Chrad

Gerald is a charming reviewer. I would love, if less people would get baited into the discourse of camera testers circus. Gerald does not represent that until now. He has been doing good work in his field of work, until now.
It would awesome if we all would focus on contributing to great threads again, as we have been doing all these years.
I would love a structure of the forum to bait us more into the filming section where people post their stuff but hardly get noticed for their work in that subforum of the main forum. Then click baiting would be a great thing.
I would love more oldschool classic and classy articles like about the Canon dream lens. We never had a chance to see the trees in the beautiful photographs move their leaves in the winds, moving images.  I think this forum could become THE major place for creative and TRUE nerd content again. Right now it is a bit calm on that side.
The Gerald Undone piece is witty and right about the main points regarding the consumerism and camera hype machine but it is not on point about him, when he is presented like he was identifying himself as a "guru", which he never claimed he was.
I too find it disgusting, when youtubers steal content from this forum and dont give back nor even cite the oritinal source such as was the case with the overheating problem of the R5. I think it is a major threat to original blog journalist and artists. We can go back to the roots of this forum, cool and involving stuff and not worry about the click baiters and content appropriators.
 

I'm generally pretty hard on YouTubers but Gerald is harmless and doesn't claim to be anything more than someone that enjoys gear, enjoys talking about gear, and enjoys making videos about gear. He's pretty transparent in my view. It's definitely not for everyone but I also don't think people go to him to learn about the actually art of filmmaking. 

First footage.
Looks great to me. Detail, noise and dynamic range look very BMPCC4K like, as I'd hoped.

There's no such thing as technical perfection, only how well the technical choices support the content / context.
It's like asking what size paint brush is the best - very different answers if you're going to paint detail on a miniature, the face on a portrait, or blast a flat colour on the side of a building.
Any time someone rates a piece of equipment out of context they're substituting in their own context without mentioning it.  Sadly, that context is often to brag about their equipment on the internet.

Isn't that what the camera geek want? the FF look with everything on F0.95! Its pure orgy for them haha

Something I find interesting is how many have commented on the distractingly shallow depth of field, but I haven't seen anyone comment on another characteristic of this F0.95 wide-open shooting...the softness, which was to me very noticeable in wide shots. 
Goes to show that we gear-nerds and pixel peepers get way too hung up on technical perfection. I suppose it's different if you're doing product shots or ads that are trying to project a clinically cutting-edge image, but the majority of the time, no one cares that much as long as the image registers. See also on Netflix the grain storm of the 4K scanned 16mm for the new Master of None show. It blows my mind when people call images with some small, gently buzzing noise in the shadows 'unusable'.

Something I find interesting is how many have commented on the distractingly shallow depth of field, but I haven't seen anyone comment on another characteristic of this F0.95 wide-open shooting...the softness, which was to me very noticeable in wide shots. 
Goes to show that we gear-nerds and pixel peepers get way too hung up on technical perfection. I suppose it's different if you're doing product shots or ads that are trying to project a clinically cutting-edge image, but the majority of the time, no one cares that much as long as the image registers. See also on Netflix the grain storm of the 4K scanned 16mm for the new Master of None show. It blows my mind when people call images with some small, gently buzzing noise in the shadows 'unusable'.

Something I find interesting is how many have commented on the distractingly shallow depth of field, but I haven't seen anyone comment on another characteristic of this F0.95 wide-open shooting...the softness, which was to me very noticeable in wide shots. 
Goes to show that we gear-nerds and pixel peepers get way too hung up on technical perfection. I suppose it's different if you're doing product shots or ads that are trying to project a clinically cutting-edge image, but the majority of the time, no one cares that much as long as the image registers. See also on Netflix the grain storm of the 4K scanned 16mm for the new Master of None show. It blows my mind when people call images with some small, gently buzzing noise in the shadows 'unusable'.

I enjoyed it, thought it was thoroughly enjoyable. 
The thing is, the audience doesn’t care about vintage lenses and dead pixels. Only a tiny niche of people do.
Sure, the shallow aesthetic was noticeable to me, but that’s only because my eye is trained to see it. But I thought it looked quite “dead eyed”, and complimented the theme of the film well. 
Also, this was a film where you come to see very powerful zombies fucking shit up, and it does that very well.
I personally don’t want to see deep storylines here, I want to see the chief zombie riding a zombie horse and causing absolute carnage. 
Also, for what’s it’s worth, there is some reference to Synder’s loss of his daughter which was a nice touch (if you know about it). 
It’s a bold, fun movie, uniquely shot in shallow DOF where cool shit happens and nothing more. Top job. 

Since the organic sensor has obviously failed to show up this time, it would be good if they did something extraordinary for sensor dynamic range (precisely because of the smaller sensor size and fast enough readout). For example, pushing the dual ISO technology to instead make two separate (tone mapped) pixel exposures within the same frame as a standout and unique MFT feature. 

You wouldn't catch me hoping that a 60k investment in a rapidly changing technological industry was still good in a decade!
I think the entire film and photography industry grew up in a little fantasy bubble about the way the world works because they started with film.  
Film was standardised and so that meant that any advancements were compatible with your camera and you were going to have to buy new film as you used it anyway.  Cost of upgrading image quality = 0.
Film was standardised and so that meant that your old camera was still good, basically forever, and was (almost) immune to obsolescence through innovation.  I say almost immune because stills camera manufacturers started inventing automatic features like auto-exposure and auto-focus which made people buy their cameras and lenses over and over and over again, but the film industry was immune even to this due to the manual workflows that the industry was based around (and still is).  Obsolescence of old equipment = 0.
These two things disguised the fact that buying cameras and lenses are investments in technology and technology is the most fertile ground for planned obsolescence that exists.  No, ARRI aren't deliberately driving the value of your investments into the dirt, but every manufacturer that makes TVs certainly is.
The evidence of this is the slow-motion car accident that is happening which is slowly bankrupting cinema chains, a computer company getting into the telephone industry and sending photography companies bankrupt, and the rise of online streaming services and decline of TV, etc.

If conservatives believe in climate change, how come their President denies it and they refused to do anything about it for decades? Boomers have been massively irresponsible and totally screwed future generations.
The south is poor because they pursued a path of low taxes and low educational investment. The US economy has shifted to technology and services; metropolitan areas with educated workforces have thrived. Low-skilled work has been outsourced to low-wage countries thanks to destructive free-trade deals.
Bernie Sanders' money is largely from writing a best-selling book. He could have made a lot more money if he were crooked.

You are wrong to equate them. Bernie Sanders held to the same beliefs for years, even though it made him politically unpopular. It took decades for enough of a critical mass to come around to his way of thinking that it became feasible for him to run for president. The evidence is that he is a man who has held true to his beliefs and fought for them all his life.
Trump on the other hand is a populist demagogue who made a late pivot into politics out of his business/entertainment career. Not that long ago he was considered to be a friend of the Clintons. 

This is bullshit. The left hates Trump for what he says. For his race baiting, for his sexism, for his climate change denial, etc. If he believed and acted in accordance with their beliefs, they'd speak well of him. It would require a drastic turn around to reverse the negative perceptions of him, but that's what your hypothetical is suggesting. It's a useless assertion anyway, since it's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for.
 
As for your end justifies the means argument for Trump support, no matter how ignoble his conduct - have some goddamn integrity. It's true that many on tbe left mindlessly follow 'their guy', but there are also people out there with integrity, who are ready to criticise the deatructive policies of Obama or Hillary and the damage they've done to the world. 
Suppoting Trump on the other hand is excusing a lot of shitty human behaviour for the sake of 'your guys' holding power. Be careful of what you're undermimining and what you're going to lose.

This is bullshit. The left hates Trump for what he says. For his race baiting, for his sexism, for his climate change denial, etc. If he believed and acted in accordance with their beliefs, they'd speak well of him. It would require a drastic turn around to reverse the negative perceptions of him, but that's what your hypothetical is suggesting. It's a useless assertion anyway, since it's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for.
 
As for your end justifies the means argument for Trump support, no matter how ignoble his conduct - have some goddamn integrity. It's true that many on tbe left mindlessly follow 'their guy', but there are also people out there with integrity, who are ready to criticise the deatructive policies of Obama or Hillary and the damage they've done to the world. 
Suppoting Trump on the other hand is excusing a lot of shitty human behaviour for the sake of 'your guys' holding power. Be careful of what you're undermimining and what you're going to lose.

Sounds like a terminal case of cognitive dissonance to me.

You are wrong to equate them. Bernie Sanders held to the same beliefs for years, even though it made him politically unpopular. It took decades for enough of a critical mass to come around to his way of thinking that it became feasible for him to run for president. The evidence is that he is a man who has held true to his beliefs and fought for them all his life.
Trump on the other hand is a populist demagogue who made a late pivot into politics out of his business/entertainment career. Not that long ago he was considered to be a friend of the Clintons. 

It's worth noting that Obama and the Clintons are masters of deception too, but in their case it's a so-called 'enlightened' audience who have been deceived. Political parties are cults, and ideology is a curse on humanity.

Obviously this is a shit show, but thanks for pointing it out Andrew and not just shaking your head and keeping quiet.
Almost as bad as the people who view democracy as a game of sports and want their team to win at all costs, are the "enlightened centrists" who think not participating in politics or taking a neutral stance somehow makes them better. 
Politics affects basically every aspect of your life, by choosing not to participate you're letting yourself be taken advantage of. And democracy shouldn't be about which party wins or loses, ideally society in general should be winning. In the case of Trump, if you divorce his words and actions from his brand (Republican) they're still at best unintelligent and contradictory and at worse dishonest and actively harmful. This would be true even if they were coming from a Democrat.

This is bullshit. The left hates Trump for what he says. For his race baiting, for his sexism, for his climate change denial, etc. If he believed and acted in accordance with their beliefs, they'd speak well of him. It would require a drastic turn around to reverse the negative perceptions of him, but that's what your hypothetical is suggesting. It's a useless assertion anyway, since it's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for.
 
As for your end justifies the means argument for Trump support, no matter how ignoble his conduct - have some goddamn integrity. It's true that many on tbe left mindlessly follow 'their guy', but there are also people out there with integrity, who are ready to criticise the deatructive policies of Obama or Hillary and the damage they've done to the world. 
Suppoting Trump on the other hand is excusing a lot of shitty human behaviour for the sake of 'your guys' holding power. Be careful of what you're undermimining and what you're going to lose.

This is bullshit. The left hates Trump for what he says. For his race baiting, for his sexism, for his climate change denial, etc. If he believed and acted in accordance with their beliefs, they'd speak well of him. It would require a drastic turn around to reverse the negative perceptions of him, but that's what your hypothetical is suggesting. It's a useless assertion anyway, since it's impossible to prove or even provide evidence for.
 
As for your end justifies the means argument for Trump support, no matter how ignoble his conduct - have some goddamn integrity. It's true that many on tbe left mindlessly follow 'their guy', but there are also people out there with integrity, who are ready to criticise the deatructive policies of Obama or Hillary and the damage they've done to the world. 
Suppoting Trump on the other hand is excusing a lot of shitty human behaviour for the sake of 'your guys' holding power. Be careful of what you're undermimining and what you're going to lose.

The truth is what we make it?  Wow. 
And "Jail?" This is the propaganda that infects populism and factless-based thinking. 
As much as I'd suppose you'd like it to be true, the GOP would probably be unable to launch a criminal indictment into Hunter Biden because it's only a wild-hair conspiracy and current investigations into Biden's role have him operating within the confines of the law.  Truthiness vs. fact.  Yarn on a white board is not criminality.  Regardless if Biden was guilty as sin, the POTUS is STILL not allowed to break the law to satisfy his inclinations.  It just doesn't work that way in a society based on law and order.  Here's another fact: DT could have worked to launch an investigation above board and he probably could have pulled it off.  You and I know he just wanted the political optics, not the reality.    
And please note that actual facts of corruption have led directly to jail time for those in the Trump orbit.  Indictments. Trials based on evidence.  Incarceration.  That's just a fact.  Ignoring that actual fact is wildly odd to me.
As for Kavanugh, it's a he said/she said.  Claiming your guy is right and she's a liar is an assertion.  Could be right.  Could be wrong.  Don't ignore that the justice department overtly refused to follow up with the accusations.  Might have led to absolutely nothing, but other witnesses were ready to testify and were not allowed to.  There's a fact.
Also curious how "not that bad" in your examples is atrocity level stuff.  Biblical injustices.  Sure it could always be worse.  We could implode as a species.  We might.  That's not an argument for allowing (or even encouraging) people to act in bad faith.
I'd rather it not get to that point, y'know?  Which is my point.  You push back at the small stuff because the small stuff adds up to a big result the more you let it slide.
Ultimately I'm not interested in disagreeing with opinions, I just want a baseline for reality...and we ain't got it right now.  It's slipping away.
Really?  I don't.  I guess I can't make the leap.  Too wide a chasm for me intellectually.  Moreover I believe it to be amoral, if not immoral to do something like this. If one's values are based on particular conditions, how valuable are they ultimately?

tbh Martin Scorsese is too dumb to understand that there are 1.386 billion paying customers in China, and making borderline retarded movies that a non English speaking child can easily understand is how you put asses every 18 inches........
 
 
 
IN CHINA

Wow, that is the most accurate summary of the MCU that I've seen. Like Scorsese says, they are not poorly made. Most MCU movies are clearly made with a lot of care and loving attention to detail, just not the details us snobs are looking for. Conveying "emotional, psychological experiences" is their antithesis. There's just the faintest scattering of storytelling: 3 acts, a villain, a half dozen callbacks to Act 1 in Act 3, and the rest is precisely a theme park ride. There is no attempt to communicate an abstract idea or feeling, all information presented by the movie is describing events as they occur, humorous one liners*, and information about the exact extents of a character's physical capabilities.
And it's not that fantasy or blockbuster movies are necessarily theme parkish. The Lord of the Rings conveyed an enormous amount of emotion. The Star Wars prequels -tried- to convey emotion, but were hit or miss on execution. Nolan's Batman films were entirely character driven, delivering on the psychological experience moreso than emotional.
*With the exception of Thor Ragnarok, and moments in Guardians, the one liners aren't even character-based. Any character could say any of the jokes and it would make sense. I'll also say that Thor is the only MCU movie I've seen that has recurring character jokes that genuinely advance our understanding of the characters and work off of previous content.

Yes and no : ) Just a figure. 4K won't be outdated as much as 1080p even today or 2K DCI or alike since ever.