bradleyg5 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 [quote author=JesseB link=topic=515.msg3396#msg3396 date=1333425973] Open the door to adapted glass and you can get F2.8 at just about any focal length you could ever want for less than $250 a lens. Bam. [/quote] Almost nothing adapted is going to get you shorter than 50mm equivalent. Huge money if you want to go wider than 24mm equivalent on micro 4/3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Car_Killa Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 THATS AWESOME. Love the sheep lolololol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 First post here, although I have read the forums (here and elsewhere) for months. I have had a lifetime in art (professionally...recently building 3d worlds and large cities...all 3d) I have to have a good eye, otherwise I dont make a living LOL!! Anyway I find this whole "Filmic" thing over rated To be honest, and its a word I hear often to defend Canon DSLR's, the beauty of the color...and so on, not saying that there is no truth in it, just that its in danger of being a tired cliche. Many blues players in music use the word "feel" similarly...to describe a certain X factor that a certain guitar has or something, by and large tho its a tired term thats rolled out to often justify spend $1,000s on a pre CBS Fender or whatever else, whereas the obvious truth is it's the player makes 90% of the difference, the guitar roughly 10%. Cameras are somewhat different tho, I realize this... BUT personally I would go for resolution and detail any day over softness with nice colors, because its very difficult to up res things and relatively easy to soften something nicely or grade the colors etc in post. I watched the whole clip by James Miller and to be honest I found it nice, but underwhelming...I would tire of this look very quickly, I like something that is cleaner, but I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, to me it was nothing special at all. I looked at gazillions of clips on Vimeo before I decided to buy a GH2 (we have 2 Canons...no 5d's tho) and I liked the look of the GH2 clips mainly, some of the clips demoing Driftwood hacks were incredible and definitely influenced my decision, I did see a couple of incredibly nice 5D Mark 2 clips tho too, but so far everything I have seen from the 5D mark 3 has not been that special at all. At the end of the day...each to his own, but if I had loved the Mk3 I would have bought one, I decided to give it a miss, and I am glad I did. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riccardocovino Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 The point is that you can color correct GH2 shots to look more canon-ish, meanwhile you cannot add detail to Mk3 footage. I think that's what makes Andrew think that GH2 is still better all-round camera. Anyway, that Nex-7 image seems much more washed than it should be. My 5n has more detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Rios Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Canon, panasonic, or sony are the tools, but the thing is, who is behind the camera (like Andrew said) and what is in front off the camera. All of them can be cinematic. Everything else is just about a personal choice, and we have to play creatively with what we have. One thing is sure, we are lucky to have access to these tools for cinematography... Best regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonbeas Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Hi all, i've read all posts and i like to say some things. Must say that DOF is more like a actual tendence because lots of people want to make nostalgic feeling stuff. Real DOF is used like a zoom (only when needed). Off course all is a choice of lenses and sensations. But film look is achieved by a "3D" (more space in between) look that 35mm chips would always have advantage on. Although we are talking about cheap cameras and never i will compare a $800 camera to a $2000 dll plus camera, in terms of quality is another price range, you can buy two come on. BUT to be honest i've seen footage from GH2 hacked in proper hands (and good expensive lenses) that is almost impossible to distinguish from a 58,000 dll Epic, and that for me is enough to say that is a good buy. 5DMKII or III for me does't resolve footage enough to justify its price i would be 10 times better with a fs100 and a ninja, that have the same super 35mm film look and much better low light, for color 8bits 4:2:2 hdmi out is enough for grading if you have a good photographer. The difference in price is nothing when talking about a movie. So final though is, for a movie the man behind the camera the lighting, and the choice of lenses along with a good script does MIRACLES, if you have money buy a serious tool (ARRI, EPIC, F65), if you don't buy the tool that lets you have the wider possible options in terms of resolving the infinite situations you will face, in a shooting, including trashing a couple of cameras. So for that buy a couple of GH2's or a fs100 (more budget) a matte box and a couple of goodies. You will find yourself in the long therm using high resolution footage much more times than DOF, and if really want that buy a f0.95 nokton. 5DMKII codec is not usable professionaly, 5DMKIII is almost the same prime than a used fs100 you figure that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlev23 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 i agree with most, i have both cameras as well, intact I'm now selling my GH2. sharpness is highly over rated, infact any time we are shooting with an Alexa and 5DmkII, we have to soften the 5D footage to match the film look that the alexa gives. now with the 5DMKIII we have an almost matched look and we love it. unless you want super sharp "news" looking footage, we now have a dslr that matches closest to the alexa and red cameras, with no moire! i just did a night shoot in times square and the clients, as well as i, were astonished how great the footage looked, its just amazing. thank you canon for taking the video out of video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJB Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Reading here and elsewhere it seems that many see this as an "either or" type thing. Right now we're enjoying an abundance of camera options with more to come in the months and years ahead. As stated by others it's often down to taste and if one has a few extra $ then two differently branded cameras can easily live in the same camera bag. Different tools have different strengths for different requirements. No such thing as the perfect camera. For me it's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katon Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 [quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3423#msg3423 date=1333486829] i agree with most, i have both cameras as well, intact I'm now selling my GH2. sharpness is highly over rated, infact any time we are shooting with an Alexa and 5DmkII, we have to soften the 5D footage to match the film look that the alexa gives. now with the 5DMKIII we have an almost matched look and we love it. unless you want super sharp "news" looking footage, we now have a dslr that matches closest to the alexa and red cameras, with no moire! i just did a night shoot in times square and the clients, as well as i, were astonished how great the footage looked, its just amazing. thank you canon for taking the video out of video. [/quote] Exactly. There are people right now lobbying Canon to make in camera sharpening stronger. What a travesty that would be! We have a camera here capable of lovely anti-aliased and filmic feeling images, but people who don't understand what that looks like and instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up! ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 [i]Quote We have a camera here capable of lovely anti-aliased and filmic feeling images, but people who don't understand what that looks like and instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up![/i] OMG I guess James Miller was deluded in taking the AA filter off his then...right? I guess Andrew is deluded in wanting a little more sharpness from his mark 3 then? I guess all those that are complaining about the Mk3 "dont understand"...but you do? ( of course you do) I guess my eyes are aliased with fake sharpness then, cause the GH2 is pretty much capable of capturing what I actually see. Bottom line this is an elitist self serving statement, if you are happy with your Mk3 then fine...all power to you. Others are not, but to say they don't understand, and sharpness is fake etc... is just pure dismissive elitist rubbish. Fact of the matter is in Audio was where we are now with cameras years ago..these days all DAW's conform to at least 44.1/48khz/96khz to 192khz..and 16/24 bit and upwards, practically all (even cheaper) soundcards conform to this. The debate about digital vs Analogue 30ips tape went on for years in Audio, now we achieve that with hi quality plug ins. This debate is newer in the DLSR world, and to be quite honest Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that. It should be an option to have a softer "Filmic" look, just as making clean hi end digital audio (Fake in your your words) sound like Analogue tape is achievable by plug ins (VST and Native) is an option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3428#msg3428 date=1333496521] [i]Quote We have a camera here capable of lovely anti-aliased and filmic feeling images, but people who don't understand what that looks like and instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up![/i] OMG I guess James Miller was deluded in taking the AA filter off his then...right? I guess Andrew is deluded in wanting a little more sharpness from his mark 3 then? I guess all those that are complaining about the Mk3 "dont understand"...but you do? ( of course you do) I guess my eyes are aliased with fake sharpness then, cause the GH2 is pretty much capable of capturing what I actually see. Bottom line this is an elitist self serving statement, if you are happy with your Mk3 then fine...all power to you. Others are not, but to say they don't understand, and sharpness is fake etc... is just pure dismissive elitist rubbish. Fact of the matter is in Audio was where we are now with cameras years ago..these days all DAW's conform to at least 44.1/48khz/96khz to 192khz..and 16/24 bit and upwards, practically all (even cheaper) soundcards conform to this. The debate about digital vs Analogue 30ips tape went on for years in Audio, now we achieve that with hi quality plug ins. This debate is newer in the DLSR world, and to be quite honest Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that. It should be an option to have a softer "Filmic" look, just as making clean hi end digital audio (Fake in your your words) sound like Analogue tape is achievable by plug ins (VST and Native) is an option. [/quote] What does audio sample rate have to do with anything? Just because a sound card does 96khz doesn't make it sound good or the same as high end A/D converters. Plugins have come a long way, but there still isn't any plugin that captures the non linearities of hardware compressors completely faithfully. Many get close, but they aren't there yet, and there certainly isn't a plugin that sounds exactly like tape. There are emulations, sure, but they aren't the same. What do you mean "Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that" You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio hardware is that it is non-linear. That it changes the audio, that it adds distortion etc? That it adds 'softness', that it takes the edge off digital 'harshness'. Why do you think people take audio out of their DAW into an analogue summing box when they could just sum in their DAW? Because it changes the audio in a pleasing, non linear manner. Many people prefer tape due to how it [i]messes[/i] with audio, how it changes it. It's technically inferior to audio through a pristine soundcard, but some people PREFER the non technical, the warmth, distortion, compression etc of tape. Do you actually know what you're talking about here? Why do you think Steve Albini only records to tape when he could just record into a pristine and much more accurate ([i]sharp[/i] hehe) DAW? My contention is with what i find filmic, and i'm frustrated by people going hysterical about sharpness. Andrew prefers a particular look, fine, when did i say he was deluded? James Miller is experimenting with removing OLPF, fine, i've been watching with great interest. But I don't want Canon to be lobbied resulting in a nasty cheap in camera sharpness being added to the MKIII that i can't remove. Have you tried to intercut a GH2 shot with an Alexa or film? Have you experienced the difference between the GH2 and Alexa visually? My guess is not. Many people have a different taste through their experience and the type of work they do, they prefer super sharpness. I don't, and feel i have a valid and logical reason why that is based on my personal aesthetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [i]It's technically inferior to audio through a pristine soundcard, but some people PREFER the non technical, the warmth, distortion, compression etc of tape. Do you actually know what you're talking about here? [/i] Really? Gosh I didn't know that!! I have never heard that before Wow!! People prefer the sound of tape...what a revelation, they want plug ins to emulate Studers/Ampex tape 15ips/30ips...I didn't know that. And they like Analogue summing as in API, early Neve desks etc... I did not know that...incredible. No I dont know what I am talking about, but you obviously do...I am greatly humbled by your advice. [i]You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio hardware is that it is non-linear. That it changes the audio, that it adds distortion etc? That it adds 'softness', that it takes the edge off digital 'harshness'[/i]. Wow Another revelation!! nope I know I didn't understand and I know nothing of dithering, nyquist frequencies, softening, linear or non-linear or anything else. This is very enlightening to me. [i]My contention is with what i find filmic, and i'm frustrated by people going hysterical about sharpness[/i] Thats fair enough...but personally I see more hysteria about "Filmic" than anything else, all that was said (on my part) is its easy to soften something than up res something. Are you going to argue with that too? [i]But I don't want Canon to be lobbied resulting in a nasty cheap in camera sharpness being added to the MKIII that i can't remove[/i] There you are assuming again, I dont recall reading that from anyone, most say the 5D mk3's image is too soft, I never read anyone say "Add nasty cheap Sharpness" Fact of the matter is, many have cancelled their orders for the Mk3 based on this point, even Bloom said its hard to look at the lower res image of the Mk3 after seeing the C300's image. Does that make the C300's image nasty and cheap, because its widely recognized as being more detailed than the 5D Mk3's? [i]Why do you think Steve Albini only records to tape[/i] He's only one producer, there are hundreds of them, and they use different methods of recording, whatever works best for them. He mainly records bands tho...makes sense, depends how you create, a lot of DAW people wont use this method. [i] Andrew prefers a particular look, fine, when did i say he was deluded? [/i] You didn't say that directly, you were politically insinuating it. You said Quote "people who don't understand what that looks like" meaning filmic Quote "instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up" Strong words/your words ...dont understand, mess it up...really what does this mean? It reads to me as...they dont know whats good and whats not=deluded!! They offer opinions, but their opinions will "mess it all up" LOL!! Get over it, drop the superior attitude and people may listen, thats what got me about your statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlev23 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 i guess its all depends what you are looking to use the camera for, if you are a cinematographer shooting films or commercials you are going to love it the way it is. if you are someone shooting reality shows or news and interviews maybe you'd want it sharper. maybe you should try shooting 30p as well. i for one, never owning a 5D before but have shot about 20-30 commercials with it, usually as a b or c camera, knows how much work it too for them to match it and make it acceptable. my friend has colored almost all the bigger indie films that were shot on 5D as well and says the same thing. one look at the footage from this new MK3 and he was like wow, finally! its beautiful and seems sharp to me, i can't understand these muddy pictures some people post, mine looks nothing like that, but again i don't take a still grab and blow it up and then compress it for posting, ever. also you know that any still grab of moving pictures you take has natural motion blur, you can not even begin to judge anything by that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3432#msg3432 date=1333505530] [i]It's technically inferior to audio through a pristine soundcard, but some people PREFER the non technical, the warmth, distortion, compression etc of tape. Do you actually know what you're talking about here? [/i] Really? Gosh I didn't know that!! I have never heard that before Wow!! People prefer the sound of tape...what a revelation, they want plug ins to emulate Studers/Ampex tape 15ips/30ips...I didn't know that. And they like Analogue summing as in API, early Neve desks etc... I did not know that...incredible. No I dont know what I am talking about, but you obviously do...I am greatly humbled by your advice. [i]You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio hardware is that it is non-linear. That it changes the audio, that it adds distortion etc? That it adds 'softness', that it takes the edge off digital 'harshness'[/i]. Wow Another revelation!! nope I know I didn't understand and I know nothing of dithering, nyquist frequencies, softening, linear or non-linear or anything else. This is very enlightening to me. [i]My contention is with what i find filmic, and i'm frustrated by people going hysterical about sharpness[/i] Thats fair enough...but personally I see more hysteria about "Filmic" than anything else, all that was said (on my part) is its easy to soften something than up res something. Are you going to argue with that too? [i]But I don't want Canon to be lobbied resulting in a nasty cheap in camera sharpness being added to the MKIII that i can't remove[/i] There you are assuming again, I dont recall reading that from anyone, most say the 5D mk3's image is too soft, I never read anyone say "Add nasty cheap Sharpness" Fact of the matter is, many have cancelled their orders for the Mk3 based on this point, even Bloom said its hard to look at the lower res image of the Mk3 after seeing the C300's image. Does that make the C300's image nasty and cheap, because its widely recognized as being more detailed than the 5D Mk3's? [i]Why do you think Steve Albini only records to tape[/i] He's only one producer, there are hundreds of them, and they use different methods of recording, whatever works best for them. He mainly records bands tho...makes sense, depends how you create, a lot of DAW people wont use this method. [i] Andrew prefers a particular look, fine, when did i say he was deluded? [/i] You didn't say that directly, you were politically insinuating it. You said Quote "people who don't understand what that looks like" meaning filmic Quote "instead prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up" Strong words/your words ...dont understand, mess it up...really what does this mean? It reads to me as...they dont know whats good and whats not=deluded!! They offer opinions, but their opinions will "mess it all up" LOL!! Get over it, drop the superior attitude and people may listen, thats what got me about your statements. [/quote] Instead of the sarcasm in regards to my comments about audio, why not instead put forward a logical argument, because most of what you put forward in your reference to audio doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that."? Seems to me you may have just as strong/biased opinions as you think i do. I stand by my opinion that some people have not had the experience of cutting GH2 or other camera's etc sharp footage with film/Alexa and therefore do not understand what the 5DMKIII brings, a non aliased image. I do not say people are deluded, if you want to take it that way that is your issue. There are people here who are used to super sharpness and that is what they prefer because they work in a different field which requires it. So we get a lot of complaints about how a $3500 dollar camera has been hobbled by Canon, how the GH2 is so much better and so on. I am not in that camp and i want to speak out about it because that's mostly what i'm hearing. The 5d MKIII to me is wonderful for the Cinematographer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riccardocovino Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Come on guys, don't start futile discussions. I think that everybody can agree that the best tool is the one that gives you more possibilities. Here we are talking about TECH SPECS, not personal tastes. If we go down to personal tastes everybody is right and there's no point in it. Having soft image doesn't allow you to have sharp ones if you want them, that's clear to everybody. the same if you have noise on high iso it doesn't allow you to color correct the shot nicely. talking about personal taste about soft or sharp, noisy or clean, flat or vivid images is simply out of topic. my 2 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote] Instead of the sarcasm in regards to my comments about audio, why not instead put forward a logical argument, because most of what you put forward in your reference to audio doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "Canons no higher resolution option/ softer image would be laughed out of the ball park if it was happening in audio, I can guarantee that."? Seems to me you may have just as strong/biased opinions as you think i do. [/quote] Actually your arguments were pretty flawed in regards to audio...Cameras are digital beasts that largely record digital info to a flash card or drive. Therefore to compare to Audio you need to compare to a more or less totally digital card...A particular model of Hammerfall, M-Audio or presonus or whatever else, in order to make a reasonable comparison. AD/DA (especially DA) does not really come into it and therefore makes no sense, so your argument that sound cards differ greatly because of the quality of A/D converters is more or less a moot point, plus AD/DA was a much bigger deal in the 1990's than it is now because of prices and technology. And in DAW's then there is no AD required at all with VSTI or plain VST plugs and also AU plugins...its all digital. Now all the processing inside the GH2 or Mk3 is LSI based not tape etc... so AD convertors are not the real issue that is being compared. Hopefully we are done with that...Now all cards (even cheaper ones) have the option to record data at higher frequencies based on the 44.1khz and 48khz multiplication...agreed? Canon has a $3,500 camera that does not allow the user to record at higher resolutions, if that was done in Audio (say it could only record at 44.1 or even less) then they would be laughed out of the market...and I stand solidly behind that point, digital is digital...its numbers. Canon decided not too do this within their $3,500 camera, and it may bite them, and many are saying this. Sooner or later Cameras will have to play on a more level playing field regarding the option to record at higher resolutions, thats surely not hard to understand, and that appears to be Andrews point, and I agree with that. And when you drop phrases like [quote]" but some people PREFER the non technical, the warmth, distortion, compression etc of tape,etc...Do you actually know what you're talking about here? " "You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio" etc...[/quote] If it wasn't so high handed and arrogant it would be totally hilarious. Of course I am going to be sarcastic, drop that attitude and we'll talk about what I know about audio, Daw's, composition, frequencies, mastering, music theory, modal systems and whatever else [quote] I stand by my opinion that some people have not had the experience of cutting GH2 or other camera's etc sharp footage with film/Alexa and therefore do not understand what the 5DMKIII brings, a non aliased image. I do not say people are deluded, if you want to take it that way that is your issue. [/quote] I have no argument at all with you saying that, its probably true, that was not my point... So...I suggest you read your own comments, you said several things that were downright insulting. If you spoke with perhaps an ounce of recognition that other people may have eyes and ears and preferences too instead of rolling out phrases like " nasty cheap in camera sharpness" I never said "Crappy blurred images" or anything like that in regards to the Mk3. Just that I have not been that impressed by what I have seen so far and that the word "Filmic" was becoming a bit of a tired cliche.. You also said "people that prefer news type aliased fake sharpness could mess it all up" I pointed out that the C300 is sharper (is that fake and crappy sharpness? ...you never answered that, or maybe you will love sharpness from a C300) You also said..."You do understand that one of the prized qualities of audio", so I responded sarcastically. Why? because I have been doing audio probably longer than you have been alive on both sides of the desk and in DAW's composing, arranging and mastering. Yes I know about tape saturation, yes I know about valve biasing, linear audio, non linear, dithering in mastering, mic placement, valve mics vs solid state, VST etc.. and I do it, practically on a daily basis to this very day. [quote] There are people here who are used to super sharpness and that is what they prefer because they work in a different field which requires it. So we get a lot of complaints about how a $3500 dollar camera has been hobbled by Canon, how the GH2 is so much better and so on. I am not in that camp and i want to speak out about it because that's mostly what i'm hearing. The 5d MKIII to me is wonderful for the Cinematographer. [/quote] I have no real argument with this, its your opinion and you are totally entitled to it, it was the belittling terms you used (described above...and probably directed to certain products and persons) that caused me to take issue with you on this. But Canon could have made the camera sharper (as an option) obviously and the Filmic look could have been also an option...this may or may not leave the door open for other Camera manufacturers to claim some of Canons market, and it appears to have done so based on Amazons sales of the 5D Mk3 as verses the Nikkon D800. (not saying the Nikkon is better, just that its outselling it) At the end of the day I am done with this, you have your opinions, I have mine (yes mine are strong too) but I am careful not to downright trash a product by saying things like "nasty, fake, cheap, dont understand etc.. Which you did!! in black and white ...if you cant see that, there is not much I can say. Adios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katon Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote author=Astro link=topic=515.msg3440#msg3440 date=1333542746] Why? because I have been doing audio probably longer than you have been alive on both sides of the desk and in DAW's and mastering. [/quote] Look, i think you're just as opinionated as me. How does this statement differ from the generalisations you feel i've made. When it comes to your writings about audio, you don't actually put forward a logical argument but instead prefer to throw around big words. I don't feel it's wrong to say of certain cameras that their look is cheap and nasty, how do you feel about Behringer preamps vs DAV or Neve? Or a cheap chinese condenser vs a C12? they're pretty cheap and nasty, but they get the job done if it's all you have. Doesn't mean you have to like them or that you can't call them cheap and nasty sounding. What do you prefer? Not the Behringer/Chinese condenser right?. I don't like the cheap and nasty Canon in camera sharpening, because it looks cheap and nasty to me. What's wrong with that? OF COURSE regarding cameras this is all just my personal opinion, i made that abundently clear earlier on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 [quote] When it comes to your writings about audio, you don't actually put forward a logical argument but instead prefer to throw around big words [/quote] Re read my first paragraph in my last response, plenty of logic in that, more than you have put forward on this point. In fact what you put forward was pretty flawed in regards to AD/DA soundcards etc..the whole so called "logical argument" you put forward was flawed. And as far as big words go, those are pretty standard vocabulary in audio, just like sensors, crop factors, ISO and whatever else are in Cameras. And I at least answered some of your questions, you cherry pick what you think you need to answer And now you resort to petty insults, I guess you have run out of puff...time to call it a nite! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Typical GH2 jerkoff from Astro. Lots of talk, little show. Or sense. It's funny how audio world completely abandoned 192khz. And how is SA-CD doing with it's huge resolution jump? Not well at all. But tube amplifiers are actually becoming more and more popular. Astro sounds like a 16 year old who suddenly found a 200 dollar soundcard. Whoop. "You belittled my beloved camera!" Boohoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 IDIOT!! How long ago did you have your lobotomy? And have you learn't your first play by numbers guitar song on your tube amp yet? Hope its point to point cause tossers like you always need help...to cover up for the fact they cant play or make sense...sad!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.