KnightsFan

Wow, that is incredibly cheap. It is only a 1.33x though. Nice for a Fuji XT3, but not so great for any of the 4:3 cameras out there. Wow, that is incredibly cheap. It is only a 1.33x though. Nice for a Fuji XT3, but not so great for any of the 4:3 cameras out there.

Windows

If i remember correctly there is an email address for bugs, but i am not sure. But yeah, blackmagic forum will almost certainly be better than here, there are likely other users with the same issue.

Same thing happened to me. It loaded once and then stopped. I had to load a backup from the previous stable version of resolve. You could submit it as a bug to blackmagic and see what they say.

@thephoenix That happened to me for the first few beta versions of 16. I just waited it out for the next beta and I didn't have any more issues. Did you backup your project databse or project before opening in 16.2?

I love the CK93. The only other mic from the list that I have used is the KM 185, which I did not like as much. I have heard that the AKG shotgun capsule is not good, though I haven't used it. In some very limited tests, the omni and cardioid capsules sounded fine. I found my CK93 for like $240 on ebay. I wouldn't pay full price unless you really want it brand new.

I am beyond skeptical that the Z6 will get internal raw. I think the Sandisk video just wanted to advertise that they could support 4k raw write speeds, and they happened to use a Z6 in their video as the easiest camera they could get their hands on that accepts CFExpress cards.

If you are shooting faces, you should compare to movies that you like. Spot meter an evenly lit face to be at 0, and then compare on your computer monitor against a movie clip. Adjust from 0 as necessary to match how your favorite movie was exposed. You'll probably find that cinematic (i.e. "intended to be seen in a darkened cinema") images tend to expose lower than soap operas, which have to be visible in daylight on a family TV. "Proper" exposure depends on where it will be seen, so comparing to actual movies from the medium you are creating for is very useful. But also get a gray card, they are very cheap, and I use mine on literally every shoot. That and a 5-in-1 reflector have incredible value for the money.

We agree more than you think. This is basically what I was saying. Either pixelation or lens aberrations will be the limiting factor. Personally, I find analog flaws to be more acceptable than digital flaws. I'd rather have CA than be able to see individual pixels. Similarly, I'd rather hear analog noise from a 60's mic than hear MP3 compression. And ultimately, if you are sitting far enough away from a 65" 4k TV that you can no longer distinguish individual pixels, then you will not be able to see optical problems any better with a 65" 8K TV at the same distance. I disagree. Stop down on any decent modern lens and you can easily outresolve 6k on most of the frame. And if you are using a lens for character, then higher resolution will more accurately capture that character. However, I fully agree that higher resolution is not financially worth yet for many people, including myself.

If it serves a purpose in the story, it can be a wonderful effect. In The Grand Budapest Hotel, it's used to show different time periods, and it fit with the overly-produced style of the movie--sort of like the obvious miniatures. In the 2nd Hunger Games, the aspect ratio slowly changes as Katniss moves into the arena. The screen literally opened up as she rode the elevator to the surface. Both of those worked for me. In The Dark Knight, the changing ratio didn't help the movie, but I didn't mind it particularly, since it was generally grouped together. E.g. an entire scene would be shot in IMAX, and then another entire scene in 35mm. It didn't cut between them too much. In Dunkirk, however, there was one scene where it cut between the boat and the plane in different ratios, and I thought that was distracting. (The color between the two film stocks didn't match at all either, not that has anything to do with aspect ratios.) I found the videos in the OP to be super distracting.

I prefer false color over anything else, but you may need an external monitor for that. If I don't have false color, I often use spot metering to check specific locations in the frame. Histogram is okay, but doesn't give enough information about what a specific part of the frame is doing, and is mainly helpful for protecting highlights. An evenly spread histogram doesn't tell you much other than whether you've blown something out. I very rarely use zebras, but I would probably use them more if I did any run'n'gunning. Whatever method you pick, do a lot of tests before a shoot so you know how your specific camera model and color profile behave. Some cameras do better slightly underexposed, some slightly over. Many cameras have color shifts across the exposure range, so you definitely want to find the range of sweet spots within which you can expose a face (for example) without having color shifts. You never want to be on set wondering whether pulling a face down 2 stops will turn it into a pasty mess. Don't be so afraid of blown highlights that you sacrifice the subject to protect something in the background. If I have a window that's blown out by 3 stops, I might drop my exposure by 1 stop, and then when I bring up the exposure in post I have that 1 stop to make a smoother rolloff.

I think you are missing the point about what digital resolution is. Increasing digital resolution isn't to resolve the world, it's to resolve the lens projection. Whether the lens is projecting sharp lines on a test chart, CA, flares, or bokeh, it is an infinite resolution analog image. The more samples, the more accurately we reproduce the lens' image. The softer the lens, the more samples it takes to accurately describe its image. If a lens produces a sharp line between black and white, it only takes 2 samples to describe that difference. A soft gradation, on the other hand, takes more samples to describe. That gradation is meaningless if your sampling frequency is not high enough to show it. Would you rather see chromatic aberration, or pixelation? 6k won't make you see more CA unless you were already close enough to see pixelation in 4k. It's more like making a a high quality recording of a distorted electric guitar. Disclaimer... there's obviously a cost to higher resolution sensors, both financial and other image compromises. I'm not saying 6k is worth it over 4k. I'm just saying that a higher sampling frequency describes a lens' image better than lower sampling frequency

Conspiracies, cost cutting, delusions... it's all the same to me. There's only so much value to be had in speculation about the whys and hows. The bottom line is: I'm not buying any camera that doesn't shoot 24p.

The small hole is actually to reduce the amount of material required, thus saving 0.23 cents/unit on manufacturing costs. It's the compromise they made in order to afford the 24p license.

Probably the fan blows air from the vents across an external heatsink, not directly over the electronics themselves. The heatsink is likely "external" to the electronics, despite being inside the body of the camera.

Same, it was definitely one of my tops for cinematography. The camera image quality didn't do anything for me, though.

Thanks, but I sort of went on a DIY adventure and never got to the point of having a complete camera. But maybe I'll post a late "entry" in the future once it's all duct taped together.

I got too busy to enter (but just managed to view all the entries in time!), so I hope there is another.

People who says 24fps has no stutter should be condemned to a life of playing first person shooters at 24 fps.

He's probably some random dude. And if not, then who cares? The patents and lawsuits won't be decided by a majority vote on reduser. As Ed says, let's stick with facts.

I think that the price of RED's components is not at all the issue. The issues, as far as I can tell, are: - RED has a patent on compressed raw recording, which many people believe is too broad, and is either an invalid patent, or an example of the failure of the patent system. RED's patent is so broad that other camera companies cannot even develop their own compressed raw formats--hence Blackmagic's Braw is "partially debayered." It's not just filmmakers, apparently Apple is currently challenging the patent's legitimacy. - In the past, RED has threatened individuals such as Andrew with lawsuits to get them to be quiet. As written in the blog post, a private individual would be financially unable to counter the lawsuit, whether it's valid or not. Many consider this to be bullying. - In regards to the Jinni Tech controversy, Mr. Royce has provided evidence that RED's claims of custom firmware and "made in the USA" statements are false. If Royce is right, then RED has broken the law and lied to its customers. Additionally, RED claimed that Jinni Tech stole intellectual property, which Royce has also disputed. Again, if Royce is right, then that is libel. - The issue of overpriced components is really incidental to the whole story, despite being an exciting headline. The only issue with the pricing is that there may be false advertising--RED can charge whatever price they want, but only if they are honest about what they are selling. That's my summary of events thus far, hopefully fairly accurately (feel free to set me straight).

I guess I was asking specifically if you knew in this instance whether the patent was specific to the redcode format. From the jinnitech video, where he showed all(?) the patent parameters, it was much more generic.

Are you sure? Because it seems to be the case that other companies are foregoing all forms of compressed raw out of fear of patents, not the specific redcode method.

A few months ago they mentioned working on prores raw via hdmi. They are also working on import plugins for zraw in some nle's. They have repeatedly said braw and prores raw are impossible, idk if its hardware or licensing. Z raw is a "partial debayer." I suspect that they can't do a compressed full bayer because of patents. If braw and prores raw are impossible, then the only options are: A) uncompressed, which would limit frame rates because of write speeds, or B) a new format. Z cam always seems to make incremental updates and is cautious about overpromising, i bet that within a few months the situation will be better for raw output from their cams, but until then, yeah it isn't a great workflow.

That is so true. Even on paper, you have to look at combinations and not individual pieces. Leica uses a very thin filter stack on their sensor, whereas the standard MFT filter stack is very thick. So a lens designed for maximum sharpness on a Leica digital camera will not be as sharp on a MFT sensor. Canon is somewhere in the middle. (LensRentals has a lot of nice articles about it https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter/)