galenb

[quote name='starcentral' timestamp='1352324697' post='21258'] If you're flying bmcc then you can get away with pilot model quite easily. [/quote] Yeah, that's totally true too. However, I would most likely be flying Red Ones and Scarlets so there's a pretty great deal of variance in the weight that this thing needs to hold. Red is about 10-15 pounds, sometimes more. I don't know how much a Scarlet weighs but I'm pretty sure it's less than that. The M-01 has a max load of 15 kg/33 lbs. What's the Maximum load for a Pilot? Also, I've heard that you should also avoid "Under-loading" a stabilizer. Have you known this to be true as well?

[quote name='hbqckzj' timestamp='1352309628' post='21243'] Hi Galenb,About your question: Our relationship between laing and wondlan,no relationship,only competion,we are competiter. We have own factory. before a long time, we OEM for other supplier outside of china. now we have own brand,so we can guarantee the quality. So the products manufactured by ourself,everything made by us,never relationship with wondlan. Thank you! [/quote] Thanks so much again! That's good to hear that you are the original producer of the equipment. Do you know of any productions in china or elsewhere that have used your steady cams? Do you have any people in the US currently using your systems? Some place I could go to try one out? One last question, I noticed that on your amazon page, there is no shipping information. How much would it cost to ship to the west-cost USA?

Awesome. Thanks Starcentral. I'll keep that I'm mind. I totally agree that you get what you pay for. Right now, I'm saving up for a newer camera (bmcc) so I don't have the money to spend on a Steadicam flyer system at this time. I should explane that my initial thought was that since the laing M-02 was only $1400 it might be an easier way into steady cam work. Since Ive never even done it before, it might be a good learning platform. Later, after I made some money, I could upgrade to a full Steadicam branded system. But it would be foolish for me to buy something like the Laing, in that situation, sight unseen. Honestly since there is absolutely no English reviews or even press on Laing products, I can't afford to spend money blindly like that. It's very tempting @ $1400 though. I think I could get work around here pretty quickly so it's still very tempting...

Hello and thank you so much for answering directly! I've been searching for information on the M-02 for quite a while but have only been able to find that setup video and there is nothing in english. There doesn't seem to be any reviews of the product anywhere. One thing I've been wondering about for a while: is there a relationship between Laing and Wandlan? The two products M-02 and Leopard look almost the same. Do you use the same parts or something? Or is this manufactured by a third party company and the two of you just assemble them to your own specs? Or do you manufacture the original parts? Very curious about this. Thanks again!

yeah, when the aliasing is as uniform and pixelated as that, you can almost guaranty that it was added in the encoding/transcoding/decoding stage. Even if the person had upscaled it, the software would most likely try to smooth and interpolate the data. I don't want to derail this conversation but I noticed something weird the other day. I used log and capture in FinalCut Pro X to grab some files from my card. Usually I transcode outside of FinalCut so normally I don't do this. The files that came in had horrible aliasing similar to this but the ones I brought in through import were fine. Has anyone ever noticed this before?

So much for return on investment. :-/

It's funny, digital bolex, ikonoskop and SI-2K are all super16 sized sensors. So, mostly C-mount. That's about the only way to use your MFT lenses at this point. All the other sensors are to large for the mft mount. ;-)

Yeah, RED one. The only thing that keeps me from getting one (other then just plane not having the money) is the weight and recording media. I don't think I need to go over the cost of he media. It's just ludicrous really. I've never picked one up so I don't know for sure but I see them all the time. Just about all the studios that I work for here in town have one or two. I've never seen anyone even try to shoot hand held with it. It always looks like they are straining themselves just to lift it onto or off of the tripods and dollies. But again, this is all just based on what I see and not what I know for myself. Oh wait, I did see a guy using it on steadicam though... :-) Of course, this might mean absolutely nothing to you if you don't even need to shoot handheld. But it was a consideration for me. As far as lenses go... Yeah, you're in a tough spot. I only own one MFT lens and rest are all legacy lenses so that wouldn't be as much of an issue for me. So the obvious choice is to get the BMCC MFT but obviously this isn't really an option at the moment. I guess renting PL is the way to go but sheesh, talk about expensive. It's obviously cheaper to rent Nikon glass. @ Andy: do you ever shoot hand held with RED one? So I just priced one out on RED.com: Camera $4000 (comes with SSD module but no media) REDMAG 1.8” SSD 64GB $725 RED STATION REDMAG 1.8" (MINI) – ESATA $195 RED POWER PACK (2 batteries and a charger $1,450 RED QUICK PLATE (battery mount) $500 Total $6,870.00 I left off any kind of LCD viewer because you can get an HDMI one for a lot cheaper. You can probably find a third party battery solution for cheaper as well. And really, most of this stuff could be had second hand on ebay for a lot less....

Oh hey! That's awesome! Very nice pacing in the edit. Anamorphic is working really well to give it that cinematic feel. It's so rare to see interesting sci-fi being done now a days. Although yours does have a few gun shots, it looks like it's not going to be dominated by gun fire. Which is important to me. Not because of some kind of moral issue but because it seems like everyone and their mother's first film is some kind of BlackOps or Zombie Apocalypse rip off with a bunch of guy running around with guns shooting at each other... So boring. ;-) I also love how it has this isolated but dangerous feeling like you are alone in the jungle and not only could you be attacked by other humans but who knows what else. Great job.

Maybe you're right. I truly hope so.

Oh my god... I actually feel sorry for Panasonic right now. I have a feeling that they knew they needed to bring new products to market but didn't have any money to develop it properly. So, some engineer says, "Hey we have all these AF100 bodies laying around because no one bought them. Maybe we can just put in a new CPU and some software in them and call it new right?! At least someone might buy them now instead of them just sitting here in the factory!" I really wonder what's going on at Panasonic? I have a feeling the GH3 development sucked a lot of money out of the over-all development budgets for a lot of other divisions. I'm really worried that they are in a nose dive with no way to pull up! It's just so sad.

[quote name='milandirector' timestamp='1351797249' post='20808'] @ galenb Wow, I appreciate your post very much. I m afarid to bulid my own hackintosh as I didn't use PCs in about 5 years (since I discovered MACs). I m still pretty much a novice with RAW editing and the BMC workflows. I m used to edit 1080p AVCHD files with FCP 7, and I want to move top premiere pro CS6 and to learn to colour with resolve.. So this all is pretty new to me. As I m waiting for the BMC camera I would love to used it's full potential the 2.5K (only for fictional films that I m hoping for possible limited cinema releases - for the rest I would be happy to use pro res). For these fictional projects I do not need quick turnaround, so I don't mind waiting for longer rendering or if it is not exactly real time editing/colouring as long as it works. So it is possible to downgrade 2.5K to smaller files, do an offline edit, and colouring and than export it back to it's original resolution? I m sorry for these novice questions, but I m still learning. [/quote] Yes absolutely. This is called the "Proxy" workflow. You load up the 2.5k raw images into Resolve, Grade them how you like and then export as ProRes files. When you do this, you can tell Resolve to generate lower res proxy files. I've never had to do this before myself though so I can't tell you how actually use the proxy's once you start editing. In After Effects, you can specify the Proxy in the project manager and it's pretty straight forward. Another option that's a lot more automatic is that in Premiere Pro, you can just lower the playback resolution to 1/2, 1/4,1/8, etc. so that you can play back larger then HD frames and still have smooth playback. I've done this before while working with 3k Scarlet footage recently and it works fine. Especially since my monitor isn't even high enough resolution to see the full 3k footage, there's no use in setting it to full resolution.

Got it. Thanks for the info. I just wondering because I was thinking of writing a script but I didn't know what axis you would prefer.

I think I see. So typically you would take a 1920x1080 image and scale down on the y to give you 1920x800?

I've never used and animorphic lens before so I'm not familiar with the workflow. Would it be stretching the image horizontally on the x axis or compressing vertically on the y axis?

That would be a really great feature. Unfortunately we are limited to the actions that are availible in Automator or ones that you can find on the Internet. I would imagine that someone with some programming skills could make a "resize" movie action. I haven't been able to find one though.

This thread is just a discussion. And maybe it's true that it's turned kind of negative. But it's just a discussion. There's no need to get upset that someone is bashing (which no one has actually done) your new favorite camera. Obviously that's easer said then done. I'm very sorry if it seems like I'm trying to convince everyone to not buy this camera. That's not my intention at all. My reaction comes from my own personal dissatisfaction and is in no way representative of how everyone else feels. I was staking a lot on this camera and feel really upset that it didn't meet my own personal criteria. Of course this is, and should be, different for everyone. This discussion has ruffled a few feathers and in the interest of keeping the peace I wont comment on it any further. I do have one last thing to point out though (sorry). Many people in this thread have pointed out that the results we've seen are from a pre-production camera. While this is true and normally would indicate that things will change, Panasonic assured some reviewers that this was representative of final image quality. Since I've mentioned this in a few other threads, I assumed most of you guys knew that. I've struggled to find the exact place I read that but eventually, I found a review that has the same info: [url="http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3-review-20489"]http://www.ephotozin...h3-review-20489[/url] [quote][b]Nb.[/b][color=#2D2D2D][font=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] Panasonic Lumix GH3 tested with firmware 0.5, which Panasonic assures us is representative of final image quality and video recording quality.[/size][/font][/color][/quote] So again, not trying to piss anyone off here, Just thought I'd explain that little bit.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1351997916' post='20984'] I was never a fan of Red's way of doing business, their arrogance or their fan boys, but seriously, with a RED One at $4000 why would anyone buy and keep waiting for v1 of the Blackmagic Design camera? These will probably sell out pretty quick, but if RED could somehow continue making them at this price, things would seriously change in the camera business! [/quote] I think you're absolutely right for the most part. But allow me to play devils advocate for a second. The BMCC may still be desirable for a few reasons. First, The RED one is pretty large and heavy. Not really something you can easily shoot hand held Like the BMCC. I was once on a shoot with some friends where we had a RED one on a dolly. There was a particular shot where the DP said he was going to shoot hand held.... Yeah... That didn't happen. Second thing is that the RED media cost is ludicrous. A 256BGB SSD drive costs $2,450! Here on earth, a kingston 256GB SSD drive costs about $200-$260 for the BMCC. And it doesn't stop there. RED peripherals just cost an arm and a leg. Just check out RED.com and shop for a display or even just a simple battery. BMCC can use fairly inexpensive off the shelf components. And really, you don't [i]need[/i] much more then a battery solution and SSD to shoot with a BMCC. With RED, even minor things will cost you. It's kind of like buying a Ferrari for cheap. Other then that though, the RED one is an awesome camera and I had to think long and hard when I saw the price drop. I still want to give the BMCC a chance though.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1351858576' post='20865'] 'Battle Tested' is Red's way of saving face and not having to say 'we are selling these off cheap! ' its all sales talk to make you think you are getting something of value..... and at $4000 it's one hell of a Hollywood hit movie camera ! a bargin now how much will the second hand Red One market drop to on ebay etc????..... $2500 ish???? [/quote] I thought "Battle tested" what RED's way of saying they were refurbished?

I agree too. For the most part I like his films. I guess my rant has more to do with Hollywood in general and the excepted norms that so strictly adhered to. I feel like this kind of thing exists because totally uncreative people who are in charge of production need check lists and rules to guid their discussion making when so much money is at stake. They aren't comfortable letting people feel their way through the process. Things need to be by the book and I think that's where this whole, "Keep it moving!" attitude comes from. It's one of those things I really admire about a lot of asian cinema. They allow the characters to stop an smell the roses or have a conversation and really expose who they are.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1351966671' post='20970'] [url="https://vimeo.com/52019304"]https://vimeo.com/52019304[/url] If you haven't seen this, have a look. It's not here. [/quote] I just wanted so that I think this is a pretty bad test of moire. Moire shows up when fine lines converge together. Usually the performance of the camera to resolve this kind of detail is measured by how close to one pixel the fine details can come together before causing moire. The long horizontal lines in this video are way to large and way to far apart to show moire. Same is true with the bricks. The bricks would need to converge. You can't just point a camera at a brick wall and expect to see moire. I know this kind of test is bandied about in the forum as if all you have to do is point a camera at some horizontal lines or some bricks and you will see moire but it's just not true at all.

[quote name='gravitatemediagroup' timestamp='1351959781' post='20965'] The way I see it, if you really want to know what you think about the camera, you need to just buy it. If you like it, keep it, if you don't like it, then send it back. Where I live there is no camera store/rental, so if I really want to test a product, I have to order it and see for myself rather than make an assumption from a youtube video. But if moire & aliasing is the biggest complaint, Like Germ said, we need to know why some videos have it, and some don't. [/quote] Alright, I'm not trying to bash your opinion or anything but I think it [b]is[/b] appropriate in many cases to judge a camera by what you see on Vimeo or Youtube. Specifically if you intend on releasing videos on the web. Think about it, these cameras are all about the final product. No one sees all the work it takes to make a movie. They don't know that it has a metal body or what type of lens mount or sensor size it has. All they see is the end results. If your end result looks all aliased and moire, then that's all they're going to get. The camera's soul purpose is to provide you with the cleanest, most detailed image. All else is peripheral. if It can't do that, no amount of metal body or ease of use features are going to cure that. The GH2 is testament to this; it's tiny, plastic, looks totally unprofessional and even has a smaller sensor and yet the end results in many cases blow away cameras costing 3 time as much. The peripheral things don't matter as much. The only thing that matters are the end results. If you watch these GH3 videos and notice the aliasing and moire, chances are pretty high that's you'll see them in your footage too. that doesn't bode well for it's future. Think about this too: The opposite is true too. Take the BMCC for instance. It's got some terrible usability issues that I wont repeat here but when it comes down to it, the only thing that people will see is the final image. If they see your videos and think, "man, that looks amazing!" (or better yet, they don't notice the image specifically but get an over-all feeling that your videos are great), then what do these issues amount to in the end? They're just peripheral at that point. Sure it makes it more difficult but no one knows that when they see the end result. I used to say the same thing about Maya vs Lightwave (3d animation software). Maya was all modern and technically advanced but the rendering was god awful. Lightwave on the other hand was awful to use but the rendering was amazing for back then. No one knows what software you used to make the image on the screen. They just know it looks good or it looks bad. Getting back on topic, do I think we have seen the definitive tests that show us all we need to see in order to render our final judgement? Absolutely not. I have a feeling, looking at the discrepancies in so many images and videos, that there is a magic combination of settings that causes the image to look really good or really bad. Once the camera is out and we have a chance to fully explore whether the issues are caused by to much sharpening or lenses or wether it's really is just down to the scaling algorithm and there's nothing we can do about it then yes, we can make an educated decision based on what we see on the web. As long as the tests are scientifically done, how can you argue with that? However, if you are looking at the results and up until now and thinking, "Hey, that's not bad at all!" then brother be one with it. Buy it. Love it. And of course none of these big long posts is complete without a standard disclaimer stating that no amount of camera technology is going to make you a better filmmaker and that we all need to stop worrying about 4k vs 2k or what lens to use and just concentrate on making content that people actually want to watch Blah, blah, blah... I know, I know, it's the most important thing but this is a camera forum. We're here to talk about that stuff guys. Can we all just agree that this statement goes without saying?

It's clear that you two have very different esthetics. I happen to agree with Sanveer about early Batman films. Yuck. The new Nolan ones are better but that's not saying much. I mean, for the most part I like them and I'm entertained but they all still exhibit the same basic flaw to me: To many villains, to much action and not enough character building. They just cram as much as they can in to keep the film moving. It's like they are so obsessed with action that they think even the tiniest quite moments need to be stripped from the story so they don't slow things. You can kind of say that about all super hero movies though. The only one I was ever impressed with was the second spiderman movie. Not because it's an amazing movie or anything. But it was the first time i've seen them let a movie like that stop and let the characters emote. in particular there's this scene with Peter Parker talking to his aunt where he tells her it was his fault that his Uncle died and instead of her instantly forgiving him (like you would expect) she's so upset, she can't even talk to him. to me It was like, thank you for allowing a character in a movie to be a human. On the other hand, Nolan's Batman seem so flat and predictable. And I'm totally confused by Christian Bail's portrayal of Bruce Wayne. What advantage does he gain by pretending to be a dick all the time? Why not just be a dick all the time? ;-) On top of that, Christian Bail just give me the creeps. I used to be a big [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][color=#282828]Scorsese fan but frankly, his new films do nothing for me. What was that one... Hugo? Ugh... Totally not my thing. And not because it's a kids movie either. I've seen lots of very entertaining kids movies. One thing I can't stand is when a sound track tries to take over and dictate the emotion of the scene. It's like, "Oh something funny's going! I can tell because the silly music started." To me, it's like having a voice over telling me when I should laugh or feel sad. Yeah, that movie really bugged me. [/color][/font]

Alright, my bad. I totally messed this up. Seems I forgot how I originally did it. I need to rewrite the tutorial. It's simpler now. Sorry about that! Okay, I edited the original post.

What part in particular?