Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Damphousse

  1. 40 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

    @Damphousse Only in the 80's and early 90's we had a strong socialist (centrists, and with a tiny tiny amount of leftists in some cases) movement in Europe, since the beginning of the 20th century most governments were to the right, or far right, or fascists, or dictatorships.

    Unfortunately you ignored my whole post...

    1)  "Right wing" means entirely different things in different countries/societies.  Ex.  In the UK, and much of Europe, the term liberal means right wing.  The way that word is used in the US is odd.

    2)  The government in power does not necessarily represent the opinions of the general population.  Ex.  The "right wing" party in the US has only won ONE popular vote in the presidential election in DECADES.  Supreme Court decisions frequently are totally the opposite of popular opinion.

    3)  Many elections on the planet have nothing to do with right or left wing and the governments they produce do not fit neatly into any American box or spectrum.  A lot of my friends would be amused that you think their government is "right wing" or "left wing".  They simply don't think in those terms.

    4)  I simply cannot understand how you can make a globe spanning assertion of the intentions of every person that lives under a dictatorship.  While in some instances a dictatorship rises with popular support they eventually go off the rails and do what ever they want without regard for the average person's wishes.

    51 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

    People are "conservative" by nature, they afraid change, the different, the unknown. Have you seen the animation "Croods"? If you were leaving your cave, weren't very super careful, then you were possible food for a more advanced predator. That is written in our DNA, like a lot of our primeval fears.

    What does that have to do with "right wing" governments?  I live in the United States and our right wing government wants to change all kinds of things.  As with the word "liberal" it can have an infinite number of meanings.  I mean widely available abortion, legal weed, restrictive gun laws, not saying the pledge of allegiance, not singing the national anthem were all features of America until fairly recently.

    58 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

    Nothing wrong with Canon and Nikon, my favorite video cameras, are Canon C series and most of my photographer friends own Nikon.

    I have 4 NX cameras and 8 lenses, I hope there is nothing wrong to that either.

    Well if you have 8 Samsung lenses then you have no upgrade path that will utilize 100% of their features.  That has no impact on your work today but when it comes time to upgrade you are going to take a hit vs someone with EF lenses.  Not to mention lens rentals, accessories, repairs, support, etc.  The video that comes out of an NX1 is great but that is only one aspect of an overall system.  I don't think it is irrational for someone to choose an NX1 at the right price but I think the narrative that people choose Canon because they are "conservative" is a bit off the mark.  Sure there can be some people like that but there are tons of people that like the latest features that stick with Canon for tons of other reasons other than being "conservative".

  2. 22 hours ago, Kisaha said:

    Majorities are basically conservative (that is why in democratic countries conservatives/right wing parties are the norm, and a few billions of people do not even have democratic/forward thinking political systems), and they do not adapt very well with new and ground breaking technologies, one of the reasons that Canon is still number one, and in most parts, Nikon is number two. Their products work, and do most basic things good, and photos and videos just look good to most; also they have a history that people can connect with.

    What?!  I have never heard or seen any evidence of this.  First of all what qualifies as "right wing" varies from country to country.  Also who is in power often bears little relation to what the average guy on the street thinks.  For example in my country, the US, the Republican party, the local "right wing" party, has only won one popular vote in decades.

    For reference go and look at gay marriage or marijuana legalization polling and then look at whatever screwball thing the Supreme Court is doing at any given moment.

    And a lot of so called "democratic" countries do not have free and fair elections.  There is tons of vote rigging going on out there.  Also in much of the world high quality polling simply isn't available.  Things are so opaque I don't know of any political scientist who would feel comfortable assessing ALL the political leanings of every African country.  And in many countries voting is driven by factors other than your concept of "right wing" and "left wing".

    I don't get how you would assume that because a country has an authoritarian government it somehow reflects the will of the people.

    As far as Canon and Nikon are concerned they are kind of like the US government.  They are not representative of what the average person wants but because of an ossified system they are what we are stuck with.  I would love to jump to a more feature rich affordable system but I'm not going to dump several Canon lenses and accessories to hop onto what?  Samung NX1?  There are perfectly rational reasons for people sticking with Canon or Nikon.  Heck even when it was only those two camera brands people didn't switch back and forth between them.  In fact all the old pros advised strongly against it.  There were switching costs and at the end of the day if you couldn't make beautiful pictures with either system it wasn't the camera that had a problem.  I bought a BMPCC but I kept all my Canon photo gear.

  3. 19 hours ago, tugela said:

    When it comes to efficiency and productivity the only thing that matters is ability and competence, nothing else. Companies that hire less able and less competent people purely to meet some arbitrary diversity goal are going to less efficient and less productive as a result. 

    Entire doctoral dissertations are written on single aspects "efficiency and productivity" so I'm going to guess a random guy on a video forum isn't going to have a definitive iron clad answer to a broad set of topics in business which are debated in the top corporations and business schools in the world.  That is one of the most absurd sentences I have ever read.

    19 hours ago, tugela said:

    That might be fine in a non-competitive business environment, such as a government service organization for example, but for companies that face real cut throat competition it is a recipe for failure.

    Lol.  Yeah I guess that is why the US government dug the Panama Canal, created the atomic bomb in record time, put a man on the moon in the 1960s, invented the internet, and can get a piece of mail from Key West to Alaska in a few days for 49 cents.

    19 hours ago, tugela said:

    That is why places like Apple and all those other tech companies have the appearance of promoting diversity but behind the scenes it is ability that predominates.

    Apple isn't a great company because it has a kick ass HR department.  It is a great company because of Steve Jobs.  You could give Steve Jobs any group of reasonably competent engineers and he would give you the number one smartphone in the world.  And apple isn't like "all those other tech companies".  Most of the big ones you hear about in the press constantly have never made a penny for their shareholders Uber, Twitter, snapchat, Zynga, Pandora, Zillow, etc.  These aren't models of efficiency or productivity.  They are Ponzi schemes.  Come back in 10 years and most of them will not exist as stand alone profitable going concerns... Just like the last tech boom. 

    By the way Steve Jobs is the son of a Syrian migrant from Homs.  The orange Führer would have banned Steve Jobs from even entering the country.  I'm just glad our immigration policy back then encouraged more diversity.  Truly if you look at the great successes in business you will find that a lot of them have nothing to do with being the most efficient nor productive.  There are so many successes that are due to creativity, chance events, connections, luck, etc.

    Look at phablet phones.  Samsung basically invented the entire segment.  They didn't invent it because they are more "efficient and productive" than apple.  They invented it because for whatever reason Koreans prefer larger phones than Americans.  That's it.  Purely a cultural thing.  Mirrorless would have died long time ago if it was up to the American consumer but for whatever reason mirrorless is just more desirable in Japan.  It has nothing to do with "efficiency and productivity".  It is just a different culture.  And I for one thank God for the diversity.

    20 hours ago, tugela said:

     And yes, I know we don't live in a perfect world, some incompetent people will slip through, but in general a company that is lean and mean will have far fewer of those.

    Given what happened in the tech boom and the financial crisis and what is going on with tech unicorns in silicon valley I would say gross incompetence is the norm vs the exception.  Given the size and nature of the multi trillion dollar disasters that have occurred in the last two decades alone I simply can't believe giving someone with a vagina or dark skin a job is the worst possible thing that could happen.  It can't be worse than what is happening now.

  4. On 9/15/2017 at 6:28 PM, wolf33d said:

    Lot better image quality (colors + lowlight + clarity) on the D850 VS A7R2 and GH5. Apparently AF in video is also better than those two. 


    Yes, an impressive comparison.  I would not have thought that's how the cameras rank.  Although the GH5 seems to have more information in that overhead light, but the overall image seems darker.

    I am not familiar with the autofocus on the other two cameras but the D850 is complete trash compared to what Canon has going on.  It is amazing how DPAF has become essential.  Obviously the GH5's IBIS is another almost essential tool now.

    I would love to see the D850 and GH5 each tweaked to their best settings (speedbooster, log, WB, etc) and compared.  The WB for the GH5 and A7R2 are terrible in this video and it just makes me wonder if other things have not been optimized.  I mean I don't know what settings could explain away the low light results other than addition of a speedbooster but it would still be nice to see something really optimized.

    D850 looks like a monster.

  5. On 9/17/2017 at 11:08 AM, Arikhan said:


    My mom works for more than 20 years in the health industry. My grandma - till retired - worked as physician in Bavaria. Every 2-3 years armchair editors wrote about "discrimination" and "sexism" against women in the health indistry. The truth? There was none...Brainwashing at its best...


    Not even worth arguing about.  There is a ton of documentation of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc in the healthcare industry.  I mean the healthcare industry has a long sordid history of despicable discrimination.  And for someone who worked in the healthcare industry in GERMANY of all places to make such a claim is truely laughable.  Dr. Mengele only died in 1979.

    Only in 1987 did homosexuality get completely removed from the psychiatric diagnostic manual... but yet somehow your GRANDMOTHER was living in some completely discrimination free utopia?

    Also in an environment with lawsuits and bad publicity a lot of discrimination goes underground.  Often times the person that is subjected to the discrimination doesn't even know about it.  It is not like people are still going around the southern United States burning crosses on people's lawns.  My advice is look up "Lilly Ledbetter" if you want to see what the results of hidden discrimination are.

    On 9/17/2017 at 12:00 PM, mercer said:

    Just to clarify, I agree the industry should be more open and diverse. All industries should be. But if you look at the photo posted upthread of the photographers chosen... they were all Asian... so where is the outrage that there were no photographers of African descent or Middle Eastern descent, or Caucasian or Latino?


    Nikon is a Japanese company.  Japan is one of the least diverse countries on the planet.  It has maybe only 1.6% foreigners living there.  It is kind of ethnocentric to think every country on the planet is as racially diverse as your country.  But I am pretty sure they have women.

    On 9/17/2017 at 11:36 AM, mercer said:

    I just think it's kinda funny that a bunch of guys on a male dominated, video forum pretend to understand and preach the struggles of sexism.

    Really?  Hmmm...  The place I see the most sexism is in the locker room at the old boys club.  I of course don't want to become a target of the power structure so I just keep my mouth shut but I can tell you with no doubt what so ever if women ever heard the things those guys say there would be multiple successful lawsuits against major institutions where I live.

    Those guys casually talk about blatant violations of antidiscrimination laws.  It is weird.  They don't even consider that some of those women are my friends.  And of course the women are oblivious to it because this stuff is never said in their presence and all anyone is told is "there is no discrimination, just do your job and you too will enjoy the American dream".

    On 9/17/2017 at 12:00 PM, mercer said:

    Discrimination is a strong charge that shouldn't be thrown around lightly without 100% proof.

    What country do you live in?  Discrimination is often a civil matter and you can win a discrimination case with a preponderance of evidence.  You don't need to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.  And this isn't a lawsuit.  It is just pointing out what poor form Nikon showed.  Do you think someone at Nikon is crying?  Since when are multibillion dollar multinationals such snowflakes?

    On 9/17/2017 at 12:00 PM, mercer said:

    But diversity should be encouraged and celebrated as long as it's not just for the sake of diversity.

    Why not?  Plenty of scientific papers prove that diversity in and of itself is a good thing.  You wouldn't read a diverstiy of books?  You wouldn't eat a diversity of foods?  You wouldn't travel to a diversity of places?  Why do all these gymnastics to fight common sense?  We spend our whole lives seeking diversity but when it comes to people all of a sudden OH NO we must avoid it?

  6. 15 minutes ago, Laurier said:

    From the post I saw on facebook from some pro female photographer i know, it feel more like they were personally frustrated to not have been selected within the invited women rather than the whole femi-nazi thing going around. 

    I m going to sound sexist here but what are the demographics in term of camera sales ? I m sure this kind of equipment is mostly purchased by mens and that woman change their equipment less often.
    From my experience women pro photographer mostly buy what is advised by male photographers, and they focus more about taking pictures with their camera rather than treating their gear acquisition syndrome. But that a very personal opinion based around the female photographers I know.

    By your logic there should only be doctors in pharmaceutical ads because patients just take what their doctor prescribes them... And that is only if I go along with your premise that there are NO independent thinking women out there.

    Even when I have recommended a piece of electronics to my girlfriend she doesn't necessarily just go out and buy it.  Even if she tries it out she can reject my opinion because she forms her own opinion.  I taught her a lot about cameras and now she has interests in photography way different than mine.

  7. 2 hours ago, iamoui said:

    So Nikon did invite female photographers but none of them accepted. How is this sexism, again? Even if Nikon did have some female photographers for the D850, would people complain that there weren't enough of them? Would Nikon have to have an equal amount of female and male photographers for people not to complain? Would they need to have more females than males? Why does it even matter? I think attributing to Nikon that "they think it's too much for women to handle" is incredibly dishonest. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Identity politics is a zero-sum game. Don't play it.

    Now in the future Nikon will feel forced to include female photographers for the sake of not being chastised. What if they choose female photographers that don't have as good of work as some male photographers that they wanted originally but they feel the need to choose them just because they're female? 

    Why didn't Nikon have any non binary, transgender, or genderqueer photographers? I'm offended!

    You are right about the queer thing.  Women are the majority of the US population and these guys couldn't find one.  They should just become gay and stop looking.  They are terrible at it.

  8. On 9/13/2017 at 0:15 PM, Bioskop.Inc said:

    In all this discussion no one has mentioned has even remotely mentioned Marantz, which is a big mistake. People just seem to get a hold of names & think they're the best...

    No.  I made my decision after watching reviews comparing several recorders against each other.  Marantz wasn't mentioned so I chose from what was actually on offer.  I'm not really in the habit of purchasing stuff sight unseen.  I made a carefully considered decision that worked for my particular use case.  I will say it again watch BTM_Pix's video.  The gentleman has a great approach.  In the video he actually explicitly says, "There is no BEST recorder".  Not sure how he could have made it any clearer.

  9. 10 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

    Just wanted to say that I look forward to the day when the bigger mobiles phones will feature a 50mm, 24mm and 16mm prime camera modules giving us a good "standard zoom" = offering zooming or using them as primes exclusively. I doubt going for the 75, 50 and 24mm would make much sense, since the 70mm module would need a thick optics module.

    Just get this while waiting on a phone...


  10. Initial TV settings are designed to show off features on a bright show room floor next to other TVs.  Brightness, saturation, contrast and other bells and whistles are amped up through the roof.  Also the content on display is different.  With 4k there are a lot of ultra sharp wide angle landscape time lapses looped on store TVs.  A lot of the subject matter is real life so it doesn't hurt it too look like real life... with jazzed up colors.

    The other thing is sports are big in the United States and men drive a lot of the TV purchasing.  No one is going to complain about sports programming at 60p.  If you have a 40 inch 720p television most women aren't ever going to think they need to upgrade.  Only meat head guys go to the mall and drool over 75" TVs.  I don't talk about my girlfriend's shoes and purses and she doesn't talk about my TV.

    The third thing is most people aren't going to notice the stuff we obsess about.  4k is great for downsampling to 1080p and future proofing but I have no desire to toss my current TV and upgrade to 4k.  If the story is good and the video and audio meet basic standards people will watch.  If it is a poor story or the special effects aren't good it doesn't matter how technically perfect the audio and video are.

  11. 1 hour ago, DBounce said:

    Whilst hanging out on a friends yacht I ran into an embarrassing situation...

    I know it is a bit early but I'm going to go ahead and put in my nomination for 2017 post of the year in the "First World Problem" category. :joy:


    Anyway hope you figure it out and it is just the brand of battery.

  12. 10 hours ago, jonpais said:

    Bad for criminals, more convenient than memorizing and typing secure passwords for the rest of mankind. The mere fact that law enforcement officers attempting to unlock a phone makes headline news shows just how uncommon the practice is, though that may change in the future.

    Police shoot innocent people pretty regularly here in the United States.  I'm pretty sure they do illegal searches all the time.  I love photography and videography and I have been illegally stopped and questioned by the police because they think taking pictures or videos of random stuff on a public street is probable cause.  These guys make up new laws in their heads all the time.  It is a global problem for photographers.  Every photography forum I've ever lurked in gets a thread every so often on dealing with police that think taking pictures is illegal.

    You also realize most encounters with the police no matter how bad don't get reported.  Most people are happy to escape with their lives and no permanent damage.  It is extremely hard and expensive to go up against the police.  A lot of Americans are barely making it.  They don't have the time to hire an expensive lawyer and take off of work to go on a crusade.  Not to mention the retaliation factor.

    And you alluded to another issue.  Most people don't have and use biometric locks on their phones.  It is only hitting the paper now because it is new mass market tech and the case law is in it's infancy.  It is also in the news because people assume it is just like a PIN code.  It is alarming because of the false sense of security.

    I am not a criminal but I have sensitive information on my phone for work that by federal law I am supposed to keep secure.  I don't even want to contemplate what would happen if any of it leaked out because a cop did a search.  I also have a robust personal life.  I don't want some cop sitting in his squad car rummaging through my phone perusing the racy texts and images my girlfriend has sent me and looking up her address and phone number.

    Finally another reason these searches aren't necessarily leading the news every night is because we are currently trying to figure out what is up with police shooting innocent people.  "A cop looked at my phone" just doesn't get people's back up like "a cop shot me for no reason".


    Newly released footage from Clark County Sheriff's Deputy Jake Shaw's body camera shows him drawing his service weapon during a traffic stop and firing two shots at what he thought was an approaching, gun-wielding assailant. One round struck the man in the abdomen; the other buzzed past.

    But the man was not an attacker. It was Andy Grimm, a photographer with the local newspaper, the New Carlisle News. Shaw realized his mistake as he ran toward Grimm, who was screaming on the ground.



    The Trump administration is increasingly allowing federal border agents to seize and search -- sometimes violently -- the mobile phones and laptops of thousands of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants as they enter the country, two advocacy groups said in a lawsuit.

    The searches at airports and land borders are being carried out without warrants in violation of the Constitution’s privacy and free-speech provisions, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a complaint filed Wednesday in federal court in Boston.

    Ten U.S. citizens and one immigrant are represented in the suit -- among them a military veteran, a journalist and a NASA engineer, the rights groups said in a statement. Several of the citizens are Muslims or people of color.



    LA to Pay $50K to Detained Photographers and Teach Deputies That Photography is Not a Crime



    Woman Awarded $1.12M After Being Arrested While Taking Photos Outside a Military Base


    When I was 15 years old I believed all the things they told me in civics class.  But as I've gotten older and more experienced I realize it doesn't matter if you are innocent when you are standing on the side of a deserted highway with an aggressive cop.  You can quote the Constitution all you want but you can also end up a corpse before your loved ones ever see you again.

    It is scary that people are walking around with cameras and video cameras and assuming because they know in their heart of hearts they are innocent nothing bad will happen to them.

  13. 1 hour ago, Drew Allegre said:

    I agree.  Face ID seems like a gimmick and actually a downgrade in terms of practical functionality.  Apple has been almost as frustrating as Canon the past few years.

    Using a biometric lock of any kind in the US is dumb.


    The Fifth Amendment, which protects people from incriminating themselves during legal proceedings, prevents the government from compelling someone to turn over a memorized PIN or passcode. But fingerprints, like other biometric indicators—DNA, handwriting samples, your likeness—have long been considered fair game, because they don’t reveal anything in your mind.


  14. Just now, sanveer said:

    I don't know if anyone saw the presentation, but this guy went on and on about how absolutely amazing the face recognition was, how neither masks nor face models (clay/ silicone?) could fool it, how they had like 1 billion faces scanned etc etc.

    And then he tried using his face to unlock the phone ... And it FAILED. Hahahahahahahahaha 

    He went ahead and punched in a security code number in, and pretended nothing happened.

    What is even sadder is face recognition has been around on other phones and computers for ages along with wireless charging, 6+ inch screens, OLED, etc.

    I'm not trying to bash apple but for $1,000 don't give me a grab bag of stuff that has been on phones for years and tell me it is "innovative".

    I'm withholding final judgement until I see more in depth hands on reviews, but I can tell you right now a bunch of this stuff is already available on a ton of phones.

  15. 12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

    I watched Curtis Judd's video when it was first uploaded! :-) I'm a big fan of his channel. And I even went back and watched that YT video just now all over again just for the hell of it :-D
    But a few points:
    1) he isn't a perfect God of knowledge. For instance it seems flawed to me to promote the Zoom H1 + lav as an option when the Tascam DR10 is so much superior for this niche/price range. 
    2) he is targeting his YT channel at the low end and/or videographer (not sound recordist). So his remarks need to be remembered within that context

    But overall he is pretty ok, & I agree with him more often than not.  He is also a fan of the Zoom F4 too! (even though the F4 hadn't came out yet at the point of that video upload, he still talks positively about the F4 & recommends waiting for its release)

    I agree with you on all that.  I think his point on the Zoom H1 was the size thing.  You can put a lav on it and drop it in the talents pocket.  So it was just a specific niche use.  That was my understanding. And I agree his channel is for the lower end videographer.  It is not oriented to a sound recordist.  I wouldn't even begin to comment on professional sound recordist equipment.

    I don't think the Zoom F4 is a bad choice.  I didn't mean to denigrate it.  I was just pushing back at the notion it was something you would buy and keep for 12 years.  I've only looked at sound equipment in depth in the last couple of years and the number of features and options has steadily climbed and the price at least on the low/mid end has fallen.

  16. 14 hours ago, jcs said:

    It's totally OK that you disagree! I used to be very competitive at everything: sports (played them all in high school and college), racing cars, competing in software and business, winning lawsuits, winning arguments, however in the end it wasn't satisfying. Winning means someone else is losing, which creates resentment, and a net increase in suffering. This is especially true in personal relationships: we don't want to alienate our friends, families, or partners. In business, especially with the responsibility of a leadership position, it is especially tricky to get points across while being aware of each person's ego. Even if everyone ultimately realizes you are right, if they resent you it makes it hard to lead without drama. Thus I learned it's really important to let everyone know you really care for them, want the best for them, it's not personal, and to keep the business and/or tech debates focused on the issues vs. letting it get personal.

    I don't want to "win on the internet". It was never my point to prove anyone wrong, rather I was trying to show what I believed to be true. Yet my methods ultimately made people think I was trying to prove them wrong, and thus came resentment. When I use the word 'ego' it's not simply arrogance, it's the thing in our consciousness that makes us appear separate from each other and nature. The only way I've found to not experience ego is through deep meditation and/or using DMT to turn off the individual-human-state reality filter: the ego. The ego is a truly clever thing, the ultimate deceiver sometimes, not good or bad, it helps us to survive, and when out of control causes great suffering for self and others.

    It is kind of a complicated topic.  Most of what you are saying is 100% true.  All I was saying is unfortunately history is littered with conflict bringing about the best in people.

    And I agree with attempting to show what you believe is true not necessarily prove someone wrong.  Sometimes when I post something it isn't to convince the person I am replying to but just to put another point of view in a thread that someone else may come across and find helpful.  It takes the form of an argument but the point is not necessarily to convince the counter party.

    As far as ego is concerned I'm sure we could all work on ego control.  Nothing wrong with that.  At work I have pulled way back on expressing myself unless it is absolutely necessary...  and even then.  The times we live in are stressful.  A lot of it I believe is self inflicted but between unaffordable housing, student loan debt, broken marriages, stagnant wages, etc people show up at work ready to fight.

  17. Just now, cantsin said:

    ...without sound, with unreliable frame rate, and probably with the need to hold your finger on the shutter release so that you will lose half of those 10 seconds because of camera shake...

    The headline is a bit misleading but with a tripod and a cable release perhaps you can do it without shake.  10 seconds is a long time for certain clips.  If you are doing quick cuts 10 seconds is an eternity.  Niche use but I do family videos with short clips all the time.

  18. I don't really see anything that justifies $1,000.  Unless I was buying this for work and deducting it from my taxes I don't see anything that would make me spend that much on a phone.  It is getting obscene.

    I really need more information.  I am going to wait for the hands on reviews.

    If I need an iphone app for work I may just get an iphone 7 plus if there is a good sale somewhere.

    2 hours ago, tugela said:

    Honestly, IMO the S8 is a better looking phone.

    That was my first thought when I saw the iphone X.  I never really thought too much about the edge thing on the Samsung phones but they do make the iphone X look ancient.

  19. 9 hours ago, jcs said:

    The longest, most passionate threads are arguments. Politics, religion, conspiracies, cameras, and gear. The pattern repeats. It's drama. We enjoy it. It's an addiction. Is there another way? There is, recognizing that it's all games of our egos, creating layers of illusions. The answer is so simple, you'll chuckle when you get it :) 

    I couldn't disagree more.  You look at the history of human advancement and the number of discoveries, institutions, and innovations that have come out of warfare and it is ridiculous.  I read about capitalism and I read about communism.  I don't read that stuff because I like drama.  I read it because only through the struggle and competition do the best ideas get formed and come to our attention.  Yes if you watch two idiots on E! argue it is just pointless drama.  Well it is "drama" for some people.  For me it is just boring.

    I have left plenty of arguments and gone and looked stuff up.  I didn't necessarily do a 180 on my opinion but there have been more than a few times my opinion has changed.  And there are plenty of online arguments that I didn't participate in but I enjoyed reading because I picked up interesting tidbits from both sides.

    And it does take a certain modicum of ego to argue a point.  Just because it requires a bit of ego doesn't mean it is all about ego.  Look at president of the United States.  You have to have brass balls to ever seriously consider you would be a good president.  But being president isn't just about being an egotistical ahole... as the orange douche is learning the hard way.


    And of course everyone likes to win the internet.  It feels good! :innocent:

  20. 12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Personally, I think the mirrorless camera market is very large, and makes a larger turnover for the manufacturers than the pro DSLR market, but with smaller profit margins per unit, therefore they have to achieve enormous scale to make a profit. Perhaps the overall profit is larger from the pro divisions... But again, we are speculating until we know the truth.

    I think you may be very close to the truth.  Kodak was the first company to file for a digital camera patent in the United States.  They did it before I was born.  It was some time in the 70s.

    More recently in 2005 Kodak was the number one digital camera company in the US.  It is funny how many posts you see on the internet asking why Kodak didn't "innovate".  They did.  But consumer electronics is a cut throat business with thin margins.  I haven't gone back and pulled Kodak's financials from the 70s and 80s and inflation adjusted them but I suspect they were doing much better than the camera divisions of Canon, Nikon, and Sony... by a wide margin.  I just look at the compensation packages, perks, and benefits of the Kodak workers back in the seventies.  I will have to do a bunch of googling but I remember hearing stories about Kodak in the heyday that clearly indicated fat margins.

    Back in the day Kodak owned the whole pie... and it was a big pie.  Now even if they were on their A game they would own part of a much smaller pie... I'm guessing.  Canon probably has a high margin business and sees no reason to slug it out with the likes of Panasonic.  Remember just a few years ago there was rampant speculation the camera division at Panasonic was going to be shuttered.  And I don't need to remind anyone about Samsung.  Canon may just be picking their spots and protecting their margin.


    According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a federal agency that protects pension benefits in private-sector defined benefit plans, Kodak’s pension plans are “reasonably well-funded” at 86 percent with $4.9 billion in assets to cover $5.6 billion in benefits.


    Even after a bankruptcy Kodak's pension fund is described as "well-funded".  How many of us work at a company with a defined benefit pension let alone one that is "well-funded".  Back in the day Kodak made bank.  No two ways about it.

  21. On 9/10/2017 at 5:31 PM, Kisaha said:

    @Damphousse I am very serious about sound; you seem to be 188$ serious about it, which is not much, if you consider that you can keep, and work with such a device, for the next dozen years at least. You can record on your iPhone these days, from dead cheap to DPA expensive, cheap Tascam's like DR 40 do the job, everything is fine. 

    Watch BTM_Pix's video from 4:16 in.  They guy doing the review uses a multithousand dollar Sound Devices recorder for his main rig and his opinion of the Tascam 60D's pre amps was they are "EXCELLENT".  If you don't think something that costs $188 doesn't sound good under the right circumstances that is your opinion but I haven't found a single review on the internet that echoes that opinion.

    Also the idea that I would keep a Tascam or any recorder that is $600 or less for 12 years is absurd.  Camera bodies are disposable.  12 years ago I didn't even own a DSLR.  The only thing I could imagine keeping for 12 years is a lens or a tripod or a microphone.  You think the iOS app for the Zoom F4 is still going to be up to day in 12 years?!  12 years ago there wasn't even an iOS!  Do you own a time machine and know something we don't?  Recorder tech is advancing rapidly.  Maybe not as fast as cameras but what you can get for the money is changing every year.  The Tascam 60D came out at $350 and EVERYBODY that reviewed it said it was a heck of a deal at that price.  The MK II is now $188 a few short years later and still getting rave reviews.  Exhibit B is the fact earlier this year Sound Devices introduced a prosumer line of recorders/mixers.  The Zoom F4 you so wholeheartedly recommended suffers from one of the same major flaws my 60D does.  It has digital limiters too!  Imagine my surprise.  After your rebuttal I went to do some research just to make sure I wasn't posting BS on the internet and I noticed some clear areas of overlap between the 60D criticism and the Zoom F4 criticism.  A comparably priced Sound Devices unit has analog limiters that are actually functional.  The Zoom F4 is not some future proof device.  Please don't mislead people.  This space is in so much flux right now and so much interesting stuff is coming out you have to be very strategic in your buying decisions.  A good quality Canon L lens?  Yeah that is something you will keep for generations.  A $600 digital recorder?  Please.

    The one thing I know in this game is everyone has a different use case.  You should seriously watch BTM_Pix's video.  That guy has a much more sober and well thought out approach.  There are so many options and trade offs you can't just declare if someone is using a Tascam 60D they aren't "serious" about sound.  Same thing happened to me when I balked at paying $1,000 for a BMPCC.  Search the forum.  I got plenty of hate.  Well guess who picked up a BMPCC for $500?  And guess who else was crying?  With so much of this stuff there is no right or wrong answer.

    Frankly if anyone is contemplating getting external recording with balanced XLR connectors they should be praised and encouraged not denigrated.  That is light years ahead of onboard sound or your iPhone suggestion.  Depending on our needs and the state of the art we buy, sell, and upgrade.

  22. On 2/16/2014 at 7:19 PM, Inazuma said:

    I understand that footage recorded in 10bit 4:2:2 will have the maliability close to a RAW photo, but what are the advantages of recording at high bitrates to a normal codec on say, a GH3? Apart from less JPEG artifacts.

    I guess the question is do you know why people use raw to shoot photographs?  Everything in your pipeline lens, sensor, computer monitor, printer, paper, TV, projector has characteristics.  The more information you start out with the more you can target your final result to your final output.

    Let me ask you.  If you were going to make a print in the old analog film days would your rather have a negative or an 8x10 print to start with?  The problem with digital only people is they don't know the fundamentals.  Any analog person would remember hours in the dark room picking the kind of developer, the developing technique, the kind of printing paper, the kind of enlarger filter, dodging and burning, the kind of paper developer, the paper developing technique, etc.  Just because the final print was done on a paper that had less dynamic range than the negative doesn't mean you would skimp on the negative.

    Honestly though I never really thought about it in the analog days.  It was common sense.  What about digital makes people question starting off with a more flexible bit of source material?  It seems self evident no matter what your final output product is.  Now of course there are trade offs.   Even in the analog day I didn't carry an 8x10 view camera with me everywhere for casual snapshots.  I mean you have to find a balance.  It is an art.   No, literally it is an art.

  • Create New...