1346923188' post='17433'] I'm not very impressed by the way it handles highlights. For example at 1:54. But that could be grading... [/quote] 14 stops are still not 22 stops that you can reach with HDR photography. Who says with raw was no more clipping?

Don't know if this was posted somewhere else already, cause I don't read everything: [media]http://vimeo.com/48861294[/media] What do you think? My 2 cents: Silly story, some rolling shutter, apparently no noise problems.

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1346916312' post='17424'] My understanding of the ISO issue was that you'd better avoid the top line??? Or arrive from one step above? [/quote] That's what I do: When I wake up my GH2, it starts at ISO 1600. If I want i.e. 320, I go 1600→ 800 → 400 ↓320. Did you dial down the saturation to -2? And: I know I'll be getting stoned for that, but most of the colored-noise-issues simply don't show up with standard firmware.

New rumors from a broadcast engineer who talked to a fellow engineer from Japan (however reliable one finds such rumors): > definitely AVC Ultra @ 1080, Panasonic tries to make new implementations the standard > probably 4:2:2 > possibly (though not likely) 10-bit, because AVC-U aims at 12-bit for the pro-cameras The reported data rates are no hint to the bit depth, frame rate or color sampling ratio, because AVC-U is even more efficient than AVCHD, and it is typical for Panasonics to reduce data rates as much as possible. New sensor may use an entirely new scanning method, which is way faster, behaving like a global shutter. The technique may produce a new class of artifacts though, and one has to wait where the pitfalls are. Banding will be eliminated. This is what I gathered. Don't blame it on me if it's wrong, this is the nature of rumors.

[quote name='Mirrorkisser' timestamp='1346837611' post='17352']The new hack by driftwood is supposed to take some of the sharpness out of the gh2, but ungraded i dont see too much difference to be honest.[/quote] Two of the things that are confused often, if not always, are sharpness and resolution. You can get an SD source on a big screen, really, really sharp. Without any intelligent upscaling (interpolating the missing information, then sharpening the result) you will see pixels as stair-step-aliasing on the outlines and mosaics on bigger areas. A pleasant and natural looking image will not be described as sharp at all. It will allow softness through rich resolution - of the detail [u]and[/u] the color! Therefore a 5D video looks pleasant, as long as you don't try to split hairs, spider webs in the backlight or - in the opposite - too big areas of subtly changing colors. 5D videos need medium shots to shine. You must have enough shallow DoF to make the sharp parts appear sharp within the softness. Often proved, that these images look good on big screens. GH2 videos seem to have poorer colors - I don't know why, they appear so to me. The workaround is detail to add structure to bigger areas. The unwanted sharpness (granted you dialed down sharpness in the settings) seems to be completely determined by what you put in front of the sensor. The system lenses over f4.0 kill every bit of softness. A Tiffen low contrast 1 will make them acceptable, without reducing resolution.

A GH2 with just the kit lens or a bunch of not cheap system lenses really wouldn't have been a great success, you are right. It's the background of people like Andrew that made me (and thousands of others) realize the opportunities. The disassembled plastic lenses show chips that let the lenses communicate with the camera in order to facilitate automatic functions and be operated through the camera's menu. For instance you can touch the motif on the display, and the lens will focus on it. An amateur mode if there ever was one. A few years ago video enthusiasts were seeking for a more cinematic look. They (I don't single me out) bought expensive and cumbersome devices like 35mm adapters (I had the Letus extreme) to screw them in front of their camcorders (which had diminutive chips). [u]Old[/u] manual Nikon or Canon lenses were bought. With the appearance of the Canon 5D M2 they were history (not in all respects, not all at once, but rather quickly). Using a DSLR to shoot video meant [i]diverting the camera from it's intended purpose[/i], and this is the core of it all. The GH1 had comparatively good resolution at a low price, and [u]old[/u] lenses could be adapted without problems. Manual lenses. The GH2 then was praised as artifact-free[color=#ff0000]*[/color] and with almost full resolution at 1920. The fact that the new chip was optimized for the 16:9 AR is a hint that Panasonic jumped on the wagon intendedly. It was an invitation to further [i]misuse the chip. [/i]The Nokton 25 mm by Voigtländer was an argument for many (for me as well) to buy the GH2 as a second camera (meanwhile there is an even more impressive 17,5 mm available). Owners of an EOS (like me, 7D with experiences with a borrowed 5D) found not only the GH2 video to look good compared to the Canon's, they found it to look better in most respects. The hacks, whether they fulfill their promises or not, formed a community. The pros and cons of every aspect were discussed in detail and in earnest, and this finally confirmed MFT as a serious alternative. An independent database, highly motivated developers, great expectations everywhere, let's hope the providers at Panasonic don't let us down. We'll know in a fortnight. The sensor size is much closer to that of Super 35mm film cameras than to that of a full frame DSLR (background: 35mm film runs through a film camera [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film"]vertically[/url], not horizontally, four perforation holes are a frame, not eight), the DoF characteristics are almost identical (closer yet with APS-C or Sonys E-Mount sensors). These comparisons shouldn't bother us though, because film is about to disappear. You must understand that all these things have a lomografic element to them. The first affordable camera to produce cinematic images exclusively may be the BMCC (with a sensor size closer to 16mm, but who cares?), and even with it, there will be adaptations and creative solutions. [color=#ff0000]*[/color]Banding needs to be controlled. We all hope for the GH3 to get rid of this issue.

[quote]The cameras appear to be smaller and made of plastic, i.e., cheaper. Yet they don't cost consumers any less.[/quote] You may have heard that this is about to change - the plastic part. The rest is fact. [quote]MFT sensors are about half the size of the new consumer level Nikon D3200 (full frame). How can this NOT be inferior? - at least for stills?[/quote] It is. For stills. DSLR cameras - and especially full frame DSLRs - are designed for stills. The lenses are calculated for the bigger sensors and (more or less, as always) for the corresponding smallest [b]pic[/b]ture [b]el[/b]ements, b.k.a. pixels. Not for a considerably smaller amount of pixels, like fullHD. Since video was a minor matter, a satisfying compromise comes at the cost of the artifacts you probably have heard of. You can put it like this: A GH2 ist not too bad for stills, and a DSLR not too bad for video. [quote]Lens focal length and aperture are double that of 35mm film cameras, so a 45mm f/1.8 is effectively a 90mm f/3.6. To get 2.8 aperture, you need to buy an f/1.4.[/quote] No. A native 2.8 aperture lets in the same amount of light here and there. But: With crop factor 2, an adapted full frame lens lets through much [i]more[/i] light on MFT. ??? How can [i]that[/i] be? You say, a 50 mm f/1.4 is actually a 100 mm on MFT. Right. But the fastness of a lens is the quotient of the focal length in milimeter- f - and the widest diameter of the aperture in milimeter. So you get a 100 mm tele (relative to full frame) with the same opening. With the GH2, you can crop the image further ('digital zoom') - not only without resolution loss, but with best resolution, because one pixel is covered by one pixel on the sensor. The additional crop factor is 2.6. You get a 260 mm tele @ 'f1.4' - practically. Only the DoF is by far not as shallow. [quote]Lenses are smaller and plastic and look like toys. The optics are WAY smaller. So they're probably a lot cheaper to manufacture. Yet the price is not cheaper. For example, the Olympus 85mm 1.8 is more than twice the price of a Nikon 85mm 1.8D. Not a fair comparison, you might think - well, there isn't a 42mm 1.4, so the closest I could find is a Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 for $600. Doesn't anyone else have misgivings about laying down $400 for a little plastic prime lens? For just over $100 you can get a killer Nikon 50mm 1.8.[/quote] As you wrote above, it is'nt cheaper. Is being small a drawback? Depends. For some body parts. For things that need to look impressing. Or feign professionalism.

This is really beautiful. I think most viewers won't realize the slight distortion. If you find the squeeze factor too extreme, you should perhaps get yourself another anamorphot. As a cinema goer, I love scope (f.k.a. cinemascope), because it is the ultimate AR for dramatic storytelling. What Andrew and his followers do with more extreme ARs ... • makes cuts too crazy to follow any logically built plotline. You end up assembling very similarly framed shots, and instead of increasing the power of a cut, you reduce it. Suitable only for more lyric subjects (which is of course typical for most of Andrews films). You avoid the problem by framing extreme close-ups and long shots alike, and you blur the corners with a vignette, making the AR narrower effectively. • screams for a giant screen, but the clips are watched in postcard-size by most vimeo-viewers. Though imho wider ARs also work on vimeo, the point is lost. As a classic example of how powerful a scope montage can be, watch this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN3-uOjK4TY[/media] The motto reads 'bigger than life', and this not only means more square meters of the screen, but details too goddam big to fit into the frame. If you expand the scope, be consequent, change extreme long shots abruptly with cropped faces and details. BTW: This film is cinemascope/anamorphotic only in the projector. It was filmed with cropped 35mm, called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniscope"]'two-perf'[/url] (see [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064116/technical"]here[/url]), which meant half the resolution of standard 35mm. This one is for the pixel peepers.

[quote name='bradleyg5' timestamp='1346660617' post='17207'] 2.5k is not as impressive when you say [size=4][font=arial, sans-serif]2432 x 1366 vs 1920x1080. Really doesn't give you a ton of room to crop, would be useful for stabilization but you certainly not going to significantly recompose a shot with 512x284 pixels of headroom.[/font][/size] [/quote] Upscaling is disproportionately easier than downscaling. And you err if you think that 2432 is anywhere near the actual resolution of the camera or if any of the nominal resolutions can be taken without a ton of salt. These facts are ignored so regularly that you have to wonder. Resolution specifies the amount of pixels the monitoring device will ideally be able to show, and this again is related to the ppi and so in last consequence limits the [i]size[/i] of the image (difficult to get it [i]smaller[/i], but Apple managed this with the [i]retina display[/i]). To ask about the resolution as a hint to the image quality is comparable to someone who judges the quality of a car by the size of the gas tank.

@FilmMan: Your second link is the solution. Long time ago, a [url="http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-encoding-tools-five-popular-encoders-compared.html"]test[/url] was conducted to find out the best results in encoding H.264 as a distribution format. The QT encoder turned out to be inferior. My solution - also before I knew of this test - was always to use x264 (as plugin in QT), and export .mp4 from QT-pro or MpegStreamclip. You get the same quality (visually, that is, but that's all that counts for me) at half the file size, the encoding speed is much faster, and there is no color or gamma shift compared to the master. It looks the same in all players. You needn't despair of all the complicated settings, leave them at default, just (for quality) change these two values: [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/X264.jpg[/img] Edit: Be careful to use x264 as final output format only. Even at full quality ('100 %') the video is not a lossless copy of the original. Don't re-import these clips into your NLE. Holds for H.264 movs as well. This warning may look obvious to all FCP users, it's not so clear for many Premiere fans. Their great results exporting with Mainconcept and the whole native workflow philosophy seems to suggest that recompressing can be excusable. Work exclusively with the original from beginning to end, first export a lossless master. [i]Or [/i]enhance the reliability of your preview by baking in the unevoidable rounding errors with a high quality intermediate/master codec. Weird though, that Andrew reports the AVCHD in Mountain Lions QT player to look washed out too. Because afaik the player then doesn't apply any QT routines anymore. Estimate native clips with VLC, transcode them to ProRes, encode x264.

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1346576004' post='17141']Smoke and mirrors. People just want to get paid to play with big toys that other people can't afford. [/quote] [left]Fundamental truth. Male brain stem. Threads like this (and the whole technical gadgets affairs) are more fueled by testosterone than by economical reason or technical needs (EDIT: You see that what you say about 'the people' tells a lot about yourself. Like in [font="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif"][color="#000000"][i]what I myself do think or do is what I expect of others too[/i], german proverb. [/color][/font]It's a mechanism called 'projection', which is my domain, but really in a technical sense ;) ).[/left] However, on a commercial film set (no matter if it's a film with Diane Keaton or if the director is a woman), you have at least four people responsible for the image: DoP, operator(s), lighting technician(s), focus puller(s), a few hundred dollars more or less for gear rentals simply don't count much. Why do we compare an Alexa to the cameras we can afford? Masochism? Penis envy? A sober calculation whether our finished feature might be rejected by the distributors because of some far-fetched color-issue? Are we indies or what?

Interesting, thank you. Looks like a bug. Generally it's wise not to be the first to upgrade to a new OSX. I had this two times already: With Jaguar and with Snow Leopard, both unvoluntarily, because they came with a new Mac. It's a VERY BIG pain in the ass to have to downgrade to an earlier version - and a RETAIL one in these instances, because installation DVDs don't work on other Macs. With brand new Snoleo, the Cinema Desktop Preview in FCP was torn (something between rolling shutter and interlace flickering), completely unacceptable. It took Apple a few weeks to fix that, but I was so shocked, that I waited a few weeks more, until everyone gave his go-ahead. I still have Lion, and I'm glad. Unfortunately, I didn't find your description via Google. So this is a rare complaint, and only thousands of outcries make Big Apple move. Mountain Lion users, join in!

[quote name='KarimNassar' timestamp='1345982928' post='16501'] Okay so here is a first test with anamorphic <3 [media]http://vimeo.com/48236294[/media] [/quote] The actual AR seems to be not 1:2,6, but 1:3, should look like this: [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/57198583/screenshot.jpg[/img]Needs to be squeezed more. Your two clips above are fantastic.