Cinegain

Yeah, show it some love! The LX100 is incredible. I love it for my casual hybrid stuff.

Yeah, of course it depends. If you're far away of trees, they suddenly become very thin lines as well. Or getting detailed shots with narrow aperture of branches, or perhaps some bushes. But if you're filming some kind of horror chase scene in the woods, or following talent for a music video in nature, mostly on eye level, you're probably dealing more with rolling shutter than moiré/aliasing. You're probably focussing on the talent, with not such an incredible deep depth of field and rather up close, where trees aren't thin lines, just big chucks of wood. In such cases, it's probably hardly a struggle. Then again, if you're shooting some documentary footage in nature and rather go with that deep depth of field and sharp look, with lots of wide detailed landscape shots, then it might get tricky. Add that you will probably use it in urban environments as well and don't want another thing to crowd your mind to keep in check, then... well, maybe. Personally though, I'd rather try to avoid it than getting the filter. You could buy a nice vintage lens for that kind of money is what comes to my mind, you know.

It's hardly a risk in a natural environment, I'd say. You're more likely to come across issues in urban environments with a lot of lines intersecting. Usually man made stuff. For example, where I live streetlights are connected by powerlines. When they intersect with a building behind it with a lot of patterns/lines in a grid fashion, even with your bare eye you see moiré. In the forest there's a lot of trees of course, which you could consider lines, but they hardly really interesct in a moiré inducing way and have organic shapes, again contributing to the fact moiré is rather unlikely to appear. I'd be more worried if you're using talent, that they not wear clothing that could induce it. Don't think there's a real need for such a filter. Just avoid the likelyhood of it appearing and be aware about it. My 2 cts.

Ok, yeah, two years ago my mind was blown. But it's just a limited demo shot, so I'll give them a break. Two years later... who knows what they can pull off. Although we then might find ourselves again arguing if this is opens up creative possibilities or if it's just gimmicky and naieve and lazy not to shape your scene with light...

Anyone remember this one? That sure was impressive.

Yeah, same for a GH4 with Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8 w/ speedbooster unfortunately. For such combos you'd be better of with one of these CAME-TV Mini 2 or Ronin M.

!

Btw, jfyi, Pilotfly has recently opened up shop in Germany to cater for European demand. http://pilotfly.de - there's also 10% off (I guess only these last few days of July).

The motors are too small to actually effectively stabilize a DSLR-sized camera, I'd say. Looks like a very generic device. Possibly just rebranded. There are many like it. To actually handle various devices, checkout this topic: 3-axis camera stabilizing systems overview .

These 3- and 6-stops NDs from Breakthrough.Photography might be worth looking at: http://breakthrough.photography/product/x3-neutral-density/ . There's a 10-stops too.

You're approaching this on an amature level. The topic title clearly mentions 'business'. You know what a business cares about? Numbers. You know what a business is looking for? Quality (that includes creativity for the most part, but sure isn't the sole determinator). Anyways. A band needs to live offa something, so they are in a way a business and the need to market themselves. E.g. they can't still have a MySpace profile be their website. They need to up their game and bring an attractive and responsive layout up to modern standards. Quality matters. And if you don't know much about coding, that's cool, that's when outsourcing comes into play. Mike, the drummer of the band, says he can ask his friend Jared, that lives with his mom, to build the band a website, you know... he's into computers 'n stuff, does a lot of drawing too. Such a creative guy. But he has only ever made a website for his gaming clan and his Dragonball Z fanpage. So the band manager politely declines the offer and calls in the true troops. The professionals. A business actually able to provide something that's up there and uses modern standards. Same for video. They can't have stuff looking like it was shot on VHS, unless that's the thing they were going for (what are the chances, really?), but then, even then, they'd still hire professionals that would bring that look to the table. Main thing being: they get people that know what they're doing, not just creatively, but technically as well, they're pro's. And gear does reflect that, be it fair or not. It's an indicator of how serious the production level is. And maybe not everyone is looking for that. But there sure are some. And again. It's not about the creative part. We already said we got that down. We're simply discussing what the effect would be of having a very expensive camera and how that effects business. So either you keep shooting what you shoot and never mention it. Or you drop the R-bomb and say you can shoot stuff with a RED if they'd like that. And I for one do think that could land you more serious jobs a bit more easier (in some cases). Atleast, that's the question we're trying to answer here: do you think this knowledge by the client that you shoot RED would create more business? We're not trying to decide what weighs in more: creativity or gear. I'm pretty sure we'd all pick creativity to be the key to success. But given that's no longer part of the equation... could gear make an additional difference?

You're talking about wedding videos here. That's meant for a very select audience and hardly a grand production you would whip out a RED for or something. I have no idea why you bring that up in this topic. How about we don't stray from the matter at hand here? Just to set straight what it is we're discussing here: He's talking about music video production and corporate stuff (advertising). Now, someone wants a music video or ad shot... guess what? Chances are it's not their first. What ever happened to the last guys? Maybe those are too busy or something. Could be. But might well be that the client wants to up their game by selecting a production company to up it for them. And having some previous experience, they will tell the difference between a camcorder and a rigged up cinema camera, especially when the name 'RED' is involved. They probably have their own ideas in mind, with a creative marketing team. They just need someone to get their thoughts and run with it and turn it into an actual quality production. Knowing that you're good is one thing. Knowing you shoot on a RED is a dealsealer.

Yes, in a fair world, you'd never have to part with your T3i to get better business, as long as you know how to tell a story and create something visually interesting. But guess what? The world's a messed up place. If you can manage to get about without ever having to drop brands and people knowing or hearing of you, thats the best. But in a crowded and talented market, looking for new higher profile clients, you have to appeal somehow. And be it fair or not, having a RED lying around people won't assume you suck, because if they would, that would only make him or her suck in the most EPIC of ways. But the image that people will have is that someone with a RED probably has worked his or her way up from something smaller. Again, status... and 'status' is not just social standing, it's 'the situation at a particular time'. So if you have a RED you also give off that you have quite a bit of experience/are quite far along. And too be honest, they probably do have the talent and experience. Because I'm pretty sure you're going bankrupt in notime if you make those kind of investments, but can't see any return on that, because you are crap, lose clientele, never getting recommended and having a bad rep... Anyways. Like I said. It can't hurt to have something saying you shoot on a RED. That doesn't mean that I would actually go and get one. Like Oliver says, for him it's hardly a topic when talking to clients, because he can sell his ideas. That's a great position to be in. And as long as that is the case and business is blooming, why not go with that URSA Mini 4.6K/Sony FS7? You need to smack a RED label somewhere? Ok. Sure. Who says you can't still do that? You can still mention clients can have their productions shot on a RED. Just rent one, if the demand is there, which in Olli's case is hardly so. You don't have to use it exclusively. Although I get owning one would make you super familliar with the RED system and workflow, allowing for smoother turnarounds.

Aren't most people going with www.squarespace.com these days? That's the impression I got. Not sure what's wrong with hosting your own Wordpress site from a server though.

Right?! Take out that damn mirror/OVF already. My first interchangeable lens system camera was the GH2, so I hardly know any better than using liveview and its what-you-see-is-what-you-get character. With the D5300, especially as a hybrid shooter, it felt like I went back a couple of years in terms of usability when using liveview. That flippin' mirror! It flips like three times taking one picture in liveview. The viewfinder is useless for shooting video. There's no peaking or nothing. Argh. Really. They can keep the body roughly the same, but just get rid of that mirror and OVF and throw in an EVF, it's 2015. I don't mind the chunkiness of the GH4, I might actually prefer it to something like the A5100/A6000. You're going to throw lenses in front anyways, so you might as well give it a bit of grip deep enough to match a small prime. We kinda seeing some of that chunk in the G7, E-M1 and NX1. And I really like cameras with a vari-angle display and lots of buttons and dials. So, the D5300/D5500 is capable of some sweet video and the body is actually half decent, but without the mirror and with an EVF, for me, it would already make a much more interesting camera. Anyways. The 1-series is cute, but I can't really take it serious. And if Nikon would do something with APS-C mirrorless, I'm afraid it would be more like the EOS M-line. And both Nikon and Canon are capable of decent results, the quality and features of the competition just blows it out of the water. The only Canon advantage with the Canon DSLRs I think is the Dual Pixel AF which works quite well. With Nikon it's the quite solid 1080p quality found in cameras such as the D5500 and D750 for hybrid shooters that like to have an OVF for their photography. But when you're all video... or mostly, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony are really really giving you exciting stuff. Sony does seem to have positioned themselves somewhere nice. APS-C mirrorless with great quality and flexibility. With Samsung for me it's the native lens collection. With Panasonic it's the crop and lowlight. Now that the A5100 and A6000 have proven themselves as little video machines, I'm excited to see what they have in store for us with a A6100/A7000. That might turn out to be the new go-to camera in the segment.

Someone can drive to the office in a Tesla Model S, a very respectable car and an eco-friendly choice. Or someone can show up tire screaching, engine reviing, rims spinning in some fancy ass exotic car. Unfortunately people are likely to be more wow-ed by the latter. They might even ask if they can join in for a ride. Also, putting up that kind of display is a kind of status symbol. It says 'hi, I do well for myself, I can afford such equipment, I run a business that is successful, it is because I'm awesome at what I do, so you can trust me to deliver'. It might also be less likely that people will dare to nitpick. If you show up with a GH3 and shoot your thing, they'll find some things that dissappoints them (even if there's not really). Shoot with a RED and they aren't looking for reasons to fault it. I like this kid's mentality though: But you know, running a business is something else, and taking it to the next level will include marketing yourself. You can't just take your own perspective anymore. You'll have to see things from a client's stance. It's not what you'd be happy with, it's what they'd be happy with. And unfortunately the world is superficial enough that people will look at what you camera shoot with, because it's in their interest to have the best. Now... better and more expensive might not make up for lack of creativity, but it's what trumps lack of creativity in combination with lesser stuff. So then again we get to the fact that gear reflects status. Would someone who doesn't know what he or she is doing really shoot a RED? Or would they still be shooting with a GH3? Sure people will look at your showreel, but I also think they'll compare you to others... just on plain paper. And maybe someone got tasked with selecting a few production companies and then present the options to the person is charge. Maybe the shots caller only gets to see the comparison on paper and decides to go with however shoots the fanciest camera... unless you do not need to market yourself, because you already have the status, reputation and word of mouth going for you, I think having a very expensive camera business-wise can't be a bad thing. Creatively and practically... that's a whole other thing.

I supported both (iblazr 2 & instamic, also the ImagineVision E1 Z cam btw), so I'm guessing I will find out. (Damn, those new smileys are really something else)

Sorry, but perhaps do a little more reading and a little less assuming? 1. It's mentioned that it's '150 Lux in Constant light mode [..] (up to 10X more than a smartphone video light)'. Lux is not Lumen, it's a fraction of the output, measured over a certain surface, whereas Lumen is the total output (obviously a higher value). So, can't say for sure how the apple compares to the orange. I assume like the Lume Cube you might want to be using two or even three together. Atleast though it's even possible to 'adjust the light color temperature from 3200K to 5600K', so you can mix it with ambient without a harsh mismatch. 2. It does have continuous lighting. It's also being advertised for DSLR-like use... 'Using iblazr 2 as a video light gives your DSLR camera the ability to shoot small videos well at night. (Great for shooting interviews, video blog posts, etc.)'. There's a coldshoe adapter as well: 'We know that your DSLR needs a small, powerful video light. We also know that iblazr 2, just as in iblazr’s first generation, will help you shoot great content by adding an extra light when necessary. To make adding light easier, we made a simple and efficient Cold Shoe Mount. If you take your most compact light companion with you to your next filming, you will be both surprised and delighted by how useful it proves to be!'. So yeah, that's why I thought it could be worth a mention...

There's also the iblazr 2... https://shop.iblazr.com/?ref=kickstarter&utm_source=KS&utm_medium=shop_image / https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/iblazr/iblazr-2-the-most-versatile-led-flash-for-ios-andr/description

​Yeah it does (JPEG/RAW DNG). I happen to know that '1600万' means 16MP. - (ah, the site is changeable to English as well though) ​The footage on the Kickstarter page looks shockingly bad for trying to sell us on this product that's all about video... But the downloadable promo vid which I linked to actually looked fairly promising. There were just some points when it was painful to see some weird compression side effects, especially in the scene with the boats there's a weird static overlay that doesn't refresh. Don't think it's my computer, but I also do not think it's the camera, I think it's the export. Anyways. It's exciting to see something new. It's cool like a GoPro, for having something small to shoot with, secondary angles, especially for action/aerial kind of stuff. But then has the up in sensor and you can pick the lenses according your needs! Would be cool to see an actionproof housing for the Pana 20mm and 14mm though (for mounting on cars, skateboards, or have it on you when skiing or take it with you on a dive). You might as well compare it to the new Blackmagic Micro Cameras: the Cinema and Studio 4K. But you know, they aren't really the action cams... they lack built-in wireless connectivity as well as a screen, which you would have to add additionally. That wouldn't only make it bulky... but also a more expensive choice. I do think there's a place for something like this. I hope they can pull it off.

Found some footage here: http://7xk6xq.com1.z0.glb.clouddn.com/4K_UHD.mp4?download/4K_UHD.mp4 . (Reuploaded for your convenience: here )

Now collecting funds/interest on Kickstarter! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2081787381/e1-camera-4k-uhd-interchangeable-lens-camera/descriptionhttp://www.z-cam.comhttp://www.imaginevision-tech.com/plus/list.php?tid=20

Well, I guess that's what you get if you get your hopes up too high. The A7RII and A7SII with the RX10M2 will probably take over. But what the A7-series concerned... I come from a M43 background. I like the M43 lenses that are availlable, I like the adaptability, the compactness, the affordability. With the A7-series the body is not too bad, but you need to cover up that fullframe with some serious glass. Also, the step-in price is way up there. All in all, it's awesome, but you're going to be willing the drop the cash on the body and lenses and be okay with the size and weight of it all. I just wish there were more M43 cameras to get it right, but for the time it seems the GH4 is still the closest we can get.

Yeah, that sounds like a great gimbal Aaron. But true enough point... Have you figured out how you are going to monitor your footage? It has no screen. It doesn't have built-in wireless connectivity (but you can of course add some, just you know $$$ for TX, RX. monitor), only wired video output. Are you going to get the BMVA to go along with it (attached; not sure how that's lighter/more compact than the BMPCC, also, 60p is with rolling shutter only, global shutter would be 30p mind you). I'm afraid the BMMCC with speedbooster and 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma would make your set-up too front heavy. Not sure if that would stay inside of the balance envelope for a pistol grip gimbal stabilizer, but I think you need to think of other lenses (most obvious one perhaps the 12-35mm f/2.8). Or like you said, go with something like the Ronin M or CAME-TV Mini 2 (edit: kinda thinking about it, that last one might not cut it either).

​Well, as they would say in the Netherlands: there's always going to be people who want to be 'sitting front row for a penny'. But valid point. If it can't get wide and fast enough for you and that's your main focus (doens't seem the case here), you might want to be looking at something fullframe after all. But then we're back to: money, size & weight again you know (and depending on what fullframe road you'd have to choose, the loss of internal 4K).