tupp

Renaming the files was the solution (regardless of whether one uses Bridge or one of the other suggested methods).

You can use a simple command or script in the Windows command line ("Power Shell?"). There are several different commands/scripts that will instantaneously rename a batch of your files according to their timestamps. Once you use a shell command/script two or three times, the command line gets fairly easy (although timestamps can require a lot of variables). Of course, there are GUI apps that can mostly accomplish the same thing. I don't use your OS, but a quick web search of Windows renamers that can work with timesta revealed Ant Renamer, which is open source. Bulk Rename Utility also came up in the search. There were other apps in the search results, as well. I can't recommend either as I have never tried them, but I tout open source software for security and for cutting edge features. There were other apps in the search results, as well. Of course, for proper chronological sorting, the date and time should precede the shot number in the new file name. It's probably a good idea to retain the original shot number in the name, just in case you need to reference it in the future. It might also be wise to include the camera "letter" in the name, directly after the date. So, you would start with with the Camera A files in one directory/folder and Camera B files, in another directory/folder, and then just batch rename the two directories separately, with their corresponding camera letter in the new names.

You could do a batch rename of your files according to their time/date stamp, so that the time/date is part of the file name. Once you have the right script, it only takes a second to run.

So that was the post to which I was responding. I wasn't referring to the patent. As someone who's name is on one or two patents, I would suggest that such arbitrary claims indicate that a clueless patent examiner possibly rejected/challenged some of the claims. At the date the RED patent application was filed, there was absolutely no novelty nor innovation in specifying internal or external recording, so it was meaningless to do so (and even detrimental to RED), unless they were trying to appease an examiner who had no clue. There is another reason that specific, arbitrary claims sometime appear in patents, but I don't think that is the case here. I sense that the patent is weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be successfully defended. Ha, ha! I briefly scanned the claims of the patent that you linked earlier in the thread. I might have to take another look at it.

Saw the lens today at CineGear: Didn't ask if it's parfocal or completely focus-by-wire, but the rocker-controlled motorized zoom and focus is cool. On the other hand, It's doubtful that anyone will be hitting focus marks with the focus rocker switch.

Well, it is 100% relevant to the post in this thread to which is was directed: Not sure how that is relevant to my post nor to any patents in question here -- there is nothing novel nor innovative about incorporating a recorder into a camera. Camcorders had existed for year prior to the release of the Dalsa camera. Nevertheless, RED was not the first "to do 4K raw" -- that honor goes to Dalsa.

Dalsa was the first company with a 4K raw cinema camera.

Our own @Mattias Burling recently showed what one can do with a 6.3 megapixel, 19-year-old Canon 300D: Gunpowder!

Well, it's reassuring that you actually received a prize. Was it a camera?

I like most of his camera reviews. On the other hand, he certainly knows how to fake things. Makes one wonder if all of his photo gear give-away contests are legit.

One is for fan boys, the other is for fan girls:

When starting with a new client, I sometimes just build my EOSM with cheap matte box and a top handle, and then put it in a bag. When they see me pull that rig out of the bag, they think they think I am a total pro!

I shot some EOSM 14-bit raw clips of a fitness instructor, and threw together this video: This is not a 8mm nor 16mm crop mode -- it's full APS-C, "1080" crop. However, it is the first time that I have seriously shot raw with the EOSM. Mostly I have used Tragic Lantern's all-I h264 mode with boosted bit rate.

Here is a video with more details. They appear to be broadcast oriented, and Bosma seems to have some affiliation with Astrodesign.

I think an earlier Bosma camera appeared at BIRTV in 2019, but here are the two more recent models shown at NAB 2022 (sorry for the subpar image quality): I think that the one with the AC-side LCD screen is brand new.

GIMP is not only free -- it is also open source. Are you testing raw stills, jpeg stills or video frames?

These projection fixtures might not be best for your application. Please post what you are trying to do and please post links to all the items you mention.

As I recall, the noir SD piece was shot on a Panasonic DVX-100A, but this 240P trailer is all I ever saw of the footage. In regards to the clips from the short, a Panasonic AF-100 captured the interior sequences, and the exteriors of the woman on the street were shot with a Canon T3i and vintage Nikkor glass.

@ZEEK has made another EOSM Super16 instructional video!:

I found a couple of black & white projects that I shot awhile back. Here is a noir trailer that was made to raise funds for a feature (sorry it's tiny SD): Here are some random (and highly compressed) clips from a black and white short cut to music:

It appears that Fuji is essentially using wavelet/frequency-separation in the chroma channels to isolate and blur certain areas. I tried that scenario on your "5D3 Raw" chroma channel image (captured from your Resolve viewer with MPV), using the Darktable Contrast Equalizer module: I didn't get it to look exactly the same as the X-T3 chroma channel image, but the "blotchiness" achieved is fairly similar. Here is the curve used in the Contrast Equalizer module: The scale from left to right delineates coarse patterns to fine patterns in the image. The mostly flat line going through the center is the sharpness curve, and the "S-shaped" line is the smoothing curve. Many use the Contrast Equalizer for denoising and sharpening, but in such applications, the smoothing curve always lies below the sharpening curve. Nobody ever inverts the two curves as shown on the right side of the graph. I also used the Soften module with a parametric mask to add extra blur to the brighter areas, because the Contrast Equalizer did not provide enough blur. The excessive chroma blurring from the X-T3 way too much for demosaicing, and it's extreme overkill for noise reduction. There also seems to a bit of coarse pixelation revealed when you zoom-in in your video, so perhaps Fuji is additionally doing a pseudo chroma subsampling. Whatever Fuji is doing (and for whatever reason), the process is effectively reducing the color resolution, which results in a perceptible loss of color depth. The X-T3 is excessively lowering the effective chroma resolution with blurring, which dramatically reduces the color depth. The raw files don't have that problem, because their resolution is not being reduced. The "processing" is likely something similar to what I have shown above, and it essentially is reducing the color resolution, hence the lower color depth. Remember, with digital imaging: COLOR DEPTH = RESOLUTION x BIT DEPTH By the way, when are you going to take back that lie you told about me?

Very nice presentation! The "washed-out" colors from the Fuji files perfectly demonstrate a fundamental imaging principle: Color depth is a direct function of resolution and bit depth. Here is the color depth formula for RGB digital systems: COLOR DEPTH = (RESOLUTION x BIT DEPTH)³ The Fuji color smoothing (or any other chroma sub-sampling method) reduces the resolution of the chroma channels, and, thus, reduces the color depth -- even though the bit depth remains unchanged! The video mentions that Fuji files yield a UHD luma channel and HD chroma channels. However, it certainly appears that the Fuji chroma smoothing reduces the effective chroma resolution to significantly less than HD, which makes your comparisons a dramatic example of how resolution affects color depth. By the way, the reason that the Fuji jpeg stills have better color depth (even with the Fuji chroma smoothing) is likely due to the fact that they have a higher resolution. Thanks for these comparisons!

Thank you for the clarification! I wonder if their licensing of the Olympus trademark requires ongoing payments, which JIP wants to cease.

Did you sign an NDA?

One could ask those same questions if the situation were merely that some marketing person with zero sense of history had a whim to do a "rebrand." By the way, the derivation of the new name is demonstrated by the video at the top of this web page. Never underestimate the incompetence of corporate executives and marketing people.