jcs

Not opting for the reincarnation option after 54 years? 
Isn't "truth" a social construct almost invariably used by one section of society as a mechanism of control, authority or influence over others? Perhaps even just to promote a common bond.
Trivial example: look at the oft stated mantra about "Canon colours being the best" - that is almost certainly true IFF the community defines it to be.
Some things we colloquially say are "true" (e.g. 2+2=4) are merely tautologies. 
The really interesting things such as love, beauty, harmony (or the opposites) are much more difficult to describe by any form of objective scientific description - perhaps this is where & why the truth of artistic expression is so important?

Jonesy, my goal has been and continues to be, figuring out how to better communicate. By telling you that I am aware of the illusions created by my ego, everything I say is clearly from my own point of view, and if you disagree, it's OK. When I first read these ideas years ago, it didn't make any sense at all, especially Zen, which seemed totally crazy and pointless. Which is why many people throw around the word Zen because they think it's cool, however they have no idea what it really means. Some of the more esoteric parts of Zen and Buddhism don't seem true to me (e.g. carry-overs from Hinduism), however the concepts of ego and layers of illusion do seem very helpful in dealing with life as a human being.
So you're right, it sounds like double-talk. Buddha said the same thing, and he continued to share what he learned. Note I didn't say preach, and I hope I can learn to talk about these concepts so they don't sound like preaching at all. A funny pattern that appears is that the more I try to write in a manner that is non-argumentative, the more folks seem to want to argue.
This feels like the ego, in that it doesn't want to admit one doesn't know truth. What is truth? How do you know anything is true? Can you write things you believe to be true that most people will agree with? Maybe. Can you write things you believe to be true that everyone will agree with? Probably not. Even if you show a tautology in math, people who don't understand math won't agree. Even if you show something using the scientific method, some people will disagree and find flaws that may not exist or just simply won't believe you (this happens all the time in science, only years later are some ideas accepted as true!). If we accept that we don't know anything for sure, we keep ourselves open to learning something new, and getting closer to the truth, whatever it may be. How many times have you been absolutely certain about something, 100% certain, then later learned you were wrong? That's the point in accepting that the ego may be creating an illusion and that what one thinks, sometimes what most everyone thinks (such as the world is flat or the Earth is the center of the universe), is wrong. Newton's equations of motion are kinda true, in that they do very well to predict the motions of objects, including in the presence of gravity. However it's an incomplete model, and we need Einstein's equations of relativity on the large/fast scale and quantum physics on the small scale to better describe reality. And none of these concepts exactly describe reality since we can't unify gravity, for example, other than string/m-theory neither of which we can test yet in the real world.
When each of us believes our own thoughts are absolute truth, then we aren't open to new ideas, to seeing another person's point of view, and to learning something new. From my point of view it feels better to say these things seem right to me, what do you think? Vs. me saying these things are all true, perhaps polarizing, and not open to others points of view.
From my first short film, "Truth and Perfection exist only in Mathematics, and Mathematics cannot describe a Universe running on Infinities and Probabilities". If you disagree, it's OK, how would you show why this isn't true for you?

You're right, in the domain of predicate logic, Boolean algebra, etc.
Here we're talking about human perception of reality itself, and this squirrelly, wet bar of soap known as the ego. A long time friend, who's studied philosophy his whole life (along with his wife), suggested a couple books yesterday after discussing this topic:
Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism "In this modern spiritual classic, the Tibetan meditation master Chögyam Trungpa highlights the commonest pitfall to which every aspirant on the spiritual path falls prey: what he calls spiritual materialism. The universal tendency, he shows, is to see spirituality as a process of self-improvement—the impulse to develop and refine the ego when the ego is, by nature, essentially empty. "The problem is that ego can convert anything to its own use," he said, "even spirituality." His incisive, compassionate teachings serve to wake us up from this trick we all play on ourselves, and to offer us a far brighter reality: the true and joyous liberation that inevitably involves letting go of the self rather than working to improve it. It is a message that has resonated with students for nearly thirty years, and remains fresh as ever today."
and In Search of the Miraculous "Peter Demianovich Ousepnsky (1878-1947) was born in Moscow. He became one of the most important writers on abstract mathematical theory in the early 20th century. Ouspensky searched throughout Europe, Egypt, and the Orient for a teaching that would solve for him the problems of man and the universe. In 1915, in St. Petersberg, he met with George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, who taught that most humans do not possess a unified mind-body consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but it is possible to transcend to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. This is the record of Ouspensky's eight years of work as Gurdjieff's pupil. It combines the logic of a mathematician with the vision of a mystic."
I'll read/listen to them soon. I found this as recommendations from those books via Amazon: Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati "The great modern classic of a brilliant rebel's personal exploration into the nature of consciousness. Cosmic Trigger deals with a process of deliberately induced brain change. This process is called 'initiation' or 'vision quest' in many traditional societies and can loosely be considered some dangerous variety of self-psychotherapy in modern terminology. I do not recommend it for everybody...briefly, the main thing I learned in my experiments is that 'reality' is always plural and mutable."
What drew me to that book were comments about 'triggering' and people's egos (see the comments), very relevant as to what happens online and in the world today. I noticed a funny pattern years ago, that simply bringing awareness of the ego itself, could cause people to become irrational and angry. Understanding this pattern better is interesting for this ego (mine  ).
My buddy sent another one, Center of the Cyclone: An Autobiography of Inner Space "The Center of the Cyclone is an autobiographical work authored by famed fringe scientist and psychedelic pioneer, Dr. John C. Lilly. This is his most well known book and his first mainstream work, setting the tone for his dual career as scientist and explorer of human consciousness. In intimate detail, Lilly tells the story of how he left mainstream science to become an explorer of the "far out places" of the human mind. Using his own brain as a laboratory, and utilizing every method of consciousness alteration at his disposal --including LSD, isolation tanks, and zany new age encounter groups -- Lilly takes us on his decades-long quest to discover the true nature of consciousness and reality, overturning many of his own assumptions and those of mainstream science along the way."
which leads to this book, Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer: Theory and Experiments, "Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer was written by Dr. John C. Lilly about his research conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health. In it, he discusses his invention of float tanks, early communication with dolphins, and investigations into the use of LSD for personal and cultural development. This historic work is reprinted in this version, in its entirety, for the first time in 25 years."
Metaprogramming is a common technique used in hypnotherapy/NLP today...
I find these subjects fascinating for personal and business relationships, and for writers and filmmakers, understanding how the ego and the mind works is priceless for storytelling.

I'm going to check it out!

The reason we try to take the tester's ego out of an experiment, is to reduce as many variables as possible in order to learn whatever the goal of the experiment is. For a camera test, our goal is to understand actual differences in the camera systems, vs. the tester's personal preference or bias (ego). This has nothing to do with computers, as human beings would then look at the results of the tests to see if they can see any differences and if so, what are those differences.
That sounds reasonable. A non-biased equivalence test would allow many people to reach their own conclusions.
And Andrew has all the gear and experience to create a reasonable equivalence test showing the differences between these camera systems.

It would be cool if you could set up say the 1DX II, a Sony with the Kippon MF focal reducer, and the H3D using equivalence math (and same distance camera to subject) for a comparison. To show the differences in the available optics for the different formats, their character, and the differences in sensor and color performance. Maybe even the GH5 too with something like a Voigtlander F.95 etc.
In that way you can match perspective, bokeh, and compression (as best as is possible with available lenses and camera settings) so the lens and sensor characters can more clearly be seen.

Interesting article, I can see the connection the film writing prompts post you make.
There is one thing I noticed and and would like to clarify if I am understanding you correctly. As I read it you are stating that a 56mm full frame equivalent lens on a medium format camera will give you more compression than a 56mm equivalent on a smart phone due to the longer focal length of the medium format. That is not the case, compression is a function of perspective which is purely defined by the physical position of the camera nothing more. Focal length only affects other characteristics like DOF, lens distortion, etc... This will be the case with all traditional lenses with maybe the only exception of some really odd ones like the reversed perspective lens I saw posted a while back.

Yep, the defining factor in "facial flattery" is how close you physically stand from the subject. There are other factors like @dhessel mentioned, but ignoring quality of build in a lens, a person's face would look the same on a M43 shooting 25mm as the 645 shooting 80mm if you maintain the same distance from the subject. The reason medium format has its "look" is really more due to the fact that to get the equivalent DoF of 2.8 you'd need an f/0.8 to match, in this case.
 
I'd like to add though that there are certainly other factors such as light gathering ability and overall dynamic range that larger sensors certainly have an advantage for. Just trying to clear up the compression thing.

regraded again - to make the Ursa Mini Pro look better.
Also something I learned - exporting from Resolve at DATA levels keeps the blacks better for h.264 compression on Vimeo and YT.
 
It seems that Vimeo and YT both raise the blacks significantly for uploads.  Maybe because of mobile?  
Anyway curious if post houses do this as well?  I read somewhere advising against it.  But, you know, opinions on the internet, man.

Most Truth is found in Paradox.

It's totally OK that you disagree! I used to be very competitive at everything: sports (played them all in high school and college), racing cars, competing in software and business, winning lawsuits, winning arguments, however in the end it wasn't satisfying. Winning means someone else is losing, which creates resentment, and a net increase in suffering. This is especially true in personal relationships: we don't want to alienate our friends, families, or partners. In business, especially with the responsibility of a leadership position, it is especially tricky to get points across while being aware of each person's ego. Even if everyone ultimately realizes you are right, if they resent you it makes it hard to lead without drama. Thus I learned it's really important to let everyone know you really care for them, want the best for them, it's not personal, and to keep the business and/or tech debates focused on the issues vs. letting it get personal.
I don't want to "win on the internet". It was never my point to prove anyone wrong, rather I was trying to show what I believed to be true. Yet my methods ultimately made people think I was trying to prove them wrong, and thus came resentment. When I use the word 'ego' it's not simply arrogance, it's the thing in our consciousness that makes us appear separate from each other and nature. The only way I've found to not experience ego is through deep meditation and/or using DMT to turn off the individual-human-state reality filter: the ego. The ego is a truly clever thing, the ultimate deceiver sometimes, not good or bad, it helps us to survive, and when out of control causes great suffering for self and others.

I had read about, how as we approach the Big Realization (note I'm not saying the Truth), our ego's get more and more clever, creating even "better simulations" so we think we've finally solved it all, that we have arrived, that we are enlightened... Hurray! And then slowly we realize that once again, we've deceived ourselves, and we're not there yet, there's still more to learn. Once we recognize that pattern, we can stop telling other's we've finally solved it all, that we know the solution, that we know the truth, that we know the Right Way, that we know anything at all.
Even what I'm writing right now it's that same pattern, so it's really impossible to get this point across in words. It's like they say, you can really only smile and nod, and recognize that we are all playing the ego game, and ultimately live kindly as humans and not try to project our individual beliefs on others. Maybe we'll talk about it, maybe we'll agree, maybe we won't.
Math and science were developed as a tools to try to reach consensus, and these tools work well enough for us to create houses, cars, roads, bridges, microwave ovens, foods, medicines, etc. The concepts of the Rule of Law have helped us to live relatively peacefully in the latest civilization (not including wars which twisted the law in order to justify war).
Once we get to the level below quantum physics nothing works anymore, so we don't really know what is going on at the deepest levels, and thus it's metaphysical. Perhaps there's a fundamental flaw in the ideas of math and physics, and it's blocking a better description of reality. There's really no point arguing about it when we realize how our egos create illusions which we then project on others.
It's kinda funny how it all seems to work! And maybe everything I've written here is just another illusion! Buddha said keep questioning everything he said- it's just what he found to work for himself, and if you find a better way, follow that. Similar to the Scientific Method: keep updating the ideas as we learn more.
What we all do seem to agree on with people who have empathy (again, psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissists probably don't have empathy), is to treat others as we'd want to be treated. Be kind, implement the Golden Rule. It seems the more we can do that, the more we can reduce suffering and be happier.
It appears Jim Carrey has been preparing to play Terrance McKenna: http://www.mckennite.com/articles/carrey. From Jim: "The deeper you go into the psychedelic dimension, the bigger it gets. I've seen things no human being has ever seen before, and no other human being will ever see again. I retreated to nature and I took five grams of dried mushrooms in order to prepare for this role". “The real message of psychedelics, I think, is to reclaim experience and to trust yourself. Your perceptions are primary. Your feelings are correct. Everything must constellate out and make sense and parse with what you know. If you don’t start from that assumption then you are off center to begin with. And the psychedelics will dissolve the cultural programming that has potentially made you a mark and restore your authenticity.”
I felt the same way for a while, then realized that what I was seeing and experiencing was not unique at all. And that the ego was once again playing the game. 5 grams of psilocybe cubensis (see Jim Carrey link) would be a sufficient dose of DMT to put most people over the threshold for 'ego death', a state of consciousness where the human filter, what defines a human as a human, a specific person, to melt away. That's when transcendental awareness or cosmic consciousness can be experienced. That's what Jim meant when he said "You don't exist, we are not important, it's not our planet" etc. However this is just the ego again, running a different awareness simulation. So that's not the end of the journey. Once we come to this realization, it's kind of an AHA moment and also a NOW WHAT? moment. How are we supposed to live? What should we do if the ego is always creating illusions? Hungry: eat, tired: sleep, curious: explore. Just be. Be a human. Be aware of attachment. Be kind. That does seem to be the simple answer. Again, I reached the same conclusion as the pioneering teachers before us, however I realize it too may be another illusion, and until something that seems to work better is understood, this feels right. Feels like truth, feels like true love.
So it's kind of recursively amusing realizing that these concepts where we become aware of the illusions of the ego, and write about them, are further examples of the illusions of the ego. So we can listen to other people's views of reality and respect them, realizing their ego is creating a specialized version of reality for them. It may be similar to our reality, and it may not. And it makes no sense to argue about it! It seems kindness and the Golden Rule are fundamental principles we'd hope all would agree to, perhaps there is an even better way, I don't know.
@Don Kotlos, @Jonesy Jones I saw patterns in what Jesus said that were so similar to what Buddha said, I figured maybe he studied Buddhism. Alan Watts also has great insite into what Jesus was really trying to say: that we are all children of God, not just him:
Recently this was published: https://www.feelguide.com/2017/01/19/bbc-doc-proves-jesus-was-a-buddhist-monk-named-issa-who-spent-16-years-in-india-tibet/. The Dalai Lama wrote about about Christianity and Buddhism: http://www.wisdompubs.org/blog/201603/dalai-lama-reflects-faith-buddhism-and-christianity. I don't know if it matters if this is true or not, it does seem he said the same things as Buddha, and that some of it was changed for political and religious reasons. I'm not sure if it will ever be possible to know. The pattern is Christianity kept splitting into more and more sects, e.g Catholics to Lutherans, to Latter Day Saints, and especially the Mennonites (there was also splitting and fragmentation of Buddhism, and in recent history when it was studied collectively, some sects had gotten the main ideas completely backwards!). It seems the splits kept happening as they got farther away from what Jesus and Buddha really said. We can look at what Buddha said and later Jesus to perhaps get a better understanding of the original concepts before politics and religion fragmented and changed them.

Just on-topic according to thread.

I think thats only when the thread was started about something specifically film/gear related to stop them being derailed.
If the thread has been specifically started like this one that isn't about those things then I think Pete And Bernie's Philosophical Steakhouse is open for business.

Proselytism is & always has been a big part of most religions, even more so in Christianity that has it in the gospel. And for many centuries if you didn't convert you most probably would end up dead, so quite the pressure I would say   . And here is one modern version of a proselytism park: http://www.holylandexperience.com/
But on the second point I agree, God is yet another attraction point for wandering souls. The problem is that there is an organized path towards just that point. So if you are proselytized from young age, the likelihood of finding Christ later in your life is far greater than chance. Whether that is good or bad, is another discussion. 
Spot on. Initially I just went with trolling & drugs, but your psychoanalysis offers a deeper understanding why he might have done those things in the first place.

I think there are many more harmful ways of thinking and of treating others.  Of course, each to their own, but if more people thought like this, I can't help but imagine a nicer, friendlier world than the one we live in now. 
Sure the universe doesn't care about you personally, can it even care at all? What is the universe in this sense? Does it even matter? 
The original post, and the dodgy looks that woman gives the camera automatically puts Jim in a negative light, like he's a washed up lunatic. Good for him for not caring about a fashion week, and for not caring how he'll be portrayed, knowing full well that what he's talking about will go over the heads of the E Entertainment audience. More power to him.
I do think you and Jim are saying similar things in different ways. I don't believe he's negating responsibility, instead trying to spread a message of oneness. We're all in this together, let's do our very best to keep this ride going. Instead of focusing on a fashion show, lets put our minds to better use.
Of course, I'm only projecting my own thoughts as I do agree with a lot of what he's saying, but he says it in a wishy-washy way, which makes it easy for the real message to become lost.

I think the evolutional purpose of human belief in God is that it's comforting...  this turns it into something absolutely terrifying and nihilistic.
Do you think the more enlightened Jim Carrey gets it the more of a suicide risk he is? It's already happened in the life of another great comic actor, Robin Williams... very sad.
I think Carrey's a superb talent, unique... not to everyone's taste, but a genuinely interesting human being.
He could be really onto the truth... he could be ultra enlightened... but there's a coldness behind his eyes, a cold stark reality to it somehow.
Or maybe he's just goofing around with it... Trolling the vacuous celebrity machine at the fashion show and an insular, materialistic reporter.
Watch the recent video on his artwork though, and it does seem he's actually living his newfound enlightenment and taking inspiration from it.
Fine line between genius and madness!
Yup, I'd agree with that.
Maybe in Jim Carrey's attempt to shrink his ego, he's peered into the void.
In the end it should be up to the individual to believe in what he believes... the problem is religion is too often forced on the individual from a young age or from peep pressure.

Hey Ed, maybe do the test again? Even one scene where everything is constant (except camera) would be good.

I think that the mechanical shutter makes a more noticeable difference with significant movement and with handheld shots.  The mechanical shutter probably also reduces noise.
 
By the way, Panavision modified a few F65s by removing the mechanical shutter.  They called the modified version the "F65 Mini," and they usually live in France:
http://panavision.fr/produits/sony-f65-mini/
www.vimeo.com/197192795
 

I was curious to test the f35 - because I am getting tired of bayer-pattern CMOS and how it renders skintones vs CCD, and Ricardo brought his 5d mark iii, so boom, added that in.
F35 vs F65 below.
Shooting at 400 ISO on both cameras.  F35 was 12-bit DPX files 1080p, sony f65 was 4k 3:1 compressed raw

Why stop there? GH5, 1DXII, C200, C300II next? Expect a call from Zacuto soon ?

Hey Ed, maybe do the test again? Even one scene where everything is constant (except camera) would be good.

+ killer AF! No competition on the market at that price point. Recently shot an art piece on the 1DX II at 4K60 (vs. C300 II which has 10-bit but no 60p) and 8-bit was fine. Most of the shots wouldn't have been possible without DPAF (the alternative would have been a wireless FF and an AC).
For those with a $7500 camera budget, especially if one has many Canon lenses, it's a no brainer. Again, the C300 II doesn't do 4K60, the C200 does. If the C200 had been available when we got the 1DXII, we would have gotten the C200 to get 4K60 instead.
The most popular camera on this forum right now, the GH5, is a useful tool which creates great images, however it's not in the same league as the C200. Both products are priced fairly for their performance and features.

Typical Sony Skin Tones Grading Session: 
1. Pull towards magenta.
2. Pull back to green. 
3. Pull a bit more back to magenta. 
4. A little nudge towards green.
5. Slight more magenta.
6. Increment of green. 
7. Too magenta, or too green? 
8. Arrgh sod it, looks good enough. 
 
The A6500 has the best skin tones at the lower end. 
FS7 and F55 and barely any different. 
The issue I've found is mostly the suspect white balance on Sony consumer cameras. Doesn't work as expected. This causes crap looking footage uploaded to Vimeo. 
On the VENICE, it looks like if you press button on it, a building nearby will explode. 

I want to like your post @jcs but I also don't want to ruin your triple 8 rep
Hmmm... This is where it gets subjective. I'm looking at them on a calibrated monitor, and they all look great to me.
Weird. Mine have been rock solid.  I doubt they'd hold up like my 5D3 though... that baby was submerged in the Pacific ocean briefly, died (canon service center pronounced it dead), and on the third day came back to life! Not even joking.