Damphousse

6 hours ago, Vesku said:

I am quite experienced on video but in my shooting style I cant use manual exposure so carefully that the exposure would be always spot on. This is true with my photos too.

 

If you are experienced with still photography shooting full manual for exposure should not be a problem in most situations.  I learned how to shoot stills on a full manual FILM camera.  High quality full auto stills cameras for the masses are a relatively new phenomenon.  Autofocus is definitely a time saver particularly on modern lenses which are terrible for manual focusing.  But exposure?  Heck when I shoot film nowadays I actually use a hand meter almost 100% of the time!  I use an incident hand meter and it gets me where I need to be most of the time.  My dream is to be able to use a spot meter like Ansel Adams and really dial in my exposure but again I don't have the skill level.

My film cameras have built in filters but with black and white film you use yellow, orange, red, and green filters and of course polarizers so who knows what the meter is reading.  I have to use a handheld meter and then take the number the meter gives me in stops and do a mental adjustment for the whatever filters are on the lens and then translate that result into a aperture and shutter speed.  If someone really knows what they are doing with a DSLR and says using it in full manual exposure is a pain I submit to you they don't know what they are doing.

On 11/30/2016 at 7:39 PM, wolf33d said:

The best videos I have ever seen on Vimeo, that made millions of views, were all done with no ND, in semi auto mode, with little grading. 

I think here we always try to over complicate things, with all these settings and heavy gradings and so on. At the end we focus less on the image.

 

Yeah but obviously the best movies you've seen throughout your life were all shot manually.  If you don't know what your are doing it is foolish to miss shots simply because someone on the internet said full auto is crap.  When I teach people I always make sure they understand the full auto bail out (not the GM type).

I think the problem with the internet is people try and make things mutually exclusive.  You don't need full manual to get a nice shot and full manual is not destined to screw up your shooting experience.

On 11/30/2016 at 7:39 PM, wolf33d said:

btw, the last  video I have  done I tried once to just shoot. Forget about settings and concentrate on what I am capturing. Guess what, it's the best video I have ever done. 

I shot multiple stuff with ND and shooting manual outside with the 180 rule is a pure nightmare. Completely impacts creativity and spontaneity of the shoot. 

My 2 cents. 

That indicates to me you just need more practice.  Also what camera and lens are you shooting with?  Do you use variable ND?  Some manual cameras/lenses/ND suck.  Some are excellent.  If you look at discussions of cinema lenses you will notice even if a lens isn't the sharpest it might be 100-500+% more than the full auto DSLR lens equivalent.  The reason for this is they have various features that make full manual usage a lot more convenient.  There are other reasons but being parfocal, with a nice throw, clear markings, etc costs money.

It also depends on the project.  If you are shooting a documentary run and gun style as a one man band then you need all the help you can get.  But if you are doing an interview on a closed set it makes no sense to go full auto.  I've made some instructional videos and once I get my lighting and camera settings correct I don't touch the camera again until I stop filming.  I don't want the exposure and focus jumping around just because of what comes in and out of the frame.  There are times my lighting isn't ideal and I use shallow depth of field because of aperture but I know my marks and I stay on them.  I don't want the camera jumping the plane of focus around while I'm filming.  That hunting, jumping, and focus breathing reeks of amateurism.  I see that all the time on youtube.  Focus is jumping everywhere, camera is shaking, exposure is all over the place depending on whether a white sheet of paper comes in the scene or whatever.  Really it is something even a complete novice could fix with a few seconds of thought and a dirt cheap tripod.

Another major offense I see a lot in stills photography and video is blown highlights.  With raw I expose to the right till highlights are almost clipping.  I then recover the highlights in photoshop.  I don't know how you do that in full auto.  If I go out and shoot on a high contrast sunny day clipped highlights are guaranteed with full auto.  To be honest with you if I am shooting something like the beach where it is wide open and everyone and everything is illuminated by the same intensity of sun I meter once and set my camera up for expose to the right and then lock everything off for an hour.  Meter again and adjust as the sun gets brighter or darker.  I don't meter and adjust every shot.  That's unnecessary.  I meter and get an exposure that keeps the white clouds from blowing out.  Then I lock the exposure.  Not hard.  And in fact if there is going to be an action shot like kids running around, I get a decent depth of field and lock my focus in place.  Then I keep the children at a set distance from me.  It requires me to do some running around myself which is healthy.  The camera works faster because it is not doing anything but firing.  No focusing or adjusting exposure.  Full manual is actually a great way to NOT miss shots.

Bottom line, practice, practice, practice.  Also sometimes full manual is the only way to go and sometimes some kind of auto mode is the only way to go.  In the end they are all just tools.  YOU have to make the decision what is appropriate to use when, depending on your skill level.  I am not good at highly stylized grading.  I have pulled way back on that stuff.  Nothing wrong with grading but for my skill level less is more.

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Not trying to resurrect the discussion, but you were clear that I wasn't suggesting a Fidel Film right? I mean, I did title the thread that way, but no one would have recognized whatever the name of the guy the article is about. But yah, that's the film I was talking about, not Fidel. But obviously Fidel and his legacy would be a part of the story, and since the protagonist would be the torture victims, it would definitely not be a pro-Fidel piece. After thinking about it, you probably inferred all of that.

 

Yes.  It was very obvious you were talking about an antiCastro film.  I don't agree with Fox News, right wing radio, nor the right wing book complex but I can recognize a money making opportunity.  I can not like something and acknowledge it has a market.  My personal likes and dislikes do not dictate whether something can make money.

2 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Sorry to rub you wrong.

You didn't rub anything.  Just having an honest discussion about the economics of the media industry.

I mean when you look at TV, radio, books, etc you know I'm right.  Michael Moore's highest grossing film pulled in $120 million.  Glenn Beck made $80 million in one year after he was booted off cable television.  And Michael Moore is a bizarre aberration.  Look at the top grossing political movies and he is responsible for the majority of them.  Yet someone like Glenn Beck who most of the planet has never heard of can make in one year 67% of Michael Moore's top grossing movie AFTER he is kicked off TV.  And Glenn Beck's one year haul trounces the gross receipts from every other Michael Moore movie.  Michael Moore's second highest grossing movie made a comparatively pathetic $25 million.  Granted that is only theater revenue not DVD and bluray.

I don't know.  If I were working in that industry I would think those type of financial numbers would be something someone would be interested in.  At my day job they don't care about my politics and frankly prefer if I keep them to myself.  They want me to produce and go where the money is.  If the voracious appetite for this stuff amongst right wingers embarrasses you I don't know what to say.

I get people wanting to be artists and following their heart.  Money isn't everything.  I believe certain things but I know there just isn't a large built in market for it.  ALL the political movies I've watched were unimpressive to me.  They cater to the diehards or spice things up to compete with Hollywood blockbusters.  I guess reality is just too boring or too complex.  Like your Castro example.  I mean pretending history in Cuba started when Castro came to power makes for a nice simplistic movie that really appeals to a certain kind of audience.  But let's be honest no country is that simple.  From the time Christopher Columbus stepped foot on that island there has been suffering and oppression.  Let's talk about Columbus and Batista and Castro and all the other people the wonderful US education system never bothered to teach us about.  I would watch that movie.  But I know I am not in a very big market.  The market that wants to believe Columbus and Batista are saints and Castro is the devil is much bigger.

I'm not telling you not to make this movie.  I'm not telling you to tone the antiCastro propaganda down.  Quite the opposite actually.  I think if done correctly on a strict budget the project would sell enough to be profitable.  My problem is timing.  Due to Castro's protracted illness and stepping out of the public eye so long ago his death is a bit anticlimactic.  And with the Trump circus in town six months from now people are going to be like, Castro who?  As I said the thing to have done is to have a movie 80% ready and then when Castro died have one person in Miami and one person in Havana filming like crazy and then finish and release the movie in record time.  Starting cold now to me seems like you would hurt your chances of profitability.  Just my opinion.

On 12/1/2016 at 8:51 AM, Hanriverprod said:

That was trippy and soothing...

Lol!  That's what I was thinking.  It was like something for meditation.  I kept thinking, this must be what California is like.

1 minute ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Wow!!! Just wow!!! Is this the same cerebral bunch that completely bought the narrative that Clinton had the election in the bag, that Trump would NEVER be in the White House, and that the Republican Party as we know it had imploded and would NEVER hold any power again? Is it fair to say cerebral, but extremely gullible? Do those things even go together? I don't know.

And Clinton did exactly what the most high quality polls predicted.  She won the popular vote by millions of votes.  Even Trump thought he was going to lose.  Let's not get into revisionist history here.  No one predicted Trump would win Michigan nor that he would win the electoral college while losing by millions of votes.

Being cerebral doesn't mean infallible.  In fact recognizing that fallibility is part of being cerebral.  Besides you were just offered three independently verified data points (Fox News, NY Times bestseller list, fake news on facebook) that clearly indicated right wing minds are much more fertile and profitable places to plant propaganda.  I mean what is your explanation for why election after election millions more people vote for Democrats but yet there is no burgeoning cottage industry in nutty left wing books, radio, TV, etc?

3 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Are you saying his story is fabricated?

No idea who he is and I don't have time to fact check him.  I also know full well people are imprisoned and tortured right here in the United States every day.  I don't need to go to some other country to find a poor soul to make me realize how blessed I am.  I can just walk out my front door and see the suffering all around me.

Honestly as a content creator on a budget if you want to do a political project and increase the odds of success my suggestion is to aim it at right wing drones.  Sure you can do a moonshot and hope to become the next Michael Moore but if you exclude the outliers there are far more people on the right who you have never heard of who are making millions off of right win zombies... or at least hundreds of thousands.

I've watched a couple of Michael Moore movies but the way he plays fast and loose with some of the facts and shades things really turned me off.  Who knows?  Michael Moore and I probably have 90-95% similar voting records but I'm not going to go on the internet and ram his material down someone else's throat.  That's the difference.  See a right winger will gladly go and ram the National Review down everyone's throat and lambast you for even questioning it.  That's the point I was making.  I would much rather sell a movie to that market than to someone like me.  So much easier.

I will admit people on the left totally missed the market for Fox News.  I despise the network but you can't deny that stuff sells.  And it is why despite poll after poll showing the popularity of Democratic ideas I will never be involved in a left wing project such as a cable news TV show, radio show or book.  They are doomed to failure or certainly much lower levels of return.  That's just my humble advice to forum members.  Do your own research.    It is clear where the money is.

On 12/1/2016 at 10:15 PM, Jonesy Jones said:

nationalreview.com

That's where I stopped reading.

Quote

Political views

Victor Davis Hanson, a regular contributor since 2001, sees a broad spectrum of conservative, anti-liberal and pro-western contributors:

In other words, a wide conservative spectrum—paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, tea-party enthusiasts, the deeply religious and the agnostic, both libertarians and social conservatives, free-marketeers and the more protectionist—characterizes National Review. The common requisite is that they present their views as a critique of prevailing liberal orthodoxy but do so analytically and with decency and respect.[23]

The magazine has been described as "the bible of American conservatism".[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review

As Fox News illustrated there is a multibillion dollar market for this far right wing propaganda.  You can't argue with the economics of it.  Left wingers are far more cerebral so you can't have that kind of propaganda cottage industry catering to them.  They like facts and open debate.  Look at the fake news epidemic on Facebook.  The overwhelming majority of those stories were aimed at right wingers... because of their propensity to believe BS.

Direct quote from an interview with a fake news poster...

Quote

You mentioned Trump, and you’ve probably heard the argument, or the concern, that fake news somehow helped him get elected. What do you make of that?

My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?utm_term=.db5ec2dbecc1

Honestly with Castro's health issues I'm surprised people didn't have a movie ready to go, just in case.   You could have shot 80% of it and then just added contemporary interviews after he died.  As the National Review propaganda piece illustrates we already know all the recycled talking points:

1) Cuba was a paradise before Castro came to power

2)  Castro did nothing but bad things

3) Every Cuban hates Castro

4) Any Cuban that says they like or support Castro is just saying that because they fear for their life.

I don't know.  Maybe that fiction has been repeated so many times it lacks shock value or "newness" so it might not be a big financial success.  Hard to say.  Just looking at the New York Times best seller list, cable news ratings, and the volume of wing nut right wing tripe on the internet I still think there has to be a profitable project in there somewhere.  If you bought a couple of G7 and some cheap lights and sound equipment you could do something pretty good looking on a budget.

15 hours ago, Tarantinofan said:

8k, 6k, 4k, 2k, and HD, but most people still prefer having a DVD put in a DVD player regardless. I doubt that many people know what is Vimeo, and perhaps hardly have any money to afford Netflix.

 

Amazon Video is your best option.

That has not been my experience...

Quote

In fact, Netflix is in 36% of all American TV households, while Amazon is in 13% and Hulu Plus is in 6.5%, according to Nielsen.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/11/media/nielsen-report-netflix-amazon-hulu/

Keep in mind 24.5% of households don't have broadband.  So if you look at the universe of people who have a TV AND have broadband Netflix market share is pretty big.

8 hours ago, Vesku said:

5. Depends on scene and subject...

This.

I use variable ND and 180 degree shutter rule on the cameras I own most of the time.  If I need more staccato for a particular scene then I use a faster shutter speed.  ND, aperture, and shutter are all used for particular creative purposes.  Getting a certain amount of light to the sensor is only one thing that is important in a scene.  Freezing or blurring motion is another decision and so is depth of field.  The best is to set shutter speed and aperture independently to maximum effect of each.  Then go in with ND to deal with how much light hits the sensor.

3 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

1. full M @ 180° and NDs
(but if I don't have enough light, I might shoot at 270° for the half stop of light ! (I don't have low light friendly cameras))

This... too.

Realistically you have to use the camera you have with you.  Sometimes you have to do less than ideal things with aperture or shutter speed simply because of the limitations of your equipment.  I would be lying if I said in low light I use aperture purely to control depth of field.  Sometimes I am shooting at f/1.4 with a speedbooster because that's the only way I can get any kind of image on the sensor.

10 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Apples to oranges... ;-)

Yeah but every link on the internet that google crawls and factors into their rankings serves their purpose.  Google isn't going to analyze your "apples to oranges" statement and note your winky face before putting those guys at the top of the search rankings.  As President Trump illustrated any publicity is good publicity.

13 hours ago, Arikhan said:

• 2014 there were only 2.5 percent of consumers owning 4K TVs (in Germany) --> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/4K-TV-Ultra-HD-Geraete-verkaufen-sich-kaum-2349085.html (German language) - I know, in Japan it's much more, but worlldwide, 4K display market coverage is still a joke in comparison with marketing claims of manufacturers and distributors

My opinion: Till 4K and highest quality videos will get popular and viewable on bigger displays than just now, it will take years - if not a decade.

Same could be said of 1080p.  No one in the US broadcasts 1080p over the air.  The best you can get is 720p or 1080i.  Cable is terrible.  They compress their signal like hell to keep from building out more infrastructure and also they push 1,000 home shopping networks.  1080i over the air looks better than so called HD some cable providers are pumping out.  And streaming of course is heavily compressed.

Bluray penetration is barely better than 4k...

Quote

In other words, Blu-ray penetration, which currently sits at just 16 per cent, is unlikely to climb much higher if sales continue to follow the same pattern.

That is from a report in Australia in 2015.

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2015/02/blu-ray-is-nearly-dead-in-the-water/

Are either of those lenses parfocal?

These are allegedly parfocal lenses:

Tokina: 11-16mm f/2.8

Canon: 17-40 f/4 , 16-35 f/2.8 , 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS

Nikon: 17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S , 70-200/2.8 VR Mark I (not the Mark II)

Micro 4/3: Panasonic 7-14 f/4

Standard 4/3: Olympus 11-22 f/2.8-3.5

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4

On 11/24/2016 at 2:25 PM, hyalinejim said:

It's click bait BS. He couldn't even match WB between the two.

Yeah.  People seem intent on giving click bait as much free air time as possible.  Didn't even bother watching it.  I would like a 5D MK IV but realistically ending up with a G7 is more likely.  ONLY reason I would get a G7 is for video.  I would use the stills aspect because it comes with the package but I am sticking with Canon for stills for the foreseeable future.

I currently own a BMPCC that does things neither the G7 nor the 5D MK IV can do.  I don't really see the point of cherry picking and comparing the three of them.  You have to define your mission and then pick the right tool for the job.  Between the G7, 5D MK IV and the BMPCC I see missions for all three of them.

15 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Holy caramba, check out the price on my dream (semi affordable) DSLR:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/322237187093

Had quite a price drop lately! Hopefully it means a D750 mk2 with 4K is just around the corner

Damn.  Camera game is brutal.  FF Nikon 750 for $1,249.00 (refurb)?  Good luck selling micro 43 camera from second tier player for over $2,000.

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-iPhone-6s-vs-Nikon-D750-4K-video-beating-the-pants-off-a-DSLR_id74514

In any case, apples to oranges... ;-)

Nice of you to give that click bait even more attention.

9 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

Talk about cherry-picking my words and taking them out of context - I was talking about how there is a sense of awakening in the air regarding the mainstream Western media losing its power and influence.

You don't know me, mate. Drop the condescending attitude.

Take your own advice.  Your rants about agent orange, depleted uranium, and white phosphorus tells me you don't know anything about the US media.  All those topics have been reported on extensively.  Even several multimillion dollar lawsuits have been won.  I'm sorry but if you don't know about agent orange, depleted uranium, and white phosphorus that is your fault not the American media's.  Stories and lawsuits have been rolling out for years...

Quote

A proposed settlement has been reached in a big class-action lawsuit against Monsanto. The case is connected to the company's production of the controversial herbicide "Agent Orange," the defoliant the military sprayed over Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.

The case was filed on behalf of people who lived, worked and went to school in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia. For about two decades ending in 1971, Monsanto produced the herbicide 2,4,5-T there, which was used in Agent Orange. The lawsuit claims the company polluted the town with toxic substances, including dioxins, and

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/02/23/147302639/monsanto-reaches-settlement-on-agent-orange-class-action-suit

And yeah man we've read your posts and we know exactly where you are coming from.  Your broad sweeping statements about complex issues aren't going to solve any problems.

It's tactics like yours that have turned me off to a lot of documentaries.  With the cheap cameras available we should be living in the golden age of documentaries but when I watch these things inevitably they veer off into conspiracy land.  Anyone that says the US media hasn't covered Agent Orange is just living in an alternate universe.

5 hours ago, Simon Shasha said:

I can't help but feel that there is a sense of awakening in the air...

There is a serial sex assaulter and a white supremacist in the White House.  And this makes you happy?!

I realize you must be one of those one issue voters but you need to wake up and start seeing the world as the complex thing that it is.  Going on and on about Syria while the sex assaulter in chief appoints a climate change denier to the EPA is delusional.  When the entire planet is polluted no one is even going to remember there was a war in Syria.  Wake up!

The problem is a smartphone doesn't have to be the best.  It merely has to be "good enough".  Once it is "good enough" how many people are going to spend over $1,000 on a camera body and lens?  I used to upgrade my DSLR every two years.  I have been stuck on T3i forever now.  It is "good enough".

12 hours ago, joema said:

Apple is on track to spend $10 billion per year on R&D -- Nikon spends $550 million. Apple spends more on R&D than every camera company on earth combined (unless if you consider Samsung a camera company, who spends even more than Apple -- $14 billion).

It should also be noted Apple's gross margins have been shrinking for years.  The cost of making the iphone better and better keeps going up and consumers will not tolerate proportional prices increases.  Apple will eventually go the Canon way.  They will still be the biggest in a much smaller market.  With subsidized prices disappearing in the US people are upgrading the cell phones less and less.  When that day comes remeber you heard it hear first.

Quote

 Americans now take an average of 29 months to upgrade their cell phone, up from 28 months at the end of last year, and an increase of 24 to 26 months that was typical just a couple of years ago, as noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article. And just four years ago, the upgrade cycle was just 22 months. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/20/bad-news-for-apple-and-samsung-mobile-phone-upgrad.aspx

On 11/20/2016 at 6:09 PM, jonpais said:

First of all, I really had no idea young people weren't computer savvy. Secondly, your illustration is excellent. Thanks.

No, they aren't computer savvy.  They are iphone app savvy.  I know a number of kids who wouldn't be able to figure out how to set up nor trouble shoot a home network.

11 hours ago, berkenboom said:

The camera's in smartphones are getting better and better, but so do "traditional" camera's

And you cant beat physics. for example a f2 lens on a 1/2" sensor (~30mm2) wont cut it to a larger aps-c(370mm2) camera with even a kitlens.remember f2 on such small sensor its equivalent to  f11 (full frame)  due to the 5.41 crop factor.

The problem is a smartphone doesn't have to be the best.  It merely has to be "good enough".  Once it is "good enough" how many people are going to spend over $1,000 on a camera body and lens?  I used to upgrade my DSLR every two years.  I have been stuck on T3i forever now.  It is "good enough".

12 hours ago, joema said:

Apple is on track to spend $10 billion per year on R&D -- Nikon spends $550 million. Apple spends more on R&D than every camera company on earth combined (unless if you consider Samsung a camera company, who spends even more than Apple -- $14 billion).

It should also be noted Apple's gross margins have been shrinking for years.  The cost of making the iphone better and better keeps going up and consumers will not tolerate proportional prices increases.  Apple will eventually go the Canon way.  They will still be the biggest in a much smaller market.  With subsidized prices disappearing in the US people are upgrading the cell phones less and less.

Quote

 Americans now take an average of 29 months to upgrade their cell phone, up from 28 months at the end of last year, and an increase of 24 to 26 months that was typical just a couple of years ago, as noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article. And just four years ago, the upgrade cycle was just 22 months. 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/20/bad-news-for-apple-and-samsung-mobile-phone-upgrad.aspx

Sorry.  Forum software duplicated part of my last post.

13 minutes ago, markr041 said:

i dont understand why you used the word disingenuous when what you go on to say just repeats what i said - cameras that are labeled 4K dont achieve 4K resolution just like tv's labeled HDR  do not meet all the specs of HDR. I did not say all cameras or all tvs. You did add a lot of irrelevant info, which could be useful. Thanks for the praise.

Yeah.  Probably misunderstood your post.  I retract that statement.

Clarkson's Grand Tour is getting rave reviews.  Everything played out as it should.  Given who was just elected president of the United States I wonder if people have changed their mind about a standards authority yanking certain people off the public airwaves.  Imagine if The Apprentice had been pulled from the airwaves in 2005 and its star disgraced.

http://variety.com/2016/digital/global/amazon-the-grand-tour-top-gear-british-tv-critics-1201921808/

Crisis averted.  I told you guys.  If this guy is really as good as he thinks he is then he doesn't need to be mooching off the taxpayer.

5 hours ago, markr041 said:

3. On lying about "HDR". When a camera says it shoots 1080 video, you know it never achieves the full resolution (DeBayering, pixel binning). When a camera says it shoots 4K, does it really achieve 3840x1920 resolution? - no (but it usually means it has higher resolution than Full HD).

So lying is standard in video (do you call Canon a liar?). Same with TV's - do HDR TVs really give the full REC2020 color gamut? - none do. Do they have 1000 nits and above? almost none do. Are they 10bit - yes; do they have a gamut greater than REC709 - yes. Do they have a DR greater than REC709? - yes. So, you do get better color and DR compared with SDR.

This is somewhat disingenuous.  First of all not all cameras generate final images the same way.  Even within the same camera we see more detail with raw than a compressed codec (Canon 5D MK III).  Andrew has called out and praised multiple camera manufactures for lying or telling the truth about resolution.  1080p from the C300 has been praised.  It is down sampled from a 4k sensor.  I haven't done the math but obviously it is higher resolution than the 1080p from a T3i.  This has been noted many times by Andrew.  Even the C100 is down sampled from a 4k sensor.  Slap on an external recorder and you've got some of the best 1080p around.

And of course Samsung NX1, Sony A6300, etc.  All 4k downsampled from 6k.

Point being people should definitely call out lying by camera makers (as they already do), TV manufactures, and broadcasters.  I praise the people who point out that most TV content isn't even 1080p.  To be honest the only time my TV sees true 1080p content is when I fire up my media center PC.

On 11/16/2016 at 10:42 PM, SuperSet said:

A little bit like arguing that your team has more total yards except the other team scored more points.

Another fun fact. Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, and 13 Senate seats. And now 1 Presidential election.

You can see why the DNC is in panic mode.

I agree the Electoral College is not the only nor arguably the most egregious example of an undemocratic process in the United States.  For the sake of brevity and avoiding inflaming certain people I didn't want to make a complete list of all the times certain people have sought to override the will of the people.  But you are correct.  In election after election Democratic policies and ideas win the most votes and yet somehow when we awake the next morning we have Republican faces staring back at us... then we go with guns and bombs and lecture other countries about democracy.  Prior to the election President Obama and Eric Holder had already pledged

to work on the problem.  The Democrats should be in panic mode over undemocratic processes.  What they should not do is cynically change policies they believe in and that the largest block of voters like just to win an election.

Donald Trump lied his way to the White House.  There will be a reckoning.

I much prefer people to stick to their principles and let time prove them right or wrong.  Obviously a lot of what Trump promised was unrealistic or just a flat out lie.  That is why he is running away from his campaign promises as fast as he can.

21 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I don't know what the big deal is in regards to understanding this phenomenon of a Trump presidency.

Go to the damn Midwest and see how it is. It's really that simple.  Just see the reality they live in and understand their perspective. 

The lower middle class rust belt communities are sorrier than the 3rd world. Believe that. It's true. What the heck do you expect from people in that situation?

 

Billions of people have been in a lot worse situations for a lot longer without having a meltdown.  A blue collar white male's life can in many cases be better than a college educated black person's.

Plenty of situations where an uneducated white person was treated the same as an ivy league educated black person with a grad degree...

21 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

One candidate spoke to that reality, one did not. And that was what tipped the scales. 

I cant for the life of me imagine a scenario where Trump is a good president, but when voters are trying to give a big "F-You" to the establishment, they don't care about the outcome as much as they care about giving the middle finger to Washington. 

Of course, I'm speaking in context of the states that flipped the vote for Trump. The red states?  They just confuse me in general.  I mean, look at Kansas for goodness sake. 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/16/its-completely-ridiculous-to-claim-trumps-voters-are-no-good/

 

I take issue with the article you linked to.  It starts off with the false premise that people are claiming EVERY Trump voter is "no good".  In our hyper partisan world a Republican candidate is going to get at least something like 40% of the vote just by having a pulse.  There are a lot of people who voted for Trump that didn't chant "lock her up" nor "build the wall".  So I think that article constructed itself a strawman and then went crazy punching it.

But I do agree with you.  Certain people perceived that their lives sucked and acted out.  Whether I think it was justified or not is immaterial.  They did it.  The question is what to do going forward.  Part of the answer is time will teach them a lesson.  They will eventually learn Trump is a liar or if he does even half of what he claims they will see what a disaster it is.   It is too bad if the latter happens.  It will destroy many lives and cause many deaths.  But like George Bush's empty promises you have to blow a few trillion dollars and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths before some people learn.

19 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

Just a clarification: In a democracy...

Why are you telling me this?  mercer is the one that explained to all of us America isn't a democracy it is a Republic.  Take it up with him.  I don't want to get derailed into the whole democracy vs republic debate.  I don't want to get yelled at for quoting the original documents... by someone who just voted for someone who pledged to put originalists on the supreme court.

19 hours ago, mercer said:

I'm sorry I cannot have a logical discussion with you. It seems like you just spent the past hour researching the history of the Electoral College to negate a truth in our political system.

 

No mercer.  I am not a noncollege educated voter.  I went to college and grad school and have had a lot of life experiences and self directed continuing education.  If it takes you an hour on the internet to figure out this country and its long standing institutions were founded by a bunch of old white slavers I don't know what to tell you.  I was disabused of the Disneyfied version of American history a long time ago.  It takes me all of 1 second to smell BS when someone says the Electoral College exists to "protect small states".

19 hours ago, mercer said:

Look you seem like you're a decent person but I am not going to apologize for who I voted for and I am not going stand idly by while you spread half truths, cherry pick facts, and write condescending posts because you didn't get your way this election cycle.

The person that wishes to edit the whole slave thing out of the founding of our institutions says I'm "cherry picking" and "spreading half truths".  That's rich.

Look man at no point in my life have the "small states" needed to be "protected" from the big states via the electoral college.  No "cherry picking" required.  The forum members see I asked you to name some of the burning issues where Delaware and South Dakota banded together vs Cali and Texas to fight it out in the Electoral College and you can't even name one.... because after slavery, the reason for the electoral college, was abolished there was no reason.  There are 50 states.  Show me where the states out of the bottom 25% have fought it out with some states out of the top 25% in the Electoral College.  No "cherrypicking" needed.  Dealers choice.  So tell us.

This institution is so necessary to override the largest voting block in the country, it must be really easy to tell us why.  If another country overrode the will of the largest voting block we would invade the place and initiate regime change.  But when it comes to us hypocrisy reigns supreme.  That is why country after country tells us to butt out.

FYI "small state" doesn't mean what you think it means.  "Small state" doesn't mean small in geography nor population.  "Small state" when it came to the electoral college meant a state where there was massive disenfranchisement and power concentrated in the hands of a small portion of the population.  In contrast a big state was a state where the right to vote was more "diffusive" (ie places without slaves).

By the way a mix of 11 absolutely tiny states and gigantic states have passed laws backing a national popular vote.  There is one common thread though... All Democrat states.  So please tell us again about this big Electoral divide based on state size.

@Ed_David, as I stated elsewhere I have already shot and broadcasted material that has gotten national coverage and was able to affect lightning change locally.  I value my privacy and as with all things politics I did not want to deal with any insane backlash.  I wish I could say I carefully planned by intervention out but it was all kind of a fluke.  I attempted to effect change locally but couldn't even get my phone calls answered properly.  Eventually I did what was natural and shot some footage and stills.  A friend of a friend in the capitol heard about my issue and decided to publish some of my work in a national paper.  After that all heck broke loose and my issue was resolved.  It was crazy how many government bureaucrats and workers got on the case.

The thing was my issue was pretty non partisan.  My methods were nonpartisan.  I wasn't out to get anyone nor to prove a point.  I just needed a little help.  My problem with other issues is they are too partisan or at least perceived as being too partisan.  As this thread illustrates even asking someone why an arcane dysfunctional vestige of a bygone era still exists results in a fact free tirade.  Now how do you make a movie to talk to this audience?  Every bit of factual information you quote and link to they dismiss as either a metaphor or demand you never speak about slavery... just talk about the bits of US history I like.

I'll reread the thread.  I do this as a hobby.  I will see what professional storytellers have to say.  I definitely need to learn how to get my message across.  Long before this election I purchased some books and did quite a bit of research online about shooting documentaries.  With the democratization of equipment I gave serious thought to shooting a documentary talking about one of the big problems facing our country.  I wanted it to be a fact driven piece.  Unfortunately even if you quote facts with sources people that don't like hearing the truth will call you partisan and try and discredit you.  I don't want to do a brietbart heavily edited hit piece or a skewed Michael Moore movie.  Having said that unless you are doing one of those soulless cable news shows where every issue is 50/50 the documentary is going to hit one side harder than the other.  That is just the nature of things.  Few things in life are truly 50/50.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

You seem like an intelligent enough person to understand why the Electoral College exists and since we are a Republic, it is the only fair way to ensure that voters from less populated areas are represented.

The Electoral College is the law of the land.  At no point have I questioned it or made any remarks as to why it was created or whether it is a good idea.  I have been trying to stick with facts.  It's taken this many posts just to get people to acknowledge most American voters on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump and his ideas and Hillary had the most popular ideas.

I really don't want to get into the whole argument about the Electoral College.  Here is why...

Quote

During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

Quote

His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

So the Electoral College and a "Republic" as Madison defined it was nothing more than a means to control "Negros" and a power grab based on those controlled blacks.  Not exactly the person I would quote when trying to convince people about my decision to vote for Trump.

Besides the good ol' slave days there has not been a divide between big and small states.  Go look at a list of the smallest states and then see who they voted for.  Some of the most conservative and some of the most liberal states are small states.  12 small states (Democrat and Republican) received 0 political events during the 2012 campaign.  No one even stopped in to see what they thought.  No one is checking in on them and they are voting right in line with the big boys.  The idea that South Dakota and Delaware are going to team up in some national battle royale against California and Texas is absurd.

33 minutes ago, Snowfun said:

1 hour ago, Damphousse said:

 Hillary Clinton got the largest block of voters in this election and actually won by a bigger margin than Nixon, JFK, Gore and of course George W Bush among others.  These are FACTS.

Just as the majority of people in the U.K. did not vote for Brexit - 51% of those who turned out did  however. And it is futile for me as a Remainer not to recognise that.

May want to check your math there.  The remain crowd did not have the largest block of voters.

Hillary Clinton had the largest block of voters.  Remainers had an unpopular position.  Hillary had the most popular position.  These two things are different.  If you are going to make a factual video about the elections it probably behooves you to consider what the most popular positions were whether you agree with them or not.

20 minutes ago, tugela said:

Unlikely. 4K enabled sets are the bulk of models on sale today. Anyone buying a mid to high end set is going to have a 4K screen. In a few years those will be the only screens you can buy other than bargain basement models. HDR will NOT be a mature feature before 4K is.

Anyone who is buying a new TV and buys a 1080p screen is being very shortsighted.

What I meant was hang on to your 1080p television.  I had the 4k debate with a friend.  I didn't think it was a big deal at this stage and he was all over it.  I ended the discussion by telling him there really was no choice as far as new TVs since 1080p is getting phased out.  Like I said in my post 4k TVs are selling for a fraction of what I paid for my plasma.  But what I also said is even with that I don't think they are even at 10% market penetration.  Cost is not what is keeping people from buying 4k.  It is just HD is good enough.  Look at DVDs.  Blurays have been obsoleted by streaming video before they ever got the level of market penetration DVDs got.

Quote

The Australian Home Entertainment Distributors Association (AHEDA) has released its market data for 2014. In a trend that will surprise few Lifehacker readers, physical disc sales continue to dwindle. What's more surprising is that the decline was roughly identical in the Blu-ray (BD) and DVD categories. Could the era of Full HD physical media be almost over?

The AHEDA's latest report card paints a pretty bleak picture for the future of Australia's home entertainment market; at least where physical media is concerned. DVD and Bly-ray disc sales totaled $951,330,000 in 2014. While still a huge number, this is a decline of 10 per cent compared to 2013.

According to AHEDA's data, there was no difference in the rate of decline between DVD and BD sales. In other words, Blu-ray penetration, which currently sits at just 16 per cent, is unlikely to climb much higher if sales continue to follow the same pattern.

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2015/02/blu-ray-is-nearly-dead-in-the-water/

Sorry that quote is from Australia but I don't see why the US or UK would be any different.  I actually didn't realize Blu-ray penetration is that low.  My point being there is a precedent for a much newer technology eclipsing an older tech before it becomes the dominant thing.

I don't know enough about the technical hurdles of HDR to say what will happen with market penetration but I have made a choice to get off the consumer upgrade merry-go-round.  I can't think of anyone in my close circle of friends and family who own a 4k TV or plan to buy one anytime soon.  Most of those people also don't own a bluray player.  And I can only think of one person who with any regularity buys blurays... and that is mostly child driven.