Damphousse

And the hand resumes gently stroking the cat.

Matty, scientific conferences and lectures will often contain humor.  It is not an either or thing.  Just because a video or lecture is humors doesn't mean it is not trying to convey an objective and/or serious point.  Even you have videos that convey very objective factual information that have a bit of humor tossed in.  The criticism I had was with the objective part of the statements not the humor.

Also after looking at the comments I'm pretty sure some of the people that viewed that video and thought it was funny also came away thinking vintage lenses are not radioactive.

I have had various highly technical jobs where I had to interface with the general public.  I can assure you there will be many people who walk away after viewing that video and think it was a legit test.  Only about 30% of Americans have a university degree of any kind.  A minority have a STEM degree.  Given the debate about vaccines in Europe and the US and the ridiculous ban on ALL so called GMO foods in Europe (as if there is any natural animal resembling a Belgian Blue cow) this video is definitely misinforming people.   Doesn't mean it isn't funny.

Anyway I didn't comment to bash.  I just thought it would be a nice idea to do a video with real equipment and experts.  As I pointed out with the Uranium dinnerware there are plenty of hazards out there nuclear and otherwise that the authorities in no way regulate.  People actually using vintage lenses on a regular basis is such a tiny part of the overall population even if there was a spike in cancer rates our epidemiological surveillance would not pick it up.  If they are indeed harmful and causing cancers and/or cataracts I can assure you we are on our own.

Nice link.  Yeah Radon gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer behind cigarettes.  EPA estimates 1 in 15 homes exceeds the EPA limit for radon.  Guess how much the EPA regulates radon in the buildings where we live, procreate, and raise our children... ZERO.  So if they aren't going to regulate something that they say is widespread and kills thousands every year why on earth would someone assume they are going to regulate vintage camera lenses?!

Just because there aren't men in space suits with Geiger counters and decontamination equipment on your front lawn don't assume everything in and around your house is safe.  The government can't be relied upon to keep you safe from EVERY threat out there.

Those authorities do a lot of picking and choosing when it comes to freaking out about radiation.  Coal fired electricity plants emit more radiation than nuclear power plants.  I've never seen a coal power plant festooned with radiation warning signs.

Also I give you vintage uranium dinnerware you can freely purchase anywhere in the United States...

I'm not an expert in this area but I personally would avoid eating off of this completely unregulated stuff.

It's funny.  People freak out about the US using depleted uranium weapons on the battle field... but don't say anything about the nondepleted uranium dinnerware in domestic homes!

Oh so you were mocking the "geiger counter"?  Sorry I have a background in science and sense of humor or not there is a lot of misinformation or half baked information put out by reputable journalism sources, politicians, etc all the time.  It's just when you really know this stuff and listen to lay people talk about it sometimes you can't tell if they are joking or serious.

I wouldn't trust that "geiger counter" with my life.  You live in a civilized first world country brimming with smart over educated people.  Surely there is a university somewhere near by with a grad student that has some free time and access to premium equipment.  I would personally track down some of the most notorious alleged radiation emitters and do a mini mythbusters episode with an expert and proper calibrated equipment.

As far as Ukraine is concerned I had not heard that particular legend.  I have heard Kodak was a bad offender.  I haven't thoroughly researched this because my vintage lens collection is small and at this time not often used.  But I heard Kodak used thorium in a lot of old lenses.

Another thing to consider is some of these cheap detectors might work for gamma rays but not necessarily detect alpha particles.  I don't know.  Maybe even beta emissions are an issue.

At very least it would have been nice to see that device tested on known gamma, alpha, and beta emitters for calibration purposes.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Your device only gave one reading constantly.  How do we know it isn't a broken clock?  Personally I would return it.  If you want to get into the authoritative radiation game I would save up and get a real Geiger counter or at a minimum make a friend in a physics department at a local university.

Thanks for posting this.  OP should have included the link to the whole interview in his post...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/16/canon-maeda-promises-eos-m-enthusiasts-more-aps-c-lenses-new-printers

It's pretty clear from what Maeda is saying in the original source that there is no consumer 4k on the horizon.  We know Canon can make mirrorless cameras.  The question is can they make one with compelling video features.  This article would seem to say no.

It's a specific camera for a specific market.  Obviously if you own a business and are producing content for the big boys you are going to buy something that will sail past the QC trolls.  Shooting as a hobbyist is one thing.  Running a business is another.  I buy what works for work.  I don't go in and fight ideological battles.

There's that camera again.  Lol.

If someone asked me to write an article with arbitrary and meaningless criteria I would say no.  I would write an article that is best for the consumer.  That is what this website is all about.  Suggesting a noob go out at spend $540 on a G6 kit in 2015 is to me as big a crime as telling someone to purchase a t5i.

Umm... you used them as a comparison to show how bad Canon is.  So I don't see what is wrong with me mentioning the 5D MK III raw and the 1DC.  From a noobs point of view what you wrote simply says "Canon bad."  I don't know what you meant to say.  All I can tell you is how it is perceived.

I see in the lower market segments people using all sorts of alternatives to Canon.  And I see when money is no object people flocking to Canon.

The problem is you don't present an up to date holistic view of the camera market.  You don't even cover sensor size.  I really wouldn't have a problem with the article, there are tons of incomplete articles on the internet, but to post this on this forum as a "correction" article really invites a lot of criticism.  That's what really bothered me about it.  And the fact the target market is noobs working with limited information already.

A $200 G6 doesn't fit that?!  I am pretty sure it fits it more than the GH4, NX1, A7S, and $540 dollar G6 kit your article praised.

With the release in 2014 of 4K-shooting “mirrorless” cameras such as the Panasonic GH4, Sony A7S and Samsung NX1, Canon finally lost its footing as the go-to manufacturer of video-shooting hybrid cameras.

That's one of the main lines I had a real problem with.  You are thoroughly misrepresenting the camera landscape.

But I get it.  One set of rules for you.  Another set of rules for everyone else.

A fanciful retelling of history.  No mention of sensor crop vs full frame and zero mention of 5D MK III raw.  Most people would take a 5D MK III raw over a GH2 or GH6 any day of the week.  And I love how the 1DC doesn't exist.

Your agenda driven article does a wonderful job of Canon bashing and misinforming.  You are stuck in a time warp.  I liked how you cherry picked a camera shootout that didn't have a 5D MK III raw nor 1DC camera and then officially declared Canon dead.  The 7D included in that shootout was acknowledged as not necessarily putting Canon's best food forward...

Many asked why the 7D was chosen, and not the 5D or a camera that could be hacked like the T2i or 60d. Here is an answer from our comment section from Scott Lynch of Zacuto:

The choice of 7D was a bit last minute. Originally we were trying to get a 1DX which at the last minute was unavailable as it was still unreleased and we were unable to get one in from Japan in time for the test. Michael Negrin, ASC was lined up to shoot the Canon DSLR and was comfortable using the 7D, as that was what he had worked with before. Because these things are so scrutinized by the public, at the time we did not give him a new camera with “hacked” firmware that he had no experience with. So at that point it became a practical decision as to why we used the 7D, it was what he was comfortable with and it had a super35mm sensor. I think though, having the 7D in there gives you a good reference as to where the technology was just over a year ago and it can be used as a sort of benchmark.

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/06/thoughts-after-seeing-zacuto-2012-shootout 

It is simply irresponsible to base your article on a half decade old misrepresented source... in the tech world of all things.  I think the original suggestion of the T5i was ludicrous and spread misinformation but I found the article trying to correct the mistake almost as bad.  For heaven's sake the GH2 is not even the stand out piece of information in that video.  The fact you can get the formerly $18,000 Sony F3 that was in that video for $1,800 is what is worth talking about.  Also you failed to mentioned the shoot out was not shot with the same parameters for each camera.  Read Andrew's summary for more information.

And lastly linking to a G6 kit for $539 dollars?!  Let me guess you get a cut of the sales.  Am I right?  Those things can be bought used body only for $200.  I've seen kits will lens go for $350.  I think that is a far more responsible suggestion since it will only be a starter camera.  Buying a new G6 for $539 in 2015 is ludicrous.

Well the blackmagic screen is still higher resolution.  We will have to see what kind of quality it is when it hits the market.

Honestly until someone does a review on a retail sample there is no way to know.

The blackmagic solution doesn't make you choose between HDMI and SDI.  The wild card is exposure aids.  I have seen no mention of RGB parade, false color, nor vectorscope with the BM product.  But they are known to release major firmware updates for years after launch.  Honestly I am rooting for Blackmagic because it is good to have competition.  I have no doubt the Atomos prices you are seeing are due at least in part to BM applying some pressure.  Even if Atomos is a slightly better value, not saying it is, I would still give my money to BM.

I still don't see how you get all that from this quote from the article...

Today’s cameras are ALL exceptional.  Everything with a decent sized sensor can produce images that will appease 98% of photographers and viewers of photography.

The author's point is people get too caught up in specs.  "Bringing the discussion to the motion picture realm" would be pointing out the formerly $18,000 Sony F3 can now be had for $1,800.  If the author of the article were to comment on the motion picture world he would say the equipment is not what is keeping you from making your magnum opus.

I don't disagree with some of the statements the OP made but the post entirely misses the point of a great article.

You got that from the article you linked to?!  A quote from the article...

Today’s cameras are ALL exceptional.  Everything with a decent sized sensor can produce images that will appease 98% of photographers and viewers of photography.

How you get "the C100 and 5D MK III" are crap from that... I just don't know.

I'm not saying I disagree with you on some valid points but the article you linked to is making an entirely different point.

Yeah I don't understand what is taking so long on a 1020 successor.  Honestly I would pay a premium for a phablet/1020 successor combo.  With a 5.7" screen there would be a lot of enthusiast takers.

It's funny how when the Sony Ax100 came out I said I thought the highlights were garishly blown in the sample videos and I was savaged.  Highlights are routinely blown in early sample videos but I was really taken aback by what I saw with the AX100.  This video confirms my apprehension.

Do you know of anything that gives Lumias higher bitrate video?  I think that is all we are missing.  New Lumia flagship is allegedly going to have Snapdragon 810 running it.  I assume it should be capable of higher bitrate 4k video.  I guess with Windows 10 the developer should be able to port the app fairly painlessly.

I can't help you for this project.  I'm curious though.  Why did you use beta software for a project like this?  Windows 10 is new and Resolve 12 is still in Beta.  I see a lot of people talking about Resolve 12.  I went to check it out and found out it was still in Beta so I passed.  But a lot of people seem to be using it.  I am really gun shy with stuff for work or with a heavy time investment.

Impulz Ultimate is less than $5 cheaper than on Visioncolor's website... every day price.

I can believe it... and more.  I am not a professional.  The only thing I've sold from my hobby are some stock video clips, but even I've seen some amazing things.  A friend of mine who apparently has no aesthetic sensibilities made some videos for their company in house.  From what I can tell the videos were shot with some kind of old STANDARD DEFINITION pocket video camera with internal mic for sound.  No lighting, no external sound, and most of the shots were framed terribly.  I can't fly out of state right now to help them with their videos so I haven't said anything.  I don't want to tell them it is all dog poop and not be able to help them fix the problem.

The strange thing is they could use an iphone and an external iphone compatible mic and that alone would make the videos a million times better.  Toss in 2-3 hundred dollars worth of lights and you are off to the races.  Sad but true.

If you are good with editing, lights, sound, and framing shots you can pay the bills with a G7.

My concern is what exactly was your workflow before?  If you shot a lot of handheld with autofocus and IS then that is what you should shoot for.  If you shot with manual lenses and a shoulder rig than you have more choices.  I use IS a lot.  Plenty of people that are better videographers than me use shoulder rigs and monopods and never touch IS.  You have to do what works for you.  I have a BMPCC and most of the time I use one Canon IS zoom lens with a speedbooster and no shoulder rig.  I haven't used any of my vintage lenses yet.  I inherited the lenses.  Honestly for people who owned the lenses already or got them before they shot up in price they can make sense.  But after doing tons of reading and looking at all the prices and pitfalls I decided a speedbooster and a top rated canon zoom would be more versatile and cheaper.  Minty copies of nice vintage lenses can cost hundreds of dollars per a focal length.

How is shooting raw a "nuisance"?  It's 2015 not 2011.  Have you graded any Blackmagic raw files in Da Vinci Resolve recently?  It's easier to white balance and grade than Prores.  The only problem is file size... and I think it takes a bit longer to do the final export.

Am I doing something wrong?  Anyone else experiencing this "nuisance."

Sorry I wasn't clear.  Resolve Lite is free.  It does everything I need except noise reduction.  Resolve 12 is still a beta product.  Resolve Lite 11 is available on the same page.  You just have to search around a little for it.  Honestly if you aren't into grading at all I would steer clear of any Blackmagic camera for now.  Going back and reading the thread it sounds like you are receiving jobs as we speak.  You don't want to be learning too much at once on paid gigs!

I would follow other people's advice and go for something like a GH4.  Maybe research the differences between a GH4 and a G7.  Grey market G7s with no lens are going for $650 on everyone's favorite auction site.  The G7 will probably never have a log option, but if you aren't into grading that doesn't matter.  Frankly on a lot of these cameras other than Blackmagic cameras log seems to be getting people into a lot of trouble unless they really know what they are doing.

Someone is selling a used G7 with no lens for $580.  It's up to you whether you think that is a good deal or not.

It really sounds to me like you need a very user friendly and affordable camera that can get you decent results straight out of the camera.

I don't know what their consumer strategy is.  They don't seem to discontinue any cameras.  They just seem to add more.  They just added the 1080p global shutter micro camera (with no LCD screen), but they've kept the 1080p rolling shutter BMPCC.  Obviously the Micro is targeted more towards cinema as you indicated.

4k would be nice.  It would help with the moire/aliasing.  Really if I had a 4k BMPCC I would stop looking at cameras.  What blackmagic has done is interesting.  There are now a flood of affordabe 4k cameras out there but only Blackmagic is giving us raw and Prores HQ 4:2:2 for less than $1,000... and their colors are great in my opinion.

I look at all these other videos and see blown highlights, compression artifacts, and bad color.  But they all trounce the BMPCC when it comes to moire/aliasing.  Honestly don't know what I am going to do going forward.  There are times I just want to downsize to an LX100  but then I see one of my nice BMPCC videos and decide to just keep it.

That is ancient history.  I like Dave a lot but he is an amateur.  Well I like him because he is an amateur.  It's nice to learn along with him and he is not arrogant.  He doesn't have an attitude.  But he is not an experienced colorist.

Also you have to realize since that video was produced the world has been flooded with tons of LUTs for the BMPCC.  The scene that he presented as particularly problematic for grading isn't an issue now.  Well at least not an issue the way he describes it.  For sunsets all you have to do is set the BMPCC at 5600K.  Then in Resolve use something like Captain Hook's free LUT.  Boost... or reduce saturation to taste and then tweak the color.  It is nowhere near as bad as Dave makes it out to be in that video.  But remember that video is a historical artifact.  So many niggles he brought up in that video were fixed through firmware updates that are still being produced.  Great video at the time and I agreed with him 100% but a slew of LUTs, firmware updates and a $500 price drop and I became a believer.

I still would like a camera that produced solid video straight out of the camera but the BMPCC has come a long way.  By the way I am not recommending the BMPCC to you.  I am just clarifying some points.

Perhaps your right.  It may have been me who misunderstood what he was asking.  I see what you mean.  I thought be meant he wanted a regular variable ND vs a premium one.  But I guess what you were thinking makes sense.  I just wouldn't go down the individual ND filter route if I was on a budget.  That just seems backwards.

Thanks for the link to the Hoya ProNDs.  I am looking to add one or two ProNDs to supplement my Tiffen Variable ND.

Hoya ProNDs are not variable ND filters.

ND filters are tricky.  Unless someone owns several of them it is really hard to know which are the best.  A lot of great names in optics sell pricey ND filters that fall short in certain areas.  Dave Dugdale did a video that is now sadly somewhat out of date but watching it will give you an idea of how many parameters you need to consider when buying a filter and just how all over the map the results are regardless of price point.