kye

Why did you get rid of it? Too heavy? too large?

It makes perfect sense to me. Those two are the only ones that could scrape through without being eviscerated by more than 75% of the population. The fact there were even two that made it should surprise you if you stop to realise that even on this very forum, no camera in the history of time escaped this fate, despite having the entire worlds camera industry desperately trying to make something we'd like!

Can you mount the accessory without the handle?

I saw a presentation from someone who was following his campaign from the start and they said he just said random things in his early speeches and kept repeating the things that got the biggest response from the crowd, so his entire campaign was just telling people what they wanted to hear. Sad thing is, it worked. I'm a huge fan of democracy.... the thing that lets it down is the voting public.

and isn't 15x the size of the camera. I mean, seriously: Just another instance of "people who want quality must be fine with a humungous camera".

It seems strange to me that because a cinema camera is small that somehow it is judged like a P&S rather than a cinema camera. Many/most cinema cameras lack IBIS and reliable AF-C today, and even P&S cameras smaller than GX85 lack IBIS. It is a pity that they didn't have a bigger grip / battery though. One good way to do it would be to look at the smallest lens that would practically be used (which in this case is the 14mm F2.5 or 20mm F1.7) and then make the grip just smaller than that.

Or they just want to distance themselves from it as much as possible. Also, writing things off can help with your tax bill sometimes, so could be corporate finance hijinx.

...or an optional unit that fits an NVME SSD

To be fair, it's not like the professional politicians were providing that much competition in the relatability department!

Yeah, the game has changed, and luckily for them, the price got lower and they realised they could mostly automate it!

You must have an honest face... doomed from the outset!

Varicam RAW is uncompressed DPX with an external unit. Source: https://na.panasonic.com/us/trends/raw-capture-varicam-lt-and-convergent-design-odyssey-7q They could go the FP route and just have uncompressed Cinema DNG files, but it's not particularly elegant. Panasonic and BM are both part of the L-mount alliance, and MFT is an open standard from Panasonic and Olympus, so in a way they're agreements, but Panasonic also supported external RAW with Atomos who are a competing ecosystem to BRAW / Resolve, so I would estimate that Panasonic and BM aren't secret best friends.

You'd assume it would be licensed from one of the existing RAW format patent holders, not a brand new format. Panasonic has worked with Atomos to get external Prores RAW, but who owns that patent? If it's Atomos then giving RAW support without having to buy an external recorder wouldn't seem like a desirable strategy for Atomos' perspective, although maybe they cut a big cheque? Or maybe it's not Atomos that owns the patent, or the rights to it? BM or RED seem equally unlikely.

Gentlemen, warm up your keyboards... remember, no imperfection shouldn't be blown completely out of proportion!

I've seen stranger things in the corporate world... Still, if you think they're all organised and rational, think about how well the camera offerings seem to match consumer requirements! 🙂 I'm hearing references to the Varicam, and that it might be high-end. At this point it could be anything!

The fact that a working man couldn't afford her seems to be feasible too...

If it was a last minute change then it must have been almost ready for launch anyway, which seems to fit considering they launched a camera basically without the lenses to go with it. So maybe the camera was ready and the lenses weren't (except for the F8 pancake) but it was the best option at the last minute.

Thanks. Things are always in the last place you look....

Where the hell is my flying car?!?!

I guess we'll find out in a few days. Still, inside baseball is fun sometimes - looking in from the outside.

Yeah, it's even got a tick-box that disables all the parts that can't be turned into a LUT, so unless I'm mistaken, there will be a zillion LUT packs based on FLC over the next years. Of course, with FLC part of Resolve, the market for LUT packs might drop considerably, as getting a film-like look is about to go from quite difficult in V18 to literally only a few clicks in V19. Part of me is a bit annoyed that FLC will make it so easy, because whenever I create a decent filmic grade it's not valued much anymore, but of course skills are always useful and I can adapt.

During the livestream around S9-gate Gerald mentioned he didn't have anything that he was reviewing but couldn't talk about, so depending on the accuracy of that claim and the timelines involved, maybe he doesn't have either. Wow, that seemed to go really fast! I guess it was just over 2 years ago, but still. Maybe the GH7 launch was what all the influencers were invited to in Japan, and like Dave said, they switched up the camera that was released for some reason. It would explain the audience and also the S9 not having the associated lenses also being announced at the same time.

I'm waiting for it to come out in theatres.

Yes, I was absolutely talking in the general sense. Accurate emulation of a particular stock is definitely a niche that exists, but I suspect it's a pretty narrow niche and one that is narrowing. I don't recall ever hearing anyone talk about accurately emulating the resolution / sharpness or the grain from one particular stock combination, these seem to be much more generic and adjusted to taste. With the new Film Look Creator tool paired with the new Colour Slicer in Resolve 19 (which is still in beta) I suspect that a lot of people who would previously have used specific LUTs or a 'proper' emulation plugin like Dehancer or FilmConvert will switch to the more generic but adjustable approach of the new features. We may never know, as I've heard from a few colourists in passing that the majority of projects have a print film emulation LUT somewhere in the pipeline, but that very few colourists will admit this, likely because clients are likely to focus on it and devalue the other 27 things the colourist did. Like how people think that nice photos are made by nice cameras and the photographer doesn't matter much.

It's an interesting notion. Actually, diffusion filters are probably quite a good match to the general characteristics of film. Film has an MTF curve that has a downward slope - ie, as the details get finer the contrast drops. This is unlike digital sensors that maintain contrast until they approach the pixel size and where either aliasing of the OLPF kicks in. Diffusion filters reduce local contrast by spreading the light around, and spreading more light a small amount than they spread it a larger distance, which would emulate the downward slope of film. Vintage lenses have a similar effect. I'd imagine this explains the preferences for vintage lenses, diffusion filters, and softening in post that higher-end productions favour.