maxotics

To modify a saying a bit, "If you don't already know what a BMPCC costs (in equipment and time) you can't afford it." Seriously, BMPCC is only for people who have stretched the limits of compressed video and are willing to make VERY significant trade-offs. I would cross the NX1 off the list because the platform is new. Therefore, I think you should choose between GH4 and A6000/A5100.

I want to 2nd what Dahlfors said. I have photos on an old WD Worldbook. It failed, and because the card has proprietary encryption whatever, I was about to buy an old unit to try swapping the circuitry out when someone on the Internet said I could snip the diode and it would work again (not something you'll obviously do!). Electronics die over time. I was lucky. That's why I strongly advocate having a few backups. HEAT is the enemy of ALL THINGS ELECTRONIC. Put a fan on it if you aren't in a cooled atmosphere. Also, make sure you have good surge protection, etc.

Here's a very simple explanation, I hope! A drive head can only be in read or write mode. Drives slow down when they switch between read and write mode. The more the drive goes between read/write, checking what it reads, the better. Also, the hard drive head writes in chunks and can only write so much before it must stop, go into read (catch its breach so to speak), then write another chunk. In RAID 0, the drives are configured so while one drive is writing a chunk, the other drive is preparing to write another chunk on it. This means that the first drive will get part of the data, the second drive the second part, and so on, switching back and forth. Obviously, if anything happens to either drive ALL the data is lost because each drive has a part of the data. RAID 0 is all about speed! HOWEVER, For RAID 0 to be maximized, it needs an internal card. Going through Thunderbolt will probably remove a lot of internal memory bus benefits, so I would skip RAID 0 in Thunderbold. I'd go RAID 5 if you want redundancy, though I'd KISS (keep it simple and stupid), and just create backups every day. In short, be wary of advertising from drive makers. If you don't see a difference, go back to KISS. Every time I study this stuff myself, I end up in tears too! So you are not alone.

Sorry, I'm no engineer. I spent a few years programming USB interfaces to cameras and Arduino controlled robots for panoramas. Athough I think Andrew often expects too much from the camera companies this is one area where I completely agree that Panasonic should have shown up on his doorstep and hired him as a consultant on that device. Or they might have at least asked his opinion on this forum Why they even bothered, or set that price, is beyond me. However, all these companies are obviously struggling to meet market needs. I bought a SmallHD 7 and hoped I could use it to take, and show, stills taken on my A7. Problem #1: The HDMI cable sometimes loses its connection and the SmallHD needs to be reset. HUGE pain. Problem #2: Although the external monitor will flip into portrait mode while shooting, it won't while in play mode. So I can't show what I just shot in portrait mode. They have to look at it cropped. My advice, which is probably a waste of time, is for you and Andrew to come up with the specs you want. Then if Andrew can say 5,000 users will buy it at $x price I think Panasonic might go for it. Having outside engineers do it, just too much work for a limited market. If Andrew can resist humiliating people when they screw up, the bees will come to the honey!!!!

Yes, it's impossible. Even harder for dancers, who never see themselves perform (video doesn't count because it is after the fact). And dancing has been around long before video and large mirrors. I was taking a stand-up comedy class and said I was going to be the "grumpy angry white man" and the instructor said, "only if the audience accepts you as that." Whatever we do in life, we have to find the best fit for our talents and what people will use us for. Otherwise, we get worn down. I'm glad you're seeing what I'm saying, which is also, let your client decide what you are. "We Film" Definitely. "We Edit" Definitely. "We Direct" ... for every shoot? My guess is that the biggest problem you'll face, which is my experience, is the question of each of you going it alone, or together as a company, "Video Ink". These issues are touched on in "Mad Men" and "Suits" where one client might have a personal/artistic relationship to someone, when another competing client with lots of money want your service (which will mean your ditching the first client). Here are a couple of "business" films I recommend, should you ever be interested: "Executive Suite"--board room politics, "12 O'Clock High"-lead by example, or follow a plan. And of course, all the Powell and Pressburger "Archer" films. Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, and the somewhat boring, but fascinating war as business "The Small Black Room" What are your favorite films that inspire you about the creative/business process?

But I'm free and it shows

I don't disagree with her. However, I feel "We Direct" is not something different, specific. I'm all for "this is what we do", but what does that mean? Are you good with visually striking ideas, colors, working with creative and difficult people, using the latest slo-mo technology. Please tell her what I said that you can't have your cake and eat it too, that is, be special, and then say you do everything from corporate videos to music videos? Right, that's a wide swath? That was my first suggestion, that you take out music video and make a site focused on commercial clients, those specific needs. I know it sounds like I'm saying to dumb down your site, or to hide your light under a bushel. I'm not. I'm just saying if you're going to be a genius in one thing, say it, be specific, give proof. Don't say you can be a genius in everything. Are you a specialist or generalist? The site won't sell anyone. It will only give them comfort to talk to you. So ask her, these forum guy says you run the risk of scaring someone off with "We Direct", do you think "We Film. We Edit" is so weak that someone wouldn't talk to us if we left "Direct" out? Is there something stronger than "We Direct". I think there is. I think her advice is fine, but these are the FIRST WORDS anyone reads about you. Are they perfect? Would she stake her career on them? thanks for humoring me Oliver.

SORRY SORRY SORRY Oliver. Marketing 101 here. "We Direct" is great for musicians who don't know what they want, but for those who do (commercial clients), it's a red flag that you'll impose your ideas on the shoot. I'm going to sound really old man here. This is why I get hired; 1. The client has tried to do what I do and has failed. 2. I'm available and I have the necessary tools. 3. It doesn't look like I have a drug problem. This is why I don't get hired. 1. I think I'm smarter than the client. 2. I want to use my tools to do things that interest me, not the client. 3. It looks like I want to party. Again, put yourself in the position of hiring a PA say, What do you want to see on the site where they want to work for you. The irony here, Oliver, is that what little I know of you through this forum is you're very humble and client-focused. The site doesn't put that across. "We Direct" ? It doesn't really represent you, I feel. When I read "We Direct" I think about a smart-ass hipster telling everyone what to do. Maybe I'm wrong. Just some ideas "Superlative Video. On Time. On Budget." Or "We Film. We Edit. Our Clients Look Good" "Your Vision. Our Crew" Etc. I know I"m a broken record on this. Focus on not scaring anyone away. Let your reel do the rest! It's that f'ing good Oh YES, site is VASTLY improved. You're getting there. Keep sweating the details!

You said it! Looking forward to your new site! I'm happy to be even the smallest part of your process. I now live vicariously through my young filmmaker friends

Psychologically, we can tolerate a lot of noise, almost no distortion. This is easily proven by listening to a scratched analog record then listening to it on a stereo where the volume is turned up past the point where the electronics can handle it smoothly, it becomes distorted, or "highlights clipped" in Andrew's post. Which one would you rather listen to? Early video was inherently distorted because it had limited dynamic range and focus--to get good images, you often had to turn up levels that distorted parts of the image. Today's video is so sharp there is a different type of "distortion" we must deal with--psychological, an overload of details. Film is an imaginative, dream like median. Too much detail and you wake up from your dream--unless that dream is a nightmare of details (like science fiction)! The problem is, it's difficult to dumb down an image you know is technically better than the guy who doesn't read EOSHD Right now, cameras shoot better than most viewing equipment can handle. Things are turned on their head.

If you want to use ffmpeg here is a srcript I used for MTS to MP4. YES, ffmpeg is difficult to use, BUT it can do ANYTHING, I mean ANYTHING. Most freeware/shareware software is based on ffmpeg. DO ( md mts md mp4 ) for %%f IN (*.mts) DO ( "C:\Files2013_VidPhotoSoft\ffmpeg\64bit\bin\ffmpeg.exe" -i %%f -y -map 0:0 -c:0 copy -map 0:1 -c:1 aac -b:1 128k -ac:1 2 -cutoff 19000 -strict experimental -sn %%~nf.mp4 ) DO (

Found an open-box lx100 so have been playing around. I'm using a script to downsample all the files to 1080 so i can view/work with them easier. So for anyone interested in a windows script using ffmpeg. Copy this "converto1080.bat" script (or whatever batch filename you want to call it ) into a folder with 4K mp4 files. Run it and it will created 1080 COPIES in mp4_1080 (or whatever you want to call the folder). ALSO, if anyone has better ffmpeg paramaters, please post! @echo OFF SETLOCAL REM title Converting... REM ***** CONFIG ***** REM like F:\Files2015_Maxotics\Video\ REM fold= curent folder set fold=%~dp0 set ext=*.mp4 REM dest = curent folder + mp4_1080 REM like F:\Files2015_Maxotics\Video\mp4_1080\ REM change to whatever you like... set dest=%~dp0\mp4_1080\ REM ***** END CONFIG ***** :: This makes the target folder ::MD "%fold%" MD "%dest%" REM make sure you have correct path to ffmpeg.exe for %%f in (%fold%%ext%) do "C:\Files2013_VidPhotoSoft\ffmpeg\64bit\bin\ffmpeg.exe" -i %%f -vf scale=1920:1080 -c:v libx264 -crf 10 -preset slow -c:a copy -sn "%dest%%%~nxf" REM if errors, pause so command window doesn't lcose REM pause If I need to just convert one file, I edit this batch file echo OFF set fold=%~dp0 set dest=%~dp0\mp4_1080\ set usefile=P1040162.mp4 ::MD "%fold%" MD "%dest%" "C:\Files2013_VidPhotoSoft\ffmpeg\64bit\bin\ffmpeg.exe" -i %usefile% -vf scale=1920:1080 -c:v libx264 -crf 10 -preset slow -c:a copy -sn "%dest%%usefile%" REM pause REM unREM pause to look at output in command window

Yes, I agree, probably not Branson. Often, the provider selected is not the provider someone feels the strongest about, but the provider who doesn't elicit a strong 'no' from someone. If I was on the selection committee looking at your site for a corporate video I might say, "these guys look very talented but I don't see any indication they can get along with normal people. I don't think they're going to want to do our work. I don't think their hearts will be in it. Again, I think they're great, but we'd just be too boring for them. I know the firm we currently use has _____ problems, but at least we know they want our work." In short, I have to question: "As most of my clients are musicians/agencies/labels - the site still has to be branded to favour them as that's where the chunk of our content is. " Do you mean favor them because that's the content you have, OR content you want to produce? If both are true, forget everything I say! If you're going have a different client, don't kid yourself, you can't be all things to all people. Again, it doesn't matter how much you might impress someone at a prospective client, if the other people are against you, for whatever reason, they will overpower your champion. We all like to look down on the un-talented bozo who gets well-paying corporate work, but the fact is, they're usually good politicians and that is a lot of what the work is about. You have the talent in spades. The only question is if you want to "play the game" for the money honey

I agree. Let me try again. Every client SAYS they want "style with substance". I'm certainly not suggesting you try to look boring/corporate However, successful marketing is not about giving people what they say they want, but what they really want. Let's say you want to land Virgin. Do you believe Branson personally hires the video production company? He doesn't have time and, like all good CEOs, he delegates. So Virgin selection 20 video companies to come in and pitch, where are slowly whittled down from 20, to 7, to 3 to 1. Who gets hired? Let's say you make it to the final 3. Branson wants 'A', but both marketing AND PR doesn't. Marketing wants 'B', PR doesn't. PR wants 'C' which Marketing doesn't want. Who gets hired? This is what I'd like you and your partners to think very deeply about. I'll tell you my opinion when you tell me who you think wins. (this is just a thought experiment with no real answer). Hint, when you guys hire a new PA, how is that person generally picked?

When I opened it I saw only the "Contact - Email or Call us Here" at the bottom right, and a spinning icon. I clicked on it. Nothing. Eventually the site loaded. I'm in the U.S./East Coast. Even though your clients may not live here, they may look at your site while visiting the U.S. on other work. So, you really need NO EXCUSE quick load anywhere. The site is stunning and impressive. I find it a bit too needy. To many "Contact us here..." buttons. Even the first one of the bottom right, I'd take it out. Why? Corporate/commercial clients do not look for "Unique. Stylish. Cinematic", they look for "Current. Targeted. Distribution Friendly." Don't call them, they'll call you For music videos, the more creativity the better. They are musicians, not filmmakers, so whatever you can do to keep a viewer interested long enough to listen to the whole song is ALL that matters. You'd think that would be the same goal for a corporate video, but it isn't. Established companies must balance keeping their existing customers (brand/perception) focused/stable/reliable while doing just enough new stuff to look fresh. There will be factions within every corporation that want you to just do what's been done a million times before and which they believe pays the bills (and keep in mind will pay YOUR meaty invoice). There will be factions that want to try something new, or go in a different directions. Balancing those competing needs will be the difference between success and failure. Both factions have to sign-off on using your company. Right now, your site speaks only to those factions wanting to do cool stuff. It will turn off the other factions. Getting back to musicians. Most of your clients have little to lose. Every song they swing for the fences. If they strike-out, they just try again. Corporations have people who pay the mortgage, feed their families, every day, based on current clients. They FEAR failure, of losing their existing business. You HAVE TO WORK with these people and if they get a whiff that you're going to be a prima donna artist they'll sabotage your getting the work, or working with them again. In short, all commercial work (though I work in a different field) is about getting along with others. Naturally, everyone has their "thing" that bugs people, but only one bugbear per person! SO... I suggest you make a separate site/business, called Vindeo Ink Corporate, or something like that, where you DON' T SCARE THE F'ING SHIT OUT OF THEM Put up only your commercial videos. Put up all you experience, put up testimonials, put up language that says you can work in anyone's f'd up company without throwing a hissy fit. Just like Hollywood, they want something new, bold, daring, but with the exact same story as whatever movie came out last month and made $500 million! Don't take my word for it. Talk the customers you want, PEOPLE who would actually hire your services. They'll be closet filmmakers like you and would love to have drinks after work. Again, these are people with boring jobs at large advertising/media companies (you actually want to talk to c-level people because they know what gets bought and why. The higher-ups talk bullshit.). Let them help you fine-tune your site to get the consensus you need to get projects. (Warning, you're not going to like these corporate cogs--a long story why, but you need them). The other way to do this is to make a blockbuster film and become a celebrity filmmaker Lastly, you know I think the world of your work Oliver. You've got the creative/talent thing down!

Very intresting wolf33d. My two cents is I would not trust a camera with a movable sensor for landscape photography. There are heat dissipation issues and the slightest software/hardware glitch and the sensor become unaligned to the lens and you get blur. Many photographs ALREADY go crazy with micro-focus issues with fixed lenses and sensors. For centuries, it has been true in photography, and all machines, if it CAN go wrong, eventually it will. This is ALL theoretical but in my "real world" I need to have the most confidence that the least amount of stuff will go wrong. That's subjective, sure. I pick up a Nikon and I get this sensation from the camera "I will always turn on. I will always get you a shot quickly and competently." The question is very simple and should be respected. Are the trade-offs Sony made to get in-camera stabilization worth the risks one takes in long-exposure photography. Unless one works in landscape photography opinions should be circumspect? Bottom line, thank you for having the guts to post your opinions in a "4K is the be-all and end-all of all things camera" Forum. I say that with Love for EOSHD

I never had the cameras I wanted as a young person. Now I have all the cameras I want. EVERY time I go out I tell myself, "shoot some video". I almost never do. Why, I ask myself? The best I can figure is that shooting video WITHOUT a narrative results in boring footage. I'm only interested in Andrew's footage because of my technical interest, and those vestigial dreams of being a filmmaker. Otherwise, I can't sit through video of random scenes. I've asked Andrew to shoot people in his tests because then he'd see how important narrative is over image quality. Shooting a music video doesn't count because it has a built-in narrative--the song. Most of my videos are of similar narrative-included events. Yes, if you're looking at the Canon 70D say, and the Sony A6000 for video functionality, the latter wins hands down. Yet, you can still record decent video on the 70D, and it is STILL a much better still camera than ANY MFT camera. I've tried to get into MFT cameras for stills. I read Visual Science Lab every day. Can't do it. The main thing is that 90% of most camera buyers do NOT shoot video for the very same reasons I don't. Video DEMANDS a narrative or it becomes the digital equivalent of "watching a vacation slide show" in the 70s. That was the joke when I was young. If I take a photo, I can post it, and someone can enjoy it immediately, or not. If I shoot a video, even 1 minutes worth, it will take ten-times that amount of time to edit it. The work required for video grows exponentially. Most people DO NOT want to spend their leisure time editing anything. And unlike a photo, you viewer can't decide how long they want to look at it. VIDEO FORCES YOUR NARRATIVE on someone, just like a slide show. In a sense, a video is active and a photo passive. A video, in short, is not for the insecure. I doubt it matters how far Sony and Panasonic distance themselves from Canon/Nikon in video. Video, on any camera, is not what most people want or use. Finally, the difference between 4K and 1080 doesn't do much for me. RAW, vs any resolution DOES make a difference to me. So if I DID SHOOT video, I wouldn't use a 70D or a Sony or a Panasonic. I'd shoot with a Blackmagic, or if I was going to shoot compressed, a C100.

Microsoft's photosynth technology now includes walk through, and walk around, imaging. https://photosynth.net/preview/about In other words, you could put a 4K camera on a wheeled dolly today, walk it around a person, and then put those images up on the site and someone could view a similar walk around. Of course, you could just do a video. However, with the above technology you can easily ZOOM IN and and set the speed of rotation, etc. Just another area where these 4K cameras will come in quite handy.

​For video applications, I found IBIS on the Olympus EM 5.2 disconcerting. On a gimbal, you can program how it plays catch-up during the movement. You can't on a camera. So do you find IBIS on the sony killer when you do any kind of panning movement? I also found that it doesn't matter how well IBIS works, if objects move in the frame its benefit is lost (in lowering shutter speed).

I have a Nebula 4000. The problem with any camera on a small gimbal is focusing. Small gimbals go a bit haywire if you touch them (manual focus), or have cables running to them (video, power, LANC, etc.) . Even changes in the temperature seem to affect them. Therefore, you might be better off with a weighted stabilizer and practice. Of course, if you can set focus for each shot, and you don't need to change it, then yes, a gimbal works well. If I had the time I'd get back into robotics and build a wireless focus puller for Oly lenses on the BMPCC. Only if someone built something like that would I run the BMPCC on the Nebula. Also, these small gimbals are still VERY FUSSY. A lot of videos out there make them look easy. They are NOT. Hope this helps.

Also make sure Windows isn't indexing, or defragging, or some other process getting in the way. Make sure you have latest drivers, like DirectX, video card, etc.

That's what I assumed on the BM, for the Magic Lantern DUAL ISO they must be using an analog gain?

​When shooting RAW, ISO is only a "directive" to the processor on how to "expose", or create an image from the RAW data. When you set a higher ISO on the BMPCC it only shows you an expected ISO image on the screen, it doesn't actually CHANGE what RAW data is recorded, unless there's something I don't know. Hopefully someone can CORRECT THIS if I'm wrong about that. What we would want is for the BM camera to change it's shutter speed every other frame (give more or less light to the sensor). I don't know what ML does to create the dual-ISO stuff. I don't expect this any time soon. I believe we (humans) have a natural dynamic range of 6 stops, so if you expose correctly, you never really need more than that. Sigma cameras, which I'm a big lover of, have a DR of about 8.

Andrygl if you're interested in dynamic range I strongly recommend all the articles and data (which pertain to stills) of Bill Claff https://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/ What you're after is best achieved using Magic Lantern's Dual ISO feature (or whatever they call it now). It essentially takes one interlaced frame at a low ISO, another at a high ISO, and stitched them together, sort of video HDR. Cool stuff. Nikon has the highest dynamic range in still cameras, but it doesn't translate, far as I can tell to their video. Sony's A7S has great high ISO dr, but is limited on the low end. Believe it not, what some people really love about the Nikon D800 (for still again) is that it can shoot at a real 50 ISO, or something like that. It means they can shoot wider open at a fast shutter speed without a ND filter. The shots you took could achieve a high effective DR by shooting with a graduated ND filter, that's probably what a professional would do. Finally, DR is more of a physical nature of the silicon light detecting materials which, I believe, has long ago been maximized. I doubt it will ever get much better than the BMPCC in MFT sized sensors. In full-frame, the 5D3 already shoots RAW with ML. If Sony ever makes an A7S that records RAW that will probably be as good as it gets in our lifetime, until, if ever, they find another light detecting material.

To follow onto what Mattias said, video is still secondary to these consumer cameras. Specs are more focused on stills, like dynamic range and ISO. If you want meaningful specs you need to get the technology focused on that use. I remember when I first came to this blog and Andy was 24/7 raving about the Panasonic G6. I didn't understand. The Sony and Canon cameras I had at the time seemed just as good and had the same specs. Then I bought a used G5 and I saw what he was saying. Lots of intangibles. Like autofocus, how do you really spec that? I compared a GH4 against the A6000 and only then could I see the difference. I have yet to use a camera (and I've tried most) that doesn't have some strength over another camera (and weakness). I think the question you're driving at Ebrahim, is what specs do we need to make choosing cameras betters? I'd love that too. Maybe Andrew can come up with something.