andrgl

Vimeo still trumps YouTube for quality & there don't seem to be any other realistic options at the moment.
So i'm going to stop worrying about their new auto select function, since every viewer has the option to choose the quality of playback if they want to.
I've got until September to decide whether or not to renew.
Perhaps if you leave some constructive feedback, things might get better - since telling them you don't want this function isn't going to work. Work with them to make it better seems the only solution.

Sharpness / resolution / microcontrast / local contrast / global contrast are all the same thing at different frequences. Resolution/sharpness represent the highest frequencies up through larger scale contrast at lower frequencies. An image is a composite of all the frequencies, from lowest to highest. This can be visualized by looking at the discrete cosine transform (used in JPEG, H264 etc.):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform#/media/File:Dct-table.png
The MTF is one form of lens performance measurement: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-quality-mtf-resolution.htm
I noticed in the Nikkor vs. Sigma examples, the Nikkor lost a lot of detail in the shadows, and the shadows were also blurrier (less fine detail, along with an overall lower detail image. Less detail/sharpness can help make images look more organic (digitally sharp images look less real)). To generate a similar look in post, we could write code to blur pixels based on luminance level.
If one prefers the look of, for example, a particular Nikkor over a Sigma, comparing their MTF charts might be helpful in understanding why. Not all frequencies are captured the same, and performance variation through the spectrum can explain why one lens is preferred over another, for a particular use. If "imperfect" lenses have desired character, these imperfections can be measured, and then used in marketing material to help people get a desired, and known look. Without hand-waving, internet arguing, and pseudoscience
 

I would edit raw over prores any time, from any camera. 

I think your grading is awesome and the camera moves are sweet. The codec dying is just part and parcel with having everything in focus. (And to be honest, the video consumer usually doesn't even notice.)

Ignore those last pics of cages they were just some test rigs I threw together from spare parts from our grip store , The Cages I use to shoot with are GINI RIGS see pics of the 2 Nikon Bourne Lenses fully rigged up with Gini Rigs 5D MK111 cages , I like these big cages as I can get my hands inside on the camera to make adjustments , I dont like small cages that totally cover the camera - so all my shooting rigs have these superb Gini Rigs cages and lens supports and super smooth Gini Rigs follow focus , these are BIG follow focus great for very fine focus moves, the camera is mounted ona quick release plate inside the rig so you can de rig the whole camera and lens assembly out the rig when needed , lenses are all cable tied to lens supports to stop any lens movement due to follow focus .

I think your grading is awesome and the camera moves are sweet. The codec dying is just part and parcel with having everything in focus. (And to be honest, the video consumer usually doesn't even notice.)

The word filmic to me has only to do with the visual characteristics of film and film cameras.
So colors, grain, DR, subject motion/shutter.
Camera movement, audio, lights, composition, actors, etc, that try to look Holywood I file under cinematic.

Friday 7am London time sees the release of a firmware update for the Sony FS5 which optimises the performance of internal recording, fixing the issues spotted by early adopters of the camera including myself (Andrew Reid) and Paul Antico.
Read the full article

F/stop is a ratio between focal length and pupil size. It has nothing to do with image circle size.

Ugly, ugly post. Here's a clean table:

I've managed to build secondary income from YouTube. If I continue to grow at the same rate, I'll out earn my day job in a few years. It's taken over two years (started in Jan 2014.) Managed to do it without running a single ad on my channel.
Is it what I originally set out to do? Nope. But I learned to pivot and "sell out". My first few ideas were idealistic. But they had no market. Totally unviable projects. You have pander, especially to your strengths. I realized an opportunity and exploited it for gain.
The experience has made me humble to be honest. When I hear or read someone's idea, I hope they succeed. There's nothing like grinding out a win. That said, my experience has made me shrewd. I am very critical of my own ideas. I very rarely entertain things that I'm interested in. Instead, I consider projects that know I can outcompete others at. I still expect to fail, but everything I do is so thought out. The work isn't fun, earning the revenue is what I like now.
Business income is damn sweet too. Camera gear, computer hardware and other things can be written off. The money is burning a hole in my bank account, if I don't spend it, I hit a higher tax bracket.
---
As an aside, I started out in video doing real estate spots. High end stuff. Know a few realtors. I shot HDR style for a unique look. Also aped some strobe-like compositing with a motorized slider and head. Was able to do multiple takes and stitch the video together. I burned out after a year of working whenever I had spare time.
Used the earned cash to start a studio. Hit YouTube with a sorta of video pinup girl channel. Stupidly used big IP. Quickly got slapped with a C&D notice. (Don't fuck with big corps, especially if your selling your take on their TDs.)
Sulked. Raged. Considered selling my gear. Learned about monetization. Did some research and found an epic opportunity. Spent a lot of cash up front and slooowly began to earn.

I've managed to build secondary income from YouTube. If I continue to grow at the same rate, I'll out earn my day job in a few years. It's taken over two years (started in Jan 2014.) Managed to do it without running a single ad on my channel.
Is it what I originally set out to do? Nope. But I learned to pivot and "sell out". My first few ideas were idealistic. But they had no market. Totally unviable projects. You have pander, especially to your strengths. I realized an opportunity and exploited it for gain.
The experience has made me humble to be honest. When I hear or read someone's idea, I hope they succeed. There's nothing like grinding out a win. That said, my experience has made me shrewd. I am very critical of my own ideas. I very rarely entertain things that I'm interested in. Instead, I consider projects that know I can outcompete others at. I still expect to fail, but everything I do is so thought out. The work isn't fun, earning the revenue is what I like now.
Business income is damn sweet too. Camera gear, computer hardware and other things can be written off. The money is burning a hole in my bank account, if I don't spend it, I hit a higher tax bracket.
---
As an aside, I started out in video doing real estate spots. High end stuff. Know a few realtors. I shot HDR style for a unique look. Also aped some strobe-like compositing with a motorized slider and head. Was able to do multiple takes and stitch the video together. I burned out after a year of working whenever I had spare time.
Used the earned cash to start a studio. Hit YouTube with a sorta of video pinup girl channel. Stupidly used big IP. Quickly got slapped with a C&D notice. (Don't fuck with big corps, especially if your selling your take on their TDs.)
Sulked. Raged. Considered selling my gear. Learned about monetization. Did some research and found an epic opportunity. Spent a lot of cash up front and slooowly began to earn.

I've managed to build secondary income from YouTube. If I continue to grow at the same rate, I'll out earn my day job in a few years. It's taken over two years (started in Jan 2014.) Managed to do it without running a single ad on my channel.
Is it what I originally set out to do? Nope. But I learned to pivot and "sell out". My first few ideas were idealistic. But they had no market. Totally unviable projects. You have pander, especially to your strengths. I realized an opportunity and exploited it for gain.
The experience has made me humble to be honest. When I hear or read someone's idea, I hope they succeed. There's nothing like grinding out a win. That said, my experience has made me shrewd. I am very critical of my own ideas. I very rarely entertain things that I'm interested in. Instead, I consider projects that know I can outcompete others at. I still expect to fail, but everything I do is so thought out. The work isn't fun, earning the revenue is what I like now.
Business income is damn sweet too. Camera gear, computer hardware and other things can be written off. The money is burning a hole in my bank account, if I don't spend it, I hit a higher tax bracket.
---
As an aside, I started out in video doing real estate spots. High end stuff. Know a few realtors. I shot HDR style for a unique look. Also aped some strobe-like compositing with a motorized slider and head. Was able to do multiple takes and stitch the video together. I burned out after a year of working whenever I had spare time.
Used the earned cash to start a studio. Hit YouTube with a sorta of video pinup girl channel. Stupidly used big IP. Quickly got slapped with a C&D notice. (Don't fuck with big corps, especially if your selling your take on their TDs.)
Sulked. Raged. Considered selling my gear. Learned about monetization. Did some research and found an epic opportunity. Spent a lot of cash up front and slooowly began to earn.

I've managed to build secondary income from YouTube. If I continue to grow at the same rate, I'll out earn my day job in a few years. It's taken over two years (started in Jan 2014.) Managed to do it without running a single ad on my channel.
Is it what I originally set out to do? Nope. But I learned to pivot and "sell out". My first few ideas were idealistic. But they had no market. Totally unviable projects. You have pander, especially to your strengths. I realized an opportunity and exploited it for gain.
The experience has made me humble to be honest. When I hear or read someone's idea, I hope they succeed. There's nothing like grinding out a win. That said, my experience has made me shrewd. I am very critical of my own ideas. I very rarely entertain things that I'm interested in. Instead, I consider projects that know I can outcompete others at. I still expect to fail, but everything I do is so thought out. The work isn't fun, earning the revenue is what I like now.
Business income is damn sweet too. Camera gear, computer hardware and other things can be written off. The money is burning a hole in my bank account, if I don't spend it, I hit a higher tax bracket.
---
As an aside, I started out in video doing real estate spots. High end stuff. Know a few realtors. I shot HDR style for a unique look. Also aped some strobe-like compositing with a motorized slider and head. Was able to do multiple takes and stitch the video together. I burned out after a year of working whenever I had spare time.
Used the earned cash to start a studio. Hit YouTube with a sorta of video pinup girl channel. Stupidly used big IP. Quickly got slapped with a C&D notice. (Don't fuck with big corps, especially if your selling your take on their TDs.)
Sulked. Raged. Considered selling my gear. Learned about monetization. Did some research and found an epic opportunity. Spent a lot of cash up front and slooowly began to earn.

Wow!

From 4.6K by https://www.facebook.com/thedreamersnl/
 



I recommend going to their FB page... the compression from these copies looks quite bad.

From www.lightformfilm.com

Im using the Nikon Glass as it is all very consistant and cuts together very nicely , and I do like the look it creates , it doesn't crush the blacks like Canon lenses do , there is alot of detail in the grays too , I use the 20-35mm with a Metabones XL Speedbooster as it has the equivilant of super 35mm gate /field of view . I very rarely shoot beyond 20mm , as Im not a fan of wide lenses much , I know lot of people on here want the widest fastest lens they can get but for me its just not cinematic at all - looks like video due to such a big depth of field . I shoot on long lenses most of the time as thats my style and I prefer the look and separation you get . most of the time I shoot with strict lens decipline on set 28mm for the wides , 40mm for the mids and 70mm for close ups and 100mm for the head shots , thats it ! so I'm never really in the 20mm range much , 20mm is there on the Nikon if I need it and I always carry a 14mm and 17mm incase for extreme wides - but they dont get used much by me!
On my last film the Producer was constanly saying - 'Don't use wide lenses they look unprofessional !!'  meaning no mega deep focus !!
on the Sony Vs Panny theme , if I was filming in moonlight in a field I migh use the Sony , but the Panny is an amazing camera , I use lighting , I play in the shadows alot , thats the look I prefer ,I dont over light and the Panny works great in low light very very clean in the blacks no fizz and noise , I never go over 800 iso , 200- 800 iso is my range and I light for that - it works.
 
The G7 really does hold it own against the RED and The Alexa , its a great clean camera - and you can stream 4k to an ATOMOS NINJA ASSASSIN and record 4K ProRes at 744 mb/s - amazing !!

The Fuji Premier 14.5-45mm T2.0 ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/840519-REG/Fujinon_HK3_1X14_5_F_HK3_1X14_5F_14_5_45mm_T2_0_ZOOM.html ) is pretty well known in the professional cine world.  But, if you've ever hefted one in person you know its not only priced like a small house (~$100k), its nearly the same size and weight as well!  So, naturally, I'm curious to know how it might perform on the upcoming A6300 in comparison to something much cheaper.  Like the Tamron 24-70mm/2.8 with a Speed Booster, which gives you a 17-50mm/2.0.  Obviously, the latter is practically $free compared to the former, and you do give up the 14.5mm - 17mm range along with perhaps 1/4-1/3 stop difference in aperture due to f/# vs T/#.  But, you gain autofocus, image stabilization, a little extra reach at the long end, and an unbelievably huge reduction in size/weight/cost.  I would not be surprised in image quality is nearly equal.

Thanks for sticking up for us shooters Andrew! Instead of acting like some corporate stooge.

Last week I had an insight into just how responsive Sony are becoming in rolling out support for their cameras. As users like myself and Paul Antico discovered soon after the FS5 was released the image had some issues. The very week I bought my camera Sony were in touch by email - I was then tasked to shoot some tests and send the XAVC footage to their engineers in Japan so they could work on analysing the problem. The detective work complete, Sony have now just released a statement saying they've identified the bugs and will squash these in upcoming firmware updates.
Read the full article

Yeah, this is just my point.  Unless you want to fork over the money for a Red Weapon, you are going to be making a trade off.  The trade off with the Raven is that you will be shooting using Red's 4.5k  or 4k sensor size for your projects instead of the 6k size.  I know for people who are used to shooting full frame or S35 this feels like a big trade off, but at least the FOV can be compensated for with lens and framing.  It is a lot harder to fix bad color that was shot on an inferior sensor-- and many times can't be fixed.
If you shoot with PL glass, spend another $5k and get the Scarlet-w.
I sound like a Red fanboy and I'm not.  I've just graded a lot of Red footage in addition to Sony, Canon, Nikon, GoPro, DJI, Phantom flex, and others.  Red is just a very workable image that gives nice results.  Same can't be said for some of those other options.  
Obviously, different tools for different projects, but I hate to see people write off a Red just because the sensor is slightly smaller than S35.

Like... this?

Used Epic with the Mysterium-X sensor. That's what I have my sights on currently. Rented a kit last week. Blown-the-fuck-away.
You're right Oliver. Dat redcode is so thick and dense.
Fuck it, even at $20K, it's a cam I can use for the next decade: 16-ish usable stops with HDRx. 120 FPS 4K, RAW format... Bonkers.

Terrible. I use a 3930K (admittedly an older 2011 socket CPU, but still packs a punch,) and 980 Ti with Resolve. h.264 stutters while scrubbing.
4K RAW or ProRes from the Production Cam with noise reduction, and usually a dozen or so nodes of correction? Scrubs buttery smooth, never drops a frame on playback.