jcs

AFAIK the BIOS only allows one to set the max rate for each core, and defaults to 4.0 for the 6950X. How and which version of TurboBoost runs is up to Intel's drivers and current load and thermal states (the system was not running at 4.0 for all cores all the time, only under TurboBoost as provided by Intel's drivers). In any case, Intel didn't seem to have an issue with that aspect- they were focused on max clock speed and voltage (which equals heat and thus wear, the typical cause of electronics failure). Common sense is that as long as the processor runs cool, and is 100% stable, it should be OK. For the general question for both Intel and AMD, is it worth the hassle and downtime (warranty or not) to have a production/work machine go down for repairs? Interestingly Puget Systems sells machines overclocked: https://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/CPU/Intel-Core-i7-6950X-3-0GHz-Ten-Core-25MB-140W-Overclocked-11755, so they must be confident they'll last at least for the 1 year warranty (wonder if Intel gives them some kind of deal or do they have to eat overclocked processor failures since not officially covered under warranty by Intel).

Didn't touch voltage. Started at the default core clocks and moved downward until the hot cores matched the rest (I turned the clocks even lower after the original post to keep below 60C max (4.0GHz is max published TurboBoost speed; it ran too hot at that speed (for a production machine) so I slowed down the hot cores)). The CPU died while idling. I guarantee you that Intel does not warrant overclocking the 6950X without their $50 overclocking warranty. Given their marketing and the fact that the chips are unlocked AND thermally protected (they'll down throttle if too hot), I was as surprised as you are. I spoke directly with Intel management. They also asked me to turn down the memory speed to 2400 (max officially supported speed for the 6950X). http://download.intel.com/support/processors/sb/Limited_Warranty_8.5x11_for_Web_English.pdf Specifically: "any Product which has been modified or operated outside of Intel’s publicly available specifications, including where clock frequencies or voltages have been altered, or where the original identification markings have been removed, altered or obliterated. Intel assumes no responsibility that the Product, including if used with altered clock frequencies or voltages, will be fit for any particular purpose and will not cause any damage or injury."

Be careful, I had a very expensive 6950X fail, and when Intel asked if I had overclocked, I stated I had set it to run at max rate then downclocked cores to run cool (Noctua/Air cooled). They interpreted that response as max rate meaning I overclocked it beyond Intel max published clock specs (which I did not do) and denied the warranty. After multiple rounds of emails and phones calls with a higher-level manager, they finally did the right thing and replaced the processor. If you exceed max specs and if they can detect if you did so, they'll deny the warranty. They offer an overclock warranty: https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/. That said, I've been using Xeons since 2006 and this was the first non-Xeon machine since then and was very surprised it failed so quickly (barely used for 6 weeks, never exceeded 60C in torture testing. For PP CC processing, it never got much past 50C). BTW, the Noctua HSF's are amazing if you don't want to deal with water. Here again is the box I built for 4K editing: It's ultra quiet, much quieter than the 2010 MacPro. Now with the latest version of PP CC 2017 and Nvidia drivers, 4K editing is now just barely passable on the 2010 MacPro 980ti in OSX (OK for short edits).

While it's true there can be a (typically magenta-green) color shift in some flavors of LOG (easy to WB and fix in post), you're better off over exposing (ETTR) because there's not many code values down low, and it's better to push down blacks for noise than to try to pull up in post. If your LOG has wonky color with exposure, probably best to keep skintones up and away from the maximum non-linearity (see graph here): http://www.xdcam-user.com/2015/10/why-its-helpful-to-over-expose-s-log-especially-if-you-only-have-8-bit-recording/. For the A7S II in dynamic-lighting live shoots, I've had pretty good luck with auto ISO +2 (over expose 2 stops, top (exposure) dial). Skin tones looked pretty good too. Just make sure not to clip the whites. 10-bit LOG buys you more code values, which are especially helpful down in the lower code values.

Log (with at least 10-bits) provides more creative options, so if you want the most creativity shoot log. Once you learn the tools you'll find you can quickly get a standard look (your standard- for which you can create a preset, etc., so one click and you are done). And if you want to do something wild and/or unrealistic for emotional effect, you can do that too. It's important to use the correct input LUT to get your flavor of LOG and color space into the correct format back to linear gamma and Rec709 color space. In some cases you can get an acceptable look by just using curves and saturation (I can do this with Canon Log 2 and Cinema Gamut with Production Matrix, for example, though I typically use the ARRI input LUTs for speed). I've purchased a few creative LUT packs, including FilmConvert (plugin which does more than a simple LUT) and I almost never use creative LUTs. Ultimately I just dial in the look I want with Lumetri in PP CC vs. scrolling though 100's of LUTs looking for something that will work. If you want to focus on just the creative part of shooting and skip the extra post work, there's nothing wrong with shooting with baked in gamma and color. It will simply limit your creative options in post, and will save you time on the plus side.

Photos only? How about an FD to EOS adapter and a 5D3? (then you can have fun with ML too )

I dig the Sony A7S II too. Color improved over the A7S. The GH5 has improved color over the GH4. I gave RED props for completely replacing their color science (it looks much better!). Apple has great color on the iPhones (right up there with Canon and Nikon). Some of the nicest 'intense color' movies I've seen are Oblivion and Lucy, which were shot on the Sony F65. Comparatively, the color science on the FS700 was well behind Canon (and the A7S II). FS700 + O7Q+ is a different story (improved color). My favorite cameras are from ARRI- they still have the best color. For my needs the C300 II is better than anything currently from ARRI (and Canon's 'ARRI' mode is very close to ARRI, able to use ARR LUTs with great results). Looking forward to the A7S III!

The thread has the answer, I'm sure you didn't look . Jacqui's super cool, she's been in many films and TV shows, and grew up in Cincinnati, maybe you saw her in person. She's pretty much retired from Hollywood and is working on a spiritual path to help people- hypnosis, NLP therapy, coaching, and now yoga instructor. We worked full time on Cosmic Flow for a while, now just part time as she's growing her own brand: http://jacquiholland.com. Folks looking for those things in LA, get in touch with her, she's really talented (sorry guys, she has a serious boyfriend).

I prefer simple camera systems and didn't want to deal with an external recorder (have a Convergent Design Nanoflash which is a fine piece of gear (mint condition, need to sell that too!)). The FS700 with O7Q+ can indeed make nice video, especially slow-mo for a very good deal today vs. e.g. the FS7. A lot of folks upgraded to the FS7 from the FS700 and I waited for the C300 II. Wanted Canon color, direct Canon lens compatibility and usable AF.

Once a computer system is hacked (the camera has an embedded computer system), any code can be installed and executed. What's possible is only limited by available RAM, CPU and custom hardware limitations, and the imagination.

Really? You've played with the A7S III? A7S II's touch screen did suck since it didn't have one True on A7S II battery and AF (A7R II has decent AF). A7S II has decent color with a little work: Which camera is which?

My good friend Elena Diaz was in Furious 7 and we got to meet the cast & crew at Tyrese's house- truly down to earth people who are grateful for the opportunity to make these fun films. We watched The Fate of the Furious at the Arclight in Santa Monica in 'Widescreen' with Dolby Atmos audio (killer 3D sound). Most of the time a bigscreen and surround sound at home is good enough, however this kind of movie is totally worth it in this kind of theater. When you meet people in person you get a sense of their energy, and it comes across on the screen. They had a blast making this movie and it translates in their performances. I have to say this is the most ridiculous, over-the-top silly video-game-like-movie I have seen to date: something like the ending of ConAir or Armageddon, except for almost the entire movie. At the same time they sneak in good messages and the jokes are many and well done. The camera work, special effects (tons of practicals!), and fight scenes rival the best that have ever been done. They used the ARRI Alexa XT Plus, Sony F55, Red Weapon Dragon, Black Magic Micro Cinema, along with Zeiss Ultra Prime / Compact Prime, Fujinon Premier Cabrio and Angenieux Optimo Lenses , and it looked f@cking amazing! Go watch it- leave your brain at home and bring your friends and a smile!

If you need a great stills camera and video camera, along with usable AF, near FF crop (1.3), shoots 4K 60 and works with your Canon FF lens collection, it's the only option. After the FS700 (which I sold), I wouldn't buy the FS5 or FS7 (purchased the C300 II and love it). I have Filmconvert and it's a cool product, however no way does it remotely replace good color science in the source camera (and it's a bit slow, the same reason I don't use Neat Video anymore). The rumored updates to the 5DIV if true will make that camera a lot more appealing to many current Sony and Panasonic users. Because, #color. Why are people so excited about the latest ML updates on the 'ancient' 5D3, even with all the extra hassle. Because, #color!

A7S III with improved color, IS, AF, and less RS would be great! Rumored 5DIV features for 1DX II would be nice too!

The Stax SRS-3100 arrived yesterday, my review and best-bang-for-buck headphones for mixing and music listening: http://brightland.com/w/the-best-headphone-technology-to-date-electrostatic-stax-srs-3100-review/ If the Stax Lxxx earpad mod works as Z Reviews and other's have reported, what an amazing deal vs. system costing many thousands more!

Yeah, these are just the beginning of a whole new market in computational camera systems. Shooting video where the DOF and lens simulation is done is post is currently very data intensive and very expensive: https://www.lytro.com/cinema There is a lot of spin currently and the quality won't pass the old tech for a while but it will happen!

The C300 II at 50Mbps H.264 IPB 10-bit 1080p with killer AF, Canon Log 2, almost zero RS, great lowlight, and pro-level audio was the 'endgame' for me in terms of image, sound, and efficient file sizes and post production. Now it's all about making the camera package smaller and lighter and including killer IS. The GH5 is almost there, and I think the A7S III could get very, very close (still needs a flip out screen like the GH5 and 80D etc.). While I still have a 5D3 as a backup stills camera to the 1DX II, I have zero desire to mess with ML again given what the C300 II and 1DX II can do. GPUs can easily handle even H.265 (it's far more efficient!); NLEs need to catch up in their support. Premiere CC still struggles with ALL-I H.264; not the GPU's fault, but their prehistoric image processing pipeline. I hope Canon updates the 1DX II along with the 5DIV and provides a modern H.264 codec vs. MJPEG, which is very inefficient and again, PP CC needs a very fast machine to handle it. I had to build a special '4K Windows 10 box': 6950X, 64GB + GTX 1080. The 'old' 12 Core Xeon MacPro with GTX 980ti should easily handle it. For those on a budget, the 5D3 with ML is an amazing value. I'd say that in a way it looks even better than the C300 II and 1DX II and maybe even ARRI in some ways! It's providing Canon's basic color magic, and along with ACR for those willing to go through that painfully slow extra step using AE, it's providing Canon's world class RAW stills color and Adobe's world class RAW color and image processing, every. single. frame, which creates a very unique and special look. As a developer in the image processing world, I get pieces of information leaked to me from the mobile industry and camera sensor breakthroughs. While computational cameras are currently very primitive (Lytro etc), it's clear that in the future we'll have cameras that fit on phones that blow away all cameras that exist today. Cellphone cameras that far exceed full frame and even medium format cameras in low light and DOF- absolutely! Lenses already exist in nature which exceed glass optics, such as birds of prey eyes (eagle etc.), which are now being mimicked- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/eagle-eye-lenses-may-inspire-hi-def-cameras-thin-strand-hair/ . Not only do larger sensors and glass not provide anything magical, the future is smaller sensors and new optical technologies and image processing which far, far exceed the large clunky systems of today.

http://enchroma.com/ Normal color vision will be enhanced too...

Interesting, perhaps the GH4's sensor has limited 'color DR / sensitivity' which looks similar to A7S at high ISO. Try playing with Adobe Camera Raw when shooting RAW, especially, highlights and shadows (actually play with everything to see what it can do). You'll be amazed at how much you can do over JPG- a massive improvement in control and final image quality! I'll be doing a Cosmic Flow episode one of these days with just me (vs. a model/actress I need to make look pretty in flattering light), probably not on green screen and lit with perhaps just one spot/point light (have been experimenting). Something like a Rembrandt look. For green screen I light with high ambient (low contrast) so I can drop in just about any background and have it look OK. Otherwise I'd need to carefully light to match specific backgrounds. It would be neat to build a 'spherical lighting array' with a computer control system to be able to simulate any kind of light without having to move lights around and manually adjust them. I'd like to be able to do great luma and chroma (and even better, provide enjoyable content for a wider audience ).

@fuzzynormal while I still prefer Canon as it's less work for me in post (for example the video I just posted for the Focal Listen headphones audio mixing only needed an ARRI LUT and saturation boost), I've gotten decent results from Panasonic and Sony, but with more work in post. Before I learned how to work with the A7S II, I did prefer Panasonic over Sony. However, once I figured out the A7S II settings and post workflow (which I posted here and elsewhere- I've seen similar settings posted based on what I discovered and/or others found the same settings worked well for them too), I then preferred Sony over Panasonic. The issue with Panasonic is that while I could get decent skintones, the result was somewhat thin color, almost sepia or B&W and not a lot of subtle skintone tonality that I get with Canon and properly edited A7S II footage. For example, @noone's second image above looks like Panasonic to me with limited tonality in the image, especially skintones. Additionally the highlights on the hands look like Panasonic- video-like, vs. what I can get wth Canon or Sony when I shoot Canon Log 2 or Sony Slog2. When I edited some GH5 footage shot in VLog I was pleased to see much better color and highlights over the GH4, so they've improved a bit. That said I still prefer Canon and Sony color. However, I do like the GH5's fold out screen and the IS is also excellent. So for some uses a GH5 would be better just to get the shot where color isn't the priority.

Then maybe you might need to get more in touch with your emotions . Color to the typical (non technical) viewer is about emotion. The color (or colour as seen across the pond :P) we see in real life is the dominate color our neural networks have generalized, which has effectively been running for millions (perhaps billions) of years, starting when the first bio-eye sensors developed. You and I (and each of us) are just one sample. Statistically, the law of large numbers (samples) give us the best view of what's real, or not. When I was trying to 'like' Sony color, I did experiments with models and actors/actresses. I'd shoot on the 5D3, then on the Sony A7S and FS700, same lighting and scene. Then I'd process the images/video to have the same basic contrast, detail and sharpness. The primary difference was then color. Even when I thought I'd figured out how to get Sony looking as good as Canon, every single time they still picked Canon. You might argue, 'hey man, you just suck at grading, haha!' possibly true, however I did my best to make Sony color palatable to talent, who could care less about the tech. Without Canon color matching, their emotional reactions of dislike for Sony vs. Canon was much more dramatic. I've posted comments like this many times on this forum, using a Canon camera to take a reference image for later color matching with Sony (or Panasonic etc.). The A7S II has much better color than the A7S, and it was much easier to get close to Canon. Andrew finally took notice and did his own experiments and produced a set of cameras settings and LUTs to 'fix' Sony (and Panasonic) color to better match Canon, and from the threads it looks like a successful product for him as people seem to like the results. Here's a test I did to match A7S II, C300 II, and 1DX II (I got the A7S II close, but not perfect): @bunk did a minor tweak and matched the color even better (which camera is which?): So Canon is still the preferred color by most people based just on evidence from this forum alone. In terms of profitability, posts on this forum state Canon is profitable yet other brands are struggling. Since Canon cameras have far less features, it's clear that color is why people buy them. When folks ask me which camera to purchase, I ask is it for shooting people mostly, and if yes, I recommend Canon (or Nikon; Fuji is looking decent these days as well, but to my eye Canon is still the best (unless one has an ARRI budget). Black Magic and RED have come a long way too). If one can do a little bit of post work, the A7S II (for low light) and the A7R II (decent autofocus) aren't too shabby for color. As I've been saying for a while, if the A7S III has decent AF (better than the A7R II) and the color improves again as it did moving up from the A7S, it will be a good challenger to Canon.

If that were true, why is ARRI considered to be right up there with Canon for color (some argue they have better color)? There is a biological, psychological element with color related to evolution. Human beings are very tuned in to color for skintones, on both conscious and unconscious levels. If the skin tones are off, we tend to notice right away- is the person healthy or sick, friendly or threatening, happy or frightened, etc. The concept of Uncanny Valley is also a factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley . If something is close to real, but off slightly, we have a strong negative reaction. So color needs to be right on, or very off (cartoon) to work well. Canon (and ARRI) know this, and if colors aren't exact on color charts, the reason is they are biasing for skin tone colors which will have the best positive emotional reaction from humans. Colorists make colors 'off' on purpose for emotional reasons, ScFi/horror etc.

Of all attributes in a camera, color requires the most science. From the point where the photons hit the color filter array (or ND or IR filter) to the final pixels viewed on a display device via biological cameras and neural networks (people), that entire pipeline is insanely complicated physics, math, and biology: science! Khan is pretty good a simplifying complex stuff: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar/color (check out some of those videos- very well done!) There's a reason ARRI and Canon are dominant, and it's not about subjective taste: they have superior color science. ARRI spent years working with film, then film scanners before building digital cameras. Canon makes printers, copiers, scanners, inks, paper, etc. in addition to cameras. They are currently the pinnacle of expertise in color- it makes sense their cameras have worked so well with color. It's why they can make cameras with limited features compared to other brands and still easily outsell them: color is the most important attribute of a camera.

First video monitored and mixed with the Focal Listen (multilayer sound effects toward end of video): These headphones are so well damped it's like they have active noise cancellation. The sound is detailed, clear, with smooth highs and a wonderful sound. Super comfortable too. The Focal Listens are a fantastic upgrade ($249) from the already excellent Audio Technica ATH-M50 ($149) which is a nice upgrade from the Sony 7506 ($89). If you like the sound of the 7506 and/or ATH-M50, the Listens are worth a demo. I had not heard of Focal before, and listened to the Listens at CanJam 2017, thanks again @HockeyFan12 for the tip! (my experiences here, including with many dynamic, planar magnetic, electrostatic, and the $55,000 Sennheiser HE-1 headphones: https://brightland.com/w/the-best-headphones/). More reviews here: https://www.amazon.com/Focal-Listen-Closed-Over-Ear-Headphones/dp/B01H2NDPZY/ Focal Listen page: https://www.focal.com/en/headphones/headphones/listen/listen. Their top of the line headphones, the Utopia is $4000: https://www.focal.com/en/headphones/headphones/utopia/utopia, https://www.headamp.com/order/focal-utopia-open-back-dynamic-headphones/ The Listen headphones are designed for mobile, and also have a mic and remote button. The supplied cable is a bit short for production work, so I ordered one of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LM4ON3I/ which works great. A longer cable can be used as the included cable is detachable (the UGreen brand will work as the connector housing is narrow enough). At CanJam I auditioned the Audeze LCD-X on my iPhone, then ran over and tried the Listens again on the same track- the Listens sounded much better! I'm sure the results will be different when using a high end amp, however the Listens will sound better too. The last headphones I listened to that got me this excited were Stax (which I finally ordered from Japan after the show). Written descriptions and a video mixed with them won't show you how they sound- you'll need to demo them in person. These are the kind of headphones that make you want to go through your music collection again, which I've been doing when not working on audio-related projects A+ bang for buck!

Yeah same for ARRI 65.