Quirky

Well, reality perceived depends on one's POV and attitude. Your reality is whatever you make of it. There are ways to manipulate the reality perceived. One of the popular ways to manipulate reality is marketing. Physical appearance is indeed a small part of that, for sure, but not the only one, and unless we're talking about sex, hardly the most effective part. Especially if/when we climb higher in the food chain. If you indeed have more work than you can handle, you can choose your clients and turn some of them down, you're doing pretty well, and you've got a positive problem. Whatever you make of that situation is up to you. What kind of message is your online presence sending? What is your marketing message like in the first place? Have you tried rising your prices, for example? That's one message that ought to make your clients pay more attention to your showreel and your service, rather than to the outer appearance of your gear. Which is mostly superficial. Basic commodities tend to get picked by their size and appearance alone, with bigger often seen as better, whereas the higher end stuff need to offer more than just bling and bulk. It's up to you which market segment you wish to aim your services to, and what you want to do in general. Most aspiring/starting filmmakers and photographers can only dream of the kind of 'problem' you're facing. If you like shooting with the kind of gear you already have, the work you get with it is good enough, and you've got more clients than you need, I'd say don't let some ignorant client tell you how to do your job. Just rig your gear up, or choose better clients. Based on your own comments above, that should not be too hard for you. This may sound like an old cliché, and maybe it is, but that's because it's also based on proven facts of human behaviour. I don't think the Egyptians are that much different from the rest of the world. At least those I know aren't. Just thinking out loud, not trying to tell you how to run your business. Carry on with your positive problem. I wish we all had that kind of problems only. :)

Yes, 4K is an interesting topic in general, and so is the video, whether you agree with the guys in it or not. Unfortunately the nerds clashing their light sabres are making so much racket it's hard to hear the more interesting and the more practical arguments for and against the talking points provided in the video. Speaking of which, didn't we have at least one, if not two previous threads about the same video already, at least one with less noise & nerdytainment? Maybe the admins might want to lock this one and redirect it to the previous one.

It's not necessarily a bad idea per se, but it would be a bad idea for the reasons you mentioned. I tend to agree with richg101, impress with your showreel rather than with your bling. So what's the problem, then? If you really are booked solid and can pick your jobs and clients, why not picking just those clients who are impressed with your work rather than with the size of your, er, gear? Surely that would be better for your 'soul' in the long run, as the most superficial (or even dumb) clients are often likely to be the most unrewarding and unchallenging to work with, too. Suppose rigging up the existing gear would be a reasonable compromise. Until you know what kind of camera you want/need for artistic/technical reasons. Just my 2c.

Mmm, a new tiled menu, with some new features, too. Looks kind of neat, but BM could still improve the overall functionality a bit. A shortcut for white balance and maybe sensitivity would be welcome. There already was a one for peaking and another for focus magnification. Nevertheless, it's nice to see BM actively supporting the Pocket and the original Cinema, too.

Bingo Boom Chaga Laga! :)

Either people don't read too good, or you may have something in common with the Canon marketing dept, too. I'll return the favour and let you figure out what exactly that is, but as a not so subtle hint, it's not about stating the obvious or pointing out the irrelevant. Meanwhile, perhaps both you and Canon in particular could watch and learn from companies like Apple and even Sony about how to do a launch online.

Speaking of Canon and marketing, that Come and See ad campaign is working just fine for them, but the same cannot be said about their recent campaign, which turned out to be, to put it mildly, quite anticlimactic. They've had this big, cheesy teaser with rather pompous sounding lines online for a week or so now; Underneath these lines there was (and still is) a dramatic countdown clock, signifying that something out of this world was to come as the countdown reaches zero. Finally the countdown was completed, and looks like the countdown was counting down to... Zero. The countdown clock reached zero at some time yesterday, after which nothing happened. ;) Apparently they messed up the release time, and the big reveal, whatever it is, will take place after an hour or so. Nevertheless, that was quite an embarrassing marketing blunder for Canon, and the Japanese sure don't like losing face in public like that. It'll take quite a few Come and See videos by Jonathan Glazer to cover up an over-inflated anticlimax like that. :P

Is it? Or is it right to the point, after all? When we've got awesome subject material, good story and well executed shooting, the technical side of things, along with the camera brand become less relevant. It's still and important piece within the equation, but not nearly as significant as we gearheads often like to think. No one has suggested that the C300 or C500 couldn't deliver decent looking footage, but a few people may have suggested that nowadays we can accomplish that, and perhaps more, with considerably cheaper gear, too. When I was watching that piece, I was automatically drawn into the story and the action, and wondering what is this bizarre sport combining rugby, boxing and wrestling, and thinking to myself what a cool way for a bunch of blokes to let off some steam. Wondering about what camera it was shot with did not occur to my mind. Take an average audience who is not obsessed with camera gear, and they would have cared even less.

For starters, doing weddings well is not an easy task for sure. You're supposed to run and gun with cinematic end results, whilst not being in the way and distract the ceremony. Weddings are very effective yet somewhat 'ungrateful' chances to learn. So whatever criticism you get here, keep on doing weddings, if that's your thing. Your possible shortcomings is nothing that some more practise and further editing wouldn't fix. With that said, the Natalie & Jack wedding, as well as the Angelo christening suffered from same kind of little niggles. They looked a bit inconsistent, and both were a bit too long, at least for the kind of edits they were. I won't comment lens choices, grading, lighting or exposure here, I'll just concentrate on the videos themselves and how they work. A considerable part of the footage looked like it was shot by "uncle Bob" with his camcorder, whilst some other bits looked much better. There seemed to be a bit too much camera movement for the sake of movement, especially when it was handheld movement. That was a bit distracting. Some of the cuts didn't work too well together or with the music. You could have used more medium and closeup shots, too, and some of the ones you had suffered from shaky movement. I know it's sometimes hard to get the good looking bits without becoming a distraction yourself, but especially after the actual ceremony, you could have gone closer to the action, pre-plan some clips, even direct the talents and shoot with less camera movement. There were some pretty nice clips, too, for sure, and some of the existing footage could be improved by simply editing them a bit more. Which leads to the length of the video and the use of sound. Both videos were a bit too long for a "music video." You could have cut out some action and made some clips shorter, used only a part of the whole song, and been more careful in syncing the action with the chosen music. I think you could (should) have used the audio from the venues, mixed them together with the music, and edited the whole thing a bit tighter. Both in length and tempo. If the video was intended only to be a music video to begin with, it still could have been a bit shorter and tighter. Jody & Sarah's is perhaps a bit better than those two mentioned. It, too, could have had more sound from the actual event, and if this was the short version, I wonder how long the long version was, and did it have any audio from the venue. This being the short version, you could shorten it even more, leave some of the clips out completely, as well as a half, or even two thirds of the music used. Actual voices from the clips would have been nice. It may be a matter of taste, but if you insist on using b/w clips in an otherwise colour film, use the b/w clips either in the beginning or in the end only, as fading in or out clips, underneath the credits, for example. Not in the middle of the video. It would make the flow of the story more coherent. This YouTube video also had quite a long a black tail after your end credits. Again, by removing that little blooper will make the video look better and more professional. Same goes for Amy & Rich's, which is probably the best among those videos. Or it could be, if only it didn't have that cheesy 8mm film preset, which ruins the whole thing, an otherwise decent wedding day story. Some of the clips could be a bit shorter, too, or some of them could be simply left out. You could also experiment with out of order editing while at it. Well, it could work in stories like this, more so than some fake film preset. Hearing more of the actual voices and ambient sounds would have been nice here, too. There are way too many wedding "music videos" in YouTube already, and often with soundtracks ripped off copyrighted CD's, too. Even if your music was proper royalty free stuff, you wouldn't want your wedding film to look like those YouTube clips, would you. I know I'm hardly qualified to give criticism as a wedding shooter, I've only done a few myself, and have chosen not to pursue weddings as a career. But as a general member of the audience my four (gear-related) tips for you (with a disclaimer in the end) would be as follows; 1. Unless you haven't already, buy a proper monopod and a tripod asap, and use them. Even though the GH2/GH4 is deceivingly small and light, and the Lumix lenses come with OIS, don't let that fool you into thinking that you'll get away with hand holding the camera throughout the event. You won't. You simply need a proper tripod and a monopod. When doing venues like weddings, a proper monopod can also work as an improvised slider for certain detail shots. In the future wedding videos, go closer to the action, anticipate the movements and use variable angles. Don't move so much, let alone handhold the camera unless absolutely necessary. Shoot plenty of short clips from varying distances, and move between them. Shoot to edit, and then add drama and action by cutting the short clips into a coherent story. 2. Unless you haven't already, buy an external recorder and a couple of microphones, and use them. Good audio is very important in making a quality product. Don't underestimate it by simply slapping on a music track. Your audience will love the sounds from the event. A simple music soundtrack without voices and ambient sounds tend to be more boring. 3. Use more time in editing, and be snappier when you edit. It's not uncommon to use a day for the shooting, and three to five days or even a week for editing. As mentioned by many, the handheld movement in those videos was a bit distracting, and you can get rid of that not only by using a tripod, but also by editing. One of the trickiest part of the basics may be editing different clips of medium, close and wide shots together so that they work together as well as possible, and the end result flows well. You could even re-edit those videos already in YouTube by cutting off the bits with the most annoying handheld movement, and by cutting them shorter in general. Watch the videos with your friends. If they start chatting during the video, you'll know it's too long and you're losing the attention of your audience. (I learned that the hard way, too) When doing your next videos, go closer, shoot long, relatively stable shots, and then in the editing stage cut out all the wiggly & wobbly bits, leaving only the rock solid bits intact. Oh and partially for the same reason, always record a separate audio track (primary audio) with an external recorder. Don't rely on the in-camera audio alone, even if you've got a decent mic attached to the camera. Using the audio tracks is another handy way to hide dodgy footage. Try doing carefully placed L and J edits with the soundtracks, and the audience may not even notice the shortcomings in your video clips. It's trickier if you use music only. 4. Carry on doing weddings, you don't suck, and you'll get better quickly with more experience. Disclaimer: I have no idea if you knew all this basic stuff already, but I wrote it as if you didn't. Just in case you or someone else finds this useful. This turned out to be an awfully long post, but by watching your videos, thinking about these things and writing them down I'm also learning myself. I'd like to think I'm always learning. Hopefully this was helpful to someone out there. In case someone finds this just a boring waste of bandwith, I'm sure they've skipped it, anyway. Have a nice weekend.

I've decided to try getting along without a wideangle converter, including the Speed Booster for BMPCC, at least for now. I'd rather use lenses without any converters, if that's feasible. The wide side of things becomes a bit of a problem then, for sure, and with not too many great solutions. I've considered (but not yet bought) the Samyang 2.8/10mm lens. I'd rather have a CINE version, whenever one is available. That would give me the equivalent field of view of a 28mm lens in the 35mm terms, which I find more or less adequate. The lens itself is not too big, either. I might get the Canon EF version instead of the mFT version, though, because apparently the lens itself has no thread for filters, and the EF version would make it possible to use either a Holy Manta variable ND filter adapter or a Speed Booster BMPCC adapter with it. The Speed Booster would give me a 2.0/20mm equivalent wideangle. Not bad. Although the mFT version alone would be much more compact and 'pocketable,' and requires no extra adapters and lenses between the sensor and the lens, which I like. But the lens has no filter thread, which limits its usability with the BMPCC. Well, that's another interesting but not ideal option for the wider angle dilemma. I'll write about my hands on experiences if I end up buying one. Suppose going for the wider C-mount lenses could be yet another approach worth looking into.

Of course it is, no argument there. The learning part works for me, too. But at least to me consumerism is not the same as GAS, and vice versa. To me consumerism is the kind of "shopping is a feeling" attitude and behaviour. Shopping for the sake of shopping, whereas GAS is something different, the urge to get a newer, better tool we want and sometimes even need to do what we do, even though not having one right now wouldn't kill us. I for one will openly admit that GAS did have a small part in my buying a BMPCC, along with those four or other somewhat similar reasons. That's why I added the fifth reason in that list. It's as much an edited list for myself, as it was a friendly pun towards you. I think it's quite healthy not to take ourselves too seriously all the time. GAS aside, I don't regret getting the damn thing. The only thing I sort of regret is rushing to buy the cheaper LCDF loupe for it instead of waiting for the pricier Zacuto loupe. Only because the cheaper loupe was available immediately, and the Zacuto wasn't. The price difference was significant, but not critical. I actually like the simplicity of the camera, along with the 10-bit 422 ProRes HQ it delivers as default. The two major things I don't like too much is the quality of the lcd screen and the structure of the settings menu. There should be better shortcuts for some settings and functions. I wish it had better battery life and built in ND filters, too, but one can't have everything in such a small package, for such a price. Now I just wish I had more time and opportunities to play with it. This fall has been a bit of a disappointment, in many ways.

Unlike the URL you provided. It works very poorly indeed.

All cameras with any lens? Or all cameras with that one particular lens/adapter? If the lens or the adapter is dodgy, it will happen the same way with each individual camera. As for the purple vignette, suppose that would not be too surprising with a "suitable" legacy or another non-native lens, a wider angle lens in particular, under "suitable" conditions. One would think the vignetting is likely to disappear or at least happen less frequantly with a native lens. Unless one wishes to shoot under some extreme conditions. ...the vignetting is still the same? Or does it appear only with one FE lens, or any FE lens? Or only during some unusual conditions, regardless of the lens? Just curious, too, as I don't own an A7s, and wondering if it's about a given lens, or could it have something to do with uneven internal heat buildup or something... or whatever. Hoping it was about a given lens, rather than an internal issue.

Yes, that would be a decent save. ;) But with the tongue off the cheek and back inside the mouth, yes indeed, I'd be quite interested in getting one, and I've been eyeballing one already. Thanks partially to the $200 price tag. I'm a recovering audio geek, so no need for a lecture about the importance of good audio. I agree about the only major drawback, the amount of added bulk. But for certain kind of work that mostly happens with a tripod, anyway, and especially with a camera like a Canon DSLR, that's more or less a no-brainer, isn't it. I'd like to play with one out in the wild. I do have an external audio recorder (or two) already, but I might get another one soon.

Interesting. I've got the Memory Stick Pro-HG Duo HX version of that, or a matching (up to 50MB/s) Sony card, but The RX10 doesn't want to record XAVC on it. Oh well, Suppose I'll just buy another SanDisk Extreme Pro card next time I go shopping for new cards. Or maybe the Sony 94MB/s SDXC card, which is slightly cheaper. Those cards ought to work with pretty much any camera with an SD card slot. Including BMPCC with the 1.8 firmware update.

5. GAS :P (with number 5 and 4 being somewhat linked to each other, of course...)

With the purple colour put aside, vignetting would suggest it has something to do with the lens and/or the lens adapter used, wouldn't it. Especially if/when the vignette disappears in crop mode. I wonder if the vignette appeared with any lens and any lens + adapter combo, or just with one particular lens? Or, if the vignetting happens on one side only, that would suggest it has something to do with a de-centered lens array inside the lens in use. So does that lopsided vignette happen with any lens or just one lens? A dumb question, perhaps, but just to make sure, as the story didn't reveal that little tidbit.

A thread dedicated to Canon's new camera is filling with discussions about glass mountains and steel industry. Hmm, the latest camera releases from Canon must be pretty boring. :P

I wonder why the discussion got stuck and turned into pedantic pondering about just one little detail of that interview. The interview itself was sort of interesting as a whole, even when taken with the obligatory grain of salt. Sure, the detail about 28mp readout @240fps is interesting from a geeky point of view, but hardly relevant enough to get blinded by, so that one wouldn't see the forest (the new camera) for the trees (geek porn). To Dave Etchell's question "Is the camera actually capable of recording video at 240 frames?" the answer is simply "No." That should be clear enough an answer for now, shouldn't it. I don't think that answer is making the NX less interesting, though. The comment saying "We didn't see there being an application for that, at least for very, very few people" is probably just marketingmogulese for they don't yet know how to implement that one feature in a feasible (non-crappy, reliable, etc.) way, and therefore they've settled for the blingy sport shooting gimmick, for now. It doesn't mean we won't ever see it, or something like it, implemented on the video side of things in the (hopefully) not too distant future. I think the bottom line is that the new Samsung model is finally lifting Samsung into the top league, and it's about to become a worthy new contender in the prosumer stills and HDSLR game. Which is nice. Regardless of it being able to do full 28-megapixel readout at 240fps or not. If it can deliver good looking 1080p and 4K, along with great looking stills, whilst feeling nice in the hand, that's all that matters. So far things look pretty promising. If the proverbial pudding turns out to taste as good as it looks, it will also have a halo effect throughout the whole NX system, which does have some potential. Hopefully Samsung will keep the momentum, because they need that halo effect. Hopefully that momentum will be noticed by the third party accessory makers, too. I for one am still looking forward to having a taste of that pudding. Not that I'm a Samsung fan, but I wouldn't mind a new, slightly different contender in the mirrorless game.

Maybe it's about the Sony plugin then. What exactly is it supposed to do, is it a FCPX plugin? Maybe you're supposed to plug the whole damn camera with the card onto the computer first... Or something. Or maybe the plugin itself is no good. I did a quick search in Google and looks like there are quite a few different XAVC to ProRes/Mov converters out there already. Probably one or two in the App Store, too. Suppose that's one simple way to go. Sorry about not being more helpful than that. Perhaps I should look into it properly when I have more time. So far I've just used a Ninja 2 to record ProRes directly. But meanwhile, as suggested above, maybe you can try getting the actual video clips by digging into the XAVC file structure (rigth-click the Private folder and choose "show package contents") until you reach the actual video clips. I don't know if it works, haven't shot any XAVC yet. Therefore I'm also curious to see if someone else has a proper solution.

Meh. Forget about 4K, ignore 8 bits, that's lame. The new big thing is HDR TV! :)

Just out of curiosity, as I haven't been playing with XAVC files yet, do you happen to have Aperture installed in your machine? If yes, what happens if you try importing those video clips into Aperture? Do you see them popping in as thumbnails, as it happens with regular AVCHD clips, or do you get some unknown file error or something? I know this is not likely to be too helpful, but like said, just curious about how the OS itself handles that format, if at all. I know nothing about Sony's own plugin, or how it works but I'm pretty sure that native XAVC support will come into FCPX/OS X, eventually. Hopefully in the next update, if it doesn't have it already. As for the idea of getting a Ninja Star, well, why not, depending on the camera you have. I probably would.

The global shutter rumour was ranked at SR2 at the Sonyalpharumours site, which means it may as well be just wishful thinking, in an attempt to gain attention, create buzz and drive traffic to the rumour sites. Surely every camera maker, or at least every sensor maker are working on global shutter circuitry for their CMOS sensors, that's pretty much given. But when will that tech become mainstream and from whom first, we can only guess at this point. But quite likely all the usual suspects will have it, eventually. Could be next year, could be three or more years. Meanwhile, as long as global shutter is concerned, one might as well go for a BMPC 4K, which already has a global shutter, and is available today. Other than that, would you really go and sell you entire camera system based on a couple of online video samples? Just curious. After all, be it Nikon, Canon, Sony or BM, they can all do great looking stuff in the right hands. Aww, poor thing. Looks like I managed to dent your ego pretty bad, somehow. Sorry about that, it was not intentional.

How so? That sounded like pretty typical and quite predictable stuff from the Canon reps on a business fair, I don't see anything to get all worked up about. Most of those answers were just fine, pretty standard stuff. More or less what one could realistically expect.

Yes, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. FWIW, you clearly said "the brand which launched the Revolution" (a brand = a business entity, a company, not a single product). A "broad statement" doesn't quite fix that. Your thinly veiled personal insult will not turn a brand into a camera, either. It will only make yourself look pathetic. But choose yourself.