aaronmc

  This doesn't even fully capture it. They have in fact been directly antagonistic to Magic Lantern vis-a-vis the 1DX and the potential for a software conversion to a 1DC.   To me, that reveals far deeper rot than mere stupidity. It also represents entitled arrogance.

Man, am I excited about this. This is the first camera since the hacked GH2 that has gotten me to geek out over some tech. I think that this essentially confirms what everyone expected: the BMC is well beyond similarly-priced cameras and anything that is cheaper. As some have said before, the real test will be when it is run head-to-head with Arri, Red, and other uber-cameras. That's not to say this test was pointless, though. It gives us a hierarchy at all price points, while also showing us the possible ways to save money based on our shooting. I know that I am not the only guy who's walking away from this with a different value perspective. I am curious, though. How much storage do you, Andrew, estimate you will need to work with this camera? I mean, 45 minutes per quarter-terabyte is a number that scares the shit out of me.

Thanks. After more research, I'm beginning to think that it may indeed be the flicker of the lights. Apparently, the amplitude of flourescent light flicker is very high. LED's usually operate on DC, thus no flicker, and incandescent bulbs have a very low amplitude to their flicker. Ah well. I guess it's back to tungsten for close-up work. Better bust out my extension cords to distribute the load among my circuit breakers.

I'm doing some close quarters photographic and video work and both myself and my actors are experiencing eye strain with my CFL setups. I have two, seven-bulb lights in softboxes. Each bulb is a 50W CFL. I also have a few 1000W halogens. At longer distances, all lights are fine. But with closer work, with the lights only five feet away from the actors, everyone is suffering eye strain, but only with the CFL bulbs. The eye strain remains even when the lights are operated at "low power." The halogen seems to cause much less of a problem for everyone's eyes, but start making us all sweat from the heat. I would really appreciate thoughts on this. All of the stuff I've found online only addresses heat, throw, power, etc. Nothing talks about the effects on the actors except for concerns about UV radiation from some arc lamps.

I don't get it. What was he even doing? Forum tourettes?

I so hope that it is 4:2:2. I did my first experiments in chromakey a few weeks ago and used both a 4:2:0 camera and a 4:2:2 and it's amazing how noticeable the difference was. I would never put 4:2:0 work up.

Are you sure that the HDMI-out is 4:2:2? I remember reading in a few locations that it was 4:2:0. Because 4:2:2 would be great. And while I don't care about 10-bit color, it's annoying that Panasonic would have restricted it to a higher-level camera to further a strategy of artificial segmentation. 10-bit color is the feature du jour to restrict to higher-leve, expensive gear for no other reason than to force people who want it to pay more. I have a 10-bit monitor but I'll be bollocksed if I'm going to buy a $2,000 video card.

Thus far, I'm unhappy, but I'm withholding judgment on the camera until a 100% full production model gets the review treatment. If the reduced detail level, combined with the significant moire, remains, my depression will be complete. And has Panasonic admitted to having/not-having focus peaking?

At the risk of sounding dumb, how the hell does one pronounce "Arri"? Everyone I have met pronounces it differently: arr-eye, uh-rye, air-ee, air-eye. I'm assuming that it's pronounced like the last names of founders, ARnold and RIchter, so that would arr-ee. But then again, Linux was created by someone named Linus, but everyone pronounces it lih-nux.

As Krusty the Klown once said, "what the hell was that?!" [url="http://youtu.be/wRQrqnoSgrw"]http://youtu.be/wRQrqnoSgrw[/url]

Kudos to you! I love the snarky additions to the transcript. I've lost almost all faith in Canon. This is what happens when a company is at the top of the heap. They stop trying.

I second the B+W recommendation. I remember a test a number of years back exploring the penchant for filters to soften, ghost, and otherwise do undesirable things and B+W topped the list in every category.

You could do what I do: simply fall in love with lens flare. The more the better! That said, I hated the most recent Star Trek film. Lens flare be damned.

I don't know much about the supposedly necessary filter, but I fell in love with the Hyperprime on first use. I've never been a big fan of the Oly 12mm. Its distortion is quite bad and I'm one of the naysayers who think that its price is nowhere near justified. If you mix up photographic and video work, go with the Oly. Autofocus is worth the extra cash. If you're all video, I'd take the Hyperprime any day of the week. P.S. I assume that you are looking at refurb prices for the Oly.

The Mark III was quite a bit better in low light in comparison to the Mark II. Not a full stop better, but still noticeable. For me, if the Mark III had cost the same as the Mark II, I would have called a decent upgrade. But it didn't. It cost $1,000 [i]more[/i] than the Mark II at launch. That is unacceptable. Also, for future sensors, the few tests of the 1DX that are out show a sensor with excellent performance -- true, next-generation performance. Unfortunately, in grand, arrogant-as-hell Canon fashion, they only put their good sensor in their most wildly expensive camera. Can't afford it? They don't care. They're the telephone company.