jcs

I don´t know what to think about Corey Good really, but some information they disclosed has real facts like the Nazis in south america and Antarctic, it looks like they made a mix between real and fictional information, certainly there is a secret program in the US government, but I can't believe the level of technology achieved in these few years is what Corey is describing, but you know, I could be surprised….

After having written a few physics-based computer simulations (flight, driving, and virtual reality), I can tell you that vehicles that can make instant turns and stops effectively have no mass. Very small, lightweight objects with high-thrust systems can approximate this kind of motion, however 15+ foot objects going incredible speeds then stopping instantly defy explanation if these objects have mass (vs. a massless optical projection). The theory is these objects don't subject their payloads/passengers to any g-forces at all. They are either warping space, and thus the object isn't even moving (space is warped around the object, creating effective motion without any velocity and thus no momentum), or somehow partially or fully shielding the object from interacting with the Higgs Field (or whatever is fundamentally really going on) to massively reduce apparent mass. Without additional tricks up their sleeves, objects that have effectively zero mass travel at the speed of light, so they'd need some kind of additional shielding.

After having written a few physics-based computer simulations (flight, driving, and virtual reality), I can tell you that vehicles that can make instant turns and stops effectively have no mass. Very small, lightweight objects with high-thrust systems can approximate this kind of motion, however 15+ foot objects going incredible speeds then stopping instantly defy explanation if these objects have mass (vs. a massless optical projection). The theory is these objects don't subject their payloads/passengers to any g-forces at all. They are either warping space, and thus the object isn't even moving (space is warped around the object, creating effective motion without any velocity and thus no momentum), or somehow partially or fully shielding the object from interacting with the Higgs Field (or whatever is fundamentally really going on) to massively reduce apparent mass. Without additional tricks up their sleeves, objects that have effectively zero mass travel at the speed of light, so they'd need some kind of additional shielding.

Once I figured out how they did it, I didn't want to publish this material. However, it's important that we challenge the people behind these hoaxes. If done by private individuals (vs. govcorp), they are wittingly or unwittingly contributing negatively to the information war. If they are using Kevlar or similar string/thread, that could be very dangerous to light aircraft and airliners. Shot on the 1DX II in 4K (sky video), 24-105F4L and 70-200 F2.8L II, full resolution stills processed in Adobe Camera RAW:
 

If one is an audiophile, and one can afford the extra $500 or so, the sound quality alone provided by Sound Devices verses the others is totally worth it (listen to the examples in this post):
Digital limiters are just slightly above useless. If the sound level barely kisses the limit, a digital limiter might be able to not destroy the take. Sound Devices analog limiters will not clip, even under crazy high levels (there are some side effects if you do this, but the result will be very usable, as shown here:)
 

Like most people I always look for the best value, best bang for buck, etc. I purchased the Rode NTG-2 years ago when it first came out and it has provided good quality for a very reasonable price. Since it can work with a battery when phantom power isn't available, as is the case with DSLRs, it provides a very light, compact simple solution. On a recent outdoor shoot, I used the Rode NTG-2 and noticed how it picked up a lot of off-axis sound, and was generally noisy, which required a bit of audio post to sound decent:
We shot in the same location under similar conditions using the Schoeps CMIT5U, using a Zoom F4 to provide phantom power and also a preamp:
I didn't need to do any post work on the audio at all and the quality difference is substantial. With a preamp DSLRs can use high-end mics, and the 1DX II for example, can sound as good as the C300 II. The only issue is the Zoom F4 is big and heavy, so run & gun could use a much smaller and lighter preamp. Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Saramonic-SmartRig-Audio-Adapter-Smartphones/dp/B00WITIHZ6/ + this https://www.amazon.com/Rode-SC3-3-5mm-TRRS-Adaptor/dp/B00L6C8PNU/ (there are cheaper versions available) would keep things small and light with decent quality.
Shot run & gun style with mic on camera using my Filmic Skin picture style and very minimal grading. Canon 1DX II FF 1080p ALL-I (post sharpened) and Canon 24-105 F4L lens using DPAF (could squeak out a little more detail and shallower DOF with the 24-70 F2.8L II when using a tripod).

I got an NTG-2 on a sweet deal a couple years ago, and I was a little disappointed... until I ordered a Triton Audio Fethead -- 27db's of clean gain for $100-- and it turbo-boosted my NTG-2 to such a degree that I haven't felt the need to buy any higher-end shotguns since. Even with a lowly DR-40, combined with the fethead, the NTG-2 puts out a really hot signal, I can record dialogue around that -12db target at a gain of around 20 on the Tascam, compared to 80 or 90 without, avoiding all that crappy pre-amp noise. Good option for the budget minded, especially if you already have the rode.
http://tritonaudio.com/fethead.html

 

Do you have any BTS pics of mic placement? As that is what matters the most when filming.
 
But yes, the NTG2 is a student grade mic (or for other non-sound specialists who just don't care about sound, such as cameramen. Which is where I use my NTG2 now, as an on camera mic when there is no other option for a scratch track. I should probably sell my NTG2 though, as I have plenty of other options for that).
At the absolute bare *bare* minimum, if you're aspiring to do this professionally and/or you just simply *care* about sound then get an Aputure Deity or Rode NTG3 as your shotgun for outdoors.

Mix Pre!!
Is the Schoeps better, or not!?!  

Whoever that was is going to be apoplectic when I post my upcoming essay "Canon and Nikon as viewed through the prism of the template for competing Japanese technology duopolies established during the transition from analogue to digital synthesisers in the period 1979-1987"
Well, pentaprism at least.
Anyhoo....
If you want to monitor audio from your camera but it doesn't have a headphone jack then a little lateral thought will get you here.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B016I34422/ref=mp_s_a_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1499264817&sr=8-13&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=hdmi+audio+extractor
Plug this into the HDMI socket and it will extract the audio to a 3.5mm jack socket at which point you can then use a similarly cheap and small battery headphone amp to monitor it with or if you want to be all fancy and wireless you could use a Bluetooth transmitter like this which are all over amazon for about £12
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B018YU3VVC/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1499265402&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=battery+powered+bluetooth+transmitter&dpPl=1&dpID=41aHuVS8uuL&ref=plSrch
Good thing about this - apart from sticking it to the man and not having to buy the next model up to get such a fundamental feature - is that you are listening post the camera taking it in. External pre-amps are good by offering you headphone monitoring but its before the camera has taken it in so can give you a false sense of security.

Have been using the new Windows 10 box more frequently- the FocusRite Scarlett (1st gen) has issues there as well- doesn't come out of sleep reliably. Have to pull and reinstall USB cable to reset it. Maybe they fixed these issues for Gen 2. Given the sound quality of that Behringer demo against the FocusRite- definitely worth a look for those on a budget.

I've got a Scarlett 2i2 (1st gen). Nice preamps, better than the RME Fireface 800 (which I sold). I did have occasional issues with ASIO drivers on Windows and some issues without drivers on OSX in PP CC (could be Adobe's issue- crackling and loss of audio; could also have been a USB issue on the MacPro). Still a great value for the money. The Scarlett 2i2 is now on a recently built Windows 10 box (ASUS MB), and so far no audio issues. From your list, I'd give the Roland a spin, looks very good. If you want decent limiters (I couldn't find any info on the Roland's limiters; if they are decent Roland would mention them: http://www.roland.ca/products/rubix22/features/), I'd spend the extra $500 and get this: https://www.sounddevices.com/products/recorders/mixpre-3. You can also use for location recording and as a DSLR preamp. It has analog limiters, which are amazing. The preamps and sound quality are the best in the industry for the cost. I use a Sound Devices USB Pre 2 on my main workstation and the preamp quality is superb, headphone output is very good, and driving monitors or Stax earspeakers is amazing.

And double the outputs and inserts as well. MIDI too if you need it.
Its a bit more of an all rounder in terms of capability because of that. You can assign the additional ins and outs as aux sends and returns inside the NLE, use the inserts to patch additional outboard like limiters in and the MIDI side can let you drive the NLE from a cheap controller so its a bit more of a hub than a straight 2 in/ 2 out like the Focusrite.
Doesn't matter a dime of course if it sounds like shit but thats all in the ears of the beholder so you'd need to A/B them yourself.
Here's an A/B that someone has done but its still subjective because of the test not using the same mics or environment or source as you might yourself so take it with a variable amount of salt.
 
Should've maybe got a USBPreNup...
Too soon?

The 1DC has very sharp/detailed 1080p in Super35 mode.
For online streaming delivery, even the 5D3 was sharp enough in 1080p with a little bit of post-sharpening (I shot this 5 years ago):
When shooting people, especially close ups, you really don't want a razor sharp image anyway. If you need something really sharp for wide shots, there are plenty of options from Sony and Panasonic (typically you shoot 4K at around 100Mbps and downsample to 1080p in post). Canon's 4K (C300 II and 1DX II) isn't razor sharp either, neither with enough photosites to capture full 4K resolution. However, it's much better than 1080p, and both can provide pleasing, filmic looks.
Here's the 1DX II in full frame 1080p, 24-105 F4L lens, Rode NTG2*, handheld and post stabilized and sharpened in PP CC:
This was shot using my custom Filmic Skin picture profile, with very minor tweaks in post using Lumetri. For YouTube delivery, especially for medium to close up shots, all Canon's DSLRs can look good with a little post sharpening.
* I think it's time to retire the Rode NTG2 for these kinds of shots. I have better mics however they all require phantom power (much better at side-noise rejection). That's another aspect of DSLR shooting: we need a preamp to get decent audio quality (wireless is another option). Here again, Sony and Panasonic provide factory add-on hot-shoe solutions.

Zbush is clearly the best 3D software for designing 3D bushes!
Zbrush models can be used for vfx, video games, 3D printing (with some additional processing), etc. It's been around for a long time... http://pixologic.com/zbrush/industry/

Went to ML forum to get more specifics, to flesh out my memory.  Until 2013 there was a lot of discussion about 10/12-bit RAW, then things went dead.  On May 11, 2016, A1ex, one of the lead devs posts some findings based on an "@d".  He refers to the raw_twk thread which itself dies in 2014, but picks up again in 2016.  I assumed "@d", came and went in 2016, but he was active in 2013, only made 6 posts, then disappeared.  So it looks like he had a good insight into 10/12 bit video, back in 2013, but it  forgotten until A1ex re-visited it in 2016.  "d's" future game-changer post is here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5601.msg38946#msg38946   Maybe he re-signed onto ML using a different name and is active today.  I don't know.  I shouldn't have speculated he was a Canon insider because it doesn't look like I can have any fun here   The main point is that Canon cameras can do a lot more than they do from the factory and that 10/12 bit RAW is more evidence of that.  I was supporting the argument of the original story.
 

@kaylee if you're going to have a sculpture made, just reference photos are sufficient. 3D data is useful if you're going to use a computer to 3D print. I think the highest quality results are still achieved using a laser depth scanner along with photos as texture maps (again, not really suitable for pets since they typically won't hold still). Photogrammetry uses cross-correlation to match pixels from multiple views. You can get 3D depth from just two photos (I wrote software to do this years ago). For a full 3D model, you needs a lot of views and it takes a very long time to compute; additionally the results typically tend to require a lot of manual post-clean up. A laser scan provides an accurate 3D point cloud and along with high resolution 2D photos, modern tools can convert to triangles for which the 2D photos can be used as texture maps. Even so, to provide 'movie quality results' (as seen in the movies ), a lot of manual 3D modeling work is still required. In summary, very expensive for a life-sized large pet result! Reference photos for a sculptor might be the most cost effective solution right now (until we get Star Trek Replicator technology from our Alien Overlords ).

You are not crazy, my fs5 will be posted to new owner
 

 
the 7Q+ used to pair with FS5, sold that earlier
 

 
Current workhorse (c100mkii is from work, hopefully to C200 lol)

i hear you, this is what im thinking might work best. giving a good 3d sculpt artist a mediocre 3d model and tons of great reference photos would prolly work out just fine (?)
thanks for the info and links jcs, im checking them out rn~!!! i think i need a place in LA that does this, right?

and id give that 3d file along with a bunch of great reference photos to a 3d sculpt artist – how does that sound?
although my ultimate goal may be to make a giant sculpture – far beyond the scale of the current capabilities of 3d printing, as bunk explained – i like the idea of having a great 3d model to make editions of small ones, different sizes, out of anything, plastic, metal, chocolate (lol). in the future ill prolly be able to 3d print one that looks like a cut diamond or something ridiculous
personally i think that ron mueck is a genius and i like his work very much. unlike jeff koons (ballon dog, above), ron actually makes his pieces himself



his beautiful hyperrealistic sculptures tend to have an obvious surreal twist, which just for the record is not what im going for, im shooting for Friendly Doggee lol

Multicamera photogrammetry is the best solution for objects which can move, such as pets. This is not 3D scanning, since the capture is simultaneous, instant:

You can do photogrammetry with just one camera for still objects or even people if they hold fairly still, this is a form of 3D scanning: https://www.allegorithmic.com/blog/go-scan-world-photogrammetry-smartphone
http://www.agisoft.com/community/showcase/ (one of the better quality solutions)
http://www.photomodeler.com/
http://www.photomodeler.com/products/scanner/default.html
This is pretty cool, though low res last time I looked at it: https://structure.io/ (uses a depth sensor along with a camera; really a developer tool at this stage vs. consumer/professional product)
http://3dscanexpert.com/3-free-3d-scanning-apps/
 

I consulted on a project a few years ago where the product was 3D printed pets. I recommended photogrammetry for the capture since all cameras can fire at once: if the pet isn't perfectly still, not a problem. The end result is a very high quality 3D object and texture map.
This company uses your own photos, so there's a bit of art / manual modeling going on. Less accurate, but perhaps more affordable than shooting in a multi camera booth and using photogrammetry: https://3dprint.com/160671/furever3d-3d-print-miniature-pets/

The 1DX II has aliasing at 1080p, however for some things I like the soft-ish look and extra shallow DOF available at FF (not to mention the tiny files sizes!). The Sony A99 II is clearly aliasing in 4K on a 4K monitor. I haven't seen aliasing with the 1DX II in 4K yet, though I have seen aliasing on the C300 II in 4K! Very few cameras provide sufficient Bayer photosites to allow oversampling (2x per Nyquist sampling theory) to eliminate all aliasing (along with a tuned OLPF for a specific target resolution).
Camera manufacturers could have created a "perfect" camera many years ago, however that would ruin their upgrade path.
One manufacturer dared to create a superior camera before its time: Samsung and the NX1. After doing much research in 'how the world really works', I seriously doubt Samsung's reasons for dropping that camera were accurate. That said, balance is important, and it's best if there is good competition and many different companies be allowed to survive along with all the people they keep employed.
A lot of people think it would be great if we had free energy for all, right now. While that will be amazing for the planet, we'd need to ease into that, because the world economy is based on the petro-dollar, and anything that disrupts that dramatically would cause a worldwide crisis and chaos. Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies are the next big disruptors, and are very close to being mainstream and trusted replacements for the petro-dollar. Once that transition is more established, then we'll start to see more clean energy technologies becoming available (some say government UFO/alien disclosure will happen then too, however I wouldn't hold your breath. Some people think Jupiter Rising is a documentary, hopefully that's not true, lol).
The ARRI Alexa/Amira series are as close to perfect for image quality that have been created so far, however these cameras are big, heavy, have huge power requirements, don't have any AF, and are priced for very specific markets (which can also afford a skilled AC to pull focus). So nearly perfect image quality doesn't make a perfect camera for everyone (Alexa Mini becomes big and heavy when fully rigged).
Regarding older cameras being better, the Canon 5D III IMO has better color science than the 1DX II, especially for video using the stock picture styles! This does create opportunities for folks to create and sell better ones (I'll release some for sale soon). 5D III RAW compares very favorably to the C300 II 12-bit RGB444. The 5D III has less DR, much more RS, more noise, no NDs, no XLR audio, and no AF, however it can still be used for quite a lot of types of shooting with fantastic results! In the budget market, the 5D3 and GH5 are really no excuse cameras. If AF is a primary need, the Canon 80D and Sony A7R II can work really well, especially if the target is only online streaming. In the midrange, the C200 is going to sell very, very well.

I attended an event in downtown LA on Saturday, June 17 called DisclosureFest 2017. It was about meditation, healthy products etc. While it was called DisclosureFest, I didn't see any booths or promos for UFOs/aliens etc. During Robot Nature's performance (pretty cool new band), people began pointing at the sky and everyone with a camera started pointing up and taking pictures. I looked up and saw a tiny spec of white, with bright flashes. I said out loud that looks like a drone, and everyone said, no, that's a real UFO! I put the 70-200 F2.8L II on the 1DX II and looked at the object through the optical viewfinder at 200mm. It looked very strange, kind of like a human-like form, all white floating in the sky. There where kites and some balloons floated by- windy enough to move balloons. This object didn't move- a balloon would float up and with the wind. I took a few stills then switched to 4K video. It was super sunny and I couldn't see anything on the LCD. So I just pointed the best I could...
I learned a few things for this kind of shooting:
A viewfinder is absolutely necessary! Go to manual focus and set for infinity with a high f-stop DPAF couldn't hold focus on a small object, however I did get a few seconds of decent footage. The RAW stills showed so much more detail vs. 4K video. That's when I realized I should have looked through the optical viewfinder and shot a few rapid bursts of RAW stills at 14fps!
I found a decent VF for $110: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D3551NU/ (on the topic of Amazon- need to start supporting other vendors. Low prices are great but killing all competition is not):

I shot this pic using a little product box I picked up at Samy's a while ago. It works pretty well.
The only issue with the VF is base plate needs to be adjusted/shimmed to get a better fit to the LCD and VF. Even as is, it works great because when you put up to your eye it pushes forward and blocks all light (no leaks).
I'm pretty sure at least one of the objects was man-made, some of the others it's hard to tell. I'm editing all the shots into a short video and will post when done.

The footage should be much crispier than the one we saw from low res phone quality shacky video 
 
But man don't you wish you have the 150-600 for this kind of thing

Anonymous said the NASA was going to say something about alien life. Maybe they're already here! I hope they just have somebody like Charles Dance to do the talking, Morgan Freeman has a too lighthearted voice for that.
Jokes apart that's why I think Mirrorless is superior, the EVF, IBIS combination is killer; pity that by the time you'd point the camera to the UFO the batteries would die in the Sony and the focus would be lost in the sea of blue with the Panasonic. Maybe the OMD EM1 MKII is the way to go  . 

EDIT: Waiting for the footage, I kind of secretly enjoy these things.