MattH

13 hours ago, mkabi said:

I guess, you missed this bit or I wasn't being clear enough when I said,

"Suppose it is a bedroom, and you have a multiple partner fantasy... Suppose you're a girl using VR porn...

Use your imagination..."

If that wasn't clear enough... since we are knee deep in it already... I guess I don't need to be coy about it.

lol... suppose, you are a girl and you are put in doggy style, now which way are you looking?

 

You are responding to a comment I made about 360 degree VR as if I was talking about VR in general.  I wasn't!  Just 360 VR! Is that 'being clear enough'? 

You talked about 360 VR being useful for porn. 

I playfully and humoursly and accuratly shot down your Idea ( I even included a fucking smiley to make it clear I was being jovial).   What you should have said if you had an ounce of good humour and humility. is "ha ha  ok, your right. 360 degree vr porn would be useless, I guess I was talking about VR in general with relation to porn."

Instead you went full defensive,  and now you're acting as if I'm the dumb one?

And to answer your hypothetical, you seriously think someone would use 360 degree virtul reality so they can crank their head around and look at who is doing them from behind?  HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!   Rather you than me mate.

23 hours ago, mkabi said:

I don't know why I'm discussing this in great detail...

But, from my perspective, well... VR in general, not specifically 360 degree ...is about emmersing yourself in the experience. Suppose it is a bedroom, and you have a multiple partner fantasy... Suppose you're a girl using VR porn...

Use your imagination... 

BTW... If you don't know that it already existed, here is an example of first time users and their thoughts... It's not 360, but still VR... Don't worry it's not rated xxx here:

 

Right, but 360 degree VR was what I was specifically refering to wasn't it?

On 20/04/2016 at 11:50 PM, Jonesy Jones said:

First, it makes me very motion sick.

Lastly, it looks stupid on other people, and assume on me too.  I was laughing at everyone else wearing those things. I would literally put my camera right up to their face to snap the photos below and they had no idea. I don’t like that. Perhaps this is the easiest to overlook.

You can see pixels on all units. Even the best ones still looked like you were sitting too close to a TV that completely surrounded you.

 

Below are some photos. The first one was a total accidental forced perspective.

I agree with all of these points. Was exactly what I felt trying the oculus rift beta.  It just wasn't something I wanted to do longer than 5 minutes.

I obviously get what you mean about the picture, but I think it would technically only be FORCED perspective if you used a large man and/or a small vr unit.

On 21/04/2016 at 3:04 AM, mkabi said:

See, I didn't understand the hype behind 360 VR, especially for those that are interested in it, even on this forum.

Beyond gaming and porn, I can't see it being applied to cinema.

I can't see how 360 degree VR would be usefull for porn.  What is happening behind you?  If the sex is happening in one direction, why am I going to want to look around at the room? To check out the decor?

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

The problem with 3D is the framing - if you cut/clip the top of someone's head it just kills the whole aesthetic. The Hobbit was horrible in every single way, it just looked shit - in normal 24fps (non-3D) it was acceptable and still then they messed with the story so much that it still didn't appeal. The only film in 3D that I thought was passable was Prometheus - 3D works really well when it enhances the depth of field of a scene. But it is a gimmick that has had 5 different incarnations over the years & i've vowed to never be hoodwinked again.

I might consider Ang Lee's new film, since he seems to have understood that you need to really rethink how you make a film, but still I don't hold too much hope that it will work.

Exactly! Anything that is positioned in 3d space infront of where the screen is must not intersect with the edge of the screen. How stupid and offputing is it when something goes behind something its meant to be infront of.  The only was around this is to make the viewing field of view much bigger (there are imax cinemas that are like the inside of a sphere) or vr headsets.

3 hours ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

In camera stabilization with a none O.I.S lens looks good! Check out 0:52 to 1:02. He is using the kit lens. It would be even better with O.I.S LENS

The kit lens has mega OIS.  Unfortunately the video doesn't specify whether this was turned on or not.

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

In philosophy "skepticism" is doubt. "Agnostic" means not knowing.
In this context I would definitely put a negative association to "Doubting" the camera and company.
One does what one wants, I just objected against being unintelligent for being a problem solver instead of seeker 

Ok, Im sorry for adding to the derail of a thread. I will stop now. so it can get back on topic.
I will just paste in the stuff bellow that was pretty much the first hit on google, so I'm definitely agonistic about its accuracy  

"The Agnostic is generally defined as someone that wants to see some kind of personal first hand experience or proof before he makes a decision. He does not believe we can actually know the will or existence of a deity if they should exist.
Wikipedia's definition...
In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

The Skeptic is someone that sits on the fence and is hyper critical of any one view being championed above others because none of the other views can state with certainty they are right.
Wikipedia's definition..
Skepticism or scepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere."

Out.

Thankyou for agreeing. As you say youself, you put a negative association to scepticism. It isn't in the definition itself. I don't apply a negative association to it in the slightest. I'll take the wikipedia description. The one in bold is so negatively opinionated it looks like it was written by a 13 year old. I'm surprised you included it.

As for getting the toppic back on track:

Pending further relevant information, I will remain sceptical/agnostic as to whether kinfinity can produce, within the scheduled timeframe, a camera system with a build quality that is worth 6000 to 9000 dollars that doesn't have buttons that spin in their sockets.

2 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Dont know more than you, because Im agnostic.

Sceptical to me means being negative. If you where to bet money you would think that they will fail.

Agnostic is not knowing. Keeping a neutral stance because you dont know yet. It might be good or bad.

In my opinion a neutral stance on life will open more doors than a negative

 

I thought so.

You are applying the subjective connotation of negativity, when in fact there is no intrinsic link to negativity in the definition or theory of scepticism itself.

7 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Now its getting philosophical here but imo, being skeptical is absolutely NOT the "only" intelligent position. In fact it isn't a very good one in most circumstances (imo).
I would suggest being Agnostic is the way to go   

How would you differentiate scepticism and agnosticism? I would think they are close enough in meaning (especially in this context)to be synonyms. But perhaps you know more than myself.

21 minutes ago, Hans Punk said:

Being sceptical is an opinion, not an inherent intelligent/ informed position in its self. An intelligent/informed position would be garnered by information, experience or knowledge. Being sceptical is often healthy and logical, but should never be regarded as an informed opinion...it is simply an opinion without validation and should be open to challenge. If negative and related past experience is a factor in forming a sceptical opinion - that's different, but what we are talking about here is scepticism formed from 'glass half empty' opinions drawn from trivial assumptions. In the context of NAB it could be argued it 'intelligent' to be just as sceptical of everything new that is announced - until it physically ships. Many products from past NAB shows have never materialised in the real world - or with the identical specs as its demonstration model, it's very unfair to single out a single company and slam it's whole quality control standards are sub-par and that they are not bring their 'A-game' because a pre-production model of a camera has free-rotating button caps! (which incidentally has already been confirmed as only an issue that is with the pre-prod cameras). Not having a go at anyone here for having an opinion, I have plenty of them...they are equally valid and invalid as anyone else's.

Scepticism is a concept regarding how to think about things.  It isnt an opinion.

15 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Being sceptical in the face of the unknown is often understandable but should not be considered as informed or even an intelligent opinion on anything. Until the facts are known, It is no less value than speculation. It is true that many tech giants would not dream to let a pre-release product hit the press without it in immaculate, production ready apperance, with every single aspect being identical to the final shipping model. But this company is not a giant and is still relatively 'unknown' to the masses even though they have been shipping working cameras for a few years to many happy customers. I think the issue that a few people may have is 'burnt finger syndrome' - where it's easy to identify a less familiar company  (or even better a 'foreign' company) that reveals a promise that many would assume is too good to be true, and are looking at the first sign to pick things apart. It's understandable to a certain degree, but remember this company has a track record of delivering cameras within a couple of months (not several months) of them being announced. This time of year when NAB is buzzing is where everything is a bombardment of crap to process all at once, having any solid knowledge or informed opinion on anything until anything actually ships is like listening to a group of old women gossiping. Let the dust settle, keep a healthy open mind, make an informed opinion before thinking to put some serious dough down on ordering anything expensive.

In the face of the unknown, being sceptical is the ONLY intelligent position. Only with knowledge can you make accurate conclusions.  That is my counter opinion.

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 FS700 raw is "denser" because there is a smaller dynamic range being put into that 12bits, or rather to say its has more bits available per stop. Which is why FS7 raw was initially a flop (less than one bit per stop of dynamic range).

12 bits has 16 times the number of values per sample as 8 bit. So I doubt the raw issue with the fs7 was due to that reason.

And haven't the raw issues with the fs7 been fixed? This article seems to think so, although it doesnt show details of a re-test.

https://***URL not allowed***/sony-fs7-firmware-update-30-released-fixes-raw-issues/

1 hour ago, Geoff CB said:

We get it, your skeptical about the camera. Don't buy it.

Anyone who isn't sceptical of any new camera is, well I dont want to be insulting here, but lets just say it's perfectly reasonable to be sceptical.  The flaw of buttons being rotated and even upside down is an embarrassing mistake that makes your product look bad even if it is just a mock up. Red or blackmagic, canon or anyone would get called out on that kind of thing.  Would the new iphone ever have writing upside down? I don't think so.  Im glad it was pointed out, because it does matter if you are considering spending $6000 on one.

The modules are definitely cool looking, but it looks like most of the time you will need all of the main ones anyway. 

Looks like there isn't even a 3.5mm jack without the audio module. You are always going to need the card module unless its a studio set up.  You will always need the battery module unless youve got annother battery solution which will be bigger anyway.

But I guess its good as an option to be able to get rid of stuff you dont need.

Cool.  That answers the question nicely.  For those that cant see the picture for any reason:  The FS7 directly outputs 4k bitstream data via 3G-SDI that can be interpreted by a compatible recorder, as long as you have the CBKZ-FS5RIF firmware update.

1 hour ago, Cinegain said:

Just have AA-meetings instead.

But yeah, that's a pretty messed up system. But as 00:01 is 12AM and 12:01 is 12PM... there's more to say for 12PM being 12:00 noon. We should all talk in 24HR format and zulu time. EST, CST, PST (pretty sure noone gives a damn about MST, sorry) great... now I need to google...

Correct but its actually the next day 1 nanosecond after midnight (or whatever is the smallest time period you can measure) You don't have to wait a minute.  The first second of the day is 00:00:00 or 12:00:00 AM.

Can anyone confirm whether all you will need for this is the paid firmware update and an external recorder? So you wouldn't also need an interface unit like you do with the FS700 and FS7?

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Yes, CineLikeD is not actually a log profile, but it is often described as being log-like... I knew what Sanveer meant. 

I did too.  I wasn't being pedantic.  I was evolving the conversation.

18 hours ago, sanveer said:

I agree. I think we should make an online petition for having a Log Profile (Cineline D and V) on the GX85.

Cinelike V isn't a log profile.  It's baked in high contrast.  Looks pretty good but the other profiles aren't that much different. 

Cinelike D isn't log either.   Log pushes the shadows and then rates it as a higher iso to try and force you to expose for the highlights.   Im not sure at the moment, but I don't think Cine D has a higher minimum iso does it?  Its basically just a normal profile with the contrast turned way down so that it looks flat.  Doesn't actualy increase the dynamic range.  To me its always seemed pointless to shoot with no contrast and weird tonality, bake it into an 8 bit delivery file, then add the contrast back in in post, usually badly.

Im not saying there is anything wrong with having Cinelike V and D in the camera.  But personally I dont care if they are there.

39 minutes ago, Policar said:

The one person with any sense on this forum (even if Primos are actually t1.9). 

Everyone else should bow down to this wisdom, even if it's bereft of detailed accurate tech specs. What matters is the wisdom and thoughtfulness, which we lose in the fast-paced digital era in favor of looking at resolution lines on a brick wall. (Citizen Brick Wall and Brickwalsablanca and Wizard of Resolution Chart never got far in the box office or among critics.)

Exactly. 100%. 

The op isn't even talking about equipment.

Democracy of film making sadly also comes along with democracy of film viewing.  There is just so much content out there that who is going to care about your movie enough to pay to watch it? And who is going to care enough to pay to make it.  Evidently batman vs superman is the level of moronity you need to delve to get people to come to the cinema and pay a rediculous price.  When you see previously A-list stars do TV, netflix and comercials, you know the game has changed.

Unsuported doesn't meant it wont work. Just means that if you get hacked it's tough titty.

Basically if you need prores just keep using quicktime and dont care, or edit on a pc that isn't connected to the internet.

http://www.adorama.com/CAMEC200SPC.html?utm_source=rflaid67913

A bit pricey as usual.  Should have EF-M mount.  Is this canons surprise for NAB?

4 hours ago, mercer said:

I own neither the Pocket or the Micro, but from reading this thread it seems like the Micro really isn't the successor to the Pocket... Or the Pocket II. Minus the obvious differences, do you early adopters see more similarities or differences between the two? 

I ask because I am still very interested in the pocket, but I don't want to buy one yet if the actual Pocket 2 is right around the corner... Plus I am still slapping myself for not getting it during the infamous fire sale of '14. I had enough money to buy 4 of them and sell 2 or 3 for a profit, but I thought they were just clearing inventory for the newer model. When I decided to buy just one, they were unavailable. 

This is blackmagic.  Nothing is around the corner.  Even if they anounce it tomorrow you wouldn't get your hands on one for another year.

I think the differences are pretty surface level.  The pocket can be used on its own, the micro needs a monitor or viewfinder (unless you're using it as a go pro or crash cam).  The micro does 60p, In the future it may do global shutter.  The micro has a bigger battery. The micro has an expansion port that someone might design a remote control for at some point.  The micro (I think) has slightly less rolling shutter.  I think thats pretty much it.

10 hours ago, Nikkor said:

Filmmaker is the standart text that the forum places there, mr professor. If you take a look at bioskops file, open it in photoshop, turn off color noise removal and push one stop (iso 1600) you will see the same noise you have. You can take any camera and put it into equivalent iso (iso 4800-6400 for fullframe) and you will see the same noise in shitty light.

Have fun, I've seen this noise debates on dpreview for years, it's always the same story.

 a cookie if you need one for your ego.

 

 

I don't like to take sides in bitch fights, but I believe you will turn out to be correct.  You see the exact same thing DSLR raw files at native resolution when pushed.  Chroma noise reduction is needed at the very least.  People forget that "low light" cameras like the A7S will have a shit ton of noise reduction applied.

And unfortunately I seriously wonder whether black magic would test a new pocket cam before they send it out.  They are probably just taking the customer at their word that their is an issue and rolling the roulette wheel with a replacment.  There is a good chance the replacement will be just the same or even worse.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

@Don Kotlos yeah that is a bummer, but I am still interested in it for the very same reasons. Obviously, walking around with it will be an issue, but standing still should be close to tripod level if I use the neck strap method. On my FZ300, which only has OIS in 4K, I can get the thing pretty damn steady. And with controlled movements, I can take a few steps or sway in different directions to mimick sliders and pans. Which is still better than carrying a tripod or monopod around... Especially for what I want to use it for. 

Yeah, quite a lot of people think IS is a steadycam, when it is just for hand vibration.  Drives me mental when I see reviewers jump up and down and walking slopily to test IS.  I want to say to them: "How do you think that the small movement of the sensor or the lens can compensate for you jumping up and down? You are a moron!"

Edit: I thought you were replying to someone else.

3 hours ago, Zak Forsman said:

i've only shot in RAW and RAW 3:1 so far.

Could they actually do anything about raw?  I mean isn't the whole point of raw that you get the image before the camera maker has done anything to it?