jcs

Nice review Andrew! The GH4 deserves the positive feedback after Panasonic listened to filmmakers and delivered what was asked for at a reasonable price!
 
I've been looking for a camera to supplement or replace the 5D3 for video for a long time. The first attempt was the FS700 + SpeedBooster. The idea was find a camera which has true 1920x1080 resolution and full frame compatibility with my Canon lenses. At the time I had not studied the math and physics and wanted to maintain the mystical and oft-hyped FF "look". You mentioned "
5D Mark II and III raw from full frame sensor a formidable cinematic look vs the smaller sensor in the GH4".  The "formidable cinematic look" is a myth. Perhaps a better way to say is that the full frame format has more affordable and flexible options for shallow depth of field- as that is all it really offers in absolute terms of sensor size. Canon's color science is still a formidable challenge. In low light, the GH4 has a nicer noise pattern. 5D3 RAW has some fixed pattern noise and the general noise itself gets downright ugly in low light. The newer GH4 does a better job with noise once it shows up. If I find the time I'll post tests comparing the 5D3 RAW with the Canon 50mm 1.4 at F2 to the GH4 with a Voigtlander 25mm F.95 at .95 (same as the 5D3 at 50mm F1.9 per the math here (which isn't anything new; I finally took a look at it after the Northrup video was posted on EOSHD: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ).
 
The GH4 looks fantastic straight out of the camera when set up and lit correctly. This is something I find valuable and useful. 14-bit 5D3 RAW offers far more options in post, especially when using ACR vs. the comparatively fragile GH4. The RAW workflow might be called "Really Awful Workflow" due to the extra time and storage requirements. That said, for some shots and projects, the extra work is worth it.
 
Regarding GH4 10-bit luma and 444 for 4K scaled to 1080p: the 444 is real, the 10-bit luma is not in practice. 10-bit color processing doesn't take place in the GH4 unless 10-bit 422 is enabled for HDMI output, otherwise processing for video is 8-bit.  In order for the 10-bit luma to be real, we'd have to do special encoding in the camera which we could then recover in post (while reducing luma resolution 4x). Otherwise we're just getting a nice, useful, low-pass filtered, noise reduced luma in the same way as the C100/C300.
 
When comparing to the Sony A7S- the example A7S videos appear to produce excellent, detailed, color accurate, high-dynamic range footage straight from the camera. The bitrate is only 50Mbit/s, however as we've seen with 100Mbit/s GH4 4K, which is 4x the pixel data(!), these bitrates are OK as long as motion is smooth. Even the 24Mbit/s FS700 footage compares very well when the motion is smooth. As many of us have noted, even with large, cheap storage, efficiency is important in the long haul.
 
As I'm sure future tests will show, 50Mbit/s A7S in-camera 1080p will compare very well to the GH4 4K scaled to 1080p in post. The A7S appears to have a dynamic range advantage, and the color science so far is very competitive, even against 5D3 RAW. The GH4 with fast micro 4/3 lenses has a size/portability/stealth advantage. In the event 4K material is needed (vs. 1080p scaled in post), the GH4 has the advantage (including reframing in post). Neither camera 'wins'- they have complementary features. The A7S compared to the 5D3 RAW- that's another matter: the A7S will best 5D3 RAW in resolution, detail, dynamic range, and workflow. What remains to be seen is final color science (rolling shutter will likely be a wash between the two).

Nice review Andrew! The GH4 deserves the positive feedback after Panasonic listened to filmmakers and delivered what was asked for at a reasonable price!
 
I've been looking for a camera to supplement or replace the 5D3 for video for a long time. The first attempt was the FS700 + SpeedBooster. The idea was find a camera which has true 1920x1080 resolution and full frame compatibility with my Canon lenses. At the time I had not studied the math and physics and wanted to maintain the mystical and oft-hyped FF "look". You mentioned "
5D Mark II and III raw from full frame sensor a formidable cinematic look vs the smaller sensor in the GH4".  The "formidable cinematic look" is a myth. Perhaps a better way to say is that the full frame format has more affordable and flexible options for shallow depth of field- as that is all it really offers in absolute terms of sensor size. Canon's color science is still a formidable challenge. In low light, the GH4 has a nicer noise pattern. 5D3 RAW has some fixed pattern noise and the general noise itself gets downright ugly in low light. The newer GH4 does a better job with noise once it shows up. If I find the time I'll post tests comparing the 5D3 RAW with the Canon 50mm 1.4 at F2 to the GH4 with a Voigtlander 25mm F.95 at .95 (same as the 5D3 at 50mm F1.9 per the math here (which isn't anything new; I finally took a look at it after the Northrup video was posted on EOSHD: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ).
 
The GH4 looks fantastic straight out of the camera when set up and lit correctly. This is something I find valuable and useful. 14-bit 5D3 RAW offers far more options in post, especially when using ACR vs. the comparatively fragile GH4. The RAW workflow might be called "Really Awful Workflow" due to the extra time and storage requirements. That said, for some shots and projects, the extra work is worth it.
 
Regarding GH4 10-bit luma and 444 for 4K scaled to 1080p: the 444 is real, the 10-bit luma is not in practice. 10-bit color processing doesn't take place in the GH4 unless 10-bit 422 is enabled for HDMI output, otherwise processing for video is 8-bit.  In order for the 10-bit luma to be real, we'd have to do special encoding in the camera which we could then recover in post (while reducing luma resolution 4x). Otherwise we're just getting a nice, useful, low-pass filtered, noise reduced luma in the same way as the C100/C300.
 
When comparing to the Sony A7S- the example A7S videos appear to produce excellent, detailed, color accurate, high-dynamic range footage straight from the camera. The bitrate is only 50Mbit/s, however as we've seen with 100Mbit/s GH4 4K, which is 4x the pixel data(!), these bitrates are OK as long as motion is smooth. Even the 24Mbit/s FS700 footage compares very well when the motion is smooth. As many of us have noted, even with large, cheap storage, efficiency is important in the long haul.
 
As I'm sure future tests will show, 50Mbit/s A7S in-camera 1080p will compare very well to the GH4 4K scaled to 1080p in post. The A7S appears to have a dynamic range advantage, and the color science so far is very competitive, even against 5D3 RAW. The GH4 with fast micro 4/3 lenses has a size/portability/stealth advantage. In the event 4K material is needed (vs. 1080p scaled in post), the GH4 has the advantage (including reframing in post). Neither camera 'wins'- they have complementary features. The A7S compared to the 5D3 RAW- that's another matter: the A7S will best 5D3 RAW in resolution, detail, dynamic range, and workflow. What remains to be seen is final color science (rolling shutter will likely be a wash between the two).

Nice review Andrew! The GH4 deserves the positive feedback after Panasonic listened to filmmakers and delivered what was asked for at a reasonable price!
 
I've been looking for a camera to supplement or replace the 5D3 for video for a long time. The first attempt was the FS700 + SpeedBooster. The idea was find a camera which has true 1920x1080 resolution and full frame compatibility with my Canon lenses. At the time I had not studied the math and physics and wanted to maintain the mystical and oft-hyped FF "look". You mentioned "
5D Mark II and III raw from full frame sensor a formidable cinematic look vs the smaller sensor in the GH4".  The "formidable cinematic look" is a myth. Perhaps a better way to say is that the full frame format has more affordable and flexible options for shallow depth of field- as that is all it really offers in absolute terms of sensor size. Canon's color science is still a formidable challenge. In low light, the GH4 has a nicer noise pattern. 5D3 RAW has some fixed pattern noise and the general noise itself gets downright ugly in low light. The newer GH4 does a better job with noise once it shows up. If I find the time I'll post tests comparing the 5D3 RAW with the Canon 50mm 1.4 at F2 to the GH4 with a Voigtlander 25mm F.95 at .95 (same as the 5D3 at 50mm F1.9 per the math here (which isn't anything new; I finally took a look at it after the Northrup video was posted on EOSHD: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> ).
 
The GH4 looks fantastic straight out of the camera when set up and lit correctly. This is something I find valuable and useful. 14-bit 5D3 RAW offers far more options in post, especially when using ACR vs. the comparatively fragile GH4. The RAW workflow might be called "Really Awful Workflow" due to the extra time and storage requirements. That said, for some shots and projects, the extra work is worth it.
 
Regarding GH4 10-bit luma and 444 for 4K scaled to 1080p: the 444 is real, the 10-bit luma is not in practice. 10-bit color processing doesn't take place in the GH4 unless 10-bit 422 is enabled for HDMI output, otherwise processing for video is 8-bit.  In order for the 10-bit luma to be real, we'd have to do special encoding in the camera which we could then recover in post (while reducing luma resolution 4x). Otherwise we're just getting a nice, useful, low-pass filtered, noise reduced luma in the same way as the C100/C300.
 
When comparing to the Sony A7S- the example A7S videos appear to produce excellent, detailed, color accurate, high-dynamic range footage straight from the camera. The bitrate is only 50Mbit/s, however as we've seen with 100Mbit/s GH4 4K, which is 4x the pixel data(!), these bitrates are OK as long as motion is smooth. Even the 24Mbit/s FS700 footage compares very well when the motion is smooth. As many of us have noted, even with large, cheap storage, efficiency is important in the long haul.
 
As I'm sure future tests will show, 50Mbit/s A7S in-camera 1080p will compare very well to the GH4 4K scaled to 1080p in post. The A7S appears to have a dynamic range advantage, and the color science so far is very competitive, even against 5D3 RAW. The GH4 with fast micro 4/3 lenses has a size/portability/stealth advantage. In the event 4K material is needed (vs. 1080p scaled in post), the GH4 has the advantage (including reframing in post). Neither camera 'wins'- they have complementary features. The A7S compared to the 5D3 RAW- that's another matter: the A7S will best 5D3 RAW in resolution, detail, dynamic range, and workflow. What remains to be seen is final color science (rolling shutter will likely be a wash between the two).

I watched 5D3 RAW upscaled to 4K vs. ARRI Alexa, Red Dragon 6K, GH4 4K, and Canon 1DC 4K, on a ~20' screen with a Christie 4K projector (Hot Rod Cameras GH4 event at Blacklist Studios in Hollywood): 5D3 RAW looked excellent. The other cameras were sharper, however the 5D3 RAW could easily be cut between them.
 
I recently picked up the GH4 and it compares very well to 5D3 RAW and provides even better resolution than the Sony FS700 (haven't compared slomo resolution yet), which provides higher resolution than 5D3 RAW. The GH4 is more detailed, however the 5D3 14-bit RAW color is comparatively amazing, especially if processed in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). If you're shooting for the big screen, the extra work for 5D3 RAW will be worth it. It is the best value for getting Alexa-like imagery for low cost. You already have a 5D3, it's just the time to download and install ML to test for yourself. The GH4 will require really fast lenses to get the same FOV and DOF vs. the 5D3 (I picked up the Voigtlander 25mm F.95 to get the 50mm F1.9 5D3 equivalent. They also make a 35 and 85mm F1.9 full frame equivalent (17.5 and 42.5mm F.95): each are >$1k and full manual (not a big deal for video).
 
Upscaled 5D3 2K to 4K won't look any different than 2K 5D3 RAW projected/shown at 2K. Thus GH4 4K will always be sharper and more detailed. However, the color processing capabilities of 5D3 14-bit RAW are far beyond what is possible with the GH4 4K. The GH4 4K can produce amazing footage straight from camera with little or no post-processing, which saves (a lot of) time and disk space vs. RAW.
 
If you want to get the most color and detail from 5D3 RAW, use Adobe ACR. Resolve is a close second and if using sharp lenses and shooting outdoors, the results are very impressive:

WOW jcs! Thank you for such a detailed and helpful reply! I truly appreciate your generosity.
Pleased to hear that the 5D3 is capable of getting great quality 4K as I don't mind the extra time and work involved.
 
I will post some footage in here as soon as I get it.
 
Thanks again,
Ofer ;)
 
http://www.wildlife-photography-school.com

http://pro.sony-asia.com/pressrelease/asset/570730/section/broadcastreleases (states 8-bit XAVC-S is 420; 10-bit is 422).
http://***URL removed***/news/2014/04/06/sony-announces-alpha-7-series-full-frame-mirrorless-with-4-2-2-4k-video-output (420 for internal 8-bit 1080p recording)

A7S does 420 internally: 422 externally.

Thanks guys!
 
jcs. Good points. I have bought the book now upon your recommendation :)
 
Matt, I used to have a D5200 like you. Image was great but found it hard to control highlights (

Some interesting locations for sure.
 
I've been reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Shoot-Video-That-Doesnt-Suck/dp/0761163239/ and one of the key points is to always tell a story, no matter what (even a test video), otherwise folks won't watch your work. Thus, write a beginning, middle and end, decide on the 'hero' of each scene, then shoot it. Just a little bit of planning goes a long way. For example, you could start off talking with friends about scouting locations (intro characters and set the stage for what is to follow: the beginning of the journey). Then film the locations and talk about what is interesting and useful in each location. Then wrap up back at home base with a quick recap of what areas will work for what purpose. To get more creative, you can have something happen while scouting locations: something scary usually works: an unknown race of mutant carnival workers crossed with escaped mental patients have taken one in your group. Now you have to rescue him/her. Only one or two make it out alive to tell the story. The hero(s) learn not to mess with mutant mental carnies unless packing sufficient heat and having backup available.

Right now, the GH4 shooting 4K (even if delivering 1080p- downsampled in post it's the sharpest/most-detailed currently available in that price range).

The Lens Turbo (.72x Speedbooster clone (.71x)) works with vignetting: 

The 100W (18W used), 1600 lumen Cree 5000K LED lights were $21 each. They are super bright, and look pretty good. When recording at 24fps, they look OK. However at 240fps (Sony FS700), they flicker. I tested the Yongnuo YN-300, YN-600, and F&V R-300- no flicker at 240fps. The old 120W (45W used) 5100K CFLs don't flicker (though some make noise & buzz). Here's a 60W Cree tested (no flicker at 24/30fps): 
 
Those looking for budget lighting, I'd start with the Yongnuo YN-300: 2280 lumens for $67
http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Professional-300pcs-sheets-Camera/dp/B00AZFE5DS/ref=sr_1_1
 
and this power supply (in addition to Sony NP-970 batteries for non-AC use), $25:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-220V-AC-Adapter-Power-For-SONY-NP-F970-F960-F750-F550-YN-300-II-YN600-YN160-/291005963183
 
Based on specs only (not tested), 2 Cree 5000K lights are 3200 lumens for $42 + $20 for 2 clamp-on bulb holders = $62. The YN-300 with AC adapter is $92, however it's also dimmable, camera mountable, doesn't flicker at high frame rates, and can also run on batteries.
 
The YN-300 II and YN-600 are "bicolor" and more versatile, however they are effectively 1/2 brightness when using the daylight LEDs (I'm using lights in the daylight 5000+ K range).
 
I'm going to keep looking for LEDs that don't flicker at high frame rates to replace the CFLs. This info is helpful: http://www.davidsatz.com/aboutflicker_en.html

The 100W (18W used), 1600 lumen Cree 5000K LED lights were $21 each. They are super bright, and look pretty good. When recording at 24fps, they look OK. However at 240fps (Sony FS700), they flicker. I tested the Yongnuo YN-300, YN-600, and F&V R-300- no flicker at 240fps. The old 120W (45W used) 5100K CFLs don't flicker (though some make noise & buzz). Here's a 60W Cree tested (no flicker at 24/30fps): 
 
Those looking for budget lighting, I'd start with the Yongnuo YN-300: 2280 lumens for $67
http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Professional-300pcs-sheets-Camera/dp/B00AZFE5DS/ref=sr_1_1
 
and this power supply (in addition to Sony NP-970 batteries for non-AC use), $25:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-220V-AC-Adapter-Power-For-SONY-NP-F970-F960-F750-F550-YN-300-II-YN600-YN160-/291005963183
 
Based on specs only (not tested), 2 Cree 5000K lights are 3200 lumens for $42 + $20 for 2 clamp-on bulb holders = $62. The YN-300 with AC adapter is $92, however it's also dimmable, camera mountable, doesn't flicker at high frame rates, and can also run on batteries.
 
The YN-300 II and YN-600 are "bicolor" and more versatile, however they are effectively 1/2 brightness when using the daylight LEDs (I'm using lights in the daylight 5000+ K range).
 
I'm going to keep looking for LEDs that don't flicker at high frame rates to replace the CFLs. This info is helpful: http://www.davidsatz.com/aboutflicker_en.html

The 100W (18W used), 1600 lumen Cree 5000K LED lights were $21 each. They are super bright, and look pretty good. When recording at 24fps, they look OK. However at 240fps (Sony FS700), they flicker. I tested the Yongnuo YN-300, YN-600, and F&V R-300- no flicker at 240fps. The old 120W (45W used) 5100K CFLs don't flicker (though some make noise & buzz). Here's a 60W Cree tested (no flicker at 24/30fps): 
 
Those looking for budget lighting, I'd start with the Yongnuo YN-300: 2280 lumens for $67
http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Professional-300pcs-sheets-Camera/dp/B00AZFE5DS/ref=sr_1_1
 
and this power supply (in addition to Sony NP-970 batteries for non-AC use), $25:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-220V-AC-Adapter-Power-For-SONY-NP-F970-F960-F750-F550-YN-300-II-YN600-YN160-/291005963183
 
Based on specs only (not tested), 2 Cree 5000K lights are 3200 lumens for $42 + $20 for 2 clamp-on bulb holders = $62. The YN-300 with AC adapter is $92, however it's also dimmable, camera mountable, doesn't flicker at high frame rates, and can also run on batteries.
 
The YN-300 II and YN-600 are "bicolor" and more versatile, however they are effectively 1/2 brightness when using the daylight LEDs (I'm using lights in the daylight 5000+ K range).
 
I'm going to keep looking for LEDs that don't flicker at high frame rates to replace the CFLs. This info is helpful: http://www.davidsatz.com/aboutflicker_en.html

It would be nice if Primatte and Keylight were accessible in PPro. Ultra is real-time in PPro and does a very good job if the green screen is well lit. Here I lit the green screen better which helped with keying:
 

[we're moving in the direction of humor  ;)]
 
The green screen tricks I was referring to were at the code level (custom C++ and GPU shaders): we removed backgrounds without a green screen. Can't discuss the algorithms though it would be nice if they were implemented in commercial keyers.
 
Regarding the quesadilla- I chose those ingredients based on taste and nutrition. Coconut oil adds healthy fat to help reduce the glycemic index of the tortillas. Cayenne helps reduce potential inflammatory properties of cheese. Corn was chosen as it doesn't contain any wheat and is generally less processed (ideally non-GMO). If quinoa tortillas exist, that would be another good option (or rice since some folks have corn allergies).
 
Reviewing grapseed oil- it's high in omega-6 fatty acids (inflammatory) and may contain hexane from processing (100% natural oil on the label unfortunately doesn't really mean 100% as allowed by the FDA). So the oil I recommend the most is organic cold pressed coconut oil such as Barleans: http://www.amazon.com/Barleans-Organic-Virgin-Coconut-Ounce/dp/B00ATW2QII/. Coconut oil has the least omega 6: http://authoritynutrition.com/optimize-omega-6-omega-3-ratio/
Olive oil isn't a bad choice, however I prefer the taste of coconut oil. Thanks for the comment regarding oils- I had purchased a new brand of '100% natural' grapeseed oil and had not researched it.

A quesadilla is made with only one tortilla, with two it's called sincronizada (because the two tortillas are in sync)... Believe it or not :)

With CFL and LED lights around 5100K (WB setting), we were able to get skin tones looking better than in previous tests: '>

You can load your video into Photoshop CC, convert to a Smart Object, use Adobe Camera RAW as a filter, then render back out.

You can load your video into Photoshop CC, convert to a Smart Object, use Adobe Camera RAW as a filter, then render back out.

Thanks Ebrahim! How would you suggest I change the lighting/camera-settings to be more flattering?
 
Thanks Pablo! A couple years ago I worked on Background Subtraction image processing apps (desktop and mobile) where we removed the background without a green screen. There's lots of cool tricks that would help with a green screen- not present in Premiere's Ultra or other chroma key filters. There's another chroma key in AE- didn't try it as AE is so slow and we had limited time.
 
Have you tried the recipe? That's something I came up with- so far everyone who's tried it loves it. Grapeseed and coconut oil are both healthy oils for cooking (not non-stick per se). We cook on iron pans (safest / most healthy (no teflon)).
 
 
Picture Profile 6 Settings with changes (any value not listed is 0 or default):   Black Level: 0 GAMMA: CINE4 BLACK GAMMA: RANGE: MIDDLE, LEVEL: +4 KNEE: MODE: MANUAL, MANUAL SET: 75%, SLOPE: +5 COLOR MODE: TYPE: STILL, LEVEL: 8 COLOR LEVEL: -2 COLOR PHASE: +4 (this may need to be tweaked based on lights used) COLOR DEPTH: B: +7, C: +7 (same comment regarding lights used) WB SHIFT: FILTER TYPE: LB-CC, LB[COLOR TEMP]: -4, CC[MG/GR]: +2, RGAIN: -9, B GAIN: +9 (same comment regarding lights) DETAIL: 0   Again, the goal is no 'look'- accurate representation of the scene is the goal. I'll do another test with this light set up and no green screen.

Frankly, considering it's shot in AVCHD the chroma work is more than acceptable, I'd even say great... hard to get anything more "solid" with such compression. Two thumbs up for those skin tones, and the overall lighting is pleasant, too.
 
Having said that, the recipe was fuel for my nightmares. Non-stick spray? Basil and oregano? The pretty lady and the nice lighting made it worthwhile, but I hope nobody follows her advice...

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/04/jonathan-glazer-hides-in-plain-sight-secretly-shoot-under-the-skin-onecam/
 
Very cool. Need to check out that film, too!

dahlfors- thanks for the fusion video- looks like fusion is just around the corner.

Out of curiosity I purchased one of these to measure the computers/electronics around me: http://www.amazon.com/Trifield-100XE-EMF-Meter/dp/B00050WQ1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398562001&sr=8-1&keywords=radiation+meter . I ended up moving some equipment around so that I would only be exposed to 2-3mGauss (some UPSs were outputting 100+mG). About a year later I purchased a new MBP and got the meter out to check it. I turned the meter on and the meter was pegged (100+mG, perhaps over 200mG based on the increasing scale). I thought, wow Apple, that's not cool. Then figured perhaps the batteries were low or the meter was bad, since as I walked away from the laptop, the meter didn't drop. I put a new battery in it- same issue. I tried another meter (had also purchased a directional meter)- same issue. I noticed as I walked away from the window the meter dropped a little. So I left the apartment, and walked down the hall. The meter slowly dropped. I left the building until out in the middle of the street- finally back down to 2-3mG. Then a lightbulb went on- about 6 months after I purchased the meter,  SoCal Edison had upgraded the power lines by my window. I had measured right at the window when I got the meter to check the power lines- it was 3mG. I returned to the same window position and the meter was pegged- 100+mG (guessing over 200mG from increasing scale).
 
I had developed this weird shoulder issue where the muscles always stayed contracted- it was my right shoulder and figured was due to mouse/computer use. However every time I left the apartment for a few days or more, my shoulder got better. I never put 2+2 together regarding the upgraded power line. So, I moved everything out of those rooms away from the power line as much as possible (new locations were about 15-30mG, still too high but much lower). My shoulder got better in about a week. I asked my MD if this could be psychosomatic- he said, probably not, he's heard from plenty of patients whose issue(s) got better after reducing EMF exposure.
 
I took the meter with me when looking for a new place to live. I was surprised how bad other places were, but none as high as the old place (top floor, right by power line). Surprisingly, landlords and real estate agents said other people did this practice as well (brought meters with them). The new place I moved to reads less than 2mG in most areas.
 
High EMF is linked to brain cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and leukemia, however the evidence is not yet strong enough for the EPA to regulate it and/or politics and influence from the power companies: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power-lines.html. They suggest moving away from the source of EMF, which I did. Another weird symptom was strange allergies- was it something in that apartment other than EMF? I don't know, but I brought all my equipment and furniture from the old place- so far no more allergies.
 
Regarding ionizing radiation. What does it do? It damages your cells and DNA over time. The good news is if you're eating healthy, exercising, and getting plenty of antioxidants, your body can repair the damage (including DNA) if the doses aren't too high. The problem with studying the health risks is the wide level of variables. Cancer from low-dose long exposure radiation is hard to prove a source of the cause. Smoking won't kill you right away, but it may lead to lung cancer, heart disease, and other diseases. Some folks won't get cancer because their bodies can handle the toxic smoke. Others who only got second hand smoke will get cancer. It took a long time to overcome politics, etc., for the truth to get out and for warning labels to be required. That said, people smoke anyways, some still smoking after getting cancer/emphysema, as nicotine is so addictive. Many people think they are immortal or don't think they care about living a long healthy life. However after getting sick some decide they want to live and radically change their behavior.
 
I used to snicker a bit about the 'tin foil hat people'. Now, if there is a known risk and it's easy to avoid, I don't think twice about avoiding the risk. The only issue about the new Faraday cage-like place is I can't get OTA digital TV signals and Verizon coverage is poor (I'm using ATT, some friends use Verizon and their phones don't work very well) :)
 
I could go on about heavy metals, but that's further off topic and a story for another day (short summary- avoid mercury and aluminum in vaccines, don't drink tap water (use RO or distillation and add trace minerals), remove amalgam fillings, skip gadolinium contrast if you ever do an MRI, limit large fish consumption (except perhaps wild salmon), don't drink bismuth (Pepto Bismol etc.)). Two books which can be very helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/Amalgam-Illness-Diagnosis-Treatment-Better/dp/0967616808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-1&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler
http://www.amazon.com/Hair-Test-Interpretation-Finding-Toxicities/dp/0967616816/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-3&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler

Out of curiosity I purchased one of these to measure the computers/electronics around me: http://www.amazon.com/Trifield-100XE-EMF-Meter/dp/B00050WQ1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398562001&sr=8-1&keywords=radiation+meter . I ended up moving some equipment around so that I would only be exposed to 2-3mGauss (some UPSs were outputting 100+mG). About a year later I purchased a new MBP and got the meter out to check it. I turned the meter on and the meter was pegged (100+mG, perhaps over 200mG based on the increasing scale). I thought, wow Apple, that's not cool. Then figured perhaps the batteries were low or the meter was bad, since as I walked away from the laptop, the meter didn't drop. I put a new battery in it- same issue. I tried another meter (had also purchased a directional meter)- same issue. I noticed as I walked away from the window the meter dropped a little. So I left the apartment, and walked down the hall. The meter slowly dropped. I left the building until out in the middle of the street- finally back down to 2-3mG. Then a lightbulb went on- about 6 months after I purchased the meter,  SoCal Edison had upgraded the power lines by my window. I had measured right at the window when I got the meter to check the power lines- it was 3mG. I returned to the same window position and the meter was pegged- 100+mG (guessing over 200mG from increasing scale).
 
I had developed this weird shoulder issue where the muscles always stayed contracted- it was my right shoulder and figured was due to mouse/computer use. However every time I left the apartment for a few days or more, my shoulder got better. I never put 2+2 together regarding the upgraded power line. So, I moved everything out of those rooms away from the power line as much as possible (new locations were about 15-30mG, still too high but much lower). My shoulder got better in about a week. I asked my MD if this could be psychosomatic- he said, probably not, he's heard from plenty of patients whose issue(s) got better after reducing EMF exposure.
 
I took the meter with me when looking for a new place to live. I was surprised how bad other places were, but none as high as the old place (top floor, right by power line). Surprisingly, landlords and real estate agents said other people did this practice as well (brought meters with them). The new place I moved to reads less than 2mG in most areas.
 
High EMF is linked to brain cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and leukemia, however the evidence is not yet strong enough for the EPA to regulate it and/or politics and influence from the power companies: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power-lines.html. They suggest moving away from the source of EMF, which I did. Another weird symptom was strange allergies- was it something in that apartment other than EMF? I don't know, but I brought all my equipment and furniture from the old place- so far no more allergies.
 
Regarding ionizing radiation. What does it do? It damages your cells and DNA over time. The good news is if you're eating healthy, exercising, and getting plenty of antioxidants, your body can repair the damage (including DNA) if the doses aren't too high. The problem with studying the health risks is the wide level of variables. Cancer from low-dose long exposure radiation is hard to prove a source of the cause. Smoking won't kill you right away, but it may lead to lung cancer, heart disease, and other diseases. Some folks won't get cancer because their bodies can handle the toxic smoke. Others who only got second hand smoke will get cancer. It took a long time to overcome politics, etc., for the truth to get out and for warning labels to be required. That said, people smoke anyways, some still smoking after getting cancer/emphysema, as nicotine is so addictive. Many people think they are immortal or don't think they care about living a long healthy life. However after getting sick some decide they want to live and radically change their behavior.
 
I used to snicker a bit about the 'tin foil hat people'. Now, if there is a known risk and it's easy to avoid, I don't think twice about avoiding the risk. The only issue about the new Faraday cage-like place is I can't get OTA digital TV signals and Verizon coverage is poor (I'm using ATT, some friends use Verizon and their phones don't work very well) :)
 
I could go on about heavy metals, but that's further off topic and a story for another day (short summary- avoid mercury and aluminum in vaccines, don't drink tap water (use RO or distillation and add trace minerals), remove amalgam fillings, skip gadolinium contrast if you ever do an MRI, limit large fish consumption (except perhaps wild salmon), don't drink bismuth (Pepto Bismol etc.)). Two books which can be very helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/Amalgam-Illness-Diagnosis-Treatment-Better/dp/0967616808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-1&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler
http://www.amazon.com/Hair-Test-Interpretation-Finding-Toxicities/dp/0967616816/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-3&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler