Jacek

What is so special with that comparing to cheaper Benro tripods like: C373T ?

Sense :). I don't care if anybody agrees, just telling what I think based on my knowledge. Overclocking is not disaster, but increasing risk of failure from for example 0.1% to 1%, which is significant, but not observed often (but still 99% of overclockers will say it's all ok). Overclocking: - increases risk of CPU, Motherboard failure and shortens their life time. - increases rate of memory errors, some of them resulting in OS instability (part of Windows blue screens in old days or sudden restarts). Look here (in other articles from other years you have different motherboards): http://www.hardware.fr/articles/954-2/cartes-meres.html Failure rate of motherboards for overclockers is many times higher in comparison to regular motherboards (despite higher price, golden pins, radiators and others). It is not because these motherboards are worse than their cheaper alternatives, they are just usually working with overclocked CPU/Memory. If you look in other articles from other months/years you can find tens of such examples. I don't have time for other arguments, just do a research if you are interested. (If that's an argument :)- I'm not complete layman, have some background to judge facts - MSc in Physics and MSc in Computer Science [both on Polytechnic - more hardware related]). But please avoid arguments like: My 3 PCs are working great, so i'm sure it's safe. Probably 95% or something Overclocked PC-s are working quite well, but it's not what I'm talking about. Judge facts like this only based on statistics data, because we are talking about risk, which is statistics itself.

Don't overclock if you don't really have to. It has big impact on stability and durability. People are often overclocking and then complaining about instable Windows. Software is instable because of instable hardware. Overclocking is good for gaming, but for workstation not so much.

Can You please share some impressions using this setup? In particular: - which focal length and f-stop did You use? - is it hard to see/frame scene on in-build display? - is it hard to focus? - is it heavy (look like is going to break the lens over time :)) ?

May be also "Invite video clips" or "Video invite clips"?

That is what I meant. I don't see differences and don't want to finish with strange title or title inviting someone to cinema ?. I wasn't considering terms like 'invite' or 'vids' before. Now it looks like mycompany.com/invitevids or mycompany.com/videoinvite should offer 'Video invites' instead of 'film invitations'..

Literally videos that invite someone to an event. For example: I offer video with your face inviting your friends to come to your wedding/party on 11.12.2016 at hotel President in Paris.

yes, just 'video invitation', but I thought I could also use term 'movie' (film), especially if I make it look like 'movie trailer' or like scenes from a movie.

Thanks, never heard about 'vids' and it looks good.

I want to offer my work - short clips as invitation (for wedding, party ...).. How to call it in English (title of my product, webpage...)? (I am far from good english ) video invitations; personal video invitations; movie invitations; film invitations; fimlic invitations; my film invitation; or even kind of words play: video invitator Are 'movie' and 'film' words even allowed here? Please, help!

Depends on situation and gear I use, but never "Aperture priority".

I'm from Poland. Most of the best polish directors finished film school (Biggest one in Poland: Film school in Łódź): Munk, Wajda, Polański, Kieślowski, Zanussi... So it is quite usefull I think. At least statistics about directors in Poland says so .

Point the camera on white lcd screen (like Eoshd forum :)) and rotate polarizer to see black screen on camera (deepest black in the middle of the screen). It's good to confirm polarization on some reflective surface, couse I'm not sure if all lcd screens are polarized vertically/horizontally. So you have first red dot. Second will be just 90° from first one (or you can rotate screen or camera 90° and again find black screen). vertical or horizontal (not sure which is which) are your starting points to clean water reflections (see through), hide wet/polished horizontal surfaces reflections or the same for vertical surfaces - like hide/show somebodys reflection in windows.. Any reflective horizontal/vertical surface (walls, floors, water, buildings..) will generate in most situations vertically or horizontally polarized light, so these are most used filter polarizer positions to hide or let through these reflections.

Just want to show you my solution to use faderND filter as polarising filter at the same time (cost: £8.95). It is very simple, but surprisingly hard to find such informations in the net. If you have faderND filter, it is (always?) made from 2 polarising filters. Like mine: When you use it, the problem is, that you rotate front polarizer and stop it on random angle, so you have no control over which polarization you accept (most importantly - which polarisation you completely cut off). So it is not only useless as Polariser, but sometimes it can cut off the reflections which shouldn't be cut. The solution is simple - buy a rotating spacer ring like mine (here put on a 43-52 step up ring for 52mm FaderND): I bought mine here (they have really cheap Europe shipping) - http://srb-photographic.co.uk/rotating-spacer-rings-1126-c.asp If you use step-up ring - put the spacer ring after step-up ring (if you put it before, you can introduce a lot of vignetting). How to use it?: Screw Rotating spacer ring and than your FaderND. When you set up all parameters, first rotate FaderND to proper ND level (you have to hold spacer ring not to rotate, because it is rotating much lighter (in my case)), and then rotate whole filter with your new spacer ring to adjust first polarizer angle (spacer ring rotates really light, so it is impossible [in my case] to change ND level by accident). To make it even simpler, I made a test (LCD monitor is polarised so it is very helpfull) and marked a vertical and horizontal position of front polarizer with lacquer dot (if it's on top, I know that it's close to vertical/horizontal polarization): It is really very fast and simple to use. Don't throw your money on additional polarizer (and don't add additional glass in front of your expensive lens) you have it already, but you wasn't using it. NOTE: Spacer ring adds some space before filter, so can make some vignetting if the filter is not big enough for your focal length.

I'm using LX100 since its release (almost a year): - it's super easy to take a shot: image stabilization, autofocus before recording, zoom (from quite wide to first portrait fov) - few seconds to move/reframe and start recording. - low-light performance is good: (almost 4/3 sensor + F1.8 on wide end) it is like "what you see is what you can get" - no night vision, but human vision. - when setting sharpness and noise reduction all the way down (-5) the noise (when visible) looks quite filmic. If you also don't move the camera handheld and know hot to frame a shot it looks nice (not videoish) - dynamic range is ok most of the time, but there are situations when it's too low (and you have to use tricks to save a shot - overexpose, soften highlight in post ...). - perfect details - good battery - grading is very limited. I do often can't get the colors/look I want. Especially difficult when people are close (skintones). Don't have much experience with bmpcc, but I would say: - you will have better shots with lx100 in: wide scenes with lot of things in frame, panoramas; 'artificial' things - like buildings, cars, instruments; places where you don't have time to set up the camera (just take it out and record); - you will have better shots with bpmcc in: organic scenes - people, nature; when you need extreme dynamic range. - in low-light it's equal I think: it would be really hard with bpmcc to get better than lx100 with wide fov 1.8 (24-28mm equivalent) - it not only have bright lens, but can use (quite clean and with filmic grain) high ISO, especially when downsizing to fullHD. In summary: lx100 is super easy (so also fun) to use and get stunning results in 'artificial' and wide scenes BUT is very limited in grading (especialy 'organic' scenes like people) and getting filmic colors - you get OK colors, but not the mood you want (It is really a big problem).

I had similar problem... Bought lx100.

I use it like that: - setup everything for video (flat profile, video format display [there is somthing in menu which changes display to video aspect ratio], display options like zebra, custom fn buttons for video) + set one fn button for custom profile switch (c1,c2..) - save as C1 profile - setup everything for photo (profile, display, fn buttons..) + set the same fn button as in video profile for custom profile switch (c1,c2..) - save as C2 profile Now you can use one fn button to easely switch between C1 and C2 profiles. But remember one thing: if you change settings while using C1 and then switch to C2 and back to C1 - your changes are lost, the profile is loaded exactly how you saved it at the beginning. Aperture, shutter speed, AF/MF you change with physical buttons, so no quick reset to your default values is available. I'm using my old Sandisk Extreme 64GB card. No problems.

How did you manage to add photo to the forum?? I always have errors when uploading... :(

- A video - B video :)

Because I thought (based on my initial tests) that I can recover more details with Shadow/Highlight than with Contrast... But because You asked, I made more detailed tests and I realized I was wrong. I tested shadows and highlight recovering in high dynamic scene with: 1. Contrast:0 + Highlight/Shadow:0 2. C:-5 + H/S:0 3. C:0 + H/S:-2/+2 4. C:0 + H/S:-5/+5 Here are my observations: - Clipping is exacly the same in all tests. No additional data captured in all tests. - Test 2 and 3 give similar results (Test 2 has little bit less contrast): C:-5 is almost the same effect as H/S:-2/+2 - Recovered deep shadows are: 1. worst (noise blockiness, blue channel clipping), 2. = 3. better, 4. best - Noise level in mid-tones is similar in all tests when final contrast is matched. Scary noise :) in flat images disappears when contrast is reversed (Or appears when lowering contrast in post). Conclusions: - Lowering contrast or H/S curve does not affect overall camera dynamic range. - Looks like Contrast and H/S are altered after camera captured the image but before encoding (that's why we can get better shadows after lowering contrast). - You can get nicer deep shadows (mostly when you want to brighten them) by lowering contrast (no matter if by Contrast or H/S curve) only because the shadows move to the right on the histogram. The differences between 'normal' picture profiles (Natural, Standard, Portrait) are small and difficult to measure and I don't have time to do that. By simple comparison they just look like small Contrast/Saturation tweaks, nothing more. So in normal situation, especially when you have enough dynamic range to move the histogram to the right, there is no reason to lower contrast - you only loose some color information. You can lower the contrast in post with same effect (Just try - you can push it really hard in post). Lowering contrast can improve only shadow noise. It is usefull when most of the histogram is on the left (or important things are in shadows) or if you want to brighten the shadows in post. The darker the shadows, the more usefull is moving them to the right on the histogram. My default settings will be for now: Picture profile: Standard Contrast: 0 (or -5 just in case to have more control over shadows in post) Sharpness: -5 Noise reduction: -5 Saturation: 0? Shadow/Highlight: 0/0 When need to brighten deep shadows in post: Contrast up to -5 and then additionally S/H up to +5/-5

I'm aware of that, but here the image is not becoming too flat (I'm using Contrast:0) and I like the results. I would only advice not to push it too far, but mainly because of noise (the color shift is still small at S/H:+5/-5). It is the same 8bit codec as in GH4. People are using really flat profiles with GH4 - tuning not only highlights/shadows but also Master Pedestal and CineLikeD with low Contrast so don't say we are going too flat with these settings here - go and criticize GH4 users ;). Wrong topic. Deleting.. :lol:

For vimeo: www.vimeo.com/help/compression Just lower the maximum bitrate in Resolve's final Rendering Settings and the file will be smaller. Don't mess around with key frames - Resolve should find best settings according to max bitrate.

Indeed a lot of people are using Natural profile. Thanks for the hint, I'll try it too. I did some more tests with Highlight/Shadow inverted S curve. Deep shadows are improved, but it introduces also more noise in midtones. So you should be careful with Shadows part and push it to +5 only when you have something important in deep shadow. Highlights part is less destructive and safer to use. To bring back proper colors you will need to lower saturation (in camera or in post), especially noticable when restoring the contrast in post. The stronger the curve, the lower saturation is needed to maintain colors in final image (otherwise they quickly become oversaturated and bright like neon). I do often need to brighten the shadows a little, so I'll probably use something like Shadow/Highlight: +2/-5... (and lower saturation accordingly to have less work in post) So for now it's something like: Picture profile: Natural Contrast: 0 Sharpness: -5 Noise reduction: -5 Saturation: -3 (or 0) Shadow/Highlight: +2/-5 (or 0/0)

I'm trying to find most neutral settings on my LX100 (partially probably common with GH4). By neutral I mean getting most data from sensor not modified digitally after captured (by camera soft). What I think after small tests: Contrast: 0 - it looks like -5 is not getting/protecting any additional data. When I lower contrast in post, I get the same shadow/highlight data as -5. It looks like the camera is lowering the contrast after image is burned. Sharpness: -5 - sharpening looks like pure 'post'-sharpening. I can get the same pixel level image as 0 after sharpening -5 in post. Noise reduction: -5 - noise looks nice and I see recovered data (especially with sharpness -5). Saturation: 0? - 0 colors look natural and I don't see a difference when lowering in post vs -5 when needed. But not sure how to test it more detailed. Picture profile: Standard. - More flat Portrait looks like mostly just Standard with lower contrast.. Highlight/Shadow curve: -5/+5 if needed. - In opposite to lowering contrast, here I can see some recovered both highlights and shadows. Not much of them, but always something. The noise in shadows people are complaining about is lower (looks better) than by raising shadows in post instead. As side effect, the colors look different, not sure if easily correctable in post. Do you have any other findings/ideas? Also in GH4 cause probably they are similar.

I have checked many reviews, samples and specification before I bought this camera. If you would do the same, you would know about the lack of HDMI monitoring. Be angry on yourself. It's always like that. When famous photographer says that camera X is excellent for portraits, I would still check if it has all features I need, like controls or focal length I'm using most often...