andrgl

Always wanted Hi-fi monitors, never interested in doing the research tho. Ordered them just now, on sale. Hope they're as awesome as you claim.

First video monitored and mixed with the Focal Listen (multilayer sound effects toward end of video):
These headphones are so well damped it's like they have active noise cancellation. The sound is detailed, clear, with smooth highs and a wonderful sound. Super comfortable too. The Focal Listens are a fantastic upgrade ($249) from the already excellent Audio Technica ATH-M50 ($149) which is a nice upgrade from the Sony 7506 ($89). If you like the sound of the 7506 and/or ATH-M50, the Listens are worth a demo.
I had not heard of Focal before, and listened to the Listens at CanJam 2017, thanks again @HockeyFan12 for the tip! (my experiences here, including with many dynamic, planar magnetic, electrostatic, and the $55,000 Sennheiser HE-1 headphones: https://brightland.com/w/the-best-headphones/).
More reviews here: https://www.amazon.com/Focal-Listen-Closed-Over-Ear-Headphones/dp/B01H2NDPZY/
Focal Listen page: https://www.focal.com/en/headphones/headphones/listen/listen. Their top of the line headphones, the Utopia is $4000: https://www.focal.com/en/headphones/headphones/utopia/utopia, https://www.headamp.com/order/focal-utopia-open-back-dynamic-headphones/
The Listen headphones are designed for mobile, and also have a mic and remote button. The supplied cable is a bit short for production work, so I ordered one of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LM4ON3I/ which works great. A longer cable can be used as the included cable is detachable (the UGreen brand will work as the connector housing is narrow enough).
At CanJam I auditioned the Audeze LCD-X on my iPhone, then ran over and tried the Listens again on the same track- the Listens sounded much better! I'm sure the results will be different when using a high end amp, however the Listens will sound better too. The last headphones I listened to that got me this excited were Stax (which I finally ordered from Japan after the show).
Written descriptions and a video mixed with them won't show you how they sound- you'll need to demo them in person.
These are the kind of headphones that make you want to go through your music collection again, which I've been doing when not working on audio-related projects
A+ bang for buck!

So I was bored enough this afternoon to shoot a quick comparison using 3 different formats and a couple of lenses.
Representing full frame,APS-C and M4/3 we have my battered Nikon Df, slightly less battered Nikon D500 and criminally underused Panasonic GX80 respectively.
Lenses are my - even more battered than my Df - Nikon 24-70 2.8G and Nikon 70-200 2.8GII with an original Metabones Speedbooster for the GX80.
A multitude of caveats for this quick comparison are 
The 24-70 shots are a bit soft but its the same for all cameras (mis focused on the Df then it was left in manual for other bodies so error followed through to them) so doesn't really impact the results. It was quick so a couple of (minor) crops and exposure adjustments were done in Aperture. These were corrective for uniformity where I was a bit sloppy with the setups and again do not change the spirit of the results. Included in number 2, because it was a quick comparison, I've took a slight rounding liberty with the speedbooster calculation to make it easier to 'centre' the tests around the APS-C sensor. By this, I mean the 24-70 should really have been shot at 23mm on the APS-C to match what the M4/3 was doing at 24mm with the 0.71 Speedbooster but, well, that would've meant a different lens and I was already losing the will to live. Everything was shot in jpeg with standard profiles and then mangled into these lowish res comps so pixel peeping is moot but, again, it doesn't impact the spirit of the results. For everything else, did I mention it was a quick comparison ? The first comparison is at 24mm on the 24-70 and is 'centred' around the D500 at 24mm/f2.8 so the GX80 is 17mm/f2 and the Df was set for 34mm/f4.
The second comparison is at 70mm on the 70-200 and is 'centred' around the D500 at 70mm/f2.8 so the GX80 is 52mm/f2 and the Df was set for 105mm/f4.
My conclusions are :
With the same (high quality but pretty soulless) lenses on three different sensors representative of popular formats there is not enough difference to be losing sleep over. I need to have the Df serviced. I need to pressure wash the patio.  

Here a small test :
3009 x 1280@24p (upscale to 4k) + 14 bits lossless = continuous shooting.
I used the new ML Cinelog-C to Ektar 100 LANDSCAPE lut of @hyalinejim
Graded in Davinci Resolve 12.5, edited in Premiere.
 
 

@andrgl, thanks for the heads up! LOL
You made my Saturday night a way bit more funny, Lintelfilm! :-)

Ah, yeah, that was 'good fun', lol.  Luckily I got out pretty quickly, then they pulled the Facebook site, so even 'backers' couldn't inform eachother how things were looking, although I see that apparently they ultimately did give a statement and should've issued refunds last month. Maybe they finally won some money with gambling, it was the plan all along! Though admittedly, the modular design cinema camera was pretty dope. Like a Kinefinity system, but for cheapskates. Maybe Blackmagic could take the concept and run with it.

Yeah but she still has the best skin tone and still pretty hot. You kinda wish you could hook up with her again (even just once) if it wasn't for all her issues and the fact that she's a gold digger. 

One of my fav lens setups...
With 12-35mm f/2.8-4 mk II here:
 

Not while recording and the mirror is up

I can't believe it took this long for advertisers to realize that it's risky to serve your ads up next to random, user generated content. Of course there are going to be awkward placements. Advertisers are very sensitive about associations with their brands. Glen Beck was fired from Fox News because he lost all his advertisers, and the same thing is happening to Bill O'Reilly night now. Tune into any number of popular Youtubers and they say stuff waaay more controversial than O'Reilly or Beck. No one should be surprised that Tide Dish Detergent doesn't want anything to do with Pew Die Pie. As an artist, he should be proud of that fact.
There's always been a direct relationship between how much of your business depends on advertising and how bland your content needs to be. Broadcast TV is 100% ad based. That's why it's all sports, bland sitcoms, and boring dramas with no curse words. Cable TV is half and half, so it can be a little more daring. Then there's HBO who's free to do whatever they want.
There are plenty of Youtube channels that fall into the mold of broadcast tv, family friendly content that Oreos or Pampers would be happy to sponsor. Dude Perfect is a great example. They get tons of advertisers because they do fun, super-clean videos. On the other hand, Pew Die Pie, who drops the f-bomb every 5 seconds is probably closer to the HBO end of the spectrum. An ad based model isn't gonna work for him.
The realities of advertising don't change because #DigitalMedia. The fact that Pew Die Pie was able to pull in millions of advertising dollars up to this point was a fluke. If you want to be #controversial, you can't rely on dish detergent companies to pay your bills.

YouTube party over? Parties weren't meant to last. 

A lot of Youtubers have already found that sponsored content is a better way to earn money than through the Youtube ads anyway. Several channels that I watch are no longer monetised in the traditional sense, but they pause for 30 seconds in the middle of a video to plug something themselves. Film Riot has been doing this for a long time, for instance.
 
It will be interesting to see as time goes on if this becomes more commonplace, and if so, if Youtube will attempt to crack down on it and penalise accounts that run outright advertisements in their videos.

This is so disappointing and disgusting. 
And all the more reason you must keep EOSHD going Mr. Andrew; last bastion for freedom of expression!

All cables connected to D-SUB pins with tiny jumper plugs, so you can open the box and change configuration as you like just in few seconds.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can adapt Canon or Nikon lenses to the CY mount.
If you want a focal reducer for the cine lenses, your best bet is to get a EF to MFT model as that will allow you to use your CY lenses with an adapter, along with Nikon F/G and other mounts.
My only issue with EF adapters is that you'll want to get an electronic one that can operate the aperture as virtually all of them do not have a mechanical iris.
(I'm not a fan of electronic lenses, they tend to be prohibitively expensive to service so I prefer PL or Nikon F/G. Not that matters with the DS lenses as they're fully manual.)

I'm a simple man. When I see NX1, I press like.

It was the most 10bit article of EOSHD to date, but some people still can't notice the difference.

An Redlettermedia inspired post?

First time posting here but I've lurked this thread ever since andrew started it, which ultimately made me get a GX80.
Anyway, Ive been using a Sony a7s (mark I) since it came out and this was the first time I used my GX80 for a shoot. I wanted to use as little gear as possible, so I only took the cam, my lenses (14 2.5, 25 1.7, 42.5 1.7) and my glidecam (which I only used for the walking shots in the beginning). All filmed in 1080p50. In hindsight 4k might have been a better choice, but I'm happy with details, noise, etc..
Just one thing - the video has grain added in post.

During filming I wasn't too sure about the footage - especially using the kinda crappy EVF. But editing I realized everything came out pretty much as I hoped. The only times I felt the the camera wasn't up to the task were high-contrast images (see the shot at the counter, handing over the bag). Exposing for the bright parts would have made everything else too dark and otherwise the highlights were blown out. But using my Sony (and even an external recorder) woulnd't have resulted in a more balanced shot.
So, not to make this post too long, I'm stoked on this little cam and even consider getting a GH5.
If anyone's interested, I'll keep posting as I use the cam more and hopefully notice more detailed stuff (like using adapted nikkors, downscaled 4k vs. HD,...). Just don't expect scientific tests.

Mattias, you are so close, if you set ISO correctly you've got equivalence down.
What's the purpose of your videos? Is it to create drama or controversy to get views and negative engagement by doing things wrong on purpose, or is it to share your work, to help people make decisions and to help them learn how to shoot? Why not demonstrate equivalence correctly so other people can learn too?

Hi Andrew...we just watched Knight of Cups the other evening...Director Terrence Mallick and DOP Emanuel Lubezki....the moire on any stairwell scenes were so bad, it actually looked like a special effect....yet they don't seem to give a shit...because they're making a feature and overall Mallick makes visually some of the most stunning films in contemporary times...and in a way that's what I appreciate the most in how you view cameras in EOSHD....as a tool...not something to be squinted at at 400 percent zoom, but something that's possible to operate under the rigors and schedule of making a feature...not a single frame...because a frame represents 1 24th of a second in a 2 to 21/2 hour film....whether the tool overheats while you're shooting ....or is limited by how long you can shoot or is reliable, or can shoot while you're stumbling in the dark, are all choices the individual has to make for themselves, but if I had to say one thing that stands out for me in any piece of gear you write about, it clarifies for me as a filmmaker whether that piece of gear would work for me as a tool or not, and that as a resource is at least for me invaluable!
 

I was wrong.
I was a fool.
I bought a Ursa Mini 4.6k EF mount.
A week before the Ursa Mini Pro came out.
Opps.
But, still, this camera is incredible.
I was an idiot for criticizing them.
And now with the pro, they have delivered an ideal camera - capable of Raw or log for only $6000.  That looks like an alexa.  That is built well.  That is small.  That seems to not overheat.  A really amazing camera.
Blackmagic has done what Red had dreamed of.

Thanks for all the posts asking me not to quit EOSHD.
It's been a long time running this blog by myself - 7 years now!
I am completely disillusioned with the industry, the direction it is headed in, the lack of creativity, the focus on pros, the lack of quality online rivals, the bitterness that exists in the blogging community and the amount of clickbate out there.
It's going to take a miracle for me to get my passion back.

Do the experiment properly and you'll find that the perspective is the same.  Surely you must have heard countless times before that perspective depends only on the subject distance.  This is a truth that you shouldn't ignore.  More precisely, perspective depends on the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil of the lens.  For this reason, the entrance pupil is sometimes called the center of perspective.  I suppose you could call it the "point of the wedge" in your language.  FYI, technically, the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop as seen from the front of the lens.  So, in your experiment, just put the entrance pupil of both the 24mm and 36mm lenses at 10 feet from the subject, and the perspective will be precisely the same.  There are some easy techniques for finding the entrance pupil location with an accuracy of about +/-1mm that stitched panorama shooters use all the time - if you need help just ask.
The subject-to-image plane distance is not what matters.  Its the subject-to-entrance pupil distance that does.  So, this notion that full frame will be "further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format" is just another way of saying:  "oops, I goofed, and didn't keep the subject distance constant".

I'm sure they will , the Arri became industry standard due to the look , work flow and ease of use , with Codex Vault you are a great work flow from set to edit , so a 2.5 K camera with less resolution than some of the cameras here on this forum produced cinematic images in the right cinematographers hands , so resolution and 4k are not essential , its the lenses lighting composition and story ...is it entertaining ! That makes it cinematic . anyone on this forum can produce wonderful cinematic images with a bit of care and thought