dhessel

Internet Lynch mob, it is facinating you can read through this post and watch the mob just whip themselves up into a frenzy. Is this a joke or a con, possibly maybe even likely, but if I was this "kid" and I did have a hack my attitude now would be fuck these guys. He announced a date, it is fine and good to be skeptical but all you had to was just sit back and wait - all will be revealed on April first. It's like sitting by and watching a bunch of children waiting for Christmas to come impatiently obsessing over every possibilitity. At this piont I hope the hack is real and no one gets it.

65mm is generally regarded as having a resolution greater than 4k digital.

Seriously... Foxconn is a shit hole that is so terrible they installed nets to keep their factory workers from killing themselves jumping out of the fucking windows and there is a discussion here on the merits of this new RED camera that will be built by those very workers? But hey its going to be cheap right?

Pretty much this entire topic is just sad on every level.

Looks like Foxconn is going to have to invest in more suicide nets...

Yes it is true that net neutrality is very young, adopted in 2015 as you elluded to. It was put in place to ensure that the internet stays as it was then, open access for everyone once connected. Without it we are left to the mercy of what the ISP's decide they want to do. The internet won't be turned off, there is no money in that, but it could be fundimentally changed for the worse.

It is funny that you use this example because this is exactly what the repeal of net neutrality could lead to. What net neutrality fundimentally means is that once you connect to the internet you have full access to it. Any website at the speed your have paid your isp for. Sure not all web hosting is equal some are faster some are slower but that is not the same thing as allowing the ISP to determine the speed for the website. If a site slow it is slow for everyone because the website's host is slow. Without it the ISP's can pull all kinds of tricks to try and nickel and dime you putting more money in their pockets. For example your ISP might have a deal with microsoft so you can only using bing and hotmail by default. If you want to use google to search then you need to pay an additiona $5 a month. Want YouTube well then you need to pay $5 a month for basic access, $10 a month if you want enough bandwidth to stream HD and $15 a month if you want 4K. Big sites like Amazon will pay up to get a fast high speeds and all the smaller sites that can't pay up will be slowed down putting them at an even bigger disadvantage. There is nothing that the average user of the internet has to gain it is only the large corportations that will benifit from this. This is just one aspect of it but there is also the fact that the internet is the largest source of information that the world has ever seen. Now corporations will have the ablity to block whatever sites they want, you have an ISP who's owner is very liberal they could block access to conservative sites or vice versa. They now have the abliity to decide what you can and cannot see, to control information, corporations could be the ones "protecting the internet" and with the connections between large corporations and the government there is a huge opportunity for censorship just waiting to be tapped. This may never happen but now without net neutrality this is something that CAN happen where it couldn't before. I don't see how anyone can support the loss of net neutrality and from the comments I have read so far from those that apparently do, they clearly don't understand what it is in the first place.

One if the major things that has not been mentioned is that the loss of net neutrality would allow ISP's to throttle the speed to specific sites. So a company like Amazon will pay a premium price to get a high speed but a smaller site will see it's speed reduced when it can't afford to pay off the ISP. They could decide to throttle sites for any number of reasons. Basically the big corporations will have the highest speeds and everyone else will be slowed down. It's a total cash grab and just about everyone here is against it. Surely the ones who are pushing this through are going to rewarded down the line.

I don't know about premiere but after effects has a big memory leak. Load in 4k footage and you can watch it slowly eat away your memory until it crashes. Wouldn't be surprised if premiere is the same.

It can work and it can work well but the problem is when it doesn't work there is nothing you can do. It is always better to get it right in camera if you can. SteadyXP seems fine, I had some interest in the data in gather for match moving but there is only so much it can do. For instance at night if you have unsteady footage with jarring motion it might be able to smooth it out but there is nothing it can do about the streaking you will see in lights. Just one such example but it illustrates the problem with relying on less than optimal solutions, they work but sometimes they don't and you won't know until you are back at your workstation trying to make delivery.

Post motion blur can be ok but is not a replacement for the real thing. It can be a fall back solution but shouldn't be your go to solution. There were times in the past at my work where we took the risks and did things like this that were good cheap work around that gave us good results. But eventually it comes back to bite you and all of your tricks and shortcuts fail then you are SOL.

As someone who does post stabilization all the time I can tell you there are some things you just cannot remove in post. As good as this may be it is not going to ever be as good as a true gimbal. Sure you can use 1/100 shutter to reduce the issues but it looks terrible unless you want it to look like a video game. Never rely on warp stabilization, I will come back to bite you at one point or another.

I can't imagine how it might happen but it looks like micro cracks inside the lens. I have had a lens that I dropped in the past and it got a circular chip in the glass. It was a large chip that didn't separate but left the same rainbow like pattern you are seeing when viewed at the correct angle. If has large chips in the glass that have moved a tiny bit those areas can be softer which looks to me like what you are seeing in your footage. If the lens came arrived that way and was not listed as being damaged in the discription I would return it, if those are chips there is nothing you can do to fix it.

You could also send it to Bernie ant Super16 Inc if you are in the US. He services these and will look at it for free and let you know how much it costs to fix if it can be fixed. This iscorama is basically like a normal anamorphic projector lens set to infinity focus with a variable strength diopter in front. The rounded front element on the main optical block can be removed without messsing up the alignment, if that gets you far enough in to clean it then you maybe able to to that yourselft depending on what is actually on the lens. I believe the next element back after that one is the front anamorphic element, the alignment of this elment to the rear element is critical and very sensitive. If you remove it it has to go back exectly how it was before otherwise the lens will loose sharpness.Once removed you should be as far in as you would ever need to clean out as much as you can. The focus of the anamorphic block is probably set by the rear element, it is my own policy to never remove or even loosen the rear element of any lens. Without a collimator you will never get it set right again. Having not opened one of these before I cannot say for sure but I have serviced an Iscorama 54 years ago and I suspect they are very similar.

Unfortunately your best option is going to be to sell the F3 you have and purchase another with the upgrade already installed.

B has the most natural colors for me.

While I ultimately agree with you i think it should be pointed that the surface are of the sensor in the iPhone is over 50 times smaller than a full frame Canon making it much easier to cool.

Interesting article, I can see the connection the film writing prompts post you make. There is one thing I noticed and and would like to clarify if I am understanding you correctly. As I read it you are stating that a 56mm full frame equivalent lens on a medium format camera will give you more compression than a 56mm equivalent on a smart phone due to the longer focal length of the medium format. That is not the case, compression is a function of perspective which is purely defined by the physical position of the camera nothing more. Focal length only affects other characteristics like DOF, lens distortion, etc... This will be the case with all traditional lenses with maybe the only exception of some really odd ones like the reversed perspective lens I saw posted a while back.

Yes it does but they generally don't moderate for polical correctness.

True but they could still claim that the piece was capture and mastered in 4K which is probably enough.

It does matter to Netflix for original content, they will not allow any camera that doesn't shoot native 4K period. The reasoning I have heard for this is that they advertise that all of their original content is 4k. They don't want to deal with any issues that may arise from using upscaled to 4K material. Technically they could get hit with a class action lawsuit if they say all of their original content is all 4k but some of it was actually not 4k and upscaled. While I find this to be unlikely it is not outside the realm of possiblity. Again this is only for their orginal content, for anything else it doesn't matter.

The Nvidia is still going to be far superior to internal graphics, the internal is only there to allow a user to access the bios and boot in an emergency. I used an 8800 gtx with Resolve without issue for hd footage.

Contrary to popular belief it appears that this is actually possible although I do not know what the maximum fstop acheivable would be. It is called a wide converter and was patented by kodak about two decades ago. We have never seen one since Kodak owns the patent and never produced one themselves. https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_5499069_A

The wind? It's an indoor arena isn't it?

I mentioned the Sony lens since it has the discription of what the APD filter does in that lens and that same type of filter was later used in the Fujinon lens. Point being that filter alters the DOF. I do see that mention DoF rolloff as one characteristic but I don't see any others.