Axel

Everybody who states he could bring back an industry that keeps everybody employed for the payment they were used to is a liar. Like Trump i.e. - and everybody else, to be fair. There need to be major changes, new infrastructures, new industries aiming for the future, subsidized by whom? People need to be qualified, because untrained workers will be needed even less in the future, and they will be paid less. 
These changes, if s.o. had any idea, any concept in the first place, would take time. One lost generation. You can't let people starve. There has to be a minimum income for everybody. Enough to make you feel part of the civilization. 
Everything else leads to disaster, unavoidable. These conditions can't be tolerated in one of the richest countries of the world. One day you would see people hanging from the trees. Probably not bankers or politicians.
I sometimes think it's time to wake up from the American Dream. Trump is the ugly truth. Grotesque wealth is for very few. It tends to drive you mad. 

Nobody except Peter Jackson liked The Hobbit in 48p, and 3D is about to die - again. As you said, don't declare the end of something. 3D is like Dracula. Often impaled and turned to dust. When the world just had forgotten his existence he came back. Stereoscopic images are first reported from the very early 17th century:

At school I had a girlfriend from Romania. She spoke 10 languages fluently and got the international baccalaureat. Studied in Belgium and became a dermatologist. Her parents had been very poor. And no intellectuals ...

you shamed me into voting ?
im super interested in the idea of hdr in principle and i appreciate this thread. im not educated on the latest news but ill get way more into it when i have a chance to see a great example of it in person in a nice dark room
as opposed to fads like the revival of stereoscopic 3D, this is progress

Here is my first true YouTube-compliant 4K HDR (10bit, 4:2:2 REC2020 12-stop) video. You will see it translated to SDR (REC709) if you have an SDR viewing device; and HDR if you can watch in HDR:
Panasonic GH4 10bit 4:2:2 to Shogun Inferno, graded in resolve 12.5 in HDR. Output as DNxHR 444 12bit, with injected HDR metadata.
 

Thanks.
It's the biggest update yet, and I think it's very good. But we must find out about hidden bugs.

Indeed! I never wanted to use them - in fact I didn't even know they were there! But after I updated to 10.3 the metadata from my cameras saying "shot in Canon Log" started getting read by FCPX and automagically processed. Not what I wanted at all. Particularly as I didn't know it was doing it or where to find the place to turn it off. 
The function of the Log Processing however is not to act as a grading LUT. It does have its uses. It's for editors working with log footage who want to work with a more "realistic" image prior to the grading stage. The processing would always be turned off again prior to being handed off to a colourist.
However I'd ETTR'd all my shots so the built in processor was just blowing everything.
Suffice to say my post was just a warning that Log Processing got turned on automatically for me, so watch out!

Never use the built-in luts. You can't color correct the image underneath (the way you could with LUTutility on an adjustment-layer) and bring back the highlights. You can only grade on top of that lut, after it has limited the signal! 

Programs must be used in english. It's a limit that helps everyone!

You are right. This was inappropriate. 
You can't compare this. Other democratic leaders just forbid such comparisons and sue individuals who distort the facts, like Erdogan. 
Excuse me. 
German poet Berthold Brecht said of the nazi hype of the time: Only the dumbest calves choose their own butcher. See? That's how morally degenerated I am, having to cite a communist to make my point!

This is why every democracy should strive towards having an excellent public education for everyone.

Not fixed then. I noticed a few months ago that I couldn't map the 'Magic Keyboard' (german version) to FCP X shortcuts (left bracket, right bracket etc. become Umlaute- äöüß). Wrote to Apple, but there is no solution other than buying a traditional keyboard or use FCP X in english.
The translation to german is flawed. In FCP 7, they didn't translate the important stuff like Browser, Viewer, Canvas, Playhead and Timeline. No one knows what the german word for browser would be anyway. In 10.3, it became worse. Originally, they had translated roles ('Rollen' in german) to Funktionen (functions). Because a term of analog film, reel, translates to Rolle as well. Now they call it Funktion in some places, Rolle in others. Very confusing, particularly for newbies.

Surely you're being farcical 
Which is great to get 'close enough' to the bits you want, but it makes it much more difficult to finesse by individual frames.
You mean other than linking, grouping etc?
Again - as I said, it's overall perhaps easier to throw things together to get close to what you want. And that part is relatively quick/easy. But start trying to finetune and it gets real difficult. Want to fine-tune timings of transitions between clips that have forced themselves into a storyline? Have fun. Want to slide an audio track that is the main storyline over a few frames because it's slightly out of sync? Good luck. Want to trim a certain part of a clip, but keep the gap there to ensure sync is retained? Again, good luck.
 Except - again - when you want to fine tune your edit (which takes more time than other NLEs so potentially it cancels out the time saving of the assembly). Not to mention that it's costly and/or time consuming and/or simply impossible to get an OMF out of it to edit the audio appropriately. 
If clients aren't paying for 'fiddling around with clips' - I certainly find myself 'fiddling around' with clips in FCPX to get it to do what I want more than I would with say MC.
Which is why I moved to Avid  
Don't get me wrong - even Media Composer forced a different way of working to what I was used to with FCP7. But the way of working made infinitely more sense to me than FCPX, and I'm faster on it than FCPX.
FCPX is still a good editor - don't get me wrong, but I use FCPX for quick edits, stuff I don't want to spend too much time on (and I had to use it full time initially when I bought my A7s as it was the only software I had outside Resolve that read XAVC-S natively). When I want proper/full control, and care about making my edit the best it can be (and/or need to do a proper sound mix), I use MC.
FCPX lost the 'pro' market because Apple decided to go after a different customer base - its aimed at, and priced at a point where they've likely made more money on it in the past few years than they ever did with any previous versions of FCP/FCP Studio.
Most of the target demo (particularly YouTubers) probably don't care about pro features like OMF and TC (okay it has source TC now but didn't for a long time) and plenty of other things that the 'pro' (if you take pro to be the kind of market that used to be dominated by FCP7/Avid) user needs.
That doesn't make it a bad editor, and there are plenty of things to like about it.
But there are also major downsides that in some use cases can be hard to work around.

Indeed.

I'll have to upgrade and check it out. It looks like this is what FCPX should have been when it launched. 
I will say I find editing on FCPX to be a different beast, and a different way of working to both FCP7 and Avid (have not used Premiere that extensively so can't really comment).
I really like FCPX's background tasks. Makes editing quicker. 
I agree to some extent - though I find that whilst FCPX makes it quick to assemble a basic edit, fine cutting and even things that would seem as simple as finely editing transition timing can get extremely finnicky and difficult. 
If FCPX decides to make the two clips you've put your transition on a storyline, it makes it really difficult to adjust the things inside it. Similarly, if FCPX decides the audio track you've dragged onto the timeline first to cut to is your main storyline, it makes it really difficult to adjust the position and timing of the audio clip without having to re-adjust everything else. The lack of definable tracks can be annoying as well - handy in some instances, annoying in others. Even things like scrubbing are slightly more annoying than in other editors.
Not to mention that the organisation of multiple cuts seems unneccessary. Rather than simply having multiple sequences, you have to duplicate Projects.
And the biggest one of all - no OMF support!
These are all things that are easy in other editors... Use what works for you though - there's plusses and minuses to any system. I can see why FCPX is popular amongst certain editors - it fits certain types of work and jobs better than others. For the right job, it's very very good. For the wrong job, it's annoying as all hell.
The one thing about Avid, Premiere, FCP7 etc. is that they tend to be at the very least very adequate regardless of the job.

The biggest advantage of FCP X is performance. I edit 4K clips like butter. Fearing Apple prices, I tried Da Vinci Resolve, but in my same Macbook it runs like shit with Full HD files. And price, I bought FCP X when it came out for 180€, I have been using it for five years. Not even 40€ a year for a pro program!!!

This is controversial-ish, but I feel after looking at Premiere that in comparison to FCPX it's pretty "old-school". Not that old school is bad. FCPX is clearly a lot more modern with the way it's constructed and performs. 
More of the critical non-users are bashing it again. Ridiculous really. It's an ace editor, and in my opinion, the best. 

Film is also a language.
Static tripod shots are a way of saying (because they are understood subconsciously in that way by the audience): "Look here, I wanna to show you something I have selected for your consideration".
The fast zoom of the late seventies and early eighties says: "And it's THIS !!!"
Until Godards À bout de souffle (Breathless) of 1950, hand-held camera meant either POV or amateur. Suddenly people realized that a doc-style hand camera did NOT say: "this is something witnessed by a camera operator, there is no structured narration", but that it added emotion to the scene. It said, "what happens here is (or WAS) not fully controlled or understood". Godard, also a film-philosopher, explained that cinema showed "death at work". The viewer of a traditional movie was like someone who sits in a train, in driving direction. He could anticipate everything because it slowly moved into his field of vision. Cuts with perfect continuity or with a too obvious narrative function, motifs carefully framed and presented in cold blood. A deterministic world view, down-to-earth (or down-to-your-knees!) morals, Pleasantville. Every 'film of life' has the same curve bending from the cradle to the grave.
Revolting for the existentialistic Godard. He wanted audiences breathless. I think that a gimbal or IBIS stabilized shot that is deliberately made shaky in post does NOT transport this. People who want "total stabilization" often also demand HFR, 48, 50, 60 fps. This smoothes motion, true, but it effectively makes motion blur (or lack of motion blur!) almost invisible. They smoothed motion, but they also stopped (e-)motion. Film is a language, and it needs as much differentiation as possible. Sharp - unsharp, stable - shaky, smooth - choppy, contrasty - misty, giant - tiny, what have you. Film is not about technical perfection. If a gimbal shot looks as if made by the Terminator (I own the Ronin M, so I'm not a hater), you don't need servo sounds for the audience to sense this, imo.

RS already has it's place in the vocabulary of contemporary cinema. If there is an explosion or sth. like that filmed in the aforementioned Nouvelle Vague fashion, RS will add emotion AND authenticity. Of course not in the long tripod shot in which Daniel Craig escapes with the explosion on the horizon. Let me add another semiotic polarity: UGLYYYYY - nice ...
EDIT: I can't remember which film it was, but only recently I saw RS flashes (images torn in their middle) in an, er, blockbuster. Viewing habits have already adopted that look.

Film is also a language.
Static tripod shots are a way of saying (because they are understood subconsciously in that way by the audience): "Look here, I wanna to show you something I have selected for your consideration".
The fast zoom of the late seventies and early eighties says: "And it's THIS !!!"
Until Godards À bout de souffle (Breathless) of 1950, hand-held camera meant either POV or amateur. Suddenly people realized that a doc-style hand camera did NOT say: "this is something witnessed by a camera operator, there is no structured narration", but that it added emotion to the scene. It said, "what happens here is (or WAS) not fully controlled or understood". Godard, also a film-philosopher, explained that cinema showed "death at work". The viewer of a traditional movie was like someone who sits in a train, in driving direction. He could anticipate everything because it slowly moved into his field of vision. Cuts with perfect continuity or with a too obvious narrative function, motifs carefully framed and presented in cold blood. A deterministic world view, down-to-earth (or down-to-your-knees!) morals, Pleasantville. Every 'film of life' has the same curve bending from the cradle to the grave.
Revolting for the existentialistic Godard. He wanted audiences breathless. I think that a gimbal or IBIS stabilized shot that is deliberately made shaky in post does NOT transport this. People who want "total stabilization" often also demand HFR, 48, 50, 60 fps. This smoothes motion, true, but it effectively makes motion blur (or lack of motion blur!) almost invisible. They smoothed motion, but they also stopped (e-)motion. Film is a language, and it needs as much differentiation as possible. Sharp - unsharp, stable - shaky, smooth - choppy, contrasty - misty, giant - tiny, what have you. Film is not about technical perfection. If a gimbal shot looks as if made by the Terminator (I own the Ronin M, so I'm not a hater), you don't need servo sounds for the audience to sense this, imo.

RS already has it's place in the vocabulary of contemporary cinema. If there is an explosion or sth. like that filmed in the aforementioned Nouvelle Vague fashion, RS will add emotion AND authenticity. Of course not in the long tripod shot in which Daniel Craig escapes with the explosion on the horizon. Let me add another semiotic polarity: UGLYYYYY - nice ...
EDIT: I can't remember which film it was, but only recently I saw RS flashes (images torn in their middle) in an, er, blockbuster. Viewing habits have already adopted that look.

It mystifies me all these people considering Canon, if you do a 50/50 mix of stills/video and you want great internal colors then get yourself a Nikon D750. 
It performs really really well:
And you get a much better stills camera too than a Canon 5Dmk3!
Or if you'd like 4K get a Nikon D500, which gives you near Nikon D5 stills performance, all at a small portion of the price of a Canon 5Dmk4. 

And I bet Nikon will bring 4K to their affordable lower level cameras before Canon does. 

I see what you mean. It's the famous Canon color palette. Obvious virtue. I know I repeat myself, but I recommend to be suspicious with unique features and obvious virtues. What contributes to these skintones are good profiles and the right (Canon) glass. Let me cite Andrew Reid from his article Summoning the Devil:
.. and he refers to the Sony A7rii of course of which you write:
Believe me, I hate them psychotically. Fortunately, by best friend loves Sony and Canon and has some kind of color blindness, because he can't see what distinguishes them colorwise. I am getting a lot of A7rii & FS7 footage to edit and grade from him, and I occasionally borrow the A7rii. Though I admit that nobody can link to a Sony clip in which the skin is as good as in your Netflix example, I know you can get very close. So close, indeed, that even for the ugly hater, me, the difference ceases to be relevant. Take this clip:
It's shot with not very good settings (you wouldn't dial up saturation and sharpness). But yet, with just the tiniest bit of secondary CC (I saved it as a one-click-filter actually) you could make this skin look very healthy and alive. To a degree, I promise, where original Canon footage looks as if it needed some work when cut side by side. Would have been impossible with Sony lenses in this case!
The same principle can be applied to all advantages and disadvantages of the cameras you compare. Perhaps you should make a table including your accustomed GH4. Think hard about the weaknesses and how you can compensate them. The best camera is not the camera with the best specs but the one you know by heart and whose flaws you successfully overcame.

Are we?
 

Hey guys,
I wanted to share with you an awesome and affordable monitor made by IKAN that can, with a tiny bit of work, be used as an EVF.
The main reason I wanted an EVF + loupe for my Micro setup was to create a fourth-point of contact between my Micro and my body. 
With my right-hand on the ENG grip, left-hand on the len's focus-ring, chest-pad against my right-shoulder, having the IKAN + loupe pressed up against my right-eye added that extra piece of stability I have been looking for - not to mention being able to monitor and pull focus perfectly in bright daylight.
For those interested, the monitor is called the IKAN VL35 and can be had for as little as $259USD: http://ikancorp.com/productdetail.php?id=1738
I rigged it together with an old ViewFinder that I used to use with my A7S and A7RII. Having sold those cameras, I decided to use it as a loupe for my IKAN VL35.
It doesn't fit the VL35 perfectly (as it is designed for 3" monitors, and the VL35 is a 3.5" monitor), but it will do for now.
However, the good news is IKAN recently told me that they will be releasing a loupe specifically designed for the VL35 - and given the affordability of the monitor itself, I'm sure the loupe will be priced very nicely.
As for the quality of the monitor itself - all I can say is that it's great Very similar to the monitor on the BMPCC. 
I haven't conducted any scientific or methodical tests yet, such as running down the battery or precisely measuring colour and luminosity, but I have used it plenty in the real-world, and it has functioned flawlessly and beautifully. Highly recommended for those looking for a setup like this
Anyway, here are some pictures for those that are interested

 

I've dumped everything but After Effects, for which I now pay 23,79 € each month. The reason, since I once bought Motion for 50 bucks and can use Fusion 8 for free? There are quite some advanced tools in AAE, for me the most important is Mocha, which I use for rotoscoping exclusively. That's for compositing of course, and for that you also need to match the colors of the layers, color correction. The way Adobe organizes tools was always terrible and will remain so in general. But fortunately AAE has also Lumetri, which finally compounded everything you really need to perform a simple CC in one effect. 
If I just needed some motion graphics like animated titles or logos, Motion was actually much better for that. Premiere loses against FCP in just about every respect. What about dynamic links - since I mentioned I use AAE? 
There is a strict, but really fail-save workflow for that, that even doesn't require the $200 Ximport (f.k.a. Automatic Duck). I make a sloppy pre-comp in my FCP X timeline, complete with keying, rough roto and effects. I make it a compound clip, name it properly and export it as XML, process the file with XtoCC and import that in AAE. None of the effects are recognized there (one shouldn't use transform tools, which are and one must be careful with retiming, because only constant speed changes will translate), but that's how I want it. I queue the render files and replace the compound clips of the same name. Sounds more complicated than it is.
Dream on. You sound like those people who demand a GH5 for $1500 with 4k raw internally. I even don't find it likely that it will have 4k 10-bit internally, but of course, if it has, I won't  object that.

In March 2015 - I already had the Pocket - I saw this on Vimeo (shot with BMCC and BMPCC):
Just as an example.
Yes, and I have seen people 'shitting'. Right now there is a discussion between Brawley and some professor Kino, like a fight of Jaeger vs. Kaiju. Entertaining though these arguments are (for a while), they don't help much. With video I rather trust my eyes. If what I see pleases me, that's all I need to know. Then I read reports on the problems and how they can be solved.

In March 2015 - I already had the Pocket - I saw this on Vimeo (shot with BMCC and BMPCC):
Just as an example.
Yes, and I have seen people 'shitting'. Right now there is a discussion between Brawley and some professor Kino, like a fight of Jaeger vs. Kaiju. Entertaining though these arguments are (for a while), they don't help much. With video I rather trust my eyes. If what I see pleases me, that's all I need to know. Then I read reports on the problems and how they can be solved.