dahlfors

Of course the colours will be punchier out of the box - he is shooting in Neutral on the D750. If you'd want to compare out of the box colours, Standard profile is the one to go for for a Nikon. Neutral on a Nikon will look less saturated than any standard profile on any camera. Amazing if this is news to that guy who says he shoots D750 and D810...

1. Blegh. Apple people. 4K on smartphones are a thing for a while now. 'But wooohhh, it's Apple doing it now, look at this, it's amazeballs'. I mean... really?
2. Can't agree with the topic title. It's still a tiny sensor... it's still a very deep depth of field, it's still oversharpened... I thought that was a thing we're trying to avoid by shooting with cameras like the D750, to be more filmlike. The iPhone's footage is way too screamy and harsh for my taste. It lacks nuance. Besides. DYNAMIC RANGE. Man.
3. Of course 4K -> 1080p is going to look sharper/crisper than regular 1080p from a Canon/Nikon fullframe DSLR. To me though, the amount of detail in a deep depth of field shot makes things flat, I need some layering

Indeed.
For you non-developers here: It's a whole different world to work with something like Canon Firmware & Magic Lantern where you actually have a nice code environment with a higher level programming language like C on ARM instruction sets vs working with Nikon firmware where there's no such development environment publicly available - and you must patch hacks in binary.
Nikonhacker project's slow progress isn't due to the developers being bad at development (I believe some members of Magic Lantern project are also contributing to Nikonhacker project ). Nikonhacker work on proprietary custom hardware that isn't as common & well documented as ARM - and have no proper higher level development environment. It doesn't matter how good of a developer you are and how much experience you have - something with less documentation (or as in this case, no public documentation at all) and without a proper development environment will always take longer to work with.

Indeed.
For you non-developers here: It's a whole different world to work with something like Canon Firmware & Magic Lantern where you actually have a nice code environment with a higher level programming language like C on ARM instruction sets vs working with Nikon firmware where there's no such development environment publicly available - and you must patch hacks in binary.
Nikonhacker project's slow progress isn't due to the developers being bad at development (I believe some members of Magic Lantern project are also contributing to Nikonhacker project ). Nikonhacker work on proprietary custom hardware that isn't as common & well documented as ARM - and have no proper higher level development environment. It doesn't matter how good of a developer you are and how much experience you have - something with less documentation (or as in this case, no public documentation at all) and without a proper development environment will always take longer to work with.

https://nikonhacker.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2316&start=210

SD / CF cards / USB memories:
Very resilient form of memory - there's lots of stories of cameras ending up soaked in water where the photos have been able to be read once the cards have dried up. The one weak part is the storage controller chip. If the controller dies - you can't access the memory by yourself unless you know your way around electronics really well and can hook up a 3rd party memory controller. Rarely the memory itself goes bad unless there's serious damage (like a fire) - so data rescue companies will likely be able to rescue data - for a price.
 
Blu-ray:
I've had properly stored DVD-R's and CD-R's have their data layers falling off for no reason after less than 10 years of storage (some of these failed ones were even expensive high-end brands marketed for their durability for long-term storage - while the cheapo brands have fared just as well). Most of the disks stored in the same manner for the same time period have had no issues at all. Due to this kind of random failure I think you'll never know beforehand which brands are safe to buy - or which batches from a brand that are ok. Hence I wouldn't recommend Blu-ray discs unless you do two copies every time. BD-R's on the other hand are very cheap - but if you got large projects you'll need to split them up on several discs.
 
SSD:
SSD's are actually same price or in general cheaper in price/GB than SD cards or USB memories. Very resilient memory - same thing applies as for other types of flash memory, the storage controller is the part that can fail. Even if storage controller fails, data should be possible to recover by data recovery companies - for a price.
 
Conventional hard disks:
The price/GB is still many times cheaper for hard disks than most other medias (BD-R's beat them, some tapes for tape drives might too). Due to hard disks often failing, and due to their fairly low price/GB - I'd recommend a NAS solution with proper redundancy. Redundancy means - should a hard disk in a NAS break, you don't lose data and don't need to find some means of recovery. You just insert a new hard disk and let the disk array rebuild. I'd recommend a NAS that has RAID-6 (2-disk redundancy) and at least 5 hard disks for longterm storage. The initial cost will be bigger, but for larger amounts of data and large projects this solution will win considered storage/price. Conventional large capacity hard disks will likely get ever cheaper the coming years due to larger & cheaper SSD's, until hard disks finally go extinct as a storage medium - in about 5-10 years.
 
Conclusions:
- If your data amounts that you want to put away for long-term storage is small - say, 500 GB per year, some flash-based memory will probably do fine. If your needs are larger than 4-5TB per year or so, I'd definitely recommend a NAS-based solution.
- If you know your projects will fit inside the size limit of BD-R's so you don't need to split discs - they're a very cheap solution, even if you burn double copies of the project for safe storage.

Didn't Sony also state the processor in the A7's is only capable of 8-bit? I'll wait for more concrete proof before rushing out to get an A7s. 

Visual concept for future project:
 
BMPCC,Lomo 35 Square front with 14mm and 50mm

That would be the 3rd topic on the same thing...

This could be a groundbreaking camera. According to sonyalpharumors, Sony is working on a camcorder prototype that has the same sensor as A7S - and of course internal 4K recording: 
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-sony-has-a-4k-camcorder-prototype-with-same-a7s-sensor-and-internal-4k-recording/

I've had my Sony A7s for a year now and within the week of getting it noticed that I had a hot pink dead pixel smack dab in the middle of my sensor..I noticed this while reviewing footage after a long day shooting a short...
I was pretty upset but mostly just because my brand new camera had a dead pixel on literally the first thing I used it on
After doing some digging I found that the camera doesn't have a setting to fix this like other cameras but you can force the camera to remap the sensor which will remove the dead pixel
I made a quick video showing how to do so:
 
https://youtu.be/LP1M7vZRwb0
 
I've known about this for a year now but just never got around to making a tutorial
I've had atleast a dozen hot pixels so recommend doing this every time you are about to use the camera for a shoot
Hope this helps somone

Hello!
 
We cant carry our NX1s, GH4s and A7s with us all the time. For those who want a good 4k camera that you can carry all the time, thats the best solution that I have found.
The best Android phones shoot 4k with a bitrate of aprox 48Mbps. They are not bad, but they have too much compression artifacts, contrast, saturation etc.
A few days ago I found an amazing app, and I would like to share it with everyone. I have no bonds with the app developer, but im afraid he will give up his project if there is not enough support. Im pretty sure he can make things even better.
What we have now with the app is:
 
- Flat picture profile (It recovers a good amount of highlights and a little bit of shadows)
- Better noise reduction (more like film grain. The stock one is very blocky)
- 24 fps - 30 fps
- 200Mbps!!! Thats the best part! Much better video quality. Less macro blocking, less banding etc, so you can recover more detail, grade the videos with the less problems etc. 
 
Frame grab from the Samsung Galaxy S6 stock camera - 4k at 50Mbps

 
Frame grab from the Samsung Galaxy S6 using the app at 200 Mbps
 

 
There is a lot of room for improvements, like more manual control, more control over the picture profile etc. But I do think that, at the moment, thats the best 4k camera that you can carry around all the time!
 
Lets support the guy, so he can make it even better!
 
The name of the app is CINEMA 4K, and its available for free at the play store! Make sure to update your phone to 5.1.1!!!
 
 

Hi Guys,
Yes, you are right. I am the developer of the Cinema 4K app.
I have started this development, because of the limitations of the built in camera app. I have also tried other apps for 4K video recording, but at the end I decided to write my own.
I have tested it on an LG G4 and Samsung Galaxy S6. On LG G4 the AE lock is not working and  - because of the weaker CPU - the 4K recording sometimes drops frames when other apps are running in the background. On the Galaxy S6 there is no SD card option, however I could attach an external storage over OTA and configure the app to record there. Works good.
Cinema 4K relies on the Camera2 API. This is quite new in Android and unfortunately not too many manufacturers implemented it on their phones. It also requires Lollipop (5.0) Android version. The Google Play Store automatically selects the available devices for download the app based on the OS. This might be the reason Note 3 is not listed. I will try to set this manually if possible.
Thanks for starting this forum and your valuable feedback. I am planning to add some new features in the future, but at the same same time I would like to keep the app as simple as possible and not to overload. The main idea is to get the maximum quality from the camera and later on you can edit it on PC/Mac environment.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Gabor

Here are some images showing my quickly put together test.  literally ripped apart a m58 helicoid so it would slide over the original male thread of the original focus part.
 
The front element was fitted into the helicoid.  i'd meant to make it so the front element didnt rotate but in the process of reworking the helicoid I damaged it and therefore the front element rotates as you focus.  No big deal, but it is actually possible to do this mod and have the element non rotating.
As you can see in the pics the front part of the helicoid with the front element seated in place now unscrews.  I actually used a rubber o ring cut to the right length which i squished around the front element.  this naturally pushes it centre and is tight enough to hold the element in the front part.
 
two shots are show.  wide open at f2 on a 58mm lens on aps-c. (3:2).  one at infinity, one at around 3 feet.  rack from inf to 3ft is around 3/4 of a turn!
Closing to f2.8 sharpens stuff up drastically.  as does using on a smaller sensor - 4:3 4k mode on gh4 would be ideal for this lens
 
flares are wonderful by the way!  
 













 
NB.  
 this method of modifying the B+H was showed to me by the good man Nick (QuickHitRecord), who was actually going to be manufacturing focus units for the B+H design and made the concept public on this forum long ago.   It was unfortunate Nick never got this to the manufacturing stage but i feel he deserves a pat on the back for making this public.  Hopefully some other people can make a working unit like this one.

Hi Guys.
 
I'm actually in the process of designing the mechanical focusing section for OLIVIA-SCOPE-1.5x since current glass prototype is fixed at infinity in order to get the cylindrial section perfect before moving onto the simple and easy spherical focusing optics.
 
One thing I do know is that the amount of focus throw, and spacing of elements is going to be very similar to the optic spacing in the Iscorama, from 4ft to infinity (around 10mm), so I am currently designing the mechanism to shift the huge front focus element back and fourth.
 
Here's the cool thing...  I'm going to be manufacturing the focusing mech as a scaled down prototype to test its function, before making something that costs around £250 worth of brass alone for the full size unit.  I'll be designing the miniature mock up to fit the current elements from the Iscorama 36 and pre 36 (since I have one here).  
 
So there may be the possibility of offering a limited run of isco 're mechanising' to existing Iscorama users who are not willing to leave the 'rama platform and it's compactness and low weight.  
 
So, the focusing mech/rehousing will provide 3.5ft-inf focus, with hard stops at each end.  non rotating front element, with a profile 82mm filter thread, minimal added weight, focus gearing (where gears dont rack back and fourth during focusing),  the rear element willremain protruding to allow for deep seating into the front recess of a taking lens, and probably have some type of rail support.  Pretty much everything the original Van Diemen rehousing should have been.
 
When it comes to manufacturing, I'll likely have a few mechs made.  it'll be a one off run at this size, and am expecting the cost of the mechanism as well as rehousing of a supplied iscorama to be in the region of £500-800.  So if there are Iscorama 36 / pre 36 users who might be interested please let me know so i can hit you up at time of manufacture and see if you want me to have some parts manufactured.
 
R   
 
 

FFS.  how about rather than debating something that benefits no one, and is impossible to debate without knowing exactly what's happening inside the camera, why not go and shoot something and benefit from the feature.   It's shooting 24/25p, and with a shutter speed of 1/4 or 1/5th of a second.  That's whats on the screen, so that's what's happening.  The engineers at Sony know more than anyone here.  Canon limits the shutter speed to 1/30th in video mode.  Sony limits to 1/4th of a second.  whether its 25fps with 5 frames duplicated, or 5fps, the result is EXACTLY THE SAME when conformed (sped up) to a smooth motion (600% in 24p/1/4th or 500% 25p/1.5th).

Sony allow as slow as 1/4sec at any frame rate.  shooting at 25p and 1/5th sec then speeding it up by 500% gives beautiful low light results for timelapse type stuff.  with the motion blur which is very pleasing for thing slike cars in the dark.  
https://vimeo.com/52579247 
 

If colour is your only problem then you're in luck my friend. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8438-pleasing-neutralising-panasonic-luts/ It was created by colour matching GH4/GX7 footage to Canon footage of the same scene and colour charts. 

Nah, just get a Sony A6000 instead. 
 
Or even better... Dont get a camera at all!! ;-)
 
Wait for the Sony A6100/A7000/A7smk2 to come or to see a big drop in A7s used prices. 
 
Just say pass on an A7!

I want to 2nd what Dahlfors said.  I have photos on an old WD Worldbook.  It failed, and because the card has proprietary encryption whatever, I was about to buy an old unit to try swapping the circuitry out when someone on the Internet said I could snip the diode and it would work again (not something you'll obviously do!).  Electronics die over time.  I was lucky.  That's why I strongly advocate having a few backups.
HEAT is the enemy of ALL THINGS ELECTRONIC.  Put a fan on it if you aren't in a cooled atmosphere.  Also, make sure you have good surge protection, etc.  
 

If you're looking for both speed and redundancy, RAID-10 or RAID 0+1 will be better.
The RAID levels using checksum data (RAID-5, RAID-6 and such) will always be slower.
But, with a fast enough processor for the raid storage you can get decent speeds out of RAID-5 and RAID-6 levels too. I'm not sure what kind of CPU that device has.
 
Here's a test you can do if you have an internal SSD:
Just create a large file that you put on SSD, preferrably a few TB's of size. In terminal you can do the following command:
time cp /path/to/testfile /path/to/destination
This will test the write speed of your volume (as long as the internal SSD is fast enough). time is a command that will give you the exact time it takes to execute a command. cp is the unix command for copying files.
Do this test both for RAID-10 and RAID-5 on your device. For reading from the volume you just switch the source & destination paths and write to your internal SSD instead.
 
A note here: If you don't have a fast enough SSD, you'll be benchmarking the read/write speed of the SSD instead of the thunderbolt volume. Then you'll have to find some software/script that can create semi-random data fast enough in realtime for benchmarking reads & writes.
 
Anyway, how fast your volume will be with RAID-5 is very cpu dependent. I'm myself using a NAS I built myself which uses ZFS raidz2 (functions similar to RAID-6). The network connection is my limitation and I've reached write speeds of 400-500 MB/s when benchmarking on the machine itself with no network involved. Read speeds are even better. But that machine has quad-core Xeon cpu doing the checksum calculations.
 
In the end what matters for you when you do your copy tests:
- What sequential read & write speed is fast enough?
- Is the most speed or the most available disk space more important?
If you have the time to test with real data (test with the highest bitrate material you will be using), try that on RAID-5 first. If that is too slow - you will get a bit more speed out of RAID-10 and can rebuild the array with that.

A friend of mine is the head of marketing for Boosted Boards.  I tried out the dual+ model with a Ronin. Top speed of 22 mph and travels 6 miles on a charge. Also, it has reverse, regenerative braking, and I think it weighs under 15lbs.  Super stable and I felt comfortable right away (used the camera on it after less than 5 minutes of use). If I lived in a large city I would already own it for transportation. For video I can see it would be very handy for certain shots, but I will have to try out the mini segway as well.  Has anyone tried both and can give input on which would be better for video purposes? ( price not a primary factor )  Here is a very impromptu video shot five minutes after my first time ever on an electric longboard.  I was a little nervous going wide open as a fall would probably mean the end of the gear and possibly a trip to the E.R. but you only go around once right?  (click 4k )
 

One thing to keep in mind: if/when these proprietary hardware solutions fail - you won't be able to get to the data on them until you get an identical unit delivered back that can detect the disks.
Hence it's smart to backup to other thunderbolt / USB3 disks, preferably also when you're in the middle of working on a project.
If you keep that in mind, it doesn't matter much what mode you set the device to, as long as the controller in this hardware device is up to the processing.
Personally I wouldn't go for RAID-0 with four disks. If one single hard disk fails (with 4 disks, the chances for this happening is four times higher than with a single hard disk) - the whole array fails and won't work until you've plugged in another disk and rebuilt the array. With large disks this takes quite a while, and also note that any data that existed on it needs to be copied back if it was running RAID-0 - since all the data is lost in case of one disk failure. So it can cost you time...
If you run the array in RAID-10 or RAID-5 mode, you can lose one physical disk and keep on working (actually in RAID-10 mode you can lose two disks and keep on working if you're lucky and lose the right disks). Later you can insert a new disk and put the array rebuilding in a few days when you have the time to wait for the rebuild.
I've been building file servers for myself for 15 years, so quite a few things that seem obvious to me might not be obvious for others. But feel free to hit me up with questions if something seems unclear.

I might not be too professional about this, but I came to the conclusion that complex RAID setups are nothing for me and as long as you're no data host or anything, I don't believe it has to be for you, either.
Consider this: the really high transfer rates you need only for editing, so I go like this: I use a RAID 0 of two inexpensive 7.200 RPM HDs for editing, temporary storage, two SSDs (one for OS, one for caching), so you can always read from one, cache on another and write to a third array/disk. If you need more speed, just use an SSD RAID 0 or whatever. In terms of storage and backup I use inexpensive USB 3 solutions like these:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tool-free-Inateck-Including-External-Comaptible/dp/B00GIDNLI6/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1440515061&sr=8-10&keywords=inateck+usb+3
Windows 10 works perfectly with USB 3 solutions (previous Windows versions did have issues), dunno about Mac, though. I just dump the data onto inexpensive 7.200 HDs (write speed around 120 to 140 MB/s), handwrite something on the label and put them into a closet. If the data is super precious, just get two disks. I do have a Synology 8-bay NAS, but I hate using it. And if something goes wrong, rebuild times are tedious, the damn thing has to run all the time and it's not as fast as your main workstation. So nowadays I'm all about JBOD (just a bunch of disks) as long as you have good control over your environment and shit. Works as long as you're no corporate bigwig. Inexpensive, uncomplicated and imho reliable.
Oh, if anyone in Europe wants to buy the Synology DS1813+, give me a shout.

If you're looking for both speed and redundancy, RAID-10 or RAID 0+1 will be better.
The RAID levels using checksum data (RAID-5, RAID-6 and such) will always be slower.
But, with a fast enough processor for the raid storage you can get decent speeds out of RAID-5 and RAID-6 levels too. I'm not sure what kind of CPU that device has.
 
Here's a test you can do if you have an internal SSD:
Just create a large file that you put on SSD, preferrably a few TB's of size. In terminal you can do the following command:
time cp /path/to/testfile /path/to/destination
This will test the write speed of your volume (as long as the internal SSD is fast enough). time is a command that will give you the exact time it takes to execute a command. cp is the unix command for copying files.
Do this test both for RAID-10 and RAID-5 on your device. For reading from the volume you just switch the source & destination paths and write to your internal SSD instead.
 
A note here: If you don't have a fast enough SSD, you'll be benchmarking the read/write speed of the SSD instead of the thunderbolt volume. Then you'll have to find some software/script that can create semi-random data fast enough in realtime for benchmarking reads & writes.
 
Anyway, how fast your volume will be with RAID-5 is very cpu dependent. I'm myself using a NAS I built myself which uses ZFS raidz2 (functions similar to RAID-6). The network connection is my limitation and I've reached write speeds of 400-500 MB/s when benchmarking on the machine itself with no network involved. Read speeds are even better. But that machine has quad-core Xeon cpu doing the checksum calculations.
 
In the end what matters for you when you do your copy tests:
- What sequential read & write speed is fast enough?
- Is the most speed or the most available disk space more important?
If you have the time to test with real data (test with the highest bitrate material you will be using), try that on RAID-5 first. If that is too slow - you will get a bit more speed out of RAID-10 and can rebuild the array with that.